Revised expected outcomes: Essential for attracting Tasmanian students to careers in agricultural science

Abstract

This research qualitatively explores the career choices of Tasmanian university students currently studying a Bachelor of Agricultural Science degree. Essential contributors to students choosing agricultural science as their preferred university course were interventions in key decision-making years that revised expectations around what a career in agriculture could involve. Effective interventions included exposure to information through advisory roles, and exposure to holistic experiences of farm businesses. The choice to study agricultural science was consistently influenced by expected job security and flexibility, and for many students also relied on the realisation that existing skills could be used, goals fulfilled and/or interests pursued through this career path. Our paper describes how interventions that revise expected outcomes about a career in agriculture can overcome the barriers of previous negative learning experiences, the negative public image of agriculture, and the widespread misperception that only a low level of ability is required to pursue this career path.

Keywords

Agricultural science career development theory expected outcomes interventions public image

Introduction

Recent research demonstrates that the agricultural industry in Australia is currently experiencing a skills shortage across a range of occupations within the sector and this is associated, in part, with low numbers of agricultural graduates (see Education & Training Committee [ETC], 2012). The Sydney Morning Herald in February 2012 also reported on the long-term national trend of declining enrolments, which Australia's Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, said ‘posed a risk to Australia's food producing future and international standing, as well as a challenge to government, industry and the higher education sector’ (Armitage, 2012). Research consistently reports on the poor image of the agricultural industry in Australia as an important factor limiting student enrolment in higher education agricultural science courses (Department of Employment, Education & Training, & Department of Primary Industries & Energy [DEET & DPIE], 1991; ETC, 2012; McSweeney & Rayner, 2011; Pratley & Copeland, 2008; Primary Industry Centre for Science Education, 2012). The McColl Report (DEET & DPIE, 1991, p. 51), an in-depth review of Australian agricultural and related education, has identified the ‘generally negative community attitudes towards agriculture and the failure of the agricultural and related sector to promote itself’ as the two most important factors influencing the decline in student enrolments. The secretary of the Australian Council of Deans of Agriculture, Professor Jim Pratley, agrees that ‘the general view is that people still think of agriculture in its old image, people sitting on tractors ploughing up the land, creating dust storms’ (Armitage, 2012). Many students have not been exposed to modern agriculture, which is now a complex and multidisciplinary field that offers diverse career opportunities. Without this understanding of what agricultural careers may include today, old perceptions arguably threaten to continue to impact on university course selection. The McColl report also demonstrates that there is a clear need for providers of agricultural science degrees to promote themselves more widely and attractively. Effective action in this regard, however, requires information about the decision-making processes of young people, particularly during the key decision-making years of Year 11 and 12. Understanding the decision-making processes of young people allows for insights into interventions that may overcome the longstanding negative public image and encourage students to pursue a career in agriculture. Engaging more students in agriculture will enable current skills needs to be met, and contribute to the wider issue of sustaining food production into the future. This study takes an exploratory approach that draws on career development theory to allow the voices of young Tasmanian agricultural science students to help guide the development of such interventions.

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks

This qualitative study draws on Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994) to explore the decision-making processes of students currently studying agricultural science. Social Cognitive Career Theory is based on Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory, which places an emphasis on self-efficacy and outcome expectations as being a major determinant of career and academic interest. This study draws on Lent et al.’s (1994) model, however, as it extends Social Cognitive Theory by allowing for an understanding of the inter-relating influences of personal variables, environmental factors, learning experiences, self-efficacy, outcome expectations and interests on career choices. According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy is an individual’s belief in their ability to complete a task under a variety of circumstances (perceived ability), while outcome expectations include what is believed to happen as a result of one’s decision (expected outcomes). Career interests are defined by Lent et al. (1994, p. 88) as ‘patterns of likes, dislikes and indifferences regarding career-relevant activities and occupations’. Lent et al. (1994) propose that learning experiences such as the engagement in and exposure to various career activities and role models impact on self-efficacy, interests and outcome expectations which then influences career choice. Environment and context, such as economic, social and cultural factors are also viewed to impact on learning experiences as are personal variables such as goals and other aspects related to the person such as predispositions, gender and ethnicity (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000; Lent et al., 1994).

