Traditional extension models such as the 'diffusion of innovations' are still widely accepted even though they fail to explain adequately the adoption behaviour of farmers and despite the rise of 'bottom-up' models and group extension methods. 'Farming styles' theory promises to provide agricultural science and extension workers with a better model for understanding adoption behaviour and the multitude of management strategies utilised by farmers and the rationales behind these strategies. This study identified the range of farming styles that exists in the southern broadacre cropping zone. A total of 27 styles were identified through focus groups. However, case studies with individual farmers revealed that many of these styles are unlikely to exist in reality, but exist as social constructs that guide farmer action. Therefore, farmer practice is seen to be a social process guided by social judgements made by farmers of the range of styles or farming practices they are aware of.

The implementation of any project requires clear thinking about the relative importance of stakeholders in achieving project outcomes. The Victorian Department of Primary Industries has a strong tradition in project planning. In our work, however, we found that few project teams looked systematically or strategically at the human and social capital resources required to deliver project goals. A literature search by the Practice Change Capacity Development Team revealed that many of the stakeholder analysis tools available focused on the target population for the project, not at the people resources required to implement the project. As a result we developed a stakeholder analysis tool better suited to project planning, which allows project teams to consider the important human and social capital resources required to improve project planning and implementation. The tool featured a 16 square matrix with two axes focussed on stakeholders who are: - Influential - stakeholders who have power over the organisation, or management of the project (x-axis), and. - Important - stakeholders who have power over project implementation or outcome adoption (y-axis). Since its development, the Stakeholder Analysis Tool has been used by a number of teams, including Fisheries Victoria and the Victorian Serrated Tussock Working Party. Upon evaluation, participants expressed an improved team understanding of their project and its outcomes and a greater understanding of stakeholder management. We will report on case examples in which the Stakeholder Analysis Tool was used to meet different team objectives, while maintaining the tool's integrity. We will also explain how these studies have helped us revise and improve the tool. Three key learnings: - Doing a stakeholder analysis as a team allows everyone to understand the importance and influence of the project's stakeholders. This helps the team to focus on project direction and success. - The conversation that happens between team members during the stakeholder analysis is just as important and insightful as the outcomes of the process. - This Stakeholder Analysis Tool has been designed to be flexible in its application, allowing for continuous improvement of the process.

Two paradigms for understanding the acquisition of farmer identity, farming styles and cultural scripts, are compared using interview material with family owned and operated farms in Australia and Finland. The styles of farming approach of van der Ploeg has been considered in various Australian applications. However, it does not adequately address why farmers become farmers, or how farming styles and farmers' ways of life are socially reproduced. Instead, these are explained by the concepts of farmers' parables and cultural scripts, both a form of narrative. Parables are the stories farmers tell about hypothetical farmers and which act as a form of social control. Scripts, like parables, are the cultural models that farmers utilise in their stories. Scripts and parables provide an explanation for the preservation of traditional practice when discourses of globalisation and economic rationality advocate the abandoning of the farmd

Van der Ploeg's 'styles of farming' approach attempts to explain the social nature of diversity in agriculture. For over 10 years we have attempted to apply this concept to a range of farming situations in Australia. This article reviews the issues posed by Vanday et al. in 1998 and provides insight into what have been the developments in the concept of farming styles. We utilise the results of three studies in Australia: a study of farming styles in broadacre cropping and grazing farmers in the Riverina region of New South Wales; a study of grape growers in the Sunraysia district of Victoria and a separate study of grape growers across south-eastern Australia. While this research was intended to validate the existence of styles and to provide evidence of the usefulness of the concept and its application in rural industries, we were unable to replicate or validate van der Ploeg's original conceptualisation and methodology. We conclude that farming styles are more of an intellectual construction than a social construction. Nevertheless, we believe that the concept of farming styles is a useful heuristic and a new framework for understanding farming styles is presented.

There is a growing body of evidence supporting the contention that the ability of respirable crystalline silica to cause silicosis can vary according to the surrounding circumstances of exposure (Fubini, 1998). This has implications for targeting regulatory activities to those industries and processes of most concern in relation to exposure to crystalline silica. The UK Health & Safety Executive (HSE) has therefore undertaken a systematic review of the literature to determine the state of the evidence for this contention. Clearly, if crystalline silica does vary in its fibrogenic potency according to the surrounding features of occupational exposure, then there cannot be a single exposure–response relationship that defines the risks of developing silicosis. This review therefore addresses two related issues: (i) whether or not the fibrogenic potency of crystalline silica is variable, and if so, what are the factors which influence its variability; (ii) in the light of currently available information, what is the most reliable view that can be formed of the exposure–response relationship(s) for the development of silicosis. The main conclusions on these issues are briefly summarized below. The supporting evidence for these conclusions is detailed in the forthcoming review (HSE, 2002).

Farming styles theory, as developed by Jan Douwe van der Ploeg to explain diversity in agriculture, is being considered as a possible tool to assist in targeting of extension in Australia. A farming style is a socially constructed type that reflects the worldviews and strategies of one configuration of farming practice for a particular commodity (or common combination of commodities) in a particular region. The various farming styles in a region represent a repertoire of possible worldviews and strategies. We first conducted focus groups to identify farming styles among Australian broadacre croppers. We then conducted case studies to validate these styles, and to gain further understanding of the rationale of each style. The case studies, however, failed to confirm the styles. The findings instead suggested that the styles which emerged from the focus groups were artifacts of the method. We conclude that focus group methodology legitimized the expression of stereotypical images grounded in local farming discourse and provided an avenue for reification of "mythological" styles, although the styles still provided social control over farmers' activities. Researchers,should be aware that focus groups potentially allow the expression of mythology, and should reflect on the validity of data collected by this method.

Farming styles theory of J.D. van der Ploeg represents a promising method for conceiving and understanding diversity in agriculture, even if there are some theoretical contradictions and questions about its practical application and operationalisation.

Diversity in agriculture is one of the axioms of rural sociology – perhaps the most important one – but remains one which has not been fully considered. The physical nature of diversity is easily accepted – some farmers grow wheat, some farmers grow grapes, etc. For social scientists, structural diversity is also understood – some farmers are rich, some poor, some have large farms, some small, some farmers have high debt load (low equity), others have low debt (high equity). Extension Science in some ways invoked diversity on the basis of innovativeness – but this was not a true form of diversity because extension, at least in traditional models, presumed that innovations were universally applicable and ultimately would be universally adopted (see Vanclay & Lawrence, 1994, 1995a, 1995b). However, the sociocultural basis of diversity in farming has been inadequately examined, and has often been neglected in analyses of farming, although it is an area of growing concern. Extension, in particular, has failed to appreciate the significance of the existence of sociocultural diversity in developing its extension programs and in the targeting of its messages.

The general understanding of the farming subculture concept is that the primary motivation of farmers is their notion of good farm management. Such a social construction will vary between different groups of farmers, such as exist in different commodities, in different regions, and possibly within commodities and regions.