Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic

Abstract

Over the years, there has been an evolution of systemic thinking in agricultural innovation studies, culminating in the agricultural innovation systems perspective. In an attempt to synthesize and organize the existing literature, this chapter reviews the literature on agricultural innovation, with the threefold goal of (1) sketching the evolution of systemic approaches to agricultural innovation and unravelling the different interpretations; (2) assessing key factors for innovation system performance and demonstrating the use of system thinking in the facilitation of processes of agricultural innovation by means of innovation brokers and reflexive process monitoring; and (3) formulating an agenda for future research. The main conclusion is that the agricultural innovation systems perspective provides a comprehensive view on actors and factors that co-determine innovation, and in this sense allows understanding the complexity of agricultural innovation. However, its holism is also a pitfall as it allows for many interpretations, which complicates a clear focus of this research field and the building of cumulative evidence. Hence, more work needs to be done conceptually and empirically.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Recently, especially in context of European Union policy and research programs, the two concepts have more or less ‘merged’, because the acronym AKIS has been reinterpreted as ‘Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems’ (Dockès et al. 2011).

  2. 2.

    These concern qualitative and anthropological models of evaluation, which emphasize the importance of observation, the need to retain the phenomenological quality of the evaluation context, and the value of subjective human interpretation in the evaluation process.

References

  • Assefa, A., Waters-Bayer, A., Fincham, R., & Mudahara, M. (2009). Comparison of frameworks for studying grassroots innovation: Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) and Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems (AKIS). In P. Sanginga, A. Waters-Bayer, S. Kaaria, J. Njuki, & C. Wettasinha (Eds.), Innovation Africa: Enriching farmers livelihoods (pp. 35–56). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blay-Palmer, A. (2005). Growing innovation policy: The case of organic agriculture in Ontario, Canada. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23, 557–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, A. P., Groot Koerkamp, P. W. G., Gosselink, J. M., & Bokma, S. (2009). Reflexive interactive design and its application in a project on sustainable dairy husbandry systems. Outlook on Agriculture, 38, 137–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, S., & Loevinsohn, M. (2011). Shaping agricultural innovation systems responsive to food insecurity and climate change. Natural Resources Forum, 35, 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R., Pacey, A., & Thrupp, L. A. (1989). Farmer first: Farmer innovation and agricultural research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chicester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, N. G., Hall, A., Sulaiman, R. V., & Naik, G. C. (2003). Research as capacity building: The case of an NGO facilitated post-harvest innovation system for the Himalayan hills. World Development, 31, 1845–1863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coenen, L., & Díaz López, F. J. (2010). Comparing systems approaches to innovation and technological change for sustainable and competitive economies: An explorative study into conceptual commonalities, differences and complementarities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 1149–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cristóvão, A., Koutsouris, A., & Kügler. M. (2012). Extension systems and change facilitation for agricultural and rural development. In: I. Darnhofer, D. Gibbon, & B. Dedieu (Eds.), Farming Systems Research into the 21st century: A new dynamic (pp. 201–227). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, R., & Dart, J. (2005). The ‘most significant change’ (MSC) technique: A guide to its use. Downloaded on February 24, 2010, from http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.htm

  • Dedieu, B., Darnhofer, I., Bellon, S., de Greef, K., Casabianca, F., Madureira, L., et al. (2009). Special issue: Innovations in farming systems approaches. Outlook on Agriculture, 38, 108–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dockès, A. C., Tisenkopfs, T., & Bock, B. (2011). Collaborative working group agricultural knowledge and innovation systems. WP1: Reflection paper on AKIS. Sub-deliverable of the AKIS CWG – WP1 – April 2011. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douthwaite, B., & Ashby, J. (2005). Innovation histories: A method for learning from experience (ILAC Brief 5). Rome: IPGRI. http://cgiar-ilac.v1779.ncsrv.de/files/ILAC_Brief05_Histories.pdf, accessed 15-8-2011

