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

Abstract

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.