IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

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

Listed author(s):
  • Douthwaite, Boru
  • Gummert, Martin
Registered author(s):

    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.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Agricultural Systems.

    Volume (Year): 103 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 5 (June)
    Pages: 245-255

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:103:y:2010:i:5:p:245-255
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    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)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    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: (Dana Niculescu)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.