IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v70y2018icp38-51.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reconceptualising translation in agricultural innovation: A co-translation approach to bring research knowledge and practice closer together

Author

Listed:
  • Ingram, Julie
  • Dwyer, Janet
  • Gaskell, Peter
  • Mills, Jane
  • Wolf, Pieter de

Abstract

Scientific research continues to play a significant role in meeting the multiple innovation challenges in agriculture. If this role is to be fulfilled, provision needs to be made for effective translation of research outputs, where translation is understood to be the process whereby science becomes part of useful knowledge for decision making. There is increasing interest in enhancing translation in the European agricultural innovation, research and policy context, and specifically in making it a more collaborative process. This new attention calls for a reorientation of how the concept is understood, theorised and operationalised. This paper considers these needs and specifically asks how can interactive innovation approaches be integrated with science-driven approaches to enhance translation; and how can this help to reveal the constituent translation processes? An interactive stakeholder methodology is described drawing on three agricultural case studies examined in the xx project which aims to make translation of existing bodies of scientific knowledge more effective. Analysis to date shows how this interactive methodology enables a communicative and reciprocal set of translation processes to evolve which comprise: identification, prioritisation, articulation, searching, retrieval, extraction and synthesis, and evaluation of innovation issues and solutions. These insights allow us to move beyond an understanding of translation as science- or innovation-driven to envisaging co-translation, where multiple processes interact in a fluid middle-ground, and where the actors involved develop the capacity to jointly analyse innovation issues and solutions. From the perspective of the EU’s policy ambitions to stimulate collaborative translation, operationalising translation needs re-thinking with respect to requirements for new mind-sets and skills, and in particular for committed and well-resourced intermediaries who can foster these multi-actors approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Ingram, Julie & Dwyer, Janet & Gaskell, Peter & Mills, Jane & Wolf, Pieter de, 2018. "Reconceptualising translation in agricultural innovation: A co-translation approach to bring research knowledge and practice closer together," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 38-51.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:70:y:2018:i:c:p:38-51
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026483771730580X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.013?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. Hall, Andy & Mytelka, Lynn & Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, Banji, 2006. "Concepts and guidelines for diagnostic assessments of agricultural innovation capacity," MERIT Working Papers 2006-017, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    2. Paul R. Carlile, 2004. "Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 555-568, October.
    3. Marra, Michele & Pannell, David J. & Abadi Ghadim, Amir, 2003. "The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 215-234.
    4. 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.
    5. Maria Carmen Lemos & Richard B. Rood, 2010. "Climate projections and their impact on policy and practice," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(5), pages 670-682, September.
    6. Elsa T.A. Berthet & C�cile Barnaud & Nathalie Girard & Julie Labatut & Guillaume Martin, 2016. "How to foster agroecological innovations? A comparison of participatory design methods," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(2), pages 280-301, February.
    7. Biggs, Stephen & Smith, Grant, 1998. "Beyond methodologies: Coalition-building for participatory technology development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 239-248, February.
    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. Corinne Valdivia & M. Danda & Dekha Sheikh & Harvey James & Violet Gathaara & Grace Mbure & Festus Murithi & William Folk, 2014. "Using translational research to enhance farmers’ voice: a case study of the potential introduction of GM cassava in Kenya’s coast," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(4), pages 673-681, December.
    10. Sewell, A.M. & Gray, D.I. & Blair, H.T. & Kemp, P.D. & Kenyon, P.R. & Morris, S.T. & Wood, B.A., 2014. "Hatching new ideas about herb pastures: Learning together in a community of New Zealand farmers and agricultural scientists," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 63-73.
    11. Roelofsen, Anneloes & Boon, Wouter P.C. & Kloet, Roy R. & Broerse, Jacqueline E.W., 2011. "Stakeholder interaction within research consortia on emerging technologies: Learning how and what?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 341-354, April.
