This paper investigates Innovation Systems Concepts and Principles starting with an historical perspective. Then it analyzes their application to Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D) and makes a comparison between the traditional Research and Development Systems Approaches and the Innovation Systems Approach.
In early 2020, GFRAS provided support to the Agricultural Extension in South Asia (AESA) Network and the Bangladesh Agricultural Extension Network (BAEN) in order to customize one of the NELK Modules in the context of Bangladesh. The BAEN Executive Committee selected the GFRAS NELK Module 7 on ‘Facilitation for Development’ for customization. AESA and BAEN jointly implemented the development of the customized module for Bangladesh. The process of customization consisted of five phases spread over a span of six months.
This paper offers a perspective on the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System. The first chapter gives an introduction to the subject and explains the role of SCAR and of the Strategic Working Group AKIS. The second chapter investigates the AKIS and their role in innovation, including the policy context of the European Innovation Partnership “Agricultural productivity and sustainability”. Chapter 3 discusses the relation in a globalised world between Agricultural Research (AR) and Agricultural Research for Development (ARD).
Participation is connected to technology through the notion of innovation systems. To make the connection work, it is argued, the focus has to shift from a framing of participation in terms of democratic entitlement to a framing in terms of the settlement of issues (i.e. politics from below), The innovation system is an appropriate notion to see where issues are likely to lock on to processes of technological change.
Research and analysis of agricultural innovation processes and policies over the last 20 years has made a major contribution to scholarship on and the understanding of the nature of innovation. To an important, but much lesser degree this has also led to re-framing practice at the research-innovation interface. Innovation studies (for want of a better word), like many branches of science, finds that it needs to deliver solutions across the full spectrum of discovery (concepts and theories) to application in both policy and practice domains.
This study examines the contributions of IFPRI over the last 10 years to policy development, training, and capacity-strengthening activities with Malawi, focused particularly on addressing the chronic food insecurity and malnutrition that has prevailed for the last 60 years.The paper is divided into five sections.
Early applications of the innovation systems framework to developing-country agriculture suggest opportunities for more intensive and extensive analysis. There is ample scope for empirical studies to make greater use of the theoretical content available in the literature, and to employ more diverse methodologies, both qualitative and quantitative. Further, there is room to improve the relevance of empirical studies to the analysis of public policies that support science, technology, and innovation, as well as to policies that promote poverty reduction and economic growth.
This paper is a contribution to the establishment of a new capacity development (CD) 9 strategy, a process that the Consortium Office will facilitate, with external input, during 2013. The paper explores the lessons learned from CGIAR’s experience with CD and reflects the findings of a working group that was brought together in late 2012. The objective of the paper is to identify the roles that individual and institutional CD might play in CGIAR in order to increase CGIAR’s impact on the welfare of smallholder farmers and the sustainability of their farming systems.
This paper shares the first results of an ongoing collaborative action research in which ten development organisations explored different Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) approaches with the aim of dealing more effectively with complex processes of social change. There are four reasons why we think this paper may be of interest: 1) The paper illustrates a practical example of action research whereby the organisations themselves are becoming the researchers.
Traditional approaches to innovation systems policymaking and governance often focus exclusively on the central provision of services, regulations, fiscal measures, and subsidies.