No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
A new professionalism for agricultural research for development
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability
Abstract
There have been repeated calls for a ‘new professionalism’ for carrying out agricultural research for development since the 1990s. At the centre of these calls is a recognition that for agricultural research to support the capacities required to face global patterns of change and their implications on rural livelihoods, requires a more systemic, learning focused and reflexive practice that bridges epistemologies and methodologies. In this paper, we share learning from efforts to mainstream such an approach through a large, multi-partner CGIAR research program working in aquatic agricultural systems. We reflect on four years of implementing research in development (RinD), the program’s approach to the new professionalism. We highlight successes and challenges and describe the key characteristics that define the approach. We conclude it is possible to build a program on a broader approach that embraces multidisciplinarity and engages with stakeholders in social-ecological systems. Our experience also suggests caution is required to ensure there is the time, space and appropriate evaluation methodologies in place to appreciate outcomes different to those to which conventional agricultural research aspires.
... For example, efforts to move solely from work centered on technology adoption to conducting systems-oriented research in and for development are taking place but are relatively recent. 39 Besides, researchers have flagged some fundamental discrepancies between the support provided by international stakeholders and what LAs need, including discrepancies in timelines (e.g., short-term versus long-term support), investment priorities that encompass global versus local needs, top-down versus bottom-up governance, narrow versus holistic monitoring systems, and funding targeted to increase technology adoption versus strengthening social empowerment, among others. [39][40][41][42][43] Therefore, the inertia of technology-centered culture and projects, mixed with shortterm funding and engagement, constrains LAs maturation (e.g., Douthwaite et al. 39 ). ...
... 39 Besides, researchers have flagged some fundamental discrepancies between the support provided by international stakeholders and what LAs need, including discrepancies in timelines (e.g., short-term versus long-term support), investment priorities that encompass global versus local needs, top-down versus bottom-up governance, narrow versus holistic monitoring systems, and funding targeted to increase technology adoption versus strengthening social empowerment, among others. [39][40][41][42][43] Therefore, the inertia of technology-centered culture and projects, mixed with shortterm funding and engagement, constrains LAs maturation (e.g., Douthwaite et al. 39 ). Addressing and understanding these discrepancies is needed to support, rather than hinder, the locally driven long-term and process-oriented efforts central to integrated LAs. ...
... 39 Besides, researchers have flagged some fundamental discrepancies between the support provided by international stakeholders and what LAs need, including discrepancies in timelines (e.g., short-term versus long-term support), investment priorities that encompass global versus local needs, top-down versus bottom-up governance, narrow versus holistic monitoring systems, and funding targeted to increase technology adoption versus strengthening social empowerment, among others. [39][40][41][42][43] Therefore, the inertia of technology-centered culture and projects, mixed with shortterm funding and engagement, constrains LAs maturation (e.g., Douthwaite et al. 39 ). Addressing and understanding these discrepancies is needed to support, rather than hinder, the locally driven long-term and process-oriented efforts central to integrated LAs. ...
... Operating across five countries (Bangladesh, Cambodia, Philippines, Solomon Islands, and Zambia), among the key emphases of the program were to use a participatory action research approach, a gender transformative approach that aimed at challenging inequitable gender norms, and an underlying philosophy of "research in development", which aimed to contrast with more conventional research 'for' development approaches alluded to above (Douthwaite et al. 2017b: esp. Figure 2). Originally intended to operate for 12 years, the program ended ahead of time in 2016 following significant funding cuts to CGIAR and negative external evaluations that were conducted according to conventional approaches for measuring impact (Douthwaite et al. 2017a). ...
... Although the AAS program shut down, in many of the locations where AAS worked, communities and partners continue to use the knowledge and skills they acquired to shift mindsets and improve the performance of conventional agricultural research programs (Douthwaite et al. 2017a). Among the documented benefits of this approach included significant levels of ownership by local stakeholders in the research program, identification of new opportunities that emerged over time, and the ability to incorporate these findings into the research process in an iterative manner (Douthwaite et al. 2017b). ...
... Researchers were able to develop critical analyses of governance that addressed difficult, intractable problems such as representation, authority, and accountability (Ratner et al. 2013;Apgar et al. 2017a). AAS projects were more socially inclusive than conventional projects, and better empowered involved communities to strengthen rural innovation systems (Douthwaite et al. 2017a). AAS practitioners also developed a body of knowledge with deep understanding about improving development outcomes through addressing gender relations development (Cole et al. 2014) that continues to be influential in the field of agricultural and fisheries. ...
Organisations working on conservation and community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) projects with communities have sometimes damaged the wellbeing of those communities. The social and political dynamics between organisations funding or implementing projects and the communities in which they work might be a factor causing this damage. This review paper explores the literature for evidence of and methods for evaluating impacts on community wellbeing from social relations in conservation and natural resource management projects. We found 101 papers addressing social connections in the human wellbeing-conservation nexus, acknowledging the damage done by colonising project relations and detailing proposals for or examples of more equitable relationality, and also evaluations of social equity in conservation/CBNRM work. However, we found few explicit evaluations of how the social, economic, and political relations of projects impact the wellbeing of participating communities. We call on researchers to address this gap, especially those working in evaluating project outcomes. To advance this agenda, we present literature that sheds light on what more equitable project relations look like, and how project relationality might be evaluated. We finish with ideas for how organisations can diagnose internal relationality problems likely to affect project outcomes, and how to transform those.
... Agricultural research organisations have over a decade of experience embedding multi-actor innovation; ImpreS in CIRAD (Blundo-Canto et al., 2019), the Innovation Works unit in the International Livestock Research Institute (Kristjanson et al., 2009) international development-oriented research of the CGIAR more broadly (Leeuwis et al., 2017), transformation of Wageningen University and the Dutch Agricultural Research Institutes (Spiertz and Kropff, 2011), the European Union H2020 and Horizon Europe programs (Fieldsend et al., 2021(Fieldsend et al., , 2022, promotion of innovation platforms in Africa and Asia (Schut et al., 2018)), systems CGIAR research programs (Douthwaite et al., 2017), and the case study of this paper; BeyondResults in AgResearch (Percy et al., 2015). To embed multi-actor innovation, new values need to percolate through all levels of a research organisation (Blundo-Canto et al., 2019;Douthwaite et al., 2017) as well as broader institutional environments Paschen et al., 2021), e. g. valuing the integration of the expertise of the public, policy makers, and managers with scientific experts to create actionable solutions (Osei-Amponsah et al., 2018). ...
... Agricultural research organisations have over a decade of experience embedding multi-actor innovation; ImpreS in CIRAD (Blundo-Canto et al., 2019), the Innovation Works unit in the International Livestock Research Institute (Kristjanson et al., 2009) international development-oriented research of the CGIAR more broadly (Leeuwis et al., 2017), transformation of Wageningen University and the Dutch Agricultural Research Institutes (Spiertz and Kropff, 2011), the European Union H2020 and Horizon Europe programs (Fieldsend et al., 2021(Fieldsend et al., , 2022, promotion of innovation platforms in Africa and Asia (Schut et al., 2018)), systems CGIAR research programs (Douthwaite et al., 2017), and the case study of this paper; BeyondResults in AgResearch (Percy et al., 2015). To embed multi-actor innovation, new values need to percolate through all levels of a research organisation (Blundo-Canto et al., 2019;Douthwaite et al., 2017) as well as broader institutional environments Paschen et al., 2021), e. g. valuing the integration of the expertise of the public, policy makers, and managers with scientific experts to create actionable solutions (Osei-Amponsah et al., 2018). ...
... Applied research organisations have struggled to embed these changes in values and practice towards multi-actor innovation due to challenges to internal and external legitimacy (Bruno et al., 2017;Douthwaite et al., 2017;Gulbrandsen et al., 2015;Leeuwis et al., 2017;Perkmann et al., 2019). External legitimacy challenges arise when research organisations fail to gain external support because they only partially meet the demands of important sources of legitimacy (Raynard, 2016), e.g., industry partners seeking impact from science (Bruno et al., 2017). ...
Agricultural research organisations play a critical role in the agri-food system; not only through the provision of research and technologies, but also by brokering relationships with stakeholders throughout the research process to create impact. Yet over the past decade, as the focus has shifted towards such multi-actor innovation processes, the role and legitimacy of the agricultural research organisations worldwide has been challenged. Occupying an intermediary position in agricultural innovation systems means that agricultural research institute legitimacy is constantly under pressure from the rural community, academics, policy makers, industry, and general society as the institute attempts to be all things to all people. Here we present the outcomes of an organisational change programme within an applied agricultural research organisation, in response to a government-led agenda to increase impact for research users. By using institutional theory of hybrid organisation legitimacy, we shed light on the multiple institutional logics that co-exist within an agricultural research institute, and how these align with the external institutional environment. We show that with the introduction of a new multi-actor innovation logic, attempts were made to legitimise, externally and internally, knowledge co-production. Yet agricultural research organisations, and those who work within them, need dedicated time for learning and reflecting on the values, beliefs, and practices of the different actors in the innovation system, otherwise they only selectively adopt practices that maintain existing institutional logics. The main theoretical implications show how that change towards an impact culture is influenced by the existing logics, and how organisational legitimacy provides a framing for understanding the success (or otherwise) of introducing new modes of innovation in hybrid research organisations. Practically, space and resourcing are needed to experiment with new logics and deliberate strategies are required to increase the repertoire of research roles while maintaining internal and external legitimacy. The practical implications demonstrate the barriers and opportunities of re-orientating hybrid agricultural research institutes, agricultural innovation systems, and the roles of the researchers that work in them, to deliver to the complex societal challenges facing the agri-food sector.
