styles of farming and farming subcultures: appropriate ...€¦ · styles of farming and farming...

Styles of Farming and FarmingSubcultures: Appropriate conceptsfor Australian rural sociology?

by Frank Vanclay, Luciano Mesiti and Peter Howden

Introduction

Diversity in agriculture is one of theaxioms of rural sociology � perhaps themost important one � but remains onewhich has not been fully considered.The physical nature of diversity is easilyaccepted � some farmers grow wheat,some farmers grow grapes, etc. Forsocial scientists, structural diversity isalso understood � some farmers arerich, some poor, some have large farms,some small, some farmers have highdebt load (low equity), others have lowdebt (high equity). Extension Science insome ways invoked diversity on thebasis of innovativeness � but this wasnot a true form of diversity becauseextension, at least in traditional models,presumed that innovations wereuniversally applicable and ultimatelywould be universally adopted (seeVanclay & Lawrence, 1994, 1995a,1995b). However, the sociocultural basisof diversity in farming has beeninadequately examined, and has oftenbeen neglected in analyses of farming,although it is an area of growingconcern. Extension, in particular, hasfailed to appreciate the significance ofthe existence of sociocultural diversityin developing its extension programsand in the targeting of its messages.

Flying in the face of globalisationtheories (see Buttel, 1994), there aretwo sociocultural conceptualisations offarming: the �styles of farming� approachof Jan Douwe van der Ploeg (1990,

1992, 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1995a,1995b, 1997), and the farmingsubcultures approach of Frank Vanclay(1992, 1994a, 1995a, 1997; Vanclay &Lawrence, 1995b). To some extent theseare related ideas, although the farmingstyles concept is more fully developed.The two streams of thought hadindependent geneses, but since Vanclaybecame aware of the styles of farmingapproach in 1993, and introduced it toAustralia (Vanclay, 1993, 1995a,1995b), he has been implementing theconcept through his involvement in theCooperative Research Centre forViticulture (Glyde & Vanclay, 1996;Mesiti & Vanclay, 1996, 1997), and theCooperative Research Centre for WeedManagement Systems (Howden &Vanclay, 1998; Howden et al, 1998).This paper is a presentation andcritique of the farming styles concept,contrasted with Vanclay�s notion offarming subcultures. It presentsextensive information about farmingstyles because, although there is now aconsiderable literature about theconcept in English, much of it is inbooks that may be hard to obtain inAustralia, being published by little-known Dutch publishers. This paper issupported by an additional paper byHowden et al (this issue) whichconsiders the application of the conceptin Australian broadacre cropping.

Rural Society, Volume 8, Number 2

page 86

Farming styles and farmingsubcultures compared

The general understanding of thefarming subculture concept is that theprimary motivation of farmers is theirnotion of �good farm management�. Sucha social construction will vary betweendifferent groups of farmers, such asexist in different commodities, indifferent regions, and possibly withincommodities and regions. Because theidea is developed by individuals � toassume otherwise is to reify the concept� different individuals develop variationson the notion, so a wide range ofmeanings of �good farm management�exist.

Farmers develop their ideas from a widerange of sources, first and foremost fromdiscussions with other farmers, but alsofrom other media including the ruralpress and extension messages.Extension language and concepts arewidely used by farmers (Mesiti &Vanclay, 1996, 1997; Howden et al,1998) reflecting the hegemonic power ofextension within farming circles. Giventhat �hegemonic extension� hasinfluenced farmer discourse to theextent that farmers utilise extensionlanguage and extension concepts, it isappropriate to accept that this is part oflegitimate farmer discourse, making theinfluence of extension truly hegemonic.The notion of good farm management istherefore also influenced, but notdetermined by, extension notions aboutbest management practices (BMPs),although, amongst farmers, there stillremain varying notions about whatactually is �best�.

The social notion of �farming practice�involves not only physical managementstrategies such as how to till (or not totill) the soil, but also includes notionsabout choosing crops, marketing,financial management, relating to new

ideas, relating to extension, and so on.E. Portela (1994) even discussesmanure as a social practice! The notionof good farm management includesconsiderations of all the issues involvedin farming practice, thus farming couldbe categorised according to groupings ofrelated ideas about good farmmanagement.

Vanclay (1992, 1995a, 1995b, 1997) didnot define the notion of farmingsubcultures more fully, and did notreally consider the idea thatclassification of farmers into definedgroups was possible or valuable, since asubcultural notion is much lessdeterministic than the farming stylesapproach. Although Vanclay does nottake an approach that is explicitly basedon Pierre Bourdieu�s (1977, 1990)notion of cultural habitus, there arecertain similarities, and research couldproceed in that direction (for examplesee Phillips & Gray, 1995).

The styles of farming approach of vander Ploeg has changed over the years,and to some extent inconsistency existseven within a single publication. Theessential idea is that within a farmingcommunity there is a set of discretestyles (or strategies of farming) whichfarmers are acutely aware of, and fromwhich they actively choose a specificstrategy to guide their ownmanagement. By participating in a style,they contribute to the evolution of thatstyle over time. The styles are creatednot only through socioculturaldynamics, but also as a response tostructural forces, and different stylespotentially exist for different marketsituations of different farmers. Theessential defining characteristic is thatthey explain diversity within agriculture,and they explain why traditionalfarming practice continues to survive inthe face of globalisation. Referring to thepressures to change experienced by

Styles of farming and farming subcultures � Vanclay, Mesiti and Howden

Friesian dairy farmers, van der Ploeg(1994a: 19) writes:

Yet there is considerableheterogeneity to be found in dairyfarming in Friesland, aheterogeneity that can in no waybe ordered and classified inunilinear terms. Farmersthemselves understand and orderit in terms of different farmingstyles. Heterogeneity for them isnot a random phenomenon: itentails specific clusterings. Each�cluster�, ie, each �way of farming�,is the outcome of the specificstrategies of the actors involved.In other words, the complex�totality� of the dairy farmingsector does not represent, at leastfor the farmers, a chaotic reality, atotal confusion, neither does itrepresent a not yet completetransition towards �competitivefarming�. On the contrary, it is ameaningful whole, composed ofmany different styles. The latterare described in an every daylanguage that, from a strictlyacademic point of view, mightseem confusing, ambiguous andimprecise. But to the farmersthemselves, this everydaylanguage is quite unequivocal ... Irefer to terms such as cowmen,breeders, economical or greedyfarmers, big farmers andintensive farmers. For Frisianfarmers each term is an umbrella,a metaphor, linked to very precise,detailed and multidimensionaldiscourses. Taken together, theseterms refer to the culturalrepertoire with which Frisian dairyfarmers define, reproduce, adaptand/or transform their farmingpractices.

At the macro and applied level, thestyles of farming concept is rathersimilar to the Vanclay farming

subcultures approach, but there aremajor theoretical differences. Thefarming styles approach is much moredeveloped, and while it does not have awide following outside of Europe, isfirmly established within Europeanrural sociology (see Buttel, 1994: 14).Professor van der Ploeg has many PhDstudents and research colleagues, manyof whom have published in Dutch.English language publications representonly part of the discourse on theconcept. In English, at least, there is nothorough critique of the concept,although at various conferences, someindividuals have indicateddissatisfaction with various aspects ofthe theory. What follows is a lengthycritique of farming styles theory, but webelieve that there is still considerablemerit in the concept, albeit not totally inthe manner suggested by van der Ploeg.

Farming styles outlined andcritiqued

Farming styles refers to a culturalrepertoire, a composite ofnormative and strategic ideasabout how farming should bedone. A style involves a specificway of organising the farmenterprise: farmer practice anddevelopment are shaped bycultural repertoire, which in turnare tested, affirmed and ifnecessary adjusted throughpractice. Therefore a style offarming is a concrete form ofpraxis, a particular unity ofthinking and doing, of theory andpractice (van der Ploeg, 1993:241).

Van der Ploeg (1990) constructed thefarming styles notion by arguing, atleast initially, that farming styles existin terms of market orientation,specifically in terms of the crosssectional analysis of intensification and


page 88

extensification (see Figure 1). Van derPloeg (1995b) argued that structuralforces increase diversity in agriculture,because farmers not only have thechoice of extensification orintensification, but any combination ofthese two strategies. This is incontradistinction to the �prevailingnormative perspective on farmdevelopment� (Roep & de Bruin, 1994:219) which presumes that growth ishomogenising rather than diversifying.This diverging trajectories conceptwould appear to be fundamental to vander Ploeg�s understanding of farmingstyles and appears in most of hisexplanations of the concept, as well asin his earlier work which can be seen as

a precursor to his articulation offarming styles (van der Ploeg, 1986).By doing research with farmers in arange of settings around the world, vander Ploeg (1990) determined that in agiven location, there are a number ofstrategies that farmers can adopt. As anexample, in Emilia Romagna (Italy) vander Ploeg (1990) constructed ahypothetical scenario of two dairyfarmers, each of whom has manifested adifferent combination of intensificationand extensification (Box 1).

Van der Ploeg (1990) asked his researchparticipants a number of questions:

� which of the two farmers describedwould be the best farmer?

t=5 t=10

Scale

Intensity

Box 1: van der Ploeg's conceptual starting point

Farmer 1

(intensification)

20 cows

5 000 litres/cow/pa

100 000 litres/pa

Farmer 2

(extensification)

30 cows

4 000 litres/cow/pa

120 000 litres pa

Figure 1: Hypothetical sketch of different enterprise development patternsin a homogeneous setting

0

0

Source: van der Ploeg, 1990: 8

Source: van der Ploeg, 1990: 40 (slightly modified)


� who would have highest income?

� who would have lowest costs?

� who would have best survivalchances during low prices?

� are the two examples �real�?

� are the examples found nearby?

� why do some farmers go one way,while others go the other way?

� which of the two farmers is most likeyou?

In considering the answers to thesequestions, van der Ploeg reflected on thegeneral issues of whether there is aconscious choice for intensification orfor extensification, and what therationale for each option might be. It ison this basis that van der Ploegdeveloped his farming stylesconceptualisation.

This original methodology of van derPloeg is unsatisfactory because theseexamples were preselected and imposedfrom a theoretical position. They do notderive from data or any qualitativeassessment. Further, by being steepedin a structural notion of marketposition, the theoretical analysis doesnot support many of van der Ploeg�sconclusions or his description about thefarming styles perspective, especiallythe issue about the perceived rationalityof the styles. Van der Ploeg appears tohave made a leap of faith from histheoretical position surrounding thestructural context of farming styles topresuming the physical existence ofstyles in the manner suggested by the

theory. A more recent definition offarming styles by van der Ploeg (1995a:122) further establishes the importanceof structural factors in hisconceptualisation:

In general terms a style of farmingcan be defined as a particularunity and coherence of thefollowing elements:(a) a set of strategic notions,values and insights shared by aparticular group of farmersconcerning the way farming oughtto be organised(b) a specific structuring of thepractice of farming thatcorresponds to the strategicnotions or �cultural repertoire�used by these farmers(c) a specific set of interlinkagesbetween the farm enterprise onthe one hand and the surroundingmarkets, market agencies,government policy andtechnological developments on theother. These interrelations arestructured in such a way that thespecific farming practice can bereproduced over time.

But van der Ploeg was also appreciativeof cultural responses to development,and refers to his farming styles theoryas being an explanation of �endogenousrural development� (van der Ploeg &Long, 1994; van der Ploeg & van Dijk,1995). In work preceding hisarticulation of farming styles, heelaborated on the local knowledge � or,borrowing from Mendras (1970), art dela localité1 � of potato growers in thePeruvian highlands (van der Ploeg,1989, 1992). Even here, though, thenotion that cultural practice is

1 It is important to appreciate that �art de la localité� should NOT be translatedas �art of the local� or �local art�, since the concept, in French, also includesskill and craft knowledge. Thus, �local (cultural) knowledge� is a betterunderstanding of this concept.


page 90

embedded in structural relations isstrong. Elsewhere, van der Ploeg�s(1992, 1994) arguments about craftship,art de la localité and �resistenza sociale�are independent of structural forces.

The phraseology of farming stylesoriginally derives from E.W Hofstee, aperson van der Ploeg (1994a: 17)describes as �the founding father ofWageningen agrarian sociology�. Van derPloeg (1994a: 19) also suggests that hismethodology is based on that developedby J.W. Bennett (1982). However,Hofstee�s conceptualisation was quitedifferent to van der Ploeg�s notion,referring more to differences in farmingculture between regions, rather thanwithin regions. Citing Hofstee (1985),van der Ploeg (1994a: 17) translated theoriginal definition as �A style of farmingthen is the complex but interrelated setof notions, norms, knowledge elements,experiences, etc, held by a group offarmers in a specific region, thatdescribes the way farming praxis shouldbe carried out�. Hofstee�s work referredto the pre WWII period, and van derPloeg (1994a: 17) argued that Hofsteedid accept that the styles or �localcultural patterns� did constitute�specific, actively constructed responsesto the structuring principles which thendominated and within which farmingwas embedded�.

