Want to improve the impact of your research? Knowledge sharing tools can help!

Are you a researcher? Do you work in a research organisation, project or program? Are you looking for ways to better conduct your research for development, share knowledge, engage with stakeholders, and achieve impact?

To help answer those questions, visit ‘Improving impact through knowledge sharing in research‘ the newest context page to be recently added to the Knowledge Sharing Toolkit.  The new page offers people ideas, experiences and inspiration on recommended tools and methods to share knowledge during the research project cycle.

The Knowledge Sharing toolkit has consistently provided lots of information on tools and methods for knowledge sharing. However, it has been striving to make this information more relevant and accessible to people’s needs and situations.

To help its visitors even better find what they are looking for or figure out what they may need and could use- a ‘What is your context?’ page was also developed.

The new context page on knowledge sharing in research-‘Improving impact through knowledge sharing in research‘- takes people right into the research process with a basic diagram of the research cycle and its key stages.

These stages are presented as ‘entry points’ through which knowledge sharing approaches can be made use of to address certain shortcomings and limitations which traditional research may experience such as:

1. a lack of inclusion of priorities, needs and realities from the ground
2. inadequate use of other sources of knowledge in planning research
3. poor collaboration with stakeholders during research activities
4. limited understanding of how research results can most effectively be made use of
5. ineffective ways of getting knowledge to target groups
6. limited opportunities for learning within research process

To address these, the context page invites visitors to consider which stage of research they are in- and asking a key question related to improving that stage. The page then provides a list of suggested methods- both Online tools and Methods as well as Other Knowledge sharing Tools and Methods- to try out. These tools and methods are linked to other pages within the toolkit. Tags of related topics are also provided.

Example:

Stage 1: Identifying research (questions) to undertake

• How can we share knowledge, methods, experiences and ideas to help identify research questions or concepts which are necessary and will provide knowledge and solutions which will have an impact?
  Online Tools and Methods: Online Collaboration Platforms, Online Surveys, Wikis, Blogs, RSS, Discussion Forums
  Other Knowledge Sharing Tools and Methods: Impact Pathway approach, Outcome Mapping, Learning Alliances, Visioning
  Tags: relationship, collaboration, inclusion, prioritization, knowledge sharing, demand

This information has come out of the resources collected, knowledge generated and experiences of the recently concluded two-year CGIAR ICT-KM Program’s Knowledge Sharing in Research project (2007-2009). The framework on which this context page is based was developed and tested particularly through 6 Pilot Projects.

These Pilot Projects are all projects of CGIAR Centres or System-wide or Challenge Programs which proposed to pilot the use of various knowledge sharing approaches and principles in their activities. This included:

• The facilitation of sharing of methods and experiences for research prioritisation assessment which was developed into a book-lead by a CIFOR scientist

• The convening of a Farmers’ Conference to bring out the knowledge, experiences and needs of farmers to help in planning of activities of the Participatory Plant Breeding department at ICARDA

• The use of a learning alliance approach by the IWMI WASPA project to bring together relevant stakeholders to link research to action

• Another IWMI Pilot Project-working across a number of wastewater projects, made use of World Cafes, radio programs, and flip charts to figure out with target stakeholders what messages would work to promote adoption of better practices in wastewater irrigation

• The IRRI-lead Pilot Project worked with key stakeholders to understand how to write and package research results from projects working on rice in the Northern uplands of Laos, and created factsheets which were uploaded into the Laos Rice Knowledge Bank (online tool)

• The use of outcome mapping and most significant change approaches to increase the knowledge sharing and learning together with stakeholders as part of monitoring and evaluation activities by a fish culture project of WorldFish

The selection of tools for each of the stages of the research cycle is based on the results and experiences of these 6 Pilot Projects as well as other projects and other documented cases. Documentation of the Knowledge Sharing in Research project, its pilot projects and other activities  can be found on the Documentation and Outputs page of the KSinR website section.

But this is not a blue print approach and each research project needs to find what fits with its own context, needs and objectives–the tools presented in this context page are just some suggestions to help.

If you have also used knowledge sharing approaches in your research let us know what you have done and how it worked. If you try any of these suggested approaches out, also let us know how it worked. You make contributions to the Knowledge Sharing Toolkit to keep it a living and dynamic resource by signing up and adding your methods, ideas and experiences.

 

More ‘impactful’ agricultural science and innovation by investing in ‘ICTs’

this is one of the conclusions of the workshop on ICTs held in Wageningen during the Science Forum.

Some 50 people participated in the event, organized quite differently from the other workshops at the Forum.

Short presentations followed by ” Buzz groups” gave an opportunity to hear “sound bytes” of many different perspectives, followed by a now true and tested World Cafe…. where participants discussed how ICTs, in the braod sense, to include not only technologies, but communication practices, information management, collaboration…. can help improve the way we do research

To set the scene, a Background Paper was written by Ajit Maru, GFAR, Enrica Porcari, CGIAR and Peter Ballantyne, IAALD.

The paper and the workshop argued that the processes by which knowledge, information and data are

generated and shared are being transformed and reinvented – especially enabled by ongoing

developments in the area of information and communication technologies (ICTs) – and that

these transformations provide massive opportunities for the entire Agricultural Research for

Development (ARD) community to truly mobilize and apply global scientific knowledge, in

ways that are hardly yet appreciated.

