Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.12653/jecd.2012.19.3.551

Case Study on Dynamics of RDA PLA Model with Agri-SMEs  

Kim, Sa Gyun (농촌진흥청 농촌지원국 지도정책과)
Lee, Mi Hwa (농촌진흥청 농촌지원국 지도정책과)
Park, Heun Dong (서울대학교 농업경제사회학부 지역정보전공)
Publication Information
Journal of Agricultural Extension & Community Development / v.19, no.3, 2012 , pp. 551-579 More about this Journal
Abstract
This case study aims to explore how RDA PLA model affects the agri-SMEs' empowerment. As an agri-business management renovation program from main workshop it was conducted on March to December 2011 with agri-SMEs and extension officials nationwide by RDA. Especially, as a packaged action learning process in the model used participatory action research. This study collected data with participants observation, interviews, situational analysis and systematic review of discourse in qualitative method. For the validity and identifying empirical results, this study used statistic analysis as a mixed method. Further including various pedagogic methods and business coaching skills, this model was conducted from workshop in RDA, in turn, on-farm business coaching as follow-up, CoPs' activities, and local ATCs extension services by each actors. The dynamic process and effects of each process led some change for farmers' innovative knowledge, skills, attitude, practice and aspiration on their farm business. RDA PLA model development based on the previous practices and research, which provided a configurated picture in the holistic action learning process. In statistic research, this study focused on 279 farmers as respondents who had participated in the program. It shows that their income and benefits increased from their renovative practices on farm business. Following the sampling group, it was surveyed by four indicators - products, customer, quality and cost. The level of contribution of education on economic impact 15% is quoted from previous paper. Even in some limitations of public sector, RDA PLA model actively suggests the paradigm shift of agricultural HRD and development of alternative extension-service system.
Keywords
Participatory Learning & Action: PLA; Agricultural Small & Medium Size Entrepreneurs: Agri-SMEs; Community of Practice: CoP; Rural Development Administration: RDA;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 김사균, 최영찬, 이광원, 정훈희, & 김예영. (2009). 농업비즈니스과정 효과분석 및 발전방안. 농촌지도와 개발, 18(1), 99-124.
2 김정섭, & 권인혜. (2010). 농촌개발사업 참여주체의 역량 강화 방안. 농촌지도와 개발, 17(3), 385-418.
3 김진모. (2005). 농어업인 교육정책 혁신. 농어업.농어촌특별대책위원회.
4 김진모, 김진군, 마상진, 전영욱, 이진화, & 주현미. (2007). 농업인 교육프로그램분석. 농업교육과 인적자원개발, 39(1), 99-116.
5 김진화, & 정지웅. (1996). 농촌지도사업 교육프로그램개발에 대한 해석학적 분석. 한국농촌지도학회지, 3(2), 247-264.
6 농촌진흥청. (2008). 블루오션전략과 농업경영 성공 코칭. 농업경영비즈니스 코칭양성 연수자료집(2008. 9. 기술경영과).
7 농촌진흥청. (2011a). 농업비즈니스모델개선워크숍 운영매뉴얼(미발간: 기술연수과 강소농교육팀).
8 농촌진흥청. (2011b). 한국 농업의 새로운 희망-작지만 강한 농업. 인테러뱅 제9호 (2011. 3.16).
9 마상진, & 최경은. (2007). 농업 인적자원개발을 위한 학습 활성화. 한국농촌경제연구원 연구보고 R544(2007. 12).
10 서종석. (2011). 강소농 육성정책 사업의 평가. 전남대학교 농촌진흥청용역보고서.
11 유기돈. (2011). 농업이 미래성장산업으로 거듭나고 있다. LG경제연구원. LGERI 리포트( 2011. 1.26 2-2, 16-28).
12 유병민, 김정주, 최영창, 박혜진, & 김선희. (2010). 농업인 교육 프로그랩 문제점 및 개선방안. 농촌지도와 개발, 17, 45-74.
13 임형백. (2008). 농업 전문인력 양성사업 평가, 성결대학교 농촌진흥청용역보고서.
14 주대진, 김진모. (2012). 농촌지도조직체계의 변화에 따른 농촌지도공무원의 역할모호성에 대한 인식. 농촌지도와 개발, 19(2), 212-213.   과학기술학회마을   DOI
15 최신인.고순철. (2005). 개방경제 하에서 농업.농촌 정책의 새로운 방향-농업보전 정책의 필요성을 중심으로. 농촌지도와 개발, 12(1), 17-28.
16 권태진, 한석호, 이정민, 반현정, & 김태우. (2011). 2011년 농업 및 농가경제 전망. 농업전망 2011(I), 한국농촌경제연구원.
17 金澤夏樹. (1985). 농업경영학 강의. 풀빛, 91-102.
18 Chamber, R. (1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. London: Harlow.
19 Chamber, R., (1997). Whose reality counts?. London: Intermediate Technology Publication.
20 Conklin, H. E. (1970). Family Farm and coming of revolution. Cornell Univ: Bulletin.
21 Crooks, D. L. (2001). The importance of symbolic interaction in grounded theory research on women's health. Health care for Women International, 22, 11-27.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Denzin, N. K., & Y. S. Lincoln. (2005). Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage Publication.
23 Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. San Francisco: The Sociology Press.
24 Swanson, R. A. (2009). Foundations of human resource development(2nd). San Francisco: Berrerr-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
25 Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry(Research methods for social science). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26 Prilleltensky & Nelson. (2002). Doing psychology critically: Making a difference in diverse settings(cited in Participatory community research: Theories and methods in action. 2004. Jason, L. A & Taylor, R. R., et al(edited). Washington: American Psychological association.