Science and Technology Mailing List Archive

["CONROY CZECH" <<address removed>>]

Dear colleagues

Andy Hall has made an extremely important contribution to the 
discussion in the issues he has raised about the nature of 
research and innovation processes. I agree with him that there is 
a need for more and stronger partnerships between 
organisations involved in both 'research' and 'development', 
from public and private sectors, civil society, etc - and between 
these organisations and the ultimate clients, the farmers. I also 
agree that the 'research' and 'development' are inextricably 
linked in effective innovation processes.

During the last 10-15 years the concepts of 'Participatory 
Technology Development' (PTD) and 'Participatory Innovation 
Development', and their application, have helped to move things 
forward in bringing together research and development. They 
have encouraged some development agencies and their field staff 
to recognise that they have a role in the technology development 
process, and that research is not the exclusive prerogative of the 
scientists working on the research stations. Donor thinking has 
also shifted - for example, a number of DFID-supported 
agriculture/watershed/rural livelihoods projects in India have a 
PTD component. Nevertheless, there is still a long way to go, 
and in my experience many development agency staff still see 
research and innovation as something that is done by others, and 
some people working on projects with PTD components (and 
probably in donor agencies too) are not too clear about what 
PTD means.


I believe that the kinds of institutional changes that Andy is 
saying are needed require major 'paradigm shifts' (or 
revolutions) for most, if not all, categories of stakeholders 
involved - changes in people's world views, attitudes and 
behaviour. As he says, "institutional development means new 
ways of doing things, new norms, new ways of deploying 
science, new ways of ensuring poor stakeholder needs are 
addressed" etc. Again, there may be lessons to learn here from 
the experience with "Participatory Rural Appraisal", where 
protagonists like Robert Chambers emphasized the importance 
of changes in the attitudes and behaviour of development 
practitioners and researchers.


Andy makes brief reference to the role of UK scientific 
organizations in the new scheme of things that he is advocating, 
which he sees primarily as gap-filling. If we define "UK scientific 
organisations" quite broadly as including sociologists, 
economists, anthropologists, public administration and 
communication specialists etc., then I would say their role is far 
broader than this. (At this point perhaps I should admit to being 
a socio-economist/agricultural economist.) I think they (we) have 
an important role to play in capacity development (at various 
levels) and facilitation of the revolution that is required. Indeed, 
we have been playing that kind of role to some extent in DFID's 
RNRKS programmes, but as it isn't 'research' it isn't always 
documented or recognised as a research activity or output. 


Although Andy is right to some extent in saying that DFID's 
RNRKS programmes "have their roots in the old technology 
transfer model", it is also important to recognise that they have 
been making positive steps to break free of that model. DFID 
research projects that I have been involved in, or am aware of, 
have recognised that there are "multiple sources of innovation", 
and have acted upon this and brought farmers and non-research 
organisations into the innovation process, and have tested 
technologies suggested by them. In doing so, they have 
contributed in various ways to the kinds of capacity 
development required to facilitate the new approach to 
innovation that Andy is advocating. (Dave Harris's contribution 
today described some DFID-funded research projects that have 
forged strong partnerships with DFID-supported development 
projects and developed and tested with farmers effective pro-
poor technologies.)


I have been involved in promoting participatory approaches to 
technology development with a major rural development NGO 
in India, funded by DFID's Livestock Production Programme. I 
was told by a vice-president of the organisation that he thought 
the main contribution of the project had been in the form of 
capacity development of the organisation's field staff, and in 'de-
mystifying' the concept of research, which previously the field 
staff  had seen as something that they did not do and could not 
do. One of the technologies tested by that project was the use of 
a local plant material to de-worm goats, which proved to be as 
effective as a commercial product. The idea for this technology, 
previously undocumented by formal science as far as I'm aware, 
originated from a caste of buffalo-keepers who use it. (This 
technology is now being tested in Uganda, in a project co-
funded by DFID's LPP.)


I think that British (and other foreign) social scientists also have a 
role to play (and already do so to some extent) in some 
countries in bridging the research and development gap (many 
have experience of both research and development), and in 
facilitating linkages and partnerships between different types of 
organisations, who otherwise might not think of working 
together. There is also a need for changes in the enabling 
environment to enable these kinds of partnerships to flourish. 
Andy himself has written about the need for changes in Indian 
public sector agricultural research institutes if they are to 
collaborate effectively with the private sector. Donors like DFID 
can lobby for such changes, but people like Andy - working 
with local counterparts - may be needed to contribute to 
identifying the barriers and the actions required to overcome 
them.


People involved in agricultural research and development in less 
developed countries often value foreigners as sources of 
international information about initiatives and experiences in 
other countries and geographical regions. Although ICTs are 
helping to make such information more internationally accessible, 
which should facilitate South to South information flow, it is still 
often the case that such information is more accessible to 
agricultural development professionals in the North. This is partly 
for technological reasons, and partly because such people often 
work in a variety of countries, thereby gaining a wider range of 
first-hand experience. (The de-worming technology mentioned 
earlier is an example of South to South information flow via the 
North.)

Valuable international information includes not only technical 
knowledge, but also approaches, methodologies etc., whose use 
requires capacity development of the intended users. 
Participatory rural appraisal and participatory technology 
development are examples, as are agro-ecosystem, stakeholder 
and gender analysis. In the past, foreign researchers, including 
many from the UK, have played a necessary role in developing 
the capacity of LDC professionals to apply these methods and 
approaches.

In all of these respects I think the UK 
scientific/research/development organisations can continue to 
make important and valuable contributions to agricultural 
innovation processes under the new paradigm. What is less clear 
is whether DFID will make available the funds required to 
enable them to do so. Its half-hearted attitude towards the 
contributions of agriculture and natural resources to development 
and poverty reduction (already highlighted in this electronic 
dialogue), and its apparent willingness to allow the national 
development-oriented scientific base to wither away (in contrast 
to the position taken by some European counterparts), suggest 
that it may not.



Czech Conroy
Reader in Rural Livelihoods
Livelihoods and Institutions Group 
Natural Resources Institute
University of Greenwich,
Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, Kent, ME4 4TB
United Kingdom
[Direct line: 44 1634 883057]
[Direct fax:  44 1634 883377]  

=============================================================
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>