Catching and successfully harnessing these ‘trends’, ‘waves’ requires strategic investments in

capacities, bandwidth and infrastructure, skills, tools and applications, and the adoption of

an ‘open innovation’ mindset that breaks barriers, links data and knowledge, and guarantees

the public accessibility of goods generated and captured through science.

What are some of the trends and changes we can expect in the coming years?

• Increasingly ‘ubiquitous’ connectivity along value chains – We will all make use of

a range of devices and platforms to access and share knowledge: From the web to

phones, radio, video and text messaging. Most scientists will work in knowledge-rich

environments; farming communities, probably using different devices, will be far

more connected than at present. Multiple connectivity paths widen the potential

reach of science. We also argued this in our other paper XXXX

• Increasingly ‘precise’ applications and tools – ICTs and digital signatures or labels

of various types will be used to track products from producer to consumer; to

monitor local soil, weather and market conditions; to tailor data and information

services to the demands of a specific audience or individuals. Applications will come

in many shapes and sizes, to suit even the most specialized needs.

• Increasingly ‘accessible’ data and information – Vast quantities of public data and

information held by institutions and individuals will become visible and re-usable at

the click of a device. More intermediary skills and applications will be needed to help

harvest, make sense of, and add value to these layers of data and information.

• Increasingly ‘diverse’ set of applications available across digital clouds – The

digital ‘identities’ of scientists and their collaborators will give them access to a wide

range of online tools and applications, accessible from any location and across

different devices, enabling collaboration across boundaries as never before. Local

firewalls and server configurations conditions will not restrict global sharing.

• Increasingly ‘inter-connected’ tools and knowledge bases – Different communities

and their knowledge will be able to connect and share with each other, along the

research cycle and across disciplines, including people with different engagement in

science such as farmers, traders, politicians. A whole new breed of products and

services will emerge to inter-connect and re-present diverse knowledge.

In general, the most significant impact of ICTs on agricultural technology generation will be

in connecting and engaging communities in participatory agricultural innovation. Science

will be able to come out of its ‘silos.’ New agricultural processes and technologies to solve

agricultural problems will emerge through continuous innovation with user communities,

thus eliminating many of the constraints that agricultural science, research and technology

generation now face. The need for conventional extension from research stations to farmers’

fields will diminish.

Agricultural innovations will best fit the needs of user communities.

What are some of the changes needed to move in these directions? These include:

1. Improve communications infrastructure and bandwidth, investing in lower-cost

hardware, software and applications that connect science right along the

development chain.

2. Increase and improve formal education and training in information and

communication sciences that contributes to innovation in the use of new ICTs in

agriculture.

3. Extend the generation and dissemination of data and information content as a ‘public

good’ that is widely accessible and is licensed to be easily re-used and applied.

4. Support applications that integrate data and information or foster the interoperability

of applications and information systems, allowing safe and ethical access while

protecting necessary rights.

5. Encourage the effective uptake and use of data, information and knowledge,

particularly focusing on capacity building dimensions necessary for the outputs of

science to have impacts.

6. Support innovation in the workflows, processes and tools used to create, share,

publish, visualize, and connect the outputs of agricultural science and the people

engaged in it.

But what are the issues?

Intellectual Property Rights, data security, privacy

Potential for further marginalisation of some actors

Coherence and interoperability of data/information & quality control

Fragility of human and institutional capacities

Language and literacy

Discovery of relevant information and putting it into use

Balancing competing demands and policy directions

Incentive structures and benefits

My main take home message: ICTs are now in the front front, given a legitimate seat in the research agenda,

as enablers of a more effective way of doing things, or as Prof. Adel El Betagy, Chair of GFAR put it ” indispensable tools”

, he threw a challenge to the CGIAR to take this opportunity and to take it now!

this is one of the conclusions of the workshop on ICTs held in Wageningen during the Science Forum.

Some 50 people participated in the event, organized quite differently from the other workshops at the Forum.

Short presentations followed by ” Buzz groups” gave an opportunity to hear “sound bytes” of many different perspectives, followed by a now true and tested World Cafe…. where participants discussed how ICTs, in the broad sense, to include not only technologies, but communication practices, information management, collaboration…. can help improve the way we do research.

To set the scene, a Background Paper on the role of ICTs as ways to mobilize and transform agricultural scince for development was written by Ajit Maru, GFAR, Enrica Porcari, CGIAR and Peter Ballantyne, IAALD.

The paper and the workshop argued that the processes by which knowledge, information and data are generated and shared are being transformed and reinvented – especially enabled by ongoing developments in the area of information and communication technologies (ICTs) – and that these transformations provide massive opportunities for the entire Agricultural Research for Development (ARD) community to truly mobilize and apply global scientific knowledge, in ways that are hardly yet appreciated.

Catching and successfully harnessing these ‘trends’, ‘waves’ requires strategic investments in capacities, bandwidth and infrastructure, skills, tools and applications, and the adoption of an ‘open innovation’ mindset that breaks barriers, links data and knowledge, and guarantees the public accessibility of goods generated and captured through science.

What are some of the trends and changes we can expect in the coming years?

