Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T16:40:10.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ON-FARM TRIALS FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT? THE ORGANISATION OF RESEARCH AND THE SCALING OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2017

NINA DE ROO ,
JENS A. ANDERSSON  and
TIMOTHY J. KRUPNIK
NINA DE ROO*
Affiliation:
Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation, Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 88, 6700 AB Wageningen, The Netherlands
JENS A. ANDERSSON
Affiliation:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center – CIMMYT, and Knowledge, Technology and Innovation group, Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands
TIMOTHY J. KRUPNIK
Affiliation:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center – CIMMYT–Bangladesh. House 10/B, Road 53, Gulshan-2, Dhaka, 1213, Bangladesh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Changes in donor priorities have meant that agronomists working in the tropics find themselves in a fundamentally new operational space, one that demands rapid improvements in farmers' livelihoods resulting from the large-scale adoption of new technologies and crop management practices. As a result, on-farm trials in contemporary Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) are increasingly implemented both to collect data and to spur farmer adoption. We examine the different interpretations and organisational practices of AR4D organisations in this new operational space, and reflect on the usefulness of on-farm trials for agricultural technology scaling. Three case studies are presented to address these questions – two in sub-Saharan Africa and one in South Asia. Each study is considered in light of Science and Technology Studies theory and locates science as a politically situated practice, recognising the tension that scientists face between providing evidence and persuading selected audiences. The case studies show that this tension results in the introduction of several biases that limit the scalability of the technologies under investigation. These include biases at the level of the trial location, host-farmer selection, trial design, management and evaluation. We conclude by discussing how the contemporary political and institutional environment of AR4D produces project beneficiaries and research outcomes on selected farms, but not necessarily impacts at scale.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 55 , Special Issue 2: Themed Issue: Contested Agronomy , April 2019 , pp. 163 - 184
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andersson, J. A. and D'Souza, S. (2014). From adoption claims to understanding farmers and contexts: A literature review of conservation agriculture (CA) adoption among smallholder farmers in southern Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 187:116–132.Google Scholar
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P. and Pinch, T. J. (2012). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociological History of Technology. Anniversary Edition ed. 2012. London, England: MIT University Press.Google Scholar
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2016). Accessed online through [http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work]. Verified: 23 February, 2017.Google Scholar
CASCAPE (2012). CASCAPE Project Proposal, 2012, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
CASCAPE (2013a). CASCAPE Project Plan, 2013, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
CASCAPE (2013b). Annual Report 2012 (Addis Ababa University, Bahir Dar University, Hawassa University, Jimma University, Mekelle University, National Coordination Unit, Wageningen UR).Google Scholar
CASCAPE (2014). Annual Report 2013 (Addis Ababa University, Bahir Dar University, Hawassa University, Jimma University, Mekelle University, National Coordination Unit, Wageningen UR).Google Scholar
CASCAPE (2015). Annual Report 2014 (Addis Ababa University, Bahir Dar University, Hawassa University, Jimma University, Mekelle University, National Coordination Unit, Wageningen UR).Google Scholar
CGIAR (2016). CGIAR Strategy and Results Framework: Redefining how CGIAR does business until 2030. 48 Montpelier: CGIAR.Google Scholar
Cheesman, S., Andersson, J. A. and Frossard, E. (2017). Does closing knowledge gaps close yield gaps? On-farm conservation agriculture trials and adoption dynamics in three smallholder farming areas in Zimbabwe. Journal of Agricultural Science 155 (1):81–100. doi:10.1017/S0021859616000095.Google Scholar
Cheesman, S., Thierfelder, C., Eash, N. S., Kassie, G. and Frossard, E. (2016). Soil carbon stocks in conservation agriculture systems of Southern Africa. Soil and Tillage Research 156:99–109. doi:10.1016/j.still.2015.09.018.Google Scholar
CIAT (2001). Farmer Evaluations of Technology: Preference Ranking. Instructional Unit No.2. Guerrero, M. del P.; Ashby, J. A.; and Gracia, T. Cali, Colombia.Google Scholar
