Factors influencing participation dynamics in research for development interventions with multi-stakeholder platforms: A metric approach to studying stakeholder participation

Sartas, Murat; Asten, Piet J.A. van; Schut, Marc; McCampbell, Mariëtte; Awori, M.; Muchunguzi, Perez; Tenywa, Moses; Namazzi, Sylvia; Amat, Ana Sole; Thiele, Graham; Proietti, Claudio; Devaux, A.; Leeuwis, C.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0223044

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 112 publications

(158 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Altogether, our findings highlight the need to rethink the role of non-academic members of project teams in the design and governance of r4d projects. This finding is aligned with recent research that highlights the importance of including non-academic actors in research activities related to ecosystems in order to increase not only utilisation, but also relevance and legitimacy of research for development activities [32][33][34]. This relates to funding mechanisms and (co-) leading organisations, as well as the ultimate focus and purpose of r4d.…”

Section: Recommendations: Project Leadership In Research For Development-scientists or Implementers?supporting

confidence: 83%

Factors enhancing the level of utilisation of research knowledge on ecosystems

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The significant resource investment in research on ecosystems for development of the Global South does not necessarily result in high levels of research knowledge utilisation (RKU). Understanding the factors associated with various levels of RKU can inform funding agencies and researchers developing new projects. We applied a combination of a questionnaire survey and follow up interviews with members of research teams of multiple, broadly comparable projects to make an assessment of achieved RKU levels using a combination of quantitative statistical hypothesis testing and narrative description of survey responses. Research knowledge dissemination by members of the project team who work for non-academic institutions or champions, e.g. particularly motivated people that promote and facilitate implementation or adoption of the project results, and via television was associated with higher research knowledge utilization. By contrast, dissemination by members of the project team working for academic institutions and via peer-reviewed journals was associated with lower RKU. The achieved level of RKU was consistently lower than the targeted level of RKU across spatial scales. The discrepancy between the perceived level of RKU and the evidence provided by survey respondents indicates the need for better monitoring the utilisation of research knowledge in development pathways. Our results further suggest that three years project duration is too short to achieve high levels of RKU in socio-ecological systems. We recommend involvement of non-academic members of the project team in project design, leadership and dissemination for increasing RKU.

show abstract

Section: Recommendations: Project Leadership In Research For Development-scientists or Implementers?supporting

confidence: 83%

Factors enhancing the level of utilisation of research knowledge on ecosystems

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whether something goes to scale and supports the achievement of desired outcomes or impacts depends, for example, on the specific institutional setting (including cultural values, market arrangements, legal frameworks, and policy conditions), on agroecological conditions, and on the interactions that take place within and between networks of interdependent actors and stakeholders (Klerkx et al 2010;Schut et al 2015). This implies that an innovation may be scalable in one context but not in another and that scaling strategies successful in one situation may not be effective elsewhere or at another point in time (Baur et al 2003;Sartas et al 2019). Similarly, the outcomes of scaling may vary across contexts.…”

Section: Scaling Innovation Requires Context-specific Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scaling Readiness: Learnings from Applying a Novel Approach to Support Scaling of Food System Innovations

Schut

Leeuwis

Sartas

et al. 2022

Root, Tuber and Banana Food System Innovations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scaling of innovations is a key requirement for addressing societal challenges in sectors such as agriculture, but research for development programs struggles to make innovations go to scale. There is a gap between new complexity-aware scientific theories and perspectives on innovation and practical approaches that can improve strategic and operational decision-making in research for development interventions that aim to scale innovations. To bridge this gap, Scaling Readiness was developed. Scaling Readiness is an approach that encourages critical reflection on how ready innovations are for scaling in a particular context for achieving a particular goal and what appropriate actions could accelerate or enhance scaling to realize development outcomes. Scaling Readiness provides decision support for (1) characterizing the innovation and innovation system; (2) diagnosing the current readiness and use of innovations; (3) developing strategies to overcome bottlenecks for scaling; (4) facilitating multi-stakeholder negotiation and agreement; and (5) navigating the implementation process. This chapter explains how Scaling Readiness was used in the CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB) and describes how Scaling Readiness informed the design and management of the RTB Scaling Fund, an instrument for identifying and nurturing scaling-ready innovations. We introduce the key principles and concepts of Scaling Readiness and provide a case study of how Scaling Readiness was applied for scaling a cassava flash dryer innovation in different countries in Africa and Central America. The chapter concludes with a reflection and recommendations for the further improvement and use of Scaling Readiness.

show abstract

“…The theoretical debates seemed to have alleviated between 2010 and 2020, where researchers focused instead on the applicability of stakeholder theory in the real world cases [ 66 , 67 ]. Empirical studies mainly examined the behavior of firms and their stakeholders towards each other, such as how firms manage stakeholders [ 68 , 69 ] and how stakeholders influence a firm [ 70 ].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder theory and management: Understanding longitudinal collaboration networks

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the evolution of research collaboration networks in the ‘stakeholder theory and management’ (STM) discipline and identifies the longitudinal effect of co-authorship networks on research performance, i.e., research productivity and citation counts. Research articles totaling 6,127 records from 1989 to 2020 were harvested from the Web of Science Database and transformed into bibliometric data using Bibexcel, followed by applying social network analysis to compare and analyze scientific collaboration networks at the author, institution and country levels. This work maps the structure of these networks across three consecutive sub-periods (t1: 1989–1999; t2: 2000–2010; t3: 2011–2020) and explores the association between authors’ social network properties and their research performance. The results show that authors collaboration network was fragmented all through the periods, however, with an increase in the number and size of cliques. Similar results were observed in the institutional collaboration network but with less fragmentation between institutions reflected by the increase in network density as time passed. The international collaboration had evolved from an uncondensed, fragmented and highly centralized network, to a highly dense and less fragmented network in t3. Moreover, a positive association was reported between authors’ research performance and centrality and structural hole measures in t3 as opposed to ego-density, constraint and tie strength in t1. The findings can be used by policy makers to improve collaboration and develop research programs that can enhance several scientific fields. Central authors identified in the networks are better positioned to receive government funding, maximize research outputs and improve research community reputation. Viewed from a network’s perspective, scientists can understand how collaborative relationships influence research performance and consider where to invest their decision and choices.

show abstract

Factors influencing participation dynamics in research for development interventions with multi-stakeholder platforms: A metric approach to studying stakeholder participation

Cited by 11 publications

References 112 publications

Factors enhancing the level of utilisation of research knowledge on ecosystems

Factors enhancing the level of utilisation of research knowledge on ecosystems

Scaling Readiness: Learnings from Applying a Novel Approach to Support Scaling of Food System Innovations

Stakeholder theory and management: Understanding longitudinal collaboration networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About