... ECE proved the catalyst for establishing multi-actor activities (examples of which are shown in the bold text in the outer circle of Figure 1) and partnerships throughout the life of the project. The approach taken in SIAGI shares much with Research in Development (RinD; AAS, 2011; Douthwaite, Apgar, et al., 2017) the learning-based Participatory Action Research (PAR) paradigm developed at the CGIARin that the research was embedded in ongoing engagement processes to initiate and sustain change. ...
... Oughton and Bracken (2009) refer to this phase of interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary research as 'finding the common focus', noting it is a careful process to define what is to be investigated and what is not, requiring determination of the spatial, temporal and institutional limits to the research. In SIAGI, it was a negotiated process where specific topics of research were shaped to fit with the projects development agenda, akin to the RinD approach that Douthwaite, Apgar, et al. (2017) reflect upon. ...
... This was due in part to the ongoing capacity development activities but also the commitment and attitudes of the team members, and the relationships developed over the project. The importance of the team dynamics and the attitudes of individuals within large multidisciplinary teams was critical to the success of the SIAGI project (Table 4), and is well recognised in the literature (Bracken, 2012;Castillo et al., 2020;Douthwaite, Apgar, et al., 2017). ...
Large investments in Research-for-Development (R4D) have occurred around agricultural intensification to improve social and economic outcomes for poor small and marginal farmer households. Mixed evidence for sustained and socially just impacts from these investments reflects that projects aimed at achieving social change are inherently complex and the pathways from intervention to impact are deeply uncertain. R4D projects are increasingly drawing on integrative approaches to explore solution spaces for these complex social-agroecological problems; albeit integration science is not yet mainstream in R4D. We reflect on one approach (integrated assessment, IA) in a project on socially inclusive agricultural intensification, namely on how the project team embraced integration tools and research approaches, translated knowledge and learnings of the community and broader research team into systems frameworks, and ensured that social inclusion and justice concepts were central to the IA tools and process. IA was valued for its participatory focus and for lessening ‘silo thinking’ in the design of community interventions and research activities. We argue that complexity-aware integration approaches like IA are needed to support the design, monitoring and evaluation of R4D projects to enhance outcomes and achieve sustained impact.
... Over the past few decades, numerous development projects have failed to meet the needs and priorities of local beneficiaries, often related to a limited understanding of the local SES (e.g., Sirolli 1998, Douthwaite et al. 2017, Watkins et al. 2018. Although there are many additional reasons for the failure of such development projects, one major pitfall is that local NGO dependence on financial assistance from donors makes them prone to stick with the tightly predefined development goals of their donors, leaving them with no space to adapt development projects to the local needs and social-ecological and cultural contexts in which the project is to be implemented (Amutabi 2006, Risal 2014, Gent et al. 2015. ...
... As such, PAR is used as a way to operationalize CST and to move from problem analysis to intervention. Combined PAR-CST approaches include community-based participatory research (Raymaker 2016), research in development (Douthwaite et al. 2017), and community operational research (Midgley 2016, Helfgott 2018. There are several commonalities to PAR and CST approaches. ...
... There are several commonalities to PAR and CST approaches. They acknowledge the need to develop effective ways to manage inquiry in "messy" areas (Raymaker 2016:409) and intractable (Douthwaite et al. 2017) or complex (Midgley 2016) problems. They value human emancipation, systemic perspectives, and complementarism on multiple levels. ...
We present a research approach that seeks to develop and strengthen participatory action research (PAR) when applied in social-ecological systems (SES) by combining it with critical systems thinking (CST). This research approach responds to the urgent societal need to move beyond predefined project framing in development projects. While PAR acts as a basis for operationalizing participatory research processes, CST supports PAR by including explicit questions about system and problem boundaries. We first present this approach in the context of existing approaches and then go on to illustrate it by investigating a SES case study of a marine system on the Caribbean Saba Island as part of a project to protect sharks from extinction. The case study illustrates that strengthening PAR with the explicit framing questions used by CST combines the strengths of these two approaches. This combination allows participants: (1) to (re)frame the problem definition and scope as perceived by the different stakeholders, and (2) to find, co-create, and implement viable solutions with local stakeholders to improve a SES based on local needs and diverse stakeholders' perspectives on potential solutions.
... The changing role of research in and for developmental outcomes is now more widely acknowledged (Douthwaite et al. 2017), and future giant clam technical research would need to align with this new paradigm. The critical insights provided by van der Ploeg et al. (2016) show that the changing nature of research for development requires much more meaningful integration of different knowledge types into research design and conduct. ...
... Research for development is rapidly changing in light of complex transparency, accountability and global development needs (van der Ploeg et al. 2016;Douthwaite et al. 2017). Developed country researchers working in developing and emerging economies have an ethical responsibility to actively work in a manner that suits the needs and context of their developing country partners. ...
... For Solomon Islands, despite the dormant industry, local knowledge prevails, and the skills are being used in the region for both giant clams and other commodities. This type of partnership with local champions is critical for sustainable development and for successful agricultural research(Douthwaite et al. 2017). We recommend that future programs continue to target core local champions who can deliver on project objectives, and can lead the ongoing use of ACIAR-generated knowledge and technologies after project completion.Positively, ACIAR demonstrated institutional learning throughout the 15-year period of giant clam research. ...
This impact assessment of giant clam research in
the Indo-Pacific region is a valuable historical
compendium of the ACIAR-sponsored work undertaken
over 25 years. The authors have drawn together
a wide-ranging evaluation of the work from biological,
ecological and socioeconomic perspectives. There is
no doubt that the work has led to the establishment
of a vast body of knowledge about giant clam biology,
markets, and culturing techniques that has contributed
to ongoing efforts to conserve the species and continued
research capacity in the Indo-Pacific.
... CSA is a set of guiding principles for farmers to adapt to growing natural resource constraints and increasingly unpredictable weather conditions [15,16]. CSA is defined by three objectives: (i) increasing agricultural productivity to support increased incomes, food security, and development; (ii) increasing adaptive capacity and resilience to climate variability at multiple levels (from farm to nation); and (iii) decreasing greenhouse gas emissions where possible and appropriate [17]. ...
... The traditional linear approach for technology development and transfer involves upstream research institutions that engage in scientific discovery and proof-of-concepts, which once validated, are handed over to downstream practitioners for piloting, who in turn transfer technologies and products to extension services who pass them to farmers. The focus has now shifted to the facilitation of learning and joint action in multi-stakeholder settings, often in relation to innovation systems [17]. In this context, an active and continuous reassessment of the necessary field conditions, genotypes, agronomic management practices, and enabling policies calls for a continual stream of validated upstream research products suitable for downstream adoption and adaptation. ...
Climate change will continue to have a largely detrimental impact on the agricultural sector worldwide because of predicted rising temperatures, variable rainfall, and an increase in extreme weather events. Reduced crop yields will lead to higher food prices and increased hardship for low income populations, especially in urban areas. Action on climate change is one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 13) and is linked to the Paris Climate Agreement. The research challenge posed by climate change is so complex that a trans-disciplinary response is required, one that brings together researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers in networks where the lines between "research" and "development" become deliberately blurred. Fostering such networks will require researchers, throughout the world, not only to work across disciplines but also to pursue new South-North and South-South partnerships incorporating policy-makers and practitioners. We use our diverse research experiences to describe the emergence of such networks, such as the Direct Seeded Rice Consortium (DSRC) in South and Southeast Asia, and to identify lessons on how to facilitate and strengthen the development of trans-disciplinary responses to climate change.
... Reaching and supporting marginalised people is a goal of many agricultural research, development and extension programmes. A new generation of approaches to agricultural research aims to achieve development outcomes by reaching the marginalised, these include integrated agricultural research for development (IAR4D) (Hawkins et al. 2009;Hall et al. 2014), and research in development (RinD) (Douthwaite et al. 2017). Common among them is their use of participatory methods to engage farmers and policy-makers directly in agricultural research, following the early work of Chambers (1989) that led to a proliferation of methods and policies for putting farmers first (e.g. ...
... Importantly also, there is a need for their institutional environments to shift and nurture more flexible and poor responsive, and 'power-aware' practices (Thiele, van de Fliert, and Campilan 2001). Allowing reflexivity to expose internal power dynamics and shift them is not an easy process to support, and indeed the lead organisation in this case at times found it difficult (see Douthwaite et al. 2017;. Our experience in the Solomon Islands, however, gives us confidence that researchers can influence social processes and improve the way agricultural research and extension engage with them. ...
