IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v103y2010i5p245-255.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Learning selection revisited: How can agricultural researchers make a difference?

Author

Listed:
  • Douthwaite, Boru
  • Gummert, Martin

Abstract

Ten years ago we developed, and published in this journal, the learning selection model to describe the development and early adoption of researcher-developed agricultural equipment in Southeast Asia. In this paper, we update the innovation histories of the three main technologies upon which the model was based and carry out some mapping and analysis of the post-harvest research networks in three countries. We find that the evolutionary algorithm based on interactive experiential learning remains valid. However, in the case of the most successful technology - the flat-bed dryer in Vietnam - the R&D team did not withdraw once a critical mass of manufacturers and users were familiar with the technology, as the model says should happen, but rather continued to champion the technology. In the process they developed major improvements to the original design, and a new type of dryer. They achieved far greater impact than any other team. They were successful largely because they were able to work with the same networks of partners, in the same innovation trajectory, for 25Â years. We find evidence of institutional support in working in this way. Their role was to make the major modifications while local users, manufacturers and promoters made local adaptations and 'bug fixes'. This way of working is similar to that of plant breeders working for the public sector and by many researchers in the private sector. However, current trends in international research towards 'projectization' on one hand, and the requirement to produce international public goods (IPGs) on the other means that researchers do not stay working for long enough with the same partners because funding keeps changing, nor do they work locally enough because of the expectation that they should generate new IPGs from scratch every one or two project cycles.

Suggested Citation

  • Douthwaite, Boru & Gummert, Martin, 2010. "Learning selection revisited: How can agricultural researchers make a difference?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(5), pages 245-255, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:103:y:2010:i:5:p:245-255
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308-521X(10)00016-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Ekboir, Javier, 2003. "Why impact analysis should not be used for research evaluation and what the alternatives are," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 166-184, November.
    2. Douthwaite, B. & Keatinge, J. D. H. & Park, J. R., 2002. "Learning selection: an evolutionary model for understanding, implementing and evaluating participatory technology development," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 109-131, May.
    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. Faure, Guy & Barret, Danielle & Blundo-Canto, Genowefa & Dabat, Marie-Hélène & Devaux-Spatarakis, Agathe & Le Guerroué, Jean Louis & Marquié, Catherine & Mathé, Syndhia & Temple, Ludovic & Toillier, A, 2018. "How different agricultural research models contribute to impacts: Evidence from 13 case studies in developing countries," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 128-136.
    2. Rossing, Walter A.H. & Albicette, Maria Marta & Aguerre, Veronica & Leoni, Carolina & Ruggia, Andrea & Dogliotti, Santiago, 2021. "Crafting actionable knowledge on ecological intensification: Lessons from co-innovation approaches in Uruguay and Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    3. Duru, M., 2013. "Combining agroecology and management science to design field tools under high agrosystem structural or process uncertainty: Lessons from two case studies of grassland management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 84-94.
    4. Cathy Rozel Farnworth & Tahseen Jafry & Kanchan Lama & Sushila Chatterjee Nepali & Lone B. Badstue, 2019. "From Working in the Wheat Field to Managing Wheat: Women Innovators in Nepal," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 31(2), pages 293-313, April.
    5. Tanure, Soraya & Nabinger, Carlos & Becker, João Luiz, 2013. "Bioeconomic model of decision support system for farm management. Part I: Systemic conceptual modeling," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 104-116.
    6. 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.

    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. Genowefa Blundo-Canto & Bernard Triomphe & Guy Faure & Danielle Barret & Aurelle de Romemont & Etienne Hainzelin, 2019. "Building a culture of impact in an international agricultural research organization: Process and reflective learning," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 136-144.
    2. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: Farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 460-472, April.
    3. Raitzer, David A. & Kelley, Timothy G., 2008. "Benefit-cost meta-analysis of investment in the International Agricultural Research Centers of the CGIAR," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 108-123, March.
    4. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    5. Andy Hall & Norman Clark, 2010. "What do complex adaptive systems look like and what are the implications for innovation policy?," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 308-324.
    6. Rossing, Walter A.H. & Albicette, Maria Marta & Aguerre, Veronica & Leoni, Carolina & Ruggia, Andrea & Dogliotti, Santiago, 2021. "Crafting actionable knowledge on ecological intensification: Lessons from co-innovation approaches in Uruguay and Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    7. Totin, Edmond & Stroosnijder, Leo & Agbossou, Euloge, 2013. "Mulching upland rice for efficient water management: A collaborative approach in Benin," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 71-80.
    8. Birner, Regina & Davis, Kristin & Pender, John & Nkonya, Ephraim & Anandajayasekeram, Ponniah & Ekboir, Javier & Mbabu, Adiel & Spielman, David & Horna, Daniela & Benin, Samuel & Cohen, Marc J., 2006. "From "best practice" to "best fit": a framework for designing and analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services worldwide," FCND discussion papers 210, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. Peter Weißhuhn & Katharina Helming & Johanna Ferretti, 2018. "Research impact assessment in agriculture—A review of approaches and impact areas," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 36-42.
    10. 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.
    11. Higgins, Andrew & Antony, George & Sandell, Gary & Davies, Ian & Prestwidge, Di & Andrew, Bill, 2004. "A framework for integrating a complex harvesting and transport system for sugar production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 99-115, November.
    12. Hall, Andy & Dijkman, Jeroen & Sulaiman, Rasheed, 2010. "Research Into Use: Investigating the Relationship between Agricultural Research and Innovation," MERIT Working Papers 2010-044, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    13. Siebeling, T. & Romijn, H.A., 2005. "Why People Contribute Voluntarily to Innovation: Insights from South Africa 's Siyabuswa Educational Improvement & Development Trust," Working Papers 05.13, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    14. Matteo Pedrini & Valentina Langella & Mario Alberto Battaglia & Paola Zaratin, 2018. "Assessing the health research’s social impact: a systematic review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1227-1250, March.
    15. Bossink, Bart, 2020. "Learning strategies in sustainable energy demonstration projects: What organizations learn from sustainable energy demonstrations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    16. Molintas, Dominique Trual, 2019. "Globalisation Impact on Smallhold Filipino Farmers," MPRA Paper 99884, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. A J Higgins & L A Laredo, 2006. "Improving harvesting and transport planning within a sugar value chain," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(4), pages 367-376, April.
    18. Hall, Andy & Sulaiman, Rasheed & Bezkorowajnyj, Peter, 2008. "Reframing technical change: Livestock Fodder Scarcity Revisited as Innovation Capacity Scarcity: Part 2. A Framework for Analysis," MERIT Working Papers 2008-003, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    19. Higgins, Andrew & Thorburn, Peter & Archer, Ainsley & Jakku, Emma, 2007. "Opportunities for value chain research in sugar industries," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 611-621, June.
    20. Pant, Laxmi P., 2010. "Assessing Innovations in International Research and Development Practice," MERIT Working Papers 2010-043, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).

    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:agisys:v:103:y:2010:i:5:p:245-255. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    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/agsy .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.