Diagnosing the scope for innovation: Linking smallholder practices and institutional context

Röling, N.G.; Hounkonnou, D.; Kossou, D.K.; Kuyper, Thomas W.; Nederlof, S.; Sakyi-Dawson, O.; Traoré, Mamoudou; Huis, A. van

doi:10.1016/j.njas.2012.06.004

Cited by 33 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recurrent failure of the 'old' linear technology transfer approach to realize the development potential of Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) and instil transitions to sustainable agriculture, stimulated scientists to better consider the complex context in which technologies were to be applied Pamuk et al 2015;Rö ling 2009). A gradual shift took place from narrow technology-oriented approaches to more holistic systems approaches that focus on understanding how interactions between different value chains, actors, and organizations across different levels influence agricultural innovation processes (Douthwaite et al 2009;Klerkx et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compositional dynamics of multilevel innovation platforms in agricultural research for development

Lamers

Schut²,

Klerkx

et al. 2017

Science and Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Innovation platforms (IPs) form a popular vehicle in agricultural research for development (AR4D) to facilitate stakeholder interaction, agenda setting, and collective action toward sustainable agricultural development. In this article, we analyze multilevel stakeholder engagement in fulfilling seven key innovation system functions. Data are gathered from experiences with interlinked community and (sub)national IPs established under a global AR4D program aimed at stimulating sustainable agricultural development in Central Africa. Our findings show that all innovation systems functions required multilevel action, but that fulfillment of specific functions demands for strategic involvement of specific stakeholders at specific levels. We observed that a research-and dissemination-oriented sequence in the functions was prioritized in AR4D IPs and argue that such a sequence may be different in other types of (business) IPs. Our findings provide an incentive to think function oriented about compositional dynamics (stakeholder groups * levels) in innovation processes, rather than striving for equal stakeholder participation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compositional dynamics of multilevel innovation platforms in agricultural research for development

Lamers

Schut²,

Klerkx

et al. 2017

Science and Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this sense, institutions can be seen as outcomes of agreements and concerted action that arise from interaction among the actors who can make a difference (Röling et al, 2012, p. 3). Röling et al (2012) suggest that the challenge is "to empirically study and analyse the scope for change" in institutions (p. 4). This is particularly important, Röling and colleagues argue, because of the "complex, messy, multi-level situations and relational configurations in which actors with diverse interests interact" in the context of smallholder innovation in developing countries.…”

Section: Institutional Innovations and Sustainable Agri-food Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

AgroEcological Transitions : changes and breakthroughs in the making

Elzen¹,

Augustyn²,

Barbier

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This has included emphasis on strengthening Agricultural Innovation Systems [38][39][40], intermediation and brokerage processes [41], management of competing claims [42], design of multi-stakeholder platforms [43], as well as linking agriculture development to agribusiness and supply chains and private industry [44]. The innovation system approaches are applied as means of addressing issues holistically as well as taking into account the context.…”

Section: Innovation Systems As "Fit": Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather than continue to engage in political conflict over FFS/ECAs and the ERAs, the CIP-led Papa Andina network joined an international coalition of scientists from the CGIAR and elsewhere in calling for linking farmers to institutional contexts through Participatory Market Chain Approach (PMCA) and stakeholder platforms [43,76,77]. Similar to the work in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere, this ideological shift led to an initiative to create collective learning alliances in Ecuador (and elsewhere in the Andes) and sought to strategically bring together smallholder producers, market agents, and agriculture service providers.…”

Section: Phase 2 (1985-2010): Lay-science Collaborative Platformsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Organization and the Bypass: Re-Imagining Institutions for More Sustainable Development in Agriculture and Food

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In exploring the social dynamics of agrofood movements in Ecuador as examples of self-organization (i.e., locally distributed and resolved development), this article departs from a preoccupation with innovation by means of design and the use of scaling as a metaphor for describing research contributions in agriculture and food. The case material highlights that much development is contingent, unpredictable, and unmanageable as well as unbound to fixed spaces or places. In their study of people's daily practice, the authors do not find clear boundaries between dichotomies of internal-external, lay-expert, traditional-modern, or local-global organization, but heterogeneous blends of each. For the purposes of sustainable development, this highlights the need for attention to be paid to relationships (social, material, and biological), adaptation (the capacity to innovate), and responsibility (adherence to norms of sustainability). Far from romanticizing self-organization, the authors acknowledge that people and their institutions share varying degrees of complicity for the goods as well as the bads of their economic activity, such as mass soil degradation, agrobiodiversity loss, and poisoning by pesticides. Nevertheless, even under highly difficult conditions, certain actors effectively bypass the limitations of formal institutions in forging a socio-technical course of action (i.e., policy) for relatively healthy living and being. As such, the authors have come to appreciate self-organization as a neglected, if paradoxical, resource for policy transition towards more sustainable agriculture and food.

show abstract

Diagnosing the scope for innovation: Linking smallholder practices and institutional context

Cited by 33 publications

References 20 publications

Compositional dynamics of multilevel innovation platforms in agricultural research for development

Compositional dynamics of multilevel innovation platforms in agricultural research for development

AgroEcological Transitions : changes and breakthroughs in the making

Self-Organization and the Bypass: Re-Imagining Institutions for More Sustainable Development in Agriculture and Food

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About