Thesis (MEd)--University of South Australia, 1994

Thesis (PhD)--University of South Australia, 1999

Abstract This is an action research thesis, which documents a reflexive process of change undergone by farmers in making transitions from conventional farming to alternative farming. I achieve this through the process of answering the central research question for this thesis: How can the capacity of farmers be developed in the best way to assist them in making the transition from conventional to alternate farming systems? The original starting point for this study was concerned with addressing the problems of conventional farming. The consequences of which are arguably the continued risks to farmers’ lives and natural resources as witnessed in India. However, as the study progressed I realized that changing from conventional farming to alternative farming like organics, biodynamics, permaculture and natural farming involved more than simply a change in farmers’ practices. It was also closely intertwined with broader issues such as farmers’ epistemological relation to the soil and the ontological construction of theories and concepts based on their values and beliefs that influenced their methodological practices. In order to examine the wider issues around transitions to alternative farming, this study was conducted in two regions. Namely, Australia, as an example of the western world practicing modern agriculture and India, as an example of the developing world utilising indigenous farming practices. The early cycles of my study occurred through immersion. This included my firsthand experience as an extension scientist in India and my direct involvement in a series of events in Australia, which assisted in framing the research question. To document the reflexive process of change undergone by farmers in transitions from conventional farming to alternative farming, I conducted convergent interviews with 20 participants in Australia and 18 participants in India. The results of these interviews elicited six major themes as follows: 1. Enriching soil health through perceptional change 2. Knowledge sharing through networking 3. Diversifying through biophysical and socio-cultural processes 4. Learning through experience 5. Indigenous knowledge built through accumulated experiences 6. Self sufficiency through recycling farm resources. Having identified these six themes, I proceeded to construct a tool for each theme so as to merge theory and practice and to address the fact that there are currently inadequate tools available for practitioners seeking to facilitate the change to alternative farming systems. The tools for the respective themes are as follows: 1. Typology on perception of soil in relation to practice 2. Dynamics of knowledge sharing influencing transition 3. Key components for diversity 4. Conditions that facilitate experiential learning for transition 5. Conceptual tool to capture beliefs and faiths around the practice 6. Farm sufficiency assessment tool. Finally, I develop and present an overarching tool, Assessing transition process based on themes, which combines all six of the themes and aims to deepen our understanding of the barriers present in the transition process on a larger scale. I also present these tools to six key people in Australia, who were able to confirm or refute their application in practice. Among the seven tools developed, the Typology on perception of soil in relation to practice is viewed as the most significant tool by the majority of the key people consulted for the following reasons: • This tool has the features of inquiry and action. This statement was supported by the key people who observed that the tool both informs the group of participants where they sit (inquiry) and allows them to see where they want to be, which makes them think about their actions. • This tool also has high practitioner relevance and is trans-disciplinary. Importantly, key people from different fields of specialization were able to identify the benefits of the tool in common. • Having said that the tool has a common application it may be used for diverse purposes. For instance, the tool may be used by an engineer or an architect to understand the epistemological relation of a land owner to their land and how this will influence their plans for land use. • The heterogeneous and diverse nature of the tool allows it to be used in any culture. • The tool, in itself, is reflexive in nature as it helps the user to reflect on own actions. It also has the capacity to remind the user of their accountability to the land resource being utilized. • The tool helps participants to think about the most appropriate or best actions for producing actionable knowledge. • The tool is transparent in exhibiting the different possible types of perceptions in relation to the soil, thereby providing the user with the opportunity for future action. Finally, this thesis examines and illustrates the transformational learning of farmers through an analysis of their epistemology and a reconstruction of their epistemology through ontology, which will result in continued transition for transitional agriculture.

Thesis (M. Sc.) -- University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, 1993. / Bibliography: p. 98-102.

Thesis (D. App. Psych.)--Victoria University (Melbourne, Vic.), 2006. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Wollongong, 2004. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references: leaf 354-374.

Thesis (PhD)--Montana State University--Bozeman, 2009. / Typescript. Chairperson, Graduate Committee: Maurice J. Burke. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 155-161).

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Hong Kong, 2000. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 72-78).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 1998. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 359-370). Available also in a digital version from Dissertation Abstracts.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1996. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 344-354). Also available on the Internet.