Assessing Agricultural Science Education Practices in Ireland’s Teagasc Advisory Services

Thesis Abstract

Engagement with agricultural science education by advisory services is pivotal for evidence-informed farm decision making, yet there is limited understanding of how Teagasc’s educational practices translate into farmer learning outcomes and practice change in Ireland. This study investigates the effectiveness of Teagasc advisory education in enhancing farmers’ agricultural science literacy, adoption of evidence-based recommendations, and resultant on-farm practices. The aims are to evaluate (i) the reach and frequency of Teagasc educational interventions; (ii) farmers’ perceived relevance and applicability of advisory content; (iii) the extent of knowledge transfer as measured by changes in farming practices and decision-making quality; and (iv) factors moderating or mediating educational impact, including farmer trust, perceived legitimacy of science, and advisory-provider characteristics. Specific objectives include mapping the portfolio of Teagasc educational activities over a 24-month period; assessing farmers’ learning outcomes through pre- and post-intervention Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) surveys; examining causal links between advisory exposure and practice changes via regression and path analyses; and synthesizing qualitative insights from farmer and advisor interviews to elucidate mechanisms of learning and barriers to uptake. The study adopts a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design. The population comprises dairy, beef, and tillage farmers who participated in Teagasc education programs across three regions in Ireland during 2023–2024. A stratified random sample of 600 farmers for quantitative data collection will be drawn, with an additional purposive subsample of 40 farmers and 12 Teagasc advisors for qualitative interviews. Data collection instruments include a standardized KAP questionnaire administered before and six months after educational interventions, administrative records of advisory contacts, attendance logs, and semi-structured interview guides for farmers and advisors. Validity and reliability will be ensured through pilot testing, Cronbach’s alpha assessment (target >0.70 for scales), and triangulation with advisory records. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, multiple regression to identify predictors of knowledge gains and practice change, and structural equation modeling to test the proposed mediation pathways linking exposure, learning, and behavior. Qualitative data will be analyzed thematically using a framework approach, with coding cross-checked by two independent researchers to enhance credibility. A convergent parallel design will integrate findings from both strands to provide a holistic interpretation. The theoretical framework draws on the Theory of Planned Behavior to link attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control to farming practices, complemented by the Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) framework to explain how Teagasc knowledge products are synthesized into actionable decisions on farm. The study expects to find that higher exposure to structured Teagasc education, combined with timely farm-specific feedback, leads to greater knowledge gains and more rapid adoption of science-based practices, particularly in nutrient management, soil health, and integrated pest management. Anticipated findings include significant positive associations between advisory session frequency and on-farm practice adoption, with mediation by perceived usefulness and farmer trust in advisory sources. Qualitative insights are expected to reveal organizational constraints, such as resource limitations and regional variation in advisor capacity, as well as enablers, including farmer peer networks and demonstrable farm-level outcomes. The study’s contribution to knowledge lies in providing empirical evidence on the effectiveness of national agricultural advisory education in shaping learning and behavior change among commercial farmers, clarifying the mechanisms by which science-based content translates into practice, and identifying contextual factors that enhance or impede impact. Policy and practice implications include informing Teagasc about optimal design of learning pathways, alignment of advisory content with diverse farm systems, and strategies to strengthen farmer trust and engagement with science-based recommendations. The main conclusion is that targeted, farm-contextualized educational interventions, delivered with ongoing feedback loops and credible science signaling, produce meaningful improvements in knowledge and practice; the recommendations emphasize expanding interactive, farm-specific demonstrations, implementing continuous impact monitoring, and investing in advisor professional development to sustain learning gains and diffusion of agricultural science innovations.