Effect of training and methodology development on the effectiveness of discussion groups on grassland innovation

HAL Id: hal-02736890

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02736890

Submitted on 2 Jun 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Effect of training and methodology development on the effectiveness of discussion groups on grassland innovation

G. Peratoner, C. Florian, F. Mairhofer, F. Baste-Sauvaire, F. Bogue, A.

Carlsson, A. Czerwińska, Luc Delaby, B. Delaite, H. de Kort, et al.

To cite this version:

G. Peratoner, C. Florian, F. Mairhofer, F. Baste-Sauvaire, F. Bogue, et al.. Effect of training and methodology development on the effectiveness of discussion groups on grassland innovation. Joint 20.

Symposium of the European Grassland Federation and 33. Meeting of the Eucarpia section ”Fodder

Crops and Amenity Grasses”, Jun 2019, Zürich, Switzerland. �hal-02736890�

Grassland Science in Europe, Vol. 24 – Improving sown grasslands through breeding and management 509

Effect of training and methodology development on the effectiveness of discussion groups on grassland innovation

Peratoner G.

, Florian C.

, Mairhofer F.

, Baste-Sauvaire F.

, Bogue F.

, Carlsson A.

, Czerwińska A.

, Delaby L.

, Delaite B.

, De Kort H.

, Fradin J.

, Jacquet D.

, Kaemena F.

, Krause A.

, Melis R.

, Nilsdotter-Linde N.

, Pascarella L.

, Paszkowski A.

, Peeters A.

and Van den Pol- van Dasselaar A.

1

Laimburg Research Center, Laimburg 6, 39040 Ora/Auer, Italy;

APCA, France;

TEAGASC, Ireland;

Svenska Vallforeningen, Sweden;

Wielkopolska Izba Rolnicza, Poland;

INRA, France;

7

Trame Scrl, Belgium;

LTO, the Netherlands;

Institut de l’Elevage, France;

AWE, Belgium;

11

Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen, Germany;

Grünlandzentrum Niedersachsen/Bremen e.V., Germany;

CNR, Italy;

Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Sweden;

AIA, Italy;

Poznań University of Life Sciences, Poland;

RHEA Research Centre, Belgium;

Aeres University of Applied Sciences, the Netherlands;

Wageningen Livestock Research, the Netherlands

Abstract

Within the framework of the Horizon 2020 thematic network Inno4Grass (www.inno4grass.eu), 55

‘practice & science meetings’ have been carried out using a multi-stakeholder, participatory approach, in order to bridge the gap between science and practice and deliver a comprehensive analysis of grassland innovations across eight European countries. Three project phases can be distinguished: (1) common guidelines under discussion, (2) introduction and preliminary test of the guidelines, (3) additional training on the discussion process. A structured feedback on the meetings held was provided by the organisers by means of a questionnaire, including information about duration, preparatory material, participants, discussion methods and evaluation of the meetings by the organisers. This information allows computing of mean values and distribution of the most relevant variables. Only a few of them were affected by the project phase. In particular, there was an increase in the use of farm portraits and of scientific literature over the project phases. All aspects describing the success of meetings were positively assessed. This suggests that the methodology for the conduction of the practice & science meetings within Inno4Grass was already relatively well established at the beginning of the project.

Keywords: grassland, discussion groups, innovation analysis, participatory approach, multi-stakeholder

approach

Introduction

Discussion groups are groups of farmers, facilitated by a moderator (agricultural extension agent or facilitator agent), that meet to discuss technical issues, share information and solve problems. Discussion groups offer an environment for members to share ideas and keep up-to-date with the latest innovations by means of peer-to-peer learning. They have been shown to positively affect the adoption of technical innovation and farm profit of dairy farms (Hennessy and Heanue, 2012). Within the Horizon 2020 thematic network Inno4Grass (www.inno4grass.eu), particular discussion groups, called ‘practice

& science meetings’ (P&SMs), are conducted with a multi-stakeholder, participatory approach, to

bridge the gap between science and practice, capture grassland innovations from practice and deliver

a comprehensive analysis of them (Mairhofer et al., 2019). This paper provides an overview of the

methodological aspects adopted for the conduction of the meetings, their effectiveness, and the changes

in methodology and effectiveness along the project development.

