Abstract

The Farmer Business School (FBS) is a participatory, action learning process focused on product and business development, and like the Farmer Field School, is a complex, multi-dimensional innovation with the potential to benefit large numbers of farming households economically, socially and institutionally. Scaling this approach requires rethinking both innovation and scaling. The paper draws on the insights of recent research which argues that a systems approach to innovation can better address the complexity of scaling processes and provides frameworks that link together processes of innovation and scaling. In examining these frameworks, the paper identifies the key role of partnership dynamics in those processes. Drawing on both the innovation and scaling literature and literature on partnership dynamics, a conceptual framework is developed to analyze how partnership dynamics contribute to and constrain the transition from small-scale ‘niche’ innovation testing led by researchers, to large scale integration of the approach by development partners in agricultural ‘regimes’. Using case studies involving partnerships between a small international agricultural research grant recipient and six large development projects supported by IFAD multilateral loans and managed by government agencies undertaken in four Asian countries between 2011 and 2018, the study analyses the variable dynamics of the partnerships from initial networking to integrated collaboration, in the process of scaling the FBS innovation. Responding to the main research question about the drivers of partnership dynamics that contribute to scaling, the paper examines the partnerships in terms of six drivers which derived both from the literature and also from the empirical evidence presented in the study. The drivers include two dimensions of “fit”, one about the convergence of research expertise and development demand, the other about the systematic integration of the innovation with different elements of the development actions. Other drivers relate to the issue of the convergence of project cycles, the stability of staffing in partner organizations, internal decision-making processes and the dimension of “partnering” – the value-based and behavioral aspects of collaboration. The paper also discusses the results of a “partnership health check-up” process conducted periodically during the partnerships and reconsiders the driver about system fit to understand the extent to which there had been a transformation in the conventional ‘regime’ approach to innovations and scaling. Finally, the paper proposes to adjust the conceptual framework based on the analysis of these partnerships for scaling innovations.

Highlights

  • As increased attention is paid to scaling of technologies as a measure of the impact of aid interventions (Picciotto, 2007; USAID, 2014), it has recently been argued that an innovations system focus can more effectively address the complexities of scaling, compared to consideringAgricultural Systems 182 (2020) 102834 scaling as a sequential, large-scale adoption phase following on from innovation (Wigboldus et al, 2016)

  • This section describes the interactions between research and development partners involved in scaling Farmer Business School (FBS) throughout the four different stages of partnership presented in the conceptual framework

  • FoodSTART staff explained that they offered expertise in root and tuber crops (RTCs), so the opportunity for building partnerships to achieve scaling for impact depended to a large extent on an already existing recognition of the relevance of RTCs for the investment projects, or the possibility of demonstrating a relevance which had been overlooked

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Agricultural Systems 182 (2020) 102834 scaling as a sequential, large-scale adoption phase following on from innovation (Wigboldus et al, 2016). Wigboldus et al argue for a systemic view of innovation which is “integrative and interactive” and sensitive from early on to the multiple dimensions and levels of scaling processes and effects (ibid:3/4). In an example of agricultural regime, stability prevails around the use of common crop varieties, which is reinforced by farmer practices, seed and marketing systems, and public sector regulations routinizing and constraining research on and release of new varieties. At the micro-level there are “protected niches” where more radical testing and piloting of alternative technologies and practices occur, freer from the routine-based behaviors that characterize the regime, but with no guarantee of creating socio-technical transitions within the regime. While changes at landscape level are mostly slow (e.g. urban migration processes), sudden changes which may influence changes at regime level can occur (e.g. a large influx of refugees requiring a reorientation of agricultural activities)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.