Review

Modified from paper in Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture (1998) 38, 101-115

FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH : RELEVANCE TO AUSTRALIA

R John Petheram 1 and Richard A Clark 2
1
2

The University of Melbourne, Victoria.

Rural Extension Centre, Queensland University, Gatton, Queensland

Summary
Farming systems research (FSR) was introduced into many international and national agricultural
research institutes in lower income countries (LICs) in the 1970s and 80s - with the purpose of
improving the relevance of research for small-scale farmers. This review outlines the origin, context
goals, principles and process of FSR, mainly as conducted in LICs. The key elements of FSR
include a holistic approach, orientation towards the needs of defined target groups, high levels of
farmer participation and hence co-learning by farmers and scientists. There is guidance by facilitators,
continuous evaluation and linkage to policy makers. The paper aims to enable agricultural
professionals to assess the relevance and value of FSR to their work in particular situations in
Australia and overseas.
The goal of FSR is to improve the welfare of farmers through development of farming systems. It
involves the application of methods from various disciplines, first to define the constraints and
opportunities for development and then to overcome these in a research process involving farmers,
with specialists and policy makers. A generalised FSR procedure and various research activities are
described. Initially in the LICs, a fairly standard FSR procedure was used, but FSR has evolved to
encompass a range of activities commonly regarded as the realm of agricultural extension or rural
development. Various alternative terms for FSR have emerged (such as FPR - farmer participatory
research) to reflect the increasingly participatory nature of this type of research in the LICs, but the
term FSR is retained here - to keep the focus on farming.
Basic science, applied science and FSR are compared in terms of the roles and relationships of the
people involved in the research process. The implications of selecting FSR as a model for rural R&D
are discussed. Achieving adequate levels of farmer participation can be a major issue in FSR - so it
is important that the principal notions of participation are understood. Success of FSR in Australia will
depend on developing innovative ways of achieving high levels of participation.
Current trends in the philosophy, practice and funding of agricultural research and extension in
Australia make it timely to consider the wider adoption of FSR principles and practices. FSR could
provide a valuable philosophical and practical basis for the trend towards greater participation by
researchers with end-users and extension practitioners in agricultural development programs.
However, it seems unwise to adhere strictly to any one particular model of R&D from other places:
FSR concepts are being combined successfully with those from other models, such as systems
learning and computer modelling, to suit the needs of particular situations.
Implication of a wider adoption of FSR in Australia for agricultural R&D organisations and professional
bodies include the establishment of multidisciplinary teams with shared goals and the sourcing of
funding for periods long enough to achieve outcomes. There is also a need for training in systems
concepts and facilitation, for reputable channels of publication of the results of FSR and for greater
recognition of participatory activities as valid forms of agricultural research.
Contents
Summary
Introduction
Origins of FSR
Development of FSR in LICs
A Contemporary Description of FSR
Context
Purpose and principles of FSR
Key elements of FSR
FSR as research (or extension)
Process
Research activities in FSR

1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
7

The Choice of FSR and Implications for

its Application in R&D
FSR and types of research
FSR and management of participation
FSR and other systems approaches
Relevance of FSR in Australia
Conclusions
References
GLOSSARY

10
10
11
13
14
15
15
22

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to review farming systems research (FSR) as it has
developed in the lower income countries (LICs) and to discuss its relevance in Australia.
Currently, rural research and development (R&D) professionals have to choose from a
number of different approaches to achieving outcomes in agriculture and natural resource
management. Contributing to their dilemma is a lack of understanding of the key elements
of the various models of inquiry and action, and how and why these models are different.
This review sets out to describe the key elements of FSR, and to enable people to assess
the relevance of FSR in particular situations. The review will also enable people unfamiliar
with the application of FSR in LICs to understand how it is frequently used in those
countries.
The review will outline the origin and development of FSR in the LICs, distil the elements of
a contemporary model of FSR, and discuss the potential and implications of this approach
for application in Australia. Because of the present confusion arising from poor definition
and understanding of terminology relating to FSR and similar models of R&D, a glossary of
key terms is provided. Readers are encouraged to refer to the glossary, to avoid
misunderstandings.
Origin of FSR
In the 1970s and 80s, FSR was introduced into most international agricultural research
centres (e.g., in IRRI, ICRISAT, CYMMYT). This was in response to the perception that
station based research was not as relevant to local situations as was needed to ensure
the generation and uptake of improved practices amongst most small-scale farmers
(CGIAR 1993). This trend was followed by national research institutions in many lower
income countries (Anderson and Dillon 1985).
Dillon (1976), Norman (1980) and Chambers and Gildyal (1984) outlined the main reasons
for the move towards a FSR approach in the LICs during the 1970s and 80s:
there was a realisation that models of discipline-oriented research from the
industrialised countries were inappropriate as the basis for agricultural improvement in
most LICs, where the complex farming systems were little understood;
few innovations proposed by specialist technical researchers were being adopted;
the vast majority of farmers lack influence in shaping research and development
strategies;
many agricultural programs have led to benefits for larger farmers at the expense of
poorer families;
most experimentation has been conducted on research stations, which are largely
unrepresentative of conditions on the majority of small farms;
the FSR approach is consistent with current political notions of equity and sustainable
production;
research focussed on components or commodities and/or productivity alone has
sometimes led to land degradation.
Several Australians have played prominent roles in promoting and developing FSR in the
LICs (e.g., Dillon 1976; Byerlee et al 1982; Anderson 1985). However, until recently in
Australia, the term FSR has usually applied to research emphasising some form of hard
systems (i.e., computer) modeling of biological or economic aspects of farming. The
definition has often been vague and there was little reference to the international literature
on FSR (Remenyi 1985). There has been a similar dichotomy between the use of the term
FSR by European scientists operating in developing countries, and the nature of farming
systems research in Europe itself (Gibbon 1994).

Development of FSR in lower income countries (LICs)

Initially FSR followed a fairly standard procedure, involving selection of research sites,
description of farming systems, diagnosis of constraints, and trials on farms aimed at
testing mainly technological ideas for improvement. In the 1980s and 90s FSR extended to
encompass a range of activities previously regarded as the realm of agricultural extension
or rural development (Biggs 1995). Alternative terms arose for FSR-type programs,
including FSRD (FSR and development), FSR/E (FSR and extension), FPR (farmer
participatory research). Very notable has been the trend in FSR towards greater
participation by farmers in the research and development process (Okali et al 1994).
Most early FSR programs were initiated within agricultural research agencies. With the
strong trend towards greater participation by farmers, FSR activities have more recently
been embraced by agricultural extension agencies (Rolings 1988; Okali et al 1994),
sometimes under new names such as farmer participatory research.
During the development of FSR, various schools have promoted particular types of FSR,
which differ from the contemporary definition provided in this paper. Examples are
Francophone FSR, where the main concern has been for long-term land utilisation issues,
rather than for improvements in the welfare of farmers. A similar (upstream) approach
has been that of programs of New Farming Systems Development, such as one at
ICRISAT in India, which attempted to develop (replacement) systems for the vertisol subregion of India (Reddy and Wiley 1982). Another category of FSR has been Farming
Systems Analysis, which involves detailed description and analysis of farming systems,
but little or no research with farmers to effect improvements (Simmonds 1985).
FSR has sometimes been introduced to LICs on a program basis, and sometimes as a
philosophy across a number of programs (e.g., agronomy, crop, livestock) within research
institutions. An international study of FSR in nine countries (Merrill-Sands et al 1991)
concluded that there is no ideal format for the institutionalisation of FSR, but that for
success, FSR programs should have:
an identifiable structure, set up so as to encourage multi-disciplinary participation;
FSR activities should determine staffing, rather than the reverse;
training in FSR concepts for all managers and scientists;
leadership by a person with a holistic view of farming;
strong links to regional priorities / development projects;
access to, or capacity for, skilled disciplinary research;
adequate recognition for participants and farm research;
opportunity for peer review.
Implicit in these recommendations is the major need for a budgeting and incentive
structure that encourages, rather than discourages, both a team approach to research and
direct involvement with farmers (Anderson and Dillon 1985; Petheram 1985).
A Contemporary Description of FSR
Context
Most agricultural research has (traditionally) been organised on a compartmentalised basis
- of disciplines (e.g., agronomy, breeding, economics) or commodities (e.g., cotton, wool)
(Dillon 1976). A systems approach, on the other hand, recognises that all components of
systems are linked and therefore affect each other, and that the properties of a system
amount to much more than just the sum of the parts (Spedding 1994).
FSR is a soft systems approach (Willson and Morren 1990) that can incorporate all types
of inquiry, as considered appropriate by the participants, e.g., applied science (social,
economic, biological), hard systems or even basic science. It is participatory and involves
cycles of observation, diagnosis, action and evaluation.

