Date post: | 19-Jul-2015 |
Category: |
Science |
Upload: | humidtropics-a-cgiar-research-program |
View: | 337 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Enhancing dynamic systems research by activating integrative perspectives on processes of scaling up in agricultural development and innovation
Humidtropics
Presented by Seerp Wigboldus and Katharina Schiller, Wageningen University and Research centre, the
Netherlands - 5 March 2015
Success/failure,
mechanisms/consequences of scaling (up):
a study focus on its own
• “Find out what works and do more of the same” is a common, but
often too limited perspective on what is involved in scaling (up)
• Tentative conclusion from a review study:
– We need to improve conceptual (and shared) understanding about scaling
processes
– We need to take scaling processes more seriously in terms of understanding
what mechanisms are involved and what are wider effects (beyond narrow
success)
– We need to become more creative in devising options for engaging strategically
with scaling processes
• Are often considered to be a ‘next stage’ and not part of systems
research itself
• Need to integrate these elements into systems research/R4D
• From the beginning, design of research and innovation projects
needs to have future scaling-up in mind (Ghiron et al. 2014).
Related models for scaling up
• If the ones who find out what
works are not the same as
the ones supposed to be
doing more of the same
Find out what works
Do more of the same
Crossing the divide:AdoptionTransfer
DisseminationEtc.
• If scaling up is integrated in
innovation design: co-
innovation, co-scaling
RESEARCHDECISION MAKING
R4D as
E.g. potential
E.g. Risk
perception, mind-sets
Analysis Sense-making
FOR
Need to connect
Need toconnect
Widening perspectives on scaling up
From responsible innovation to responsible scaling
• If innovations are considered to be ‘responsible’ (relating to e.g.
inclusiveness, sustainability), will they also remain being
‘responsible’ when they go to scale?
• Scaling up often means entering new scale levels, new domains,
new geographical areas, etc. – how will we know innovations are
still ‘responsible’ when they cross those boundaries?
From successful scaling up to responsible scaling
• Are scaling processes successful when something effectively goes
to scale?
• Or can something effectively go to scale and still be considered
unsuccessful because of negative outcomes (incl. side effects)?
• Starting to scale something up often has a snow-ball effect of
scaling processes – e.g. scaling up of (monoculture) crop attracts a
scaling up of pests/diseases, and/or requires scaling up use of
agrochemicals, it may lead to scaling down other crops, etc., etc.
See study “late lessons from early warnings” (EEA, 2013)
The need to complement systems research
• Systems research focuses on system
dimensions and dynamics
• Scaling processes often escape
system boundaries used
• Scaling process studies can bridge
systems research and foresight
studies
Systemsresearch
Foresightstudies
Systemsresearch
Foresightstudies
Scaling studies
PROMIS:a PRactice-Oriented Multi-level
perspective on Innovation and Scaling
• An approach to facilitate research on scaling processes
• Complementing existing research methodologies and processes
– Conceptual frameworks (to help to more easily create integrative perspective on
relevant dimensions and dynamics of envisaged scaling processes)
– Interpretive frameworks (to help to more easily detect mechanisms involved in
supporting or hindering envisaged scaling processes)
– Methodological application options (to help apply the above in working with
stakeholders)
– Strategic translation frameworks (to help consider a variety of options for
engaging with the envisaged scaling processes) So what? Now what?
• Connects to wide range of dimensions, e.g. from technical to social,
from natural resources to mind-sets and motivations, and from
institutions to decision-making processes
Simplified example of conceptual frameworks used
• Developing integrative perspectives on change dimensions related to
scaling processes – connecting across domains and systems
Dimensions include the technical,
technology, knowledge, social
capital, culture, human capital,
natural capital, financial capital,
etc.