Purpose: This paper examines if and how agricultural researchers and extension officers can see, understand and change processes that exclude some people and influence marginalisation.
Design and methodology: We used participatory action research (PAR) in a programme building sustainable farming practices for nutrition and income in Solomon Islands as our case study. Two qualitative PAR data streams were analysed: (i) documentation of community activities over three years including action planning, learning activities, training workshops, focus group discussions, key informant and informal interviews and (ii) documentation of the research teams’ own learning and reflection sessions.
Findings: Agricultural research and learning activities facilitated through PAR can help researchers and extension officers see, understand and challenge processes that cause social exclusion and marginalisation and lead to inequitable access to agricultural opportunities. A combination of (i) starting with a collective vision; (ii) facilitating systematic reflection exercises; and (iii) having locally tuned facilitators creating safe spaces; makes processes of social exclusion tangible, discussable and ultimately actionable, illustrating the potential of the research and extension processes to facilitate social change in real time.
Theoretical Implications: The paper makes a contribution to the growing body of theory and literature on innovation systems and people-centred approaches to agricultural development, by highlighting the facilitation challenges and opportunities that can create more learning focused and power-aware agricultural programming.
Practical Implications: Our approach, examined in this paper, can improve implementation of policies such as the Solomon Islands Agriculture and Livestock Sector Policy (2015–2019), which aims for active participation of women and youth in agricultural development.
Originality: Using a PAR approach to discover how agricultural research and extension activities can help transform the processes that cause social exclusion and create disadvantage and marginalisation.
... Researchers were considered as specialists or "knowers" of what was good and who developed technologies that were "perceived" to address the needs of the end-users. Described as a one-way pipeline, from researcher to extension to farmer (Biggs, 1990;Douthwaite et al., 2017), researchers were expected to develop new technologies and transfer them to extension workers, who in turn transferred them to farmers for adoption. Unlike the linear approach, ISA is holistic and designed to enhance development and uptake of technologies via iterative involvement of diverse actors. ...
... Research needs to be aware of end-users' preferences and their potential constraints to use of new technologies since this ultimately determines acceptability of new technologies. As Douthwaite et al. (2017) note, it is imperative that technology developers shift from being outside "knowers" to "enablers". That way, researchers will be able to facilitate rather than control the selection process. ...
Low uptake of improved technologies remains a challenge to enhancing agricultural productivity and food security in developing countries. This paper uses the agricultural innovations systems approach to analyse how the recently released hybrid banana varieties (HBVs) were developed, and how the interplay between processes and actors affect their uptake in central Uganda. The study used a qualitative research design employing a case study approach. Data were collected through 20 key informant interviews and 5 focus group discussions with purposively selected actors and farmer research groups respectively, and analysed using thematic-content analysis in NVivo. Results indicate that the process of developing HBVs is dominated by agricultural research institutions with limited involvement of other actors such as farmers, private sector and extension staff. Further, there is limited integration of social aspects including gender in the banana technology development process. The study, therefore, recommends use of inclusive participatory approaches in breeding of HBVs while paying attention to gender-specific preferences and the intrinsic quality attributes such as food colour, texture, flavour and taste since these are critical drivers for uptake of the new banana varieties.
... Recognizing and acting on the problem It is well recognized that complex problems such as social change require a transdisciplinary approach to achieve impact (Hadorn et al., 2006;Noström et al., 2020). The challenges of operationalizing participatory processes have also been amply described (Cooke and Kothari, 2001;Chambers, 2005;Douthwaite et al., 2013). While these approaches constituted the premise for how the project was originally designed, our project was not immune to the continued influence of entrenched knowledge hierarchies and traditional research behaviours which continue to permeate agricultural research institutions and their funders (Carter and Williams, 2019;. ...
We describe a research-for-development (R4D) strategy developed to address how investments and interventions in agricultural intensification as a means to achieve community development can be designed to be more socially inclusive and equitable. We draw on results from a 5-year project-Promoting socially inclusive and sustainable agricultural intensification in West Bengal (India) and southern Bangladesh (SIAGI). We reflect on a major pivot in the project's strategy, from being primarily research-driven to placing community concerns and priorities at the centre with a shift towards Ethical Community Engagement (ECE). This became the foundational framework which guided the definition and undertaking of all subsequent activities-including a rethink of methods and concepts to develop tools and frameworks fit for purpose and local context, and inculcating a culture of reflexivity and mutual learning in the project. We show that creating the conditions for true participation, where project beneficiaries and non-government organizations are equal partners alongside researchers and government actors, and for co-learning using the ECE framework, sets the foundations for increased and potentially enduring social inclusion in agricultural intensification.
... Indeed, evaluators working within the CGIAR system have at times experienced similar shifts in the use of evaluation in response to reduced funding. Douthwaite et al. (2017) describe one such experience which led to a shift away from systems-oriented research programmes, arguing that underpinning the shift was a different way of valuing R4D programmes, based on a narrow view of causal claims requiring counterfactual designs. As Peterson et al. ...
Large publicly funded programmes of research continue to receive increased investment as interventions aiming to produce impact for the world’s poorest and most marginalized populations. At this intersection of research and development, research is expected to contribute to complex processes of societal change. Embracing a co-produced view of impact as emerging along uncertain causal pathways often without predefined outcomes calls for innovation in the use of complexity-aware approaches to evaluation. The papers in this special issue present rich experiences of authors working across sectors and geographies, employing methodological innovation and navigating power as they reconcile tensions. They illustrate the challenges with (i) evaluating performance to meet accountability demands while fostering learning for adaptation; (ii) evaluating prospective theories of change while capturing emergent change; (iii) evaluating internal relational dimensions while measuring external development outcomes; (iv) evaluating across scales: from measuring local level end impact to understanding contributions to systems level change. Taken as a whole, the issue illustrates how the research for development evaluation field is maturing through the experiences of a growing and diverse group of researchers and evaluators as they shift from using narrow accountability instruments to appreciating emergent causal pathways within research for development.
... At a time when human resources continue in a state of upheaval at multiple project organizations, a term has been coined to reflect the recalibration of work rules and employee expectations: "The New Professionalism." Researchers in multiple disciplines, including construction, agriculture, architecture, education, software engineering, and public administration point to this phenomenon, already recognized in the latter part of the past decade and accelerating as a result of Covid [e.g., 14,34]. ...
The world is slowly emerging from a series of healthcare, financial, and economic disruptions caused by the Covid19 pandemic. While it is still too early to come to a definitive reckoning of the myriad ways in which our world has been forced to make adjustments in how it operates pre-and-post Covid, it is worth considering at least one aspect of the post-Covid reality: its effects on project management practices and theory development. This paper offers my perspective on some implications for current and future practice in project management, as well as the ways in which Covid responses have created the potential for a “new normal” in theory and formulating research questions for project studies. Drawing on the Project Management Institute’s “Global Megatrends 2022” report, I will examine these six trends and their implications for future practice in project-based work, proposing three topics for future research.
... Of course, such an investment calls for inter-disciplinary research teams and distinctive facilitation skills, as well as a genuine desire by research teams to use these reflections to orient their actions. A new professionalism that embraces inter-disciplinarity and systems thinking using participatory approaches is currently emerging (Douthwaite et al. 2017a) and institutional efforts to support it are needed (Blundo-Canto et al. 2019). Multi-discipline and multi-skills teams are therefore keys to the success of the method. ...
The complex nature and multilevel scale of the challenges faced by agricultural research for development (AR4D) call for appropriate design and evaluation methods. At the design stage, this implies thinking about how new agricultural technologies enable certain changes within desirable future scenarios, and the systemic transformations needed for these technologies to have impacts. We have developed a method, called ‘Impact Weaving’, which combines participatory foresight and quantitative modelling to design more plausible anticipated impact pathways of the use of new technologies. Two case studies are used to present the method. We argue that time, skills and investment capacity are required to enable collective sense-making and to estimate the potential users of the technology. Nonetheless, applying this transdisciplinary approach at the early design stage will lead to more grounded technology dissemination that accounts for the constraints and aspirations of its users.
... Kansanga et al. (2019) pointed out that the agricultural Internet of Things includes three layers: information perception layer, information transmission layer and information application layer. Douthwaite et al. (2017) used sensor and information fusion technology and Internet technology to design an agricultural information platform covering the whole country, and formed a hierarchical system structure for the collection, monitoring, transmission, processing and release of agricultural information. ...
This article has been retracted from publication in the Taylor & Francis journal, Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B — Soil & Plant Science.
Following publication, concerns were raised by multiple third-parties around the content of the special issue and the decision-making process.
Following an investigation by the Taylor & Francis Publishing Ethics & Integrity team in full cooperation with the Editor-in-Chief, it was confirmed that this article included in Special Issue titled “Envisage Computer Modelling and Statistics for Agriculture”, guest edited by Gunasekaran Manogaran was not peer-reviewed appropriately, in line with the Journal's peer review standards and policy.