Social Cognitive Career Theory

is widely drawn on by researchers to explore the factors influencing career choice, particularly in science, maths and agriculture-related areas, with most of this research being quantitative (Betz & Hackett, 1983; Campbell & Hackett, 1986; Donney & Borgen, 1999; Esters & Knobloch, 2007; Lynch, 2001; Tang, Pan, & Newmeyer, 2008). Esters and Knobloch (2007) found that perceived ability and expected outcomes, for example, were strong predictors of interest and intentions to pursue careers in agriculture for students of a rural Korean agricultural school. A study in the US by Lynch (2001) reported that interest was the most influential factor affecting the decision to enrol in an agricultural college. Other US studies have identified prior involvement in agricultural classes at school as a highly influential predictor of students subsequently selecting agricultural majors and courses at university (Barkley & Parrish, 2005; Boumtje & Haase-Wittler, 2007; Dyer, Breja & Wittler, 2000; Wildman & Torres, 2001). While such studies quantify the most influential factors affecting choice from a given list of options, they do not explore the stories of how experiences influenced awareness, or how these perceived abilities, expected outcomes or interests developed. In Australia, there is a widely acknowledged perception that ‘agriculture is on hard times, that it’s a declining industry, that the jobs are all boring and don’t pay well and stuck out the back of Woop Woop” (Roush, In Marino, 2007, p. 6). Young science students from around Australia recently met in Canberra to take part in a Primary Industry Centre for Science Education Youth Round Table, where they identified common misperceptions about a career in the agricultural industry that included limited career options, low career status and the unfavourable stereotype that only uneducated individuals are involved in agriculture (Primary Industry Centre for Science Education, 2012). In this light, with enrolments in agricultural courses continuing to decline, it is more important than ever to explore how perceived ability, expected outcomes and interests develop within this negative environment, and how they contribute to the decision to enrol in an agricultural science degree. Likewise, how has student awareness about the positive aspects of agriculture and its related career opportunities increased to an extent that overcomes such widespread negative public perceptions? In a discussion of some major contributions to career development theories around the school-to-work transition, Blustein (1999) encourages the use of qualitative strategies to provide opportunities to hear the how, and to allow ideas to be built from the voices of young people who are at the heart of career development theorising.

These hows are explored in our study using Lent et al.’s (1994) Social Cognitive Career Theory. Importantly, this framework acknowledges the role of background and moderating environmental influences, which can act as either supports or barriers to career choice. Background environmental influences affect the learning experiences through which perceived abilities and expected outcomes are developed (Lent et al., 2000), an example relevant to this study being the general negative perception from the public about agriculture and related careers. Moderating environmental influences directly affect the processes by which people make and implement career-relevant choices during the more active phase of career decision making (Lent et al., 2000); specific advice from a careers’ counsellor when choosing a university course for example. The constructivist approach to interpreting and presenting the interview material in this study has viewed the above-mentioned Social Cognitive Career Theory as a guide. This conceptual framework provides the opportunity for a deeper contextual understanding of how social cognitive variables and environmental supports and barriers interact to influence career choice around agricultural science in Tasmania.

Research aims and methods

The aim of this study was to explore the factors that influenced career decision-making among current University of Tasmania (UTAS) Bachelor of Agricultural Science undergraduate students. We were interested in how variables interacted to shape career choices in relation to agricultural science and when key movement or turning points took place in the decision-making process. Variables included background influences and learning experiences, and how these connected with perceived ability, expected outcomes, interests and goals in relation to career choice.