Practices
Focus systems
Wider systems
Futures
Generalised dimensions involved in
configurations, which are operative
throughout scale levels
Illustrations from quick-scan study on “scaling
up ‘green’ rubber in Xishuangbanna, China”
• Rubber cultivation once promoted as a way out of poverty and even a
way to ‘green’ the landscape
• Then its monoculture manifestation becoming criticized as being
environmentally unfriendly (25%+ of the land taken over by rubber)
• Extensive research efforts to assess (environmental) impact and to find
out alternative that can help ‘green’ rubber cultivation
• Market price of natural rubber plummeted over past few years
• More details in presentation by Jianchu Xu
Research activities
• Literature study – many studies available, looking at rubber in
Xishuangbanna from different angles
• Activating previously done survey among farmers (not specific for this
purpose, but left unused so far)
• Interviews with representatives from key stakeholder groups
• Interactive sense-making workshop
• Development of report, platform brief, research paper and concept note
Use of system(at)ic insights
and imagination/intuition
• Hybrid knowledge – hybrid
processes
• Facilitated sense-making
• Soft systems methodologies,
e.g. rich picture
• Relationship-building among
stakeholders (actually building
on momentum which R4D
platform may help create)
• Empirical and imaginative
(what if...)
Applying conceptual frameworks:
What needs to scale up exactly on what scale?
Unpacking “green rubber”:
• Plot/farm level: e.g. ground cover, inter/mixed cropping, use of
pesticides/herbicides, chemical fertiliser
• Village level: e.g. zoning crops
• Watershed level: e.g. no rubber near water courses
• Landscape level: zoning of land use, rubber not above 800 masl
Different “shades” of green possible
Applying interpretive frameworks:
Ready to scale up ‘green’ rubber? Lock-in factors.
• Lock-in of monoculture rubber
– Economic benefits fresh in memories of producers
– Unwillingness to go for something which has lower income potential
or requires harder work
– Environmental awareness not strong
– Rubber brought the pride of being part of modernity
– Lack of knowledge/expertise about alternatives
– Smallholders want “proven” alternative options
– No real interest in benefits on longer term
– Etc.
Applying interpretive frameworks:
Ready to scale up ‘green’ rubber? Lock-in factors (2)
• Disconnect between massive research capacity and smallholders
• Hesitance of policy implementers to enforce environmental regulations
• History of top-down policy making/implementation and smallholders
who became passive recipients
• Narrow scientific perspectives on ‘green rubber’: Agronomist look for
agronomic ‘solutions’, ecologists for ecological ‘solutions’, foresters for
‘forestry’ solutions, etc. Need for inter- and transdisciplinary
perspectives
Applying interpretive frameworks:
Ready to scale up ‘green’ rubber? Space for change
• In-principle readiness to do something
• In-principle agreement that current rubber cultivation causes harm
• Interest to meet as stakeholders and to seek ways forward (e.g.
through recent workshops and interviews)
• Successful PTD example in nearby parts of the province
• Massive research capacity
• Green policies by government
• Potentially available government subsidies
• Etc.
Creating integrative perspective on variety
interacting factors and dynamics
Application of conceptual perspectives on
scaling up: compound dynamics (1)
Scaling up green rubber
↑Level of
(bio)diversity
Time → 2015
Subsistence
Specialisation/intensification
Diversification?
↑Commodi
tizaton
2015
Culturalidentity
Marketorientation
Eco products?
Time →
↑ Influence
ondecision-making Farmers
Government
Scientists
Time → 2015
↑Importance
environmental values in
comparison with economic
values
Farmers
Government
Scientists
Time → 2015
Application of conceptual perspectives on
scaling up: compound dynamics (2)
↑Scale level
Greenpolicy
making
Green mentality
Eco-friendly farm
practices
The age of monoculture
The age of light green
The age of medium
green
The age of dark green
Diversified land use
Alternativecrops
introduction
Green policy implementation
Exploring connections between integrative
perspective and strategy options
Wider context in Xishuangbanna and China
Monoculture rubber dominance
Green rubber niche
Pressure to change factors
Support status quofactors
Promoting alternative options
Green rubber cradles
Providing new ideas, options
Greenrubber
Monoculture rubberDifferent strategic options possible in
helping green rubber go to scale
Different strategic options possible in
helping green rubber go to scale
From integrative/interpretive
perspectives to strategy options (2)
What may tip the balance and help ‘green’ rubber scale up?