As the stringency of the peer review process is core to the integrity of the publication process, the Editor and Publisher have decided to retract all of the articles within the above-named Special Issue.
The journal has not confirmed if the authors were aware of this compromised peer review process.
The journal is committed to correcting the scientific record and will fully cooperate with any institutional investigations into this matter. The authors have been informed of this decision.
We have been informed in our decision-making by our policy on publishing ethics and integrity and the COPE guidelines.
... Corder and Irlbeck (2018) located rural tourism in rural areas, and pointed out that this type of tourism has the objective characteristics of wide area, small scale and short period. Douthwaite et al. (2017) believed that multi-angle tourism should be applied in rural tourism, which can be reflected in the abundance of tourism activities, such as mountain climbing, climbing, hiking, cycling and so on. In addition, based on the special environment of rural life, rural tourism can also develop new forms of collecting, fishing, and planting trees that are rich in folk customs and customs to enhance the life experience of tourists. ...
This article has been retracted from publication in the Taylor & Francis journal, Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B — Soil & Plant Science.
Following publication, concerns were raised by multiple third-parties around the content of the special issue and the decision-making process.
Following an investigation by the Taylor & Francis Publishing Ethics & Integrity team in full cooperation with the Editor-in-Chief, it was confirmed that this article included in Special Issue titled “Envisage Computer Modelling and Statistics for Agriculture”, guest edited by Gunasekaran Manogaran was not peer-reviewed appropriately, in line with the Journal's peer review standards and policy.
As the stringency of the peer review process is core to the integrity of the publication process, the Editor and Publisher have decided to retract all of the articles within the above-named Special Issue.
The journal has not confirmed if the authors were aware of this compromised peer review process.
The journal is committed to correcting the scientific record and will fully cooperate with any institutional investigations into this matter. The authors have been informed of this decision.
We have been informed in our decision-making by our policy on publishing ethics and integrity and the COPE guidelines.
... Three principles define CSA: (1) increasing agricultural productivity to support increased incomes, food security and development; (2) increasing adaptive capacity and resilience to climate variability at multiple levels (from farm to nation); (3) decreasing greenhouse gas emissions where possible and Fig. 2 The components of a multi-disciplinary systems approach required for improving rice yield and quality and increasing its influence on policies and markets. Introduction of gender-based products and scaling of innovative technologies can further extend the boundaries appropriate (Douthwaite et al. 2017). A sustainable increase in crop yield will spare the natural resources, including land, from agriculture (Phalan et al. 2016), allowing more biodiversity and affiliated land use that restore natural surroundings. ...
Key messageAn integrated research approach to ensure sustainable rice yield increase of a crop grown by 25% of the world’s farmers in 10% of cropland is essential for global food security.
AbstractRice, being a global staple crop, feeds about 56% of the world population and sustains 40% of the world’s poor. At ~ $200 billion, it also accounts for 13% of the annual crop value. With hunger and malnutrition rampant among the poor, rice research for development is unique in global food and nutrition security. A systems-based, sustainable increase in rice quantity and quality is imperative for environmental and biodiversity benefits. Upstream ‘discovery’ through biotechnology, midstream ‘development’ through breeding and agronomy, downstream ‘dissemination and deployment’ must be ‘demand-driven’ for ‘distinct socio-economic transformational impacts’. Local agro-ecology and livelihood nexus must drive the research agenda for targeted benefits. This necessitates sustained long-term investments by government, non-government and private sectors to secure the future food, nutrition, environment, prosperity and equity status.
... Monitoring and evaluation has in recent years been moving towards approaches that employ participatory and reflexive use of theory of change both as a process and as a product (e.g. Britt and Patsalides 2013;Douthwaite et al. 2017;Moore et al. 2018). In contrast to naïve linear views that see research leading to outputs, leading to outcomes and thus impact (which is subject to measurement), these recent approaches focus instead on reflecting on underlying assumptions about how change happens in line with the ambitions of double loop learning described in Chapter 2. Through regular reflection, the aim is to build middle range theory of how change happens, as it happens. ...
... While the reform process brought greater impact orientation and coordination, it has also been critiqued for governance ambiguities, prioritization of research, transaction costs and research quality (Leeuwis et al., 2018). The challenges of institutionalizing new approaches to research within the CGIAR has also been noted (Douthwaite et al., 2017). ...
Effective science-policy engagement efforts are crucial to accelerate climate action. Such efforts should be underpinned by high-quality knowledge generation that enhances salience, credibility and legitimacy of research results. This is particularly important for the agricultural sector. Agriculture has been identified as a priority for climate action. The sector also constitutes well-established institutions set up to help achieve food and nutrition security. Institutionalizing high quality knowledge generation for climate change adaptation within these institutions presents a major opportunity to catalyze climate action within the sector. To contribute to insights about this institutionalization, we draw on and develop Cash et al.'s 2002 success conditions for enhancing salience, credibility and legitimacy: (1) increased accountability, (2) use of boundary objects, (3) participation across the boundary, (4) mediation and a selectively permeable boundary, (5) translation, and (6) coordination and complementary expertise. We examine how these success conditions apply in a major global case of agricultural research for development under climate change: the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). We explore these success conditions in the wider context of CGIAR reform and response to climate change as the international system for Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D). Our results specify and confirm the practical relevance of the six success conditions for institutional design and reform, but also point to the need to complement these with two inductively-derived success conditions: effective leadership and presence of incentives. To institutionalize these success conditions among AR4D institutions, there is an urgent need to create a conducive environment that enables the development of context-specific science-policy engagement strategies, along with leadership development and efforts to break traditional disciplinary silos which constrain user-oriented knowledge production.
... Our research was embedded in the CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems (CRP AAS) that espoused the use of gender-aware approaches (see Cole et al., 2014;Douthwaite et al., 2017). We collected sex-disaggregated data across all the activities aimed at understanding the extent of ecosystem services knowledge and use by women and men. ...
Multiple lines of evidence call for the use of locally-relevant strategies to guide and support sustainable agricultural intensification while improving development and conservation outcomes. The goal of this study was to identify the ecosystem services from natural and agricultural systems to achieve this aim in the Barotse Floodplain of Zambia. Our methodology utilized a gender-sensitive ecosystem services approach, whereby local knowledge from women and men was harnessed to understand which services and their sources are important. In addition, we identified the various constraints and options people encounter for developing sustainable and nutritious agriculture while achieving conservation outcomes. The results of our study indicate that the floodplain provides a broad range of ecosystem services, which are important for securing local livelihoods and wellbeing. The forests in the uplands and the grasslands in the plains are the primary sources of the 17 provisioning and regulating ecosystem services assessed. Nonetheless, both are often converted to agriculture due to their high soil fertility. We identified opportunities and challenges for sustainable agricultural intensification and development in areas with lower conservation concerns. We discussed the constraints and limitations for promoting sustainable and inclusive agriculture in those areas.
... There is now a new suite of complexity-aware approaches to evaluation most prevalent in the development sector (e.g., [68][69][70][71][72]) that employ reflexive use of theory of change as both a process and a product. In contrast to a linear view of change and measurement approach to impact, the approach argues for a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning-through reflecting on underlying assumptions about how change happens that have been made explicit at the outset (double loop learning)-it is possible to build middle range theory of how change happens, as it happens. ...
Realising the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will require transformative changes at micro, meso and macro levels and across diverse geographies. Collaborative, transdisciplinary research has a role to play in documenting, understanding and contributing to such transformations. Previous work has investigated the role of this research in Europe and North America, however the dynamics of transdisciplinary research on ‘transformations to sustainability’ in other parts of the world are less well-understood. This paper reports on an international project that involved transdisciplinary research in six different hubs across the globe and was strategically designed to enable mutual learning and exchange. It draws on surveys, reports and research outputs to analyse the processes of transdisciplinary collaboration for sustainability that took place between 2015–2019. The paper illustrates how the project was structured in order to enable learning across disciplines, cultures and contexts and describes how it also provided for the negotiation of epistemological frameworks and different normative commitments between members across the network. To this end, it discusses lessons regarding the use of theoretical and methodological anchors, multi-loop learning and evaluating emergent change (including the difficulties encountered). It offers insights for the design and implementation of future international transdisciplinary collaborations that address locally-specific sustainability challenges within the universal framework of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
... by traditional measures of productivity increases, which also need to consider less tangible impacts that are difficult to attribute such as capacity building, learning and institutional change (Douthwaite, Apgar et al. 2017). They demand new approaches and new skillsets and present a range of ethical considerations that conventional AR4D approaches have not previously needed to attend. ...
International research-for-development initiatives seeking to tackle complex problems present a range of challenges and responsibilities. Meeting standards of ethical research practice is one of these. While practitioners may identify as being committed to ethical practice, the reality is far more complicated. This situation is particularly apparent in agricultural research for development (AR4D). This article reflects on the changing research landscape before using the experiences of a unique partnership to demonstrate how the authors moved beyond compliance-focused tasks towards collective reflection and planning for a broad range of ethical challenges. It concludes with suggestions for integrating ethics into the planning and implementation of development initiatives.