Agricultural research has traditionally been conducted by technologists on components of

a system on problems defined by technologists. FSR, in contrast, involves the application
of methods and knowledge from various disciplines and sources (including the end-users),
first to define the constraints and ideas for improvement in existing farming systems, and
then to overcome the constraints and test the opportunities with farmers (Dillon and
Anderson 1984; Simmonds 1985). FSR is inherently long-term, as farming systems
include people, crops, animals and their interactions with markets and other long-standing
social structures.
Goal and principles of FSR
The overall goal in FSR is to improve the benefits to farm families, through improving the
performance of their farming systems (McCown 1991). The benefits for researchers and
policy makers are increased relevance and effectiveness in achieving outcomes.
The main principles in FSR are a systems approach, participation by farmers, partnership,
and evaluation as part of the process. It has both a holistic and a behavioural component
(Doppler 1994). Holism includes consideration of biological, environmental, social and
economic aspects, including their dynamics over time. The behavioural component
involves the participation by farmers with researchers in defining problems, and selecting
and implementing and evaluating solutions.
Key elements of FSR
FSR may be viewed as a research approach or a model of inquiry. Some elements of the
model (from Casey and Barker 1982; McCown 1989; Gibbon 1994) are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Elements of a FSR approach
Key element
Description
Goal
To improve the welfare of farmers through improving the
sustainable production of their farming systems.
Research aims
To develop and share knowledge and understanding of what,
why and how farmers do what they do and the effect that
change would have on farmers systems, welfare and
surroundings. This is co-learning.
Target
FSR usually has defined farmer domains as its clientele, e.g,
dryland crop farmers with sheep as a secondary enterprise.
Leadership/
FSR requires facilitators who understand the principles of
facilitation
systems inquiry, science, community and local agriculture.
Multidisciplinary
It attempts to explain the most important components
mode of action
(physical, economic, social, political) of the selected farming
system, and then seeks solutions to the constraints, through
participation by farmers and appropriate specialists.
Type of research
FSR involves different types of research, allowing people from
different disciplines to work towards common aims.
Participation
Contemporary approaches to FSR involve farmers, specialists
and policy makers in various levels of participation. Many
methods used in FSR are aimed at enhancing participation.
Holistic
It considers whole systems. However, FSR may emphasise
certain components (e.g, rice or beef) while considering the
system as a whole.
Relation to
FSR provides a way of contextualising disciplinary research
disciplinary research and focussing it on the immediate needs of farmers, by
enabling farmers to influence the process of R&D.
Feedback and
The close participation allows constant feedback and hence
evaluation
ownership by farmers and other stakeholders in the process.
Relation to extension Most FSR involves extension agents in research. However,
where the FSR process reaches only some farmers, further
extension of results is needed. Some programs (FSR&E) are
designed from the outset to reach a wider audience.
4

designed from the outset to reach a wider audience.

FSR as research (or extension)
FSR is a process of research and co-learning - with a view to improving knowledge and
understanding, and hence developing the farming system in a way desired by the
participants. It involves iterative stages of observation, analysis, action and evaluation,
carried out jointly by farmers and scientists and/or other specialists. This model of action
research has many features in common with sound extension practice (e.g., Woods et al
1993). However, communicating the results/benefits to those not directly involved in the
FSR process usually requires further extension activities.
Because farmers and other stakeholders are intimately involved in the process and much
of the action is people-oriented rather than science oriented, FSR has been viewed as
extension rather than research by many traditional agriculturalists. The distinction seems
immaterial; and FSR is often carried out jointly by research and extension agencies.
Process
The mode of action in FSR is to study the selected farming system (physical, biological
and socio-economic) and then define and solve problems through an involvement with the
farmers, rather than for them as in traditional research.
In the LICs, many of the constraints and opportunities in development of farming systems
involve socio-political (rather than technical) issues. FSR recognises the need and
opportunity to influence policy-makers, to attain positive change. This is mainly achieved
through establishing links with policy agencies, and then clear documentation (and
communication) of the system description, and the constraints and opportunities defined.
Casey and Barker (1982) described FSR as an evolutionary process, with the technique
itself developing out of an interaction between scientists, farmers and the physical, socioeconomic and biological factors that constitute a system. Remarkably similar procedures
for the conduct of FSR have evolved in a number of different LICs and institutions. One
generalised FSR model from the LICs is shown in Figure 1, which is followed by a brief
outline of each stage of research. The close partnership of scientists, farmers and other
stakeholders in FSR, allows continuous feedback and evaluation, so the process is
continuous and cyclical, rather than linear as depicted in Figure 1.
The methods used at each stage of FSR and the emphasis and time spent on each,
depend upon the nature of the farming system, the availability of relevant data and
research resources, and the level of support from extension and other agencies. FSR
activities internationally have varied from land classification to informal surveys, action
research with farmers, to scientific experiments or hard systems modelling (Simmonds
1985). The emphasis in the LICs, however, has been on-farm research, first to describe
the systems and then to test ideas for improvement.

1. CLARIFY
OBJECTIVES
-- regions
-- enterprises
-- goals

COLLECT BASE
DATA ON REGION
-- agro-zones
-- farming systems

-- farmer domains

2. SELECT RESEARCH SITES

3. DESCRIBE EXISTING FARMING SYSTEM

--- develop socio-agro-economic profiles
--- diagnose constraints & opportunities

4. DESIGN POSSIBLE
IMPROVEMENTS TO SYSTEM
5.TRIALS ON
RESEARCH
STATIONS
5. SCREEN
OTHER IDEAS
NEEDING
SUPPORT
(Non-farm)

5. TEST IDEAS
FOR
IMPROVEMENT
IN
FARM TRIALS

6. COMMUNICATE TESTED IDEAS TO

EXTENSION AGENCIES, KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND POLICY MAKERS

7. EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION

TO A WIDER FARMER AUDIENCE

Figure 1. A model for farming systems research similar to that used by many
FSR programs in lower income countries (e.g., Okali et al 1994).
Notes:

The process is cyclical and has in-built evaluation.

For Australian models see e.g., McCown (1991), APSRU (1991).