Van der Ploeg (1994a) argued that in thepost war period the structuringprinciples have been deeplytransformed, and as a result, the stylesof farming have changed to becomeintraregional responses, and diversitywithin regions emerged. Perhaps it isnot appropriate for us to comment of theapplicability of this argument within theEuropean situation, but such anargument would be invalid in theAustralian context. It is evident thatintraregional diversity has always beena feature of Australian agriculture. Thismay be because of the multi nation

migrant settler base, as well asAustralian agriculture having beenstructured by various governmentpolicies to encourage the pursuit offarming as an occupation by peoplewithout farming backgrounds (seeDovers, 1992; Vanclay, 1997).

Our primary critique of van der Ploeg�searly models describing the emergenceof styles (eg, 1990: 8) is that they allassume a common initial starting point,that is, all farmers start at the �Origin�.Because of this, van der Ploeg (1990,1992, 1997) argues that structuralforces create diversity � farmers havethe space between the trajectories ofintensification and extensification tomanoeuvre. But if all farmers are not atthe same starting point (and thereforenot at the Origin), structural forcespotentially reduce diversity by makingcertain styles unviable. Van der Ploegpotentially accepts this argument andhas changed his representation of thisdiagram in recent publications (seeFigure 2).

Van der Ploeg argues that farming stylesare obvious and known to farmers, andhe regards the classification of styles asan ethnotaxonomy (van der Ploeg, 1989:150; 1994a: 29; Leeuwis, 1993: 80, 199,265).

The point I am making is thatfarmers not only have a shrewdawareness of the diversity ofstyles within a specific region, butfrequently they also have athorough and detailed knowledgeof the interlinking mechanismswith the markets and technologyon which such styles are foundedand of the particular elements ofthe local cultural repertoires thatare mobilized and used indifferent styles (van der Ploeg,1994a: 19).


Empirical research work into farmingstyles by Mesiti and Vanclay (1996,1997) and by Howden et al (1997, 1998,and next paper) has revealed thatfarmers are not aware of the full rangeof styles that are present, nor are theyconsciously aware of their own style. Infact, Howden and Vanclay (1998) arguethat the styles are not tangible empiricalstyles, but are heuristic �parables� thatexist as examples to assist farmers intheir decision making.

A contradiction in van der Ploeg�sunderstanding of farming styles is hisnotion that the styles are socialconstructions that are constantly�produced and reproduced through thegoal-oriented, strategic actions of theactors involved� (1994a: 26), and aretherefore dynamic and nebulouscompared to various diagrams in manyof his publications (for example, van derPloeg, 1994b, 1995b), that suggest thestyles are real empirical entities. Thestyles are �consciously organised� as vander Ploeg (1994a: 26) argues, but surelythey are consciously organised at the

level of the individual farmer and not atthe style level or by a group of farmers,as van der Ploeg appears to suggest.

The notion of heterogeneity notonly applies to farming styles intheir entirety but also to thevariance within each style offarming. This stems from thesimple, but nonetheless quiteoften neglected fact that someactors are more successful thanothers in applying a particularstrategy (van der Ploeg, 1994a:26).

If the styles are socially constructed,and interactively moulded by farmers,then surely they do not exist asempirical external entities, but only inthe form of ideal types as identified byresearchers. Individual farmers mayappreciate the existence of a range ofstyles, but their analysis of the styles (orstrategies) that exist may vary fromother farmers. Van der Ploeg gives anabundance of examples throughout hisworks, but does not really give much

Figure 2: Differential developmental processes in Dutch dairy farming between1969 and 1982

diversityin 1969

Source: van der Ploeg, 1995a: 121 (slightly modified)

Intensity

Scale of farming


page 92

detail about how the examples givenwere actually determined. It is thussomewhat difficult to utilise hismethodology for identifying styles, or tocritique it.

Operationalisation of farmingstyles by Leeuwis

There is no well-articulated methodologyprovided by van der Ploeg in English,not even in the book chapter (1994a)which contains the word �methodology�in its title and which is given as thereference to the methodology in many ofhis publications. However, Cees Leeuwis(1993), a research associate of van derPloeg, provided a detailedoperationalisable methodology thatcould be utilised by anyone seeking toreplicate the work. Because Leeuwis�s(1993) work is in English, and was thefirst work on farming styles Vanclayread, it is the work that we tend to citeas being the research method utilised asthe starting point for our work.Leeuwis�s book has been reviewed in aleading rural sociology journal,Sociologia Ruralis, where it wassuggested that �It is a masterpiece� andthat it was a �significant and originalcontribution to extension theory� (Jones,1995: 127-128). It should be noted thatdiscussions by Vanclay with van derPloeg suggest that van der Ploegoversaw Leeuwis� research and mayhave developed the methodology.Leeuwis (1993: 197, 199) provides twoshort statements that would seem tosupport this view. Thus the followingdescription of the methodology willindicate Leeuwis (1993) as the source,although the reader should understandthat the ideas may have come from vander Ploeg.

Leeuwis (1993) undertook two studiesrelating to the use of computer baseddecision support systems (DSS), onewith dairy farmers in de Achterhoek in

eastern Netherlands, the other with gas-heated hothouse cucumber growers inLimburg, in southern Netherlands.There were differences in themethodology used, and the dairy farmerexample is the most elaborated inLeeuwis (1993: 197-206). Since thedairy example more explicitly addressesfarming styles in the van der Ploegconceptualisation (and may have beendeveloped by van der Ploeg), it is themethodology that will be presented here.Leeuwis�s conclusions, however,following his second study are quitedifferent to those from his first study.

In terms of the dairy farming example,of the 142 farms in de Achterhoek onwhich the dairy DSS was used, 28 wereselected for qualitative interviewing by acomplicated procedure designed toensure representation of diversityamongst the selected sample. Interviewswere subsequently undertaken at 27 ofthose 28 farms. An interview schedulewas then developed covering a widerange of issues including informationdeveloped from the qualitative research.Questionnaires were completed by 104of the 142 farms using the DSS, withrural sociology students being used assurvey interviewers.

In the qualitative interviews, farmerswere asked �to discuss different types offarms that they themselves distinguish�(Leeuwis, 1993: 199). In order �to helpthem reflect on this issue�, theinterviewers (Leeuwis and three otherresearchers) �introduced a scheme withtwo axes [again scale and intensity] andfour descriptions in relation to these�(Leeuwis, 1993: 199). A diagram isprovided by Leeuwis, but it is notnecessary to reproduce it here. Thus theoriginal starting point of van der Ploeg(1990), used in Emilia Romagna anddescribed earlier in this paper, has beenextended to identify four theoreticallyimposed scenarios: (1) high milk-yieldper cow and few cattle per person; (2)


high milk yield per cow and many cattleper person; (3) low milk yield per cowand few cattle per person; and (4) lowmilk yield per cow and many cattle perperson. Questions similar to those usedby van der Ploeg in Emilia Romagnawere used to stimulate discussion.

Leeuwis (1993: 199) suggests that:

From the lively discussions thatwere evoked, the researcherswere able to extract somefrequently recurring descriptionsand labels relating to differenttypes of farmers. � For everylabel, a short description wasmade on the basis of interviewmaterial.

Leeuwis then goes on to say that �these�portraits� were presented and read tofarmers during the survey (withoutmentioning the corresponding label) andfarmers were asked to indicate theextent to which they could identify withit on a three point scale� � �not identify�,�partly identify�, and �fully identify�.Farmers were also asked which singularportrait they identified with most. Theportraits are presented in Box 2.

Leeuwis�s six styles are similar, but notidentical, to the four styles � breeders,calm farmers, stayers and business likefarmers � identified by R. de Bruin andJ. Roex (1994) amongst dairy farmers inthe Friese Wouden (Friesian Woodlands)in The Netherlands. They are alsosimilar to the six styles � multiple-goalers, freewheelers, cowmen,pioneers, machinemen, and optimalfarmers � mentioned by Roep and deBruin (1994) citing a 1990 study by vander Ploeg and D. Roep of dairy farmersin the Dutch veenweiden (pasturelandon peatsoils). There is some confusionbecause van der Ploeg (1994a: 20, 29)lists the farming styles of Friesian dairyfarmers as cowmen, breeders,economical or greedy farmers, big

farmers and intensive farmers, butindicates (page 29) that the results are�largely identical to the research resultsdiscussed in the chapter of Roep and deBruin� (1994).

The portraits were included in thesurvey of 104 farmers. AlthoughLeeuwis (1993: 198) indicates that awide range of questions were asked inthe survey, he presents only limitedanalysis of those additional questions.The main purpose of the survey, at leastas implicit in Leeuwis (1993), was theempirical testing of the portraits. Fourper cent of farmers could not choose asingle portrait as best representingthem. Leeuwis (1993: 202) indicatesthat �we were slightly unhappy with theclassification for a variety of reasons�including: (1) a concern about the lossof information in only using the variablemeasuring style most like the farmer; (2)recall bias by respondents, in that theinterviewers had a suspicion that therespondents did not remember thedetails of the portraits as they wherebeing read out; (3) the distribution offarmers into the categories was differentto that expected based on the interviewdata; and (4) a feeling that the PracticalFarmer portrait was �too vague and/ortoo generally appealing�, so that itbecame a category which containedfurther diversity. Consequently,discriminant analysis was used toclassify farmers into styles using theresponses to the six portraits, with theoriginal self-classification being theinitial classification variable to createthe discriminant equations. Leeuwis(1993: 203) acknowledges that their useof discriminant analysis �deviates fromcommon practice� because discriminantanalysis is normally used either toselect discriminating variables, or, toclassify new cases when informationabout the classification variable is notavailable. In this case, the original casesare being reclassified, with Leeuwis(1993: 203) reporting that �a


page 94

Box 2: Portraits used in the study reported by Leeuwis 1993, pages 200-201.

Portrait 1: (relating to the Multiple Goaler)I like a nice-looking, fat cow. Milk yield is not without importance; turnoverand accretion, however, are very important indicators to me. They are theindicators that I attune my breeding to. By not letting the milk yields increasetoo much, I can keep more cows, and thereby increase turnover andaccretion.

Portrait 2: (relating to the Thrifty Farmer)I try to farm in as economical a way as possible. I reduce costs as much aspossible, and I minimise indebtedness. In this manner, I manage to get agood income and maintain prospects for the future.

Portrait 3: (relating to the Practical farmer)I try to take very good care of everything I do. The art of running a farm is infine tuning. In developing one�s farming enterprise one has to be careful notto shoot beyond the possibilities. One needs to find a practical balance.

Portrait 4: (relating to the Cowmen)I very much enjoy breeding, and to me the sweet things in life are to take careof the animals, and to see the milk flow. This is why I have to pay muchattention to the production of roughage, and the fine tuning of fodder andfeed rations. In order to allow for this way of working I needn�t have too manycattle, since that would be at the expense of individual care and attention.

Portrait 5: (relating to the Machinemen)I most enjoy working with machinery, both on the land and in the garagewhile doing maintenance and repairs. The most important thing to me is todo the work on the land and in the stables as efficiently as possible. I do notaim at the highest milk production per cow; that is not much of a problem,for the masses will make up for it.

Portrait 6: (relating to the Fanatical Farmer)In order to have a good income, one needs to first invest firmly, and spend alot of money. It means that one has to work hard and really push it. That iswhy they sometimes call me a fanatic; but one has to be like that if onewishes to survive.

NOTE: The wording of these portraits may appear a little �strange�. This is because they wereoriginally presented to the farmers in Dutch. Leeuwis has translated them, but has electednot to recraft them in English, but to use an English expression that is as close as possible tothe original Dutch. It should be noted that Dutch grammar and style is quite different toEnglish expression. I might also comment that �the sweet things in life� is a Dutchcolloquialism, and so its use in the cowmen portrait does not have the comical nature inDutch as it does in English.


considerable number (52) of farmers�were reclassified. In other words, inmore conventional statistical-speak, theresultant model only correctly classified50 per cent (52/104) of cases, which isa rather poor result.

Critique of the Leeuwismethodology

While Leeuwis does provide sufficientdetail about the methodology to enablereplication, it also provides detail thatcan be used to critique it. In our view,there are serious concerns about themethodology as implemented byLeeuwis; but the overallconceptualisation is sound, and arevised version of this basic approachhas been utilised by Mesiti and Vanclay(1996, 1997) and Howden et al (nextpaper). To restate: the basicmethodology of Leeuwis is as follows:

1. qualitative interviews wereconducted in which farmersdiscussed the different types offarmers that they themselvesdistinguished

2. frequently occurring labels anddescriptions were identified in theanalysis of the interview data

3. portraits to describe each label(style) were constructed

4. a quantitative questionnaireincluding portraits was developed

5. survey respondents asked howmuch they identified (on a 3-pointscale) with each portrait and whichwas most like them

6. discriminant analysis wasundertaken to predict style based onthe scores of the portraits.