... Additionally, new types of professionals are needed who have the capacity to build bridges between researchers and managers, support staff, donors, and other stakeholders. This new professionalism is advocated for agricultural research (Douthwaite et al. 2017). Key resource persons inside or outside the organization, who are willing and who are able to play this bridging role at the interface of science, management, and participatory methods of project development should be identified, as they play a key role in scaling the culture of impact. ...
Most agricultural research organizations strive to address societal challenges and contribute to positive societal impacts. Fulfilling this ambition involves embedding a culture of impact in organizational culture, which, in our view, entails three main elements: understanding the role of the research community in contributing to impacts over the long term within the systems in which it operates; equipping researchers to support positive change; and implementing strategies that allow the culture of impact to percolate at various levels of the organization. To build just such a culture, in the past 8 years, Cirad, the French Agricultural Research Center for International Development, embarked on a transformational process, from which we draw key lessons. Building a culture of impact requires fostering transdisciplinary dialogue on the multiple roles of researchers, on their contribution to societal impacts, and on the relevance of this reflection. This involves adapting from pre-existing visions, interactions, and practices. Formalization in the organization's strategy and the action of leading change agents foster its institutionalization. Strengthening capacity to build shared visions of change and collective processes in research design , implementation, and evaluation while respecting the diversity of profiles and approaches in the organization favors appropriation. This requires adequate funding at the project, institutional and funding bodies level, and targeted communication to ensure buy-in by internal and external change agents. We argue that a culture of impact is a reflective culture and long-term dynamics that aims to overcome the dichotomy between research and development and bring agricultural research closer to societal needs.
... CRP AAS explicitly embraced the idea of participation to address power relations and reach the marginalized (AAS, 2011;Kantor & Apgar, 2013). The program design represented a fundamental departure from "business as usual" agricultural research in the CGIAR that had historically used participation in a more instrumental way (Douthwaite et al., 2015(Douthwaite et al., , 2017. It was implemented in five aquatic agricultural systems with high numbers of poor and marginalized in Africa, the Pacific and Asia (AAS, 2013). ...
A new generation of agricultural research programs are embracing use of participation as a vehicle for achieving greater impact and supporting transformative change in complex social-ecological systems. In this paper, we share learning from use of participatory action research in the Tonle Sap biosphere in Cambodia, as the main implementing methodology within a large multi-partner agricultural research program. We describe the program’s espoused approach to applying participatory methodologies focusing on co-ownership, equity and reflexivity with stakeholders throughout the research process. We then reflect upon our practice as we pursued initiatives to support increased income and nutrition outcomes for the poorest people in a diverse aquatic agricultural system characterized by inequality. We discuss the challenges and early successes of the process and share three enabling conditions that support a shift towards quality of participation in agricultural research: (1) focusing at the outset on a strengths-based mind-set, (2) staging a critical stance to progressively build equity in process and outcomes, and (3) institutionalizing reflexivity to facilitate ongoing learning.
... More equitable control of assets and decision-making by hub actors influences the participation, interactions and decision-making that takes place as part of hub innovation processes. Hence this outcome builds system capacity to innovate more equitably (7) that results in faster and more equitable innovation processes (8) as the pathway to improve the livelihoods of the poor and marginalized (9). The ToC is built on a number of assumptions, implicit in the linking arrows. ...
There is a growing recognition that programs that seek to change people’s lives are intervening in complex systems, which puts a particular set of requirements on program monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Developing complexity-aware M&E systems within existing organizations is difficult because they challenge traditional orthodoxy. Little has been written about the practical experience of doing so. This article describes the development of a complexity-aware evaluation approach in the CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems. We outline the design and methods used including trend lines, panel data, after action reviews, building and testing theories of change, outcome evidencing and realist synthesis. We identify and describe a set of design principles for developing complexity-aware M&E. Finally, we discuss important lessons and recommendations for other programs facing similar challenges. These include developing evaluation designs that meet both learning and accountability requirements; making evaluation as part of a program’s overall approach to achieving impact; and, ensuring evaluation cumulatively builds useful theory as to how different types of program trigger change in different contexts.
Research organisations experience increasing demands to analyse on the multidimensional societal impacts of their activities. This leads to more reflections about the integration of organisational strategies devoted to research evaluation and impact monitoring, in order to answer societal and funder's demands, improve research practices, and make research and innovations more transformative to society. Establishing a "culture of impact" within an organisation is driven by multiple factors and translates into a variety of changes at different organ-isational levels. We aim to understand what motivates agricultural research organisations to develop a culture of impact, and the consequences of this culture on research, management, and collaboration practices. For this, we analyse organisational trajectories of three research organisations: the French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (Cirad), the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa), and the Colombian Agricultural Research Corporation (AGROSAVIA). Through a cross-analysis of these cases along the reasons to integrate impact evaluation in strategic agendas, the materialisation of a culture of impact in practice, and what it entails in terms of cognitive and practical changes within their respective staff and management structures, we highlight drivers and patterns of development of a culture of impact, and circumstances that seem to either favour or hinder its emergence. This study is unique for examining various types of changes that a culture of impact can generate among individuals, in particular. It offers valuable material to enable re-interrogate and orient a research organisation's culture of impact's path in accordance with organisational values, priorities, and opportunities.
Competing interests in aquatic food systems pose challenges for small-scale food producers trying to secure their place in the blue economy. These challenges include development aspirations, pressure from conservation interests, climate and environmental change, and blue growth agendas. Research-for-development can contribute to improving outcomes for small-scale actors in aquatic food systems in the face of uneven development, but the legitimacy and effectiveness of research have been found difficult to operationalize. An “engineering mindset” that prioritizes technical innovations, academic definitions of research excellence, unequal research collaborations, and funding constraints currently inhibit conducting strategic and transformative research. Taking ownership, equity, shared analysis, and feedback as key principles for research- in -development can assist in moving from transfer of technology to recognizing and working within the specific political and institutional contexts of aquatic food systems.
In agricultural research for development adoption of new technology tends to be cast in categories: adoption, partial adoption, dis-adoption or non-adoption. While these may serve for pragmatic classification and measures for project success or impact they fail to properly acknowledge the ongoing and independent efforts of farmers (and others) in experimentation and integration of knowledge across a range of sources. This paper explores responses to practices for cattle management introduced during a research project, at project close, and five years after the project has finished. We consider the perceptions and application of new knowledge by farmers, extension staff, and policy makers. By taking a longer-term view, we demonstrate how farming households adapt and integrate knowledge from different sources into their daily practice, influenced by local institutions and changing cultural expectations, as well as external researchers. We also consider the influence of changing government priorities and incentives in steering farm-management decisions. Results suggest that a focus on measures to build capacity and empower farmers with information to adapt and respond to change, regardless of project activities, is a much more important goal and indicator of impact than measuring adoption.
High-quality research to provide sustainable development solutions in aquatic food systems requires a deliberate theory for its application at scale. One frequently defined pathway in theories of change for scaling research innovation is through partnerships. Yet, despite the widespread application of partnership modalities in food-systems research, only a small proportion of published research provides original and high-quality solutions for small-scale producers. Metrics of academic success can incentivize publication regardless of end-user impact. Analogously, partnerships among national and international institutions can also lack impact because of inequity and persistent power imbalances. We describe a long-term research for development partnership between a CGIAR center (WorldFish) and a national government agency (Solomon Islands Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources; MFMR). We review the literature produced by, or about, the activities carried out in the name of the partnership over a 35-year period to build a time-line and to identify elements of research power, priorities and capacity by decade. The form and function of the collaboration through time form the basis of our analysis of the journey toward an increasingly equitable partnership: a theorized goal toward greater development outcome at scale in Solomon Islands. The partnership has been strongly influenced by changes in both institutions. The MFMR has undergone a significant increase in operational capacity since the partnership was first conceived in 1986. WorldFish has also undergone change and has navigated tensions between being locally impactful and globally relevant through periods of different research foci. With an increasingly competent and capable ministry, dimensions of power and practice have had to be re-visited to embed CGIAR research on aquatic food systems within national development trajectories. By focusing on a practice seeking more meaningful and respectful partnerships, WorldFish-as an international research partner-continues to evolve to be fit for purpose as a credible and effective research partner. We discuss this journey in the context of system-level change for aquatic food system sustainability and innovation.
Chinese farming culture mostly starts from the angles of geography, history, sociology and folklore. However, there are relatively few systematic studies on farming culture from the perspective of landscape science, and the research direction mainly focuses on the concept, type, characteristics, function, and operation mode of farming culture. Under the background of the concept of agricultural ecology, it is necessary to improve the effect of the landscape design of agricultural theme parks. With the support of ecological concepts, this paper analyses the background requirements, public needs, design principles, design objectives, design essentials, and design elements of the agricultural theme park design based on the sustainable development and agricultural economic concepts. Moreover, this paper combines case studies to analyse the landscape design of agricultural theme park. From the design effect, it can be seen that the design method proposed in this paper has a certain effect, which can provide a reference for the subsequent landscape design of agricultural theme park.