Two major activities within FSR that are not reflected in Figure 1 are those associated with
participation and continuous evaluation. Achievement of adequate participation by farmers
and other stakeholders can constitute a considerable proportion of the time in research.
An example of a schedule of activities in the first two and a half years of a livestockoriented FSR program in Indonesia (adapted from Petheram 1996) is shown in Figure 2

FSR activity

Timing

1. Clarify objectives
- consult policy makers
- collect/analyse base data
2. Select research sites
3. Describe systems
- initial RRA survey 1
- special RRA studies
- enterprise monitoring
- diagnose constraints
- prepare site profiles
Build farmer participation
4. Design improvements
5. Trials on farms
- trials on stations
- evaluate other ideas
6. Communicate results
- to extension agencies
- to policy makers
- to wider farmer audience2
7. Evaluation of progress
I
Year 1

I
Year 2

Figure 2. Approximate sequence of activities in an FSR program in Indonesia

1
RRA - see under Description of farming systems below
2

Most FSR does not involve extension to wider audience

Research activities in FSR

Each of the stages (1-6) depicted in Figures 1 and 2 is regarded as a "research activity".
The FSR literature covers numerous techniques for use in research at each of the stages,
and compares their relative merits and costs (e.g., Gilbert et al 1980; Byerlee et al, 1982).
A brief outline of each stage of FSR, taken mainly from FSR practice in LICs, is given
below - in the same sequence as the activities shown in Figures 1 and 2.
1.

Clarification of objectives and analysis of regional data

As FSR is long-term and can invoke major commitments in resources, a vital first step is
to clearly define objectives. Many of the objectives that need to be clarified are political and
concern which region, farming system, boundaries, and target farmer domains (e.g., rich
or poor, degraded or sustainable) and what outcomes (e.g., production, welfare,
sustainability) are to be targeted. It is, however, common in FSR for specific research
objectives to change over time, as understanding of the systems (physical and human)
improves.
In FSR, therefore, there must be continuous interaction with decision-makers about the

resources needed and their allocation. In the LIC context, this requires careful prior
analyses of relevant data on the region, to enable clear justification to policy makers of the
aims and plans for the research and the selection of research sites. Consequently, data
tabulation, checking, analysis and mapping can constitute an important preliminary stage
of research. Clark et al (1996) argue that (in the Australian context) farmers should be
involved in this process from the outset.
2.

Selection of sites for FSR

A FSR site is an area comprising farms that represent the particular farming system of
interest. In the LICs the unit for research sites is often a village or hamlet, while in
Australian conditions a site is more likely to comprise a number of farms in an area
representing the farming system of interest. Selection of sites requires clear prior
definition of aims, farming systems, and farmer domains of interest (e.g., maize growers
on acid soils with less than 0.5 ha of land). A set of agro-ecological criteria for site
selection is established to fit the objectives and the resources of the project, and the
community's willingness to cooperate is used as a crucial selection criterion. Santoso et al
(1987) outlined the selection of village research sites to represent various (altitude and
livestock) zones for a FSR program in Java.
3.

Description of farming systems

The purpose of Description (or the diagnostic phase) is to understand the farming system
and to document an "agro-economic profile" of each research site. This profile includes
key information needed to understand and diagnose problems and opportunities for
change. FSR utilises efficient and effective ways of gathering data for diagnosis of
systems, and avoids time-consuming methods such as formal surveys and long-term
monitoring of farmer activities, where possible.
Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) is a repertoire of techniques that was developed within FSR
in response to the need for faster and more effective collection of important information on
farming systems, e.g., the use of various listening techniques, group interviews, or of
aerial photography to measure land areas (Carruthers and Chambers 1981; Beebe 1985).
In Australia, RRA has come to have a somewhat different meaning, involving the use of
multidisciplinary teams to identify issues in rural areas (Dunn 1994).
Typically in FSR, Description embraces both conventional and RRA methods adapted to
the situation, e.g., rapid surveys of farmers conditions and views, combined with
sampling of soil and other data. Usually, more than one method is used to obtain
information on each aspect, such as crop yields, calving rate or marketing. Special studies
are also used to obtain information on important topics, e.g., existing innovations, or
markets (e.g., Perkins and Sturgess 1992). In the LICs, the use of RRA in description has
been criticised as too extractive, and has sometimes been replaced by PRA
(participatory rural appraisal) which purports to give greater attention to farmers views and
involvement in the descriptive process (e.g., Chambers 1994).
The profile developed for each research site serves to inform all those involved in the FSR
process, of the main features of the farming system and the main constraints and
opportunities (e.g., Hoang and Perkins 1996). The profiles of research sites conclude with
a list of major constraints and opportunities identified for "improvement" of farmer benefits
from the system (e.g., new pest control methods, training for farmers).
Several authors in Australia report using participative methods that resemble the
descriptive stage of FSR (Figure 1). A form of RRA was used by Ampt and Ison (1988) to
identify needs for agronomic research in the Forbes Shire, and also by Dunn and McMillan
(1992) to inquire into Landcare issues near Wagga Wagga. Petheram and Fisher (1995)

described sheep sub-systems in the Wimmera region, and Millar and Curtiss (1995) used
qualitative RRA methods to assess farmer knowledge and experience of the management
of perennial pastures. Clark et al (1996) report success with a technique called local best
practices to describe local situations in terms of needs, problems, opportunities and
alternative solutions.
4.

Design of possible improvements

The aim in the Design stage of FSR is to generate ideas for improvement to the existing
system, which are practical and attractive to farmers. Design involves assembling a pool
of ideas for "improvement". These are screened with farmers and specialists, in terms of
physical and economic feasibility, social acceptability and likely effects on the surrounding
system (Anderson and Hardaker 1979).
Dillon and Virami (1985) mentioned the potential of using simulation models to assist in the
design process in situations where sufficient data are available. The term operations
research has been used in FSR in Australia to describe a process in which computer
models are utilised to aid scientists and farmers in designing improvements to farming
systems (APSRU 1991). These models can become participatory tools and a means of
exploring and screening alternative strategies in the design process. Clark et al (1996)
describe a technique of specialist questioning used to generate specialists descriptions
and opportunities for improving production systems. The same authors, and Foale (1997)
describe how models can be used to help in determining, with farmers, which options can
have a significant pay-off to the farming system.
In the LICs, computer modelling has seldom been seen as an appropriate tool in
developing small-scale farming, as so few quantitative data are available and socioeconomic constraints are generally more important than biological ones (Remenyi 1985).
The design process therefore depends on selecting various best bet options and testing or
screening these ideas for practicality amongst farmer participants. In Queensland Martin
et al (1996) have combined the use of computer models and best-bet trials on farms in an
(FSR) approach called co-learning.
5.

Farm testing, trials on research stations, and other ideas for improvement

On-farm testing is a major feature of FSR in the LICs and the design and management of
farm trials is strongly debated in the literature (e.g., Ashby 1985; Farrington and Martin
1988). Trials have been classified according to the degree of involvement of farmers and
research workers, e.g., researcher designed and run, researcher designed and farmer run,
farmer designed and researcher run, or farmer designed and run trials.
On-farm trials with crops (e.g., Nygard 1982) have been much more common than those
with livestock, where a perceived difficulty is in the small numbers of animals on farms and
the high variation within and between farms (e.g., Nordblom et al 1985). However,
experience suggests that the statistical analysis of results of farm trials with livestock (and
even crops) is generally far less important than the information gained from researcher
contact with farmers and farmer opinion of the practicality of the ideas being tested
(Petheram et al 1989).
Thus the aims of trials on small-scale farms in LICs are usually different to those of
research station experiments. Generally, farm trials are neither controlled experiments nor
a means of extension, except to small pilot groups of farmers who participate in trials
aimed at gauging practicality and reactions to new ideas.

