IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agiwat/v212y2019icp181-192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research idea to science for impact: Tracing the significant moments in an innovation based irrigation study

Author

Listed:
  • Srinivasan, M.S.
  • Jongmans, C.
  • Bewsell, D.
  • Elley, G.

Abstract

Uptake of irrigation scheduling tools by New Zealand (NZ) farmers has remained static for many years and some researchers consider the use of linear, tech-transfer approaches as the main reason for this. To understand the controls and drivers that influence the uptake of these tools and to evaluate the effectiveness of a co-innovation approach in improving their (tools) uptake, a team of biophysical (hydrologists) and social researchers undertook a pilot study in an irrigation scheme in the South Island of NZ. Co-innovation offers a multi-directional, multi-level, multi-actor approach, in which input from stakeholders is valued in every part of the process, from problem definition to solution adoption. In this study, we focused on the adaptive aspect of co-innovation that allows stakeholders to periodically review their actions and respond to it in a way that is inclusive others’ views and reflective of feedback received. The pilot study activities were analysed retrospectively to develop a systemic view to the implementation of a co-innovation-based multi-stakeholder hydrology project. While implementing a co-innovation approach, five chronologically-distinct yet overlapping phases emerged in the project: 1. concept development, where the hydrologists came up with the research idea and seed concept; 2. trust building, where researchers (hydrologists and social) interacted with key on-farm stakeholders in developing and implementing the research idea into a pilot field study; 3. knowledge synthesis, where researchers collected on-farm biophysical and behavioural data to record practice change; 4. extended outreach, where stakeholders, including researchers, devised pathways to sustain the lessons learned and practices changed, and disseminated the learnings to the wider irrigation community; and 5. project legacy, where the researchers, after the development of the seed concept into a practice change, evolved an exit strategy. Apart from core research activities, such as data collection on irrigation water use and changes in irrigation scheduling practices, each one of the five phases included actions that were unique to that phase as well as to achieving the wider pilot study goal of improving water use efficiency. This paper discusses the learnings from these phases, including insights, and key identifiers and indicators of pilot study progression during each phase, which may serve as an example to other biophysical studies that propose to employ co-innovation-based multi stakeholder approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Srinivasan, M.S. & Jongmans, C. & Bewsell, D. & Elley, G., 2019. "Research idea to science for impact: Tracing the significant moments in an innovation based irrigation study," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 181-192.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:212:y:2019:i:c:p:181-192
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2018.08.045
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378377418313350
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.08.045?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hessels, Laurens K. & van Lente, Harro, 2008. "Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 740-760, May.
    2. Andreas Neef & Dieter Neubert, 2011. "Stakeholder participation in agricultural research projects: a conceptual framework for reflection and decision-making," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(2), pages 179-194, June.
    3. Laurens K. Hessels & Harro van Lente, 2008. "Re-thinking knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-03, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2008.
    4. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    5. Friedlander, Lonia & Tal, Alon & Lazarovitch, Naftali, 2013. "Technical considerations affecting adoption of drip irrigation in sub-Saharan Africa," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 125-132.
    6. Marc Schut & Annemarie van Paassen & Cees Leeuwis & Laurens Klerkx, 2014. "Towards dynamic research configurations: A framework for reflection on the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 207-218.
    7. Geels, Frank W., 2002. "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1257-1274, December.
    8. Garb, Yaakov & Friedlander, Lonia, 2014. "From transfer to translation: Using systemic understandings of technology to understand drip irrigation uptake," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 13-24.
    9. Anna J. Wieczorek & Marko P. Hekkert, 2012. "Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 74-87, February.
    10. Klerkx, Laurens & Nettle, Ruth, 2013. "Achievements and challenges of innovation co-production support initiatives in the Australian and Dutch dairy sectors: A comparative study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 74-89.
    11. Dogliotti, S. & García, M.C. & Peluffo, S. & Dieste, J.P. & Pedemonte, A.J. & Bacigalupe, G.F. & Scarlato, M. & Alliaume, F. & Alvarez, J. & Chiappe, M. & Rossing, W.A.H., 2014. "Co-innovation of family farm systems: A systems approach to sustainable agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 76-86.
    12. Anna J. Wieczorek & Marko P. Hekkert, 2012. "Corrigendum to 'Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars'," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 842-842, December.
    13. van Mierlo, Barbara & Janssen, Arni & Leenstra, Ferry & van Weeghel, Ellen, 2013. "Encouraging system learning in two poultry subsectors," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 29-40.
    14. Jakku, E. & Thorburn, P.J., 2010. "A conceptual framework for guiding the participatory development of agricultural decision support systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(9), pages 675-682, November.
    15. World Bank, 2007. "Enhancing Agricultural Innovation : How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 7184, December.
    16. Michael Gibbons, 2000. "Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 159-163, June.
    17. Esther Turnhout, 2009. "The effectiveness of boundary objects: the case of ecological indicators," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(5), pages 403-412, June.
