3.1 Initial Primary Research
Targeted Phase 2 Gap Closure Setup
Initial Primary Research should begin with a short scoping and preparation step before any interviews, surveys or stakeholder approaches occur. This setup is part of 3.1. It should use the Phase 2 evidence base to make the primary research focused, efficient and non-promotional.
This is not a new broad desktop-research phase. It is a targeted conversion of the Phase 2 evidence gaps into interview scope, contact priorities, evidence-capture fields and decision gates.
| Setup task | Detail | 3.1 use |
|---|---|---|
| Extract Stanthorpe trial leads | Pull out the most relevant Stanthorpe trial findings for yield, water, sowing window, variety, crop-management and transferability questions. | Shape agronomist, researcher and producer questions about whether Stanthorpe evidence can inform the wider New England context. |
| Assemble comparator baselines | Prepare concise baseline notes for climate, land use, likely alternative enterprises and realistic environmental comparators across Tenterfield, Stanthorpe and nearby areas. | Keep producer economics and environmental interviews tied to "compared with what?" rather than generic hemp claims. |
| Map product pathways | Separate grain / seed food, oil / protein, fibre, hurd, dual-purpose, biomass and out-of-scope cannabinoid pathways. | Prevent interviews from treating hemp as one market and help decide which pathways deserve initial attention. |
| Map processor and buyer leads | Use public sources, Senate submissions, industry directories and existing source-register leads to identify possible processors, buyers, manufacturers, distributors or exporters. | Build the private contact list and prioritise contacts that can test real demand, specifications, intake terms and logistics. |
| Validate Senate inquiry leads | Separate Senate submission evidence into claims, lived experience, policy issues, possible contact leads and items needing corroboration. | Turn submission material into interview prompts without treating it as verified market, price or profitability evidence. |
| Identify regulatory and policy questions | Convert NSW, Queensland and Commonwealth licensing, testing, notification, record keeping, public-sector program and policy issues into practical interview prompts. | Guide regulator, adviser and political stakeholder interviews without turning them into advocacy. |
| Prioritise evidence gaps | Use Phase 2 Gaps and Risks to rank the unresolved questions that matter most for producer, supply-chain, New England Landcare Network and environmental decisions. | Keep the initial project narrow enough to complete in 4-6 weeks. |
| Prepare evidence-capture fields | Define fields for product pathway, geography, stakeholder category, assessment perspective, evidence type, confidence level and follow-up need. | Make interview outputs usable for synthesis, funding-readiness assessment and handoff to Scoping and Resourcing. |
The setup should produce a short internal preparation pack before interviews begin.
| Preparation output | Use |
|---|---|
| Interview-priority brief | Records the product pathways, evidence gaps and stakeholder groups to test first. |
| Contact category map | Identifies the stakeholder categories and lead sources for the private contact list. |
| Question matrix | Converts Phase 2 gaps into targeted questions by stakeholder group. |
| Evidence-capture template | Ensures findings are classified consistently by pathway, geography, perspective, confidence and follow-up need. |
| Go/no-go criteria | Defines what evidence would justify proceeding to Scoping and Resourcing, narrowing scope, pausing or taking no further action. |
Handoff To Scoping And Resourcing
Initial Primary Research must feed directly into Scoping and Resourcing.
Its outputs should answer:
- whether a larger project is worth designing;
- which product pathways should be prioritised or ruled out;
- which partners, funders or technical advisers should be approached;
- what resources would be required;
- what evidence gaps remain too weak for a funding application.