In new FSR programs in LICs, there are usually enough ideas for improvement of
systems to allow an initial emphasis to be placed on trials of "best-bet" ideas on farms,
rather than experiments on research stations. As FSR progresses, there is often a buildup of topics requiring more controlled experimentation on stations (Horton 1984). There
are many instances of the relevance of station-based research programs being greatly
improved through information gained from trials on farmers crops and animals (Collinson
1987; Merrill-Sands et al 1991). Experiments on stations may be a part of FSR, or may be
conducted by other programs, as a result of FSR.
Not all ideas generated at the design stage of FSR are amenable to testing on farms.
Many ideas for improvement will involve the removal of socio-economic or other
constraints, such as marketing barriers, restrictions on credit, and lack of access to
training for farmers. The practicality of such ideas may need testing or screening generally
amongst farmers and other local stakeholders, before a larger scheme of intervention is
proposed for consideration by policy makers.
6.

Communication of ideas to extension agencies, policy makers, other stakeholders

FSR is often relatively site specific (Menz and Knipsheer 1981) in that only a limited
number of research sites can be used and participation can be with only a small sample of
farmers. The responsibility for the communication of tested ideas from FSR to a wider
audience will depend on whether and how extension agencies are involved in the FSR
process from the start. While FSR programs do not usually have an explicit extension
role, in some (FSR/E) projects, extension agents facilitate FSR and the research and
extension responsibilities are therefore integrated.
The results of farm trials and other tested ideas for improvement of farming systems will
need to be communicated to policy makers as well as other stakeholders, as they may
then require long-term strategies of intervention, e.g., training, credit or other support.
Linkages in FSR to both extension agencies and policy agencies are therefore critical.
There is growing recognition by FS researchers in LICs that FSR is only one element in
agricultural and rural development, and that much can be gained through collaborating with
agencies that have better understanding of rural needs and priorities, particularly of poorer
people (Farrington et al 1993; Gibbon 1994).
7.

Evaluation in FSR and wider communication of results

Although evaluation is shown in Figure 1 as part of a later stage of FSR, it occurs

informally throughout the FSR process through the continuous access to and feedback
from farmers. In contemporary FSR, action research concepts used to manage the
research process ensure regular refection, conclusion and planning after action. Farrington
and Nelson (1997) propose the use of formal frameworks for evaluation, such as logframes established at the conception of a FSR project.

10

The Choice of FSR and Implications for its Application in R&D

FSR and types of research
Decision-makers in rural R&D have to make crucial decisions at the outset of an initiative
to improve a problem situation - about the type of approach they are going to take. FSR is
but one of numerous models of rural inquiry and development from which a selection can
be made (Jiggins 1993; Ison et al 1997; Grimble and Wellard 1997; Martin and Sherington
1997). The appropriate model (or combination of models) will depend on the particular
situation.
In this context, it is useful to consider various stages and types of research, as discussed
by other authors. In Table 2 six stages of a research cycle (Rowan 1981) are related to
three broad types of research, i.e., basic, applied and participative (Elden 1981).
Comments are provided on the relationship between researchers and their
subjects/clients/colleagues, at each stage and within each of these broad types of
research.
Table 2. Six stages of research and implications for the roles and relationships of
researchers and clients/colleagues within three different types of
research
Research stages

Types of research, and roles and relationships between

people involved
Basic

Applied

Participative

1. Problem
identification

Researcher

Researcher and
participants.

2. Problem
analysis/
refinement
3. Planning

Researcher

Researcher with
some input from
client
Researcher

Researcher

Research with some

input for client

Researcher and
participants

4. Implementation

Researcher

Researcher

[Researcher object/subject
relationship]

Expert - client
relationship

Researcher and
participants coresearch.
Colleague-collea
gue relationship

Researcher

Researcher

5. Analysis

1. Communication
1. Information
1. Information
communication
communication
How the end-users
2.
Education
2. Training
acquire knowledge of
3. Training
3. Learning
the products of
4. Education
research (in order of
greatest use).
Developed by Clark et al (1997) from Rowan (1981) and Elden (1981).

Researcher and
participants

Participants
1. Learning.
2. Education.
3. Training.
4. Information
communication

In typical basic and applied science models, the clients/end-users are not co-learners in
the research process, so the communication stage is particularly important to ensure

11

positive outcomes are achieved in these types of research. In FSR (and other soft
systems approaches), the research process evolves out of interaction between scientist,
farmers and other stakeholders (Casey and Barker, 1982) and can utilise any or all of the
three types of research (although the emphasis is on a participative approach in the LICs,
especially in the LICs).
Crucial to the selection of different approaches is the nature of the problem situation. If the
problem is highly technical, compartmentalised and/or well defined, then basic research
may be appropriate. If the problem is complex, involving systems and involving people with
different values and perceptions, then participative approaches are claimed to be more
effective (e.g., Whyte 1991).
FSR and management of participation
In planning and managing participative models of research, it is important that the concept
and principle notions of participation are clearly understood, and that these are applied with
rigour. Burke (1968) stated that the appropriateness of any strategy of participation is
highly dependent on the capabilities and knowledge of the people who implement it.
Arnstein (1969) defined participation as a redistribution of power and described eight levels
of participation which range from manipulation through consultation and partnership, to
citizen control. The issues of power and control over the research process are
problematic in the conduct of community-based research.
Some reasons for using high levels of participation (quoted mainly from Burke 1968) are:
participation in an adult learning environment provides for the development of
outcomes matched to the needs of those involved;
it is easier to change the behaviour of people when they are members
of a group than when they are approached as individually;
if people are involved in problem identification they are more likely to own
solutions and be motivated to implement action to resolve problems;
individuals and groups resist change imposed on them.
Some criteria for high levels of participation are that the individuals must:
have a strong sense of identification with the issues or group;
gain satisfaction from participation;
possess appropriate skills, competencies and/or perspectives.
Martin and Sherington (1997) contend that participatory research is dependent on
establishment of strong farmer (and other) organisations. Because participation is usually
such an important a component of FSR, innovation by facilitators in methods to achieve
farmer cooperation has become as critical a part of research as scientific method.
Examples of techniques used in strengthening farmer participation in research in LICs
range from the use of community video filming, to farm trials and farmer contests
(Petheram et al. 1995), or to workshops in which farmers build models of ways of
integrating new enterprises on their farms (Okali et al. 1994).
It is notable that in Australia too, "enhancing creativity" in gaining farmer participation has
emerged as an important need in the context of development of sustainable farming
systems (Hamilton 1997; Mudenda and Frank 1993). Chamala and Mortiss (1990)
produced a text on techniques aimed at enhancing farmer participation in Australian
Landcare activities. R & D workers have adopted various participatory approaches and
techniques, such as involving farmers in using computer models (APSRU 1991), farmerscientist co-learning models such as that of Foale et al (1996), Local Best Practices (Clark
et al 1996), and Learning to Learn with Farmers (Hamilton 1995).

