Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
adaptive management and social learning, recognizing that knowledge is a fluid,
constantly changing outcome of socio-material relations (Clark and Murdoch 1997).
The concept of social learning moves beyond the idea that actors are influenced
by one another to the notion of stakeholders coming together to collaborate for the
purpose of technological or institutional innovation. Recent work has applied this
revised conception of innovation that comprises institutional and organizational
change (Tenywa et al. 2011; Nederlof and Pyborn 2012). An innovation is far from
a monolithic technology to be diffused; it is as dynamic, context specific, and time
responsive as any other actor.
This paradigm shift offers new conceptions of actor identities, time dynamics,
innovation, and the relationships between them. In Rogers' (1962) original formula-
tion of the diffusion of innovations, actors are identified by the time frame in which
they make their decision. This decision is assumed to be a dualistic choice between
an innovation and traditional knowledge and is largely autonomous, based only mar-
ginally on social influences. However, a greater recognition of the importance of
actor interaction and social learning has altered the categorization of actors from
various classes of adopters to innovators and imitators. A deeper analysis of time
dynamics reveals that as time progresses, innovations themselves are adapted to fit
changing needs and conditions. This has led to the shift in the perception of innova-
tion as an unchanging, diffusible object to ongoing, dynamic processes. Within these
processes, there is not a single moment of individual decision making; rather, a con-
tinuous process of group negotiation and adaptation takes place. This paradigm shift
has significant implications for our approach to the promotion of ISFM.
14.6 AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS,
NETWORKS, AND PLATFORMS
Our examination of the first phase, in which small-farmer decisions were framed in
terms of religious influences and economic quandaries, demonstrates that decision
making cannot be isolated from its context. In exploring the second phase, we have
come to recognize the systemic nature of innovation by acknowledging the variable
influence of network connections and time dynamics on decision making, and revis-
ing our concept of innovation from that of an object to one of an ongoing process. This
innovation systems perspective takes into account stakeholder priorities and builds
shared understandings that frame farmers' choices, thus facilitating ISFM decision
making (Davis et al. 2008; Buck and Scherr 2009; World Bank 2012). Undergirding
the components of an innovation system is the practice of adaptive management,
which integrates scientific and local knowledge while recognizing that an innovation
must develop alongside changes in relationships among actors and the environment
over time (Sayer and Campbell 2004; Moore 2009). Vital to this perspective is the
concept of social learning: as stakeholders collaborate, new insights are generated and
common understandings are fostered (Reij and Waters-Bayer 2001; Buck and Scherr
2009). This facilitates the process of innovation and leads to concerted action.
Essential to the process of social learning are innovation networks and platforms.
The focus on social learning increase the range of choice for small farmers. Active
participation in IPs improves farmers' knowledge and understanding of existing