• Increasingly ‘ubiquitous’ connectivity along value chains – We will all make use of a range of devices and platforms to access and share knowledge: From the web to phones, radio, video and text messaging. Most scientists will work in knowledge-rich environments; farming communities, probably using different devices, will be far more connected than at present. Multiple connectivity paths widen the potential reach of science.

• Increasingly ‘precise’ applications and tools – ICTs and digital signatures or labels of various types will be used to track products from producer to consumer; tomonitor local soil, weather and market conditions; to tailor data and information services to the demands of a specific audience or individuals. Applications will come in many shapes and sizes, to suit even the most specialized needs.

• Increasingly ‘accessible’ data and information – Vast quantities of public data and information held by institutions and individuals will become visible and re-usable at the click of a device. More intermediary skills and applications will be needed to help harvest, make sense of, and add value to these layers of data and information.

• Increasingly ‘diverse’ set of applications available across digital clouds – The digital ‘identities’ of scientists and their collaborators will give them access to a wide range of online tools and applications, accessible from any location and across different devices, enabling collaboration across boundaries as never before. Local firewalls and server configurations conditions will not restrict global sharing.

• Increasingly ‘inter-connected’ tools and knowledge bases – Different communities and their knowledge will be able to connect and share with each other, along the research cycle and across disciplines, including people with different engagement in science such as farmers, traders, politicians. A whole new breed of products and services will emerge to inter-connect and re-present diverse knowledge.

Enrica Porcari argues “Major changes are in progress in Internet-based computing, these will continue for years to come-  from the spread of public wireless data networks, which enable gathering data from sensors and distributing information to rural farmers to the emergence of “cloud computing”, which enables inexpensive processing of massive datasets by any Internet user, lowering the institutional capacity required to participate in research, the potentials for agriculture and agricultural research in developing countries are aplenty.  We have an opportunity here to act now to accelerate the adoption of these changes in agriculture research”.

In general, the most significant impact of ICTs on agricultural technology generation will be in connecting and engaging communities in participatory agricultural innovation. Science will be able to come out of its ‘silos.’ New agricultural processes and technologies to solve agricultural problems will emerge through continuous innovation with user communities, thus eliminating many of the constraints that agricultural science, research and technology generation now face. The need for conventional extension from research stations to farmers’ fields will diminish.

What are some of the changes needed to move in these directions? These include:

1. Improve communications infrastructure and bandwidth, investing in lower-cost hardware, software and applications that connect science right along the development chain.

2. Increase and improve formal education and training in information and communication sciences that contributes to innovation in the use of new ICTs in agriculture.

3. Extend the generation and dissemination of data and information content as a ‘public good’ that is widely accessible and is licensed to be easily re-used and applied.

4. Support applications that integrate data and information or foster the interoperability of applications and information systems, allowing safe and ethical access while protecting necessary rights.

5. Encourage the effective uptake and use of data, information and knowledge, particularly focusing on capacity building dimensions necessary for the outputs of science to have impacts.

6. Support innovation in the workflows, processes and tools used to create, share, publish, visualize, and connect the outputs of agricultural science and the people engaged in it.

But what are the issues these innovations pose?

• Intellectual Property Rights, data security, privacy
• Potential for further marginalisation of some actors
• Coherence and interoperability of data/information & quality control
• Fragility of human and institutional capacities
• Language and literacy
• Discovery of relevant information and putting it into use
• Balancing competing demands and policy directions
• Incentive structures and benefits

Enrica continues ” My main take home message from the workshop: ICTs are now in the front front, given a legitimate seat in the research agenda,  as enablers of a more effective way of doing things, or as Prof. Adel El Betagy, Chair of GFAR put it ” they are indispensable tools”. He threw a challenge to the CGIAR to take this opportunity and to take it now! Up to us now!”

 

Knowledge Sharing in Research Project and Pilots featured in latest GFAR newsletter

The latest newsletter of GFAR features an article about the ICT-KM Program’s Knowledge Sharing in Research project and its Pilot Projects. See links and article below.

See: GFAR Newsletter

See: article on KSinR project and Pilots

The CGIAR: learning how to improve its research effectiveness and impact through knowledge sharing