12

Overseas, and to a lesser extent in Australia, there has been a burgeoning of approaches
to the management of participative research; e.g., Participative Action Research (Elden
1981; Whyte 1991), Farmer Participatory Research (Okali et al 1994), Participatory
Problem Solving (Clark et al 1996), Participatory Rapid Appraisal (Chambers 1994) and
Participatory Farming Systems Development (Jones et al 1996). These models all share
common concepts with FSR, but their focus is often on the community (or e.g., a factory),
rather than on farmers in a defined farming system as in FSR.
FSR and other systems approaches
Various authors have advocated a move towards a much more systems oriented
approach to agricultural R&D in Australia than has been seen in the past (e.g., Bawden
and Valentine 1984; McCown 1989; Schoorl and Holt 1990; Squires 1991; Macadam 1996).
In recent years there has been quite widespread establishment of farming systems
programs within State departments of agriculture across Australia, although there is little
uniformity in approach. In addition, there has been a spread of farming systems projects
based on farmer groups seeking to develop local farming through farm trials (e.g., Pedley
1995). This diversity may represent a search for appropriate models of FSR for Australia,
but there appears to have been little reference to international literature involved in the
formation of this spectrum of new FSR programs and projects.
Once a decision has been made to take a systems approach in R&D, rather than a mainly
compartmentalised approach, there are controversies over the merits and demerits of
various systems approaches to be considered. One prominent early school of systems
thinking in Australia was that of the University of Western Sydney (Bawden and Packham
1991), which placed emphasis on "systems learning" (or experiential learning, e.g., Kolb
1986). Bawden (1991) observed that FSR has tended to emphasise the need to
understand the bio-physical system, rather than the more important human learning
aspects. Others claim that FSR has placed too much emphasis on procedure, or that it
has lacked concern about policy issues in the improvement of systems (Biggs and
Farrington 1991).
These observations have some truth but give no recognition to the fact that most FSR in
LICs began within very traditional agricultural research institutes. In such situations, a fairly
formal (FSR) procedure has been seen as a necessary starting point, until
scientist/members become comfortable and enthusiastic about working in a systems
manner. Considerations of institutional setting are essential is establishing FSR, and in its
evolution towards effective programs (Heinemann and Biggs (1985). Early FSR programs
seldom had a brief to look beyond technology generation and testing. Most FSR
procedures in LICs today (and many in Australia) are tailored to meet the needs of
particular situations and to promote participation at all stages.
Ison et al (1997) identified three main strands of systems practice in natural resource
management: systems learning, FSR and quantitative systems modelling. They claimed
that in systems learning approaches, the term system is used as an adjective, while in
FSR it is used as a noun. In the systems learning model, the farming system is not
considered as a reality, while in FSR the farming system tends to be the focus of
description, diagnosis and action. This distinction may be valid for the early years of FSR,
but is not relevant nowadays, where there is a blending of models and FSR programs often
adopt a systems learning framework. The terms are not mutually exclusive.
Okali et al (1994) observed that the term FPR (farmer participatory research) has replaced
FSR in some organisation (e.g., Witcombe et al 1996), but that there is little point in

13

arguing over the relative merits of the terms. FPR tends to place less emphasis on
describing systems and more on farmer empowerment and ownership of the research, but
the aims are almost identical to those of FSR. The term FSR/E has been defined as FSR
that goes beyond farm trials, to extend farm-tested ideas amongst the wider farmer
population (Christoplos 1995). Wilson and Morren (1990) provide a general account of
systems approaches for improvement in agriculture and natural resource management,
mainly in the north American context.
Conway's (1985) "agro-ecosystems analysis", developed mainly in S.E. Asia, has similar
aims to FSR, but has an ecological emphasis and prescribes a particular set of techniques
and concepts in describing systems (such as analysis of patterns over time and space).
Gibbon (1994) stated that such ecological concepts can be valuable in describing farming
systems in Europe and in predicting the long-term effects of change in certain situations.
In Australia the various strands of systems inquiry are increasingly being used in
combination. Figure 3 shows four main strands of systems inquiry in agriculture at four
poles of a circle; the trend in FSR in the 1990s is towards the integration of concepts from
the other three approaches.

Systems
learning
models

Farmer
Computer
modelling

participatory
R&D
1990s

F.S.R.
1990s

F.S.R.
1970s

Figure 3 Four main strands of systems inquiry in agriculture (dark) . The expansion in FSR approach from
1970s to 1990s has been towards greater participation and adoption of systems learning concepts

Much agricultural systems research in Australia and other western countries has
comprised hard systems modelling of aspects of farming systems (Remenyi 1985). White

14

(1991) outlined the possibilities for linking simulation modelling, mathematical programs,
expert systems and geographic systems in optimising profitability and sustainability of
farming in the future. McCown (1991) claimed success with this approach in a cropping
situation, while Clark et al (1996) described the value of simulation as part of participatory
problem solving in beef production systems
Since the 1980s in Australia there has been a rapid increase in the development of
computer models of parts of farm systems, intended as decision support tools for farmers
(Stafford-Smith et al 1997; Nunn et al. 1993). The use of such hard systems models is
increasing slowly as farmers and extension agents gain confidence with computers and as
modellers improve the utility of models (Clark et al 1996; Woods et al 1993).
Relevance of FSR in Australia
Some reasons that have been put forward in the literature for an increase in the relevance
of FSR approaches in Australia include:
a system approach is more likely to improve the identification of real problems and
solutions than approaches based on the assumption that opportunities lie within specific
components or research disciplines;
increased specialisation and staff cuts in research institutions have led to a shortage of
agriculturalists with sound general knowledge of farming systems;
regional statistics are too broad to adequately reflect local conditions and change, or the
needs in farming (there is need for reliable information on local systems);
there are disputes over the "representativeness" of farmer members of research
funding boards: the majority of farmers may not have a voice in shaping research;
there is increasing concern about land degradation - a field in which participation and
understanding the system are very important to achieving improvement;
there is recognition that different groups (or domains) of farmers, even in the same
area, may have very different needs for research and information;
"transfer of technology" is increasingly being seen as an outdated model of extension for
dealing with complex systems;
present trends suggest that much of the improvement to farming systems in the future
is likely to come from farmer groups following their own inquiry process - in partnership
with facilitators and specialists.
A FSR approach may therefore offer fruitful direction, philosophy, linkages and literature to
many research and extension professionals in the current climate of change. FSR would
bring the activities of research and extension closer, and also result in much closer
linkages to farmers and communities.
It is clear from the literature that, until recently, the development of a farming systems
approach has been primarily the concern of research organisations in LICs. Evidence of
recent interest in FSR/E in Europe (Dent and McGregor 1991) and developments in farmer
participatory and systems research in Australia (e.g., APSRU 1991; Martin et al 1996;
Foale 1997) suggest that it is now pertinent for "western" research and development
professionals to study the international literature on FSR and to assess its relevance to
their particular situations.
Recent studies indicate that farming systems in Australia and the views of farmers are not
at all well understood and that there is a need for FSR-type diagnostic studies in many
areas and industries (e.g., Mason and Kay 1995; Clark et al 1996). Concepts of systems
(and farmer participatory) research adapted from the LICs appear to be gaining
acceptance as models that offer great potential for co-learning by farmers and
researchers. The initiatives of R&D funding organisations to promote such research

15

should help greatly to advance the adoption and development of FSR and related
approaches.
Conclusions
In Australia the adoption of FSR concepts appears to have increased markedly in the past
five 5-10 years. However, FSR programs are evolving rapidly and range widely in type from groups of farmers running farm trials involving local advisers, to much more formal
programs run by scientists (or modellers) who seek strong participarion of farmers in
contributing and evaluating ideas from research stations, models or farms. Some
common features of FSR are participation, co-learning and a holistic view that includes
consideration of human aspects of farming, including human learning. Observations from
the literature suggest that:
1.

Systems approaches are more likely to define opportunities for making a real
difference to farming on an enterprise and a regional (or catchment) scale - than
research into components alone.

2.

High levels of participation are required to achieve change in complex (attitude and
value laden) issues in agriculture.

3.

The choice of R&D approach such as FSR has major management implications:

multidisciplinary teams need to be set up with shared vision and purpose;

funding needs to be sourced for periods long enough to achieve outcomes;

planning should include strategies/opportunities to influence policies;

goals and objectives may change as the inquiry proceeds.