Research Streams
| Stream | Participants | Main questions |
|---|---|---|
| Growers and non-adopters | Existing hemp growers, former growers, potential growers and producers who chose not to grow hemp. | What happened in practice? What costs, risks, yields, markets or barriers mattered? |
| Post-harvest processors | Seed cleaners, dryers, oil pressers, millers, decorticators, fibre graders, hurd processors and other service providers. | What services exist, what fees, minimum volumes, specifications and intake windows apply, and can New England material be processed? |
| Raw and post-harvest material buyers | Buyers of seed, cleaned grain, straw, retted stalk, fibre, hurd, biomass and other intermediate materials. | Is there real demand for material, what form is required, and can Australian supply compete by pathway? |
| Manufactured and wholesale product buyers | Buyers or distributors of hemp foods, oil/protein/flour, hempcrete blocks, panels, bedding, textiles, composites and other finished or wholesale goods. | What product specifications, volumes, certifications and price conditions apply by product pathway? |
| Agronomists, researchers and advisers | Hemp researchers, agronomists and comparable-crop advisers. | What regional suitability, water, frost, soil, pest, weed and harvest issues need testing? |
| Landcare leadership | New England Landcare Network leadership, member-organisation leadership and Landcare decision-makers. | What role is appropriate, what governance or brand risks exist, and what evidence thresholds must be met? |
| Partners and stakeholders | Funders, government, Local Land Services, Landcare bodies, research organisations, education providers and industry groups. | What partner appetite, governance needs, funding fit and conditions for involvement exist? |
| Community and consumers | Community members, consumers, local businesses and people who may encounter hemp products or communications. | What is the baseline understanding, what perceptions or concerns exist, and what product pathways are known or used? |
Regulators, policy advisers and political stakeholders may still be contacted for targeted clarification where needed. They are treated as specialist follow-up contacts rather than a separate survey stream so the interview structure stays aligned with the eight survey instruments.
Survey Drafts
The initial survey drafts prepared from the Phase 2 interim case material now sit with 3.1 Initial Primary Research because they are working instruments for primary research preparation.
Processors and buyers are separated because a processor may provide post-harvest services for a fee without buying or taking ownership of the crop. Buyer evidence is also separated between raw or post-harvest materials and manufactured or wholesale products, because the product pathway, specifications, volumes and price signals differ materially.
Community and Consumers is an equal-priority stream. It helps the project understand public baseline knowledge, consumer product awareness, stigma or confusion, and how community information may interact with producer, processor, buyer, leadership and partner evidence.
Each survey includes an optional demographic baseline for communication planning and aggregate audience-pattern analysis. This appears near the end of the form, immediately before participant consent, so the interview can first collect the substantive evidence. Demographic responses are not intended to identify individual respondents and should only be used in combined, anonymised summaries.
The participant consent section confirms whether the participant has been provided with the research statement, then separates core research consent from respondent details, follow-up contact and published-information sharing preferences. Research consent uses a single Yes tick column, while follow-up preferences use explicit Yes and No choices. Each form includes a top-of-form survey number for data-entry tracking and a compact participant signature block with signature and date on the first line and name underneath.
Each survey also includes a short participant-information panel near the top. The panel gives only base-level privacy and use information and directs participants to the published short participant snapshot on the Industrial Hemp subdomain, with a QR code for printed forms. The recording question is presented as a simple Yes / No check for whether the participant is comfortable with audio recording for note-taking only.
| Survey draft | Audience |
|---|---|
| Growers and Non-adopters | Current producers, former hemp growers, interested growers and growers who are not interested in adopting hemp. |
| Post-harvest Processors | Organisations that clean, dry, press, mill, decorticate, grade, prepare or otherwise process hemp material, whether or not they buy the crop. |
| Raw and Post-harvest Material Buyers | Buyers of harvested or intermediate materials such as seed, cleaned grain, straw, retted stalk, fibre, hurd or biomass. |
| Manufactured and Wholesale Product Buyers | Buyers, wholesalers, builders, retailers, distributors or project customers for manufactured hemp products. |
| Landcare Leadership | New England Landcare Network and member-organisation leadership. |
| Partners and Stakeholders | Funders, government agencies, Local Land Services, Landcare bodies, research bodies, education providers, industry groups and other stakeholders. |
| Community and Consumers | Community members and consumers whose understanding, perceptions and product use may affect project design and communications. |
| Agronomists, Researchers and Advisers | Agronomists, researchers, farm advisers and technical specialists. |
Indicative Sampling
The initial project should be large enough to test whether evidence exists, but small enough to complete quickly. Suggested targets are:
| Stakeholder group | Target sample | Minimum useful sample | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existing or former hemp growers | 4-6 | 3 | Include successful, unsuccessful and discontinued experience where possible. |
| Non-adopters or comparable producers | 4-6 | 3 | Test reasons not to grow hemp and opportunity cost against current enterprises. |
| Post-harvest processors | 3-5 | 2 | Cover service providers separately from buyers where possible. |
| Raw and post-harvest material buyers | 3-5 | 2 | Cover seed, fibre, hurd, biomass or other intermediate product pathways where leads exist. |
| Manufactured and wholesale product buyers | 3-5 | 2 | Cover food, oil/protein, building-material, bedding/mulch, textile, composite or other wholesale product leads where possible. |
| Agronomists, researchers and advisers | 3-5 | 2 | Include hemp-specific and comparable-crop expertise. |
| Landcare leadership | 4-6 | 3 | Include New England Landcare Network and member-organisation leadership perspectives. |
| Partners and stakeholders | 4-6 | 3 | Include possible funding, technical, government, Landcare and delivery partners. |
| Community and consumers | 8-15 | 5 | Use short event, street-beat or community forms to test baseline understanding, product awareness and communications risk. |
Total target sample: about 32-55 participants or informants, plus targeted specialist follow-up where needed. Minimum viable sample: about 22 participants or informants if coverage across all eight survey streams is achieved.
