Last newsletter, we announced that we had completed a survey of Rural Research and Development Corporations and Agricultural Industry based CRCs to review the Extension, Adoption, Practice Change and Education status of these organisations.  This was in collaboration with the Council of Rural Research and Development Corporations (CRRDC) and the CRC Association.

While we are yet to publically release the report, a number of key findings were reported to the CRRDC at its July meeting.

• Generally the RDCs see their role as ‘facilitating’ rather than ‘ensuring’ adoption and use of R&D findings. This process generally aims to ‘create awareness’ amongst users and supports users in searching out information. The CRCs generally see a slightly higher role in ‘ensuring adoption’.
• While there are known ways to measure success of the R&D process in productivity and economic terms, these could be improved. It was noted that measuring social factors when evaluating success requires further attention, as does assessing the ‘extent of adoption’ and ‘value to beneficiaries’. This is best achieved in context of better defining the characteristics of market segments/target audiences for extension and adoption.
• It was noted that approximately 25% of respondents reported that collaborating with government extension and R&D agencies was becoming … harder, more expensive, in decline, inconsistent, with state variations, etc.
• It was reported that some RDCs and CRCs seek strong direct engagement with ‘end users’ of their research findings while others are increasingly seeking to engage with end users through varied means including the wider agribusiness sector, with some reporting they ought to … support not hinder their growth [agribusiness sector].
• QualDATA reported that these findings highlight key areas of risk for RDCs and CRCs, particularly the increasingly uncertain relationships with government agencies, uncertainty regarding how best to engage with next users/agribusiness, etc and the extent of direct engagement with end users and measuring social impact. It was noted that these are complex questions as … no one size fits all
• In terms of building human capacity, some areas of engagement such as in the postgraduate and VET/local community engagement were strong; others like engagement with students in Yrs 8-12 were varied with few ‘across RDC/CRC programs’ apart from the Primary Industry Centre for Science Education and Investing in Youth program. QualDATA reported … a plethora of programs, with … lots of ‘people development’ going on
• This raised the question of the extent of strategic focus being taken on building human capacity and also the extent of traditional programs as opposed to more innovative/’outside the square’ programs being used. A number of respondents commented on the potential value of increased collaborative programs [such as a Cooperative Venture for Capacity Building Mark 2] and more systematic partnering than is currently used.
• It proved complex to gain a true insight into the extent of funds committed to extension and adoption programs, as in some cases the funds were contained in projects, in programs or in separate budget areas. It was also noted that there is a relatively low % of funds spent on monitoring and evaluation although there is an increasing need and desire to measure Impact.
• There was a strong flavour from respondents regarding the need to better implement Extension and Adoption programs by supporting the delivery process including assisting researchers and other key collaborators. However it was apparent that there are a number of structural and operational issues to be addressed to support this increased focus on Extension and Adoption including promoting innovation and entrepreneurship.

The CRRDC has now established a Steering Committee to develop a better understanding of the capability building landscape and the key players within it.