Research participants were university students who were enrolled in any of the four years of the Bachelor of Agricultural Science degree at UTAS in 2012. An invitation to participate in the study was extended to the 46 undergraduate students undertaking the degree in July 2012, who were classified as direct entry (i.e. having enrolled in the degree within one year of completing Year 12 and thereby meeting the research scope requirement for young Tasmanian students). Twelve students from the degree consented to participate and 11 subsequently became participants in this study (with one student not meeting the direct entry requirement for inclusion). Of the 11 participants, three were enrolled in the first year of the degree, five in the second, two in the third, and one in the fourth year of the degree. Two of the 11 students were female. Pseudonyms were assigned to each student to maintain anonymity; they corresponded to the gender of the student participants. In-depth, semi-structured interviews (averaging 36 minutes each) were carried out with the 11 participants in August 2012. Interviews took place within the School of Agricultural Science at UTAS, and were recorded for subsequent transcription. The interviews focused on the decision-making process that led students to enrol in the Bachelor of Agricultural Science degree, through questioning about the role of influential people, students’ skills and interests, sources of information, exposure to agriculture and contextual background information.

An inductive approach was applied to the thematic analysis, with themes identified that were strongly linked to and occurring across the data (Braun & Clark, 2006). Themes were manually coded and included perceptions, learning experiences, turning points, expected outcomes, perceived ability, interests, skills and goals. Engagement with literature occurred later in the analytical process and revealed that the data were compatible with the theoretical framework of Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent et al., 1994). Applying the Social Cognitive Career Theory framework helped to focus and anchor the subsequent data analysis and interpretation. While the active participation of researchers introduced subjectivity to the interviewing and analysis, the qualitative methods that have been described effectively led to an increased understanding of the participants’ decision-making processes. The shared findings, including the key messages that appear across the majority of participant stories, are presented in the following sections, and are supported by the inclusion of participant responses, in the form of short quotes.

Results and discussion

Revised expected outcomes

Students described a change in expected outcomes during the key decision-making years that was essential to them choosing agricultural science as their preferred university course. Expected outcomes refer to what students believe will happen, or what they will experience, as a result of making this choice. The outcomes discussed by students were, therefore, grouped into two categories – initial expected outcomes (prior to exposure), and revised expected outcomes (following exposure to agricultural science).

Initial expected outcomes about a career in the field of agriculture were largely limited to unrewarding farm-related work that was consistently described as ‘hard’ and ‘menial’. The lack of monetary incentive was offered as a further disincentive, as was the lack of interest in working in rural areas. Maggie [pseudonym], a second-year student from a city-based private school, explained that, ‘no one was really interested in country careers’. Another example, which highlights how an initial lack of interest exists, comes from Jack, who attended a similar school prior to starting university, and said that he originally ‘couldn’t think of anything worse’ than working on a farm, given the distance from town. Maggie and Jack had plans to study veterinary science and environmental science, while other students in our study were initially drawn to careers in dentistry, chemistry, marine science, medical research, forestry, air force cadets and psychology. Most of these students either did not know that there was an agricultural science degree offered through university of had never considered enrolling in it. Only two of the 11 students spoke of an original plan to pursue a career in agriculture, confirming that an intervention is often required to expose young people to the otherwise unknown merits and opportunities of agricultural science.

There was a common pattern in this study, that students changed their career options to include and ultimately choose agricultural science, as a result of interventions in Years 11/12 that revised their expected outcomes. The following revised expected outcomes were consistently developed through interaction with career counsellors, school teachers and UTAS staff, and holistic experiences of farming businesses in Years 11/12:

I will be needed as an agricultural scientist;

I will have a range of career opportunities as an agricultural scientist;

(and because of this it doesn’t matter that I don’t know what I want to do now);

I can apply intelligent science in a useful way in agriculture;

I can help solve significant issues as an agricultural scientist, for Australian farmers, and in community development work overseas;

My interest in a range of disciplines (e.g. business, English) fit within a career in agriculture;

I will have choice about my physical work setting in agriculture (e.g. inside, outside, with people, in laboratory).

