A cross case analysis: Farmlets as learning platforms

9.1 Introduction

The four case studies have been analysed in depth, focussing on farmlets as an activity system and their attributes as learning platforms. Essentially, each case study provided a different context for de-constructing and reconstructing the actions and elements that enable a farmlet project to be developed and initiated and hence perform as a learning platform at various levels. Individual activity systems associated with a farmlet project were used as the units of analysis, identified by the primary object or role in the research, extension or farming industry continuum. A complex interplay of relationships was revealed with variations in roles and the implementation of different mediating tools. The most prominent feature was the dynamic and changing nature that constituted the farmlet activity systems, largely due to shifting or different application of resources. This meant each activity system had to adapt and amend its actions according to the resources that were available to enable a learning platform to emerge.

This chapter brings together the findings of the individual case studies, to provide an analysis of the fundamental elements required for the learning platform to emerge and additional elements that allow one to be more effective than another. Essentially what is indicated is that there is no a set ‗recipe‘ for farmlets to be a learning platform, rather there are some critical ingredients in functionality and form that make the difference between being adequate, and being really effective at supporting learning and adaptation across the RD&E continuum. There are some common attributes in the relationships between the various components of the farmlet activity system, and there are atypical attributes peculiar to a particular context.

The discussion will then move to formally address the research question of “how farmlets act as learning platforms for the Australian dairy industry RD&E continuum”.

This section sees the process of expansion and transformation in action, whereby the four case studies and their respective concepts and analysed collectively. It refers back to the processes of adaptation and transformation from chapter three as the fundamental

187

mechanisms of learning within activity theory, combined with the results of the individual and cross case analysis presented here.

9.2 Cross case analysis: regional farmlet learning platforms

Thirty seven concepts that influence farmlet activity systems as learning platforms were found across the four case studies. These are summarised in Appendix 3. Here, they are considered further identifying outline similarities and differences across farmlets and how this impacts on performance of the learning platforms overall. The model of a generic activity system is deconstructed into the various components that formulate a system, to establish the important attributes and considerations for each dimension of farmlets as learning platforms. An analysis then reconstructs the farmlet activity system to establish the implications where there are differences between how activity systems function as a learning platform.

The variables that emerged for each respective farmlet case study were different, with different emphases, tensions and contradictions found across the four case studies. Four attributes were major contributors to these differentials: the stage of the farmlet project; the level of maturity of the region and history of conducting farmlet projects; physical resources and the structure of the farmlet team (see Table 19). These factors heavily influenced the context of each case study and what influenced farmlet activity systems as a learning platform. The individual elements of the farmlet activity system are now explored.

Elliott Research & Demonstration Station

Vasse Milk Farmlets

Flaxley Farmlets Macalister Research Farm Stage of farmlet project Commencing new project

Year one of new project

Year two of new project

Year two of new project History of farmlet

projects >10 years 1 year 4 years 6 years Physical resources Government

maintained facility Government maintained facility Government maintained facility Farmer co- operative Structure of the farmlet team (intellectual resources) Farmer committee, researchers (2), extension team (5) Farmer committee, researcher, extension team (variable) Farmer committee, researcher (2), associated extension team (2) Farmer Board, Project manager

Table 19. Fundamental differences between the farmlet case studies.

9.2.1 Farmlet Activity System: Defining the object

The most complex component to the analysis of the farmlet activity was around definition of the object, or what is fundamentally driving the activity. Without such definition, the actions

188

underlying the activity are meaningless or could be misunderstood, and any seemingly contradictory tensions across different elements could be misinterpreted. Is it the farmlet project, the research question, or learning and adaptation that drives the object or all of them that form the object of the activity system?

Figure 23. Key elements to setting the object for farmlets

As indicated by Figure 23, and after much grappling with this question, ultimately all of these things collectively provide a multifaceted object, for a multidimensional activity system. These critical components need to be aligned to provide a stable and clear object for the farmlet activity system. Achieving such clarity in the object is where the process of expansive learning occurred, albeit sometimes using clumsy and informal policy as a guide. This is now further explained with the farmlet case study results.

Setting the object for farmlet projects is an activity within itself that required conscious and formal effort from all involved. It needs to be a joint effort, one that brings together the right mix of intellectual prowess along with physical resources enabling appropriate problem (object) definition. It is a situation akin to what was outlined by Kilpatrick et al. (2010:175) as part of their study on inter-professional engagement:

―The common goal and purpose needed to be apparent across all the groups and in working towards achieving common goals a key factor was having a range of people who understood not only the importance of working together but could actually make things happen as a result.‖

Defining the ―right mix‖ of these resources is a significant factor in shaping what constitutes the farmlet activity system, along with the individual or organisations conducting the definition of activity. The case studies from ERDS and VMF, that were in the early stages of planning and implementing a new farmlet project provided insight into this. By comparison,

FARMLET