The CGIAR Centres and Programs together with their many partners, are creating a wealth of knowledge that is aimed at helping to increase productivity within agriculture and improve livelihoods of people, primarily in developing countries. While all players are doing much to ensure that this knowledge is widely shared and applied, certain obstacles to the uptake, use and impact of this wealth of knowledge continue to exist. One of the missing elements between knowledge generation and the application of such knowledge is knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing involves learning from stakeholders what knowledge gaps exist and what is needed to close these gaps; increasing collaboration and interaction of all actors throughout knowledge generation processes; and finding more effective ways of delivering knowledge in a manner appropriate to the particular target groups whose decision-making and actions we seek to influence and support. This requires better understanding and support of new knowledge systems, knowledge sharing approaches, and innovation mechanisms.
To address this, the CGIAR through its system-wide program on Information Communication Technology and Knowledge Management (ICT-KM) initiated a two-year project starting in 2007 entitled ‘Improving the effectiveness of the CGIAR through knowledge sharing’ with a major component focused on Knowledge Sharing in Research (KSinR). The goal of the KSinR Project is to help improve the effectiveness and impact of CGIAR research through providing options and lessons around good practices of knowledge sharing in research.
KSinR’s main learning vehicle is six on-going CGIAR research projects which are using knowledge sharing approaches integrated into various stages of the research process, representing a new way of doing research aimed at greater impact. This includes the use of a multi-stakeholder framework for conducting research as being tried by IWMI through its use of the Learning Alliance approach in the ‘Wastewater , Agriculture and Sanitation for Poverty alleviation’ (WASPA) project aimed at improving coordination amongst stakeholders and getting research into use. This project is also developing a process mentoring method to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the Learning Alliance approach. The ICARDA Farmers’ Conference project is providing lessons on mechanisms for sharing knowledge with and learning from farmers to help with better design and carrying out of plant breeding research. The CIFOR Pilot is exploring better ways to share research priority assessment methodologies and the experiences around using them, as this is an important tool in figuring out those areas and types of research which can provide the greatest impact. The IWMI Wastewater project is testing various dissemination methods to improve uptake and use of research results.
This includes use of radio programs, training videos, contribution to curricula, and flip charts with printed messages and visuals to get across good practices in using wastewater.
Similarly the IRRI-lead Pilot is also exploring innovative dissemination methods through the development of the Laos Rice Knowledge Bank (LRKB) as a mechanism to make research accessible for extension agents to use with farmers.
Information packets based on research identified by a variety of stakeholders are being developed in appropriate formats to be included in the LRKB. The WorldFish Centre Pilot Project is also trying out participatory monitoring and evaluation, as well as impact assessment methodologies with the aim of learning together with stakeholders throughout the research process, and gaining their perspective on progress and impact.
Synthesis of the results across KSinR and all of its Pilot Projects and other activities will be documented in a variety of media including the KS website (www.ks-cgiar.org), the KSinR blog, and through the development of practical how-to documents to be made widely available and presented at upcoming CGIAR and other fora.

Contact person:
Nadia Manning-Thomas, KSinR Project Leader, n.manning@cgiar.org
IWMI Nile Basin and East Africa office, ILRI Campus, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

 

Show me the impact: Are we ready for “Outcome Contracting”?

In September 2007, together with Frank Rijsberman, then Director General of the International Water Management Institute, Sanjini de Silva then Deputy Head of IWMI’s Information and Knowledge group, I co-authored the paper “Outcome Contracting: Show me the impact!”, a thinkpiece on how to be relevant and effective and not just a “drop in a bucket!”

I found the principles and ideas presented in that paper still extremely relevant if I look at the current reform efforts of the CGIAR and Agriculture Research in general, at the AAA framework that we are advocating, and our work on Public International Goods. So here is the paper again – good food for thought.

Let’s look at what it is all about: Scientific research has historically been assessed by the level of citations a publication or researcher has – the more the better being the mantra. The reasoning being that the “credible” researcher (or significant work) would automatically lead to citations or popularity: the more “credible” leading to more citations. Problems with this model are quite obvious, as it leads to a “publish or perish” mentality and encourages “popular” or trendy research. In addition, frequently cited publications are, at times, cited for their controversial nature, and not necessarily for their significance or impact in terms of research. But what does that mean for agricultural research? I am not arguing peer-review processes are to be discarded. They are important to ensure the scientific excellence of our work. But my argument: they are not sufficient.

The final product of agricultural research should, at the end of the day, have a measurable positive impact on the lives of the poor. If that is taken as a given, then we must reconsider our current evaluation models for agricultural scientific research. Various other strategies have been considered to address some of the shortcomings of the “publish or perish” model. However, most of these strategies aim to include the end-users either in the developing of the project or in training at the tail end of the project.

Is this enough? Is there not a better way to measure impact? How can we better link outputs to results? What about accountability?

The basis of the proposed “Outcome Contracting” model is accountability, both in terms of project design and funding. If the primary goal of our work and research is poverty reduction, should we not be held accountable for it? In the new model, researchers, along with the end users, partners etc, identify the impact pathway of any particular project, and decide up to which point the project can be held responsible. Accountability is established and funding, or partial funding, is awarded upon achieving the intended goal.

Can such an inclusive model be adopted in our new environment? How would that affect our current approach to research? And the funding?
Last week I participated in a workshop on “Data for decision making” hosted by the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation where I was quite inspired by how the funder was showing direct interest in understanding the factors that affect a project, and work together to find ways to mitigate any negative impact. Real interest was shown on the “impact” rather than just the “outputs”. More on that in a later post.

More work on this new inclusive model to reserach has been carried out by our Knowledge Sharing in Research Project.

 

Science Commons, Seed Hunter, CGIAR change management: made my MUST WATCH list!

1) Compelling!  http://sciencecommons.org/about/science-commons-dylan-video/

Watch how creative commons philosophy applies to science.

Thanks Simone for the link!

2) “Seed Hunter” was shown recently on Australian TV regarding ICARDA’s Ken Street’s search for landraces in Tajikistan.

The underlying themes: why crop genetic resource conservation is  important particulary in the context of climate change, inadequate research budgets, gene discovery, how aid agencies have played a role disseminating modern varieties and the unintended consequences of  that on diversity, how remote communities are most likely to be 
custodians of landraces, etc. The full programme is 55 minutes long but can be viewed in 3 parts. 
It is well worth watching, if you are interested in knowing to how to make such research accessible and interesting to a wide audience.

3) In an attempt to help people understand why and how the CGIAR is changing, the Knolwdge Sharing Project of the ICT-KM program produced this short video. A must watch!