    18. Klerkx, Laurens & Aarts, Noelle & Leeuwis, Cees, 2010. "Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 390-400, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nicholas, Graeme & Srinivasan, MS & Beechener, Sam & Foote, Jeff & Robson-Williams, Melissa & FitzHerbert, Stephen, 2020. "Transferring the impacts of pilot-scale studies to other scales: Understanding the role of non-biophysical factors using field-based irrigation studies," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    2. Melissa Robson-Williams & Bruce Small & Roger Robson-Williams & Nick Kirk, 2021. "Handrails through the Swamp? A Pilot to Test the Integration and Implementation Science Framework in Complex Real-World Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-23, May.
    3. Srinivasan, M.S. & Measures, R. & Fear, A. & Elley, G., 2022. "Making the invisible visible: Co-learning guided development of an operational tool for irrigation management," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Turner, James A. & Klerkx, Laurens & White, Toni & Nelson, Tracy & Everett-Hincks, Julie & Mackay, Alec & Botha, Neels, 2017. "Unpacking systemic innovation capacity as strategic ambidexterity: How projects dynamically configure capabilities for agricultural innovation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 503-523.
    2. Vänninen, Irene & Pereira-Querol, Marco & Engeström, Yrjö, 2015. "Generating transformative agency among horticultural producers: An activity-theoretical approach to transforming Integrated Pest Management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 38-49.
    3. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    4. Schut, Marc & Klerkx, Laurens & Rodenburg, Jonne & Kayeke, Juma & Hinnou, Léonard C. & Raboanarielina, Cara M. & Adegbola, Patrice Y. & van Ast, Aad & Bastiaans, Lammert, 2015. "RAAIS: Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (Part I). A diagnostic tool for integrated analysis of complex problems and innovation capacity," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 1-11.
    5. Klerkx, Laurens & van Bommel, Severine & Bos, Bram & Holster, Henri & Zwartkruis, Joyce V. & Aarts, Noelle, 2012. "Design process outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects: Functions and limitations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 39-49.
    6. Schut, Marc & Rodenburg, Jonne & Klerkx, Laurens & Kayeke, Juma & van Ast, Aad & Bastiaans, Lammert, 2015. "RAAIS: Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (Part II). Integrated analysis of parasitic weed problems in rice in Tanzania," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 12-24.
    7. Hermans, Frans & Geerling-Eiff, Floor & Potters, Jorieke & Klerkx, Laurens, 2019. "Public-private partnerships as systemic agricultural innovation policy instruments – Assessing their contribution to innovation system function dynamics," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 88, pages 76-95.
    8. Schut, Marc & Leeuwis, Cees & Thiele, Graham, 2020. "Science of Scaling: Understanding and guiding the scaling of innovation for societal outcomes," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    9. Minh, Thai Thi, 2019. "Unpacking the systemic problems and blocking mechanisms of a regional agricultural innovation system: An integrated regional-functional-structural analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 268-280.
    10. Menary, Jonathan & Collier, Rosemary & Seers, Kate, 2019. "Innovation in the UK fresh produce sector: Identifying systemic problems and the move towards systemic facilitation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    11. Klerkx, Laurens & Begemann, Stephanie, 2020. "Supporting food systems transformation: The what, why, who, where and how of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    12. Hornum, Sebastian Toft & Bolwig, Simon, 2021. "A functional analysis of the role of input suppliers in an agricultural innovation system: The case of small-scale irrigation in Kenya," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    13. Maru, Yiheyis & Sparrow, Ashley & Stirzaker, Richard & Davies, Jocelyn, 2018. "Integrated agricultural research for development (IAR4D) from a theory of change perspective," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 310-320.
    14. Hellsmark, Hans & Frishammar, Johan & Söderholm, Patrik & Ylinenpää, Håkan, 2016. "The role of pilot and demonstration plants in technology development and innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1743-1761.
    15. Verburg, René W. & Verberne, Emma & Negro, Simona O., 2022. "Accelerating the transition towards sustainable agriculture: The case of organic dairy farming in the Netherlands," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    16. McMeekin, Andrew & Geels, Frank W. & Hodson, Mike, 2019. "Mapping the winds of whole system reconfiguration: Analysing low-carbon transformations across production, distribution and consumption in the UK electricity system (1990–2016)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1216-1231.
    17. Anna Jonsson & Maria Grafström & Mikael Klintman, 2022. "Unboxing knowledge in collaboration between academia and society: A story about conceptions and epistemic uncertainty [De-essentializing the Knowledge Intensive Firm: Reflections on Skeptical Resea," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 583-597.
    18. Fieldsend, Andrew F. & Varga, Eszter & Biró, Szabolcs & Von Münchhausen, Susanne & Häring, Anna Maria, 2022. "Multi-actor co-innovation partnerships in agriculture, forestry and related sectors in Europe: Contrasting approaches to implementation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    19. Hubeau, Marianne & Marchand, Fleur & Coteur, Ine & Mondelaers, Koen & Debruyne, Lies & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2017. "A new agri-food systems sustainability approach to identify shared transformation pathways towards sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 52-63.
    20. Kivimaa, Paula & Boon, Wouter & Hyysalo, Sampsa & Klerkx, Laurens, 2019. "Towards a typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: A systematic review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 1062-1075.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:212:y:2019:i:c:p:181-192. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.