Holm Wendy, Lastein Dorte Bay
LVK, Fynsvej 8, 9500, Hobro, Denmark.
Section for Animal Production, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Nutrition and Health, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 2, 1870, Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
Acta Vet Scand. 2021 Nov 20;63(1):44. doi: 10.1186/s13028-021-00610-1.
Structural changes in dairy farming increase farm complexity, thereby inducing a need to combine herd health management, technological solutions, legislation, and human relations among farmers, farm workers, and advisors. This complex situation may require 'transdisciplinary advisory service', i.e., a highly integrated network of both non-academic and different academic disciplines. While working in these networks, advisors need to offer specialized knowledge from their own field, interact in a dynamic relationship between different types of professions and facilitate complex processes. The objectives of this study were: (1) to identify and describe different advisor and farmer styles based on their reasons to engage in transdisciplinary advisory services at farm-level, (2) to identify any possible conflicting perspectives between advisors and farmers' demand, and (3) to discuss these styles and conflicts in the context and future of advisory services for dairy herd health and production management.
Using Q methodology, we explored the purpose of transdisciplinary advisory service on dairy farms. The results were derived from correlations between 40 statements for 25 advisors and 33 statements for nine farmers. We identified three similar styles among advisors and farmers, characterized as: (1) the teamwork and knowledge-focused style, (2) the production and economy-focused style, and (3) the economy and strategy-focused style. These styles included reflections on financial aspects, production, knowledge-exchange and the teamwork process itself. In addition, different emphasis on animal welfare, farm strategy and follow-up procedures between the styles became evident.
This Q-study suggests three comparable styles between advisors and farmers. The main differences between the styles related to the teamwork process and purpose, follow-up process, financial aspects, farm strategy, and operational production objectives. Therefore, styles and expectations should be explored and discussed to create a mutual understanding within a farmer-advisor(s)-team, and to clarify the farmer's needs and demands, and how the advisors can best meet these expectations. This study illustrates the importance of exploring different advisor and farmer styles to get a mutual understanding of the purpose of the transdisciplinary collaboration.
奶牛养殖的结构变化增加了农场的复杂性，从而引发了将畜群健康管理、技术解决方案、法规以及农民、农场工人和顾问之间的人际关系相结合的需求。这种复杂的情况可能需要“跨学科咨询服务”，即一个由非学术和不同学术学科高度整合的网络。在这些网络中工作时，顾问需要提供来自其自身领域的专业知识，在不同类型职业之间的动态关系中进行互动，并促进复杂的流程。本研究的目标是：（1）根据顾问和农民参与农场层面跨学科咨询服务的原因，识别并描述不同的顾问和农民风格；（2）识别顾问与农民需求之间任何可能存在的冲突观点；（3）在奶牛畜群健康和生产管理咨询服务的背景及未来中讨论这些风格和冲突。
使用Q方法，我们探索了奶牛场跨学科咨询服务的目的。结果来自25位顾问的40条陈述与9位农民的33条陈述之间的相关性。我们在顾问和农民中识别出三种相似的风格，其特点分别为：（1）注重团队合作和知识的风格；（2）注重生产和经济的风格；（3）注重经济和战略的风格。这些风格包括对财务方面、生产、知识交流以及团队合作过程本身的思考。此外，不同风格在动物福利、农场战略和后续程序方面的不同侧重点也变得明显。
这项Q研究表明顾问和农民之间存在三种可比的风格。这些风格之间的主要差异与团队合作过程和目的、后续过程、财务方面、农场战略以及运营生产目标有关。因此，应该探索和讨论这些风格和期望，以在农民 - 顾问团队中达成相互理解，明确农民的需求，以及顾问如何最好地满足这些期望。本研究说明了探索不同的顾问和农民风格对于相互理解跨学科合作目的的重要性。
