Multi-disciplinary group discussion techniques

It has been established that farming systems are complex and span across various disciplines. The business of farming has evolved from a lifestyle to an unforgiving business environment. Focus is on the performance of the business to maintain the lifestyle. Farmers consequently have to master many of the trades. In contrast, researchers narrow their focus of study to specialize in a specific field. As a result, knowledge is compartmentalised into separate specific fields and a barrier of scientific language and pride remains. It is thus increasingly important to undertake research accounting for the various aspects of the agricultural system, and to have a thorough understanding among the participants involved. A useful tool to combine the skill set of role players involved in the industry is to facilitate a focused discussion with all parties present. This technique, with its origins in World War II military tactical decision-making, is termed a multi-disciplinary group discussion (Hoffmann, 2010).

There often is a gap in interest and understanding between the researchers and the producer. There are three forms of knowledge, lay, scientific and met-science knowledge. Lay knowledge is gained from; experience, learning, and reflection, and is used in everyday life. Scientific knowledge comes from the systematic and analytical study of real life problems. Meta-science is concerned with conceptualization, thus the selection of theory and research approach (Hoffmann, 2010 and Myers & Yearwood, 2012). Each of these forms of learning constitutes what may be considered, their own world and language. Agriculture spans all three disciplines and some parties may be intimidated and/or disinterested in complex research. There is however a real need for the relevant information to reach the necessary participants and decision makers within the system, for the production system to operate at its optimal level. Multi-disciplinary discussions provide a platform for this gap to be bridged. It is important for the researcher to understand the dynamics of the whole farm business to contrast and generate a realistic model and simulate real world scenarios.

Figure 3.2 shows a schematic representation of the three forms of knowledge, highlighting the importance of multi-disciplinary discussions in bringing together the opinions of scientists and producers from their relative fields of knowledge, in the development and validation of the budget model.

Figure 3.2: Schematic representation of the role and impact of scientific knowledge:

Source: Adopted from: Hoffmann, 2010

Multi-disciplinary group discussions stimulate creative thinking, as participants are able to challenge cross-disciplinary perspectives (Hoffmann, 2010). Farmers can challenge the theoretical application of novel technologies from a practical, in-field perspective. Vice versa; scientists can challenge farmer’s ‘conventional wisdom’ with research based knowledge. The group discussion provides a platform to enquire and validate trends in data and applied knowledge. Understandably, with participants from various backgrounds and holding different perspectives, there is likely to be opposing opinions and resulting disagreements. Disagreements confront experts with alternative perspectives, which is the core advantage of expert group discussions. Based on the level of expert knowledge and the disagreement, alternatives can be invented and formulated. There is a risk that some participants may overshadow other’s views, due to the nature of human interaction and varying characteristics. Therefore, an important role of the researcher is to mediate the discussion to avoid deviations and attain an objective outcome. The multi-disciplinary group discussion attempts to funnel the opinions of experts from various fields to obtain consensus on an assumption that can be used in research. Figure 3.3 depicts the process of funnelling expert opinions.

World Three

Meta-science

World One

Lay Knowledge, everyday life

World Two

Scientific knowledge

Literature: research methodology, historical development of specific technology, modelling and simulation, multi-disciplinary participation

Apply possible scenarios to budget model to evaluate impacts on real world physical and social farming activities

Generating and validating information derived from research and enhanced by a live model from phase 2

Figure 3.3: Depicted process of obtaining expert opinion from multi-disciplinary group discussion

Agricultural research is traditionally divided into sub-sectors by commodities for example, maize, wheat, soya, beef, dairy, sheep, oats, and barley, etc. Researchers specialize in specific disciplines where they tend to develop independent languages and indicators specific to their field. This fragmentation of knowledge and lack of compatibility between indicators can create confusion for the end user, the farmer. Researchers should thus try to pool together information to make decisions on a whole-farm level, taking into account the diversification of farming operations. The challenge for the researcher is to incorporate and deliver applicable knowledge across multiple, interrelated disciplines of physical-biological, socio-economic, and management dimensions that make up a farm system (Hoffmann, 2010).

By design, group discussions allow for a number of processes that enhance research output and decision-making. By grouping together participants of different disciplines and encouraging an environment of discussion and debate, individuals may come to realize there alternative perspectives. Bridging disciplinary boundaries encourages the exchange and fusion of knowledge. The sense of competition is removed and greater scope for knowledge sharing exists. The result is a merging of perspectives, collective learning as participants interact, and the opportunity to foster continued working relationships towards a common goal.

Multi-disciplinary expert

opinion