 

KSinR framework presented at IWMI’s Annual Research Meeting 08

At the recent Annual Research meeting of the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), the KSinR Project leader- Nadia Manning-Thomas, was asked to develop, together with the Communications Director and Director for Impact, a session on “Creating a Culture of Impact”.

The two hour session started with an introduction about ‘WHY?’ we need to think about impact more systematically within the institute and the changes it may require in the ‘way we do business’. Following on from this was a presentation on the Impact Pathways approach as a framework for planning, tracking and evaluating impact- given by Nadia Manning-Thomas. The presentation introduced the four main stages in the impact pathway:

1. Developing a logic model to make explicit the goal being worked towards and the causal links to achieving this
2. Identification of key actors, what relationships and activities they currently have and what is needed for the future. In this case it is also good to further identify those Boundary Partners which a project/program can most realistically work with and influence, and can take project results forward.
3. Development of key strategies to be undertaken by the Institute/project/program to bring about the necessary changes using project results and outputs. This helps tie the project activities to the final goal.
4. How to monitor and evaluate all of this

The next part of the session consisted of three ‘stations’ in the conference room which everyone was expected to visit for a 20 minute session. The stations, representing some key strategies or frameworks were:

1. Knowledge Sharing in Research: ideas, experiences, lessons–Nadia Manning-Thomas

2. Uptake Strategy–Joanna Kane-Potaka

3. Outreach strategy designed for a a specific project being proposed–Meredith Giordano

These stations elicited so much discussion that groups were only able to make it to two stations before it was time to return to plenary for a quick discussion, before breaking for lunch, on:

* How to operationalise this at IWMI?

*What strategies can we use at IWMI in our projects?

*How can we do this?

The whole session was very interesting and filled with lively discussion. The overall result was that most people now seem to accept and believe in the fact that we should be doing things differently to achieve imapct and need to learn to think and act differently, making us of new tools and approaches. The big question that then came up was ” How do we do it?”. There is now a need to bring in information, experiences, guidance, training etc to make this a reality at IWMI.

 

Many resources from ‘Maximising impact of agricultural research in Africa: a workshop on research communication” now becoming available-check them out

At the recently held “Maxmising the impact of agricultural research in Africa: A workshop on research communication” in Addis in October, a number of ways of capturing, documenting and sharing the workshop were carried out. These are becoming available though a number of different channels–read on for ways to find these resources.

Peter Ballantyne, President of the International Association of Agricultural Information Specialist (IAALD), was not only a participant at the recently held “Maximising the impact of agricultural research in Africa: A Workshop on research communication” but played an active role in documenting the workshop through blog posts as well as blips (small video clips) of interviews with various organisers and participants in the workshop.

You might be interested to see some of the material from the workshop at:

• IAALD blog: http://iaald.blogspot.com/search/label/commpact
• Euforic blog: http://euforic.blogspot.com/search/label/commpact

These comprise a series of short blog stories with links to some short video interviews taken by Peter in Addis.
Everything is listed from this page: http://iaald.blogspot.com/2008/10/stories-from-addis-research.html

Additionally, I-Nadia took hundreds of photos to document and share with you what was going on at the workshop and who was there. The photos are available online using the Flickr account of the KS project at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8764209@N07/sets/72157608287846090/

Furthermore GDN has been updating a few sections on the workshop briefing page on the GDNet website (http://www.gdnet.org/middle.php?oid=1492 ) and added the workshop agenda online with links to all material shared at the workshop (http://www.gdnet.org/middle.php?oid=1564 )

 

CGIAR voices amongst ‘Points of view on Agricultural research and development – which way now?’ in New Agriculturalist magazine

In the recent edition of the New Agriculturalist Magazine (October 2008) is an interesting article on ‘Points of View: Agricultural research and development- which way now?” presenting a selection of viewpoints from some of those researchers, practitioners, private sector and farmer representatives, and those from international and donor organizations who met in December at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), UK, to reflect, review and propose ideas to improve research and development in agriculture. Amongst these points of view presented are some from researchers of the CGIAR and many partners and stakeholders of CGIAR research.

According to the article “There was a general consensus that farmers and farming systems are changing and that there is an urgent need for changes in approach if more effective agricultural development is to be achieved“.

See below for some of the points of view presented. This is also something that the Knowledge Sharing in Research project is also working on (see KSinR article in New Agriculturalist-Sept edition)…

…but what is YOUR ‘Point of View’?

Share it with us!

“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`

To achieve greater progress we need to learn from what has worked and what has not worked in terms of farmer participatory research, and to mainstream involvement and give farmers, consumers and others more of a say in what research is undertaken. Researchers need to be asking themselves how they can be much more effective in working with farmers, national governments, consumers and the private sector to develop better technologies and better policies.
David Howlett, Central Research Department, UK Department for International Development (DFID)

I think one of the key elements is to come up with mechanisms that help to bring farmer knowledge and scientific knowledge together in such a way that it becomes accessible to a wide range of end-users and intermediary users or service providers.
Paul Van Mele, Africa Rice Center (WARDA)

Too much emphasis on methods and techniques, I believe, takes us away from the central principle: how do we learn from farmers? How do we enrich our understanding and build bridges between formal and informal science? I also think the time has come to move on from thinking of just farmers. Why not labourers, too? If the workers are better informed they can carry knowledge to many farms.
Anil Gupta, Indian Institute of Management

