No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Towards a complexity-aware theory of change for participatory research programs working within agricultural innovation systems
Abstract
Agricultural innovation systems (AIS) are increasingly recognized as complex adaptive systems in which interventions cannot be expected to create predictable, linear impacts. Nevertheless, the logic models and theory of change (ToC) used by standard-setting international agricultural research agencies and donors assume that agricultural research will create impact through a predictable linear adoption pathway which largely ignores the complexity dynamics of AIS, and which misses important alternate pathways through which agricultural research can improve system performance and generate sustainable development impact. Despite a growing body of literature calling for more dynamic, flexible and “complexity-aware” approaches to monitoring and evaluation, few concrete examples exist of ToC that takes complexity dynamics within AIS into account, or provide guidance on how such theories could be developed. This paper addresses this gap by presenting an example of how an empirically-grounded, complexity-aware ToC can be developed and what such a model might look like in the context of a particular type of program intervention. Two detailed case studies are presented from an agricultural research program which was explicitly seeking to work in a “complexity-aware” way within aquatic agricultural systems in Zambia and the Philippines. Through an analysis of the outcomes of these interventions, the pathways through which they began to produce impacts, and the causal factors at play, we derive a “complexity-aware” ToC to model how the cases worked. This middle-range model, as well as an overarching model that we derive from it, offer an alternate narrative of how development change can be produced in agricultural systems, one which aligns with insights from complexity science and which, we argue, more closely represents the ways in which many research for development interventions work in practice. The nested ToC offers a starting point for asking a different set of evaluation and research questions which may be more relevant to participatory research efforts working from within a complexity-aware, agricultural innovation systems perspective.
... It has been argued that most theories of change (ToCs) designed and adopted by research-for-development programs assume that these programs can lead to impact through linear adoption pathways (Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017). However, more careful consideration has recently highlighted the need for a pragmatic (and programmatic) and comprehensive understanding of technology adoption and scaling, using enhanced approaches and methods that help to reach many beneficiaries in a more responsible and sustainable manner (Van Loon et al., 2020;Jacobs et al., 2021). ...
... Both pathways of innovations and scaling through AR4D projects should be harmonized and aligned to achieve greater and sustainable impact. One possible way to bring both pathways together in AR4D programs is to consider complexity-aware ToCs (Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017;Douthwaite et al., 2020), 2 where iterative scaling, based on evaluation, learning, and capacity sharing, is embedded in broader understanding of innovation systems and contexts with respective programmatic activities and adaptive management (Kilelu et al., 2013;Klerkx et al., 2010). As such, technology generation and scaling would be seen as endogenous tasks of the local agricultural innovation systems to be strengthened by the AR4D program. ...
... Others suggest that the theories and pathways of these programswhich are meant to show the effectiveness 1 Mostly using the TRL (Technology Readiness Levels) as a benchmark for technology profiling and as a starting point for justifying the 'scaling road maps' of these technologies. 2 These contrast to what Douthwaite and Hoffecker (2017) call "a pipeline ToC," where development impact is understood to be achieved through the sourcing, development, testing, adoption, and widespread dissemination of innovations and technologies. Complexity-aware ToCs are realistic ToCs that can account for complex system dynamics, as well as changing contextual conditions that can affect outcomes of the AR4D program (Pawson, 2013;Westhorp, 2012). ...
CONTEXT
A newly established ‘systemic approach to technology packaging’ for improved scaling has emerged in the literature. This approach suggests that core transformative innovations can be scaled more effectively through scaling readiness, which helps identify complementary innovations that support and facilitate the scalability of the core innovation. Since these packaging approaches start with single core innovations, we propose that they can benefit from the broader literature on sustainable agricultural systems transformation and readiness.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this paper is to advocate for a more comprehensive packaging of innovations for sustainable agricultural system transformations by better understanding gaps in the agricultural system – and its capacity for change. This approach provides a stronger rationale for the selection of relevant innovations to be packaged together. We introduce the concept of agricultural ‘system readiness’ as a possible framework for guiding such bundles.
METHODS
The paper begins with a comprehensive literature review that identifies the current gaps in tools and methods to guide system transformation. It also focuses on the specific literature on innovation packaging for scaling, and builds on the gaps of existing approaches as a rationale for introducing the concept of system readiness (mostly used in infrastructure engineering), and adapting it to agricultural science. We also use illustrative hypothetical examples from mixed crop-livestock systems in the drylands to show how two approaches – ‘packaging for scaling’ and ‘packaging for transformation’ – can lead to different innovation packages.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The concept of system readiness is introduced, defined and advocated. We show that it can help identify performance gaps in agricultural systems and guide better planning for system strengthening and integration. We conclude with possible complementarities between the two approaches of scaling and system readiness.
SIGNIFICANCE
The agricultural system readiness approach, as outlined in this paper, would be particularly beneficial for agricultural research-for-development, as well as other agricultural investment programs that seek to identify strategies for fostering sustainable transition in farming systems. Such programs would typically entail complexity-aware theories of change that focus on stimulating sustainable transformation pathways related to key target areas, such as agroecology, sustainable intensification, and system integration (e.g., crop-livestock integration and integrated pest management). The system readiness approach can support such programs through the identification, prioritization, targeting, and empowerment of the most significant (and transformative) system components by identifying respective innovations to be packaged.
... The recognition of complexity in relation to food and agriculture related development challenges in the Global South is nothing new (Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017;Pimentel, 1966). Since at least the 1960s, international development assistance has grappled with various manifestations of complexity. ...
... However, despite the rhetoric and wide use of the terms food or agrifood systems in recent debates and mission statements (CGIAR, 2020;FAO, 2018), as well as practical attempts to incorporate complexity thinking into research and development Ramalingam, 2015), complexity remains poorly understood and has yet to inform the emergence of a distinctive body of development practice (Cholez et al., 2023;Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017). Challenging the "orthodoxy in much of mainstream research and evaluation practice" (Mayne et al., 2017), complexity-aware approaches remain poorly implemented in interventions (Foran et al., 2014;Hambloch et al., 2022). ...
... The purpose of this paper is to contribute to developing practical principles that can guide the implementation of complexity-aware approaches in agricultural research for development interventions. Complexity-aware approaches can be broadly defined as ones that are ready to continuously explore system dynamics, accommodate novelty, re-examining assumptions, and generally have an open, rather than a pre-defined, agenda (Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017;Hertz et al., 2021). Specifically, we will investigate interventions that have various food and nutrition security and improved farm income impact aspirations. ...
CONTEXT
Complexity has long been recognised as a key feature of agri-food systems. Yet, it remains largely theoretical or poorly addressed in practice, hampering the potential of international development projects to address agriculture and food-related challenges in the Global South.
OBJECTIVE
The paper identifies and examines six sources of complexity that can manifest in projects, namely: unpredictability; path dependencies; context-specific dynamics; power relations; multiple temporal and spatial scales. It then proposes and tests six agri-food system principles that could be drawn upon to more successfully navigate this complexity. The aim of the paper is to illustrate how these principles could help projects respond to the changing circumstances and unpredictable turns of agri-food systems contexts in a different way, which flexibly embraces complexity. This flexibility is essential in an age of uncertainty and transformation.
METHODS
Comparative case study analysis of six projects implemented by the CGIAR: aflatoxin control in groundnuts in Malawi (1), pigeonpea in Eastern and Southern Africa (2), sorghum beer in Kenya (3), sweet sorghum for biofuel in India (4), precooked beans in Uganda and Kenya (5), Smart Foods in India and Eastern Africa (6). The projects aimed to either increasing smallholder farmers' incomes or addressing food and nutrition security, or both. They were specifically selected as all they were affected by some of the sources of complexity, which hampered the projects to different extents. This makes the cases relevant for not only illustrating manifestations of complexity, but also help reflect on alternative strategies to tackle it.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
The analysis of the case studies reveals how complexity can frustrate objectives of development interventions under several aspects. It also serves to discuss how complexity can be more successfully navigated (within but also beyond the selected cases) by applying the set of proposed agri-food system principles. The principles are also presented as ways future interventions could avoid clinging to what is “known to work” and instead venture into more powerful pathways of change.
SIGNIFICANCE
The following complexity-aware principle are proposed: Welcome surprises and openly discuss trade-offs; Shun orthodoxies; Engage with context-specificity; Expose patterns of power; Embrace the lengthy nature of change; Understand the multi-scale (in terms of space and time) nature of agri-food systems contexts. These principles could be used by project designers and implementors to cope with the complexity and uncertainty that will inevitably be encountered in agri-food system interventions, and can no longer be ignored.
... Authors like List [6] and Leontief [7] introduced the first approaches to the Innovation System by addressing National Production Systems, relevant to understanding agricultural dynamics in specific regions, but did not focus directly on the NARS. Freeman [8], Lundvall [9], Nelson [10,11] and Metcalfe [12] focused their studies on the systemic approach to innovation at the national level, recognizing the importance of collaborative work and the interactions between economic and institutional structure, which can be applied to the NARS in Bolivar, Chocó, Meta and Tolima. to promote innovation in the agricultural sector. ...
... to promote innovation in the agricultural sector. Concerning the theories of the SIthis offers several schools of thought that can be valuable for analyzing and improving the NARS in the mentioned regions, such as, for example, the evolutionary economics of Nelson and Winter [11] serves to understand the evolution of agricultural technology and innovation over time; Nelson's institutional economics Nelson [10] may result useful for analyzing the role of institutions in the diffusion of agricultural innovation, while the new regional economies may allow the study of interactions between regions in terms of agricultural innovation and economic development [13]; the perspectives provided by learning economics approaches [14] [9], the economics of innovation [15] and network theory [16] prove valuable for a deeper understanding of innovation processes and interactions in the NARS context. ...
... | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 6 March 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202403.0320.v1 11 Concerning the municipality of Rovira the ICT subsystem in the municipality of Rovira (Tolima) as can be seen in Figure 4, received higher scores than most of the other municipalities studied in the sample. Actions for the promotion of research (Q34) and building a culture of innovation (Q38) received ratings above 2 points. ...
This article examines the diagnosis of the Agricultural Innovation System (SIA) in the department of Tolima, Colombia, as part of a project led by the Colombian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Technological University of Pereira (TUP), which also evaluated the National Agricultural Innovation System (NAIS) in regions such as Chocó, Bolívar, and Meta. A methodology was used that involved a survey with 58 questions on a Likert scale to 300 participants, evaluated with congruence and relevance indexes, identifying key variables in the operation of the Agricultural Innovation System (AIS). A survey was also applied to actors of the National Innovation System for Higher Education in Agriculture, A survey was also applied to map the participating actors in the regional agricultural innovation systems of Tolima to identify gaps in extension, innovation, development, sustainability, ICT, education and training. Among the conclusions, it stands out that the associativity subsystem presents the lowest lag and is close to a score of two on the scale of gaps, evaluation carried out among the five subsystems including extension, ICT, environmental aspects, and pub-lic policy. The department of Tolima shows low performance in innovation and ICT, while the extension is less lagging. In Chaparral there is a general lag, with innovation being the worst evaluated subsystem. Rovira obtains high scores in most subsystems, although innovation and ICT have lower scores. At the national and regional levels, innovation is low, and articulation among NARS actors is insufficient, which highlights the need to promote good practices, strategies, and projects.
