Search

This paper is a synthesis of research undertaken as part of the Research Into Use programme (RIU) to explore the question of how agricultural research can be used more effectively to improve agricultural production and farmers' livelihoods in developing countries. Many of the challenges the programme encountered were a result of contested visions of the way agricultural research should be used for innovation. The paper suggests a number of novel entry points for projects promoting research into use. However, it also argues that the effectiveness of RIU was undermined by its failure to productively manage contested visions of research and innovation within the programme and between the programme and its donors and other international champions of the dominant view on agricultural research and development.

The recognition that innovation occurs in networks of heterogeneous actors and requires broad systemic support beyond knowledge brokering has resulted in a changing landscape of the intermediary domain in an increasingly market-driven agricultural sector in developing countries. This paper presents findings of an explorative case study that looked at 22 organisations identified as fulfilling an intermediary role in the Kenyan agricultural sector. The results show that these organisations fulfill functions that are not limited to distribution of knowledge and putting it into use. The functions also include fostering integration and interaction among the diverse actors engaged in innovation networks and working on technological, organisational and institutional innovation. Further, the study identified various organisational arrangements of innovation intermediaries with some organisations fulfilling a specialised innovation brokering role, even as other intermediaries take on brokering as a side activity, while still substantively contributing to the innovation process. Based on these findings we identify a typology of 4 innovation intermediation arrangements, including technology brokers, systemic brokers, enterprise development support and input access support. The results indicate that innovation brokering is a pervasive task in supporting innovation and will require policy support to embed it in innovation support arrangements. The paper is not normative about these arrangements.

The question of how agricultural research can best be used for developmental purposes is a topic of some debate in developmental circles. The idea that this is simply a question of better transfer of ideas from research to farmers has been largely discredited. Agricultural innovation is a process that takes a multitude of different forms, and, within this process, agricultural research and expertise are mobilised at different points in time for different purposes. This paper uses two key analytical principles in order to find how research is actually put into use. The first, which concerns the configurations of organisations and their relationships associated with innovation, reveals the additional set of resources and expertise that research needs to be married up to and sheds light on the sorts of arrangements that allow this marriage to take place. The second - which concerns understanding innovation as a path-dependent, contextually shaped trajectory unfolding over time - reveals the changing role of research during the course of events associated with the development and diffusion of products, services and institutional innovations. Using these analytical principles, this paper examines the efforts of the DFID-funded Research Into Use (RIU) programme that sought to explore the agricultural research-into-use question empirically. The paper then uses this analysis to derive implications for public policy and its ongoing efforts to add value to research investments.

Knowledge brokering has been explored in the innovation literature to understand how different innovation tasks are organised toward technological development. This paper reflects upon the role of different organisations as knowledge brokers in regulatory policy processes towards putting biosciences research into use. It identifies a practical function-based typology that describes four categories of policy brokers who perform different tasks, with the potential to impact biosciences regulatory policy change. The paper concludes with a brief exploration of how policy can support the different functions of regulatory policy brokerage to enhance the translation of biosciences research into use for the benefit of the poor. Using regulatory policy-making in Kenya as an example, it contributes to growing scholarship that seeks to link knowledge emanating from research with policy-making and economic development, particularly in an African context.

This paper reflects on the experience of the Research Into Use (RIU) projects in Asia. It reconfirms much of what has been known for many years about the way innovation takes place and finds that many of the shortcomings of RIU in Asia were precisely because lessons from previous research on agricultural innovation were "not put into use" in the programme's implementation. However, the experience provides three important lessons for donors and governments to make use of agricultural research: (i) Promoting research into use requires enabling innovation. This goes beyond fostering collaboration, and includes a range of other innovation management tasks (ii) The starting point for making use of research need not necessarily be the promising research products and quite often identifying the promising innovation trajectories is more rewarding (iii) Strengthening the innovation enabling environment of policies and institutions is critical if research use is to lead to long-term and large-scale impacts. It is in respect of this third point that RIU Asia missed its target, as it failed to make explicit efforts to address policy and institutional change, despite its innovation systems rhetoric. This severely restricted its ability to achieve wide-scale social and economic impact that was the original rationale for the programme.

This paper sets out an analytical framework for doing research on the question of how to use agricultural research for innovation and impact. Its focus is the Research Into Use programme sponsored by the UK's Department for International Development (DFID). This is one example of a new type of international development programme that seeks to find better ways of using research for developmental purposes. The main analytical approach draws on contemporary innovation perspectives and focuses on understanding the ways in which the process of research is used, rather than only on how research products are transferred and adopted. It argues that there is a diversity of ways of organising innovation appropriate to different market, social, technological, institutional and policy niches. The framework developed in the paper is used to frame questions that will help RIU in its quest to provide practical policy with selection guidance in choosing the right sort of innovation support strategies for particular requirements of different niches at different points in the innovation trajectory.

Over the last 10 years much has been written about the role of the private sector as part of a more widely-conceived notion of agricultural sector capacity for innovation and development. This paper discusses the emergence of a new class of private enterprise in East Africa that would seem to have an important role in efforts to tackle poverty reduction and food security. These organisations appear to occupy a niche that sits between mainstream for-profit enterprises and the developmental activities of government programmes, NGOs and development projects. This type of enterprise activity is not corporate social responsibility, but an altogether new type of business model that is blending entrepreneurial skills and perspectives with mission statements that seek to both serve the needs of poor customers and address their welfare. The ethos is both "bottom-up" and "bottom-line". This paper classifies these organisations as Development-Relevant Enterprises (DevREs).The experience of the Research into Use (RIU) programme discussed in this paper suggests that supporting these types of entrepreneurial activity may form the basis of a new mode of development assistance aimed at using innovation for both social and economic purposes.