Participatory research can improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and scope of research processes, and foster social inclusion, empowerment and sustainability. Yet despite four decades of agricultural research institutions exploring and developing methods for participatory research, it has never become mainstream in the agricultural technology development cycle. Citizen science promises an innovative approach to participation in research, using the unique facilities of new digital technologies, but its potential in agricultural research participation has not been systematically probed. To this end, we conducted a critical literature review. We found that citizen science opens up four opportunities for creatively reshaping research: i) new possibilities for interdisciplinary collaboration, ii) rethinking configurations of socio-computational systems, iii) research on democratization of science more broadly, and iv) new accountabilities. Citizen science also brings a fresh perspective on the barriers to institutionalizing participation in the agricultural sciences. Specifically, we show how citizen science can reconfigure cost-motivation-accountability combinations using digital tools, open up a larger conceptual space of experimentation, and stimulate new collaborations. With appropriate and persistent institutional support and investment, citizen science can therefore have a lasting impact on how agricultural science engages with farming communities and wider society, and more fully realize the promises of participation.
This paper argues that theory of change can be used to help stakeholders in agricultural research for development projects collectively agree on problems and visions of success. This helps them feel greater ownership for their project, motivation to achieve outcomes, and understanding of how to do so. However, the dynamic is damaged if projects are pushed to be too specific too early about the outcomes for which they are to be held accountable. This is most likely to happen when system response to project intervention is uncertain, as opposed to projects that work with existing pathways and partnerships where the role of research is well established.
Transdisciplinary agricultural research in Lao PDR
Abstract
Transdisciplinary research focussing on improving smallholder farmers’ uptake of technological innovations enables the integration of knowledge systems and the co-design and delivery of creative solutions. In this paper, we illustrate how scientific research can be mobilized within professionally facilitated change management workshops to engage a broad range of stakeholders and co-create knowledge in a rural development context. Multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary and multi-national stakeholders have contributed to finding innovative solutions to challenges experienced by smallholder farmers. By combining different worldviews we were able to assess research priorities, define problems and determine research options based on new hybrid knowledge systems. The outcome of this transdisciplinary process was the co-creation of a Research Discussion Tool and identification of 9 thematic areas which, in combination, enabled obstacles to technology uptake to be overcome and for smallholder farmers to benefit from research-based innovations. The process involved assisting Lao national researchers and extension agents to co-develop solutions, strategies and methods to improve technology uptake by farmers in the lowlands of southern Lao PDR using a series of change management interventions. A complex ecology of factors involving farmers’ decision drivers/motivations and farmers’ decision enablers within farmers’ production systems influence technology uptake. The relative importance of each factor is dependent on the specific technology that is being introduced. Hence, projects that introduce new technologies struggle to address all relevant factors and often do not have the ability to deal with the complex array of factors that are at play. The process of co-construction embeds local knowledge that becomes accessible to projects. The approach we document in this paper also has the potential to harness collaborative exchanges with other projects in similar geographical regions.
Keywords: adoption; technology; knowledge; international development; rural development agriculture; innovation.
Sustainably intensifying food production will require engaging countries on how to increase and diversify practices and policies in a more sustainable and equitable manner. This is particularly important in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, where around 80% of farmland is still managed by smallholders and more than 90% of fishers operate in small scale and subsistence sectors. In this chapter, we explore how aquatic and terrestrial production activities in complex social-ecological systems need to be intensified using a systems approach that integrates both the multiple ecological scales and interdependent components of the landscape and seascape, and the social components that mediate the use and management of natural resources.
Challenges of governance often constitute critical obstacles to efforts to equitably improve livelihoods in social-ecological systems. Yet, just as often, these challenges go unspoken, or are viewed as fixed parts of the context, beyond the scope of influence of agricultural, development, or natural resource management initiatives. What does it take to get governance obstacles and opportunities out in the open, creating the space for constructive dialogue and collective action that can help to address them? We respond to this question by comparing experiences of participatory action research (PAR) in coastal and floodplain systems in four countries (Zambia, Solomon Islands, Bangladesh, and Cambodia) with a focus on understanding how to build more equitable governance arrangements. We found that governance improvement was often an implicit or secondary objective of initiatives that initially sought to address more technical natural resource or livelihood-related development challenges. We argue that using PAR principles of ownership, equity, shared analysis, and feedback built trust and helped to identify and act upon opportunities to address more difficult-to-shift dimensions of governance particularly in terms of stakeholder representation, distribution of authority, and accountability. Our findings suggest that the engaged and embedded approach of researcher-facilitators can help move from identifying opportunities for governance change to supporting stakeholders as they build more equitable governance arrangements.
To understand how learning selection is analogous to natural selection, let us take the example of one of the stages in the early adoption of Mucuna pruriens in Benin (Fig. 2). M. pruriens is a herbaceous legume that forms the basis of an NRM cover crop and green manure technology. Participant A is a female farmer who decides to plant an M. pruriens cover crop in her field after seeing a demonstration in her village by researchers that shows the legume's ability to improve soil fertility. As a result of growing M. pruriens, the farmer has an experience of the crop that she tries to interpret on the basis of the information in her existing mental models of reality. Her observations and understanding lead her to the conclusion that M. pruriens is more immediately useful as a way of suppressing Imperata cylindrica, a grass weed that caused her to abandon some of her land. The following year, she uses M. pruriens to try to reclaim this land by cutting the I. cylindrica at the beginning of the rainy season and broadcasting M. pruriens seed in the hope that it will outgrow and smother the I. cylindrica. By carrying out this experiment, she is generating a novelty as well as beginning another learning cycle, the result of which will be a selection decision on her part as to whether to continue to plant M. pruriens in this way.
The analogy between natural selection and learning selection is not perfect. One important difference is that natural selection is blind, whereas learning selection is not: genetic mutations occur at random, but technology and system change can be directed, e.g., by product champions. The "thinking" nature of learning selection implies that, to understand the processes involved, we have to go beyond simply identifying novelties generated or selection decisions made and delve into the reasons why people behave the way they do. Consequently, a cornerstone of the LS approach is the seemingly obvious relationship articulated by Lewin (1951), who maintains that people's behavior (B) is a function of the interaction of the person (P) with his or her environment (E), or B=f(P,E). This is the theoretical justification for the fourth and fifth steps in the guide (Appendix 1) to managing a learning selection approach that involves working with motivated people and choosing pilot sites where there is a real need. MacKeracher (1994) explains the Lewin model in this way. Behavior can include any outcome of the learning process, including adoption, modification, selection, a change in attitude, and communication to others. P stands for the person (the learner) and can include any characteristic that affects learning, such as existing models of reality. E stands for the environment and can include any factor within the context that might affect learning, including the number and quality of interactions with other people, the nature of the technology being tested, and the physical, cultural, and socioeconomic settings.
Over a period of little more than 15 years, starting in the late 1970s, a small group of academics in the School of Agriculture at the Hawkesbury Agricultural College in Richmond, Australia developed and sustained a unique participative systemic experiential approach to rural development. Their approach came to identify the significance of the transformation of prevailing worldviews as the pre-requisite for transforming systems in the material and social worlds. From this perspective, participative research directed at social development was recognised essentially as a social critical and systemic learning process that represented the transformation of shared experiences (both real and imagined) into collective knowledge to inform responsible, consensual action. In this article, the writer, who was the designated leader of the group through that period, discusses the context, genesis, structure and potential significance of its multi-functional and multi-modal systemic learning approach to transformative development which is systemically inclusive of people and the rest of nature alike.
Over the past few decades, scholars and practitioners working on gender and development
issues have advocated for more in-depth analyses that explore and foster change in the social
institutions that create and perpetuate gender inequalities. Gender integration approaches in a
research and development context are thus not something new. However, mainstream agricultural
research and development programs often apply a rather simple understanding of gender to the
design of such approaches, resulting in poor implementation. The CGIAR Research Program on
Aquatic Agricultural Systems uses gender-transformative approaches to help achieve the goal
of enhancing development outcomes of resource-poor women and men and their families in a
sustainable manner. This paper details the approaches the program utilizes and is beginning to
implement in its five learning hubs, which are located in areas where dependence on aquatic
agricultural systems is high. The paper provides guidance on how other programs could prepare
themselves to design and operationalize gender-transformative approaches and highlights some
early learning on their application.
This guide is mainly for researchers already involved in natural resource
management (NRM). It assumes some familiarity with the often complex and
chaotic reality of NRM projects, and tries to provide a systematic treatment of
all the issues that may need to be considered. In some ways it is too detailed!
While many issues are considered in the guide, only a subset of them have to
be dealt with in any specific NRM project. This booklet will also be of interest
to implementers of NRM projects, as many of the elements and strategies are
common to research and implementation.
The guide is all about improving the effectiveness of research and
development (R&D) in NRM, so that livelihood and environmental outcomes
are enhanced. What is described here can be thought of as a “new way of doing
business” for R&D in natural resource management, but builds on approaches
in the agricultural, conservation and governance fields.