... Yield-focused crop research, which has dominated the stage for public and philanthropic investments in international agricultural development since the Green Revolution, is ongoing within CGIAR and beyond. In parallel, research funders have continuously and energetically added new themes and pilots (Douthwaite & Hoffecker, 2017;Johnson et al., 2019). For instance, in recent decades agricultural research programs have increasingly included natural resources management and ecosystems services (ISPC, 2012;Stevenson & Vlek, 2018) and focus has expanded to livestock and aquatic systems. ...
... what is working and what is not working. Based on these insights, decision-makers can develop empirically based theories of change that are suitable to the nonlinear impacts arising from beneficial interactions among heterogeneous actors in complex innovation systems (Douthwaite & Hoffecker, 2017). MEL information can include cost-effective, timely trade-off analysis built around plausible assumptions and potential outcomes (Antle & Valdivia, 2021). ...
... Rather than organizing MEL systems toward quantifying adoption of technologies and associated benefits, complexity-aware evaluation will emphasize increased capacity, infrastructure, and empowerment of local innovation systems (Douthwaite & Hoffecker, 2017). ...
... Best practice Douthwaite and Hoffecker (2017) A theory of change is needed to plan and evaluate alternative routes in agricultural research and to address the complexity of aquatic agricultural systems in Zambia and the Philippines Pigford et al. (2018) Integrate ecosystem and agricultural innovation systems perspectives into sustainable agricultural innovation to achieve transitions to more sustainable systems Spendrup and Fernqvist (2019) The importance of improving access to agricultural information in Kenya and encouraging the adoption of sustainable practices such as agroforestry through simple practices and subsidies ...
... The theory of change is needed in agricultural research to plan and evaluate alternative routes in the evaluation of interventions. A linear view of the problems hinders the ability to address the complexity within aquatic agricultural systems in Zambia and the Philippines, thus it is recommended to design more effective and sustainable interventions that consider the complex interactions within agricultural systems (Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017). An analytical framework for assessing innovation capabilities at different levels of interaction in New Zealand projects. ...
... Logic models and complexity-aware theory of change (ToC) provide a starting point for testing a set of hypotheses embedded in the common linear impact adoption pathway. It is indicated that it is important to model the impact pathways, their various causal connections, and hypotheses to describe reality more accurately (Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017). ...
The challenges faced by agricultural innovation systems (A.I.S.) are complex to solve, however, the authors consider that understanding the processes of innovation and development (R&D), sustainability, use of information and communication technologies, training, and outreach, as the focus of discussion in this review, have great potential to close the gaps in the system; as well as exploring strategies, projects and best practices that dynamize the operation of the system. The objective of this article is to review the literature on A.I.S.A. to identify its obstacles, challenges, and solution to close its gaps. The methodology identified the critical factors of system monitoring and defines search suitability to obtain 55 documents. With the results, a qualitative analysis is conducted on the mentioned axes, which is complemented with the text mining software Vantage Point V 15.1 to observe in graphical form the most relevant aspects. Within the conclusions is a constant demand from actors for access to information, and knowledge in the training processes, it is recommended in this regard the additional skills for innovation and participation in concerted practices. As regards the limitations of agricultural innovation processes, it suggests the involvement of cooperatives, technological platforms, and farmers’ organizations as intermediaries relevant to closing gaps. With regard to sustainability, A.I.S. thinking is recommended for an inclusive dialogue among actors and to facilitate sustainability transitions. Finally, to address the socio-technical and ethical challenges of access to technologies and technological transition, it is recommended to design appropriate policies for access to resources and the development of markets that enhance business opportunities and the development of sustainable innovations.
... The third, and most recent, set of approaches draw from complexity science and systems thinking to model and investigate the dynamic interplay between development results identified by both the first and second approaches. We call this third set of mental models "complexity-aware" (Douthwaite and Hoffecker 2017), as they incorporate dynamics from systems science, such as feedback loops and complex causal chains, to draw attention to the ways in which the technological results of innovation processes and the capacity building and system-strengthening results reinforce each other. These models show that local innovation of appropriate technology contributes to development both by solving problems through the adoption of innovations (model 1) and by building capabilities and competencies that strengthen innovation systems (model 2), through a dynamic process of adaptive learning. ...
... Nearly six decades later, this linear mental model largely retains its hold on the global imagination, structuring prominent development-oriented innovation support mechanisms, such as the Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) competitions sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the UK-based Global Innovation Fund, and the strategies and funding priorities of international organizations like the CGIAR (Douthwaite and Hoffecker 2017;Kremer et al. 2019). These competitions, and many less prominent regional and university-based innovation challenges, operate on the premise that an innovation can exist prior to its introduction into use within a given context, that is, at earlier stages of the pipeline than the adoption and scaling stages (Global Innovation Fund 2020). ...
... • Improved management of farm resources Notes: This table draws on a combination of published sources, indicated with superscripts, and unpublished research produced by the co-authors and presented to the Swiss Development Corporation in November, 2017. Sources: a Douthwaite and Hoffecker (2017). b Hoffecker (2018). ...
... Much has been explored about the value of the approaches when intervening in complex natural, social and economic systems; far fewer studies have focused on the actual outcomes (Douthwaite and Hoffecker 2017). Despite the considerable interest and use of CSDSA to support R4D decision-making and strategy design processes, it is not self-evident that they serve their intended purpose (Falleti and Lynch 2009). ...
... The Theory of change, most commonly in the form of causal diagrams showing expected links from activities to outputs to outcomes to impact, has been widely used in the development and assessment of impact pathways of R4D program interventions (Wigboldus et al. 2020;Maru et al. 2018). However, these diagrams rarely consider the often-non-linear dynamics of programs operating in complex environments, which are normal for agricultural R4D programs (Douthwaite and Hoffecker 2017). ...
... With their focus on R4D programs, different social theory-informed studies have pointed out the challenge of meaningfully evaluating program interventions when there is an absence of a theory of change that describes how they are expected to work (Cieslik and Leeuwis 2021;Douthwaite and Hoffecker 2017). This is also valid for CSDSA whereby articulating a change theory on how the approaches is imperative to help interventions navigate through complexity and/or make evidencebased decisions. ...
Complexity-sensitive decision support approaches (CSDSA) have gained prominence in the research for development (R4D) sector. However, limited attention has been given to critically examining the underlying causal assumptions of CSDSAs and their overall effectiveness in navigating complexity and achieving desired outcomes. Scaling Readiness has emerged as a novel CSDSA that is increasingly applied in R4D programs in low- and middle-income countries to improve the scaling of innovation. This study offers theory-based explanations on the extent to which Scaling Readiness supports evidence-based design, implementation and monitoring of scaling strategies in two R4D interventions. The contribution of Scaling Readiness is influenced by various contextual factors, including pre-existing partnerships and established institutional intervention project and performance management practices. The findings underscore the significance of investing in broader institutional impact culture growth. This includes critical evaluation of how funding, incentive, and performance mechanisms enable or constrain evidence-based decision-making and adaptive management at intervention and organizational level towards achieving Sustainable Development Goals.
... By providing accurate communication, farmers may effectively utilize agricultural innovation to achieve desired outcomes (Douthwaite et al., Hoffecker, 2017;Eidt et al., 2020). When farmers have access to accurate information regarding agricultural innovation, including farming inputs and animal rearing, they can also share this information with their acquaintances who may be interested in adopting these innovations (Fan & Watanabe, 2006;Douthwaite & Hoffecker, 2017). ...
... By providing accurate communication, farmers may effectively utilize agricultural innovation to achieve desired outcomes (Douthwaite et al., Hoffecker, 2017;Eidt et al., 2020). When farmers have access to accurate information regarding agricultural innovation, including farming inputs and animal rearing, they can also share this information with their acquaintances who may be interested in adopting these innovations (Fan & Watanabe, 2006;Douthwaite & Hoffecker, 2017). Farmers anticipate receiving comprehensive education on the use of novel agricultural innovations to improve their farming and animal husbandry practices. ...
Farmers continue to adopt varied innovations as a way of helping them improve their food security. This study assessed communication factors affecting the adoption of agricultural innovations among farmers in Damongo in the Savannah region. The study relied on Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation theory. The study employed a descriptive cross sectional study design. The study was targeted at smallholder farmers within the study area. Simple random sampling technique was applied to obtain eligible participants of 272 from a study population of 850. A structured questionnaire was used to gather the data. The collected data was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) windows version 26.0. The results show that all 272 farmers indicated that they were adopting the application of fertilizers at the study setting. About 60.7% of the respondents did not adopt disease resistant crop varieties at the study setting as part of innovations in farming. From the results, 55.1% of respondents indicated that they had ever felt the positive effect of using agricultural innovations. There was a significant association between off farm occupation and age of respondents, and Innovation usage (p= 0.000, p=0.014). Also, a logistic regression model was adopted to analyze the effect of channels of information on farmers' adoption of agriculture innovations. The results revealed that all channels of information were statistically significant and farmers that used these channels were more likely to adopt. From the results, 72.1% of respondents said agricultural innovation helps them to process cassava into flour. The results also indicate that there is a moderate association between educational level and innovation usage. Based on the results, the study concluded that, farmers were aware of certain agricultural innovations used in the study setting. The study also concluded that age and off farm occupation also influences Innovation usage. The study recommended more education by Extension Officers on how farmers in the study setting could adopt agricultural innovation to improve food security.
... Moreover, as shown in PhilFIDA's inadequate staff mostly contributed to problems of the abaca industry in the region. This accounts for the number of abaca farmers with small-sized scattered farms in remote locations, inadequacy of field staff limits the monitoring and reaching out of abaca farmers with new and improved practices and other needed assistance (Douthwaite & Hoffecker, 2017). Hence, a need to hire additional staff to provide the necessary support to LGUs and farmer associations in addressing the problems beset by the industry (Abamo & Aragon, 2007;Valenzona et al., 2020;Calica et al., 2024). ...
... In all these processes, half of the PhilFIDA staff clamored for additional travel allowance, since a third (33%) asserted they need additional staff for regulatory functions, and few (17%) need to undergo training in regulatory policy enforcement. In fact, the functions and roles of PhilFIDA cannot be overemphasized, which they are responsible for promoting the growth and development of the abaca fiber in the country Philippines (Douthwaite & Hoffecker, 2017;Parac et al., 2021;Tapado, 2022). ...