Through the advice of career counsellors, Year 11/12 teachers and UTAS staff, students realised that agricultural scientists are in high demand, with a wide range of career opportunities to choose from on graduating. Every student spoke of the importance career security and flexibility held in their decision making, with the flow on benefit for some of feeling secure about not having to know the specific direction their career would take following graduation from the agricultural science degree. Pride was reflected in making a wise choice in this regard, in a scientific career that provided confidence about future employability. Examples of how agricultural science was typically seen as a career that would enable for opportunity, security and flexibility may be seen with David who relates that, ‘once you realise the opportunities that are available, you wouldn’t choose any other sort of science’ and also with Tim, who points out that ‘it’s the single most secure (career) option in the world, due to our complete reliance on food’. Further to this, Sam comments, ‘if people really knew what you could do with the degree you could get a lot more people looking at studying it’. Jack talks about the appeal of ‘the certainty of agriculture’ (as opposed to environmental science) and ‘the beauty of ag [sic] science, not having to make a choice ‘til later’. Maggie offers a similar story to Jack about the appeal of making a choice later when she explains that she does not know what career she will decide on but with agricultural science, she knows that, ‘there are all these options’.

For Eva, career security outweighed her aspiration of becoming a medical researcher as she realised that in agricultural science there are ‘lots of chances to get a job’, whereas with medical research, ‘doing a 4 to 5 year degree to maybe get a job wasn’t appealing’. Eva’s choice process reflects the compromise that can take place between what one would like to do and what is actually chosen (Lent et al., 1994). She went on to say that she saw the agricultural science degree ‘as a way to do the science I really like combined with a degree I can use’. Eva was not aware there was an agricultural science degree when she went through her schooling years, until the intervening influence of participating in a UTAS Primary Industry Centre for Science Education placement program revealed it was a means to combine her science preference with guaranteed job security. She is not interested in the ‘farmy’ aspects of the course, and wants to work in laboratory-based research following graduation.

For other students, the choice to study agricultural science was not only influenced by job security and flexibility but also relied heavily on revised expectations around being able to use skills, pursue existing interests and/or fulfil goals through this career path. Intervention by those in advisory roles who helped students in this study make the connection between their skills, interests and/or goals with a career in agriculture, was essential in the process of revising expected outcomes. For Sam, the opportunity to develop and use a range of skills through studying agricultural science was particularly appealing, because ‘it ties in a bit of everything’. Similarly, Tim spoke of the fact that in agricultural science, different types of science can be used, and they ‘all interact rather than exist separately, and just as theory’. In our study, an interest in working outdoors also arose as a desirable expected outcome of a career in agriculture. Lent et al. (1994) describe a process of interests leading to intentions (and therefore a greater likelihood) of pursuing further activity exposure. In line with the proposed theory, the positive experiences some students had during their childhoods and adolescence of enjoying the outdoors have in turn influenced the expected outcomes they now associate with a career that involves working outdoors.

Social cognitive theory views personal goals as key motivators of behaviour (Lent et al., 1994), and a prominent revised expected outcome in our study was the realisation of a personal goal to ‘help’. When talking about factors behind the career choice to study agriculture, Sam for instance, relates that

Black Saturday and seeing my Uncles (wheat farmers) go through droughts in the 2000s also motivated me to want to find solutions and give something back …. I saw failure and devastation on farms over the years and would like to have the answers to help people overcome these problems.

While Sam’s focus was on ‘giving something back’ to Australian farmers, he also described the increasing interest in young people in Years 10/11/12 to go overseas and do community development work. This interest in helping others appears across many other stories from the participants in this study and was quantified by Overbay and Broyles (2008) as the fourth highest career value among gifted high-school students in the United States. When talking about what agricultural science would enable, Hamish of the current study explains that, ‘I want to go to third world countries and establish sustainable agricultural practices where there are none, to help people groups to improve the way they do things so that everyone will benefit’.