As suggested, there are problems withLeeuwis�s utilisation of this basic

methodology at each step. In the firststep, the use of a startingconceptualisation for discussioninevitably biases the result of thediscussion towards the categories(styles) as already conceived by theresearcher. The possibility of completelydifferent styles emerging is low,especially if the culturally defined stylesare not affected by structuraldimensions. The number of styles isalso likely to be limited. Leeuwis�s(1993: 80) claims that the methodologyis an attempt to �generate taxonomieson the basis of local classifications� and�to move in the direction of a farmer-generated classification� (Leeuwis, 1993:199) appear overstated. Leeuwis (1993:265, 333) subsequently determines thatthe defined styles do not represent anethnotaxonomy as claimed by van derPloeg (1994a: 29), but it should perhapshave been obvious at the beginning thatthey could not have.

The second, third and fourth stepssound fairly straightforward, but whenthey come to be undertaken in practice,it becomes obvious that these steps arequite complex and fraught with possibleerror. In any case, in an attempt atreplication, it emerges that Leeuwisprovides insufficient informativecomment about these steps. The majorproblem is that farmers describe thestyles of other farmers in pejorativeterms, and the detail provided cannoteasily be used as the basis of theportraits as written in the first person.The disparaging comments are usedbecause one way to legitimise one�s ownactivities is to discredit the strategies ofothers. Thus, extensive wordcrafting ofthe portraits is required (see Mesiti &Vanclay, 1996; 1997; Howden &Vanclay, 1998, and next paper). Aconsequence of the wordcrafting is thepotential for the portraits to beinfluenced by the preconvictions of theresearchers and therefore not validrepresentations of the styles as


page 96

perceived by farmers. While theresearchers would attempt to reducesocial desirability, the existence ofnormative views about appropriate farmmanagement makes it impossible toeliminate this entirely.

The fifth step raises many concerns. Thelack of the use of interview cards (forexample, cards containing the portraits)in the interview process meant thatthere was considerable reliance on therespondent�s memory, potentiallyaffecting the reliability of the data. Thiswould especially affect the selection ofthe style that was most like each farmer.Again, Leeuwis provides an inadequatedescription of the process followed bythe interviewers in the event that therespondents did not remember all of theportraits, nor does he comment on theorder in which the portraits werepresented, and, whether this mightaffect the outcome. Order effect is a wellknown source of bias, with first and lastmentioned items tending to be betterremembered.

In addition, Leeuwis has translated theportraits to be read in English in thefirst person. In discussion with him, heassured Vanclay that the Dutchversions were also in the first person.The use of the first person isproblematic when the portrait is beingread to a respondent by the interviewer,although its use would be appropriate ifthe respondent were to read the cardsfor themselves. Finally, the use of onlythree response categories does not allowfor a wide differentiation of responses,and, if further quantitative analysis wasbeing planned, such as the discriminantanalysis, an extended response rangewould have been preferable.

In terms of the sixth step, there doesnot appear to be sufficient justificationto undertake the discriminant analysisin the manner suggested by Leeuwis.The stated reason for its use relates to

concerns about the reliability of thedata, and a need to overcome thepossible error due to social desirabilityand memory issues. But in order todevelop the discriminant model thatmight be a better predictor of style, thestatistical procedure requires accuracyin the data of the initial cases. Becausethe potentially misplaced cases areincluded in the original analysis tocreate the equations, little faith can beplaced in the ability of these equationsto accurately predict the style of afarmer. Why use the six style portraitsas the independent or predictorvariables? Surely there is error in thosevariables too? Could not other data thatwere collected in the survey have provedmore helpful? In any case, since there isa direct relationship between theindependent (predictor) variables (thesix styles) and the dependent(classification) variable (the style mostlike the farmer), surely there would bemulticolinearity and other statisticalproblems that would void theprocedure, or, at least create difficultiesin interpreting the results, especially inthe direct entry method (rather thanstepwise procedure) used by Leeuwis.Leeuwis provides no suggestion thatthis is the case, and the detail providedis not sufficient to determine this.

Leeuwis (1993: 202) provides resultssuggesting that his functions �explainalmost 89 per cent of the variance�imputing this as a successful result ofhis analysis. However, this figure ismeaningless � it merely says that thethree functions explain that amount ofvariance. With a dependent variablewith six response categories, it wouldtake five functions to explain all of thevariance. The result being reported hereindicates that the remaining twoequations do not provide much moreadditional explanation (are notsignificant) and an analysis using threeequations is sufficient. This result is nota statement of the accuracy of the


classification process, only evidencethat using three functions instead of fiveis statistically defensible.

One of the conventional measures ofsuccess in discriminant analysis is thenumber of cases correctly classified. ButLeeuwis (1993: 203) reports that thediscriminant analysis �helped us toreclassify a considerable number [52] offarmers�. He appears somewhat evasivehere, because � reinterpreted � thismeans that the discriminant analysisonly correctly classified 50 per cent (52/104) of cases. Since Leeuwis�s purposeis the reclassification of existing cases,what is the measure of success of theanalysis? If it is not possible to use thesolution that maximises the percentageof correctly classified cases, how can theresearcher/statistician choose whichmethod is better? In discriminantanalysis, the major statistical measureof success is not �correctly classifiedcases�, but rather the ratio of between-groups variability to within-groupsvariability, and is measured by theeigenvalue. However, maximising thistends to increase correctly classifiedcases as well (Norusis, 1988). Leeuwisclearly violates the assumptions of thediscriminant analysis procedure andlacks independent data to determinehow his farmers ought to be classified.

Leeuwis analyses his discriminantanalysis results further, attempting aform of multidimensional scaling bylabelling the dimensions created by thethree significant discriminant functions,and by using the function coefficients toplot cases (each farmer) inmultidimensional space. A thoroughrefutation of this would need a greaterarticulation of statistical theory than isappropriate in this paper. Suffice it tosay that we are suspicious of thelegitimacy of this approach, and doubtits utility even if it was acceptable.Given the problems with the accuracy ofthe data and the validity of the

functions, even if it was legitimate anduseful, it would not be appropriate inthis case. However, some form ofmultidimensional analysis using a widerrange of variables (not just the portraitscores) could be a useful procedure.

The general need for the use ofdiscriminant analysis also should bequestioned. It may not be necessary toclassify farmers as actually belonging toa specific style. Obviously, in testingwhether styles are tangible, actualconcepts which farmers embody, then itwill be necessary to empirically test thestyle by determining the ease ofclassification and �goodness of fit� offarmers into their designated styles.However, if the styles are conceived of asideal types, which farmers adapt to suitthemselves, rather than adopt in toto(see Howden & Vanclay, 1998), thenclassification of farmers into stylescould be meaningless. To the extent thatstyles are heuristics, if the purpose ofidentifying styles is for the targeting ofstrategies of extension, then theclassification of farmers into styles maywell be unnecessary, unless one-to-oneextension is being considered.

Leeuwis�s questionnaire included arange of data other than the portraits.Leeuwis uses this data to construct afour to five page description of eachstyle (pages 217-248). While thesedescriptions are interesting, there islittle evidence to support many of thecomments made. Of the data that arestatistically analysed, very little of thereported findings are statisticallysignificant, but the lack of significancedoes not stop Leeuwis (1993: 208)analysing them:

Moreover, I use the indicatorseven when the differences are notstatistically significant.Nevertheless, since the indicatorshelp indeed to get quickoverviews, and because the


page 98

differences may have asociological (rather than astatistical) significance (see section6.3), I have chosen to use themanyway.

To us, this is simply unacceptable and aviolation of basic understanding ofstatistical concepts. What is sociologicalsignificance? Does he mean sociologicalmeaning? Can sociological meaningexist independent of statisticalsignificance? Leeuwis�s discussion in hisSection 6.3 does not address theseissues to the extent it should. Withinsignificant findings, Leeuwis ploughson regardless, when caution shoulddictate and say that there is noevidence. The profound effect of this isthat Leeuwis has reified his styles andthe differences he perceives, when hisdata says there are no differencesbetween the styles on some of thevariables indicated. What does it meanwhen the variables for which there is apredicted difference, are not statisticallysignificant? Surely it means that eitherthe classification of farmers into stylesis unreliable, or that theconceptualisation of the six styles isinvalid since predicted hypotheses arenot supported, and the styles fail to bestatistically differentiated on keyvariables, or both.

So far, details of the second study byLeeuwis � that of hothouse cucumbergrowers � have not been given. However,it is worth noting that in this studyLeeuwis fails to identify mutuallyexclusive styles, but settles on theidentification of three key factors, eachof which can be used to differentiatetypes of growers. Because of this,Leeuwis (1993: 333) backs away fromhis prior commitment to farming stylesperspective, especially its perception asan ethnotaxonomy � even though in thiscase study there was no startingframework as existed with the dairyfarmers! However his retraction from the

usefulness of farming styles is hastyand inappropriate. By selecting toonarrow a group of growers (as hehimself acknowledges), the potential forfarming styles to be identified is limited.

Before discussing diversity amongcucumber growers in the southernstudy club, I must emphasize thatthey constitute a rather particulargroup of growers. As is implied bythe official name of the study club(�Stoke-Cucumber Study ClubBrabant/Limburg�) all growers inthis club have adopted aparticular technological package,which centres around the use ofsubstrate and the heating of theglasshouse with a central stoking-unit and heated water tubes(which at the same time are usedas rails for transportation trolleys).Thus, these enterprises arecharacterized by lay outs,practices and technologies thatare rather different from those inmore conventional enterprises, inwhich growers use hot aircannons for heating and (in manycases) plant their crops in the soil.In fact, these differences are soextensive that they havestimulated (and legitimized) theestablishment of a separate�stoke-cucumber study club�, nextto the �hot-air-cucumber studyclub� (Leeuwis, 1993: 286).

Leeuwis further states that all growersin this club would be regarded as�frontrunners� (innovators), or, in termsof the descriptions used in a 1992report by Spaan and van der Ploeg,�Toppers� (Top Growers), as opposed to�Echte Tuinders� (Real Growers) or�Middenmoters� (In-Betweeners).

On one end of the extreme, theTop Growers are (roughlyspeaking) described asspecialised growers, who tend to


grow on substrate and who investheavily in new technology with theview of producing as much aspossible per square metre � Incontrast, Real Growers are farless specialised, tend to grow onsoil and make much more use oftheir own labour andcraftsmanship (or l�art de lalocalité) rather than of technology.� In terms of this particularclassification of horticulturalstyles, I would no doubt have toclassify virtually all members ofthe stoke-cucumber study club asTop Growers. Thus using thislatter classification would leavelittle room for discussing diversitywithin the group ofhorticulturalists underinvestigation (Leeuwis, 1993:287).

Nevertheless, Leeuwis (1993: 286-287)reports that �although the growersunder investigation already belong to aparticular sub-category, my studyshows that even within this group thereis considerable diversity�. The casestudy provides a good discussion for theneed for decision support systems tounderstand social considerations, andcould even be thought of as a casestudy of a particular style, perhaps oneinvestigating residual diversity within astyle. Leeuwis is wrong to back awayfrom commitment to the concept offarming styles on the basis of that casestudy. Given the existence of residualdiversity, the issue arises as to whatextent the styles are deterministic.

A final major criticism of the van derPloeg and Leeuwis works is that theyare gender blind in that there is littlereference to females and thepresumption is that farmers are male,and that women�s contribution tofarming is unimportant. Leeuwis (1993:

198) even suggests that �in quite a fewcases farmers� wives and/or childrenparticipated actively� in the qualitativeinterviews. However, the language ofmasculine extension prevails:�interviews were held with the (mostlymale) nominal �head� of the [farm]enterprise� (Leeuwis, 1993: 198). S.Whatmore (1994) has already criticisedthe farming styles concept on thismatter, yet she fails to appreciate thepotential for a farming stylesconceptualisation which includesgender issues.

The critique of the van der Ploeg theoryand the Leeuwis methodology hasformed the basis of an improvedmethodology, and a newconceptualisation of farming styles isbeing forged through research nowbeing undertaken in Australia.

Farming styles research inAustralia

Despite many problems, the concept offarming styles holds much promise. Thetheory, stripped of its marketstructuration, could be used to explainsociocultural diversity in Australianagriculture. The failure of extension inAustralia (Vanclay, 1994b) is partlycaused by the failure of extension toappreciate differences between theirvarious clients, and the treatment offarmers as homogenous (Vanclay, 1997;Vanclay & Lawrence, 1995a, 1995b). Bydeveloping a true emic approach, abetter understanding of the differingworldviews and rationales of differenttypes of farmers could be developed,and this could be used in the promotionof sustainable agriculture, throughbetter extension targeting, as well asinforming agricultural science of the


page 100

problems as perceived by (differenttypes of) farmers.2

In market research, marketsegmentation is common practice.Market research companies havedeveloped sophisticated schema toclassify people according to consumerbehaviour. Unfortunately, most of thisanalysis is unpublished proprietaryinformation. Agrichemical resellers alsohave their proprietary and/or personalclassifications of farmers to assist themin their marketing. In education, D.A.Kolb�s (1984) learning styles is a widelyaccepted concept, so the notion thatthere is diversity that is explainable bythe development of types or styles isentrenched. At a minimum, farmingstyles is the identification of groupingsof farmers that have commonworldviews and/or managementpractices.