• Section 1 explains why we need to increase the effectiveness of R&D.
The section indicates how a more integrated approach has evolved and
illustrates how it can be applied (Section 1.4). For the sceptics of holism
and integration, we clarify that achieving holism is often impossible and
can be counter-productive (Section 1.5).
• Section 2 briefly describes the foundations of the approach.
• Section 3 of the publication covers the operational cornerstones for effective
R&D interventions.
• Section 4 discusses the management of research for development processes
• Section 5 concludes.
We offer an epistemological basis for action research, in order to increase the validity, the practical significance, and the transformational potential of social science. We start by outlining some of the paradigmatic issues which underlie action research, arguing for a “turn to action” which will complement the linguistic turn in the social sciences. Four key dimensions of an action science are discussed: the primacy of the practical, the centrality of participation, the requirement for experiential grounding, and the importance of normative, analogical theory. Three broad strategies for action research are suggested: first-person research/practice addresses the ability of a person to foster an inquiring approach to his or her own life; second-person research/practice engages a face-to-face group in collaborative inquiry; third-person research/practice asks how we can establish inquiring communities which reach beyond the immediate group to engage with whole organizations, communities and countries. The article argues that a transformational science needs to integrate first- second- and third-person voices in ways that increase the validity of the knowledge we use in our moment-to-moment living, that increase the effectiveness of our actions in real-time, and that remain open to unexpected transformation when our taken-for-granted assumptions, strategies, and habits are appropriately challenged. Illustrative references to studies that begin to speak to these questions are offered.
Abstract Inthe field of natural resource management (NRM), which emerged as a new integration domain in the agricultural sciences, participatory research is conceptually and operationally still in its infancy and a range of activities are labeled ‘participatory research’. The paper aims at shedding,some,light on this confusion. Based on a,review of literature and internet sites, it provides an overview of the CGIAR’s current NRM research practice, analysing the impact orientation, research foci, the pathway/strategyto impact and the role of participatoryresearch. The paper also offers a framework,which,helps to differentiate approaches,to innovation,development,and to ‘unpack’ the blurred concept of ‘participatory research’. Three prototypical approaches,to innovation,development,and,their respective attributes are described and,used to interpret current practice: Research findings • Many NRM research initiatives define highly aggregated overall goals, but lack a clear strategy of how to reach these impacts and induce,changes,through,research. • The research focus is often derived from a supply-led and discipline-led perspective, and it is widely assumed
Abstract Asset-based community development (ABCD) is presented as an alternative to needs-based approaches to development. Following an overview of the principles and practice of ABCD, five major elements of ABCD are examined in the light of current literature on relevant research and practice. This involves exploring: the theory and practice of appreciative inquiry; the concept of social capital as an asset for community development; the theory of community economic development, such as the sustainable livelihoods approach; lessons learned from two decades of international development in the participatory paradigm; and the theory and practice of building active citizenship engagement and a stronger civil society. How ABCD both reflects recent trends in these areas and stands to benefit from the insights generated from this work is outlined. Mathie and Cunningham, “From Clients to Citizens”. Coady International Institute, January 2002. 3 FROM CLIENTS TO CITIZENS: ASSET-BASED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
New estimates of the impacts of germplasm improvement in the major staple crops between 1965 and 2004 on global land-cover change are presented, based on simulations carried out using a global economic model (Global Trade Analysis Project Agro-Ecological Zone), a multicommodity, multiregional computable general equilibrium model linked to a global spatially explicit database on land use. We estimate the impact of removing the gains in cereal productivity attributed to the widespread adoption of improved varieties in developing countries. Here, several different effects-higher yields, lower prices, higher land rents, and trade effects-have been incorporated in a single model of the impact of Green Revolution research (and subsequent advances in yields from crop germplasm improvement) on land-cover change. Our results generally support the Borlaug hypothesis that increases in cereal yields as a result of widespread adoption of improved crop germplasm have saved natural ecosystems from being converted to agriculture. However, this relationship is complex, and the net effect is of a much smaller magnitude than Borlaug proposed. We estimate that the total crop area in 2004 would have been between 17.9 and 26.7 million hectares larger in a world that had not benefited from crop germplasm improvement since 1965. Of these hectares, 12.0-17.7 million would have been in developing countries, displacing pastures and resulting in an estimated 2 million hectares of additional deforestation. However, the negative impacts of higher food prices on poverty and hunger under this scenario would likely have dwarfed the welfare effects of agricultural expansion.
Over the years, there has been an evolution of systemic thinking in
agricultural innovation studies, culminating in the agricultural innovation systems
perspective. In an attempt to synthesize and organize the existing literature, this
chapter reviews the literature on agricultural innovation, with the threefold goal of
(1) sketching the evolution of systemic approaches to agricultural innovation and
unravelling the different interpretations; (2) assessing key factors for innovation
system performance and demonstrating the use of system thinking in the facilitation
of processes of agricultural innovation by means of innovation brokers and re fl exive
process monitoring; and (3) formulating an agenda for future research. The main
conclusion is that the agricultural innovation systems perspective provides a comprehensive
view on actors and factors that co-determine innovation, and in this
sense allows understanding the complexity of agricultural innovation. However, its
holism is also a pitfall as it allows for many interpretations, which complicates a
clear focus of this research fi eld and the building of cumulative evidence. Hence,
more work needs to be done conceptually and empirically.
A detailed retrospective of the Green Revolution, its achievement and limits in terms of agricultural productivity improvement, and its broader impact at social, environmental, and economic levels is provided. Lessons learned and the strategic insights are reviewed as the world is preparing a "redux" version of the Green Revolution with more integrative environmental and social impact combined with agricultural and economic development. Core policy directions for Green Revolution 2.0 that enhance the spread and sustainable adoption of productivity enhancing technologies are specified.
Emerging evidence for the success on farms of resource-conserving technologies and practices must not tempt agricultural professionals into making prescriptions about what constitutes sustainable agriculture. Sustainability is a complex and contested concept, and so precise definitions are impossible. The dominant scientific paradigm of positivism has served us well over three to four centuries, but it is not well suited to contexts where uncertainties are high, and problems are open to interpretation. Many methodological and philosophical alternatives to positivism have arisen from both the “hard” and “soft” sciences. These indicate that new understanding and solutions can only arise with wide public and scientific participation. But the term “participation” has become fashionable with many different interpretations, some hindering rather than supporting sustainability. New systems of learning are needed, using participatory methods and criteria for trustworthiness. These have profound implications for agricultural professionals, who must now actively create a whole new professionalism.
"The types of technology change catalyzed by research interventions in integrated natural resource management (INRM) are likely to require much more social negotiation and adaptation than are changes related to plant breeding, the dominant discipline within the system of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Conceptual models for developing and delivering high-yielding varieties have proven inadequate for delivering natural resource management (NRM) technologies that are adopted in farmers' fields. Successful INRM requires tools and approaches that can blend the technical with the social, so that people from different disciplines and social backgrounds can effectively work and communicate with each other. This paper develops the 'follow-the-technology' (FTT) approach to catalyzing, managing, and evaluating rural technology change as a framework that both 'hard' and 'soft' scientists can work with. To deal with complexity, INRM needs ways of working that are adaptive and flexible. The FTT approach uses technology as the entry point into a complex situation to determine what is important. In this way, it narrows the research arena to achievable boundaries. The methodology can also be used to catalyze technology change, both within and outside agriculture. The FTT approach can make it possible to channel the innovative potential of local people that is necessary in INRM to 'scale up' from the pilot site to the landscape. The FTT approach is built on an analogy between technology change and Darwinian evolution, specifically between 'learning selection' and natural selection. In learning selection, stakeholders experiment with a new technology and carry out the evolutionary roles of novelty generation, selection, and promulgation. The motivation to participate is a 'plausible promise' made by the R&D team to solve a real farming problem. Case studies are presented from a spectrum of technologies to show that repeated learning selection cycles can result in an improvement in the performance of the plausible promise through adaptation and a sense of ownership by the stakeholders."
The chapter provides potted histories of the development of Farming Systems Research in eight countries in East and southern Africa and offers a synthesis on progress in the region as a whole.
'The Green Revolution' of the 60's and 70's produced immense gains in food cereal production in the Third World. But there are huge problems in the 'post-revolutionary' era: farmers with small or marginal holdings have benefited less than wealthier farmers; intensive mono-cropping has made production more susceptible to environmental stresses and shocks. Now there is evidence of diminishing returns from intensive and intensively chemical agricultural production. What is needed is a new approach, equally revolutionary, but different in its ideas and style. The authors set out what they mean by 'sustainable' agriculture in the new era and look at the effects of international economic restraints and of national policies on the kind of development they see as necessary. They chart a path for sustainable livelihoods for Third World farmers enmeshed by forces outside their control. They describe methods of evaluating and resolving the tough trade-offs all levels of intervention, from international trade down to the individual farm. This book cannot provide all the answers, but it does indicate what international conditions we need to be aware of, what national policies we need to advocate and what approaches at the local level we need to adopt to ensure the goal of agricultural sustainability. Originally published in 1990. © 1990 by Gordon R. Conway and Edward B. Barbier. All rights reserved.
