How do agricultural advisory services meet the needs of farmers? Applying Q-methodology to assessing multi-stakeholders’ perspectives on the pluralistic advisory system in Ontario, Canada

• Published in: Journal of rural studies 2024-01, Vol.105, p.103186, Article 103186
• Main Authors: Chowdhury, Ataharul, Kabir, Khondokar H.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Agricultural extension and advisory services (AEAS); Canada; Knowledge translation and transfer (KTT); Ontario; Pluralistic advisory system; Q-methodology
• ISSN: 0743-0167; 1873-1392
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103186

Agricultural extension and advisory services (AEAS) have undergone significant changes globally, including reduced public funding and the introduction of new approaches, aimed at improving agricultural productivity, net farm income, and food security. In Ontario, similar changes have been implemented, but the system's performance from the perspective of relevant stakeholders has yet to be studied systematically. Previous studies have overlooked the assessments of the system's performance from the standpoint of such stakeholders as advisors and farmers. To address this gap, our research used the best-fit model framework to examine the perspectives of farmers and agricultural advisory professionals in Ontario, Canada. We employed a Q-methodology to analyze 23 statements related to governance structure, organizational capacity, management, advisory methods, and service quality, and used PQMethod software to conduct our statistical analysis. Our study identified three distinct perspectives: (i) quality-oriented advisory system, (ii) governance and quality-oriented system, and (iii) governance, method, and quality-oriented system. These perspectives provided insights into the performance and service quality of pluralistic AEAS in Ontario, particularly in relation to information bias, redundancy and inconsistency, coordination and collaboration challenges, preference for one-to-one advice, and a greater focus on large supply chains managed by innovative farmers at the center of AEAS services. The findings of our study offer policymakers various options to consider when working towards a more unified and dynamic AEAS. •Ontario’s agricultural extension and advisory services faded after the 1990s, mostly ignored by the media and academics.•Using Q-methodology, we examine farmers' and advisors' subjective views of Ontario's pluralistic advisory system.•Pluralistic advisory systems and biased AEAS sources cause information bias, redundancy, and inconsistency.•One-on-one advice and a focus on innovative, large farmers seem preferable to group-based methods and small-medium farmers.