This article focuses on profiling the abaca stakeholders in Eastern Visayas and elucidates their various functions in the industry. Primary information was gathered from a random sample of abaca farmers and other stakeholders through a researchers' developed survey questionnaire. The data were analyzed through descriptive measures and presented in statistical tables and graphs. Results showed that the majority of abaca farmers are in their prime working years (25 to 54 years old), are married females, are elementary graduates, and are owners of small abaca farms with an average area of 1.88 hectares. The small traders are mostly married females in their prime working years and are college degree holders. The Local Government Unit (LGU) personnel are mostly municipal agriculturists, males, married, and college graduates. The majority of the Philippine Fiber Industry Development Authority (PhilFIDA) personnel are married males who are of prime age and college degree holders. Half of the enablers were male and married, who finished graduate studies and either belonged to prime or mature working age. Moreover, findings revealed that several players in the abaca value chain have important roles and functions to play along the supply chain to make the industry vibrant. As they do their respective roles and functions, they also have needs, expectations, and concerns that should be addressed for them to function effectively in the system. Hence, the study recommends that an in-depth training needs assessment should be conducted to determine their real needs as the basis for designing training programs.
... At the same time, as Valters (2014) pointed out, ToC may make organizational actors believe that they and their programme are at the centre of social change rather than resulting from a multitude of interrelated contextual factors, of which their programme is part. Calls for a 'complexity-aware' (Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017) evaluation of programmes that intend to bring change to complex systems exist, yet the academic field has not offered a ToC that could be used in evaluation practice (Arkesteijn et al., 2015;Douthwaite et al., 2003;Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017). Even the use of indicators as elements of thematic frameworks and evaluation strategies is not unproblematic. ...
... At the same time, as Valters (2014) pointed out, ToC may make organizational actors believe that they and their programme are at the centre of social change rather than resulting from a multitude of interrelated contextual factors, of which their programme is part. Calls for a 'complexity-aware' (Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017) evaluation of programmes that intend to bring change to complex systems exist, yet the academic field has not offered a ToC that could be used in evaluation practice (Arkesteijn et al., 2015;Douthwaite et al., 2003;Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017). Even the use of indicators as elements of thematic frameworks and evaluation strategies is not unproblematic. ...
... This leads to more and more reflections about the integration, in research organisations, of strategies devoted to impact monitoring and research evaluation (Reed et al., 2022). Such strategies aim to answer societal and funder's demands, improve research practices (Watts et al., 2008), advance impact evaluations 1 (Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017), and make research and innovations more transformative to society (Schot and Steinmueller, 2018). For some research organisations, this trend resulted in the establishment of a "culture of impact" (Leeuwis et al., 2018;Hainzelin et al., 2017) whereby there is a general recognition within the organisation that research should also be designed and practiced according to the types of impact it aims to generate. ...
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.
... Understanding how research-for-development fits into existing political, social, and economic contexts, and how it influences social change in CAS, can contribute to reaching goals of improving these systems and their resilience. However, outcomes of research are currently often measured with disregard for the complexity of relationships that played a role in the design, implementation and achieving results of the research (Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017). Indeed, at an ACIAR -hosted food system summit dialogue focusing on the foundations of successful research-for-development partnerships, Prof Andrew Campbell, the CEO of ACIAR, said that "not enough is invested in the arrows." ...
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.
... This approach is grounded in realist approaches to evaluation science and program theory development as articulated by Pawson (2013), and builds on the work of Westhorp (2012) to develop program theory at the mid-level of analysis, using middle-range causal mechanisms rather than participant-level causal mechanisms. It also builds directly on the work of Douthwaite and Hoffecker (2017) to operationalize that approach to theory-building into complexity-aware theories of change for complex, multi-stakeholder programmatic interventions and change processes in agricultural systems. ...
As interest grows in facilitating, funding, and investigating inclusive innovation processes in agrifood systems in the Global South, a need has emerged for middle-range theory that can describe the key features and causal dynamics of these processes across diverse contexts. This paper advances theory-building by testing and refining an existing middle-range theory of inclusive innovation processes in agrifood systems in the Global South through a case study of an inclusive innovation process involving smallholder farming communities in the Ecuadorian Andes. We used a case study replication design to test the initial theory. To develop the case study, we conducted primary qualitative research, including interviews, informal personal communications, and document reviews. Data analysis was conducted in two phases: in the first phase, we developed a timeline and causal narrative of the case and in the second phase, we conducted inductive and deductive thematic analysis. We find that each component of the existing middle-range model played an important role, as predicted, in the inclusive innovation process described in the case study. Our analysis also reveals additional component categories, including process inputs, initial contextual conditions, and actor-level mechanisms, that featured prominently in the case but were omitted from the existing theory. The case also revealed a more nuanced, phased causal dynamic than that described in the existing middle-range model and identified intermediate pilot results as boundary objects that expanded the inclusivity of the innovation process and triggered the causal dynamics predicted by the existing theory. Our findings inform a revision to the existing mid-level model, contributing to building an empirically validated theory of how inclusive innovation processes unfold in agrifood systems that sheds light on specific features of these processes that are important for promoting inclusivity.
... This involves addressing misconceptions and promoting informed decision-making regarding the impact of herbicides on food safety (Katre et al. 2022). Engaging consumers in a constructive dialogue about herbicide safety should be a priority to achieve this, and educational campaigns and outreach programs should be developed, targeting consumers, farmers, and stakeholders (Douthwaite and Hoffecker 2017;Katre et al. 2022). To ensure accurate and accessible information on herbicide safety reaches the public, collaboration between regulatory bodies, agricultural organizations, and public health agencies is essential. ...
Herbicides play a crucial role in modern agriculture by controlling weeds and ensuring sustainable crop productivity. However, the use of herbicides has raised concerns regarding their contamination, posing serious threat to the environment, biodiversity, and food safety. Recent trends indicate a decline in the overall volume of herbicides usage, suggesting a shift towards more specific and targeted formulations of herbicides. Also, there has been an increased use of systemic and pre-emergence herbicides. The global agriculture still faces several challenges because of the adverse environmental impacts caused by herbicide contamination, both at the application site and offsite. In view of the growing concern, it is necessary to develop new herbicides with greater selectivity or bio-based herbicide that can degrade after successful control of the intended weed population and minimize or eliminate the environmental hazards. Furthermore, the adoption of integrated weed management practices rather than prolonged and repeated use of herbicide in agriculture can effectively reduce the growth of herbicide-resistant weed populations. The present review is a single valuable resource, providing insights into the recent trends and future challenges associated with herbicide use in modern agriculture, with a focus on human health and food safety. Also, we emphasize the advancements in herbicide technology, emergence of new herbicide-resistant weed species, regulatory considerations, and alternative approaches in herbicide use, all of which are particularly valuable to agroecology, policymakers, and stakeholders.
Graphical Abstract
... Good practices are enriched by the contributions of various authors who address multiple aspects of agricultural innovation. In such a direction, Douthwaite and Hoffecker [30] highlight the need for a Theory of Change to plan and evaluate alternative pathways in agricultural research, addressing the complexity of agricultural aquatic systems in Zambia and the Philippines. Pigford [31] advocates integrating ecological and agricultural innovation system perspectives into sustainable agricultural innovation to achieve transitions to more sustainable systems. ...
This article examines the diagnosis of the Agricultural Innovation System (SIA) in the department of Tolima, Colombia, as part of a project led by the Colombian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Technological University of Pereira (TUP), which also evaluated the National Agricultural Innovation System (NAIS) in regions such as Chocó, Bolívar, and Meta. A methodology was used that involved a survey with 58 questions on a Likert scale with 300 participants, evaluated with congruence and relevance indexes, identifying key variables in the operation of the Agricultural Innovation System (AIS). A survey was applied to map actors in the National Innovation System for Higher Education in Agriculture, as well as the participating actors in the regional agricultural innovation systems of Tolima to identify gaps in extension, innovation, development, sustainability, information technology (TI), education, and training. Among the conclusions, it stands out that the associativity subsystem presents the lowest performance and is close to a score of two on the scale of gaps. An evaluation was carried out among the five subsystems, including extension, TI, environmental aspects, and public policy. The department of Tolima shows low performance in innovation and TI, while their extension performance is less weak. In Chaparral, there is a general lag, with innovation being the worst evaluated subsystem. Rovira obtains high scores in most subsystems, although innovation and TI have lower scores. At the national and regional levels, innovation is low, and communication among the NARS actors is insufficient, which highlights the need to promote good practices, strategies, and projects.
... Complexity-aware interventions enable an understanding and harnessing of beneficial system 434 interactions and dynamics (Douthwaite & Hoffecker, 2017 P r e p r i n t n o t p e e r r e v i e w e d understanding of complex systems by interpreting, visualizing, and experiencing the critical 455 aspects of food security across different scales. ...
Food insecurity is a persistent global challenge, prompting diverse interpretations of its causes and solutions. In sub-Saharan Africa, two prevailing narratives guide agricultural interventions: the "crisis narrative," endorsed by scientific and aid agencies, attributes insecurity to a production crisis heightened by climate change and population growth. Conversely, the "chronic poverty narrative" highlighted by African policy documents, links food insecurity to farmer poverty, proposing livelihood improvement and economic opportunities as solutions. Narrative subjectivity can lead to uncritical privileging of certain understandings and solutions, necessitating a critical exploration of contexts, causes, and solutions to food insecurity in the region. Our research addresses the imperative to understand and illustrate the complex problem of food insecurity in the region. This study employs a mixed-method approach, combining collaborative storytelling, model exploration, and scenario analysis, to investigate food security, agricultural innovation, and climate adaptation in Mali, West Africa. Our three-stage methodology, akin to a story arc, comprises story beginning (exposition), development (action), and completion (solution), providing a cohesive narrative structure. Participants use stories and an agent-based model simulation to delve into the complexity of food security, leading to a shared narrative of food security as a complex adaptive system influenced by various factors like climate change, population growth, migration, conflicts, resource access, and institutional constraints. Climate-induced production variability, agroecological heterogeneity, network structures, and climate risk perception emerge as critical determinants of food insecurity, with nuances contingent upon regional agroecological conditions. Unexpected outcomes are observed and explained: 1) Overall food security declines despite increased crop production due to disparities in access to extension services and high variability in climate-sensitive crops across climate zones. 2) Increased foreign aid or capital allocation for innovation development did not influence innovation adoption by producers; instead, changes in network structures like increased radius and density significantly boost adoption rates. 3) Risk perception strongly shapes farmer decision-making, leading to the preference for resilient crops like millet and sorghum, despite lower yields compared to higher-yield options such as maize and rice. Our methodological approach enabled experiential learning and knowledge exchange between researchers and participants allowing us to shape a nuanced narrative of food security, agricultural innovation, and climate adaptation in the region. Overall, these results highlight the importance of leveraging local knowledge, harnessing existing farmers' networks, and fostering collaborative approaches to innovation development, dissemination, and adoption.
... This includes debates on Mission-oriented Agricultural Innovation Systems (Klerkx and Begemann, 2020), System Transformation (Leeuwis et al., 2021), Complex Adaptive Systems (Hall and Clark, 2010), and Science of Scaling . It fits particularly well with more action-oriented system approaches to innovation, such as Scaling Readiness , Impact Pathways (Douthwaite et al., 2003), Theory of Change (Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017;Maru et al., 2018), and Reflexive Learning and Adaptive Management (van Mierlo et al., 2010). Those approaches aim at finding the right balance between understanding and analyzing system complexity on the one hand and informing intervention and action on the other hand. ...