For Vanclay (1997), the way tounderstand farmer behaviour andoutlook on life, especially in terms ofenvironmental management, is theappreciation of farming practice as asocial construction created by differentfarmers in different ways. Initially, thisled him to explore the concept of variousfarming subcultures, but exposure tothe farming styles perspective providedanother avenue of exploration.Involvement in two CooperativeResearch Centres (Viticulture and WeedManagement Systems), provided theopportunity to implement this researchin practical application in collaborativeresearch with postgraduate students.

Lessons learnt from theAustralian experience

Mesiti and Vanclay (1997) found thatwhile almost all grapegrowers couldselect a style as being most like them,the styles tended not to be mutuallyexclusive with grapegrowers able toidentify parts in many styles that wererelevant to them. They conclude that �itis likely that the styles are heuristicideal types which are used by farmers intheir interpretation of farming practice,rather than empirical entities thatexplain precisely what farmers actuallydo and what they think� (Mesiti &Vanclay, 1997: 286-287). A furtherconcern was that some portraits workedbetter than others, and that theportraits may not be a reliable or validway to represent the styles. Styles mayor may not exist as real tangible entities,but some other methodology would beneeded to identify them. Howden�spreliminary results are provided in thenext paper, and are similar to those ofMesiti. Howden, however, discovered atotal of 27 potential styles in broadacrecropping, raising questions about whatactually constitutes �a style�. While thestyles were relatively easily identified inthe focus group data, it was impossibleto identify farmers who embodied thosestyles in reality, leading to theconclusion that the styles only exist asmythical entities (see Howden andVanclay, 1998). Howden and Vanclay(1998) also raise concerns about themethodology used, and suggest that thefocus group processes lead to thearticulation of mythical styles, which

2 R.M. Keesing (1976: 173), in an introductory anthropology textbook, describesemic and etic thus: �An emic analysis of behaviour takes an actor�s eye viewand analyses the stream of events in terms of its internal structure � [Thiscan be contrasted] with etic analysis, where the observer uses a descriptivenotation derived from comparative study and describes the behaviour fromthis external perspective. (The two are not incompatible, but can be used atdifferent stages for different purposes � ).�


can become embellished by theresearchers in the wordcrafting requiredto produce portraits.

The farming styles research projectsthat have been implemented inAustralia have contributed to thecritique of the theory, and have led tothe development of an improvedmethodology for farming styles research.While there are many concerns aboutthe Leeuwis methodology, itsfundamental basis is sound, and muchcould be done to salvage the theory. Themost important point is the desirabilityof the development of an approach thatdoes not rely on a startingconceptualisation embedded in marketstructure.

The approach that has been developedwas used first by Mesiti and Vanclay(1996, 1997) and then Howden andVanclay (1998 and next paper). Adifferent approach was used by Glydeand Vanclay (1996). We had hoped thatthis new approach would be trulyethnotaxonomic or emic, as wasintended by van der Ploeg and Leeuwis.However, as we have argued earlier,their methods are really no advance onother researcher-defined or eticclassifications, except that they arebased on a different theoretical position.Thus, instead of using qualitativeinterviews with the starting framework(to legitimate the preconceived styles),focus groups were utilised wheregeneral discussion about the types offarmers that exist have been used asthe basis of developing a trueethnotaxonomy (although we are nowunsure about whether they really exist!).

The methodology as used by Mesiti andVanclay (1996, 1997) and then byHowden in the following paper, revolvedaround the use of a structuredparticipation activity requiringparticipants to write responses on indexcards, which were then used as the

basis of a pinboard themeing process.This method ensured participation byall present, and limited the undesirableinfluence of social dynamics. Opendiscussion, facilitated by the focusgroup coordinator following thethemeing of the responses to the cardtechnique, provided fuller descriptionsof the identified styles. The questionsused for the card technique to elicitresponses were:

1. describe yourself as a farmer (singlecard)

2. describe how you differ from otherfarmers (single card)

3. describe all the different types offarmers you know of in your area(one per card).

To overcome concerns about genderblindness in farming styles, focusgroups were undertaken with farmwomen with comparisons to determinewhether the identified styles differedfrom those identified by farm men.Focus groups were also conducted withextension officers, rural counsellors,and others having an awareness offarmers. Potentially, the stylesthemselves could reflect different genderrelationships. Once freed of theideological commitment to marketpositioning that was imposed by van derPloeg and Leeuwis, it is possible thaton-farm gender relations may be one ofthe differentiating variables of some ofthe styles.

Improvements in the survey stage of themethodology, as implemented by Mesitiand Vanclay, include using interviewcards containing the portraits whichfarmers would read themselves. At theend of the rating process where farmersrate each card (portrait), all the cardswere handed back to the respondent forthem to select the card that was mostlike them. Such a procedure would


page 102

eliminate any memory bias, but notunfortunately social desirabilityresponse bias, nor bias due to thefarmer�s ability to intellectualise. Otherimprovements included increasing thenumber of response categories availablein response to the portraits to four: a lotlike me, a fair bit like me, a little bit likeme, and not at all like me.

To overcome the problem ofintellectualisation, to some extent atleast, instead of using portrait cardswritten in the first person, namedcaricatures or cartoon-like figures couldbe created (although this has not yetbeen trialled). Farmers could then beasked how much like (the cartooncharacter) �Bill� they are, how much like�Joe� they are, and potentially how muchlike �Sue� they are � although theanalysis of gender in farming stylesrequires greater consideration (cf,Whatmore, 1994). Assumptions thatfarms are run by couples are equally asfalse as assumptions that farms are runby men � there is a diversity ofmanagement styles. A final approachcould be to create short video clips withactors talking about themselves(describing a portrait). Althoughexpensive and time-consuming, thiswould be the best approach as it wouldovercome issues relating to level ofliteracy and level of intellectualisationand abstraction that the other methodspresume.

While the need for discriminant analysishas already been questioned in generalterms, validation of the identifiedfarming styles is required if the stylesare conceived of as empirical entities,and not just as ideal types or heuristics.A primary purpose of a classificationprocedure, such as discriminantanalysis, might be the selection ofvariables which could be used toclassify farmers into styles instead ofusing portraits (since the portraittechnique is time-consuming and

costly). It might be possible to identifyvariables that could classify farmersinto styles on the basis of data that wasalready available, or easily obtainable.Another reason would be to gaininformation about which variables dodifferentiate between the styles toenhance the understanding of the stylesthemselves. Thus the survey componentshould include a broad range ofquestions which could be used toidentify differences between styles.Mesiti and Vanclay (1997) providedetails about the types of analyses thatcould be undertaken.

Analysis of differences between stylesstill rests on an accurate classificationof farmers into styles. Whether thediscriminant analysis is done or not,there are errors at the level of portraitconstruction and in having farmers self-rate portraits, especially portraitswordcrafted by researchers. Rather thanrely on self assessment, anotherstrategy to classify farmers into stylesmight be that farmers are allocated tothe appropriate category by the use ofexpert assessment rather than self-assessment. Experts may be theresearchers themselves, or may be keyinformants, such as other farmers orextension officers. The use of extensionofficers to classify farmers into styleswas attempted by Howden and Vanclay(1998), but was not successful.

While this improved methodology wouldalleviate many of the criticisms levelledat Leeuwis and van der Ploeg, there areremaining concerns. If the styles are notconsciously held, farmers may not self-identify with a particular description,even though it may be an appropriatedescription of that farmer�s style. Thesocial desirability of certain styles andnegative connotations of certain othersmay mean that respondents are notstrictly honest when considering theirown situation. Differences between(styles of) farmers may mean that there


is not a common language, so the use ofqualitative means to identify styles anddescriptions may cause problems,especially those epistemologicalapproaches that are ideologicallycommitted to the notion of �giving voice�as an important component of (action)research.

Conclusion

There are a number of issues that areyet to be resolved. Leeuwis and van derPloeg would argue that the styles arereal, tangible and discretely identifiable.They also suggest that farmers areacutely aware of their own style, and ofthe total repertoire of styles. TheAustralian research would seem toquestion this. Perhaps styles areheuristic ideal types that farmersapproximate, rather than tangibleentities that farmers can easily beclassified within (see Howden &Vanclay, 1998). At least the stylesidentified by farmers in focus groupswould appear to be so, but it might stillbe possible for there to be �real� styles towhich farmers could be classified,although farmers are not aware of thosestyles. There needs to be greaterarticulation of the nature of such styles.This issue also raises questions whetherstyles need be mutually exclusivecategories, or whether styles exist asdimensions in a multidimensional space(see Glyde & Vanclay, 1996).

Are farming styles properties of a farmor a farmer? How can they be propertiesof a farm if they are socially based andembody or incorporate social attitudes?One response to this question is givenby the reflection that if farm technicalactivity is cultural, then meaningfuldifferentiation of technical practicescould well indicate differences in style.So even if we accept that styles areproperties of farmers, differences infarm practices could represent the

manifestation of the style differences.However, such an approach does notresolve the issues of how we deal withdifferences between individuals within afarming enterprise.

Some farmers farm differentcommodities. In broadacre cropping,farming needs to be thought of in termsof a cropping system, with differentcrops and pasture phases in a farmingrotation; but the grazing aspect is quitedifferent from the cropping aspect, withsome farmers (styles) having distinctpreferences either for grazing or forcropping. In viticulture, Mesiti andVanclay (1996) found that somegrapegrowers also grow citrus, andoccasionally other crops. How are farmsor farmers to be classified into styleswhen they manifest different stylesdepending on the crop? Is it possiblethat the styles that are identified wouldvary among the same farmersdepending on the point of entry, or theissue of interest that is inspiring theresearch?

The extent of the hegemonic influence ofextension discourse in affecting farmers'own constructions of difference isrevealed through people familiar withRogers' adoption categoriessometimes failing to differentiatebetween those categories and thefarmer derived categories presentedhere (see Mesiti & Vanclay, 1997;Howden & Vanclay, 1998; and nextpaper). Clearly, this influence is aproblem when it comes to establishingfarmers' own constructions. How do weget past hegemonic extension? Doeshegemonic extension represent aproblem because it subordinatesfarmers� own cultural understanding �or do we accept that extension is one ofthe influences that farmers are exposedto, and that farming culture comes toembody extension language? If weaccept the latter, then, extensioncategories could be considered as


page 104

legitimate as any other categoriesfarmers might conceptualise.

The final remaining questions about thefarming styles concept relate to how thestyles change over time, and howfarmers change styles. How permanentor enduring are the styles, both in termsof the styles themselves, and also interms of farmers� membership in astyle? How are farmers recruited tostyles? Further research will explorethese questions.

It is clear that farming styles is a usefulconceptualisation of diversity inagriculture. However, styles of farmingcannot be identified in the mannersuggested by van der Ploeg, and themethodology developed by van der Ploegas articulated by Leeuwis (1993) isfraught with problems. Nevertheless thebasic methodology can be adapted andimproved, and has been implementedsuccessfully in Australia. A result ofthat application is our conclusion thatfarming styles should be thought of asheuristic models of possible action (ie,exemplars) that guide farmers (Howdenand Vanclay, 1998). It is possiblehowever, that some form of tangiblefarming styles may exist, but if they do,they are not obvious or known tofarmers and they cannot be identified byfocus group techniques which seem topromote the articulation of mythologisedimages about farming.

References

Bennett, J.W. 1982. Of time and theenterprise: North American family farmmanagement in a context of resourcemarginality. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press.

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theory ofpractice. London: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Bourdieu, P. 1990. The logic of practice.Cambridge: Polity.

Buttel, F.H. 1994. �Agricultural change,rural society and the state in the latetwentieth century: Some theoreticalobservations�. In D. Symes & A.J.Jansen. (eds) Agricultural restructuringand rural change in Europe. WageningenStudies in Sociology Number 37,Department of Sociology, WageningenAgricultural University: 13-31.

de Bruin, R. & J. Roex. 1994. �Farmerinitiatives as countervailing power: Anew approach to sustainableagricultural development�. In D. Symes& A.J. Jansen. (eds) Agriculturalrestructuring and rural change in Europe.Wageningen Studies in SociologyNumber 37, Department of Sociology,Wageningen Agricultural University:195-208.

Dovers, S. 1992. �The history of naturalresource use in rural Australia�. In G.Lawrence, F. Vanclay & B. Furze. (eds)Agriculture, environment and society:Contemporary issues for Australia.Melbourne: Macmillan.

Glyde, S. & Vanclay, F. 1996. �Farmingstyles and technology transfer:Sociological input in the development ofa Decision Support System forViticulture�. In G. Lawrence, K. Lyons &S. Momtaz. (eds) Social change in ruralAustralia. Rockhampton: Rural Socialand Economic Research Centre, CentralQueensland University: 38-54.

Hofstee, E.W. 1985. Groningen, vangrasland naar bouwland, 1750-1930.Wageningen: PUDOC (cited by van derPloeg 1994).

Howden, P. & F. Vanclay. 1998.�Mythologisation of farming styles inAustralian broadacre cropping�. Papersubmitted to Rural Sociology.