4.

Major challenges facing those adopting a FSR approach will be:

to develop FSR models that fit the institutional setting;

to convince traditional researchers of the relevance of FSR and the need

for real participation by farmers and specialists in the process;

to develop innovative means of achieving high levels of participation;

to develop skills in facilitation personally and amongst other participants;

to achieve recognition for results or FSR through outcomes on farms, as

well as through publication and peer review.

5.

The wider adoption of FSR in Australia has implications for rural R&D professions,
which need addressing by organisations and professional bodies. These include:

provision of training in FSR concepts for R&D funders and managers;

provision of training for prospective facilitators of FSR;

creation of reputable channels for publication of results of FSR in Australia;

recognition of descriptive studies, as well as co-learning and other

participatory activities with farmers, as valid forms of research.

Worldwide reviews of FSR programs indicate that for success FSR programs must be
tailored well to suit to the institution setting (Heinemann and Biggs 1985). There is wide
scope for combining the concepts of FSR from the LICs with those from other systems
approaches to R&D, such as systems learning and computer modelling. Thus, the
successful development of FSR will require the support of leaders in both extension and
research who understand various systems (and other) approaches to inquiry. Another
requirement would be removal of the often artificial distinctions made between research
and extension - for the funding, planning and conduct of FSR and in the publication of the
results.

16

References
Ampt, P. and Ison, R. (1988). Rapid rural appraisal to identify problems and
opportunities for agronomic research and development in the Forbes Shire. NSW.
School of Crop Sciences, University of Sydney.
Anderson, F. M. and Dillon, J. L. (1985). Farming systems research at the IARCs and
other international groups. In 'Agricultural Systems Research for Developing Countries'.
(Ed. J.V. Remenyi). ACIAR Proceedings 11, Canberra, 141-147.
Anderson, J.R. (1985). Assessing the impact of farming systems research: framework and
problems. Agricultural Administration 20, 225-235.
Anderson, J. R. and Hardaker, J. B. (1979). Economic aspects in design of new
technologies for small farmers. In Economics and the Design of Small farmer
Technology'. pp. 11-29. (Eds. A. Valdes, G. M. Scobie and J. L. Dillon). Iowa State
University Press, Ames, Iowa.
APSRU (1991). Agricultural Production Systems Research Unit (APSRU) Strategic Plan,
Queensland Dept of Primary Industries/CSIRO Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures,
Toowoomba, Queensland.
Arnstein, S.R. (1969). Ladder of and citizen participation. American Institute of Planning
Journal 35, 216-224.
Ashby, J.A. (1985). The effects of different types of farmer participation in the management
of farm trials: a comparative evaluation. International Fertiliser Development Centre,
Alberta, Canada.
Bawden, R. J. (1991). Systems thinking and practice in agriculture. Journal of Dairy
Science 74 , 2362-2373.
Bawden, R.J. and Packham, R.G. (1991). Improving agriculture through systematic
action research. In 'Dryland Farming: A Systems Approach. An Analysis of Dryland
Agriculture in Australia' pp. 261-270. (Ed. V.R. Squires and P.G. Tow). Oxford University
Press, Melbourne.
Bawden, R. and Valentine, I. (1984). Learning to be a capable systems agriculturalist.
Programmed Learning and Educational Technology 21, 273-287.
Beebe, J. (1985). Rapid Rural Appraisal; A Critical First Step in a Farming Systems
Approach to Research. Networking Paper 5, Farming Systems Support Project, University
of Florida/ USAID, Gainseville.
Biggs, S. D. (1995). Farming systems research and rural poverty: relationships
between context and content. Agricultural Systems 47, 161-174.
Biggs, S.D. and Farrington, J. (1991). Assessing the effects of farming systems
research: time for the reintroduction of a political and institutional perspective. Journal of
the Asian Farming Systems Association 1, 13-131.
Burke, F.M. (1968). Citizen Participation Strategies, American Institute of Planning Journal
34. pp. 287-294.

17

Byerlee, D., Harrington, L. and Winkelmann, D.L. (1982). Farming systems research;
issues in research strategy and technology design, Annual Meeting of American
Agricultural Economics, Logan, Utah, August 1982.
Carruthers, I. and Chambers, R. (1981). Rapid appraisal for rural development.
Agricultural Administration 8, 407-422.
Casey F. and Barker R. (1982). 'A Course in Farming Systems Research: The Cornel
Experience'. Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornel University, Program in
International Agriculture, Ithaca, New York.
CGIAR (1993) Summary of International Agricultural Research Centres: A Study of
Achievements and Potential. Consutttive Group on International Agricultural Research,
World bank, Washington, D.C.
Chamala, S. and Mortiss, P.D. (1990). Working Together for Landcare. Group
Management Skills and Strategies. Academic Press, Queensland.
Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): analysis of experience.
World Development, 22, 1253-1268.
Chambers, R. and Gildyal, B.P. (1984). Agricultural Research for Resource-poor Farmers:
the farmer First and Last Model, Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex,
Brighton England.
Christoplos, I. (1995). Representation, poverty and PRA in the Mekong Delta.
Environmental Policy and Society, Research Report No. 6, Linkoping University, Sweden.
Clark, R.A., Bourne, G.F., Cheffins, R.C., Esdale, C.E., Filet, P.G., Gillespie, R.C. &
Graham, T.W.G. (1996). The Sustainable Beef Production Systems Project: Beyond
Awareness to Continuous Improvement. Queensland Department of Primary Industries,
Brisbane. Project Report Series Q96002.
Clark, R.A. Fell,.R., Timms, J., King, C. and Coutts, J. (1997). Extension models,
methodologies and methods. Proceedings of Second Australian Pacific Extension
Conference, 18-21 November 1997, Albury, NSW. (Australian Pacific Extension Network,
Albury). pp. 42-48.
Collinson, M. P. (1987). Farming systems research: Procedures for technology
development. Experimental Agriculture 23, 365-386.
Conway G.R. (1985). Agricultural ecology and farming systems research. Agricultural
Systems Research for Developing Countries. (Ed. J.V. Remenyi). ACIAR Proceedings
11. Canberra. pp. 43-59.
de Boer, J., Knipscheer, H. and Kartamulia, I. (1993). Constraints to technology transfer
for animal science research in Indonesia. In Livestock Services for Small-holders: A
Critical Evaluation. Proceedings of a Seminar, Yogjakarta, 15-21 November 1992. pp.
357-359.
Dent, J.B. and McGregor, M.J. (eds) (1994). Rural and Farming Systems Analysis.
European Perspectives. CAB International, Wallingford, U.K.
Dillon, J.L. (1976). The economics of systems research. Agricultural Systems 1, 5-20.