This paper sets out to explore the nature of new organisational and institutional vehicles for managing innovation in order to put research into use for social gain. It has reviewed four classes of such vehicles found in South Asia. The first two - contract farming and organised retailing - represent what is becoming commonly-accepted in policy circles: namely that the private corporate sector can play a more prominent role in agricultural development, particularly in arrangements that combine providing access to markets in combination with access to technology needed to service those markets. The second two classes of vehicles -hybrid enterprises and social venture capital - represent a new, albeit fluid in definition, class of initiatives and organisations that combine features referred to as bottom-of-the pyramid and below-the-radar innovation. For each of these classes of innovation management vehicles this review has mapped the diversity of emerging examples and discussed their relevance for putting research into use for social gain. The paper concludes by saying that it is these new and as yet poorly-understood modes of innovation that have the greatest potential to effect change, although developing ways of supporting them is going to require some creative public policy instruments.

This is the first in a series of three papers that develop a conceptual framework for a project on livestock fodder innovation. Livestock is important to the livelihoods of poor people in many regions of the developing world. A generic problem found across this diverse range of production and marketing contexts is the shortage of fodder. This paper argues that to address this problem it is necessary to frame the question of fodder shortage not from the perspective of information and technological scarcity, but from the perspective of capacity scarcity in relation to fodder innovation. To support this position the paper presents case studies of experience from an earlier fodder innovation project. These cases suggest that while fodder technology is important, it is not enough. There is a large institutional dimension to bringing about innovation, particularly with respect to the effectiveness of networks and alliances needed to put technology into use.

Globalization, urbanization and new market demands - together with ever-increasing quality and safety requirements - are putting significantly greater pressures on agrifood stakeholders in the world. The ability to respond to new challenges and opportunities is important not just for producers but also for industries in developing countries. This paper aims to present what "innovation response capacity" entails, especially for natural resourcebased industries in a developing country context. It will also provide an analytical framework that draws elements from agricultural innovation capacity and the innovation systems framework. This is provided through case study research conducted in Kenya by exploring two livestock product companies: Farmer's Choice and Kenchic. The cases show how companies had worked around the problem of weak interaction with the various livestockrelated agencies of the public sector by developing links with international sources of knowledge and technology. This allowed the sector to respond rapidly to different challenges. While the country's historical development explains this pattern of innovation response capacity, public policy appears to be failing in its role of nurturing and contributing to the capacities needed for development in emerging economies, such as that of Kenya.

The exploration of fodder innovation capacity requires tools to undertake the following tasks: (i) Diagnosis of fodder innovation capacity to identify project starting points, including micro and macro elements (ii) Socio-economic benchmarking, and follow-up studies (iii) Pilot innovation cloud process learning/ process-driven intervention correction (iv) Comparative analysis of institutional change processes (iv) Project team process learning And (iv) Project evaluation. There is a wide range of existing tools available to investigate institutional change. This paper reviews these and recommends that an eclectic approach of mixing and matching tools to the emerging circumstances of the research is the best way forward.

This paper was prepared to present at the Farmer First Revisited: 20 Years On conference at IDS, University of Sussex, UK, December 2007. Its focus is the challenge of strengthening agricultural innovation systems. The paper prefaces this discussion by reflecting on an apparent paradox. While agricultural innovation has never been better studied and understood, many of our ideas about innovation have failed to fundamentally change the institutional and policy setting of public and private investment intended to promote innovation for development. The paper asks "students of innovation" why a virtual spiral of innovation practice and policy learning hasn't emerged. The paper then locates the current interest in innovation systems in the evolving and contested approaches to agricultural development, noting that this is characterised by a long history of false dichotomies. The contingencies of the emerging agricultural scenario will demand the more networked modes of collective intelligence and innovation that are embodied in the innovation systems concept. The paper argues, however, that the innovation systems idea should be view as a metaphor for innovation diversity, rather than another competing innovation narrative. The way forward, it is suggested, is to create a united front of different collective intelligence-based innovation narratives to kick-start the virtuous spiral of innovation practice and policy learning. This is needed to strengthen agricultural innovation systems and so achieve developmental goals. The paper argues that it is the responsibly of all us "students of innovation" to argue for this space for diversity to flourish and to help consolidate and promote what is known about agricultural innovation. If we aren't more successful in stimulating institutional and policy change we will still be debating these issues 20 years hence.

The most effective approach to agricultural technology promotion and innovation is still a source of considerable debate, and nowhere more so than in the context of agricultural engineering hardware. Contemporary perspective on agricultural innovation stress the importance of institutional change and give emphasis to the need to develop innovation capacity in systems terms rather address limitations of technology transfer mechanisms. This paper illustrates using the case of manual irrigation technology - treadle pumps -- in Bangladesh and India. It identifies 5 elements of this capacity: (i) A sector coordination mechanism; (ii) a developmental rather than technical organising principle for sector development; (iii) habits and practices (institutions) of key organisations; (iv) Interaction as a learning and knowledge transmission mechanism (v) Market demand as key an incentive for innovation; and (vi) Policies and institutional innovations to ensure adequate stakeholder participation. The paper concludes by suggesting that identifying new sources of institutional innovation is the most presses task for initiatives that seek to make more effective use of knowledge and technology in development.

In recent years the there has been an increasing recognition of the potential of the innovation systems concept to provide new ways of making more effective use of agricultural research and improve its impact on socially desirable outcomes. This paper documents the experiences of a group of researchers in India who experimented with this framework and tried to operationalise its principles in project design. The paper comments on some of the implications of using this approach and the challenges it presents for implementers of agricultural research projects in developing countries.