Howden, P., F. Vanclay, D. Lemerle & J.Kent. 1998. �Working with the grain�.Rural Society 8(2): 109-125

Jones, G.E. 1995. (book review)�Leeuwis, C. (1993) Of computers, mythsand modelling ...�. Sociologia Ruralis 35(1): 127-128.

Keesing, R.M. 1976. Culturalanthropology: A contemporaryperspective. New York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston.

Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential learning:Experience as the source of learning anddevelopment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Leeuwis, C. 1993. Of computers, mythsand modelling: The social construction ofdiversity, knowledge, information andcommunication technologies in Dutchhorticulture and agricultural extension.Wageningen Studies in SociologyNumber 36, Department of Sociology,Wageningen Agricultural University.

Mendras, H. 1970. The vanishingpeasant: Innovation and change inFrench agriculture. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Mesiti, L. & F. Vanclay. 1996. �Farmingstyles amongst grape growers of theSunraysia district�. In G. Lawrence, K.Lyons & S. Momtaz. (eds) Social changein rural Australia. Rockhampton: RuralSocial and Economic Research Centre,Central Queensland University: 55-63.

Mesiti, L. & F. Vanclay. 1997.�Identifying farming styles in Australianviticulture�. In F. Vanclay & L. Mesiti.(eds) Sustainability and social research.Wagga Wagga: Centre for Rural SocialResearch, Charles Sturt University:275-288.

Norusis, M. 1988. SPSS-X advancedstatistics guide (2nd edn). Chicago: SPSSInc.

Phillips, E. & I. Gray. 1995. �Farmingpractice as temporally and spatiallysituated intersections of biography,culture and social structure�. AustralianGeographer 26 (2): 127-132.

Portela, E. 1994. �Manuring in Barroso:A crucial farming practice�. In J.D. vander Ploeg & A. Long. (eds) Born fromwithin: Practice and perspectives ofendogenous rural development. Assen:van Gorcum. 59-70.

Roep, D. & R. de Bruin. 1994. �Regionalmarginalisation, styles of farming andtechnology development�. In J.D. vander Ploeg & A. Long. (eds) Born fromwithin: Practice and perspectives ofendogenous rural development. Assen:van Gorcum: 217-227.

Vanclay, F. 1992 �The social context offarmers� adoption of environmentallysound farming practices�. In G.Lawrence, F. Vanclay & B. Furze. (eds)Agriculture, environment and society:Contemporary issues for Australia.Melbourne: Macmillan: 94-121.

Vanclay, F. 1993. �Social andenvironmental implications of reducedagricultural extension services: Or whytraditional extension ought to bemaintained�. Paper presented to theannual meeting of The AustralianSociological Association, MacquarieUniversity, December, 1993.

Vanclay, F. 1994a. The sociology of theAustralian agricultural environment.Wageningen Agricultural University, TheNetherlands [published (sic) PhDthesis]. ISBN 90-5485-247-X.

Vanclay, F. 1994b. �A crisis inagricultural extension�. Rural Society 4(1): 10-13.


page 106

Vanclay, F. 1995a. �Actors andstructures in agriculture�. In F. Vanclay.(ed) With a rural focus: Proceedings of the1994 annual conference of TheAustralian Sociological Association.Wagga Wagga: Centre for Rural SocialResearch, Charles Sturt University: 89-128.

Vanclay, F. 1995b. �Weed managementwithin farming styles�. In D. Lemerle &S. Corey. (eds) Survey workshop:Proceedings of a workshop held atWagga Wagga in December 1995.Cooperative Research Centre for WeedManagement Systems: 40-42.

Vanclay, F. 1997. �The sociologicalcontext of environmental managementin agriculture�. In S. Lockie & F.Vanclay. (eds) Critical Landcare. KeyPapers Series Number 5. Wagga Wagga:Centre for Rural Social Research,Charles Sturt University: 9-27.

Vanclay, F. & G. Lawrence. 1994.�Farmer rationality and the adoption ofenvironmentally sound practices: Acritique of the assumptions oftraditional agricultural extension�.European Journal of AgriculturalEducation and Extension 1 (1): 59-90.

Vanclay, F. & G. Lawrence. 1995a.�Agricultural extension as socialwelfare�. Rural Society 5 (1): 20-33.

Vanclay, F. & G. Lawrence. 1995b. Theenvironmental imperative: Ecosocialconcerns for Australian agriculture.Rockhampton: Central QueenslandUniversity Press.

van der Ploeg, J.D. 1986, �Theagricultural labour process andcommoditization�. In N. Long et al. (eds)The commoditization debate: Labourprocess, strategy and social network,Wageningen Studies in Sociology 17.Wageningen Agricultural University: 24-57.

van der Ploeg, J.D. 1989. �Knowledgesystems, metaphor and interface: Thecase of potatoes in the Peruvianhighlands�. In N. Long. (ed) Encountersat the interface: A perspective on socialdiscontinuities in rural development.Wageningen Studies in Sociology 27.Wageningen Agricultural University:145-163.

van der Ploeg, J.D. 1990. Labor,markets, and agricultural production.Boulder: Westview.

van der Ploeg, J.D. 1992. �Thereconstruction of locality: Technologyand labour in modern agriculture�. In T.Marsden, P. Lowe & S. Whatmore. (eds)Labour and locality: Uneven developmentand the rural labour process. London:David Fulton Publishers: 19-43.

van der Ploeg, J.D. 1993. �Ruralsociology and the new agrarianquestion: A perspective from TheNetherlands�. Sociologia Ruralis 33 (2):240-260.

van der Ploeg, J.D. 1994a. �Styles offarming: An introductory note onconcepts and methodology�. In J.D. vander Ploeg & A. Long. (eds) Born fromwithin: Practice and perspectives ofendogenous rural development. Assen:van Gorcum: 7-30.

van der Ploeg, J.D. 1994b. �Agriculturalproduction and employment:Differential practices and perspectives�.In C.H.A. Verhaar & P.M. de Klaver. (eds)The functioning of economy and labourmarket in a peripheral region � the caseof Friesland. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy:68-92.


van der Ploeg, J.D. 1995a. �Fromstructural development to structuralinvolution: The impact of newdevelopment in Dutch agriculture�. InJ.D. van der Ploeg & G. van Dijk. (eds)Beyond Modernisation: the impact ofendogenous rural development. Assen:van Gorcum: 109-146.

van der Ploeg, J.D. 1995b. �The tragedyof spatial planning�. In J.F. Th. Schouteet al. (eds) Scenario studies for the ruralenvironment. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 75-90.

van der Ploeg, J.D. & A. Long (eds).1994. Born from within: Practice andperspectives of endogenous ruraldevelopment. Assen: van Gorcum.

van der Ploeg, J.D. & G. van Dijk (eds)1995. Beyond modernisation: The impactof endogenous rural development. Assen:van Gorcum.

Whatmore, S. 1994. �Farm householdstrategies and styles of farming:Assessing the utility of farm typologies�.In J.D. van der Ploeg & A. Long. (eds).Born from within: Practice andperspectives of endogenous ruraldevelopment. Assen: van Gorcum: 31-37.

Acknowledgments

Frank Vanclay became exposed to thefarming styles concept as a result of asabbatical at Wageningen AgriculturalUniversity in The Netherlands in 1993.Frank would very much like to thankProf Niels Röling and Prof Norman Longfor their support during his stay inWageningen at that time, and forsubsequent discussions. Discussionswith Cees Leeuwis at that time werealso very important to his awareness ofthe concept. Since then, discussionswith Prof Jan Douwe van der Ploeg havebeen helpful. The opportunity to testfarming styles ideas has been madepossible through the support of theCooperative Research Centre forViticulture and the CooperativeResearch Centre for Weed ManagementSystems. Colleagues in these CRCsincluding Scott Glyde, Brian Freeman,Deirdre Lemerle, John Kent, and SteveSutherland have also been helpful. Thispaper is a development of variousconference presentations that FrankVanclay has given over the years,including: The Australian SociologicalAssociation (1994, 1995, 1996); theAustralian Association for SocialResearch (1995), International RuralSociological Association (Bucharest1996), Agriculture, Food and HumanValues Society (Madison 1997), and theEuropean Society for Rural Sociology(Chania 1997).

Dr Frank Vanclay is an Associate Director and Key Researcher ofthe Centre for Rural Social Research at Charles Sturt University.

He is also affiliated with the Cooperative Research Centre forViticulture and the Cooperative Research Centre for Weed

Management Systems.

Luciano Mesiti is a PhD student at Charles Sturt University and issponsored by the Cooperative Research Centre for Viticulture.

Peter Howden is a PhD student at Charles Sturt University and issponsored by the Cooperative Research Centre for Weed

Management Systems.


page 108

Building Partnerships forBetter Development

1st International Outlook Conference onCommunity Development in Asia-Pacific

3�5 September 1998Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University

Thailand

Sponsored by Charles Sturt University

(Centre for Rural Social Research)

andSukhothai Thammathirat Open University

in association with theOpen University of Ho Chi Mihn City

The conference will focus on building partnerships and strategicalliances for linking social and economic development. Theemphasis is on ways for local communities and grass roots

organisations, governments and non-government organisations,business non-profit organisations and universities to work

together strategically to improve social and economicdevelopment.

Contact Professor Robert Doyletel: (02) 6933 2840 fax: (02) 6933 2293

email: [email protected]

Introduction: van der Ploeg’sfarming styles theory

Farming styles theory of J.D. van derPloeg represents a promising method forconceiving and understanding diversityin agriculture, even if there are sometheoretical contradictions and questionsabout its practical application andoperationalisation (see Vanclay, Mesitiand Howden, preceding paper). Theintention of this research was to test theapplicability of farming styles theory inthe Australian context, as a suitableclassification procedure to assist in thetargeting of extension of the products ofagricultural research � particularly theresearch of the Cooperative ResearchCentre for Weed Management Systems(CRCWMS). A major concern of theCRCWMS is the development ofresistance of some weed species tocommonly used herbicides. By using afarming styles conceptualisation, theweed management strategies of thedifferent styles of farmers might beidentified, with possible targeting ofextension to encourage the wideradoption of improved weed managementto reduce the reliance on agriculturalchemicals � at least to prevent thedevelopment of resistance.

In this study, focus groups wereconducted in the Riverina region ofsouthwest NSW to identify the possiblefarming styles that may exist inbroadacre cropping. By focusing on itspractical application in the broadacre

cropping context, this paper reflects onthe theory of farming styles; discussesproblems in the methodology; andaddresses some of the key questionsabout the farming styles concept asraised in the previous paper. We alsopresent a description of the styles thatwere identified by farmers, and thewordcrafted �portraits� which will beused in further research.

Methodology

Ten focus groups were conducted withina 200 km radius of Wagga Waggabetween March and May 1997. Ninesessions were with farmers, six withfarm men, two with farm women, andone mixed. The final group consisted ofgovernment and private agronomistsand a rural counsellor. Farmerparticipants were selected by a variety ofmethods, including contacting thecoordinators (usually farmers) ofexisting Landcare and farm-walkgroups. These coordinators contactedand organised participants for the focusgroups. Some participants wererecruited by contacting farmers in alocality from a list provided byagronomists. Working with existinggroups, or with those from a smalllocality, was considered desirablebecause it overcame some of theproblems of getting farmers together inan agreed location, at an agreed time.

Working with the Grain:Farming styles amongstAustralian broadacre croppers

by Peter Howden, Frank Vanclay, Deirdre Lemerle and John Kent


page 110

The general focus group methodologywas adapted from that developed byMesiti and Vanclay (1996) for their useamongst grape growers in the Sunraysiadistrict around Mildura (and seeVanclay, Mesiti and Howden, thisvolume). In the focus groups, astructured participation exercise wasused in which farmers were asked towrite responses to three questions on toindex cards: (1) Describe yourself as afarmer; (2) describe how you differ fromother farmers in the area; (3) Describeall the different types of farmers in thearea (one type per card). Answers to thethird question were �themed� on apinboard with farmers asked whethereach selected card was the same ordifferent to those already on the board.Each emerging �style� was discussed andexpanded upon by the participants afterthe themeing process (the focus groupprocess is described at greater length inHowden & Vanclay, 1998; and Howden,forthcoming). In addition to the threegeneral questions, participants wereasked about weed managementstrategies and also how these mightvary according to the styles identified.The focus group process was recordedand transcribed.

Focus groups were held in communitysettings, usually meeting rooms inhotels and sporting clubs, in theevening or afternoon. The formalprocess lasted about two to three hours,and was followed by informal socialdiscussion with liquid refreshment. Thispost-session discussion provided theopportunity to gain feedback on how theprocess worked, and more particularlyhow the participants related to theprocess, and to the emergent styles.

Focus group outcomes

There was a general willingness andinterest by farmers in being involved.

Farm group organisers had relativelylittle trouble in assembling participantsfor focus groups, and there was a highlevel of acceptance from those farmerscontacted individually.

Some early indication of theacceptability of the concept came fromthe responses of contact farmers, anumber of whom asked if a �range� oftypes of farmers was required. Thisindicates acceptance by farmers thatthere is some obvious diversity presentin the farming community. It should benoted that no mention of the ultimatepurpose of the focus groups wasindicated, with the emphasis instead onthe general goal of the research � theneed to develop a general picture of thefarming community in farmers� ownwords.