Breaking the stalemate
• Use momentum created by R4D platform (relationships!): ICRAF,
government
• Stop hobby-horsing: science and policy
• Engage smallholders actively in R&D: science
• Get organised: smallholders (supported by NGO?)
• Set examples: (former) state companies
• Look beyond rubber; adopt a ‘green’ landscape perspective: all
stakeholders
• Facilitate collaboration and convergence between and strengthen
capacities of stakeholders for collective action: new project
Some quick conclusions from quick-scan study
• Even though a lot of research has been and is being done, good
policies are in place, rubber prices are low, still the situation appears to
be locked in
• Need to look beyond scaling up (technical) solutions (intercropping,
understory ground cover, new crops, etc.) to scaling up processes
(most notably communication and collaboration between stakeholders
• Need to start involving smallholder meaningfully and intensively
This means that technical/technological “solutions” NOT expected to
‘unlock’ the dominance of monoculture rubber in the Xishuangbanna
landscape
A concept note was developed for a project which focuses on facilitating
convergence of visions and action between stakeholders
• What about the measure of convergence as an indicator of capacity to
innovate?
• Helps to look at it beyond technical/technological innovation
• Would require unpacking ‘convergence’ toward e.g. stages, etc.
Some initial experiences with research
approach so far
• Not so suitable if just a matter of research on scaling – more suitable if
also connected to positioning interventions and as part of a multi-
stakeholder process
• Need for distinguishing between two types of scaling:
– Scaling up “something” defined (e.g. a particular cropping system)
– Scaling up toward the existence of a desired outcome/impact at scale (e.g. food
security) which actually involves a range of interactive scaling processes
• A quick-scan study set-up can be useful in
project/programme proposal development
• Good connection options to other
presentations in conference, e.g. on
participatory modelling (!), transdisciplinary
research, intuitive approaches,
and foresight analysis
• Integrative research easily becomes overwhelming
Reflections on case study on scaling up
agroecology in Nicaragua
• Takes into account smallholders’ livelihood systems
• Helpful to connect perspectives between eg socio-economic and bio-
physical realm; individual – systemic levels
• Keeping focus on one aspect without losing birds-eye perspective
• Toolkit of quantitative and qualitative methods, including checklist
Tentative (selected) learning about what contributes
to creating conditions for responsible scaling
• From the beginning, design of research and innovation projects needs to have
future scaling-up in mind
• Be aware that scaling-up is not a neutral process. Consider trade-offs and net
benefit/value for society from an inclusive and cross-scale perspective (e.g. how
scaling works out for disadvantaged groups, such as women and children)
• Approach the scaling initiative as a co-creative effort, working toward a
collaborative scaling initiative; facilitate co-creative design of scaling strategies
with stakeholders – scientist can play key role in this, but often need to learn how
• Negotiate (with funders and managers) room for manoeuvre in terms of required
flexibility for adaptively treading on pathways to scale (preventing ‘monorail
scaling’ and ‘one-gear scaling’)
• Facilitate convergence of perspectives and preferences of stakeholders,
enhancing opportunities for shared effort through common (communicative and
discursive) spaces in support of scaling processes, such as innovation/R4D
platforms/labs and farmer field schools
This presentation is based on research which is
partly conducted in collaboration with CIAT-
Nicaragua and ICRAF-East and Central Asia
• Co-authors of research products related to this presentation are
– Marc Schut (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Bujumbura,
Burundi, and Wageningen UR, Knowledge, Technology and Innovation
group),
– Cees Leeuwis, Laurens Klerkx, Katharina Schiller and Onno Giller
(Wageningen UR, Knowledge, Technology and Innovation group)
– Marijn Poortvliet and Anne Marike Lokhorst (Wageningen UR, Strategic
Communication group)
• Special thanks for their active participation in the research to Rein
van der Hoek, Falguni Guharay, Nelson Castellon, and Eduardo
Herrera (CIAT-Nicaragua), and Jim Hammond (ICRAF East and
Central Asia)
Contact: Laurens Klerkx, Knowledge, Technology and Innovation group, Wageningen
University – [email protected] or Seerp Wigboldus, Centre for Development
Innovation, Wageningen UR, the Netherlands – [email protected]
Thank you