CIMMYT (1988). From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics Training Manual. Completely revised edition. Mexico. D.F.Google Scholar
Crane, T. A. (2014). Bringing science and technology studies into agricultural anthropology: technology development as cultural encounter between farmers and researchers. Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 36 (1):45–55.Google Scholar
Dekker, M. and Kinsey, , , B. H. (2011). Contextualizing Zimbabwe's land reform: long-term observations from the first generation. Journal of Peasant Studies 38:995–1019.Google Scholar
Franzel, S., Coe, R., Cooper, P., Place, F. and Scherr, S. J. (2001). Assessing the adoption potential of agroforestry practices in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Systems 69:37–62Google Scholar
Gauri, V. and Galef, J. (2005). NGOs in Bangladesh: Activities, resources, and governance. World Development 3312 (12):2045–2065.Google Scholar
Giller, K. E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M. and Tittonell, P. (2009). Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics’ view. Field Crops Research 114 (1):23–34.Google Scholar
Glover, D., Sumberg, J. and Andersson, J. A. (2016). The adoption problem; or why we still understand so little about technological change in African Agriculture. Outlook on Agriculture 45 (1):3–6.Google Scholar
Gooding, D., Pinch, T. and Schaffer, S. (eds) (1989). The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kiptot, E., Hebinck, P., Franzel, S. and Richards, P. (2007). Adopters, testers or pseudo-adopters? Dynamics of the use of improved tree fallows by farmers in western Kenya. Agricultural Systems 94 (2):509–519.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1988). The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Los Angeles, USA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Maat, H. and Glover, D. (2012). Alternative configurations of agronomic experimentation. In Contested Agronomy: Agricultural Research in a Changing World, 131--145 (Eds Sumberg, J. and Thompson, J.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
MOA, Bangladesh and FAO (2013). Master Plan for Agricultural Development in the Southern Region of Bangladesh. 104 Dhaka, Bangladesh: Ministry of Agriculture (MoA, Government of Bangladesh) and United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
MOA, Ethiopia (2014). National Strategy for Ethiopia's Agricultural Extension System, Vision, Systemic Bottlenecks and Priority Interventions, December 2014, Addis Ababa.Google Scholar
Ngwira, A. R., Johnsen, F. H., Aune, J. B., Mekuria, M. and Thierfelder, , C. (2014). Adoption and extent of conservation agriculture practices among smallholder farmers in Malawi. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69:107–119. doi:10.2489/jswc.69.2.107.Google Scholar
OECD (2016). Accessed online through [http://www.oecd.org/development/effectiveness/49652541.pdf].Google Scholar
Phiri, D., Franzel, S., Mafongoya, P., Jere, I., Katanga, R. and Phiri, S. (2004). Who is using the new technology? The association of wealth status and gender with the planting of improved tree fallows in Eastern Province, Zambia. Agricultural Systems 79 (2):131–144.Google Scholar
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observation. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Sumberg, J. and Thompson, J. (Eds.) (2012). Contested Agronomy: Agricultural Research in a Changing World. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thierfelder, C., Bunderson, W. T. and Mupangwa, W. (2015b). Evidence and lessons learned from long-term on-farm research on conservation agriculture systems in communities in Malawi and Zimbabwe. Environments 2:317–337. doi:10.3390/environments2030317.Google Scholar
Thierfelder, C., Matemba-Mutasa, R., Bunderson, T. W., Mutenje, M., Nyagumbo, I. and Mupangwa, W. (2016). Evaluating manual conservation agriculture systems in southern Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 222:112–224. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2016.02.009.Google Scholar
Thierfelder, C., Rusinamhodzi, L., Setimela, P., Walker, F. and Eash, N. S. (2015a). Conservation agriculture and drought-tolerant germplasm: Reaping the benefits of climate-smart agriculture technologies in central Mozambique. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems:1–15. doi:10.1017/S1742170515000332.Google Scholar
USAID (2016a). Data Release Terms in Informed Consent Clauses. Washington, DC: USAID. [https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/15396/USAID-Reference-on-Informed-Consent-2016-04-20.pdf]. Verified: 4 March, 2017.Google Scholar
USAID (2016b). Feed the Future Indicator Handbook Definition Sheets. Washington, DC: USAID.Google Scholar
van Donge, J. K. (2006). Ethnography and participant observation. In Doing Development Research, 180--189 (Eds Desai, V. and Potter, R.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
World Bank (2015). Data - Bangladesh South Asia. vol. 2015. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar