Summer 1993 (v5n3)
	Farmer/scientist focus sessions: A how-to manual. McGrath, Daniel, Larry S. Lev, Helene Murray and Ray D. William Working Paper No.92-104, December, 1992, Graduate Faculty of Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331. Reviewer's Note: This paper describes a valuable and practical method of managing meetings whereby farmers and scientists can collaborate to solve complex problems. This approach is becoming increasingly popular because it can unleash collective creativity while reducing conflict. The technique is especially relevant in developing understanding of interrelationships among sustainable agricultural practices, which are often more complex than among those in chemically-intensive farming. Agricultural researchers use lectures, publications, and demonstrations for communicating to farmers. Surveys and focus groups are emphasized in order to obtain information from farmers. The farmer/scientist focus session (FSFS) makes use of the creativity and synergy that arise when farmers and scientists listen to each other and learn as a team. FSFSs are especially useful in addressing complex cropping or livestock systems, in designing experiments, and to enquire into controversial issues that have incomplete research bases. Although farmers often conduct studies on their own farms and discuss the results with each other, they participate little in planning and implementing research and extension efforts conducted at universities and other governmental institutions. The FSFS technique can aid in the integration of these separate research approaches. Depth and breadth of knowledge differ among farmers, extension agents, extension specialists, and research scientists (Fig.1). For example, farmers typically have greater breadth but lesser depth of knowledge about farming systems than do University scientists. These differences lead to complementarity in the context of FSFSs. The technique works best when more than half of the members are growers, and there are from 8 to 20 group members. FIG.1. Depth vs. breadth of knowledge Participant Roles The FSFS is not a transfer process by which one subgroup gives and another receives information. Rather, the process provides a forum for discovery by all participants. The approach may require acclimation, with scientists learning to restrain themselves and farmers encouraged to speak. FSFSs works best when the team members are jointly responsible for managing and developing the meeting. Key roles are the facilitator, the process observer, and the recorder(s). The facilitator controls the flow of the meeting, requesting clarification where necessary, and draws out quiet members while respectfully restraining those who are more outgoing. The facilitator does not insert personal opinions. The process observer quietly watches the meeting and helps guide it by providing non-verbal cues to the facilitator. The process observer may also request a break in the meeting or a change of roles if the meeting gets off-track. Recorders register the group memory. When participants see their ideas recorded, they relax. The group memory also enables group ownership of these ideas. If possible, two recorders or note takers are desirable. One develops a "discussion map" that depicts the relationship of themes and sub-themes discussed. This map is organized much like a strawberry plant with runner plants spreading out in different directions. The other recorder transcribes the proceedings in greater detail using a conventional outline form. Conducting the Meeting Coordinators should reiterate or clarify goals and boundaries at the outset of the session to avoid misconceptions that may persist despite prior correspondence or phone conversation with group members. Narrow definition of content is important where a specific, urgent problem is being addressed. A two to three-hour session with a long break may generate tentative solutions to such problems. In order to evaluate the success of FSFSs, it may be important for participants to establish at the outset what they would consider successful outcomes. These might include better understanding of an issue, a written document depicting a problem and a list of alternative solutions, identifying key researchable issues, a better sense of teamwork, or learning more about issues. Time boundaries are also a consideration. Complicated issues may require two to three sessions over several weeks. Such sessions may be organized to begin with general discussion and become increasingly specific. Gaps between sessions allow reflection that can lead to improvements. For issues that are neither narrowly defined nor pressing, there may be no established boundaries. If such sessions are not managed carefully, they may drift into pointless complaining. By contrast, with proper handling, such meetings can promote greater understanding of a range of viewpoints. In managing FSFSs, a horseshoe seating arrangement with a board in front focuses attention on the issue and reduces emphasis on personality. This arrangement is superior to a circle of chairs, which encourages debate, or rows of chairs, which encourage passive listening. The facilitator should announce at the beginning that all are expected to participate, and that the group as a whole is responsible for preventing strong personalities from dominating and for increasing the involvement of quieter people. Participants should then be asked to introduce themselves, and to share their concerns. Other techniques involve writing before speaking; this generates more ideas because all participants are engaged intellectually, not just those who are speaking. Rather than allowing the group to plunge directly into debate on the "best solution" to a problem, discussion should start out broad, enabling the evolution of a "rich picture" of the issues. This is the brainstorming phase, and should not involve judgments or analyses of individual comments. Important themes will emerge during this phase. At some point in the discussion, the need for a phase change will arise. A short break at this point allows informal discussion in small groups. After the break, it is time to prioritize the themes that emerged during the earlier brainstorming. Next, the group can brainstorm potential solutions. In the final phase, the proposed solutions are evaluated critically. Closure of FSFSs usually occurs after two to three hours, and can involve verbal and visual cues from the facilitator. Closing thoughts of participants may be requested, and an evaluation of the session is typically made, including an appraisal of the overall value of the meeting and of specific aspects. Post-Meeting Follow-up After the meeting, the planning team holds debriefing and reporting sessions, at which notes are again taken. The recorders organize the group memory and circulate it among all participants, setting a deadline for corrections and additions. The resulting document may be used in newsletters or for special mailings to interested parties. Several references on related themes are listed at the end of the manual. (DEC.456) Contributed by Robert L. Bugg and Chuck Ingels [ Back | Search | Feedback ]