CONTEXT
Global food systems are confronted with multifaceted challenges, including climate change, malnutrition, and biodiversity loss, disproportionately affecting the livelihoods of millions, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Recognizing its potential to address these challenges, innovation is increasingly central in public sector organizations. However, despite growing emphasis, the adoption of innovation portfolio management approaches remains limited.
OBJECTIVE
Drawing on a case study of CGIAR, a global research partnership dedicated to agricultural challenges, this paper seeks to accomplish two objectives. The primary objective is to produce a set of best practices in innovation portfolio management that can benefit public sector organizations. The secondary objective is to demonstrate how this offers an important precursor to guide organizational decision-making and investment towards responsible food system transformation.
METHODS
An in-depth analysis of CGIAR's approach to innovation portfolio management is based on qualitative and quantitative data from sources such as interviews, observations, documents, and archival records. The study adopts a descriptive case study approach, utilizing an analytical framework that recognizes the importance of methods, mindsets, and mechanisms in describing and analyzing the CGIAR case.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Key lessons encompass the need for a holistic perspective on innovation portfolio management. The paper advocates for the integration of an innovation portfolio management approach within broader (1) organizational processes, including human resources, finance, legal frameworks, and risk management; and (2) innovation systems where food system transformation is the outcome of interactions and partnerships between government, public and private sector organizations.
SIGNIFICANCE
This study furnishes actionable guidance to public organizations seeking to harness innovation portfolio management for responsible and impactful food system transformation.
... While daunting, it is clear that these new directions offer plausible and possible next steps, as is clear from the many practical advances seen in the application of complexity-oriented and aware theories and methods (ranging from monitoring and evaluation programmes; Hertz et al., 2021), agricultural innovation project designs (Douthwaite & Hoffecker, 2017) and the many innovations seen in the health domain (Sturmberg, 2019). The three new directions described here, as well as the many possible others in other disciplines, knowledge systems and practices (e.g. ...
Human–nature interactions have been identified as an important leverage point for achieving sustainability. Processes to recognize, protect, improve and reimagine human–nature interactions will be central to shift the world to more sustainable and equitable pathways and futures.
In the context of the interconnected and rapidly changing Anthropocene, work on human–nature interactions must move beyond dominant linear assumptions of a relatively simple and easily and predictably manipulated world to acknowledge and engage with the complex, dynamic, asymmetrical and unequal nature of the interactions connecting people and nature.
Based on three key features highlighted by the study of complex social–ecological systems (SES)—that these systems are relational, open and dynamic—we propose three new directions for the study and management of human–nature interactions that can help to acknowledge and disentangle the globally intertwined and dynamic nature of these interactions.
These features suggest new directions and foci for sustainability science: the inseparable and relational qualities of the interactions between people and nature; the cross‐scale nature of these relationships; and the continuously evolving and changing form of these relationships.
To bridge the gap between the theory of complex, inseparable and unequal human–nature interactions and the reductionist tendencies in research and practice, SES research raises opportunities to connect local action and global learning; to mobilize and develop new cross‐scale and relational capacities to encourage synergies and avoid trade‐offs; and to explore, experiment and learn our way forward onto more sustainable and equitable pathways.
Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
... Our framework for determining transformative potential of initiatives, moreover, provides a first, often lacking stap, in studies focussing on the design process of innovations, by providing inspiration and an overview of transformative innovations in a region (Meynard et al., 2017;Pigford et al., 2018). Besides, results of our method indicate which initiatives show the most potential for transformation, which, could be connected to existing literature focusse on possible transition pathways and acceleration of the transition, in order to ensure that this transformative potential is realised (Vermunt et al., 2022;Hermans et al., 2013;Schagen et al., 2023;Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017;Verburg et al., 2022). Moreover, this framework distinguishes itself from other literature that assess transformative potential in agriculture by determining transformative potential on the initiative level without grouping them and linking them to certain transition pathways or niches (Gaitán-Cremaschi et al., 2020;Rossi, 2017). ...
... However, in many cases a project's theory of change is implicit in its design, rather than openly stated, and as such does not receive the same careful examination that is applied to budgets, timeframes and individual deliverables (Archibald et al. 2016). While subtle, an incorrect (or incomplete) theory of change can undermine a project's chance of delivering lasting improvements (Archibald et al. 2016;Douthwaite and Hoffecker 2017). ...
As major policy actors (e.g. governments, global organisations) grapple with 'wicked' sustainability challenges, the use of demonstration projects or 'living labs' has promise in showcasing potential solutions. However, these projects can struggle to realise enduring change, with initial experimental deliverables tending not to be replicated and remaining as once-offs. As well as demonstrating solutions, projects also need to overcome the considerable inertia in the complex systems of organisations and institutions that govern (or indeed generate) sustainability problems. Here we argue that demonstration projects, while initially impactful, could be more likely to realise transformative change if they were designed more thoroughly as action research projects, working with partners to not only deliver and measure demonstrations of solutions, but also demonstrate changes to organisations and institutions to remove barriers and facilitate replication. We note the important role of both engaged leadership and explicitly-stated theories of change in maximising the potential of projects designed in this way.
... From this study's data, this meant recognizing collaborators at all point along the design-chain not simply as means or tools to an end but as participants with equal agency within a process (Lutomia, 2019;Naik, 2018). More broadly, the processes of participatory innovation design in this study afforded a sufficient variety of empowered voices, identities, and worldviews to capture both the educational protocol and relevant concerns around its depictions in its design Douthwaite & Hoffecker, 2017;Lineberry, 2019;Mocumbe, Abbott et al., 2016) ...
Efforts worldwide have sought to lessen the agricultural and societal impact of the fall armyworm (FAW), Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) mitigation in Kenya, Nepal, and Bangladesh by safeguarding affected regions’ food crops and livelihoods while preventing the spread of FAW to nearby areas. However, efforts to communicate and gain support for FAW control methods among local populations can have limited impacts. This study qualitatively explores “design looping” as part of three Information and Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D) campaigns in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Kenya for increasing community support for FAW mitigation. Such an approach not only potentially extends the reach and scalability of FAW control methods but also contributes to meeting Sustainable Development Goals for food security and community well-being. Findings of productive advantages for “design looping” in this study include (1) increased participatory access by project stakeholders and beneficiaries, (2) flexibility, as cost-effective and potentially continuous opportunities to refine ICT4D messaging to meet project goals, and (3) bi-directional learning between project producers and message recipients for improved message deployment. Limitations and directions for future research are also discussed.
... 4. Measurement of inclusive innovation: Embedding inclusive innovation requires alternative measurement approaches (e.g., qualitative and mixed-method monitoring). Addressing evidence gaps and obstacles related to monitoring, evaluation, and learning in integrated systems research are key areas for improvement 45,54,55 . New measurement approaches are emerging, and recent institutional criteria (e.g., demand-driven co-design; equitable partnerships) increasingly align with inclusive approaches to innovation 19 . ...
In this perspective, we offer insights into the evolution of CGIAR’s research and innovation portfolio from 2019 to 2023, underpinning the transformative journey towards One CGIAR. With this contribution, we aim to strengthen the social and environmental sustainability components of allied, future Research for Development (R4D) portfolios. We explore three interlinked operational frameworks—Quality of Research for Development (QoR4D), Comparative Advantage (CA) Analysis, and Inclusive Innovation—and present practical tools and lessons for enhancing the quality and impact of R4D initiatives. This work is based on insights gained by the Independent Science for Development Council (ISDC) during the review of proposals for the current One CGIAR research portfolio. QoR4D’s four dimensions (relevance, scientific credibility, legitimacy, and effectiveness) guide research strategy, portfolio development, evaluation and performance standards, fostering intentional design and transparent assessment. CA Analysis leverages organisational strengths, facilitating purposeful partnerships, and strategic resource allocation. Inclusive Innovation emphasises stakeholder inclusivity, amplifying legitimacy, relevance, and effectiveness. Insights are drawn from the application of these frameworks, highlighting the importance of collaboration, the need for a mindset shift and institutional reform, specialisation, and impact maximisation. By adopting these lessons, CGIAR and allied organisations can collectively address global food system challenges more effectively, driving sustainable agricultural innovation and societal transformation. This article aims to contribute to advancing sustainable agriculture and underscores the significance of systemic collaborations in creating more resilient and equitable food systems.
... The focus has been on creating a culture of impact within research organizations, and the literature on AR4D provides particularly relevant observations. Scholars have highlighted the importance of developing new professionalism for CGIAR centers, based notably on direct engagement with rural communities (Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017), research "in" development rather than "for" development (Coe et al., 2014), and, more generally, the closer integration of research with all actors in agricultural innovation systems (Thornton et al., 2017). While investigating the foundations for building a culture of impact within CIRAD, Blundo-Canto et al. (2019) identify the challenge of constructing ex-ante 2 impact assessment practices, rather than just ex-post, to encourage researchers to consider the impact of their research on societies from the outset. ...
This article focuses on researchers who are using the outputs of their scientific research to develop decision
support systems (DSS) to advanced technology readiness levels. By taking their DSS beyond the published proofs
of concept level, they are assuming the role of intrapreneurs. We examine the role and motivations of individual
researchers in producing these DSS in relation to the main organizational barriers and opportunities presented by
their home institution. The study is based on interviews with researchers, computer engineers, support services
staff, and senior-level managers at CIRAD, a French agricultural research for development institute. Our findings
reveal that individual motivations are key and often clash with institutional concerns regarding products that fall
outside the institution’s usual field of expertise. Research institutions should consider carefully the relevance of
investing in the development of finalized DSS given the time and effort required from researchers. This study
offers a perspective on intrapreneurship processes, highlighting the motivations of researchers to generate impact
outside academia and the opportunities and conflicts emerging from the internal realities of research institutions.
... The social sciences literature sheds light on the social contexts of interventions such as coral restoration, including understanding the social impacts of marine conservation interventions. While literature from a marine conservation perspective tends to highlight the flow of benefits from marine resources to people, literature from the wider social sciences has emphasised how agricultural and conservation interventions operate in a context of diverse stakeholders and contested interests (Cook et al., 2021;Curry et al., 2021;Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017). This context is also shaped by connections to wider sets of economic and political processes operating at multiple scales (Armitage and Johnson, 2006;Farmery et al., 2021;Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2015). ...
... Practitioners and policy-makers and their organizations must have the capacity to learn (evidence-driven action and learning) and adapt (adaptation) to new knowledge as it emerges, as well as the capacity to engage in the process of knowledge production (collaboration) (Nutley, Walter and Davies 2007;Bowen et al. 2009). When systems are well-functioning, and practitioners and policy-makers have the capacity to adapt, collaborate and engage in evidence-driven action and learning, they will be more likely to continuously learn from and draw on new knowledge (Douthwaite and Hoffecker 2017) and engage in knowledge production. Thus, when research develops capacity for adaptation, collaboration, and evidence-driven action and learning, a reinforcing loop is created (Rutter et al. 2017). ...
