Could i suggest that those involved in rural research red Bill Gammage's 'The Biggest Estate on Earth' and maybe try and formulate some ideas on a truly national and interlocking plan based on 50,000 years of practice?

Right on the point. The RDCs have great strengths but their commodity basis limits focus on 'hard to get a handle on' problems that cut across many individual farm businesses and the farm and agribusiness sectors generally.

The other problem with the commodity focus is that it ignores the fact that I am a landholder first and a dairy farmer second. We need to ensure that the way we farm is the most appropriate match for our soils and climates. Given that climate is changing, it makes sense to review our land uses too. I haven't been able to find any Australian organisation that is able to consider such a big question.

Good one Tim.

If there is no good 2 way communication between the R&D teams and the users, or between the accountants, sales managers and product developers in head office and the sales agents, productivity of that unit will fall. You will loose funding or go broke - seen both.

Knowledgeable extension personnel who can sit in the researchers office, or canteen with coffee, after harvest and tell him/her what worked or did not help keep the R&D program on the ground, or take them to good local examples and to meet different land managers. Likewise the reporting of observations that may have been missed in the lab and set piece field trials gives new innovations. That plus considerations of just what happens where land managers do not walk in lock step with the mob.

Conversely, the insider tips from the R&D team can be quite an addition to the main messages which are being generated. Something like "did you notice/know that that herbicide has an unlabeled effect on a weed so that is why it is better in your situation". Then being congratulated after harvest for a better than expected crop.

Take one out, the the rest of the system fails. Been there seen that!

Valuable article, Andrew. I agree that the national rural RD&E framework risks perpetuating an outdated concept about research management, with its layered structure of R/D/E....as you say:

The “E” for extension is largely missing, or treated superficially. The assumption seems to be that extension happens at a regional level and does not require attention in national strategies – seriously flawed thinking.

Good luck with prompting a mature, long-term approach to cross-sectoral issues - the NFP is an opportunity to drive this but, as you imply, would need a major advance from the Green Paper!

Maybe you could work with CCRSPI to join the dots between cross-sectoral strategy and food/nutritional/regional security?

I am representing the consulting sector on the Soils RD&E strategy reference group that has started working on the National Soils RD&E strategy. It wouldn't surprise me if this process supported a cross sectoral RD&E for delivery. I suggested the CRC model, because it is problem focussed and has a limited life. Then there is CSIRO. We don't seem to lack cross sectoral R&D institutions, but outcome delivery is underwhelming and soils have fallen into a hole.

The soil and land CRCs have had less well defined outcomes and perhaps a parochial context. The CRC CARE on contaminated land remediation has a problem delivering coherent and timely guidelines. The Catchment CRC delivered well - providing industry with practical simulation tools for catchment management and data based decision making.

I think professional private-public sector links with direct commercial involvement of private industry with whatever agency is the vehicle will improve outcome delivery - emphasising professional practice values, not fee generating activity. Engineers and architects deal with system complexity by relying on strong professional practice values and a focus on delivering outcomes that work well. There are good reasons to avoid the idea that the government can provide solutions if it had enough money and the right organisation.

'The “E” for extension is largely missing, or treated superficially. The assumption seems to be that extension happens at a regional level…’

Its ironic, but this type of thinking reflects classic linear extension, a model we thought we left long ago in the past. We still seem to think; at least, at a policy level that delivery of research knowledge to our producer ‘consumers’ comes at the end of the pipeline. To quote you, Andrew – ‘…seriously flawed thinking.’

Effective extension is about changing minds. It is not just something you do to deliver research outputs – and that’s the inference when it continues to be seen as the end of the R&D line. I like your term, Tim, ‘tickyboxiness’. We all know how that works!

Applied research must have the extension and adoption strategies developed from the outset. The real driver of such research is, by definition, the ultimate application that must directly address user-recognised needs. I purposefully use the word ‘recognised’ because the target audience may not always identify their needs without an awareness intervention, but unless that intervention leads to a recognition and acknowledgement of need the new knowledge will fall on deaf ears.

In my experience, this is a fundamental weakness of much of our R&D planning in that we fail to build in the perspective of the target user as a pathway to guide the research. Or, worse, we assume that the user perspective will be, in Peter’s words ‘…heavily preoccupied with yields and a very narrow notion of “productivity”.’ Thus, extension becomes information centric and weak on alignment with values and intuitive thinking.

That’s why, as Tim points out, scientists are often not good communicators. They are passionate about the data but can fail to capture the imaginations and the things that really matter for the target audience. Sadly, that’s why the snake oil salesmen and well-meaning (or not so well-meaning) activists have an impact – because they connect with people at this level. And as scientists, we don’t get it, because, surely ‘The data speaks for itself!’

When extension, and an extension strategy is core to the R&D, it is far more likely that the outputs will be in tune with our target audience needs, both intuitively and in application. An intuitive response from non-information seekers will lead them to seek information and the door to evidence-based adoption is opened. And the sooner we recognize the intuitive nature of decision making at the policy and strategic planning levels the sooner we will achieve active rather than passive adoption (diffusion!).

Andrew, apologies if I have strayed a little from your main thrust addressing the need for greater focus on cross-sectoral RD&E platforms, but from an ‘E’ perspective the more complex and diverse the issues become the more significant is the role of intuitive, values-based decision-making and the less information alone is valued.