Knowledge Types Used by Researchers and Wool Producers in Australia under a Workplace Learning Typology: Implications for Innovation in the Australian Sheep Industry

Autor/inn/en	Thompson, Lyndal-Joy; Reeve, Ian
Titel	Knowledge Types Used by Researchers and Wool Producers in Australia under a Workplace Learning Typology: Implications for Innovation in the Australian Sheep Industry
Quelle	In: Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 17 (2011) 5, S.445-458 (14 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1389-224X
DOI	10.1080/1389224X.2011.596707
Schlagwörter	Workplace Learning; Delphi Technique; Focus Groups; Knowledge Level; Foreign Countries; Researchers; Classification; Models; Feedback (Response); Interviews; Ecology; Behavior Change; Agricultural Occupations; Rural Extension; Adult Education; Innovation; Animals; Farm Management; Rural Sociology; Australia + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Delphi-Methode; Wissensbasis; Ausland; Researcher; Forscher; Classification system; Klassifikation; Klassifikationssystem; Analogiemodell; Interviewing; Interviewtechnik; Ökologie; Agriculture; Occupation; Landwirtschaft; Beruf; Landwirtschaftlicher Beruf; Adult; Adults; Education; Adult basic education; Adult training; Erwachsenenbildung; Animal; Tier; Tiere; Agrarsoziologie; Australien
Abstract	This paper reports on research into the learning aspects of adopting integrated parasite management practices for sheep (IPM-s) applying a workplace learning framework. An analysis of four primary data sources was conducted; a postal survey of Australian wool producers, a Delphi process with IPM-s researchers, focus groups and interviews with wool producers. Researchers had a high expectation of conceptual and high level procedural knowledge for IPM-s, while wool producers had a tendency to rely on low- and high-level procedural knowledge for parasite management. Researchers also showed concern for disposition as it related to parasite management. Practices identified as potentially problematic for extension, included worm egg count testing (according to best practice), supplementary feed (specifically for worm management), selecting estimated breeding value-tested rams, weighing and monitoring body condition scores, and keeping written paddock histories. This research provides significant empirical insights into the knowledge differences between researchers and producers that can affect how research is developed and communicated for the IPM-s project to facilitate behaviour change. The identification of some IPM practices as problematic for producers will also allow targeted extension for these practices. (Contains 1 table.) (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10