There is increasing attention on evidencing research impact and applying a systems thinking perspective in public health. However, there is limited understanding of the extent to which and how public health research that applies a systems thinking perspective contributes to changes in system behaviour and improved population health outcomes. This paper addresses the theoretical limitations of research impact, theory-based evaluation and systems thinking, by drawing on their respective literature to develop an initial, middle-range Theory of Systems Change, focused on the contribution of public health research that takes a systems perspective on population health outcomes. The Theory of Systems Change was developed through four phases: (1) Preliminary activities, (2) Theory development, (3) Scripting into images, and (4) Examining against Merton’s criteria. The primary propositions are: that well-functioning systems create the conditions for improved population health outcomes; the inter-related properties of, and practices within, well-functioning systems include adaptation, alignment, collaboration and evidence-driven action and learning; and public health research contributes to population health outcomes by embedding capacity in the system. The Theory of Systems Change can guide researchers in developing project-specific theories of change and creates the theoretical architecture for the accumulation of learning. The Theory of Systems Change is necessarily incomplete and an initial attempt to develop a theory to be scrutinized and tested. Ultimately, it seeks to advance theory and provide evidence-based guidance to maximize the contribution of research. We provide examples of how we have applied the Theory of Systems Change to Pathways in Place.
... Furthermore, not every team, organization or partner is able or willing to scale (van Lunenburg et al., 2020); for example, due to lack of incentives to disrupt the status quo, a lack of necessary business functions to scale, or an underestimation of the financial and staffing implications for an organization (Fehlenberg et al., 2023;Kohl, 2023a;Meehan and Jonker, 2018;Westley et al., 2014). For example, efforts to design research programs in the CGIAR from a systems thinking perspective failed recently, largely because the mindsets and structures were oriented towards the linear scaling logic (Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017;Leeuwis et al., 2017). Building up and upon local capacities and being intentional about collaboration appear to be critical success factors for scaling (Woodhill, 2010). ...
CONTEXT
Approaches to scaling are persistently linear and focus on a single innovation, an innovator to control the scaling process, and a purpose driven by donor accountability. Alternative approaches that better reflect the complexity involved in sustainable development draw on systems thinking theory, but are hardly used. The Scaling Scan tool facilitates the integration of a systems approach to scaling to a broad public.
OBJECTIVE
This study draws from almost six years of experience using and adapting the Scaling Scan tool to deepen the theoretical and empirical understanding of what a systems approach to scaling is and what challenges project teams and organizations face to embrace this.
METHODS
This study uses data retrieved between 2017 and 2023 from 54 workshops where the Scaling Scan was used to scale innovations for sustainable development. Data were complemented with a literature study and SWOT analysis to understand the use, users, and user adaptations of the Scaling Scan tool.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The Scaling Scans' focus on context, unintended consequences and the facilitation of collective understanding and collective action are important components of a systems approach to scaling. Multiple adaptations to the tools have been made by users to facilitate even more collective understanding. However, the early focus on “the” innovation to scale and the intrinsic assumption that this innovation addresses a key root cause or leverage point in the system risks to perpetuate a linear approach to scaling. The scoring of the scaling ingredients show a tendency to focus on familiar disciplines (mostly technical), limiting progression beyond a “bigger pilot” and engage with what or who is required for innovations to contribute to large scale change, such as market and public support. Transitioning from a linear to a systems approach to scaling is challenging because business models of research organizations depend on high adoption of “their” innovations. We find that, there are far-reaching implications of embracing a systems approach to scaling which not everyone may want or can accept.
SIGNIFICANCE
We can no longer assume that complex systemic problems such as hunger and poverty will be solved by having more of an innovation. Yet this is still the dominant approach for research for development organizations to contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals. The experience with the Scaling Scan contributes to a deeper understanding of the role of tools to facilitate the integration of systems thinking in innovation and scaling initiatives aimed at sustainable developmen
... Theory of change, which was developed in the 1990s, is a method for designing business strategies that brings together community development partners and addresses proposed way of achieving impact [66]. In the case of smallholder value chains, theory of change was used to develop business modeling techniques aimed specifically at integrating smallholder farmers into market-oriented value chains [67,68]. ...
Value chain related theories evolve over time in response to critique and their own conceptual development. In addition, they are ways of assessing the real world (theoretical frameworks); generating explanations about market development practice, and provide the opportunity for comparison over space and time. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the theoretical literature on theoretical underpinnings of value chain analysis. The approach used has been a sort of desktop review which involved collection of important secondary data to corroborate facts and to understand key issues pertinent to the theories was fundamental. After a search for literature, the review employed a method known as content analysis. The review result showed that the theories regarding value chain analysis intended, in time, by simplifying the reality or image to comprehend the phenomena with the purpose of their forecasting. In addition, the theories presented an increased concern, irrespective of the place where they were developed, but also, they stirred some critics. Moreover, it is the belief of this book chapter that it is intended to serve as both a summary of the state of the field and an overview reference for users.
... The first stance, they argue, results in advocacy, the second in inquiry. No matter the stance chosen, the merit of approaches that hold promise for contributing to change can only be assessed within the context of change processes, for instance, in terms of their contribution to change mechanisms such as learning, social capital building, or engendering action (Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017;Hoffecker, 2021;Van Mierlo and Beers, 2020). The 'how-to' question of using scientific knowledge as part of sustainability transitions thus challenges the role and organisation of research where training and reward systems favour analytical approaches -transformation knowledge addressing 'what' and 'why' questionsin favour of supporting less time-efficient transdisciplinary approaches for transformative knowledge. ...
CONTEXT: The urgency of redesigning the way food is produced and consumed has implications for the systems
perspective of agronomy. An increasingly important strain of research addresses the ‘how-to’ question associated
with the transformation of ‘maldesigned’ agricultural systems and produces ‘transformative knowledge’ as part
of transitions in-the-making. Such knowledge production goes beyond ‘transformation knowledge’ resulting from
the more classical analytical agronomic approaches and stances. Contributing to transitions in-the-making thus
calls for systems agronomists to question their profession's why, what, and how.
OBJECTIVE: This special issue brings together contributions by systems agronomists collaborating with other
scientists and societal actors revealing the less visible stream of fine-grained work to support transitions in-the-
making in agroecosystems.
METHODS: In this introductory paper, changes in research scope and methods emerging from the contributions
are highlighted to reinforce the engaged systems agronomist's roles in contributing to food system transitions.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Three results stand out: 1) Contributing to transitions in-the-making necessitates
going beyond analysis-oriented research stances to address the ‘how’ of transformative knowledge, and move
beyond the more time-efficient dominant ‘what’ and ‘why’ questions; 2) Meta-methods are emerging about how
to adapt and embed existing agronomic knowledge products within change processes. Reflection on the over-
arching transformation dynamics and on how to articulate knowledge products and change process will
constitute an important extension of the systems agronomist's methods; 3) The efficacy of scientific trans-
formative knowledge development may be enhanced if the notion of design is used more strictly in relation to
engagement in societal change.
SIGNIFICANCE: The need to respond to the how-to questions associated with the transformation of the way food
is produced and consumed requires systems agronomists to reflect on their stance in the research process, the
way they design their research inclusively, and the way they shape their methods. This Special Issue provides
promising examples of the (re-)emerging strain of engaged systems agronomists.
... The first stance, they argue, results in advocacy, the second in inquiry. No matter the stance chosen, the merit of approaches that hold promise for contributing to change can only be assessed within the context of change processes, for instance, in terms of their contribution to change mechanisms such as learning, social capital building, or engendering action (Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017;Hoffecker, 2021;Van Mierlo and Beers, 2020). The 'how-to' question of using scientific knowledge as part of sustainability transitions thus challenges the role and organisation of research where training and reward systems favour analytical approaches -transformation knowledge addressing 'what' and 'why' questionsin favour of supporting less time-efficient transdisciplinary approaches for transformative knowledge. ...
Special Issue shows the broadening scope and methods of systems agronomists engaged in transitions-in-the-making. • Papers provide evidence of a change in scope from transformation knowledge towards transformative knowledge development. • The articulation of knowledge and change processes constitute an important extension of the systems agronomist's toolkit. • The 'how-to' questions of transformative change call for a continuous reflexive stance on research's direction and position. A B S T R A C T CONTEXT: The urgency of redesigning the way food is produced and consumed has implications for the systems perspective of agronomy. An increasingly important strain of research addresses the 'how-to' question associated with the transformation of 'maldesigned' agricultural systems and produces 'transformative knowledge' as part of transitions in-the-making. Such knowledge production goes beyond 'transformation knowledge' resulting from the more classical analytical agronomic approaches and stances. Contributing to transitions in-the-making thus calls for systems agronomists to question their profession's why, what, and how. OBJECTIVE: This special issue brings together contributions by systems agronomists collaborating with other scientists and societal actors revealing the less visible stream of fine-grained work to support transitions in-the-making in agroecosystems. METHODS: In this introductory paper, changes in research scope and methods emerging from the contributions are highlighted to reinforce the engaged systems agronomist's roles in contributing to food system transitions. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Three results stand out: 1) Contributing to transitions in-the-making necessitates going beyond analysis-oriented research stances to address the 'how' of transformative knowledge, and move beyond the more time-efficient dominant 'what' and 'why' questions; 2) Meta-methods are emerging about how to adapt and embed existing agronomic knowledge products within change processes. Reflection on the over-arching transformation dynamics and on how to articulate knowledge products and change process will constitute an important extension of the systems agronomist's methods; 3) The efficacy of scientific trans-formative knowledge development may be enhanced if the notion of design is used more strictly in relation to engagement in societal change. SIGNIFICANCE: The need to respond to the how-to questions associated with the transformation of the way food is produced and consumed requires systems agronomists to reflect on their stance in the research process, the way they design their research inclusively, and the way they shape their methods. This Special Issue provides promising examples of the (re-)emerging strain of engaged systems agronomists.
... c) The literature on evaluating complex interventions uses the term "complexity-aware" (Douthwaite & Hoffecker, 2017), but being aware is only the first step. The next important steps are acknowledging, appreciating, and incorporating these perspectives into the design and evaluation of projects. ...
How a project is perceived by its stakeholders affects how it is implemented, and how the outcomes of the project are interpreted by the stakeholders influences the impact project can have on those stakeholders. Often this diversity of perspective is considered an impediment to the effectiveness of the project in meeting its goals. Standard project evaluation techniques dependent on linear and conventional methods to assess and present outputs and outcomes from projects fail to consider the complexity in projects. Complexity in a project arises from the involvement of multiple stakeholders from diverse disciplines, backgrounds, and geographies, and having varied perceptions, expectations, and understanding of the project and its aspects.
The overall aim of this PhD is to improve the understanding of evaluation of complex projects by studying the projects from the perspectives of the multiple stakeholders involved in them. The first objective is to explore and understand the approaches to evaluation drawing on perspectives from literature, and observations from the field. The second objective is to understand the perspectives of stakeholders operating at various levels of a complex project on different aspects of the project such as its nature, approach, outputs, and outcomes. The third objective is to relate outcomes at various levels in the project to processes used, as well as associate outputs with outcomes. The fourth objective is to develop an integrated approach to evaluate complex multi- stakeholder projects, which enhances a project’s outcomes and enables learning for the stakeholders involved.