  • Ekboir, J. M. (2003). Research and technology policies in innovation systems: Zero tillage in Brazil. Research Policy, 32, 573–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elzen, B., Geels, F. W., Leeuwis, C., & van Mierlo, B. (2011). Normative contestation in transitions ‘in the making’: Animal welfare concerns and system innovation in pig husbandry. Research Policy, 40, 263–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elzen, B., Barbier, M., Cerf, M., & Grin, J. (2012). Stimulating transitions towards sustainable farming systems. In: I. Darnhofer, D. Gibbon, & B. Dedieu (Eds.), Farming Systems Research into the 21st century: A new dynamic (pp. 431–455). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel, P. G. H. (1995). Facilitating innovation: An action-oriented approach and participatory methodology to improve innovative social practice in agriculture. Wageningen: Wageningen University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, J., & Martin, A. M. (1988). Farmer participatory research: A review of concepts and recent fieldwork. Agricultural Administration and Extension, 29, 247–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36, 399–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gildemacher, P. R., Kaguongo, W., Ortiz, O., Tesfaye, A., Woldegiorgis, G., Wagoire, W. W., et al. (2009). Improving potato production in Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia: A system diagnosis. Potato Research, 52, 173–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Håkansson, H., & Ford, D. (2002). How should companies interact in business networks? Journal of Business Research, 55, 133–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A., & Clark, N. (2010). What do complex adaptive systems look like and what are the implications for innovation policy? Journal of International Development, 22, 308–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A., Bockett, G., Taylor, S., Sivamohan, M. V. K., & Clark, N. (2001). Why research partnerships really matter: Innovation theory, institutional arrangements and implications for developing new technology for the poor. World Development, 29, 783–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A., Janssen, W., Pehu, E., & Rajalahti, R. (2006). Enhancing agricultural innovation: How to go beyond the strengthening of research systems. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. H. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74, 413–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hocdé, H., Triomphe, B., Faure, M., & Dulcire, M. (2008). From participation to partnership: A different way for researchers to accompany innovation processes – Challenges and difficulties. In P. Sanginga, A. Waters-Bayer, S. Kaaria, J. Njuki, & C. Wettasinha (Eds.), Innovation Africa: Enriching farmers livelihoods (pp. 135–152). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35, 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, D. (1992). Enhancing organizational effectiveness in developing countries: The training and visit system revisited. Public Administration and Development, 12, 433–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, S.-C., & Whittington, R. (2011). Agency in national innovation systems: Institutional entrepreneurship and the professionalization of Taiwanese IT. Research Policy, 40, 526–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IFAD. (2006). A guide for project M&E. Managing for impact in rural development. See Annex B for LogFrame. http://tinyurl.com/ifadguide. Downloaded on 24 Feb 2010.