    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. Christian Pohl & Stephan Rist & Anne Zimmermann & Patricia Fry & Ghana S Gurung & Flurina Schneider & Chinwe Ifejika Speranza & Boniface Kiteme & Sébastian Boillat & Elvira Serrano & Gertrude Hirsch H, 2010. "Researchers' roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(4), pages 267-281, May.
    14. 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.
    15. Gianluca Brunori & Dominique Barjolle & Anne-Charlotte Dockes & Simone Helmle & Julie Ingram & Laurens Klerkx & Heidrun Moschitz & Gusztáv Nemes & Talis Tisenkopfs, 2013. "CAP Reform and Innovation: The Role of Learning and Innovation Networks," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 12(2), pages 27-33, August.
    16. Young, Nathan & Nguyen, Vivian M. & Corriveau, Marianne & Cooke, Steven J. & Hinch, Scott G., 2016. "Knowledge users’ perspectives and advice on how to improve knowledge exchange and mobilization in the case of a co-managed fishery," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 170-178.
    17. Douthwaite, Boru & Kuby, Thomas & van de Fliert, Elske & Schulz, Steffen, 2003. "Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 243-265, November.
    18. Hall, Andrew & Bockett, Geoffrey & Taylor, Sarah & Sivamohan, M. V. K . & Clark, Norman, 2001. "Why Research Partnerships Really Matter: Innovation Theory, Institutional Arrangements and Implications for Developing New Technology for the Poor," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 783-797, May.
    19. Volker Hoffmann & Kirsten Probst & Anja Christinck, 2007. "Farmers and researchers: How can collaborative advantages be created in participatory research and technology development?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(3), pages 355-368, September.
    20. Julian M. Alston, 2010. "The Benefits from Agricultural Research and Development, Innovation, and Productivity Growth," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 31, OECD Publishing.
    21. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Matching demand and supply in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure: Experiences with innovation intermediaries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 260-276, June.
    22. Susanne C. Moser, 2010. "Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 31-53, January.
    23. Douthwaite, B. & Keatinge, J. D. H. & Park, J. R., 2001. "Why promising technologies fail: the neglected role of user innovation during adoption," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 819-836, May.
    24. Boon, Wouter P.C. & Moors, Ellen H.M. & Kuhlmann, Stefan & Smits, Ruud E.H.M., 2011. "Demand articulation in emerging technologies: Intermediary user organisations as co-producers?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 242-252, March.
    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. Bentivoglio, Deborah & Bucci, Giorgia & Belletti, Matteo & Finco, Adele, 2022. "A theoretical framework on network’s dynamics for precision agriculture technologies adoption," Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural (RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 60(4), January.
    2. Nicola Dal Ferro & Carlo Camarotto & Ilaria Piccoli & Antonio Berti & Jane Mills & Francesco Morari, 2020. "Stakeholder Perspectives to Prevent Soil Organic Matter Decline in Northeastern Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, January.
    3. Richard Lynch & Maeve Henchion & John J. Hyland & José A. Gutiérrez, 2022. "Creating a Rainbow for Sustainability: The Case of Sustainable Beef," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-24, April.
    4. Broadmeadow, Samantha & Nisbet, Tom & Palmer, Robert & Webb, Louise & Short, Chris & Chivers, Charlotte-Anne & Hammond, John & Lukac, Martin & Miller, Anne & Gantlett, Richard & Clark, Joanna, 2023. "Incorporating technical and farmer knowledge to improve land use and management for natural flood management in lowland catchments," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    5. Aurélie Cardona & Cristiana Carusi & Michael Mayerfeld Bell, 2021. "Engaged Intermediaries to Bridge the Gap between Scientists, Educational Practitioners and Farmers to Develop Sustainable Agri-Food Innovation Systems: A US Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-13, October.
    6. Andrea Arzeni & Francesca Giarè & Mara Lai & Maria Valentina Lasorella & Rossella Ugati & Anna Vagnozzi, 2023. "Interactive Approach for Innovation: The Experience of the Italian EIP AGRI Operational Groups," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-24, September.
    7. Caroline Brock & Douglas Jackson-Smith & Steven Culman & Douglas Doohan & Catherine Herms, 2021. "Soil balancing within organic farming: negotiating meanings and boundaries in an alternative agricultural community of practice," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(2), pages 449-465, June.