In this study, positive farming experiences led to enrolment in agricultural science by three of the students interviewed. These experiences included the business aspects of agriculture in addition to labouring, and showed the importance of science in action in agriculture. The exposure was, therefore, holistic in nature, and provided firsthand experience of the myriad of skills that successful farming demands of both its producers and its supporting industry. For Michael, being exposed to every aspect of his niche family farm business led to a desire to combine his growing agricultural knowledge with his interest in business, and he now has a goal of starting up a farm agribusiness operation himself in the future. He acknowledged exposure to every aspect of the farm business as a motivating factor to choose a career path through agricultural science, over his initial choice of a well-paid career in dentistry. David enrolled in agricultural science as a result of working with a ‘pro-active’ dairy farmer who exposed him to the science that underpins the operation of a successful farm business. Similarly, it was working in a vineyard that showed Tim how useful agricultural science is. For each of these students, previous exposure to agriculture had been either minimal or negative, with Tim initially identifying agricultural science as, ‘the degree not to do!’, and David admitting that he ‘wouldn’t have ever considered working in agriculture at the time (he) got a job on the farm’. David emphasised the importance of exposure in the development of interests and career goals, echoing the social cognitive theory view that interests and skills are not static and absolute, rather they can change and grow as a function of young people’s experiences (Lent, Hackett, & Brown, 1999). The nature of these positive experiences and exposure to career opportunities in agriculture suggests that on-farm experiences are a far more effective motivator than the school farm experiences that are discussed later in this paper. The two students who spoke of an original plan to pursue a career in agriculture were also immersed in positive agricultural experiences at home, indicating the importance of this exposure in creating an appreciation of the multi-faceted benefits of a career in agricultural science. One of these students was Roger, who explained that, ‘in agricultural science, the world’s your oyster … having come off a farm I could see how science is applied in the field’.

It is essential to recognise that for the average Tasmanian young person, the initial, or default expected outcomes for choosing agricultural science as a career are generally negative. This is largely due to the background environmental influences of negative public perceptions and learning experiences, and the subsequent assumption that a low level of ability is required to pursue this career path.

The influence of negative background environmental influences: Public perception, learning experiences and perceived ability

Lent et al. (2000) report that there has been little effort to date to study the background environmental barriers that precede and help shape interests and initial career choices. In our study, these barriers in the context of agricultural science are unpacked. The immersion in on-farm experiences for some students was the key to realising the breadth and depth of skills and knowledge that is required to run a successful farm business. The general public, however, has not been exposed to this reality, and relies on what is visible about agriculture – for example, a farmer ploughing his paddock to the side of the highway – to shape their perception of what farming involves. Throughout these interviews, the students consistently refer to a career in agriculture being viewed as ‘just’ or ‘only’ farming within their spheres of influence, reflecting not only a lack of awareness of the many career options that have been previously highlighted but also a lack of value placed on farming and the wider agricultural industry in Tasmania. Michael summed up the general understanding that ‘agriculture comes with the title, “Guy with a spade, or a tractor”’.

