The turn of agrarian sciences and agricultural extension from reductionist and transfer of technology, respectively, towards systemic approaches has transformed agricultural/rural development thinking in the last decades. Nevertheless, the emergence of Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) has to confront a number of gaps among which the expert – lay knowledge gap is of major importance. This paper aims at exploring such a gap as well as obstacles to participatory development from a critical realist point of view.
L’Afrique Subsaharienne n'a pas assez bénéficié des grandes révolutions connues du monde agricole qui ont permis d’accroitre les productivités. Malgré l’existence des nouvelles technologies, les niveaux des productivités agricoles demeurent faibles et inférieurs à ceux d’autres régions en développement. Un certain nombre de facteurs, dont les contraintes à l’adoption des nouvelles technologies, pourraient expliquer ces faibles productivités.
This paper argues that impact assessment research has not made more of a difference because the measurement of the economic impact has poor diagnostic power. In particular it fails to provide research managers with critical institutional lessons concerning ways of improving research and innovation as a process. Paper's contention is that the linear input-output assumptions of economic assessment need to be complemented by an analytical framework that recognizes systems of reflexive, learning interactions and their location in, and relationship with, their institutional context.
This paper briefly reviews three conceptual frameworks: namely, the national agricultural research system (NARS), the agricultural knowledge and information system (AKIS) and the agricultural innovation system (AIS) concepts. Next, the paper reviews the definition of ‘innovation’ and proposes that agricultural innovation can occur at four different but interlinked domains.
In order to facilitate improved returns to research and development in African agriculture, the innovation systems approach which engenders the involvement of multiple stakeholders in its innovation pathway, has been proposed. Despite the potential of this approach, the understanding of its implementation and particularly of the process of setting up its multi-stakeholder platform is still largely lacking. Yet, this platform is critical to the success and sustainability of the operations of the platform.
Increasing of agriculture products is of importance so that research and development in this branch considers as one of the most important infrastructure which develops production growth. Agriculture provides new and improved findings regarding inputs and production methods hence R&D efficiency increases and leads to potential creation in increasing of agriculture products and reduces pressure on natural resources.
In innovation studies, communication received explicit attention in the context of studies on the adoption and diffusion of innovation that dominated the field in the 1940‐1970 period. Since then, our theoretical understanding of both innovation and communication has changed markedly. However, a systematic rethinking of the role of communication in innovation processes is largely lacking. This article reconceptualises the role of everyday communication and communicative intervention in innovation processes, and discusses practical implications.
In this paper the authors present the development of an analytical framework to study agricultural innovation systems. They divide the agricultural sector into four levels and expand the innovation system approach to study innovation processes.
There are divergent views on what capacity development might mean in relation to agricultural biotechnology. The core of this debate is whether this should involve the development of human capital and research infrastructure, or whether it should encompass a wider range of activities which also include developing the capacity to use knowledge productively. This paper uses the innovation systems concept to shed light on this discussion, arguing that it is innovation capacity rather than science and technology capacity that has to be developed.
This paper, using Thailand as a case study, aims at understanding the national innovation system (NIS) in developing countries which are less successful in technological catching-up. In contrast to developed countries, the development level of Thailand’s NIS does not link to its economic structural development level. As Thailand moves from agricultural to an increasingly industrial economy, its NIS remains weak and fragmented. The mismatch between the two affected Thailand’s competitiveness and partially contributed to the recent economic crisis.