18

Dillon, J. L. and Anderson, J. R. (1984). Concept and practice of farming systems

research, In 'Proceedings of Conference on Agricultural Research in East Africa'. (Ed.
J. V. Mertin). ACIAR, Canberra. pp. 171-186.
Dillon, J.L. and Virami, S.M. (1985). The farming systems approach. In 'Agro-Research for
the Semi-arid Tropics: North West Australia'. (Ed. R.C. Muchow). University of
Queensland Press, Brisbane. pp. 507-532.
Dillon, J.L., Plucknett, D.L. and Vallaeys, G. (1976). Farming Systems Research at the
International Agricultural Research centres. Technical Advisory Committee, Consultative
Group for International Agricultural Research, Washington.
Doppler, W. (1994). Farming systems approach and its relevance for agricultural
development in Central and Eastern Europe, In Rural and Farming Systems Analysis.
European Perspectives. pp. 65-77 (Eds. J.B. Dent and M.J. McGregor). CAB International,
UK.
Dunn, A. (1994). Rapid Rural Appraisal: A description of the methodology and its
application in teaching and research at Charles Sturt University, Rural Society 4, 30-36.
Dunn, A. and McMillan, A. (1992). Action Research: The Application of Rapid Rural
Appraisal to Learn About Issues of Concern in Landcare Areas Near Wagga-Wagga,
NSW. Charles Sturt University, Riverina.
Elden, M. (1981). Sharing the research work: Participative research and its role demands.
In Human Inquiry. pp. 253-266 (Ed. J. Rowan). Wiley & Sons.
Farrington, J. and Nelson, J. (1997). Using logframes to monitor and review farmer
participatory research. Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper 73. Overseas
Development Institute, London, U.K.
Farrington, J. and Bebbington, A. (1993). Reluctant Partners? Non-governmental
Organisations, the State and Sustainable Agricultural Development. Overseas
Development Institute, London, U.K.
Farrington, J. and Martin, A. (1988). Farmer participatory research: a review of concepts
and practices. Agricultural Administration Network, Discussion Paper 19. Overseas
Development Unit, London, U.K.
Foale, M.A. (1997). Management of dryland farming systems in North Eastern Australia.
How can scientists impact on farmers decision making? Agricultural Science 10, 34-37.
Foale, M.A., Carberry, R.I., Probert, M.E., Dimes, J.P., Dagleish, N.P. and Lack, D.
(1996). Farmers, advisers and researchers learning together about better management
of crops and croplands. In 'Proceedings of the 8th Australian Agronomy Conference',
University of Southern Queensland, 30 January - 2 February 1996, Toowoomba. pp.
258-262.
Gibbon, D. (1994). Farming systems research/extension: background concepts,
experience and networking. In 'Rural and Farming Systems Analysis. A European
Perspective'. pp. 3-18 (Eds. J.B. Dent and M.J. McGregor). CAB International, U.K.

19

Grimble, R. and Wellard, K. (1997). Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource

management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural
Systems 55. pp. 173-194.
Hamilton, N.A. (1995). Learning to Learn with Farmers. An Adult Learning Extension
Project. Thesis Landbouw Universiteit Wageningen, Netherlands.
Heinemann, E. and Biggs, S.D. (1985). Farming systems research: an evolutionary
approach to implementation. Journal of Agricultural Economics 36. pp. 59-65.
Hoang, C.C. and Perkins, J. (1996). Farming systems of Thai Mai Vllage, Saigon River to
Research in the Animal Sciences in Vietnam' (Ed. W.J. Pryor). ACIAR Proceedings 68.
pp. 167-171.
Horton, D.E. (1984). Social scientists in agricultural research; Lessons form the
Montaro Valley Project, Peru. IDRC, Ottawa.
Ison, R. L., Maiteny, P. T. and Carr, S. (1997) Some methodologies for sustainable
resources research and development. Agricultural Systems. 55. pp. 257-272.
Jiggins, J. (1993). From technology transfer to resource management. In Proceedings of
the XVII International Grassland Congress. pp. 615-622.
Jones, S., Khare, J.N., Mosse, D., Sodhi, P., Smith, P., and Witcombe, J.R.(1996). The
KRIBHCO Rainfed Farming Project: An approach to participatory farming systems
development. Krishak Bharati Cooperative. Research Issues in Natural Resource
Management :. W\orking Paper No 1. Centre for Development Studies, University of
Wales, Swansea, U.K.
Kolb, D. A. (1986). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and
Development. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. USA.
Macadam, R.D. (1996). Developments in agricultural industries research and development
in Australia with particular emphasis on extension and the relevance of systematic
development as a response to the current situation, Country Paper presented at Asia
pacific Seminar on Education for Rural Development, Obihiro University, Japan.
McCown, R.L. (1989). Adapting farming systems concepts to Australian research needs.
In 'Proceedings of Fifth Australian Agronomy Conference'. University of Western
Australia, September 1989, Perth. pp. 221-234.
McCown, R.L: (1991). Research in a farming systems framework. In 'Dryland Farming:
A Systems Approach. An Analysis of Dryland Agriculture in Australia' (Ed. V.R. Squires
and P.G. Tow). Oxford University Press, Melbourne. pp. 242-249.
Martin, R.J., Cornish, P.S. and Verrell, A.G. (1996). An integrated approach to link
farming systems research, extension, co-learning and simulation modelling. In
'Proceedings of the 8th Australian Agronomy Conference'. University of Southern
Queensland. 30 January - 2 February 1996, Toowoomba. pp. 413-416.
Martin, A. and Sherington, J. (1997). Participatory research methods - implementation,
effectiveness and institutional context. Agricultural Systems, 55. pp. 195-216.

20

Mason, W. and Kay, G. (1995). Temperate pasture sustainability key program. In

Community Grasses Project Workshop Proceedings. pp. 53-58 (Eds. A. Curtiss and J.
Millar). Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW..
Menz K.M. and Knipscheer H.C. (1981). The location-specificity problem in farming
systems research. Agricultural Systems 7. 75-103.
Merrill-Sands, D. M., Biggs, S. D., Bingen, R. J., Elwell, P. T., Macalister, J. L. and
Poats, S. V. (1991). Institutional considerations in strengthening on-farm, clientoriented research in national agricultural research systems; lessons from a nine country
study. Experimental Agriculture 27, 347-373.
Millar, J. and Curtiss, A. (1995). Farmer knowledge and experience with perennial
grasses. In Community Grasses Project Workshop Proceedings. pp. 65-78 (Eds. A.
Curtiss and J. Millar). Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW.
Mudenda, H. and Frank, B. (1993). Enhancing creativity of agricultural extension staff to
overcome blockages limiting their productivity: the use of participative action research in
agricultural extension. Australia Pacific Agricultural Extension Conference. October 12-14
1993. Surfers Paradise, Queensland. pp. 381-385.
Nordblom, T.L., Ahmed A.K.H. and Potts, G. R. (eds) (1985). Research Methodology for
Livestock On-farm Trials. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria.
Norman, D. W. (1980). The Farming Systems Approach: Relevancy for the Small
Farmer, Rural Development Paper No. 5, Michigan state University, East Lansing,
Michigan.
Nunn, M., Garner, G. and White, D.H. (eds.) (1993). Agricultural Systems and Information
Technology. Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra.
Nygard, D. (1982). Tests on farmers fields. The ICARDA experience. In Proceedings of
Symposium on Farming Systems Research in the Field. Manhattan, USA, International
Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas. pp. 1-37.
Okali, C., Sumberg, J. and Farrington, J. (1994). Farmer Participatory Research.
Rhetoric or Reality. Overseas Development Institute, London, U.K..
Pedley, F. (1995). Birchip cropping demonstration sites: Linking farmers and scientists
and industry. In Proceedings of Wimmera Cropping Update Conference',
(Eds. K. McCormick and B.J. Williams). Longerenong College, University of Melbourne,
Horsham. pp. 81-82.
Perkins, J. and Sturgess, N. (1992), Finding a way through a maze of methods for
evaluating DAP, In 'Draught Animal power in the Asia pacific Region' (Ed. W.J. Pryor).
ACIAR Proceedings 46. Canberra. pp. 40-45.
Petheram, R.J. (1985). Constraints to the transfer of Australian FSR to the Third World.
In Agricultural Systems Research for Developing Countries' (Ed. J.V. Remenyi).
ACIAR Proceedings 11. Canberra. pp. 156-162.
Petheram, R.J. (1996). Farming systems research (FSR): a brief review and example.
In Exploring Approaches to Research in the Animal Sciences in Vietnam (Ed. W.J.
Pryor). ACIAR Proceedings 68. Canberra. pp. 36-43.

