IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v182y2020ics0308521x19302732.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anchoring innovation methodologies to ‘go-to-scale’; a framework to guide agricultural research for development

Author

Listed:
  • Seifu, Mikinay
  • van Paassen, Annemarie
  • Klerkx, Laurens
  • Leeuwis, Cees

Abstract

Research for development (R4D) projects increasingly engage in multi-stakeholder innovation platforms (IPs) as an innovation methodology, but there is limited knowledge of how the IP methodology spreads from one context to another. That is, how experimentation with an IP approach in one context leads to it being succesfully replicated in other contexts. To inspire development actors to consider the fit of an innovation methodology for a context, following work on anchoring for scaling, we developed a framework for networking-, methodological, and institutional anchoring and applied it to a R4D IP in order to test the value of such an anchoring approach for understanding the scaling of innovation methodologies such as IP. We selected a R4D project with a Farmer Research Group-Innovation Platform in Ethiopia, whose technical output and methodological approach were greatly appreciated by the actors involved. Using the anchoring framework, the executed or non-executed tasks were identified. Besides, the embedding of the methodological experiment the potential up-scaling and out-scaling were systematically analyzed. The analysis yielded the strengths and weaknesses of the anchoring work done so far to scale the innovation methodology used, and provided concrete suggestions of how to proceed if an innovation project considers ‘going to scale’. We recommend R4D projects to valorize their work and pay more explicit attention to anchoring. With a flexible, multi-pronged anchoring approach and continuous scanning of the progress made in context, more R4D projects and their associated innovation methodologies can ‘go to scale’.

Suggested Citation

  • Seifu, Mikinay & van Paassen, Annemarie & Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2020. "Anchoring innovation methodologies to ‘go-to-scale’; a framework to guide agricultural research for development," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:182:y:2020:i:c:s0308521x19302732
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102810
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X19302732
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102810?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. Smith, Adrian & Raven, Rob, 2012. "What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1025-1036.
    2. Laurens Klerkx & Andy Hall & Cees Leeuwis, 2009. "Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: are innovation brokers the answer?," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(5/6), pages 409-438.
    3. Joly, P.B. & Gaunand, A. & Colinet, L. & Larédo, P. & Lemarié, S. & Matt, M., 2015. "ASIRPA: a comprehensive theory-based approach to assessing the societal impacts of a research organization," Working Papers 2015-04, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    4. Hermans, Frans & Sartas, Murat & van Schagen, Boudy & van Asten, Piet & Schut, Marc, 2017. "Social network analysis of multi-stakeholder platforms in agricultural research for development: Opportunities and constraints for innovation and scaling," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21.
    5. Rajagopal, 2014. "Organizations and Innovation," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Architecting Enterprise, chapter 3, pages 58-86, Palgrave Macmillan.
    6. Hounkonnou, Dominique & Kossou, Dansou & Kuyper, Thomas W. & Leeuwis, Cees & Nederlof, E. Suzanne & Röling, Niels & Sakyi-Dawson, Owuraku & Traoré, Mamoudou & van Huis, Arnold, 2012. "An innovation systems approach to institutional change: Smallholder development in West Africa," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 74-83.
    7. Serdar Yilmaz & Varsha Venugopal, 2008. "Local Government Discretion and Accountability in Ethiopia," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper0838, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    8. 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.
    9. Schut, Marc & van Asten, Piet & Okafor, Chris & Hicintuka, Cyrille & Mapatano, Sylvain & Nabahungu, Nsharwasi Léon & Kagabo, Desire & Muchunguzi, Perez & Njukwe, Emmanuel & Dontsop-Nguezet, Paul M. & , 2016. "Sustainable intensification of agricultural systems in the Central African Highlands: The need for institutional innovation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 165-176.
    10. Kivimaa, Paula & Kern, Florian, 2016. "Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 205-217.
    11. Geels, Frank W., 2004. "From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 897-920, September.
    12. 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.
    13. Hounkonnou, Dominique & Brouwers, Jan & van Huis, Arnold & Jiggins, Janice & Kossou, Dansou & Röling, Niels & Sakyi-Dawson, Owuraku & Traoré, Mamoudou, 2018. "Triggering regime change: A comparative analysis of the performance of innovation platforms that attempted to change the institutional context for nine agricultural domains in West Africa," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 296-309.
    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. van der Heijden, Jeroen, 2024. "Unravelling programme success and complex causation in Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D): A systematic and comprehensive literature review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    2. Han, Guang & Niles, Meredith T., 2023. "An adoption spectrum for sustainable agriculture practices: A new framework applied to cover crop adoption," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    3. 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).

    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. Cees Leeuwis & Birgit K. Boogaard & Kwesi Atta-Krah, 2021. "How food systems change (or not): governance implications for system transformation processes," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(4), pages 761-780, August.
    2. Hilde Nykamp, 2020. "Policy Mix for a Transition to Sustainability: Green Buildings in Norway," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, January.
    3. Frans Sengers & Bruno Turnheim & Frans Berkhout, 2021. "Beyond experiments: Embedding outcomes in climate governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(6), pages 1148-1171, September.
    4. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    5. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    6. Weigelt, Carmen & Lu, Shaohua & Verhaal, J. Cameron, 2021. "Blinded by the sun: The role of prosumers as niche actors in incumbent firms’ adoption of solar power during sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    7. Kejia Yang & Johan Schot & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "Shaping the Directionality of Sustainability Transitions: The Diverging Development Patterns of Solar PV in Two Chinese Provinces," SPRU Working Paper Series 2020-14, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    8. Jonas Heiberg & Christian Binz & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "Assessing transitions through socio-technical network analysis – a methodological framework and a case study from the water sector," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2035, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Aug 2020.
    9. Heiberg, Jonas & Truffer, Bernhard & Binz, Christian, 2022. "Assessing transitions through socio-technical configuration analysis – a methodological framework and a case study in the water sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    10. Jens Schippl & Annika Arnold, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Views on Multimodal Urban Mobility Futures: A Matter of Policy Interventions or Just the Logical Result of Digitalization?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, April.
    11. Ballet, Jérôme & Bazin, Damien Jérôme Albert & Komena, Boniface K., 2020. "Unequal capabilities and natural resource management: The case of Côte d’Ivoire," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    12. Almona Tani & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2020. "Policy Implications for the Clean Energy Transition: The Case of the Boston Area," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-15, May.
    13. 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.
    14. Ton, Giel & Klerkx, Laurens & de Grip, Karin & Rau, Marie-Luise, 2015. "Innovation grants to smallholder farmers: Revisiting the key assumptions in the impact pathways," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 9-23.
    15. Haddad, Carolina R. & Bergek, Anna, 2023. "Towards an integrated framework for evaluating transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    16. Turnheim, Bruno & Geels, Frank W., 2019. "Incumbent actors, guided search paths, and landmark projects in infra-system transitions: Re-thinking Strategic Niche Management with a case study of French tramway diffusion (1971–2016)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1412-1428.
    17. Totin, Edmond & van Mierlo, Barbara & Klerkx, Laurens, 2020. "Scaling practices within agricultural innovation platforms: Between pushing and pulling," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    18. Xiangping Jia, 2021. "Agro-Food Innovation and Sustainability Transition: A Conceptual Synthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-24, June.
    19. Cheng Wang & Tao Lv & Rongjiang Cai & Jianfeng Xu & Liya Wang, 2022. "Bibliometric Analysis of Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability Transition Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-31, March.
    20. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.

    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:182:y:2020:i:c:s0308521x19302732. 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/agsy .

    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.