For students attending private schools in cities, there was a lack of awareness about agriculture altogether throughout high school, with Maggie going as far to say, ‘I don’t think I’d ever heard of it (agricultural science) … it just didn’t have an image … had never run into anyone who would have had an ag sci [sic] degree’. Students from rural backgrounds spoke of influences and experiences that created a decidedly negative image of agriculture. David grew up in a small country town, attended a district high school with ‘farms all around it’ and participated in a high school agricultural subject. Yet, he would ‘never have considered doing agricultural science’ before he started working on a nearby dairy farm in Grade 11. His experience is typical of students attending high schools with an agricultural subject or a school farm, in that they did not have a positive motivational effect to pursue a career in agriculture. In fact, for some students, these learning experiences acted as a barrier in their decision making around agricultural science. In a Grade 9 agricultural unit offered at his high school, Michael learnt that, ‘this is a cow, it has four legs … here’s a tractor and we use them on farms’. He stated that ‘if anything, it would have had a negative impact’. For Roger, his school farm unhelpfully presented a ‘world away from reality … farming is patting animals on the nose … not really helping the ag [sic] science image’. The disconnect between food and where it comes from that Roger alluded to, is a growing barrier to Australian students recognising potential agriculture-related career opportunities. Sam commented that, ‘through the high school years there isn’t the right kind of promotion, it’s just “the farmers grow the food”, and not the enormous supply chain and jobs in between’. Other student’s spoke of the public ‘rage’ and ‘screaming’ over rising food prices, due to lack of awareness of the process involved in bringing food to their supermarkets. Kruger and Beilin (2012) suggest that the increasing urbanisation of Australia acts to magnify the disconnect between where food comes from and young peoples’ understanding of careers in this field. Indeed, our information-rich society is levelling off some of the differences that once existed between young people from city and rural areas, with student exposure to information more uniform, and thoughts on careers and agriculture becoming more uniform (Overbay & Broyles, 2008). In our study, students from both city and rural areas were prompted to review their existing negative perceptions of agriculture as a result of the previously described intervention process, and subsequently revised their expected outcomes.

While agricultural science had not even been considered as a potential career path by the beginning of Grade 11 for the majority of students, either due to lack of awareness about its existence, or its negative image, other career options were noted to have received a significant amount of attention. The young people in our study reported a disproportionate number of high achieving students in their high schools aspiring to study medicine, pharmacy, veterinary science and business, and the ‘prestige’ and ‘respect’ associated with these degrees and career paths. This observation was consistent with theories that suggest high-achieving students are driven to be acknowledged for their accomplishments and this desire for acknowledgement influences their decisions regarding career paths (Harper, 1991; Holland, 1966; Overbay & Broyles, 2008; Super, 1957). In contrast, the reaction of peers to students’ decision to enrol in agricultural science was consistently negative. While peers often recognised greater job security through studying agricultural science, their comments indicate a common misconception that despite its title, the agricultural science degree does not involve intelligent science or lead to a rewarding career, and that farming just requires hard work, rather than a thorough knowledge of many areas. Jack relates that ‘friends back at home say, “What the bloody hell are you doing that for?! How can you spend four years studying the science of agriculture?!”’ Further to this, John states,

Every time I say I’m doing ag [sic] science people say, “So you want to be a farmer?” … they think that the course isn’t hard … like you’re going to learn how to milk cows. When I tell them I’m doing chem [sic] they’re surprised.

The role of perceived ability in the career development pathway has been extensively studied, with a prominent theory that confidence in being able to successfully perform in a particular field, is a motivational contributor to the student pursuing that field (Lent et al., 1999). Our study confirms the ensuing logic of Lent et al. (1994) that very high levels of perceived ability in relation to task demands, diminishes interest in an activity by removing its challenging quality. High perceived ability and the negative expected outcomes that young people associate with agriculture, combine to discourage interest and offer limited potential for satisfaction through this field. There was an overwhelming assumption amongst the public and peers of students in our study (and also among the majority of interviewed students prior to their intervention experiences), that only a low level of ability is required for a career in agriculture. The role of high perceived ability as a barrier in the agriculture career pathway is important for developing further effective interventions for future agricultural science students.

Conclusions and recommendations

Interviews with students enrolled in the Bachelor of Agricultural Science at UTAS confirmed that initial expected outcomes for a career in agriculture were predominantly negative or non-existent among these young Tasmanians. Negative expected outcomes were found to be intrinsically linked with the widespread misperception that agriculture is limited to farm labouring, and that a low level of ability is therefore required to pursue this career path. Exploring students’ decision-making processes revealed that they were generally flexible and responsive to exposure to information and experiences. Interventions were often necessary to revise expected outcomes about a career in agriculture, with effective interventions including exposure to information through education-based advisory roles, and exposure to holistic experiences of farming businesses. Common revised expected outcomes comprised gaining job security and options, applying intelligent science, helping solve significant issues and utilising a broad range of skills and interests in a desirable work location.