Most groups were able to relate to theconcept in a general way, but wereunable to identify a wide range of styles.However, in the informal discussionsthat took place after the formal process,farmers were accepting of the styles thatwere mentioned as having arisen fromother groups. Thus there is anacceptance of the existence of �styles�,but it is clear that farmers are notconscious of their own style, nor do theyroutinely or systematically classify otherfarmers in terms of styles.

A problem that emerged in the processwas the prevalence of extensionlanguage, with adopter categoriesfrequently being mentioned as groups orstyles � as occurred in similar researchconducted in viticulture (see Mesiti &Vanclay, 1996; and previous paper). Thefocus group facilitators (Howden andVanclay) made a special effort toemphasise that what they were afterwas not necessarily extensioncategories, but the way farmers thoughtabout other farmers in their own terms.

Working with the grain � Howden, Vanclay, Lemerle and Kent

The issue of the different meaningsindividuals attach to labels also becameimportant during the focus groupprocess. Farmers were asked to write aname (label) for each style, followed by abrief description of farmers in that style.It was noted on several occasions thatdiffering style descriptions were placedtogether in the themeing process, basedon the group understanding of themeaning of the style label. Inevitably,the themeing process worked at thelabel level, rather than at the level of thedescription. Group dynamics, oftenmanifested in such processes, meantthat the individual contributors oftendid not attempt to point out theseirregularities.

Other issues related to the ability offarmers to articulate theirunderstanding. Those who seemed moreable to articulate styles appeared to befarm women, and the better educatedmale farmers. These people alsoidentified �extension� categories morefrequently, possibly because of theirgreater exposure to extension literature.Generally, farmers became moreconfident with the styles concept as thefocus group process proceeded.

Each group identified a number ofstyles. Some groups identified as manyas 16 discrete styles, while one groupidentified only eight styles. While thestyles identified varied between groupswith different styles being identified ineach group, there was also a degree ofconsistency especially in relation to thecertain major styles. Some of the stylesmentioned were poorly described andnot uniformly accepted by all groupmembers. Furthermore, there was somedisagreement within groups about howmutually exclusive the styles were, andit was suggested that some contributedcards could belong to a number of thethemed styles.

Aggregating the results of all groupsrevealed in excess of 20 styles, however,the degree of inconsistency in terms ofthe styles reported, as well as differentlanguage (labels and descriptions),made a simple aggregation processdifficult. To resolve this, an expert panelwas established to theme the results ofthe focus groups.

Expert panel

The �expert� panel comprised sevenpeople including the authors of thispaper. Panellists possessed a range ofexpertise including rural sociology (andspecifically farming styles theory),agricultural science, education andextension. The purpose of this groupwas to consider all the styles that hadbeen mentioned by the focus groups,and to conduct a themeing process(similar to that undertaken in the focusgroups themselves) to aggregate theidentified styles into one comprehensiveset. This was done by utilising the samecards (retyped for legibility) that weresubmitted by the participants in thefocus groups, augmented by commentsand quotes made in relation to that cardduring the focus group process.

There were relatively few problems inassigning each card to a style. In a fewcases, however, there were differences ofopinion among the �experts� about the�meaning� of a style or style label. Thistended to occur with cards thatcontained very little description of thestyle other than the style label, andwhen labels were highly emotive orpejorative. This highlights that words(labels at least) do not have a consistentmeaning across different groups ofpeople.


page 112

Farming styles in broadacrecropping

As already suggested, farmers are notconscious of farming styles, althoughthey can relate to the concept and tospecific styles when they are raised.Each focus group only identified a fewstyles, but across all groups a widerange of styles emerged. Afterdeliberation on the outcome of allfarmer focus groups, the expert panelidentified a total of 27 styles (see Table1). This large number of styles raisesserious questions about exactly whatconstitutes a style, and how styles canbe determined and identified.

In terms of the styles that wereidentified, there was reasonableconsistency across the focus groupsabout the major styles. According to thefocus group participants, the six majorstyles probably account for about 80 percent of all farmers. A number of clearlyidentifiable minor styles also existed,each probably accounting for only a verysmall percentage of all farmers. A small

number of poorly defined styles alsoexisted. These styles are poorly definedbecause it would be difficult todistinguish farmers in this style fromfarmers in other styles. Some of thesewere only mentioned in passing (in post-focus group discussion), and probablyconstitute only a very small percentageof farmers.

Farming styles – descriptions

Descriptions were constructed from thestyles identified by focus groupparticipants, including the transcribeddata from the discussion about thestyles that occurred in the focus groups.To some extent they contain thelanguage used by farmers, and are oftendisparaging of farmers in that stylebecause that is how farmers themselvesdescribed many styles. The styledescriptions presented may not becoherent and may not be sufficientlyclear to uniquely identify a particularfarmer. It is important to note that thesedescriptions are not the styles, nor thedescription of those styles, that the

� Committee person� Lucky� Mediator� Safety-net farmer

Table 1: Farming style labels

� Autocrat� Developer� Diesel burner� Doom and

gloom� Expansionist� Grazing

emphasis� Hard driver� Lazy� Lifestyler

� Innovative� Middle of the road� Progressive� Resource limited �

personal� Resource limited �

structural� Traditional

� Old rich� Opportunist� Organic� Perfectionist� Risk taker� Secret

farmer� Skite� Tinkerer

Major styles Poorly defined stylesMinor styles


authors of this paper are advancing asbeing descriptive of broadacre croppingfarmers. These are the words of farmers.

Innovative:

These farmers are at the forefront ofagricultural change. They are seen asalways looking at the �big picture� offarming and not afraid to spend moneyon inputs. They are usually first to takeon innovations, often running test stripsor trial plots in conjunction withagricultural researchers or extensionofficers. They are viewed by somefarmers as risk takers, althoughconsensus was reached in most groupsthat farmers in this style take�calculated� risks, often afterconsultation with researchers. It wasalso thought that with the increasedrisk these farmers take comes a higherrate of �failure� (often seen as resultingfrom �bad advice�). Innovative farmersare regularly involved in trialing some ofthe newest technological innovationssuch as GPS/infra red paddockmapping, satellite technology orcomputer decision support systems,even if the benefits of implementingsuch technology are long term or evenuncertain.

Progressive:

These farmers are similar to theInnovative style in that they are up todate with the latest in farm innovationsand plan over a longer period than mostfarmers. They conduct gross marginanalysis, utilise forward contracts, andclosely watch commodity markets.Progressive farmers, however, aredescribed as being generally morecautious (or perhaps less risk oriented)than Innovative farmers. They are seenas �watching� the Innovative farmers andadopting those practices that aresuitable to their farming system afterthey have been �proven� (in trials, forexample). Farmers in this group may

also run their own trials and test plots,but usually only for chemical sprayrates, fertilisers, etc, and generally notinnovations that require a large capitaloutlay (such as infra red paddockmapping), and/or those that require asignificant change in their currentrotation practices. Some view thesefarmers as the �best� farmers becausethey only adopt those practices that are�proven� or not seen as subject to highrisk.

Middle of the road:

Middle of the road (MOR) farmers werevariously described as the �averagefarmer�, �genuine triers�, �follow along�, or�practical� farmers. They are seen asprogressively cautious, and often threeto ten years �behind� in the adoption ofsignificant agricultural innovations.Farming to them is more likely to be away of life as opposed to a job or abusiness, and usually there are strongfamily ties to the land. While some seethem as struggling to keep up withchanges, others see them as just�plodding along�, but generally contented(in good seasons!). These farmers arealso viewed as skilful farmers in termsof agronomic, pastoral or husbandryskills, but lacking in the high levelbusiness skills that constitute aProgressive farmer. They generally runmixed enterprises and may more readilytake on innovations that do notsignificantly alter their current farmingpractices and/or those that have ademonstrable yield benefit. MORfarmers can be torn between past(perhaps inherited) practices and morerecent innovations, the likelihood ofadoption possibly depending on theinfluence of neighbouring farmers orthose farmers they associate with.

Traditional:

Although generally viewed as being onlyolder age farmers, some younger


page 114

farmers also belong in this groupusually because they were followingtheir fathers� practices. Described as�stuck in their ways�, �scared of change�,�old fashioned�, or �living in the past�,most thought that farmers in this stylework the land too much, and utilisesimple rotations (if any at all). Manyfocus group participants suggested thatthese farmers see themselves as havingbeen reasonably successful for manyyears (and even generations), andtherefore they see no need to change. Itwas also thought that farmers in thisgroup were not able to adapt to recentlyemerging farming trends such as newweeds or improved pasture managementtechniques or fertiliser rates.

Resource limited – structural:

These farmers were viewed as �good�farmers with some financial impedimentto their progress, sometimes regardedas �being dealt a bad hand�. Also called�battlers� or �trapped� farmers, it wassuggested that the property that thesefarmers inherited, or own, may nolonger be big enough to be viable, andthey lack the financial backing toexpand. While some suggested thatthese farmers could be on the way tobankruptcy, most thought that thesepeople were �survivors� who wouldalways �make ends meet�. Farmers inthis style are limited in the inputs theycan afford and perhaps restricted to�older� farming methods. Based onfarmers� descriptions, it is difficult toseparate from this group, those lackingthe business skills to progress. Manygroups spoke about the burden of thehuge increase in the amount ofinformation that farmers have toprocess, and the extra skills that theyhave to learn. Farmers in this style,though, are not seen as lacking in basicagronomic skills.

Resource limited – personal:

Also described as �ostrich� farmers,�useless farmers�, �followers� or�muddlers�, many factors were suggestedas indicative of this group, such as: lackof efficiency; lack of vision; lack ofdecisiveness; and/or lack of timing.Some felt that this group consisted ofolder, poorly educated, farmers whocould not keep pace with change,though most felt that neither youth nora good education excluded farmers fromthis group. Generally these farmers areviewed as �hard workers� who neverquite get a grasp of basic agronomic/husbandry skills or cope with thecomplex needs of modern farming. Onefarmer described them as being on an�exercise bike� (pedalling furiously butgetting nowhere). While �learners� wereinitially linked with this group, it wasfelt that learners or young farmers are�pre-style�, and most will eventuallydevelop the necessary skills. Farmersrestricted in their farming skills areseen as very slow, or, not able to learn,and perhaps destined for bankruptcy.

Risk taker:

Although this style was described inmost groups, there are varying andconflicting definitions of the notion of�risk�. Farmers in many groupssuggested that most/all farmers wererisk takers, although after discussion itwas agreed that some were �mad risktakers�. Also described as �gamblers�, itwas agreed that these farmers weregenerally not the �best� farmers and theirsuccess often depended on luck. It wassuggested that these farmers wouldadopt an innovation without adequateresearch or consultation; try any idea nomatter where it came from; put in entirepaddocks of a new crop without firsttrialing it; or perhaps persist/experiment with an innovationpreviously rejected by the wider farmingcommunity.


Old rich (gentleman farmers, landedgentry, squattocracy):

It was suggested that these farmerswere almost remnants of a bygone era.Farming had been in their family for along time and they are now living on theoff-farm investments of their family.Some suggested that their lifestyle doesnot match their income, and that theirfortunes were being eroded undercurrent economic conditions, but thiswas not a common theme. Generallythis style was seen as conservativebecause they are comfortable; perhaps�semiretired at 35!�; and often with staffto run their properties. It was alsosuggested that many farmers in thisstyle have a more conservative approachbecause there may be no heir on thefarm to implement a more progressivestrategy. Implicit also in the label�squattocracy� and perhaps true to amore conservative farming strategy, isthe suggestion that these farmersusually run stock and only occasionallycrop.

Lifestyler:

�Lifestyler� is a broad label whichincludes hobby farmers with a�weekend� farm, part time farmers whowork off the farm, and �city� people whohave retired with �a package�. Thecommon theme defining this style isthat the main source of income is (orwas) off-farm and therefore there is notan absolute need to profit from farming.The practices of this group can bevaried. Hobby farmers were generallyseen as adopting the more bizarrepractices and commodities (relative tothe normal practices for the broadacrecropping area) such as grapes, exoticcattle, mohair and/or Angora goats.Others, perhaps the retirees, wereunderstood as having generally largerproperties and less diversecommodities, and perhaps as beingmore permanent residents on theirproperty. Most in the Lifestyler group

are seen as lacking in basic agronomicskills and experience, and are oftenseen as being a �nuisance� because theyfail to control weeds or pests. There arealso �boundary issues�, such as theiranimals escaping onto neighbouringfarms, and restrictions on neighbouringfarmers in terms of chemical use(because of spray drift affecting grapes,etc).

Expansionist:

This style was seen as �expand at allcosts� farmers and were variously called�corporate� or the �big acre farmers�.These farmers were described as justwaiting to swallow up neighbours andas eroding the �community� of farmingby buying out family farms. One groupexplained that often the businessstrategies of this style make it difficultfor other farmers to stay on their landbecause they make offers too big torefuse, or buy out all the neighbouringproperties, making stayinguncomfortable or difficult. These farmsare usually owned by companies orindividual off-farm investors, and,although they put on staff to managetheir properties, often this is not seen asa replacement for the families lost to theregion. Issues of economy of scale wereperceived as important, such as beingable to afford to improve herds byculling poorer animals, or able toendure bad yields because of the size oftheir production. On the negative side, itwas felt that these farmers placedifferent emphases on certain importantagronomic practices, for example, it wassuggested that these farmers do notadequately control weeds because oftheir threshold calculations or the sheersize of the land being managed.

Hard driver (hungry):

This style was described as comprisingfarmers who pushed their land and/ortheir stock too hard. Making a profitwas seen as their primary objective and


page 116

the �size of the wallet� and/or the size ofthe property as the measure of successfor this style, with sustainable landmanagement and good animalhusbandry being sacrificed for shortterm profit. They were also described as�arrogant� and �too cunning for their owngood�, because they were mercenary intheir dealings. Like Secret farmers(below), these farmers were accused ofnot being sharers of information orcontributors to the community offarming.

Organic:

Farmers in this group have made aconscious decision not to use chemicalsin the production of their crops oranimals. While it was suggested that allorganic farmers �believed the new agebullshit�, discussions with organicfarmers revealed a diversity of motives.However, it was thought by some focusgroup participants that some farmersmay claim to be organic only to justifynot spending money on controllingweeds. The wider intention of this style,though, was to include only thosefarmers who have taken on true organicproduction techniques. Not muchinformation on this style came out of thefocus groups, aside from a label, asmost farmers could only identify one ortwo organic farmers. Most thought thesefarms could not be viable.

Grazing emphasis:

Also called the �shrewd stockman� thecommon notion behind this style is thatthese farmers have taken a moreconservative approach to farming.Although they own land that isconsidered good for cropping, they havechosen not to lock themselves into highfinance machinery, chemicals andfertilisers. Stock are seen as lessaffected by the wild fluctuations in themarket and environmental conditionswhich make cropping a more precariousand risky business. Many suggested

that these farmers may have ownedtheir land for a while and are unwillingto go back into debt. It was alsosuggested that farmers in this groupmay �opportunity crop� when grainprices are expected to be high, whenthey expect a good season producing abumper crop, or perhaps if they areforced to by continuing low stock prices.It should be noted that growing foddercrops for grazing is not regarded ascropping by farmers in other styles.

Autocrat:

Farmers in this group were identified asbeing (usually) male Traditionalfarmers, in absolute control over thebusiness/agronomic decision making ontheir properties. These farmers feel thatthey know all there is to know aboutfarming their land and that their heir(always a son or son-in-law) has to earnthe right to take control. Some groupssuggested that the only way that thesefarmers� sons will get control is whenthe Autocrat dies. Anecdotal evidenceincluded that of a 55 year old farmerwho still has no say in the running ofthe farm, and where an 80+ years oldfather still has an iron hold on the farmchequebook.

Secret farmer:

Farmers in this group are described asalways pumping other farmers forinformation while giving little back.Generally there was agreement that theywere successful farmers but not activeparticipants in the �community� offarming. It was considered that thesefarmers would go to farm walks andfield days where they would stand at theback and absorb information, but wouldnot attend a function where they wouldhave to share information. Although notfrequently identified in the focus groups,when raised in post-focus groupdiscussions, this style generated muchdiscussion and mirth. One suggestionwas that these farmers were ultra-


competitive. Another explanation wasthat farmers perceived as being Secretwere either quite happy keeping tothemselves, (perhaps they wereintroverts), or that they themselves weretired and burnt out from getting nofeedback from farmers they dealt with ina previous style.

Diesel burner (machine men):

Although this type was poorlyrepresented in the number of cardscontributed, this style was wellunderstood when mentioned at postfocus group discussions. Descriptions ofthis style included that of a farmeralways spending time polishing thetractor, and �pub farmers� boasting inthe local hotel about how fast they canplough a paddock. Another group spokeof farmers in this style as �consumers�who like the idea of sitting in the cab ofa new piece of machinery. It wassuggested that farmers can becomeinstant Diesel Burners when they buy anew tractor, but the essence of this styleis an innate fascination for machinery.Diesel Burners are likely to have a highnumber of cultivations. These farmerswere seen as impulsive in that theywould buy a new tractor during a goodseason without regard to the possibilityof a bad season following, and possiblyahead of other more pressing needs onthe farm.

Tinkerer (frustrated engineer, gadgetguy):

The archetypical story that describesthis style is that these farmers �spend alltheir time in the shed�. They wouldrather make a new machine or modifyan existing one than buy a new one.One farmer noted that this type offarmer could be very useful in a largefamily unit where �he� could beresponsible for farm maintenance withothers responsible for other aspects offarm management. On their ownTinkerers may not be very efficient. For

example, it was suggested that theyspend so much time tinkering that itoften impinges on the time they shouldbe spending doing other importantfarming tasks. Others denied that thiswas the case, stating that the efficientones did their maintenance in the off-season. Generally this group is admiredfor their mechanical skills.

Opportunist:

Not a clearly defined style. One groupspoke of a number of properties thatrarely, or seemingly never, grew a cropsuddenly producing wheat in a recentseason. The notion is that these farmspersist with stock until the seasonindicators suggest good grain prices.Others suggested that farmers in thisstyle put in whatever crop was�fashionable� or likely to fetch a goodprice whether or not it fitted well into arotation. It was also suggested thesefarms may put in a crop if stock priceshave been low for a while. Theimplication, therefore, is that farmers inthis style are not long-term planners.There was no suggestion that thesepeople were risk takers in all farmpractices, just opportunists in theircropping enterprises.

Perfectionist:

Farmers in this group were seen asbeing pedantic to the point of letting thecompletion of minor tasks interfere withthe broader needs of farming. Forexample, they were viewed as oftenbeing late putting in crops or harvestingbecause they are too busy fiddlingaround perfecting aspects of therunning of their enterprise. All theirfences have to be in order, their farmneat and tidy, and weeds are sprayedimmediately on identification. Specificexamples included waiting too long forthe �best� sheep prices or overworking apaddock to get it �just right�. Thesefarmers have no concept of optimality


page 118

and have never considered economicthresholds.

Developer:

Not necessarily a �farmer� as such, thisstyle usually is a business/companywhich is playing the property market.Often the land is left sitting until it issold, or they may have a manager to dorudimentary maintenance and/or runfarming activities in the interim. Theydiffer from the Expansionists in thatthey get their money from the landrather than from the products of theland. Farming practices are secondaryto the future sale of the land, andtherefore do not have the long termviability of the farm as a concern. Theseproperties are recognised by localfarmers, both as a waste of goodproductive land and as a source ofproblems such as weeds and pests.

Skite:

Also described as �liars�, �wankers� and�blow-hards�, there seemed to be twothemes in this style: farmers whoexaggerate the truth, and farmers whoare simply �loud�. The main themebehind the first group is overstatementof yields/yield potential or boastfulnessabout other production achievements.The suggestion is that neighbours andother farmers know the actualproduction abilities of this farmer andare aware of the exaggeration. Anecdotalevidence suggests that, aside fromannoying other farmers and gettingthem �off-side�, farmers in this group areprone to over estimation of their own, ortheir land�s, capabilities (in one caseleading to bankruptcy).

Lazy:

The central element of this style wasthat the farmers comprising this groupdid not work as hard at farming as otherfarmers thought they should.Consequently, the farms of those in this

group often exhibited obvious signs ofneglect such as fences falling over, toomuch dead wood, firebreaks notmaintained, inadequate control of weedsand rabbits, old erosion gullies that hadnot been restored. The expert panelassigned many cards to this groupsuggesting that it was a frequentlyidentified style, but on examination ofthose cards, it was clear that thisgrouping contained a collection ofthemes. In addition to the actualdescription of laziness, other ideasexpressed were pessimism,daydreaming, lack of care, indifference,and being laid back. A more precisedefinition of this group is difficultbecause of the emotive nature of theword �lazy� and various opinions aboutwhat constitutes being lazy.

Doom and gloom:

These farmers were seen as constantlycomplaining about the weather, marketsand other aspects of farming. Whilesome suggested that these farmers wereblaming markets or the weather for theirown inadequacies, others insisted thatthey were just �moaners�. The bulk ofthe cards, though, suggested that thecynical attitude of these farmersmanifested itself in actual practices inthat these farmers would not spendmoney on inputs because of theirpessimism about the worth of thatoutlay. Another farmer suggested thatthese farmers were not �good� farmersbecause their attitude �can get otherfarmers down.�

Portraits

The pejorative language used by farmersin describing the styles prevents anyuse of these farmers� descriptions in anyprocess of farmer identification from alist of styles. Instead, portraits must bewordsmithed reflecting the conceptembedded in each style. The following


portraits are written in the first personbecause they are to be presented tofarmers on individual cards (without thelabel!) for farmers to assess theirlikeness to each portrait. Because theexistence of the poorly defined styles isdebatable, and because further researchin the form of case studies will only takeplace with a limited number of styles,portraits have not been written for allstyles. Portraits were also not written forthose styles which embodied a largeamount of negative language andseemingly lacked any positive aspects(eg, Doom and gloom, Skite and Lazy).

Innovative:

I like to be at the cutting edge ofagricultural change. I am constantlyseeking new technical information, andnew ideas about ways of doing things. Iexperiment with these new ideas to findthe best way they can be implementedon my farm. Sometimes they do notwork out, but experimenting isimportant to get the best ideas. Imaintain close contact with localAgronomists and agricultural resellersand I belong to at least one farmorganisation such as AgBureau, Farm500, Top Crop, etc. I attend most fielddays and read the latest Agriculturaljournals and newsletters from NewSouth Wales Agriculture very soon afterreceiving them. I believe that thetechnology of farming is growing at afast pace and if you do not keep up withit you will be left behind.

Progressive:

The modern business of farmingrequires that you put a lot of effort intorunning the farm at an optimal level,conducting gross margin analysis,watching the markets, keeping thebooks up to date, and planning into thefuture. I keep up with all the latestinnovations and regularly seekinformation from a wide range ofsources, including New South Wales

Agriculture, Agronomists, or farmingorganisations such as the KondininGroup and Top Crop, or, by attendingfield days. I will adopt a new practice ifthere is a demonstrated benefit, but Igenerally like good evidence that a newproduct is going to be appropriate formy farm. I like to run my farm atmaximum efficiency, but I am carefulthat the changes I make are appropriatefor my farm system.

Middle of the road:

I enjoy farming, even though it can betough at times. I am good at what I doand feel it is a good lifestyle for myfamily and I. Other farmers have moremodern machinery and spend moremoney on inputs, but that does notmake them better farmers. Being a goodfarmer means doing the right thing asmuch as possible, making a living, andproviding for your family. Sometimes Iwould like to make more money out offarming, but I feel that there is no needto place my farm or family at risk bytaking unnecessary chances. I run amixed enterprise, wheat and sheep, andfeel that I manage both well. Farming ismy life and I cannot see myself everdoing anything else.

Traditional:

Farming has been in the family for along time. I was born to be a farmer.Farming is in my blood. Sometimes Iwonder if some farmers today aremoving too fast and are not developingan understanding of their land. There isno substitute for experience and I amwary of outsiders who tell me that thereis a better way of doing things and that Ishould change my practices. They donot know my land. You don�t needbigger, newer, tractors, complicatedrotations, or fancy crops that requiremore chemicals, in order to be a goodfarmer. You need to get the basic thingsright first and not be afraid of hardwork. I know my land from years of


page 120

experience and I know how to make mysoil produce.

Resource limited – structural:

Farming today is getting more and morecomplicated and keeping up with all thechanges can be difficult and expensive. Iwould like to be a successful modernfarmer, but the increasing cost offarming is making it difficult to keep up.My farm isn�t big enough to be viableand much of my equipment is too old. Ican�t afford to borrow any more money,and I am concerned that I am so muchin debt that if I have another badseason, it may be my last. My soil canbe difficult to manage, however, I amdoing the best I can with what I have. Iknow I could improve my soil, get betteryields and maximise profits, if I wasn�tbeing held back by the currenteconomic climate in agriculture.

Resource limited – personal:

Farming is my life, but somehow I justcan�t keep up with all the changes thatare happening. There is so muchinformation to go through thatsometimes it is difficult to make thedecisions that are necessary to run aviable farm. Farming is too complicatednow. I sometimes feel that I am goingbackwards even though I work hard. Ilike farming and I care about the land,but now you have to spend so muchtime catching up with all the changesthat there is less time for doing theimportant things.

Risk taker:

The only way to make money at farmingis to take risks. In order to keep aheadyou have to try new and different things.The technology of farming is growing ata fast pace and if you do not keep upwith it you will be left behind. Somefarmers are scared to take a chancewith new ideas, but I like to give them atry. Sometimes I try to make things

work that other farmers have rejected,or that have not been approved of.Persistence can sometimes pay off.Other farmers think that I take toomany risks, but, you cannot succeed inthis business without taking a fewchances or spending some money oninputs.