The purpose of this book is to showcase a range of approaches that consider learning and collaboration as central processes in agriculture and natural resources governance and management. These include four related and overlapping adaptive collaborative approaches – Adaptive Collaborative Management, Participatory Action Research, Social Learning and Innovation Systems. Despite these being generated in different institutional domains with somewhat diverse epistemological and policy orientations, the authors show that there are common themes among these approaches.
The book presents a review of various adaptive and collaborative approaches to management developed to cope with the social and biophysical complexity of natural resource systems, including case studies from Bangladesh, Ecuador, Nepal and Zimbabwe. The contexts range from farmer field schools, to floodplain management and community forestry. The authors provide rich accounts of how adaptive collaborative approaches were applied to synergise different types of learning, foster collaboration among stakeholders, and nurture innovative development processes. Through its introduction and conclusion chapters, the book establishes a clear theoretical approach and identifies a set of practical methodologies for combining different systems of knowledge in a way that generates and maximizes innovation and the translation of research into practice.
This article describes the development and use of a rapid evaluation approach to meet program accountability and learning requirements in a research for development program operating in five developing countries. The method identifies clusters of outcomes, both expected and unexpected, happening within areas of change. In a workshop, change agents describe the causal connections within outcome clusters to identify outcome trajectories for subsequent verification. Comparing verified outcome trajectories with existing program theory allows program staff to question underlying causal premises and adapt accordingly. The method can be used for one-off evaluations that seek to understand whether, how, and why program interventions are working. Repeated cycles of outcome evidencing can build a case for program contribution over time that can be evaluated as part of any future impact assessment of the program or parts of it.
Many rural poor and marginalized people strive to make a living in social-ecological systems that are characterized by multiple and often inequitable interactions across agents, scale and space. Uncertainty and inequality in such systems require research and development interventions to be adaptive, support learning and to engage with underlying drivers of poverty. Such complexity-aware approaches to planning, monitoring and evaluating development interventions are gaining strength, yet, there is still little empirical evidence of what it takes to implement them in practice. In this paper, we share learning from an agricultural research program that used participatory action research and theory of change to foster learning and support transformative change in aquatic agricultural systems. We reflect on our use of critical reflection within participatory agricultural research interventions, and our use of theory of change to collectively surface and revisit assumptions about how change happens. We share learning on the importance of being strengths-based in engaging stakeholders across scales and building a common goal as a starting point, and then staging a more critical practice as capacity is built and opportunities for digging deeper emerge.
Two models of agricultural research and technology diffusion are described and contrasted. The central source of innovation model frequently underlies the theories and rhetoric of agricultural research and extension institutions. The multiple source of innovation model places agricultural research and diffusion processes in the historical, political, economic, agroclimatic, and institutional context in which technological change takes place. The paper discusses the evidence and reasons for the dominance of the central model and reviews the significance of the multiple source model for agricultural research policy.
In the light of the challenges to formal agricultural research posed by renewed interest in diversity, local knowledge and end-user participation, this paper attempts to provide the beginnings of a theoretical underpinning for the response to repeated calls for greater farmer participation in agricultural research. Two views are explored. First that there is a degree of substitutability between formal and farmers' experiments, with the latter being important in adapting technology to particular local circumstances. Second that there is a potential for synergy from closer integration of formal and farmers' experiments. Empirical data from Africa is used to explore this synergy hypothesis and it is concluded that there is reason to be sceptical of claims for potential synergy. Thus, to make most efficient use of limited formal research resources, as a general rule partially specified technologies should be released to farmers for final specification at as early a stage as possible. Within this general rule, the basic characteristics of the technologies being developed must guide the timing, type and level of farmer participation.
One of the most significant and enduring ideas associated with the systems initiatives at Hawkesbury has been the inter-connections that were made there between systemic acts of development in the ‘concrete world’ and the abstract ‘epistemic developments’ of the actors who participate in them. Each is seen to be constitutive of the other in a profoundly systemic manner, with ‘concrete events’ being both influenced by and an influence on ‘abstract ideas’. The embrace of critical experiential strategies, which themselves are regarded as essentially systemic and reflexive in nature, has been a central feature of the pedagogies, research processes, and engagement strategies that have been designed to better facilitate this inter-connection. As calls for more sustainable and equitable forms of development gather momentum across the globe, and the citizenry become increasingly engaged with issues that are seen to pose significant systemic global risks, the need for collective, communicative experiential strategies as systemic discourse, becomes evident.
This book details a number of subjects which so far have not been systematically discussed, most importantly the concept of the agricultural information system, in which agricultural research, extension, and farmers are linked to form a dynamic and integrated system. Several chapters take the agricultural information system as their point of departure, including discussions upon the targetting of the system on resource-poor farmers, and other special categories at the macro and micro scales. Another important aspect is the formation of active utiliser constituencies in the system, and the state of the art in this respect is outlined. The final chapter deals with the agricultural information system as a tool for analysis and design of agricultural research, extension, and agricultural knowledge utilisation and examines the concepts of some advanced systems and asks how far extension science has come in using the information systems perspective. The strategic use of agricultural information systems as an instrument for achieving policy goals is emphasised. -from Author
We summarize the findings of a recently completed study of the productivity impacts of international crop genetic improvement
research in developing countries. Over the period 1960 to 2000, international agricultural research centers, in collaboration
with national research programs, contributed to the development of “modern varieties” for many crops. These varieties have
contributed to large increases in crop production. Productivity gains, however, have been uneven across crops and regions.
Consumers generally benefited from declines in food prices. Farmers benefited only where cost reductions exceeded price reductions.
Report on Program Closure
Aquatic Agricultural Systems (AAS). (2016). Report on Program
Closure. WorldFish, Penang.
Integrated natural resource management: linking productivity, the environment and development
- B M Campbell
- J Sayer
- Eds
Campbell, B.M. and Sayer, J. Eds. (2003). Integrated natural resource management: linking productivity,
the environment and development. CABI.
Draft 2016 CGIAR Financial Plan, Consortium Office
- Cgiar Consortium
CGIAR Consortium. (2015). Draft 2016 CGIAR Financial Plan, Consortium Office, 19 October. Assessed on
5 October 2016 from http://cgiarweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Draft-2016
Monitoring and evaluations strategy brief
- B Douthwaite
- M Apgar
- C Crissman
Douthwaite, B., Apgar, M. and Crissman, C. (2014) Monitoring and Evaluations Strategy Brief. CGIAR
Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems. Penang, Malaysia.
Integrated agricultural research for development (IAR4D)
- R Hawkins
- W Heemskerk
- R Booth
- J Daane
- A Maatman
- A A Adekunle
Hawkins, R., Heemskerk, W., Booth, R., Daane, J., Maatman, A., & Adekunle, A.A. (2009). Integrated
agricultural research for development (IAR4D). In A Concept Paper for the Forum for Agricultural
Research in Africa (FARA) Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme (SSA CP). FARA, Accra, Ghana.
Musa textilis) is a banana relative, and is grown for fibre
- Abaca
Abaca (Musa textilis) is a banana relative, and is grown for
fibre.
for a definition of capacity to innovate developed by AAS and the two other system CRPs
- See Leeuwis
See Leeuwis et al. (2014) for a definition of capacity to
innovate developed by AAS and the two other system
CRPs.
Draft 2016 CGIAR Financial Plan, Consortium Office Evaluation of CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems (AAS)
- Cgiar Consortium
CGIAR Consortium. (2015, October 19). Draft 2016 CGIAR Financial
Plan, Consortium Office. Retrieved October 5, 2016, from
http://cgiarweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/20
15/09/Draft-2016-CGIAR-Financial-Plan.pdf
CGIAR-IEA. (2015). Evaluation of CGIAR Research Program on
Aquatic Agricultural Systems (AAS). Rome, Italy: Independent
Evaluation Arrangement (IEA) of the CGIAR (April 2015).
Retrieved from iea.cgiar.org
Extension science: Information systems in agricultural development CUP Green Revolution research saved an estimated 18 to 27 million hectares from being brought into agricultural production
- N Archive Roling
- J R Stevenson
- N Villoria
- D Byerlee
- T Kelley
- M Maredia
Roling, N. (1988). Extension science: Information systems in agricultural development. CUP Archive
Stevenson, J. R., Villoria, N., Byerlee, D., Kelley, T., & Maredia, M.
(2013). Green Revolution research saved an estimated 18 to
27 million hectares from being brought into agricultural production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110
(21), 8363–8368.
Learning from implementation of community selection in Zambia, Solomon Islands, and Bangladesh AAS hubs
Aquatic Agricultural Systems. (2013) Learning from implementation of community selection in
Zambia, Solomon Islands, and Bangladesh AAS hubs. CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural
Systems. Penang, Malaysia. Evaluation and Learning Series Paper: AAS-2013-24