Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
conditions. Small farmers cannot wait for researchers to deliver answers as neatly
packaged technological innovations. Rather, farmers are innovating constantly to
stay in equilibrium with their environment (Biggs and Clay 1981). As this adap-
tive behavior is by its nature collaborative, innovation networks and platforms are
essential to a system's adaptive capacity. A well-functioning network will facilitate
the spread of market information to farmers that informs them of changing market
conditions to which they must adapt. For adaptation at the community, regional, or
national level, IPs provide the necessary forum to assemble stakeholders to negotiate
the trajectory of response (Walker et al. 2002).
14.7 CONCLUSION
At the beginning of the chapter, we proposed that small-farmer decision making
could be analytically differentiated into a two-phase process. The first phase frames
the problem and specifies the critical decision-making parameters, and the second
phase consists of the actual process of choosing. This distinction enables the recog-
nition of how the local context matters. Local agroecology, knowledge, household
livelihood strategies, belief systems, networks, and leadership each play a role. These
factors, however, do not come together in any universal fashion that can be replicated
from one situation to the next, as efforts to scale up technological fixes often propose.
To better understand framing of innovation decision making, we learned that
(i) small farmers and scientists see the world differently; (ii) economic factors shap-
ing ISFM choices extend beyond the field and farm to include complex farm house-
hold livelihood systems; (iii) dissemination processes occur over time and involve
social learning; and (iv) ideologies and religions can be mobilized to help frame
ISFM choices. We then reviewed the construction of a new paradigm to characterize
the process of decision making to replace the unilinear framing of the diffusion of
innovations model. Under such a paradigm, actors are seen as innovators and imita-
tors rather than as various types of adopters. The duration of the innovation process
presents opportunities for interaction among these classes of actors and introduces
the potential for change in the innovation and evolution of the problem that it is
intended to solve. This leads us to a renewed understanding of innovation and a
transformation in the meaning of adoption to that of adaptation.
What we have learned is that innovation is not simply an individual act, but part of
a process of social learning. This process is often characterized as adaptive manage-
ment. It may involve a multitude of partners and the object of innovation may evolve
as farmers and other value chain partners adapt to changing climate and market
circumstances. Such an understanding forces us to transform the way we approach
small-farmer ISFM decision making. Once we recognize that the framing of small-
farmer ISFM choices is a collective endeavor, support for building IPs becomes
self-evident. These local platforms provide a structured context for the introduction
and development of improved practices that are adapted to the specificities of the
network partners and their agroecological and socioeconomic circumstances. It is
through participation in these networks that soil scientists can share their knowledge
in a common development effort.