510 Grassland Science in Europe, Vol. 24 – Improving sown grasslands through breeding and management

Materials and methods

Between January 2017 and September 2018, 55 P&SMs have been held in eight European countries (BE, DE, FR, IT, IE, NL, PL, SE). Common, non-mandatory guidelines consisting of general recommendations and five elements (briefing, simplified SWOT-analysis, PESTLE-analysis, predefined sub-topics for the PESTLE-analysis, and final standard questions to the innovator) were provided to the project partners (Mairhofer et al., 2019). Over the duration of the project development, three phases can be distinguished, depending on the specific training and the state of development of the methodology, both provided to the participants during the project meetings: (1) common guidelines for the P&SMs being under discussion; (2) official introduction and preliminary test of the guidelines in a simulated practice & science meeting with project members only; (3) additional training provided by an external trainer on the discussion process by means of a real P&SM at an innovative farm with the involvement of the innovator and of external stakeholders. A survey of the meetings was held among the project partners who conducted the P&SMs by means of a questionnaire, including questions on duration, preparatory material, participants, discussion methods and a self-evaluation performed by the organisers of the success of the meetings for seven different issues (participation of the desired stakeholders; communication between moderator and participants; communication between participants; comfort of the innovator with the discussion; involvement of all participants in the discussion; suitability of information material prior to the discussion; keeping of the time schedule) on a 5-scale score (from 1 = poor to 5 = excellent).

The effect of the project phase on the single variables was tested by a mixed model accounting for both the project phase (fixed factor) and the project partner (random factor) after checking the prerequisites for this analysis (normal distribution of residuals, homoscedasticity) by visual inspection of the residuals.

The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis-test was performed in case the prerequisites for ANOVA were not met. For binomial dependent variables, a binary logistic regression with the project phase as independent variable was performed with a cut off of 0.5 in order to test for significance. Multiple comparisons between project phases were obtained by repeating the analysis varying the reference category. The significance level was set at P=0.05.

Results and discussion

Training and methodology development, represented by the advancement state of project phases, did not significantly affect either the duration of the different elements of the P&SMs or the number of stakeholder categories taking part in the meeting (Table 1).

A duration of around two hours for the briefing activities seemed to be generally suitable for meetings, whilst slightly more time was apparently required for the discussion. On average, about seven stakeholder categories attended a single meeting.

Table 1. Mean ± standard error of mean of the duration of different elements of the practice & science meetings, of the number of stakeholder categories attending a meeting, and significance of the effect of the project phase.

Project phase Duration (h) Number of stakeholder categories

On farm-visit¹ Virtual farm tour¹ Whole briefing¹ Discussion¹

1 1.9±0.7 1.5±0.3 2.2±0.5 3.0±0.4 7.8±0.9

2 2.0±0.2 1.2±0.3 1.9±0.2 2.4±0.2 6.7±0.4

3 2.2±0.4 0.8±0.1 2.3±0.3 2.3±0.2 6.2±0.4

Average 2.1±0.2 1.1±0.1 2.1±0.2 2.5±0.3 6.7±0.3

Sig. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

1 Kruskal-Wallis test, n.s. = not significant.

Grassland Science in Europe, Vol. 24 – Improving sown grasslands through breeding and management 511

Concerning the preparation of the meetings, an increase of the use of farm portraits (short, reader- friendly descriptions of the main farm characteristics) and increased provision of scientific literature, thereby ensuring a sound fact-checking and adherence to scientific standards (van den Pol-van Dasselaar et al., 2019), became more and more established with the advancing project phases (Table 2).

None of the aspects that described the success of the meetings were affected by the project phase, as perceived by the organisers. High scores were obtained for all issues evaluated: participation of the desired stakeholders (mean ± standard error of mean 4.5±0.2), communication between moderator and participants (4.8±0.1), communication between participants (4.7±0.3), comfort of the innovator with the discussion (4.9±0.1), involvement of all participants in the discussion (4.3±0.3), and respecting the time schedule (4.8±0.1).

Conclusion

The methodology for the conduction of the P&SMs within Inno4Grass seemed to be well established from the beginning of the project, presumably as a result of skills and expertise already developed by the project partners in their previous experience. However, a certain evaluation bias can be assumed because of the organisers evaluating their own meetings. The results of Inno4Grass provide useful reference values for P&SMs in other contexts.

Acknowledgements

The project leading to these results (Inno4Grass) has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 727368.

References

Hennessy T. and Heanue K. (2012) Quantifying the effect of discussion group membership on technology adoption and farm profit on dairy farms. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 18, 41-54.

Mairhofer F., Florian C., Weiss A., Pfeifer A., Plitzner C., Prünster T., ... and Peratoner G. (2019) A method to lead discussion groups for the analysis of grassland innovations. Grassland Science in Europe 24, this volume.

Van den Pol-van Dasselaar A., Baste-Sauvaire F., Bogue F., Carlsson A., Delaite B., Goliński P., ... and Peratoner G. (2019) Using the influencing factors for grassland farmers in bridging the gap between practitioners and scientists. Grassland Science in Europe 24, this volume.

Table 2. Frequency (%) of use of information material during the briefing activities. The absence of superscript letters in common indicate significant differences between project phases according to the regression coefficients of the logistic regression (P<0.05).

Project phase Scientific literature Farm portraits¹ Interview results Presentation (slides) on the innovation topic

1 40.0^ab 20.0^a 50.0^a 40.0^a

2 19.0^a 52.4^ab 42.9^a 47.6^a

3 60.9^b 65.2^b 69.6^a 60.9^a

1 Handout with a compact description of the innovation in the farm context.