Do we want innovation or innovative people? One farmer in Sri Lanka trained 4000 other farmers at his own expense. What he did was more persuasive than ten published articles in journals. Many farmers are better educated and many have increased their commitment to farming. On the other hand, young people are deserting agriculture. Alongside these demographic and cultural changes we see a blurring of roles in agricultural research. It’s no longer that farmers do this and researchers’ role is to do that: I think extensionists, farmers and researchers can all become very good friends in the process and are more likely to be productive, and have impact if we break down the mental stereotypes of each other.
Norman Uphoff, Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development

A basic characteristic of man is that we tend to accept the status quo and what is familiar rather than go for the challenge of change. Take scientists, they dwell on talking about concepts without wanting to really get to grips with change itself. What I believe is that in order to bring about change we have to change ourselves so that we will be able to reflect on our methodology and respond to the challenges of poverty, climate change and so on.
Adewale Adekunde, Sub-Saharan African Challenge Program, Forum for Agricultural Research for Africa (FARA)

There are a lot of actors in this. Researchers are one part of it, so are national governments, civil society, donor governments and of course the private sector. We do not expect researchers to achieve everything on their own. That will not make sense.
David Howlett, DFID, UK

Farmers and researchers are just two groups within a wider network of players that are required to bring innovation about. And I think one of our challenges really is to take away some of the emphasis on researchers and indeed on farmers and to look at the wider set of players that are required to make change happen.
Andy Hall, Merit Centre, United Nations University (UNU-Merit)

I feel it is wrong to think that innovations belong to the research sector. I think innovations are more likely to be nurtured by the development sector because innovations are supposed to be solutions to problems and so they emerge from the experiences of users testing ideas. Innovation is not something that can be anticipated, researched into. Innovation emerges.
Michael Kibue, Kikasha, Livestock (Beef) Association, Kenya

How do we ensure that there is a level playing field for different kinds of knowledge? Where is the forum where farmers, NGOs and even formal scientists can talk on equal terms? Knowledge dialogue is what I would like to see more effort going towards because, unless we identify and address the different hierarchies of power, then we will just strengthen all the existing asymmetries or inequalities in the system.
Shambu Prasad, Xavier Institute of Management, India

I think one of the areas that we certainly need to strengthen as we look at innovation systems is the whole area of farmer organisations and what role these can play in defining the research agenda.
Jemima Njuki, International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)

How is the farmer going to really be an initiator rather than just a passive participant in participatory research? I want to discover and share ways of how we have empowered farmers, emancipated farmers, involved farmers, who really can participate in the process.
Lucy Mwangi, Kenya National Federation of Agricultural Producers (KENFAP)

To address problems on-farm we also have to look beyond the farming systems. Farmers and farming are influenced by many factors in the wider economic and political environment. So we are looking for innovative systems that really can address the issues in their complexity, but it all boils down to bringing farmers benefits in the way they relate to the world and to the regional and local markets that they are dealing with.
Julieta Rao, UPWARD Network, Philippines

What I would like to see is people reflecting on themselves, being aware of their own mindsets, being aware of what they see, what they don’t see, what they tend to prioritise and what they tend to push to one side. If that was a quality in the agricultural scientists and extensionists of the future, and if it was a quality in the managers and administrators and policymakers who are responsible for agricultural policy, then I think we could have a major transformation in the next 20 years.
Robert Chambers, Institute of Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex, UK

There are hundreds or thousands of wonderful experiments going on at village level but that is not fully reflected in the mainstream of education, it is not reflected in the mainstream of institutions, of development agencies of DFID or FAO or World Bank. That is quite a challenge. Farmer champions have to speak up to convince policymakers and leaders, those who develop curricula in universities and ministers of agriculture who establish the policies within which research and development can work in a participatory way. But if we could get through to these I think we would be much happier. Maybe that could be the target for the next 20 years.

John Dixon, International Wheat and Maize Improvement Center (CIMMYT)

We need to change our way of doing things, our attitudes. We have to give a chance to the pastoralists or to the people directly to talk about themselves. Instead of us directing and dictating to them what to do, they should tell us what they need us to do. That approach should be the way forward to help to improve their lives and living conditions.
Dawit Abebe, Feinstein International Center, Tufts University, USA

The real challenge is how do we scale this out? How do we get, for example, national research programmes to use some of these innovations systems approaches? In some countries we are still seeing very top down approaches that, although they can work for certain purposes, we know are not empowering enough in terms of getting farmers out of poverty. We really need strategies of how to scale out these processes and how to institutionalise them, especially national programmes.
Jemima Njuki, CIAT

I would like to see a consensus on how to modify our approaches so that we can multiply our impact. No single person can finish the work in Africa – we have to work together. But if we continue to talk theoretically we may not be able to achieve this.
Adewale Adekunde, FARA

 

Moving from research generation (only) to dissemination, adaptation and utilization: the call from the Innovation Systems Perspective

Yesterday I attended seminar on ILRI Addis campus given by two senior researchers: Berhanu and Ananda- on the topic of how to integrate Value Chain Analysis and Agricultural Innovation Systems approaches in order to move forward and achieve an agenda for research for development. This was an interesting seminar which sparked many questions and discussions between the presenters and the many CGIAR staff members present.