In reference to Social Cognitive Career Theory, this study highlighted the role of background environmental influences acting as a barrier to career choice and that of moderating environmental influences in supporting the choice to pursue agricultural science. The barriers that contributed to development of initial outcome expectations were public misperception, negative learning experiences and high perceived ability, and the contributing factors in the process of revising outcome expectations were linkages with interests, skills and goals. In the context of agricultural science-related career development, this study also highlighted the critical importance of intervention during the more active phase of career decision making, to revise expected outcomes and attract students to careers in the agricultural industry. The following recommendations focus on the intervention process, which provided exposure to information and experiences that mediated students’ choices to study agricultural science. Further research to measure the frequency and strength of the initial expected outcomes among young Tasmanians would assist in the development of future interventions.

The message that an agricultural science degree will provide job security seems to be widespread, largely due to the media interest in the skill and employee deficit in Australia. While this message is a significant incentive in students’ decision making, on its own it is generally not enough to overcome the greater barrier to choice created by negative public perceptions, negative learning experiences and/or the negative effect of high perceived ability. Those who have a role advising students about career options require up-to-date training and resources that promote the range of career opportunities available through agriculture, and provide enough detail for advisors to facilitate the essential linkages between students’ interests, skills and goals with these careers. The intellectual capacity required in agricultural scientists to help solve the significant problems facing Australian and international food security must also be a targeted message for those advising students, recognising that the industry's generally negative public image can be reinforced by targeted guidance toward other career paths by teachers and career advisors. Informed advisors can encourage students to discuss how they perceive the skill requirements of an agricultural scientist in relation to their current or potential capabilities. These discussions may well reveal the underestimation of skills that can be used, goals that can be realised and interests that can be pursued in an agricultural career, allowing advisors to expose students to more accurate information.

In this study, agriculture-based school experiences have contributed to the formation of negative expected outcomes in regard to the level of satisfaction that could be achieved through pursuing a career in agriculture. In contrast, an immersion in industry-based work, where students were able to gain a holistic view of a farm business and respect for the science underpinning it, has been a positive moderating influence on career choice. UTAS has wisely invested in placements of Year 11/12 students with professionals in the primary industry sector through the Primary Industry Centre for Science Education. The Primary Industry Centre for Science Education bases its activities on this concept of raising awareness and providing experiences of the science of agriculture and its diverse career opportunities. These findings suggest that they are an effective means to facilitate the revision of expected outcomes about agriculture among young people, and raise the question as to whether the number of placements could be increased, and extended to earlier grades. David concludes, ‘it’s definitely your experiences that shape where you want to go’, and that it’s therefore a ‘simple fact if you don’t experience it, you don’t know about it’.

Increasing the opportunities for these effective interventions is essential in our efforts to challenge the perception that, ‘agriculture comes with the title, “Guy with a spade, or a tractor”’. It is difficult to comprehend for those who are already based within the agricultural industry, the extent of unawareness about its important role in society. The voices of young people currently in the UTAS agricultural science degree tell us how interventions in the form of exposure to information and experiences have led to the essential revision of expected outcomes and subsequently their choice to pursue an agricultural career path.

Footnotes

Funding

The authors would like to acknowledge the funding of this research through the Cross Boundary Research Fund, provided by the Institute of Regional Development, University of Tasmania.

Declaration of conflicting of interest

None declared.

References

Armitage, C. (2012, February 12). Fears for farming’s future as students ignore agriculture, The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/action/printArticle?id=3032411.

Bandura

(1977) Social learning theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura

(1986) Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barkley, A., & Parrish, D. M. (2005, July 24–27). The selection of a major field of study in the College of Agriculture at Kansas State University. Selected paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.

Betz

N. E.

Hackett

(1983) The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 23: 329–345. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(83)90046-5.