With the aim of improvement in the existing knowledge on evaluating complex projects, the methodological approach is developed from a combination of theories and practices on evaluation. Central themes of the methodology are methodological pluralism, multiple perspectives, systems thinking, and appreciation and learning. To facilitate flexibility in navigating through a variety of theories and perspectives to enable both change and enhancement, the PhD is undertaken and presented as an action research. Three complex projects with stakeholders from diverse backgrounds and disciplines are examined in two stages of this thesis. These projects situated on the Chotanagpur Plateau in India with different intervention areas are, i) an agricultural research for development (AR4D) project, ii) a project to develop the skills of community youth to impart education, and iii) a Corporate Social Responsibility initiative. Data are collected from 82 project participants chosen by purposive sampling in the form of narratives, through semi-structured questionnaires.
Findings from examining multiple perspectives were similar across the three studied projects. Stakeholders interpreted the nature and outcomes of the project uniquely. This study confirmed the existence of diverse stakeholder perspectives that were not captured or acknowledged in the evaluation of the three projects. These perspectives, however, were important for the stakeholders in how they identified with the project, how they functioned in it, and eventually, how it impacted their lives. Moreover, largely, there was no cognisance of this diversity in the stakeholders of the project. In instances where the stakeholders were aware of the multiple views, there was no mechanism for interaction of, or sharing those perspectives. Neither did the project stakeholders learn to acknowledge and work with varied perspectives, nor did they learn from multiple views in the project which were different from theirs. Besides the standard outputs and outcomes from the project, the project stakeholders outlined long-term personal changes. In particular, the learning which they underwent was considered profound and significant. The subtle shifts in learning and development of capabilities in project stakeholders were capabilities that enhance their sense of agency and change their worldviews, which they may further utilise to impact the project, themselves, and others.
In considering these findings and addressing the challenge of incorporating complexity in project evaluation, the thesis develops a framework to evaluate complex projects. The framework is complexity-appreciative which acknowledges, appreciates, and integrates multiple perspectives in the design and evaluation of projects. Evaluation frameworks are always dependent on the contexts in which they are applied, and on those who design and use them, and the kind of boundary judgements they make. Hence, the framework provided in this PhD is not a tool to be used at the end of a project to measure its outcomes; rather, it is a process that must be part of a project from inception as a feedback tool to enhance outcomes. The framework can become a means to create spaces and processes in a project to enable stakeholders to share perspectives, listen to others, understand the diversity in the project, and acknowledge, appreciate and learn from each other’s perspectives as well as each other’s process of learning. Such a space will also allow stakeholders to find their voice and purposes in the project, to help each other do the same, and to further develop those purposes
... However, it is important to ensure that the end product is not an overly simplified diagram misrepresenting the true complexity of interventions (Davies, 2018). Nested ToCs can partly tackle such over-linearity, by allowing the researcher to gain more insight into how programme theory unfolds at more granular levels, helping avoid overly complicated, confusing diagrams that fail to communicate programme logic (Douthwaite & Hoffecker, 2017;Mayne, 2015). We have addressed both these challenges within our methodology. ...
... The first stance, they argue, results in advocacy, the second in inquiry. No matter the stance chosen, the merit of approaches that hold promise for contributing to change can only be assessed within the context of change processes, for instance, in terms of their contribution to change mechanisms such as learning, social capital building, or engendering action (Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017;Hoffecker, 2021;Van Mierlo and Beers, 2020). The 'how-to' question of using scientific knowledge as part of sustainability transitions thus challenges the role and organisation of research where training and reward systems favour analytical approaches -transformation knowledge addressing 'what' and 'why' questionsin favour of supporting less time-efficient transdisciplinary approaches for transformative knowledge. ...
... These findings highlight the need for future research to adapt a more complexity-sensitive approach that recognizes the multiple contingent, nonlinear outcomes and impact that social franchising programs inevitably produce. A complexity-sensitive approach conceptualizes social franchising as a complex, adaptive system that involves different actors, including health professionals, clients and their families, policymakers, managers, etc., who continuously adapt their strategies and actions based on the actions of others and changing system conditions (Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017). While some of the contingent effects identified in future research could be used to improve the design of social franchising programs, particularly if they are subject to a recognizable and imitable pattern of interlocking activities, such as the knowledge spillovers observed in our study. ...
Purpose
That social franchising programs induce favorable outcomes is readily taken for granted, albeit lacking robust empirical support. Addressing this situation, this paper takes a closer look at a fractional social franchising program in the public health-care sector in Vietnam to better understand how such programs work. This paper aims to expand the nascent body of empirical research that has examined the inner workings of social franchising programs from the perspective of clients by focusing on the health professionals who work there.
Design/methodology/approach
Using an exploratory qualitative research design, the authors conducted 25 semistructured interviews with health professionals of a fractional franchising program called Sisterhood, which introduced reproductive health and family planning services into existing health facilities in Vietnam. Interviews were triangulated with Sisterhood’s internal documents as well as with publicly available reports.
Findings
The analysis highlights two pathways through which the social franchising program brought about positive change. On the one hand, the analysis suggests that many of the positive outcomes reported by public health professionals were consistent with the stated goals and measures used by the Sisterhood program, providing evidence that improving the quality of health care for disadvantaged communities can be achieved through careful design and execution. On the other hand, the analysis revealed beneficial outcomes that were outside the scope of the Sisterhood program and, in this sense, “unexpected.” Specifically, the paper sheds light on unintended knowledge spillover effects in which nonfranchised health professionals began to adopt new practices and principles introduced by the social franchising program.
Originality/value
The paper taps into a largely under-researched phenomenon – fractional social franchising – from the perspective of health professionals. Unpacking how the social franchising program created favorable outcomes, some by design and others by accident, the paper opens new empirical and policy insights into how social franchising can improve public health in hard-to-reach communities in the global South. Based on the findings, the authors argue for the intentional promotion and institutionalization of knowledge transfers from franchised to nonfranchised health facilities to reinforce and scale up the positive impact of social franchising. The authors conclude by emphasizing the need for future research to adopt a complexity-sensitive approach that accounts for the dynamic, nonlinear adoption pathways social franchising can take. Such an approach is essential to uncover the beneficial outcomes that can result from social franchising programs but cannot be readily predicted by program design.
... The problem context includes the aspects of location, scale, socio-ecological conditions (e. g., culture, environment), and status or maturity (Carew and Wickson 2010). Using a ToC process to define the research problem and design the research approach collaboratively helps ensure relevance, broadens the knowledge base for strategic and contextresponsive research design, and facilitates shared ownership of the project and its goals (Douthwaite and Hoffecker 2017, Van Drooge and Spaapen, 2017, Oberlack et al. 2019. ...
A Theory of Change (ToC) is a set of testable hypotheses that model how an intervention will contribute to a change process. ToC development and use can help in the design of transdisciplinary research to build trust and accountability in the research process. We present an online process for ToC facilitation and offer guidance to collaboratively build a ToC for transdisciplinary research.Transdisciplinary research (TDR) aims to solve problems in complex systems by drawing from a range of methods and expertise to contribute to change processes. Theories of Change (ToCs) are well-suited to support TDR design and implementation, but they rarely achieve their full potential. In practice, ToCs are often compromised by insufficient engagement with the context, weak theoretical bases, poor articulation, and a lack of iteration. This paper presents a process for ToC design based on the authors’ experience facilitating ToC development for research planning and evaluation. We illustrate the process using an in-progress TDR example on patient-oriented cancer care research. The approach begins by framing the social and research problems and then identifies activities and outputs, key actors, outcomes, and underlying causal assumptions. Skilled facilitation and strong conceptual familiarity are key to effectively mobilize ToC concepts into a cohesive and testable model to refine a strategy with TDR stakeholders. Key considerations and resources are offered to enhance ToC development planning and facilitation.
... The AIS theory emphasizes the importance of collaboration, knowledge exchange, and institutional support in promoting agricultural innovation and the adoption of new technologies. It suggests that effective agricultural innovation systems require strong partnerships and linkages between actors, as well as supportive policies and institutional frameworks (Douthwaite, 2017). ...
Purpose: The aim of the study was to examine the effect of new agriculture techniques on world hunger. Methodology: This study adopted a desktop methodology. This study used secondary data from which include review of existing literature from already published studies and reports that was easily accessed through online journals and libraries. Findings: The study revealed that new agri techniques has increased yield of crops. With advanced technology and modern crop varieties, farmers can produce more food with less land, water, and other resources. This can help to meet the growing demand for food as the global population continues to increase. Some of the new agri technique include adoption of GMOs, precision irrigation, precision agriculture and vertical farming. Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: The study was anchored theory of sustainable agriculture and theory of agricultural innovation systems (AIS). The study recommended that policies and institutional frameworks should be developed to support the adoption of modern technologies in agriculture including the provision of technical assistance, access to credit and market support. The study recommended there is need for financial incentives to encourage farmers to adopt new agricultural techniques.
... Related to varying sources of information and pathways, there are two possible technology transfer pathways (TTPs) [30]. The first TTP is via the traditional public domain: from research institutions to extension agencies, then to farmers. ...
The diverse sources of agricultural extension information do not guarantee increased farmers’ capabilities to adopt agricultural innovations. Consequently, efforts to accelerate the adoption of agricultural innovations should pay particular attention to farmers’ compatibility with different information sources. This study aims to analyze farmers’ perceptions of various information sources about rice commodity innovations and determine the information sources influencing farmers’ capabilities in adopting rice innovations. The study was conducted from June to December 2019 through a structured survey approach with 270 rice farmers in Subang, West Java and Boyolali, Central Java, Indonesia, by using structural equation model analysis. The results showed that rice farmers had positive perceptions of government, private, and self-subsistent extension. The capability level of rice farmers showed that all indicators were significantly different. Farmers could improve their capabilities and sustainability of rice farming by adopting agricultural innovations. Information from government and private extension providers had a positive effect on the capacity and capability of rice farmers. The role of self-subsistent extension was more of a facilitator and did not directly affect the capacity and capability of farmers. Participatory extension activities are recommended as a form of intervention that can improve rice farmers’ capacity and capability in terms of technology adoption processes. The extension activities should be provided as a series, rather than one-off events, so that farmer knowledge accumulates over time through a style and pace to match their skills and level of education.
... However, the socio-political complex and dynamic processes in the innovation interaction space, including various knowledges, is not captured in a linear diffusion-based theory of change. An alternative can be a complexity-aware theory of change (Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017). This theory acknowledges that technology implementation can be a goal, but also includes the effectiveness of the innovation process, and the capacity building for innovation, and adaptation as important aspects. ...
... This includes asking hard questions about what level of farmer involvement they are prepared to support, the level of control and power that farmers are given, the types of communication they use, and the ways in which they recruit different types of farmers to participate in PFR projects. We hope that these reflections will provide greater opportunities for deeper levels of engagement with farmers in on-farm research projects and create pathways to new forms of innovation and discovery that can help a broader range of farmers adapt to future climate, market, and political changes in ways that increase their social, economic, and environmental sustainability (Douthwaite and Hoffecker 2017). ...
Participatory modes of agricultural research have gained significant attention over the last 40 years. While many scholars and practitioners agree that engaging farmers and other stakeholders is a valuable complement to traditional scientific research, there is significant diversity in the goals and approaches used by participatory projects. Building on previous conceptual frameworks on divergent approaches to participatory farming research (PFR), we propose an updated synthetic typology that can be used to design, evaluate, and distinguish PFR projects. Key elements of our typology include a recognition of the multidimensionality of projects that reflect different combinations of: (a) the goals or motivations behind engaging farmers in research, (b) the specific methods or approaches used to implement a PFR project, and (c) the social, institutional, and biophysical contexts that shape the dynamics and outcomes from PFR. We use this typology to highlight how particular manifestations of participatory agricultural research projects-ranging from farmer advisory boards, on-farm demonstrations, and researcher-versus farmer-led on-farm research projects-combine goals, methods, and contexts in distinctive ways. Proponents of PFR projects would benefit from clarifying how their work fits into or extends this multidimensional typology.
Silvopastoral systems (SPSs) in the south of the department of Atlántico (Colombia) emerged as a strategy for productive reconstruction and adaptation to climate change in response to the floods caused by the winter wave between 2010 and 2011, which affected an agricultural area of more than 35,000 hectares in the six municipalities of this region. Between 2012 and 2013, SPSs were established on 2,683 hectares on 778 smallholder farms. The monitoring conducted in the last seven years (2017-2023), using AGROSAVIA’s Social Balance methodology, indicated that at least 10% of the area of the initially established SPSs is maintained and that some farms expanded the areas. With these SPSs, producers achieved a significant increase in milk production (more than five times the production obtained in the traditional extensive livestock system, which is the alternative production system that prevails in the region), thus obtaining an additional economic benefit estimated at 4 million pesos (2023 COP constant) per hectare/year, on average during the period. According to the perception of the producers who have SPS and the observation made on their farms during field visits and interviews, significant environmental impacts were identified—such as improvement in soil conservation and quality and reduction in the use of chemical synthesis inputs—and social impacts—such as income generation and greater availability, quality, and safety of food (milk and meat)—which would indicate a contribution of this strategy to climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as to the food security of producers in the south of the department of Atlántico. It is imperative to learn from this experience to improve and deepen processes to get closer to a transformation toward sustainable livestock farming in Colombia.
Background
There is currently no cogent set of standards to guide the design, implementation and evaluation of nutrition social and behavior change (SBC), including for nutrition-sensitive agriculture (NSA).
Objectives
We aimed to capture, consolidate, and describe SBC core principles and practices (CPPs), reflecting professional consensus, and to offer programmatic examples that illustrate their application for NSA projects in low- and middle-income countries.
Methods
We conducted a narrative review following a 4-step iterative process to identify and describe SBC CPPs. We first reviewed general SBC frameworks and technical documents and developed a preliminary list of CPPs and their definitions. Following review and feedback from 8 content experts, we revised the CPPs, incorporating the panel’s feedback, and conducted a more specific search of the peer-reviewed and gray literature. We presented a revised draft of the CPPs to 26 NSA researchers, practitioners, and implementers at the 2022 Agriculture, Nutrition and Health Academy annual conference. We then conducted a focused review of each CPP, and 3 content experts rereviewed the final draft.
Results
We reviewed ∼475 documents and resources resulting in a set of 4 core principles: 1) following a systematic, strategic method in designing, implementing, and evaluating SBC activities; 2) ensuring design and implementation are evidence-based; 3) grounding design and implementation in theory; and 4) authentically engaging communities. Additionally, we identified 11 core practices and mapped these to the different stages in the SBC design, implementation, and evaluation cycle. Detailed descriptions, illustrative examples and resources for implementation are provided for each CPP.
Conclusions
An explicit set of CPPs for SBC can serve as a guide for design, research, implementation, and evaluation of nutrition and NSA programs; help standardize knowledge sharing and production; and contribute to improved quality of implementation. Broader consultation with SBC practitioners and researchers will further consensus on this work.
The major sustainability concern is food waste, which might be minimized by more effective redistribution of surplus food, supply chain waste management, and sustainable food management. Due to technological and infrastructure issues that require technology application at a wide scale with minimal environmental impact, food waste and food loss occur at all levels of the supply chain. Strategies for food redistribution, recovery, and reuse provide the economy with extra by-products and financial advantages. Because of the complicated relationships between distributors and suppliers, contractual obligations, inaccurate food demand forecasts, and food standards, changing consumption and production patterns at the industry and market levels is difficult. Based on this the objective of the review was to discuss the strategies for reducing food waste and achieving sustainable development goals and the role of different actors in reducing food wastage and in implementing SDGs. Several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including those related to finishing world hunger (SDG 2), ensuring sustainable agriculture (SDG 2), promoting sustainable economic growth (SDG 8), and combating climate change (SDG 13), among others, have been found to depend on reducing the amount of food that is wasted and have destroyed.
Agroecosystem design is not a one-time exercise; it requires constant evaluation and readjustment. This chapter provides a non-exhaustive overview of evaluation methods and indicators used in the (re)design of agroecosystems. Indicators are the central tool of any evaluation process. Choosing indicators based on objectives and system properties is a first step in agroecosystems evaluation, and several features of indicators must be considered. Since agroecology is a “dialogue of wisdoms” (cf. Chap. 1), wherein knowledge from multiple stakeholders merges in the redesign of agroecosystems, participatory methods for co-creating knowledge, prototyping, and evaluation are interwoven throughout the sections of this chapter and the following two chapters. A special case of comprehensive and participatory systems design, called co-innovation, is introduced here and illustrated with examples towards the end of this chapter.
Smallholder farmers in China need consistent provision of agricultural technology and information to sustain their farming, however, the agricultural extension system that they rely on poses a series of limitations. From an organizational perspective, the rigid and static top-down extension system has reduced the time, funds and incentives that extension officers spend on extension initiatives. Also, feedback flows have been constrained from the bottom level, for both grassroots extension officers and farmers. From a technological perspective, innovations promoted to villages often overlook the local situation, which caused rejection and consequences. This chapter revisits findings of our fieldwork in Guangxi province in 2017. We found that rural communities perform important roles in supporting farmers through social learning, information sharing and exercising agency. Also, township extension officers, who are familiar with villages and farmers, were found to actively articulate farmers’ needs. We propose that, to support smallholder farming, the system needs to employ systems thinking by building the capacity of both farmers and township extension officers.KeywordsAgricultural extension systemAgricultural innovation systemSmallholder farmingSystems thinkingSystemic InterventionChina
Agricultural production involves the scaling of agricultural innovations such as disease-resistant and drought-tolerant maize varieties, zero-tillage techniques, permaculture cultivation practices based on perennial crops and automated milking systems. Scaling agricultural innovations should take into account complex interactions between biophysical, social, economic and institutional factors. Actual methods of scaling are rather empirical and based on the premise of ‘find out what works in one place and do more of the same, in another place’. These methods thus do not sufficiently take into account complex realities beyond the concepts of innovation transfer, dissemination, diffusion and adoption. As a consequence, scaling initiatives often do not produce the desired effect. They may produce undesirable effects in the form of negative spill-overs or unanticipated side effects such as environmental degradation, bad labour conditions of farm workers and loss of control of farming communities over access to genetic resources. Therefore, here, we conceptualise scaling processes as an integral part of a systemic approach to innovation, to anticipate on the possible consequences of scaling efforts. We propose a method that connects the heuristic framework of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions (MLP) to a philosophical ‘modal aspects’ framework, with the objective of elucidating the connectedness between technologies, processes and practices. The resultant framework, the PRactice-Oriented Multi-level perspective on Innovation and Scaling (PROMIS), can inform research and policymakers on the complex dynamics involved in scaling. This is illustrated in relation to three cases in which the framework was applied: scaling agro-ecological practices in Nicaragua, farmer field schools on cocoa cultivation in Cameroon and ‘green rubber’ cultivation in Southwest China.
Participatory approaches are advocated as being more effective in supporting rural development processes than traditional top-down extension approaches. Participatory experimentation involving both farmers and researchers is often expected to result in processes of experiential learning. Assuming that such learning leads to change in farmers' views and practices, we wanted to identify these changes. For that purpose we applied an analytical framework that included three dimensions (process, outcomes, impact) and functional as well as human–social aspects. We involved farmers in group-based participatory experimentation for four years with minimum external intervention, aiming for maximum control of the experiments by the farmers themselves. In total 16 groups of farmers divided over four locations participated. Data were derived from interviews and observations. In general participants considered their participation worthwhile and mostly valued learning-aspects. Farmers indicated that they acquired new knowledge and became confident with respect to specific agricultural practices such as fertilizer application. They also felt more confident in conducting systematic experimentation. This confidence is supported by our observation that they managed to achieve positive yield responses, over 50% in most cases. Participating farmers responded significantly differently after the four years of experimentation compared to a control group of local farmers. After the four years they would: (1) involve non-family more in their discussions about farm management; (2) address officials more easily to solve neighbourhood problems; and (3) be more specific in their ambitions to learn about agriculture. Participants perceived significantly more (positive) change towards productivity and poverty reduction compared to the control group. In contrast to our initial expectations, all groups continued their involvement in the experiments for four years and indicated the ambition to continue on their own. Of a set of factors that might influence involvement of farmers, only benefits in the form of good responses were overall important. All other factors were highly variable among the groups. We concluded that change was achieved with respect to functional and human–social aspects, which are both essential components of agricultural systems and affect their transformation. In designing processes of participatory experimentation it is, therefore, important to take such non-uniform sets of impact factors into careful consideration. Given the diversity of groups and the context in which they operate, blue-print approaches are not likely to be effective due to insufficient incorporation of local group variability.
Innovation Platforms (IPs) are seen as a promising vehicle to foster a paradigm shift in agricultural research for development (AR4D). By facilitating interaction, negotiation and collective action between farmers, researchers and other stakeholders, IPs can contribute to more integrated, systemic innovation that is essential for achieving agricultural development impacts. However, successful implementation of IPs requires institutional change within AR4D establishments. The objective of this paper is to reflect on the implementation and institutionalisation of IPs in present AR4D programmes. We use experiences from sub-Saharan Africa to demonstrate how the adoption and adaptation of IPs creates both opportunities and challenges that influence platform performance and impact. Niche-regime theory is used to understand challenges, and anticipate on how to deal with them. A key concern is whether IPs in AR4D challenge or reinforce existing technology-oriented agricultural innovation paradigms. For example, stakeholder representation, facilitation and institutional embedding determine to a large extent whether the IP can strengthen systemic capacity to innovate that can lead to real paradigm change, or are merely 'old wine in new bottles' and a continuation of 'business as usual'. Institutional embedding of IPs and – more broadly – the transition from technology-oriented to system-oriented AR4D approaches requires structural changes in organisational mandates, incentives, procedures and funding, as well as investments in exchange of experiences, learning and capacity development.
