|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
I have found the discussion so far very interesting. A few thoughts on priority-setting, extension and partnerships: 1)Priority-setting I'm not sure that the terms 'demand-led' and 'supply-led' quite capture the differences between the alternative approaches to research priority-setting outined by Dana Dalrymple and others. It is very rare for research to be 'supply-led', in the sense of driven purely by the intellectual curiosity of scientists. Equally, even in 'demand-led' science, it would seem unusual for a research process to be overwhelmingly controlled by an outside group. Perhaps the more important issue is which supplies and whose demands shape the research process. Supplies include knowledge (e.g. from UK research base, from CG system, from private companies, from farmers) and money. Researchers face many different demands, from their funders, from the market (particularly for intellectual property) and from stakeholders. Even in 'responsive mode' funding applications, where research is about as 'supply led' as it gets, the more successful research bids tend to be those that successfully second-guess the priorities of the grant-giving organisation. It seems crucial that, whatever the scale of research or priority-setting, the knowledge and the demands of the target group enter into the process. This does not mean that they determine the outcomes of that process. There are many examples of effective stakeholder engagement at the local scale in agricultural research. It seems difficult to scale-up this kind of engagement without relying on representatives of the stakeholders, who may not actually share their knowledge or experiences (e.g. as farmers) precisely because they are representatives. Yet it also appears to be essential, because nowhere are there more cautionary tales than in international development of information being lost in translation, coming back to strategic decision-makers from the field or up the chain of command. One priority might therefore be to develop more effective processes for capturing and acting upon the knowledge and demands of target groups, at the strategic level as well as at the scale of individual projects. To be successful, such processes would have to engage with the stakeholders intelligently (as in farmer field schools, for instance), rather than simply canvassing their opinions. 2) Extension I also think that the separation of research from extension may be counterproductive, though I'm aware that it is deeply cemented into policy and practice. The notion of extension rests on the assumption that research-users are not already engaged in the research process. As described above, I think there are good reasons why they should be. At the very least, it has the benefit of bringing the users along with research, and thereby increasing the likelihood of acceptance and implementation. Colin Poulton notes that the key to good extension is providing knowledge that farmers want - how better to achieve that than by involving them in deciding what to research? I am not suggesting that extension services should be cut back. Rather, research and research institutions should become more 'extended'. 3) Partnerships We've been asked to think about big issues for the future. One question arising from the two points above is whether the public-private research partnerships will make it easier or more difficult to engage farmers and local communities meaningfully in agricultural research. How are the demands of these users balanced with those of private companies, in instances when they do not simply match up? How do intellectual property rules shape supplies of knowledge and money into research partnerships? Does stakeholder enagement degenerate into market research, missing out the very poor who cannot afford to participate in that market? Kind regards Tom MacMillan --- Dr Tom MacMillan Food Ethics Council, 39-41 Surrey Street, Brighton BN1 3PB United Kingdom t: +44 (0) 1273 766 654 f: +44 (0) 1273 766 653 <mailto:<address removed>> <address removed> <http://www.foodethicscouncil.org/> www.foodethicscouncil.org -- This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged information. If you believe that you have received the message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. -- ============================================================= To send a reply to this message that goes to all list members, make sure that you send your reply to <address removed> To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to "<address removed>", with the message body: unsubscribe science-and-technology <your-email-address>
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.