IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v24y2025i2p38-46.html

Farmer Discussion Groups: Exploring the Dynamics Between Facilitators and Participants

Author

Listed:
  • Hristina Manolova
  • Austen Ashfield
  • Claire Jack
  • Adewale Henry Adenuga

Abstract

This article explores Farmer Discussion Groups (FDGs), a peer‐to‐peer learning method in Northern Ireland, and examines how facilitators and members alike perceive the effectiveness of these groups. FDGs, led by facilitators, aim to foster knowledge transfer, increase farm productivity and encourage technology adoption through activities like demonstration farm visits and workshops. Using survey data from two surveys of members and facilitators, respectively, we found that FDG members valued social interactions with other members as well as farm visits that demonstrated how the farm was run. Facilitators preferred small, flexible group sizes for more focused discussions. Both members and facilitators saw the advantages of the method in terms of improving social connections and in its potential to support learning through exchanging knowledge and skills with their peers. Challenges that facilitators faced included motivating members to attend regularly and share financial information regarding their farm business. Future programme recommendations from members and facilitators included having greater delivery mechanism flexibility, maintaining smaller groups, and having a balance of in‐person and digital meetings when possible. Overall, peer‐to‐peer FDGs offer a valuable mechanism for knowledge‐sharing and relationship‐building in farming, with policy implications that support adopting varied learning approaches. Cet article explore les groupes de discussion d'agriculteurs (FDG), une méthode d'apprentissage entre pairs en Irlande du Nord, et examine la perception de leur efficacité par les animateurs et les membres. Encadrés par des animateurs, les FDG visent à favoriser le transfert de connaissances, à accroître la productivité agricole et à encourager l'adoption de nouvelles technologies grâce à des activités telles que des visites de fermes de démonstration et des ateliers. À partir de données issues de deux enquêtes menées respectivement auprès des membres et des animateurs, nous avons constaté que les membres des FDG appréciaient les interactions sociales avec les autres membres ainsi que les visites de fermes présentant le fonctionnement de l'exploitation. Les animateurs préféraient des tailles de groupes réduites et flexibles pour des discussions plus ciblées. Membres et animateurs ont perçu les avantages de cette méthode : l'amélioration des liens sociaux et le potentiel à favoriser l'apprentissage par l'échange de connaissances et de compétences avec leurs pairs. Parmi les défis rencontrés par les animateurs figurait la nécessité de motiver les membres à participer régulièrement et à partager des informations financières concernant leur exploitation agricole. Les membres et les animateurs ont recommandé une plus grande flexibilité des modalités de mise en œuvre, le maintien de groupes plus réduits et un équilibre entre réunions en présentiel et virtuelles lorsque cela était possible. Globalement, les groupes de discussion entre pairs constituent un précieux outil de partage des connaissances et de renforcement des relations en agriculture, avec des implications en termes de politique qui favorisent l'adoption de méthodes d'apprentissage variées. Dieser Artikel befasst sich mit Diskussionsgruppen für Landwirtinnen und Landwirte (Farmer Discussion Groups, FDG), einer Peer‐to‐Peer‐Lernmethode in Nordirland, und untersucht, wie Moderierende und Mitglieder die Wirksamkeit dieser Gruppen wahrnehmen. FDG werden von Moderatorinnen und Moderatoren geleitet und zielen darauf ab, den Wissenstransfer zu fördern, die Produktivität landwirtschaftlicher Betriebe zu steigern und die Einführung neuer Technologien durch Aktivitäten wie Besuche von Demonstrationsbetrieben und Workshops zu unterstützen. Anhand von Umfragedaten aus zwei Umfragen unter Mitgliedern bzw. Moderierenden haben wir festgestellt, dass FDG‐Mitglieder die sozialen Interaktionen mit anderen Mitgliedern sowie Besuche auf landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben, bei denen gezeigt wurde, wie der Betrieb geführt wird, schätzten. Moderierende bevorzugten kleine, flexible Gruppengrößen für gezieltere Diskussionen. Sowohl Mitglieder als auch Moderierende sahen die Vorteile der Methode in der Verbesserung der sozialen Beziehungen und in ihrem Potenzial, das Lernen durch den Austausch von Wissen und Fähigkeiten mit Gleichgesinnten zu unterstützen. Zu den Herausforderungen, denen sich die Moderierenden gegenübersahen, gehörte es, die Mitglieder zu motivieren, regelmäßig teilzunehmen und finanzielle Informationen über ihren landwirtschaftlichen Betrieb auszutauschen. Zu den Empfehlungen für zukünftige Programme von Mitgliedern und Moderierenden gehörten eine größere Flexibilität der Durchführungsmechanismen, die Beibehaltung kleinerer Gruppen und, wenn möglich, ein ausgewogenes Verhältnis zwischen persönlichen und digitalen Treffen. Insgesamt bieten Peer‐to‐Peer‐FDGs einen wertvollen Mechanismus für den Wissensaustausch und den Aufbau von Beziehungen in der Landwirtschaft, mit politischen Implikationen, die die Einführung verschiedener Lernansätze unterstützen.

Suggested Citation

  • Hristina Manolova & Austen Ashfield & Claire Jack & Adewale Henry Adenuga, 2025. "Farmer Discussion Groups: Exploring the Dynamics Between Facilitators and Participants," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 24(2), pages 38-46, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:24:y:2025:i:2:p:38-46
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692x.70003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692x.70003
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692x.70003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adewale H. Adenuga & Claire Jack & Austen Ashfield & Michael Wallace, 2021. "Assessing the Impact of Participatory Extension Programme Membership on Farm Business Performance in Northern Ireland," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, September.
    2. Anthony Cawley & Kevin Heanue & Rachel Hilliard & Cathal O’Donoghue & Maura Sheehan, 2023. "How Knowledge Transfer Impact Happens at the Farm Level: Insights from Advisers and Farmers in the Irish Agricultural Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-24, February.
    3. Lee‐Ann Sutherland & Pierre Labarthe, 2022. "Should ‘Impartial’ Advice be a Priority of European Agricultural and Rural Policies?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 21(1), pages 15-22, April.
    4. Doris Läpple & Thia Hennessy, 2015. "Assessing the Impact of Financial Incentives in Extension Programmes: Evidence From Ireland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 781-795, September.
    5. Doris Läpple & Thia Hennessy & Carol Newman, 2013. "Quantifying the Economic Return to Participatory Extension Programmes in Ireland: an Endogenous Switching Regression Analysis," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 467-482, June.
    6. Elizabeth Dooley, 2020. "An Ethnographic Look into Farmer Discussion Groups through the Lens of Social Learning Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-21, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anthony Cawley & Cathal O’Donoghue & Kevin Heanue & Rachel Hilliard & Maura Sheehan, 2018. "The Impact of Extension Services on Farm‐level Income: An Instrumental Variable Approach to Combat Endogeneity Concerns," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 585-612, December.
    2. Claire Jack & Adewale H. Adenuga & Austen Ashfield & Michael Wallace, 2020. "Investigating the Drivers of Farmers’ Engagement in a Participatory Extension Programme: The Case of Northern Ireland Business Development Groups," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, June.
    3. Wei Yang & Le Wang, 2023. "Impact of farmer group participation on the adoption of sustainable farming practices—spatial analysis of New Zealand dairy farmers," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(3), pages 701-717, September.
    4. Adewale H. Adenuga & Claire Jack & Austen Ashfield & Michael Wallace, 2021. "Assessing the Impact of Participatory Extension Programme Membership on Farm Business Performance in Northern Ireland," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, September.
    5. O'Callaghan, Daniel & Hennessy, Thia & Breen, James, 2016. "Factors Associated with Extension Programme Participation: The case of discussion groups for Irish cattle farmers," 90th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2016, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 236329, Agricultural Economics Society.
    6. Wei Yang & Jorie Knook, 2021. "Spatial evaluation of the impact of a climate change participatory extension programme on the uptake of soil management practices," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 65(3), pages 539-565, July.
    7. O’Callaghan, Daniel & Hennessy, Thia & Breen, James, "undated". "An Investigation of Conditional Cash Payments in Agricultural Extension: Evidence from Beef Discussion Groups in Ireland," 91st Annual Conference, April 24-26, 2017, Royal Dublin Society, Dublin, Ireland 258651, Agricultural Economics Society.
    8. Lapple, Doris & Hennessy, Thia, 2014. "Assessing The Impact Of Financial Incentives For Participation In Extension Programmes: Evidence From Ireland," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 169737, Agricultural Economics Society.
    9. Cathal O'Donoghue & Thia Hennessy, 2014. "Chapter 03: The Agri-Food Sector," Chapters from Rural Economic Development in Ireland, in: Rural Economic Development in Ireland, edition 1, chapter 3, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    10. Christian Grovermann & Sylvain Quiédeville & Adrian Muller & Florian Leiber & Matthias Stolze & Simon Moakes, 2021. "Does organic certification make economic sense for dairy farmers in Europe?–A latent class counterfactual analysis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 1001-1012, November.
    11. Brennan, Noreen & Ryan, Mary & Hennessy, Thia & Cullen, Paula & Dillon, Emma, 2016. "Going beyond FADN: The use of additional data to gain insights into extension service use across European Union Member States," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 118(3), pages 1-9, December.
    12. Mullally, Conner & Maffioli, Alessandro, 2014. "The Impact of Agricultural Extension for Improved Management Practices: An Evaluation of the Uruguayan Livestock Program," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 4776, Inter-American Development Bank.
    13. Chao Zhang & Ruifa Hu, 2022. "Adoption of Direct Seeding, Yield and Fertilizer Use in Rice Production: Empirical Evidence from China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-15, September.
    14. Tanimonure, Victoria Adeyemi, 2021. "Impact of Climate Adaptation Strategies on the Net Farm Revenue of Underutilized Indigenous Vegetables’ (UIVs) Production in Southwest Nigeria," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315903, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Cathal O'Donoghue & Thia Hennessy, 2015. "Policy and Economic Change in the Agri-Food Sector in Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 46(2), pages 315-337.
    16. Adewale Henry Adenuga & Claire Jack & Ronan McCarry, 2023. "Investigating the Factors Influencing the Intention to Adopt Long-Term Land Leasing in Northern Ireland," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, March.
    17. Xudan Lin & Hong Zhu & Duo Yin, 2022. "Enhancing Rural Resilience in a Tea Town of China: Exploring Tea Farmers’ Knowledge Production for Tea Planting, Tea Processing and Tea Tasting," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, April.
    18. Bianca Amato & Sophie Petit, 2023. "Improving conservation outcomes in agricultural landscapes: farmer perceptions of native vegetation on the Yorke Peninsula, South Australia," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(4), pages 1537-1557, December.
    19. Francesco del Puente & Teresa del Giudice & Sapio Alessandro & Menna Concetta, 2026. "Rethinking agricultural district as an innovation system," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.
    20. Andreas Tsakiridis & Michael Wallace & James Breen & Cathal O'Donoghue & Kevin Hanrahan, 2021. "Beef quality assurance schemes: Can they improve farm economic performance?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(3), pages 451-471, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:24:y:2025:i:2:p:38-46. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.