    8. Vilas-Boas, Jean & Klerkx, Laurens & Lie, Rico, 2024. "The unpacking and repacking of agricultural innovation: Embrapa's translation roles and positions in the introduction of the pyramid model and hybrid pigs in Brazil," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    9. Arzeni, Andrea & Ascione, Elisa & Borsotto, Patrizia & Carta, Valentina & Castellotti, Tatiana & Vagnozzi, Anna, 2021. "Analysis of farms characteristics related to innovation needs: a proposal for supporting the public decision-making process," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(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. 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.
    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. Kraaijvanger, Richard & Veldkamp, Tom & Almekinders, Conny, 2016. "Considering change: Evaluating four years of participatory experimentation with farmers in Tigray (Ethiopia) highlighting both functional and human–social aspects," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 38-50.
    4. Aurélie Cardona & Cristiana Carusi & Michael Mayerfeld Bell, 2021. "Engaged Intermediaries to Bridge the Gap between Scientists, Educational Practitioners and Farmers to Develop Sustainable Agri-Food Innovation Systems: A US Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-13, October.
    5. Matthias Bürgi & Panna Ali & Afroza Chowdhury & Andreas Heinimann & Cornelia Hett & Felix Kienast & Manoranjan Kumar Mondal & Bishnu Raj Upreti & Peter H. Verburg, 2017. "Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the Gap between Theory and Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    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. Ornella W. Maietta & Cristian Barra & Roberto Zotti, 2017. "Innovation and University-Firm R&D Collaboration in the European Food and Drink Industry," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 749-780, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Aguilar-Gallegos, Norman & Muñoz-Rodríguez, Manrrubio & Santoyo-Cortés, Horacio & Aguilar-Ávila, Jorge & Klerkx, Laurens, 2015. "Information networks that generate economic value: A study on clusters of adopters of new or improved technologies and practices among oil palm growers in Mexico," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 122-132.
    10. Poncet, J. & Kuper, M. & Chiche, J., 2010. "Wandering off the paths of planned innovation: The role of formal and informal intermediaries in a large-scale irrigation scheme in Morocco," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(4), pages 171-179, May.
    11. Wenndt, Anthony J. & Sudini, Hari Kishan & Pingali, Prabhu & Nelson, Rebecca, 2021. "Farmer research networks enable community-based mycotoxin management in rural Indian villages," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    12. Kilelu, Catherine W. & Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees & Hall, Andy, 2011. "Beyond knowledge brokerage: An exploratory study of innovation intermediaries in an evolving smallholder agricultural system in Kenya," MERIT Working Papers 2011-022, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    13. Richard Lynch & Maeve Henchion & John J. Hyland & José A. Gutiérrez, 2022. "Creating a Rainbow for Sustainability: The Case of Sustainable Beef," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-24, April.
    14. Dentoni, Domenico & Klerkx, Laurens, 2015. "Co-managing public research in Australian fisheries through convergence–divergence processes," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 259-271.
    15. Eastwood, C.R. & Chapman, D.F. & Paine, M.S., 2012. "Networks of practice for co-construction of agricultural decision support systems: Case studies of precision dairy farms in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 10-18.
    16. Dolinska, Aleksandra & Hassenforder, Emeline & Loboguerrero, Ana Maria & Sultan, Benjamin & Bossuet, Jérôme & Cottenceau, Jeanne & Bonatti, Michelle & Hellin, Jon & Mekki, Insaf & Drogoul, Alexis & Va, 2023. "Co-production opportunities seized and missed in decision-support frameworks for climate-change adaptation in agriculture – How do we practice the “best practice”?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    17. Pawera, Lukas & Manickam, Ravishankar & Wangungu, Carolyne & Bonnarith, Uon & Schreinemachers, Pepijn & Ramasamy, Srinivasan, 2024. "Guidance on farmer participation in the design, testing and scaling of agricultural innovations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    18. Letty, Brigid & Shezi, Zanele & Mudhara, Maxwell, 2012. "An exploration of agricultural grassroots innovation in South Africa and implications for innovation indicator development," MERIT Working Papers 2012-023, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    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. Matt, M. & Colinet, L. & Gaunand, A. & Joly, P.B., 2015. "A typology of impact pathways generated by a public agricultural research organization," Working Papers 2015-03, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).

    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:lauspo:v:70:y:2018:i:c:p:38-51. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.