  • Jarrett, F. G. (1985). Sources and models of agricultural innovation in developed and developing countries. Agricultural Administration, 18, 217–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 10, 175–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein Woolthuis, R., Lankhuizen, M., & Gilsing, V. (2005). A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation, 25, 609–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2008). Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: Farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands. Research Policy, 37, 460–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2009a). The emergence and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76, 849–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2009b). Operationalizing demand-driven agricultural research: Institutional influences in a public and private system of research planning in The Netherlands. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 15, 161–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klerkx, L., Hall, A., & Leeuwis, C. (2009). Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: Are innovation brokers the answer? International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 8, 409–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., & Leeuwis, C. (2010). Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment. Agricultural Systems, 103, 390–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, S. J., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In R. Landau & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth (pp. 275–305). Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knickel, K., Brunori, G., Rand, S., & Proost, J. (2009). Towards a better conceptual framework for innovation processes in agriculture and rural development: From linear models to systemic approaches. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 15, 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamine, C. (2011). Transition pathways towards a robust ecologization of agriculture and the need for system redesign. Cases from organic farming and IPM. Journal of Rural Studies, 27, 209–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeuwis, C. (2004). Communication for rural innovation: Rethinking agricultural extension. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeuwis, C., & Aarts, N. (2011). Rethinking communication in innovation processes: Creating space for change in complex systems. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 17, 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeuwis, C., & Pyburn, R. (Eds.). (2002). Wheelbarrows full of frogs: Social learning in rural resource management. International research and reflections. Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeuwis, C., Long, N., & Villarreal, M. (1990). Equivocations on knowledge systems theory: An actor oriented critique. Knowledge in Society: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer, 3, 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leitgeb, F., Funes-Monzote, F. R., Kummer, S., & Vogl, C. R. (2011). Contribution of farmers’ experiments and innovations to Cuba’s agricultural innovation system. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 26, 354–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National systems of innovation. Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markard, J., & Truffer, B. (2008). Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework. Research Policy, 37, 596–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neef, A., & Neubert, D. (2011). Stakeholder participation in agricultural research projects: A conceptual framework for reflection and decision-making. Agriculture and Human Values, 28, 179–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. W. (2002, November 17–20). The farming systems approach: A historical perspective. Invited for presentation at the 17th Symposium of the International Farming Systems Association, Lake Buena Vista, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oreszczyn, S., Lane, A., & Carr, S. (2010). The role of networks of practice and webs of influencers on farmers’ engagement with and learning about agricultural innovations. Journal of Rural Studies, 26, 404–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oughton, C., Landabaso, M., & Morgan, K. (2002). The regional innovation paradox: Innovation policy and industrial policy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 97–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pant, L. P., & Hambly-Odame, H. (2006). Multi-stakeholder deliberation on dialectical divides: An operational principle of the systems of innovation. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 2, 60–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pant, L. P., & Hambly-Odame, H. (2009). Innovation systems in renewable natural resource management and sustainable agriculture: A literature review. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 1, 103–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regeer, B. J., Hoes, A. C., van Amstel-van Saane, M., Caron-Flinterman, F. F., & Bunders, J. F. (2009). Six guiding principles for evaluating mode-2 strategies for sustainable development. American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 515–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivera, W. M., & Sulaiman, R. V. (2009). Extension: Object of reform, engine for innovation. Outlook on Agriculture, 38, 267–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivera, W. M., Qamar, M. K., & Mwandemere, H. K. (2005). Enhancing coordination among AKIS/RD actors: An analytical and comparative review of country studies on agricultural knowledge and information systems for rural development (AKIS/RD). Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivera, W. M., Alex, G., Hanson, J. C., & Birner, R. (2006). Enabling agriculture: The evolution and promise of agricultural knowledge frameworks. Proceedings of the Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education Annual Conference, Clearwater Beach, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roep, D., van der Ploeg, J. D., & Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2003). Managing technical-institutional design processes: Some strategic lessons from environmental co-operatives in The Netherlands. NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 51, 195–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Röling, N. (1990). The agricultural research-technology transfer interface: A knowledge systems perspective. In D. Kaimowitz (Ed.), Making the link: Agricultural research and technology transfer in developing countries (pp. 1–42). Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Röling, N. (1992). The emergence of knowledge systems thinking: A changing perception of relationships among innovation, knowledge process and configuration. Knowledge and Policy: The international Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, 5, 42–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Röling, N. (1994). Platforms for decision making about ecosystems In L. O., Fresco, L., Stroosnijder, J., Bouma, & van Keulen, H. (Eds.), The future of the land: mobilizing and integrating know­ledge for land use options. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp. 385–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Röling, N. (2009). Pathways for impact: Scientists’ different perspectives on agricultural innovation. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 7, 83–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruttan, V. W., & Hayami, Y. (1984). Toward a theory of induced institutional innovation. Journal of Development Studies, 20, 203–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanginga, P., Waters - Bayer, A., Kaaria, S., Njuki, J., Wettasinha, C. (2009). Innovation Africa: Beyond Rhetoric to Praxis In P., Sanginga, A., Waters - Bayer, S., Kaaria, J., Njuki, & Wettasinha, C. (Eds.), Innovation Africa: enriching farmers livelihoods. Earthscan, London, pp. 374–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schut, M., Leeuwis, C., van Paassen, A., & Lerner, A. (2011). Knowledge and innovation management in the policy debate on biofuel sustainability in Mozambique: What roles for researchers? Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 7, 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, T. (2011). Australian agricultural R&D and innovation systems. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 7, 192–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spielman, D. J. (2006). A critique on innovation systems perspectives on agricultural research in developing countries. Innovation Strategy Today, 2, 41–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spielman, D., & von Grebmer, K. (2006). Public–private partnerships in international agricultural research: An analysis of constraints. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 291–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spielman, D., Ekboir, J., Davis, K., & Ochieng, C. M. (2008). An innovation systems perspective on strengthening agricultural education and training in sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Systems, 98, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spielman, D., Ekboir, J., & Davis, K. (2009). The art and science of innovation systems inquiry: Applications to sub-Saharan African agriculture. Technology in Society, 31, 399–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spielman, D., Davis, K., Negash, M., & Ayele, G. (2011). Rural innovation systems and networks: Findings from a study of Ethiopian smallholders. Agriculture and Human Values, 28, 195–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Temel, T. (2004). Mapping organizational linkages in the agricultural innovation system of Azerbaijan. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 3, 134–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J., & Scoones, I. (2009). Addressing the dynamics of agri-food systems: An emerging agenda for social science research. Environmental Science and Policy, 12, 386–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Mierlo, B., Leeuwis, C., Smits, R., & Woolthuis, R. K. (2010a). Learning towards system innovation: Evaluating a systemic instrument. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77(1), 318–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Mierlo, B., Arkesteijn, M., & Leeuwis, C. (2010b). Enhancing the reflexivity of system innovation projects with system analyses. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 143–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Mierlo, B., Regeer, B., van Amstel, M., Arkesteijn, M. C., Beekman, V., Bunders, J. F., et al. (2010c). Reflexive monitoring in action: A guide for monitoring system innovation projects. Oisterwijk: Boxpress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Paassen, A., van den Berg, J., Steingröver, E., Werkman, R., & Pedroli, B. (2011). Knowledge in action: The search for collaborative research for sustainable landscape development. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanloqueren, G., & Baret, P. (2009). How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Research Policy, 38, 971–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vellema, S. (2008). Postharvest innovation in developing societies: The institutional dimensions of technological change. Stewart Postharvest Review, 4(Art. No 2), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, U., & Reynolds, M. (2010). Critical systems heuristics. In M. Reynolds & S. Holwell (Eds.), Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide (pp. 243–292). London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2008). Agricultural innovation systems: From diagnostics toward operational practices (ARD Discussion Paper 38). Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Communication and Innovation Studies, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Laurens Klerkx, Barbara van Mierlo & Cees Leeuwis

Authors
  1. Laurens Klerkx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara van Mierlo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cees Leeuwis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurens Klerkx .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Feistmantelstrasse 4, Vienna, 1180, Austria

    Ika Darnhofer

  2. Livelihood Systems, Agricultural and Rural, Shrewsbury Road 59, Church Stretton, SY6 6EX, Shropshire, United Kingdom

    David Gibbon

  3. , SAD, INRA, INRA - Clermont-Theix, Saint-Genes-Champanelle, 63122, France

    Benoît Dedieu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Klerkx, L., van Mierlo, B., Leeuwis, C. (2012). Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions. In: Darnhofer, I., Gibbon, D., Dedieu, B. (eds) Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation