Role of Brokerage in Evolving Innovation Systems: A Case of the Fodder Innovation Project in Nigeria

Madzudzo, Elias

doi:10.1080/1389224x.2011.544459

Cited by 10 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A reason could be that more actors in the public sector are involved in the groundnut seed multiplication programs in Uganda. These results support Madzudzo's (2011) argument that interaction and networking among people with different skill sets promote learning in a social system. The media (that is, radio, TV and newspapers) (14%) also played a role in enhancing information delivery among farmers in this country.…”

Section: Structural Patterns Of Social Interactionssupporting

confidence: 83%

Social Network Structures among Groundnut Farmers

Thuo

Bell

Bravo‐Ureta

et al. 2013

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Groundnut farmers in East Africa have experienced declines in production despite research and extension efforts to increase productivity. This study examined how social network structures related to acquisition of information about new seed varieties and productivity among groundnut farmers in Uganda and Kenya. Design/methodology/approach: Data came from face-to-face interviews with a sample of 491 farmers randomly selected from a larger frame purposefully selected to represent farmers who had worked with researchers and farmers who had not, and to represent both male and female farmers. We used social network analysis to visualize and interpret patterns of farmers' networks with regard to information sources, productivity supports and local group affiliations. Findings: Ugandan farmers primarily used weak ties with researchers and extension agents as sources of information. In contrast, Kenyan farmers used strong ties with close associates. For farmers in both countries weak ties were least associated with productivity. Strong ties, natural factors and farmers' own experience with new varieties were most associated with productivity. The majority of farmers had ties to local groups to strategically pool risks and access available resources. Practical implications: Visualizing farmers' social networks enables policy-makers and change agents to identify relevant social relationships that could be utilized strategically to increase the capacities of poor farming communities. Originality/value: The study demonstrates that important differences in social network structures can exist among farmers in similar geographic regions producing similar crops.

show abstract

Section: Structural Patterns Of Social Interactionssupporting

confidence: 83%

Social Network Structures among Groundnut Farmers

Thuo

Bell

Bravo‐Ureta

et al. 2013

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar observations have been made by other researchers (Spielman, 2005;World Bank, 2007;Spielman, Ekboir et al, 2009;Klerkx, Aarts et al, 2010) who have argued that actors in agriculture need to operate as a coherent system in order to effectively support agricultural innovation and development. The need for external actors, in the context of reforms in extension and advisory services, to operate beyond technology so that they also include areas such as organizational change, value addition and market development is emphasized by a number of scholars (Spielman, 2005;Chipeta, 2006;Spielman, Ekboir et al, 2009;Madzudzo, 2011). In this study, evidence of poor networks or coordination of the actors includes the existence of multiple operational committees in the villages which farmers complain of as duplication and time consuming.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Farmer Experience of Pluralistic Agricultural Extension, Malawi

Chowa

Garforth

Cardey

2013

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Malawi's current extension policy supports pluralism and advocates responsiveness to farmer demand. We investigate whether smallholder farmers' experience supports the assumption that access to multiple service providers leads to extension and advisory services that respond to the needs of farmers. Design/methodology/approach Within a case study approach, two villages were purposively selected for in-depth qualitative analysis of available services and farmers' experiences. Focus group discussions were held separately with male and female farmers in each village, followed by semi-structured interviews with 12 key informants selected through snowball sampling. Transcripts were analysed by themes and summaries of themes were made from cross case analysis. Findings Farmers appreciate having access to a variety of sources of technical advice and enterprise specific technology. However, most service providers continue to dominate and dictate what they will offer. Market access remains a challenge, as providers still emphasize pushing a particular technology to increase farm productivity rather than addressing farmers' expressed needs. Although farmers work in groups, providers do not seek to strengthen these to enable active interaction and to link them to input and produce markets. This limits farmers' capacity to continue with innovations after service providers pull out. Poor coordination between providers limits exploitation of potential synergies amongst actors. Practical implications Services providers can adapt their approach to engage farmers in discussion of their needs and work collaboratively to address them. At a system level, institutions that have a coordination function can play a more dynamic role in brokering interaction between providers and farmers to ensure coverage and responsiveness. Originality/value The study provides a new farmer perspective on the implementation of extension reforms.

show abstract

“…We consider this level where multistakeholder processes are playing out, in spaces that are virtual or real innovation platforms (Schut et al 2015), with different type of brokers or innovation intermediaries playing different roles. Like for example Madzudzo (2011) and Minh et al (2014), we look at how brokers at this level operationalize their role. Whereas Madzudzo (2011) presents two cases in which the brokers represent an external actor with an own budget and clear mandate to deal with bottlenecks, and Minh et al (2014) report on the efforts to institutionalizing demand-driven approaches to public service delivery, we look at brokers that are part of a public institutional effort with a short and medium term objective and subject to a political agenda for the orientation of their efforts to support farmers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Like for example Madzudzo (2011) and Minh et al (2014), we look at how brokers at this level operationalize their role. Whereas Madzudzo (2011) presents two cases in which the brokers represent an external actor with an own budget and clear mandate to deal with bottlenecks, and Minh et al (2014) report on the efforts to institutionalizing demand-driven approaches to public service delivery, we look at brokers that are part of a public institutional effort with a short and medium term objective and subject to a political agenda for the orientation of their efforts to support farmers. In this paper we describe the innovation processes taking place in and around the MasAgro (Modernización Sustentable de la Agricultura Tradicional) program in Mexico, through its operational meso-level interface of 'hubs'.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%