Andy Hall

Low-Cost Storage of Fresh Sweet Potatoes in Uganda: Lessons from Participatory and On-Station Approaches to Technology Choice and Adaptive Testing

Studies were undertaken to identify and test low-cost storage technology for fresh sweet potatoes and subsequently to apply this technology in the northern region of Uganda. In this region the emergence of cassava mosaic disease has made the technology relevant to the rural food system due to the need to extend the availability of sweet potatoes. The studies used a combination of on-station and on-farm trials to test the technical feasibility and social compatibility of low-cost storage technologies. The performance of the storage methods and the process by which technical options were chosen, developed and tested are discussed. It was found that, although the on-station trials provided broad guidelines for technology development, specific requirements needed to be devised in conjunction with farmers. The use of parallel on-station and on-farm trials, although partially contradictory, saved much time and hastened the technology-validation process.

Programmes, projects and learning inquiries: institutional mediation of innovation in research for development

This paper explores innovation processes and institutional change within research for development (R4D). It draws on learning by Australian participants associated with the implementation of a three-year Australian-funded food security R4D programme in Africa, and in particular a sub-component designed to support and elicit this learning. The authors critically examine this attempt at institutional innovation via the creation of a ‘learning project’ (LP) in a larger programme. For systemic innovation to be achieved, it is concluded that the system of concern must envisage institutional innovation and change within the donor and external research organizations as well as with project recipients and collaborative partners. Institutional constraints and opportunities are explored, including how the overall approach to learning in this programme could have been reframed as an organizational innovation platform (IP), designing, managing and evaluating IPs at different systemic levels of governance – including within the collaborative programme with African partners, in the constituent in-country projects, in the collaborating Australian organizations and at the level of personal practice.

Mediating boundaries between knowledge and knowing: ICT and R4D praxis

This article reflects critically on the use of a wiki as a data repository for knowledge transfer and as a mediating technical platform for social learning in the context of a multi-country programme of agricultural research for development. The wiki was designed to foster sustainable social learning and an emergent community of practice among biophysical and social researchers acting for the first time as co-researchers. Over time, the technologically mediated element of the learning system was judged to have failed. The article is based on an inquiry that asked ‘How can learning system design cultivate learning opportunities and respond to learning challenges in an online environment to support research for development practice?’ The article also considers the wider context and institutional setting in which the knowledge work took place.

Towards appropriate mainstreaming of “Theory of Change” approaches into agricultural research for development: Challenges and opportunities

n Abstractn n Food insecurity persists in many parts of Africa and Asia, despite ongoing agricultural research for development (AR4D) interventions. This is resulting in a growing demand for alternative approaches to designing and evaluating interventions in complex systems. Theory of Change (ToC) is an approach which may be useful because it enables stakeholders to present and test their theories and assumptions about why and how impact may occur, ideally within an environment conducive to iterative reflection and learning. However, ToC is yet to be appropriately mainstreamed into development by donors, researchers and practitioners. We carried out a literature review, triangulated by interviews with 26 experts in African and Asian food security, consisting of researchers, advisors to programs, and donors. Although 17 (65%) of the experts had adopted ToC, their responses and the literature revealed four challenges to mainstreaming: (i) different interpretations of ToC; (ii) incoherence in relationships among the constituent concepts of ToC; (iii) confused relationships between ToC and project “logframes”; and (iv) limitations in necessary skills and commitment for enacting ToC. A case study of the evolution of a ToC in a West African AR4D project over 4u202fyears which exemplified these challenges is presented. Five recommendations arise to assist the mainstreaming of ToC: (i) select a type of ToC suited to the relative complexity of the problem and focal system of interest; (ii) state a theory or hypotheses to be tested as the intervention progresses; (iii) articulate the relationship between the ToC and parallel approaches (e.g. logframe); (iv) accept that a ToC is a process, and (v) allow time and resources for implementers and researchers to develop ToC thinking within projects. Finally, we suggest that communities of practice should be established among AR4D and donor organisations to test, evaluate and improve the contribution that ToCs can make to sustainable food security and agricultural development.n n

Innovation systems of the future: what sort of entrepreneurs do we need?

Agricultural innovation invariably involves a whole range of partnerships, alliances and network-like arrangements that connect together knowledge users, knowledge producers and others involved in enabling innovation in the market, policy and civil society arenas. There is now a very large conceptual and empirical literature that reveals agricultural innovation not as process of invention driven by research, but as a process of making novel use of ideas (old and new) with the specific intention of adding social, economic and/or environmental value (Juma, 2010).