Of interest to the Knowledge Sharing in Research project was the highlighting of one of the main differences in the innovation systems perspective as compared to earlier theories and approaches to research.

As the presenters pointed out, the main thrust for research has always been knowledge creation and generation- which they entitled INVENTION–coming up with solutions.

However much knowledge (and technology) has been created by various types of research systems over the years which has never been adopted or used and remains ‘sitting on the shelf’. The presenters indicated that this is because research just stops at the point of knowledge creation without considering ‘who will use this?”, “how will/can it be applied?”

But INNOVATIONS or changes, as different from an INVENTION, only happen when knowledge and technology is used or applied to achieve social and economic benefit. It has therefore been recognised that knowledge is only one component necessary for bringing about an innovation as the ultimate goal, and that interaction and learning amongst a number of key actors is also required.

The presenters highlighted that “there is a need to think about who is going to use the knowledge and technology being created and plan how this will happen. It is necessary to bring the relevant actors in at various stages of the knowledge creation process, right from design stage, in order to facilitate the adoption and use of such knowledge after it has been created.”

While many agree with the theoretical and intellectual underpinnings to this framework and agree with the propositions it makes, there is still a looming question about how this new type of approach can be operationalised.

“What does it actually look like?” asked one person attending the seminar, “What activities does it include? how can I realistically introduce it and use it in my research program?”.

The practical approaches to how to collaborate, learn together, and share knowledge with various actors is what is missing from this still conceptual discussion.

Quite often the innovation systems approach seems to be quite big, all-encompassing–leading to failure from trying to make such a big leap. One reason for failure to adopt or successfully use an Innovation Systems approach in agricultural research may be because it requires such big changes in approach that research organizations are unable to support due to lack of skills to carry it out, it being heavily time-consuming and expensive, it is a complex approach, and it involves many more activities than research organisations can or feel that they should be carrying out themselves.

What the Knowledge Sharing in Research project brings to this particular table is a set of options for how to undertake activities to achieve such objectives put forward for necessary improvements in research processes to enable it to contribute more to development outcomes. These may be small-scale approaches or frameworks which can be integrated into the research process/cycle itself to improve it along the lines which the Innovation Systems calls for. These are innovations at various stages in the research process which help us to improve our imapct by making efforts to complete the chain of effective knowledge generation, dissemination, adaptation and utilization.

Examples include–

To IDENTIFY RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND PLAN RESEARCH TOGETHER:

*Use the Participatory Action Plan approach from IWMI WASPA LA

*Host an event in which stakeholders present their issues, knowledge, experiences and ideas–see ICARDA’ s Farmers’ Conference

*Try one of the methodologies from CIFOR’s collection of priority assessment methods–and learn from the experiences shared by the authors from various CGIAR Centres and partners

To COLLABORATE with stakeholders:

*Try using a Learning Alliance approach to bring stakeholders together to discuss issues, ideas, solutions and actions as done in the IWMI WASPA Pilot project

To LEARN together with stakeholders:

*Try some alternative, participatory monitoring evaluation and imapct assessment approaches which involve stakeholders in the process and focus on additional aspects of behavioral change, network relationships and stakeholder needs and perspectives, such as Outcome Mapping and Most Significant Change–like the WorldFish Pilot is trying–and perhaps develop an approach which fits your own project context and needs.

*Develop and use a process monitoring method to monitor and evaluate the process your project is using together with stakeholders to understand their perspective and the impact of the approach–see IWMI WASPA LA

To get research-generated knowledge out to target groups in more, appropriate ways, like:

*Using radio programs in local languages including presentation of information and a panel of experts for people to call-in to ask questions to-as being tried by IWMI Wastewater project

*Developing information packets of knowledge and technologies from various research projects and storing them in a database for access and use by extension agents and academics–like in the IRRI lead pilot project

*Developing awareness videos about key messages coming out of research projects to be shown at various events and opportunities. Videos can be tailored particularly to target groups. See those developed by IWMI Wastewater pilot project

..and more options and examples!

Perhaps we can still achieve the same objectives and reach the same end goal called for in the Innovation Systems movement but by integrating some (small) approaches which are manageable into our research process to make step-wise changes and improvements rather than having to make big leaps which cannot be easily supported.

This in itself can be an innovation for our own research for development processes.

For information on (agricultural) innovation systems:

-see presentation

-read paper: ‘Enhancing agricultural innovation systems” by WorldBank

-read ‘Challenges to strengthening agricultural innovation systems: Where do we go from here’ paper by Andy Hall, 2007

 

WorldFish KSinR Pilot Project ‘re-thinks impact’-based on initial use of KS tools for M&E

Natasja Sheriff, Project Leader of the WorldFish KSinR Pilot Project, together with Tonya Schuetz (IWMI)-who helped facilitate the WorldFish Pilot’s training workshop, wrote and submitted a paper for the workshop ‘Rethinking impact: Understanding the Complexity of Poverty and Change‘ which was convened in Cali, Colombia 26-29 March 2008.

The paper, entitled “Monitoring for change, assessing for impact: the WorldFish center experience” can be viewed from the following link- paper. This paper was based on the experience gained from the initial introduction to and use by the Project of Outcome Mapping and Most Significnat Change-the workshop which was described in a previous bog post.