Blustein

D. L.

(1999) A match made in heaven? Career development theories and the school-to-work transition. The Career Development Quarterly 47: 348–352. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1999.tb00743.x.

Boumtje, P., & Haase-Wittler, P. S. (2007). Factors affecting enrollment of minority students in agriculture majors at Southern Arkansas University. Proceedings of 2007 CTE Research and Professional Development Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, 41, 346–354.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Campbell

N. K.

Hackett

(1986) The effects of mathematics task-performance on math self-efficacy and task interest. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 28: 149–162. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(86)90048-5.

10.

Department of Employment, Education & Training, Department of Primary Industries & Energy (1991) Report of the review of agricultural and related education, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

11.

Donney

D. A. C.

Borgen

F. H.

(1999) The incremental validity of vocational self-efficacy: An examination of interest, self-efficacy, and occupation. Journal of Counselling Psychology 46: 432–447. doi:10.1037//0022-0167.46.4.432.

12.

Dyer, J. E., Breja, L. M., & Wittler, S. H. (2000). Predictors of student retention in colleges in agriculture. Proceedings of the 27th Annual National Agricultural Education Research Conference, San Diego, CA, 490–501.

13.

Education & Training Committee. (2012, November 14). Inquiry into agricultural education and training in Victoria. Parliament of Victoria. Retrieved from http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/etc/inquiries/inquiry/276.

14.

Esters, L. T., & Knobloch, N. (2007). Rural Korean students’ level of interest and intentions to pursue careers in agriculture. Proceedings of the 2007 American Association for Agricultural Engineering Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 34, 728–730.

15.

Harper, F. C. (1991). Career decision-making patterns of academically gifted, rural adolescents (Master’s thesis). University of Calgary, Canada.

16.

Holland

J. L.

(1966) The psychology of vocational choice: A theory of personality types and model environments , Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.

17.

Kruger

Beilin

(2012) Lost in transition. Secondary school students’ understanding of landscapes and natural resource management. Youth Studies Australia 31: 43–52.

18.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(1994) Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 45: 79–122. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027.

19.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(2000) Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counselling Psychology 47: 36–49. doi:10.1037//0022-0167.47.1.36.

20.

Lent

R. W.

Hackett

Brown

S. D.

(1999) A social cognitive view of school-to-work transition. The Career Development Quarterly 47: 297–311. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1999.tb00739.x.

21.

Lynch, T. L. (2001). Factors influencing the enrolment of minority students in agricultural science programs at Virginia Tech. PhD Diss., Dept of Teaching and Learning, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., 226 War Memorial Hall, Blacksburg, VA. 24061.

22.

McSweeney

Rayner

(2011) Developments in Australian agriculture and related education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 33: 415–425. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2011.585740.

23.

Marino, M. (2007, August 27). High-tech farming needs careers push, Australian Government Grains Research and Development Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.grdc.com.au/Media-Centre/Ground-Cover/Ground-Cover-Issue-70-September-October-2007/News-Hightech-farming-needs-careers-push.

24.

Overbay, A., & Broyles, T. (2008). Career values and perceptions of agriculture: What these gifted high school students thought. NACTA Journal, 52, 2–7.

25.

Pratley

Copeland

(2008) Graduate completions in agriculture and related degrees from Australian universities, 2001–2006. Farm Policy Journal 5: 1–11.

26.

Primary Industry Centre for Science Education. (2012, June 18–19). PICSE Youth Round Table Outcomes, University House, Canberra. Retrieved from http://www.picse.net/HUB/2012YRT.htm.

27.

Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of careers. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

28.

Tang

Pan

Newmeyer

M. D.

(2008) Factors influencing high school students’ career aspirations. American School Counsellor Association 11: 285–295. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2010-11.285.

29.

Wildman

Torres

R. M.

(2001) Factors identified when selecting a major in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education 42: 46–55. doi:10.5032/jae.2001.02046.