Old rich:

My family has been farming for a longtime and I am considered to be amember of the established farming elitein the area. I feel however, that thegolden era of farming has gone. Farmingtoday is more complicated than it was,and you need to know so much moreabout so many things now.Consequently, it is harder to make asmuch money. Fortunately, we haveinvestments other than this farm. Evenso, it seems that we are eating up ourfinancial reserves. Being a farmer usedto be very pleasant especially at farmingactivities, such as those at thesaleyards, but today there are feweropportunities for social interaction. Ialso find that I don�t get the respect Iused to.

Expansionist:

In farming, bigger definitely is better. Intoday�s agro-economic climate, smallfarms are going to the wall because theydo not have enough land to be viable. Iam continually seeking to expand thesize of my farm so that I can spread myrisks. In the past, you could get byfarming on a small block, but the realityof today�s farming is that if you don�t getbig the increasing cost of inputs will eatup all your profits. I am not going to beleft behind.

Hard driver:

The Australian environment is tough,and its variable climate can makeprofitable farming difficult. You have topush your land hard to make it


produce. Successful farmers makemoney by making the most of theiropportunities and getting the maximumprofit out of their land and their stock. Ifyou are too cautious and worry toomuch about every weed or everypossible disease your crop or your stockcan get, you will never get anythingdone. In order to make a decent livingyou have to accept that you can�t doeverything to look after the land. Whenthere is more money in the future, thenthings can be put right. Some peoplewill think that I push too hard but it isthe only way I can see to keep ahead.

Organic:

Concerns about the effects of farmchemical contamination of our food areincreasing. I believe that there arebetter, more environmentally friendlyways of controlling weed and insectpests. I have made a decision that myfarm environment would not be exposedto potential contamination by farmchemicals. Some conventional farmersthink I am mad, and sometimes it isdifficult to find people who support myway of thinking, but running a chemicalfree farm is important to me. Perhapsmy crops are not always as clean asthose of other farmers, but at least Ihave the satisfaction of knowing that Iam doing what is best for the soil andfor the people that are consuming itsproducts.

Grazing emphasis:

I like working with stock. Dealing withanimals is much more like real farmingthan driving around on a tractor,especially these modern airconditionedmachines. Also, stock is a much lessrisky enterprise than grain which ismore subject to wild fluctuations inmarkets and the climate. Cropping hasalso become so much more complicatedtoday and I don�t like to be locked intohigh finance machinery, chemical andfertiliser budgets. While stock prices are

not always high, you can make areasonable living. Producing primelambs, beef, or good quality wool can bevery satisfying. Anything I do make bycropping is a bonus rather than my coreactivity.

Autocrat:

To be a good farmer requires a lot ofexperience. Many young farmers oftoday think they can just throw moneyabout and be successful, but they havea lot to learn. I want my son/s to begood farmers, but I am not prepared tolet them take charge until I am surethat they are capable of running myfarm correctly. Many farms today aregoing to the wall because they have notbeen managed properly. I know my landfrom years of hard work and I know howto make my land produce. Farming isnot easy, you need to get the basicthings right first, and I want my son/sto experience the hard work involved infarming before they take on theconsiderable responsibility of running afarm.

Secret farmer:

Farming today is a cut-throatcompetitive business. This means thatyou should not give your best secretsaway. I seek a competitive advantage tomaximise my profits and ensure Iremain a leading farmer. To do this, Iseek a lot of information about marketsand farming methods from a number ofsources. I attend the field days and farmwalks that I think will be valuable but Iprefer to listen rather than talk.

Diesel burner:

The modern technology of farming todayis making things much easier. You canget around a paddock much faster if youhave a good tractor and if you have thebest machinery for doing the tasks offarming such as ploughing, planting orspraying. I like driving tractors and I


page 122

like keeping my machinery in peakcondition. There is not much point inspending money on new varieties andfarm improvements if your machinery isnot up to scratch. I feel proud of mymachinery and when I am sitting in mytractor, I feel that this is what farming isall about.

Tinkerer:

The thing I like most about farming isbeing in the shed and working with myfarm equipment. I keep all mymachinery in good condition and Ispend a lot of time making sure it is allrunning at its best. It gives me anenormous thrill to modify and improvemy machinery. I�m always weldingsomething. I can make just aboutanything to do any task required on myfarm. I think this is an enormouslyvaluable skill because I have saved afortune. Why buy new equipment whenyou can make it yourself or modify whatyou have to suit the purpose?

Opportunist:

The business of cropping is far toochangeable to lock yourself into justproducing wheat or canola on a regularbasis. I like having a steady incomefrom stock and I don�t like to spendhuge amounts of money on chemicals,fertilisers and new machinery, if there isnot a good chance of a profit. I keep aclose watch on the markets andseasonal forecasts and select crops thatare likely to make a good price. If theseason looks like it is going to be bad, Iwon�t put a crop in at all. I amcomfortable concentrating on stock andI don�t see why I should go into heavydebt. If you are smart you can make agood dollar watching the markets andmaking the most of opportunities.

Perfectionist:

I believe in doing everything properlyand in having a tidy farm. I put a lot of

effort into making sure that my propertyis running at its best to the extent thatother farmers may think I am a bitfanatical. But I believe you cannot makea decision about what crop to put in orwhat sprays to use until you haveinvestigated all the possibilities andensured that the decision you make isexactly right for your cropping system. Iam continually seeking advice fromAgronomists about such things as thebest rotations, chemicals and sprayrates. To get the best prices, your farmhas to be very clean. You cannot affordto have contaminated grain or faults inyour wool, so I make sure that I controlall my weeds and that I don�t miss any. Iam proud of my farm and work hard tokeep it looking at its best.

Discussion

There is considerable disparity betweenvan der Ploeg�s notions of farming stylesand the way diversity between farmersis conceived by Australian broadacrefarmers. There is no evidence thatAustralian farmers are conscious oftheir �style� or the styles of otherfarmers, thus contradicting van derPloeg�s conceptualisation of styles asethnotaxonomies (van der Ploeg, 1989:150; 1994: 29; Leeuwis, 1993: 80, 199and previous paper). The failure of mostfocus groups to identify the majority ofstyles does not mean that the styles donot exist, but it does mean that they arenot necessarily apparent to all farmers.Clearly, in this case, the taxonomy isdone by the researchers, not theparticipants, although based on thequalitative data provided by focus groupparticipants. However, it is also clearthat farmers do make social judgementsabout other farmers and can relate tothe farming style concept when it isexplained to them and/or whenexamples are given.


There are differences between farmersin the styles they identify, and the wordsthey use to describe those styles. Somelabels were used by different farmers tomean completely different things. Thisindicates that differences between(styles of) farmers may mean that thereis not a common language. In fact, thisis implicit within the styles conceptanyway. At a theoretical level, since astyle is possibly a subcultural groupingwith its own socially constructed reality,styles potentially could include a style-specific language. Since the range ofstyles may reflect class (and education)differences, language differences arelikely to be expected. Research methodsthat rely excessively on the use of �voice�and do not seek to interpret furtherwhat is said, have limited applicabilitybecause the words do not have a sharedmeaning. The full meaning can only begauged by developing an understandingof the words used within the perspectiveof that style.

The frequency of identification of stylesthat approximate extension adoptercategories, and the use of wordsemanating from extension discourse,reveals the hegemonic influence ofextension science. Extension sciencelanguage has pervaded farmingdiscourse to such an extent that some/many farmers are incapable ofidentifying their own sociallyconstructed categories of farmers, butsee social diversity in agriculture interms of these adopter categories.Adopter categories, therefore, andextension language in general, havebecome a legitimate part of the socialdiscourse of farmers.

Because farmers describe other farmersin disparaging terms, the descriptions ofstyles provided by farmers are greatlyaffected by social desirability responsebias. The portraits that are used have tobe constructed or word crafted by theresearchers. It is not possible to utilise

farmers� descriptions, however, evenwhen presented as portraits, they stillpotentially embody considerable socialdesirability. Not all styles can be easilydescribed as a portrait in a way thatmeaningfully preserves the differencesbetween styles.

The disagreement within focus groupsabout the placement of some styles(cards) in the themeing process raisesthe question of whether styles need bemutually exclusive categories, orwhether they exist as dimensions in amulti-dimensional space. Leeuwis(1993) and van der Ploeg would arguethat the styles are real, tangible anddiscretely identifiable. This researchwould seem to question this, andsuggests that styles are more heuristicideal types that farmers approximateand/or draw on as part of a �culturalrepertoire� (van der Ploeg, 1993) theyuse to construct � albeit subconsciously� their farm practice (see Howden &Vanclay, 1998).

Conclusion

While there are flaws in the practicalapplication of van der Ploeg�sconceptualisation of farming styles, inthe Leeuwis methodology, and indeed inour own methodology, we would arguethat the concept of farming styles ispotentially very useful. Utilising farmingstyles as a form of social classificationwould be a more useful typology thanother classifications of farmers that areusually made, such as adoption status.As the title of this paper suggests,utilising farming styles to considersocial diversity in agriculture is akin toworking with the grain (in the carpentrysense), and represents the utilisation ofthe social constructions that exist (anemic classification), rather thanimposing an external structural


page 124

approach (an etic classification).1

Despite our acceptance of the existenceof farming styles � as ideal types � it isour assessment that the concept is notwell defined, and that there are seriousdifficulties in its implementation.

Ultimately we hope to improve theconcept and utilise it to practical benefitin understanding the diversity amongstAustralian grain growers and the way inwhich different groups of farmers relateto the research outputs of agriculturalscience and extension. Potentially,research organisations such as theCooperative Research Centre for WeedManagement Systems could tailor itsresearch and extension programs towork with the different types of farmersto assist in the transition to a moresustainable agriculture.

References

Howden, P. forthcoming (1999?).�Working with the grain�. PhD thesis tobe submitted to Charles SturtUniversity.

Howden, P. & F. Vanclay. 1998.�Mythologisation of farming styles inAustralian broadacre cropping�. Papersubmitted to Rural Sociology.

Keesing, R.M. 1976. Culturalanthropology: A contemporaryperspective. New York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston.

Leeuwis, C. 1993. Of computers, mythsand modelling: The social construction ofdiversity, knowledge, information andcommunication technologies in Dutchhorticulture and agricultural extension.Wageningen Studies in SociologyNumber 36, Department of Sociology,Wageningen Agricultural University.

Mesiti, L. & F. Vanclay. 1996. �Farmingstyles amongst grape growers of theSunraysia district�. In G. Lawrence, K.Lyons and S. Momtaz. (eds) Socialchange in rural Australia. Rockhampton:Rural Social and Economic ResearchCentre, Central Queensland University:55-63.

van der Ploeg, J.D. 1989. �Knowledgesystems, metaphor and interface: Thecase of potatoes in the Peruvianhighlands�. In N. Long. (ed) Encountersat the interface: A perspective on socialdiscontinuities in rural development.Wageningen Studies in Sociology 27,Wageningen Agricultural University:145-163.

van der Ploeg, J.D. 1993. �Ruralsociology and the new agrarianquestion: A perspective from TheNetherlands�. Sociologia Ruralis 33 (2):240-260.

van der Ploeg, J.D. 1994. �Styles offarming: An introductory note onconcepts and methodology�. In J.D. vander Ploeg & A. Long. (eds) Born fromwithin: Practice and perspectives ofendogenous rural development. Assen:van Gorcum: 7-30.

1 R.M. Keesing (1976: 173), in an introductory anthropology textbook, describesemic and etic thus: �An emic analysis of behaviour takes an actor�s eye viewand analyses the stream of events in terms of its internal structure ... [Thiscan be contrasted] with etic analysis, where the observer uses a descriptivenotation derived from comparative study and describes the behaviour fromthis external perspective. (The two are not incompatible, but can be used atdifferent stages for different purposes ... ).�


Peter Howden is a PhD student at Charles Sturt University and issponsored by the Cooperative Research Centre for Weed

Management Systems.

Dr Frank Vanclay is an Associate Director and Key Researcher ofthe Centre for Rural Social Research at Charles Sturt University.

He is also affiliated with the Cooperative Research Centre forViticulture and the Cooperative Research Centre for Weed

Management Systems.

Dr Deirdre Lemerle is a Program Leader of the CooperativeResearch Centre for Weed Management Systems and is Senior

Research Scientist with the Agricultural Research Institute, NSWAgriculture, and a member of the Farrer Centre.

John Kent is a lecturer in agricultural protection in the School ofAgriculture at Charles Sturt University, and is an Associate

Director of the Farrer Centre. He is a sub-program leader with theCooperative Research Centre for Weed Management Systems.

Vanclay, F., L. Mesiti & P. Howden.1998. �Styles of farming and farmingsubcultures: Appropriate concepts forAustralian rural sociology?�. In RuralSociety 8(2): 85-107.

Acknowledgment

We wish to thank all those farmers whowere involved in focus groups, and wethank Steve Sutherland (SpecialAgronomist Weeds) and Luciano Mesiti(PhD Student) for their contribution.

styles of farming and farming subcultures: appropriate ...€¦ · styles of farming and farming...

Documents