Basic Delivery Outline
| Step | Activity | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Complete targeted Phase 2 setup | Extract Stanthorpe trial leads, comparator baselines, processor/buyer leads, Senate submission prompts and priority product-pathway questions. | Focused evidence-gap and interview-priority brief. |
| 2. Confirm scope | Use Phase 2 Gaps and Risks plus the targeted setup brief to select priority product pathways, stakeholder groups and questions. | Short interview scope and contact categories. |
| 3. Build contact list | Use public sources, industry leads, Landcare networks and partner suggestions. | Private contact list kept outside docs/. |
| 4. Prepare instruments | Draft short call guide, consent script, evidence-capture template and classification fields. | Approved interview pack. |
| 5. Conduct interviews | Use 15-30 minute semi-structured calls or meetings, with longer follow-up only where justified. | Private notes and source-coded evidence leads. |
| 6. Classify evidence | Tag each finding by product pathway, geography, perspective, evidence type, confidence and follow-up need. | Primary evidence snapshot. |
| 7. Synthesis workshop | Review findings with New England Landcare Network or a project steering group without publishing sensitive details. | Go/no-go view for Scoping and Resourcing. |
| 8. Prepare handoff | Convert findings into a funding-readiness brief, unresolved gap list and resourcing needs. | Inputs for 3.2 Scoping and Resourcing. |
Outputs
| Output | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Initial evidence snapshot | Summarise what primary evidence supports, weakens or leaves unresolved. |
| Supply-chain lead map | Identify possible processors, buyers and product pathways for later validation. |
| Unresolved gap list | Prioritise what a larger project would need to test. |
| Preliminary New England Landcare Network role test | Record whether monitor, inform, partner, convene, lead or no role remains plausible. |
| Resourcing needs | Identify time, skills, governance, privacy, technical and communications needs. |
| Funding-readiness brief | Decide whether there is enough evidence to proceed to Scoping and Resourcing. |
Resourcing Options
| Option | Role and tasks | Strengths | Risks | Suitability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volunteer or internal coordination | New England Landcare Network or project volunteers coordinate calls, notes and synthesis using existing templates. | Low cost and locally grounded. | Limited time, uneven availability and possible lack of technical capacity. | Suitable only for a small screening project. |
| Paid project officer | A short-term officer coordinates interviews, evidence logging, scheduling and summaries. | Improves consistency, follow-up and delivery discipline. | Requires funding or internal budget and clear supervision. | Strong option if modest funds are available. |
| Consultant-supported delivery | Consultant supports interview design, synthesis, economics framing or funding-readiness outputs. | Adds speed, independence and specialist reporting capacity. | Cost and need for careful brief control. | Useful where New England Landcare Network needs a polished funder-ready evidence brief. |
| Research-partner delivery | University, government, TAFE or research partner helps design and interpret the initial project. | Adds credibility and technical discipline. | May require longer timelines, formal agreements or funding. | Best where the initial project is already linked to a larger research pathway. |
Go Or No-Go Questions
- Is there evidence of real buyer or processor interest that can be tested further?
- Are there enough grower, non-adopter or technical contacts to support credible Phase 3 work?
- Are the most plausible product pathways clear enough to scope?
- Is New England Landcare Network's role still plausible after reputational and resource risks are considered?
- Is there a credible funding or partner pathway for the next stage?