According to the paper “like many CG centers, a traditional emphasis on the development and dissemination of new technolgies has shaped impact assessment within the WorldFish center” and ” assessing the impact of projects undertaken…has largely been quantitative in nature, applying economic models to assess productivity, welfare and technological efficiency for example”.

This paper contends that “in comparison to ex post impact assessment activities, less attention has been given to monitoring and evaluation, and to the process of learning and adaptation, during project implementation”.

This paper outlines the new trend of research towards a broader approach to addressing poverty alleviation and the move towards development and application of methods which increase the impact of agricultural research on poverty and which facilitate learning and change.

The paper posits that “there is a lack of appropriate, effective tools for participatory monitoring and evaluation for application in a natural resource management context” and “simultaneously there has been a trend towards increased partner collaboration and impact-oriented research which requires a more responsive and adaptive approach to impact assessment and M&E than has been previously applied”.

This was the driver behind the proposal of the CP35 project at the WorldFish Centre to the Knowledge Sharing in Research call for proposals, to pilot new M&E methods to compliment existing quantitative M&E tools, and to support a more open and responsive approach to change occurring in communities involved in the project. This paper outlines the initial experiences of the project in piloting new approaches to M&E and impact assessment mainly in the form of Outcome Mapping and Most Significant Change methods.

The paper provides a rationale for the choice of particular approaches, examining what potential fit and benefit they would have with the research project into which they would be integrated.

Next a clear description of the activities undertaken to introduce and initiate such methods was provided.

The real ‘meat’ of the paper comes in the strong review and analysis of the piloting of these kind of methods which is presented in the form of annotated lists of ‘benefits’ and ‘issues hindering effectiveness’ of each of the methods being employed. While there were some initial positive signs of benefits that would/could be derived from using such methods, the challenges, issues and concerns raised were more of a highlight.

Some benefits include:

• Creating a longer term vision for sustainability and impact
• Identifying unanticipated problems and constraints to project success
• Revealing outcome and impact priorities held by project participants and stakeholders
• Creating a sense of ownership and responsibility for project success
• Clarifying roles and responsibilities
• Articulating where change is needed and monitoring progress towards required change

Some disadvantages identifed were:

• The potential for unequal power relationships amongst stakeholders (and even team) to influence the process/method
• Relative complexity of the approach
• Difficulty in communicating terminologies and processes in various languages
• Substantial time investment of project team and stakeholders to work through OM
• Potential for misinterpretation and inappropriate application of the concept of ‘behavioural change’

Although some negative consequences were described, these were proposed to be valuable learning experiences from which specific attention could be paid to relevant modifications and adaptations which could be made for future use in the project-in its other country sites.

The authors concluded, therefore that “there is a need to carefully evaluate alternative methodologies available to research scientists and to put forward appropriate tools for impact assessment and M&E that can be readily taken up and applied in R4D, particularly in the natural resource management context”.

 

Why Knowledge Sharing in Research?

The 15 Centers supported by the CGIAR and their many national partners are together creating a wealth of knowledge that can help rural communities in developing countries build sustainable livelihoods. Yet, formidable obstacles to uptake and use of generated knowledge as well as impact of CGIAR agricultural research remain. One of the missing elements which has reduced the effectiveness of our research and development (R&D) efforts, is appropriate and effective knowledge sharing, both within Centers and between them and their partners.

There is a longstanding tradition that separates researchers from those that take up their results. The traditional linear, transfer of technology approach has worked at different times for different purpose but does not offer the best solution for agricultural research to contribute to development outcomes. While this approach may have had some success in the past, the ever-changing nature of agricultural products, research development, actors and needs, this approach is no longer appropriate for all the whole of the agricultural research and development arena.

The CGIAR Centers and their partners need to shift to a more demand-driven, interactive approach, in which such methods are developed collaboratively through a shared process of learning and innovation. A key requirement for achieving this shift is that knowledge sharing should no longer be a mere afterthought in research. Instead, it must become an integral part of the whole research process, involving all stakeholders.

 

Why Knowledge Sharing?

More than 30 years after participatory research approaches emerged, we still face formidable obstacles to take up, use, and ultimately achieve impact from the results of CGIAR agricultural research. One missing element is the appropriate and effective sharing of knowledge, whether within our institutions, between Centers, or with our partners. At the same time, new and effective approaches and tools have been developed and proven to strengthen collaboration. Recent possibilities of Participatory Web open new doors to more inclusive and transparent collaboration for excellence.

 

ILAC starts a new five-year phase

The Institutional Learning and Change Initiative of the CGIAR (ILAC) starts a new five-year phase, with support from DGIS. “This new phase of the ILAC Initiative will strive to enhance impacts through partnerships for innovation and to support pro-poor groups that are already employing innovative approaches but may lack adequate visibility, resources and credibility.” Among other important activities ILAC is also organizing with the PRGA Program, ILRI’s Innovation Works and the Sustainability Science Program, and the Center for International Development at Harvard University a workshop on “Rethinking Impact: Capturing the Complexity of Poverty and Change”. The workshop will be held at CIAT headquarters in Cali, Colombia from March 26-28, 2008. Prospective participants are requested to submit abstracts by November 9, 2007. Background information and a call for papers are at: http://www.prgaprogram.org/riw