This paper is based on the 8th GLOBELICS International Conference: Making Innovation Work for Society (1 - 3 November 2010, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia). The paper presents three projects of the Research Into Use Program, located in South asia, which are applying three agriculture value chain development oriented knowledge for wider use. Practical aspects of the process and roles played by different types of ageincies in the innovation are discussed.
Experiential learning is prevalent in secondary and university agricultural education programs. An examination of the agricultural education literature showed many inquiries into experiential learning practice but little insight into experiential learning theory. This philosophical manuscript sought to synthesize and summarize what is known about experiential learning theory. The literature characterizes experiential learning as a process or by the context in which it occurs.
This paper uses household and key informant survey data from Ethiopia to: (1) understand the organizational structures that influence change in dairy production systems; (2) explore how local-level innovation system networks are functioning in the smallholder dairy production and (3) identify intervention points for strengthening innovation capacity. Results revealed that public sector actors are the major role players in the dairy production system despite their minor role in marketing linkages. We also found out that the private sector actors play peripheral roles in the network.
Innovation has become the promising concept to overcome problems and enhance agricultural performance in agricultural research and policies. In the past, innovation was mainly seen as being developed by science or enterprises, and only recently the focus has shifted from a linear to a systemic perception, acknowledging that innovation is a dynamic process that implies the participation of a diversity of stakeholders. Consequently the role of multiple stakeholders, including farmers, in the innovation process receives more attention.
This paper contributes to the ongoing discussion in the scientific literature on the advantages and disadvantages of privatization of extension and advisory services and the shift from thinking in terms of the traditional Agricultural Knowledge System towards a broader Agricultural Innovation System.
The agricultural innovation systems approach emphasizes the collective nature of innovation and stresses that innovation is a co-evolutionary process, resulting from alignment of technical, social, institutional and organizational dimensions. These insights are increasingly informing interventions that focus on setting up multi-stakeholder initiatives, such as innovation platforms and networks, as mechanisms for enhancing agricultural innovation, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.
In this paper the authors present the diagnosis and re-design of farm systems as part of an innovation process involving farmers and scientists to improve the sustainability of family farms in south Uruguay. Although were selected farms with a large variation in resource endowment, they shared the main critical points of sustainability: low productivity and deteriorated soil quality.
This paper identifies the stakeholders of System of Rice Intensification (SRI), their roles and actions and the supporting and enabling environment of innovation in the state as the elements of the Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) in SRI in Tripura state of India and studies the relationship matrix among the stakeholders. Methodology: A descriptive research design was followed to study the agricultural innovation system in SRI.
This paper draws lessons from selected country experiences of adaptation and innovation in pursuit of food security goals.
Given the search for new solutions to better prepare cities for the future, in recent years, urban agriculture (UA) has gained in relevance. Within the context of UA, innovative organizational and technical approaches are generated and tested. They can be understood as novelties that begin a potential innovation process. This empirical study is based on 17 qualitative interviews in the U.S. (NYC; Philadelphia, PA, USA; Chicago, IL, USA).