21

Petheram, R.J., Sumanto and Liem, C. (1989). Farm trials of proposed improvements
to draught animal power systems: A review, In 'Draught Animal Power in Rural
Development' (Eds. D. Hoffmann, J. Nari and R. J. Petheram). ACIAR Proceedings 27.
Canberra. pp. 101-109.
Petheram, R.J. and Fisher, J. (1995). Livestock in cropping systems of the Kalkee
Plains. In Proceedings of Wimmera Cropping Update Conference', (Eds. K.
McCormick and B.J. Williams). Longerenong College, University of Melbourne,
Horsham. pp. 13-16.
Petheram, R.J., Santoso, Sumanto, Winugroho, Dharsana, R. and Gunawan (1995).
The Subang ploughing contest. In Studies of Draught Animal Power (Eds R.J.
Petheram and E. Teleni). ACIAR Working Paper 44. Canberra. pp. 74-80.
Reddy, M.S. and Wiley. R.W. (1982). Improved cropping systems for the deep vertisols of
the Indian semi-arid tropics, Experimental Agriculture 18, 277-287.
Remenyi, J. V. (ed.) (1985). Agricultural Systems Research for Developing Countries,
ACIAR Proceedings 11. Canberra.
Rolings, N. (1988). Extension Science - Information Systems in Agricultural Development.
Cambridge University Press.
Rowan, J. (1981). A dialectical paradigm for research. In Human Inquiry. pp. 93-112 (Ed.
J. Rowan). John Wiley and Sons. Chichester.
Santoso, Sumanto, Rusastra, W., Ridwan, Peacock, C. and Petheram, R.J. (1987).
Selection of sites for initial research on draught animal power systems in Indonesia.
DAP Project News 1, James Cook University, Townsville. pp.11-25.
Schoorl, D. and Holt, J.E. (1990). Cultural change in agricultural research organisations an urgent need. Agricultural Systems 32, 159-173.
Simmonds, N.W. (1985). Farming Systems Research - A Review. World Bank
Technical Paper 43. World Bank, Washington D.C.
Spedding, C.R.W. (1994). Farming systems research/extension in the European context.
In 'Rural and Farming Systems Analysis' . pp. 46-52 (Eds. J.B. Dent and M.J. McGregor).
CAB International, Wallingford, U.K.
Spedding, C.R.W. (1996). Agriculture and the Citizen. Chapman & Hall, London.
Squires, V.R. (1991). A systems approach to agriculture. In 'Dryland Farming: A Systems
Approach. An Analysis of Dryland Agriculture in Australia'. pp. 3-15 (Ed. V.R. Squires and
P.G. Tow). Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Stafford-Smith, D.M., Clewett, J.F., Moore, A.D., McKeon, G.M. and Clark, R.D. (1997).
DroughtPlan - Developing, with graziers, profitable and sustainable strategies to manage
for rainfall variability. Working Paper No. 10. LWRRDC, Canberra.
White, D.H.(1991). Analysis and evaluation of farming systems. In, 'Dryland Farming: A
Systems Approach. An Analysis of Dryland Agriculture in Australia'. pp.171-175 (Eds. V.R.
Squires and P.G. Tow). Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

22

Wilson K. and Morren E.B. (1990). Systems Approaches for Improvement in Agriculture
and Resource Management. McMillan, New York.
Whyte, W.F. (1991). Social Theory for Action: How Individuals and Organisations Learn
to Change. Sage, California.
Witcombe, J.R., Joshi, A., Joshi, K.D. and Sthapit, B.R. (1996). Farmer participatory crop
improvement. 1. Varietal selection and breeding methods and their impact on biodiversity,
Experimental Agriculture 32, 445-460.
Woods, E., Moll, G., Coutts, J. Clark, R. and Irvin, C. (1993). Information exchange. A
review. Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

23

GLOSSARY
Action research. A process that seeks to achieve change through participatory diagnosis
of a situation, planning and purposive action, in a continuous cycle. Repetition of the cycle
leads to understanding of the system and of the methods being used.
Applied science. An approach to inquiry using basic science principles to create solutions
(e.g., technology) to real-world problems.
Approach. A way of going about doing something.
Basic science. An approach to investigating the nature of a property or phenomenon,
using the principles of reduction, experimentation, replication and refutation.
CIMMYT. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre.
Clients. People identified as being the beneficiaries, e.g., of research or extension.
Commodity. Relating to agricultural products, e.g., wool. beef, grain.
Co-learning. A participative process involving discussion and dialogue, reflection,
interpretation, planning and purposeful action.
Disciplinary. Relating to a traditional agricultural discipline, e.g., agronomy, genetics.
Extension. Processes to achieve positive outcomes for people. This usually involves
changes in: knowledge, skills, practices, attitudes and/or aspirations.
End-user. A person who is targeted to be a beneficiary of a project or process.
Evaluation. Process of assessing the value of
Facilitator. A person who uses facilitative, rather than authoritative , approaches to
intervention, group organisation, learning and action.
Farm. An organised unit in which crop, livestock and/or other activities are carried out to
satisfy the farmers goals. Not necessarily a single tract of land, or involving land at all.
Farmer. The operator of a farm. May mean more than a single decision maker, e.g., the
family, household, company.
Farmer domain. Group of farmers with common needs for research and extension
(referred to as target group when they are the target of R&D). .
Farming system. A collection of farms that are managed in a similar way by farmers with
similar environment, goals and resources.
Intervention. Deliberate interference in a situation involving others.
Hard systems approach. Involves quantitative computer modeling (e.g., of the biological
or economic aspects) of systems; usually with little incorporation of people in the model.
Hard means that the problems, goals and desired outcomes are readily defined by the
analyst (Wilson and Morren 1990). (see soft systems approaches).

24

Holism. The practice of viewing the world as consisting of structured wholes (systems)
that maintain their identity and properties. The major propositions are that everything is
connected and that the whole is different to the sum of the parts.
ICRISAT . International Crops Research Inststitute for the Semi Arid Tropics.
Inquiry. Investigation (research).
IRRI. International Rice Research Institute.
Knowledge. Facts of experience or theory known by a person. Organised and processed
data which convey meaning in the context of a current situation.
Method. A way of doing something (in an orderly manner).
Model. A simplification, representation or other copy of reality.
Outcome . Result.
Participate. To become actively involved is a process which includes decision-making
and which is transparent and without hidden agendas.
Process. A series/combination of actions which produce a change, output., development
Research. Course of critical investigation/inquiry. Endeavour to discover facts.
Soft systems approaches. In which people are intimately involved, objectives are hard to
define, decision-taking is uncertain, and measures of performance are often qualitative
(see hard systems approach) (Spedding 1996).
Stakeholder. A person who has a significant interest in group processes for rural
development but who is not necessarily a direct participant in the processes.
System. An arrangement of components that function as a unit, each part interacting with
the other parts, and affecting the properties of the whole.
Systems learning. A term related to experiential learning (e.g., Kolb 1986) and based on
the concept that learning occurs through cycles of observation, reflection and action.
Target group. See farmer domain.
Technique. A way of achieving ones purpose, e.g., of an extension agent establishing a
relationship between the learner and an issue.
Technology. Means of achieving a practical end; often (but not always) the product of
applied science (see Applied science).
Tool. Something that serves to extend the effectiveness of methods and techniques.
Understanding. The ability to learn, apply concepts and principles, judge and make
decisions (in a topic area).

25