Amy Proctor’s research while affiliated with Newcastle University and other places

There is a well-documented interest in how insights from the study of complexity can be applied to policy evaluation. However, important questions remain as to how complexity is understood and used by policy evaluators. We present findings from semi-structured interviews with 30 UK policy evaluators working in food, energy, water and environment policy domains. We explore how they understand, use and approach complexity, and consider the implications for evaluation research and practice. Findings reveal understandings of complexity arising from contextual factors, scale-related issues and perceptions of unpredictability. The evidence indicates terminological and analogical use of complexity and its concepts by policy evaluators, but limited evidence of its literal use. Priorities for the future include framing complexity more pragmatically and as an opportunity not a cost. Communicating this up the policy hierarchy is the key to progressing complexity-appropriate evaluation – this can be enabled by strengthening links between policy evaluation and academic communities.

Understandings of socially distributed expertise as being key to living, interpreting and intervening in the world, are increasingly used in development narratives, referring usually to knowledge sharing across multi-stakeholder partnerships. This movement towards the democratisation of expertise challenges the ideological claim of science to be the exclusive source of objective information, evidence and discovery on which informed decisions and technological developments should be based. But if we reject that claim, what are the implications for the way stakeholders learn, organise and transmit knowledge and skills, and resolve problems? And how do science and expertise come together in development narratives and practices? We address these questions through an examination of the changing relationship between scientific, professional and non-professional expertise in rural development. Firstly, we examine the evolution of models of rural development and knowledge generation over past decades and introduce the concept of vernacular expertise – the expertise that people have and develop that is place-based but crucially nourished by outside sources and agents and which underpins neo-endogenous development models. Secondly, by drawing empirically on qualitative research with rural advisory professionals who support farmer decision making we unpack the composition of vernacular expertise as a fusion of field/place generated and field/place focused knowledge, and consider how it may be better recognised and enhanced in development processes and policy agendas.

In this paper we draw on in-depth research to explore inter-professional working in rural land and livestock management and introduce the novel concept of inter-professional expertise. An increasingly intricate regulatory framework, the diversification of the economic base of rural areas away from primary commodity production and a growing emphasis on environmental protection and ecosystem services mean that the management of land and livestock are becoming more complex in their objectives, more demanding of specialised technical knowledge and skills and more rule-bound in their procedures and processes. To assist them in meeting these challenges, farmers and other land managers turn to a growing array of rural professional advisers. Increasingly the achievement of private and public objectives for rural businesses depends upon the integration of a variety of specialised expert inputs. So, alongside pressures to differentiate the specialised knowledge they have to offer, rural professionals face demands to work together to help clients solve complex problems and deliver multiple objectives. It follows that rural land and livestock management present a rich context in which to explore the dynamic relationship between different types of professional experts. As a departure from the strong tradition of farmer-centred research examining extended knowledge networks in rural settings, we therefore explore the working relations between advisers themselves. Using concepts of relational agency and socio-material approaches we identify the skills and strategies involved in this inter-professional communication and working, with relevance to expert-expert interactions and the negotiation of contemporary professional expertise in fields far beyond the provision of rural services. We find that it is in the ways that experts perform, act and interact in the field that professional expertise and, by extension, inter-professional expertise – is realised and practised. Thus as working practices are increasingly shared, credentialism is pursued less by achieving the monopolies of old and more by striving for new monopolies of inter-professional practice.

The Malaysian community has recently become more aware of the benefits of organic food and its potential advantages for human health. Organic food may also contribute to achieving more sustainable food production and have a positive impact on national food security. However, in Malaysian situation, even though various strategies have been implemented by the government to encourage more farmers to adopt organic practices, the number of certified farmers still remains low. In fact, the demand from consumers for organic products continues to increase, which cannot be met by local producers. As a result, there is a need to import organic food from other countries. In this context, this study will investigate the factors that influence farmers' decisions to convert to organic farming, based on preliminary in depth interviews with key informants such as policy intervention, high awareness among consumer, farmers' attitude, family background, labour, as well as land ownership. This study is expected to inform policy making in Malaysia on how to encourage more farmers to participate in organic farming practices so that local production can meet future demand. The conceptual framework, methodologies, issues and challenges will be discussed briefly in this paper.

This paper explores the expertise of field-level advisors in rural land management. The context is the English uplands and negotiation over a Higher Level Stewardship agreement. An observed encounter between a hill farmer, his retained land agent, and an ecologist working for Natural England illustrates the multiple roles that field-level advisors have in regulating, directing, and influencing contemporary land management. The paper draws on field notes taken during work shadowing and in-depth interviews, to reflect upon the relationships that constitute field expertisenot only between farmer and advisor, but amongst the advisors too (and those who advise them). We argue that expert–expert interaction and the emergence of networks of practice are crucial to the development of field expertise and are key factors in the increasing complexity of the decision making underpinning contemporary land management. Keywords: field expertise, farm extension, rural land management, expert–expert interaction, networks of practice

It is commonly put forward that effective uptake of research in policy or practice must be built upon a foundation of active knowledge exchange and stakeholder engagement during the research. However, what is often lacking is a systematic appreciation of the specific practices of knowledge exchange and their relative merits. The paper reports on a 2009 survey of 21 research projects within the UK Research Councils' Rural Economy and Land Use Programme regarding the involvement and perceived impact of over a thousand stakeholders in the research. The survey reveals that most stakeholders were involved as research subjects or as event participants. Large numbers were also engaged in the research process itself, including involvement in shaping the direction of research. Stakeholder engagement is perceived as bringing significant benefits to the process of knowledge production. A close relationship is found between mechanisms and approaches to knowledge exchange and the spread of benefits for researchers and stakeholders. Mutual benefits are gained from exchange of staff or where stakeholders are members of research advisory groups. Different stakeholder sectors are also associated with different patterns of engagement, which lead to contrasting impact patterns. Any efforts to alter knowledge exchange processes and outcomes must overcome these differing engagement tendencies. Overall, much greater attention should be given to early processes of knowledge exchange and stakeholder engagement within the lifetime of research projects.

Farm veterinarians are part of the knowledge-based economy in which professionals earn their livelihood by selling their expertise directly to clients. They face complex and ever-changing calls on this expertise. How do they keep their knowledge of livestock health and production up to date in practice?

This paper analyses how the changing governance of animal health has impacted upon veterinary expertise and its role in providing public health benefits. It argues that the social sciences can play an important role in understanding the nature of these changes, but also that their ideas and methods are, in part, responsible for them. The paper begins by examining how veterinary expertise came to be crucial to the regulation of the food chain in the twentieth century. The relationship between the veterinary profession and the state proved mutually beneficial, allowing the state to address the problems of animal health, and the veterinary profession to become identified as central to public health and food supply. However, this relationship has been gradually eroded by the application of neoliberal management techniques to the governance of animal health. This paper traces the impact of these techniques that have caused widespread unease within and beyond the veterinary profession about the consequences for its role in maintaining the public good of animal health. In conclusion, this paper suggests that the development of the social sciences in relation to animal health could contribute more helpfully to further changes in veterinary expertise.