In this paper, we focus on the diversity of R&D methods, the actors, and their interface, by examining the implications of diversity at the level of individual R&D actors and at the level of national and global innovation systems.

Learning About Diversity in Innovation Systems

Multiple Versus Single Methods at the Level of R&D Actors

Individuals and organizations need to continuously assess their expertise and capacity to better position themselves as R&D actors. Some actors may specialize in methods or approaches such as participatory rural appraisals (PRA) or farmer field schools (FFS), while others position themselves more broadly as managers or facilitators of agricultural knowledge and information systems. Focusing on a single method, or skilfully deploying a few methods, allows actors to develop specific expertise, while at the same time further improving the method. Some pros and cons of focusing on a single method or approach are given in Table 1. Methodological diversity in the system allows R&D actors to tap into their own

organizational strengths and explore what works best for them under which conditions. Diversity also enables them to play the card of complementarity. Partnerships built on the strengths of the individual actors pave the way for combining various methods available in the system. This moves away from the idea of a one-size-fits-all technology or an ideal blue-print methodology. We illustrate this with two examples, one from an organization that facilitates capacity building in national R&D systems, and another that works directly with rural communities.

Recently, the inter-governmental organization CABI Bioscience, with an expertise in farmer education methods for sustainable agriculture, collaborated with a UK-based private company, called Countrywise Communication, to develop competency in videos for training. Together with the Rural Development Academy and a Bangladeshi women's non-government organization (NGO), they produced videos on post-harvest that were more efficient in training rural women than face-to-face extension (Van Mele et al., 2005). The partnership helped CABI to further advance its expertise in developing and implementing innovative farmer education methods.

The second example illustrates how two farmer education methods, each pioneered by a different international organization, found fertile ground in one and the same national implementation agency. The Bolivian non-profit foundation, Fundacion Promocion e Investigacion de Productos Andinos (PROINPA), saw complementarity in local agricultural research committees (CIALs) and FFS and consciously decided to work with them in an integrated manner. Through several cycles of fieldwork, PROINPA learned how to coordinate the complementary use of these methods. Where simple knowledge is sufficient to address a specific problem, they use workshops and presentations at local markets. The latter is a new method called Going Public, developed with CABI Bioscience (Bentley et al., 2003).

These examples illustrate the need for R&D organizations to become more familiar with existing methods, to assess their appropriateness, to build synergies with their own methodological expertise if possible, and to innovate when necessary.

The Need for Diversity at the Level of R&D Innovation Systems

While focusing on one or a few methodologies may have advantages for an individual R&D actor, the propagation of a single method at the national or global level has some important drawbacks. Quality issues are likely to emerge when a single method is scaled up massively, as shown by the FFS experience. This, however, does not mean that farmer education with a strong emphasis on discovery learning has no global significance (Röling and Wagemakers, 1998).

Methods that are promoted globally may be perceived as imposed by those who implement them. They may be viewed as a damper on local methodological and institutional innovations. Just as the lack of local ownership of technologies may result in non-adoption, the same holds for methodologies and working philosophies, especially complex ones.

The promotion of a single blue-print approach or method is risky when it ignores the economic, political and institutional context in which actors operate. A well-known example is the Training and Visit (T&V) system of extension, previously promoted by the World Bank and part of the "Transfer-of-Technology" or "pipeline" model of innovation. This led to a wave of participatory approaches and a new cycle of learning from failures and successes. Recent critiques of participatory approaches (Gujit and Shah, 1998; Cooke and Kothari, 2001) further emphasized that development-oriented research processes need to be tailored to particular circumstances. Research has multiple dimensions and each includes a spectrum of possibilities. Conventional and participatory research are not independent or discrete activities. To ensure quality, researchers are encouraged to focus on skilfully combining elements from the different dimensions in order to tailor research to specific circumstances (McDougall and Braun, 2003).

Promoting Diversity in Innovation Systems

National Policy

Clearly, the strength of an innovation system depends on the strengths of its components and the management of its linkages. Developing a clear understanding of the historical, political and institutional dimensions of the system and its components is crucial to draft national policies that not only help to build capacity in individual R&D actors, but also to create incentives and support mechanisms for institutional learning and partnerships that will improve the system performance overall.

Policymakers may be put under pressure to promote a single method, at the expense of overall system adaptability and robustness. While developing national research and extension policies, decision-makers need to be aware of the human dimensions of R&D. The impetus for methodological monocultures is often associated with strong lobbyist groups and personalities. Decision-makers need to ensure that the promotion of a method builds on local social capital and on previous methodological experiences. This can be done by shaping an environment where creativity can flourish, and multiple methods and partnerships can be assessed objectively in response to new emerging needs.

As innovations come from multiple sources (Biggs, 1990), including the farmer community, the education system and the private sector, research and extension policies need to be better coordinated with rural development, education and trade policies, as these directly or indirectly shape the innovation system.

Donor Policy

The new challenge for donors is to approach R&D from an innovation systems perspective, recognizing that multiple sources of innovation exist within economic, political and institutional contexts. Donors can facilitate the testing and fostering of partnerships between R&D and private businesses, or between R&D and the education system.

Identifying champions with expertise in one method may not be too difficult, while finding facilitating actors or setting up structures that can bring multiple sources of expertise together in an open learning environment is more challenging. Mapping out actors, assessing their organizational cultures, and creating early opportunities for them to interact, share experiences and build trust may be a first step in the right direction to boost methodological and institutional innovations (Van Mele et al., 2005).

Creating an open learning culture requires commitment, flexibility and fundamental changes in norms and values, not only within implementing organizations, but equally within the donor community. Allowing for flexibility is letting go of control. Mechanisms need to be developed that allow actors in the R&D system to capitalize on the diversity of perspectives, ideas and opportunities that arise when implementing a project or program. An example of a successful approach that promoted methodological diversity was managed by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) from 1999-2004.

References

Bentley, J., E. Boa, P. Van Mele, J. Almanza, D. Vasquez and S. Eguino. 2003. Going Public: A New Extension Method. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 1(2), 108-123.

Biggs, S. D. 1990. A Multiple Source of Innovation Model of Agricultural Research and Technology Promotion. World Development 18 (11), 1481-1499.

Cooke, B. and U. Kothari (eds). 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny. Zed Books, London.

Guijt, I. and M. K. Shah (eds). 1998. The Myth of Community, Gender Issues in Participatory Development. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

Hall, A., L. Mytelka and B. Oyeyinka. 2004. Innovation Systems: Concepts and Implications for Agricultural Research Policy and Practice. United Nations University, Maastricht.

McDougall, C. and A. Braun. 2003. Navigating Complexity, Diversity and Dynamism: Reflections on Research for Natural Resource Management. In: Pound, B., S. Snapp, C. McDougall and A. Braun (eds). Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. Earthscan Publications, London, pp 20-47.

RÖling, N. G. and M. A. E. Wagemakers (eds). 1998. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture: Participatory Learning and Adaptive Management in Times of Environmental Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Van Mele, P., A. Salahuddin and N. P. Magor (eds). 2005. Innovations in Rural Extension: Case Studies from Bangladesh. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.

Contributed by:
Paul Van Mele and Ann R. Braun
Email: p.vanmele@cabi.org