ASIRPA is an original and comprehensive approach for assessing the socio-economic impact of public-sector research organizations
through case studies. The cases are theory-based, selected to characterize the diversity of the broader impacts, and standardized
so as to allow the scaling-up of the analysis of impact to the level of the organization. ASIRPA is founded on well-tried
tools, and the added value of the approach lies in the adaptation and combination of these tools to design a comprehensive
approach, which has been tested in a real situation and proven to be robust, credible, and implementable.
Although frequently discussed in the evaluation literature and general agreement on what a theory of change is conceptually, there is actually little agreement beyond the big picture of just what a theory of change comprises, what does it show, how it can be represented and how it can be used. This article outlines models for theories of change and their development that have proven quite useful for both straightforward and more complex interventions. The models are intuitive, flexible, well-defined in terms of their components and link directly to rigorous models of causality. The models provide a structured framework for developing a theory of change and analysing the intervention it represents
Within development cooperation, development issues are increasingly recognized as complex problems requiring new paths towards solving them. In addition to the commonly used two dimensions of complex problems (uncertainty and disagreement), we introduce a third dimension: systemic stability; that is, stability provided by rules, relations and complementary technology. This article reflects on how development evaluation methodologies and especially those introducing a complexity perspective address these three dimensions. Inferring that this third dimension deserves more attention, we explore the characteristics of reflexive evaluation approaches that challenge systemic stability and support processes of learning and institutional change. We conclude that reflexive evaluation approaches may well complement current system approaches in development evaluation practice.
Sustainability standards and certification schemes have been promoted as a market-driven instrument for realising development impacts and receive public funding. As a result, companies, NGOs and supporting donors and governments want to know if these ambitions have been fulfilled. Their tendency is to commission household surveys to assess net effects of certification in areas such as poverty, productivity and food security. This article argues that, rather than trying to measure precise net effects on farmer income, the focus should be on detailed measurement of more immediate outcomes in terms of knowledge and implementation of good agricultural practices. Contribution analysis is proposed as an overall approach to verify the theory of change, combining survey-based net-effect measurement of these immediate and intermediate outcomes with less precise, lean monitoring of indicators to verify the contributory role of these outcomes that are outside the span of direct influence, such as household income and poverty alleviation.
Purpose: The article reports effects on livelihoods of a participatory technology development effort in Benin and Ghana (2001–2006), five years after it ended.Design: The study uses data from all smallholders who participated in seven experimental groups, each facilitated by a PhD researcher. Baseline data and controls were not available. In their dissertations the researchers had each made claims about the impact of their work on the livelihoods of those involved. These claims guided the study in each group, and referred to both impacts based on the superiority of the technology developed, and increased knowledge or capacity that participants claimed to have gained. Two local social scientists interviewed 187 farmers.Findings: The study found considerable evidence of continued beneficial use of technologies developed with farmers. The most important reason for no longer using a technology or institutional innovation was that smallholders had not been able to sustain the conditions for use. Lasting non-technological effects included more mutual understanding among community members, emancipation vis-à-vis researchers and colleagues, and an experimental attitude and research skills. Such effects were recorded for nearly all groups.Practical implications: Smallholders face small windows of opportunity. Technologies and institutional changes that depend on artificially created conditions are likely to be discontinued once those conditions are withdrawn (for example, access to Neem seeds or agreements about land use between landlords and tenants). The findings draw attention to the conditions that enable smallholders to innovate.Originality/value: The study represents a rare attempt to study impact five years later and compares seven independent cases.
Theory-based evaluations have helped open the ‘black box’ of programmes. An account is offered of the evolution of this persuasion, through the works of Chen and Rossi, Weiss, and Pawson and Tilley. In the same way as the ‘theory of change’ approach to evaluation has tackled the complexity of integrated and comprehensive programmes at the community level, it is suggested that a theory-oriented approach based on the practice of realistic cumulation be developed for dealing with the vertical complexity ofmulti-level governance.
This paper seeks to contribute to a better understanding of the complex dynamics that shape the contribution of research to
policy and innovation processes that address ‘competing claims’ on natural resources and their management. Research in the
context of competing claims requires strategies that: (1) can cope with high uncertainty and unpredictability; (2) are concerned
with understanding the multiple dimensions of the issue at stake; (3) can facilitate change across different scales and levels;
(4) include collaboration with different actors and stakeholders; and (5) may imply new roles for research and researchers.
This paper reviews and builds upon research approaches to address these challenges. These research approaches are combined
in a framework for dynamic research configurations that aims to stimulate reflection among researchers and to promote more
embedded, context-sensitive and flexible research strategies.
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
Fodder scarcity is a perennial problem for many smallholder farmers in developing countries. This paper discusses how fodder
technologies and knowledge have been introduced and integrated in diverse livestock production systems in Ethiopia, Syria
and Vietnam. A synthesis of lessons learnt shows that fodder innovation is triggered and diffused by actors interacting and
learning in networks, and on farms. Fodder innovation, being only one element of livestock value chains, is sustainably enhanced
when linked to other innovations and market-oriented activities that optimize productivity gains. Yet innovating smallholder
farmers face systemic constraints to access markets, and need to organize in groups to exploit opportunities. The paper concludes
that rather than treating innovation systems and value chain approaches to agricultural development as separate tools, the
integration of their complementary features enhances smallholders’ innovation and market success.
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.
Farmer participation in agricultural research can improve the efficiency and impact of the research. This functional component of participatory research includes the identification of traits that guide crop breeders' work. Participatory research can also lead to farmer empowerment, although when carried out by research organizations, direct empowerment is often limited to relatively few farmers. Farmer empowerment is, therefore, best carried out by development organizations whose longer-term interaction with farmers is likely to ensure that greater numbers of farmers benefit. Hence, research organizations ought to focus on the functional components of participatory research along with the empowerment of intermediate/partner organizations rather than the direct empowerment of large numbers of farmers.
This article proposes ways to use programme theory for evaluating aspects of programmes that are complicated or complex. It argues that there are useful distinctions to be drawn between aspects that are complicated and those that are complex, and provides examples of programme theory evaluations that have usefully represented and address both of these. While complexity has been defined in varied ways in previous discussions of evaluation theory and practice, this article draws on Glouberman and Zimmerman's conceptualization of the differences between what is complicated (multiple components) and what is complex (emergent). Complicated programme theory may be used to represent interventions with multiple components, multiple agencies, multiple simultaneous causal strands and/or multiple alternative causal strands. Complex programme theory may be used to represent recursive causality (with reinforcing loops), disproportionate relationships (where at critical levels, a small change can make a big difference — a `tipping point') and emergent outcomes.
An analytical construct of social capital is presented, followed by a case study from Sri Lanka. There, farmer organizations were established in the Gal Oya irrigation scheme in the early 1980s with a combination of roles, rules, norms and values that supported mutually beneficial collective action. This produced measurable improvements in system performance and efficiency. In the 1997 dry season, after farmers were told there was not enough water in the reservoir to grow a rice crop, they achieved through their organizations a better-than-average harvest from 65,000 acres by efficient and equitable distribution. Ethnic cooperation was demonstrated by upstream Sinhalese farmers sharing water with downstream Tamil farmers.
Networks aiming for fundamental changes bring together a variety of actors who are part and parcel of a problematic context. These system innovation projects need to be accompanied by a monitoring and evaluation approach that supports and maintains reflexivity to be able to deal with uncertainties and conflicts while challenging current practices and related institutions. This article reports on experiences with reflexive process monitoring (RPM)-an approach that has been applied in several networks in the Dutch agricultural sector, which strive for sustainable development. Particular attention is paid to conducting system analyses-a core element of the methodology. The first results show that system analyses indeed have the potential to enhance reflexivity if carried out collectively. However, regular patterns of thinking and acting within projects interfere in subtle ways with the new knowledge generated and limit the transformation of the reflexive feedback and insights into action
We applied an innovation framework to sustainable livestock development research projects in Africa and Asia. The focus of these projects ranged from pastoral systems to poverty and ecosystems services mapping to market access by the poor to fodder and natural resource management to livestock parasite drug resistance. We found that these projects closed gaps between knowledge and action by combining different kinds of knowledge, learning, and boundary spanning approaches; by providing all partners with the same opportunities; and by building the capacity of all partners to innovate and communicate.
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.
The article synthesises the experiences of innovation platforms (IPs) that engaged in open-ended experimental action to improve the institutional context for smallholder farm development in West Africa. The IPs sought change at the level of the institutional regime covering an entire agricultural domain (such as cocoa, cotton, oil palm or water management). Their purpose was therefore not to ‘roll out’ farm-level technologies across rural communities. The IPs's outcomes were documented and analysed throughout by means of theory-based process tracing in each of seven of the nine domains in which regime change was attempted. The evidence shows that by means of exploratory scoping and diagnosis, socio-technical and institutional experimentation, and guided facilitation IPs can remove, by-pass, or modify domain-specific institutional constraints and/or create new institutional conditions that allow smallholders to capture opportunity. The article describes the 5-year, €4.5 million research programme in Benin, Ghana and Mali, covering theory, design, methods and results. It is the sequel to Hounkonnou et al. in AGSY 108 (2012): 74–83.
This paper characterizes the various impact patterns generated by an agricultural public research organization (PRO), namely INRA (National Institute for Agronomic Research). We define an impact pattern as the combination of specific research outputs with specific actors that generates various types of impact. The analysis is based on information related to more than a thousand INRA innovations for which research outputs, beneficiaries, and impacts, have been codified. A classification based on the Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM) method is used to identify the seven main impact patterns.
There are two patterns that correspond to traditional INRA interventions to foster agricultural sector competitiveness; two that are related to innovations in health and economic issues; and two that have impacts on the conservation of natural resources. The seventh involves scientific advice related to public policy decisions. The research outputs and beneficiaries differ across these impact patterns. For example, those with economic impacts are more related to the agricultural sectors while impact patterns in the area of health affect industrial firms.
The international community's support for adaptation in developing countries has proliferated through numerous complementary funding mechanisms. A range of serious practical issues are emerging, however, as adaptation moves from theory and international negotiation to implementation. We identify three areas deserving greater scrutiny: in-country priorities, entry points and delivery systems, and provide recommendations for improving adaptation practice. These concerns, if not addressed, have the potential to hamper attempts at effective delivery and to increase the vulnerability of intended beneficiaries of the adaptation agenda.
The idea of theory-based evaluation (TBE) is plausible and cogent, and it promises to bring greater explanatory power to evaluation. However, problems beset its use, including inadequate theories about pathways to desired outcomes in many program areas, confusion between theories of implementation and theories of programmatic action, difficulties in eliciting or constructing usable theories, measurement error, complexities in analysis, and others. This article explores the problems, describes the nature of potential benefits, and suggests that the benefits are significant enough to warrant continued effort to overcome the obstacles and advance the feasibility of TBE.
