Abstract
The complex nature and multilevel scale of the challenges faced by agricultural research for development (AR4D) call for appropriate design and evaluation methods. At the design stage, this implies thinking about how new agricultural technologies enable certain changes within desirable future scenarios, and the systemic transformations needed for these technologies to have impacts. We have developed a method, called ‘Impact Weaving’, which combines participatory foresight and quantitative modelling to design more plausible anticipated impact pathways of the use of new technologies. Two case studies are used to present the method. We argue that time, skills and investment capacity are required to enable collective sense-making and to estimate the potential users of the technology. Nonetheless, applying this transdisciplinary approach at the early design stage will lead to more grounded technology dissemination that accounts for the constraints and aspirations of its users.
Résumé
La nature complexe et l'échelle multi-niveaux des défis auxquels est confrontée la recherche agricole pour le développement (AR4D) exigent des méthodes de conception et d'évaluation appropriées. Pour ce qui est de la conception, cela implique de réfléchir d’une part à la manière dont les nouvelles technologies agricoles permettent certains changements dans le cadre de scénarios futurs souhaitables, et d’autre part aux transformations systémiques nécessaires à la génération d’impacts. Nous avons développé une méthode appelée "Impact Weaving" qui combine la prospective participative et la modélisation quantitative pour concevoir des chemins plausibles des impacts anticipé de l'utilisation des nouvelles technologies. Nous présentons la méthode à travers deux applications. Ainsi, nous mettons en évidence l’importance du temps, des compétences, et des capacités d'investissement à une création collective de sens et à l’estimation des utilisateurs potentiels de la technologie. En outre, l'application de cette approche transdisciplinaire aux prémices du développement d’une technologie permets une dissémination de la technologie mieux ancrée car tenant compte des contraintes et des aspirations de ses utilisateurs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
AGROSAVIA, C.C. de I.A. 2019. Validación de metodologías de evaluación ex-ante de impacto aplicables a diferentes tipos de actividades de I+D+I. Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria – AGROSAVIA.
AGROSAVIA, website. Hornillas paneleras ecoeficientes tipo Cimpa [WWW Document]. https://www.agrosavia.co/productos-y-servicios/oferta-tecnológica/0132-hornillas-paneleras-tipo-cimpa/. Accessed 10 Dec 2021.
AGROSAVIA, C.C. de I.A. 2021. Balance Social 2020. Corporación colombiana de investigación agropecuaria - AGROSAVIA.
Alene, A.D., T. Abdoulaye, J. Rusike, R. Labarta, B. Creamer, M. del Río, H. Ceballos, and L.A. Becerra. 2018. Identifying crop research priorities based on potential economic and poverty reduction impacts: The case of cassava in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. PLoS ONE 13: e0201803. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201803.
Andoseh, S., R. Bahn, and J. Gu. 2014. The case for a real options approach to ex-ante cost-benefit analyses of agricultural research projects. Food Policy 44: 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.09.016.
Andreotti, F., E.N. Speelman, K. Van den Meersche, and C. Allinne. 2020. Combining participatory games and backcasting to support collective scenario evaluation: An action research approach for sustainable agroforestry landscape management. Sustainability Science 15: 1383–1399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00829-3.
Andrieu, N., F. Howland, I. Acosta-Alba, J.-F. Le Coq, A.M. Osorio-Garcia, D. Martinez-Baron, C. Gamba-Trimiño, A.M. Loboguerrero, and E. Chia. 2019. Co-designing climate-smart farming systems with local stakeholders: A methodological framework for achieving large-scale change. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00037.
Archibald, T., G. Sharrock, J. Buckley, and N. Cook. 2016. Assumptions, conjectures, and other miracles: The application of evaluative thinking to theory of change models in community development. Evaluation and Program Planning 59: 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.05.015.
Ben Mena, S. 2000. Introduction aux méthodes multicritères d’aide à la décision. BASE.
Blundo Canto, G., De Romemont, A., 2020. ImpresS ex ante. Démarche pour co-construire ex ante les chemins d’impact de la recherche pour le développement. Guide méthodologique ImpresS ex ante (Deuxième version). Montpellier : CIRAD, 76. https://doi.org/10.19182/agritrop/00142
Blundo-Canto, G., B. Triomphe, G. Faure, D. Barret, A. de Romemont, and E. Hainzelin. 2019. Building a culture of impact in an international agricultural research organization: Process and reflective learning. Research Evaluation 28: 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy033.
Bourgeois, R., E. Penunia, S. Bisht, and D. Boruk. 2017. Foresight for all: Co-elaborative scenario building and empowerment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 124: 178–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.018.
Bourguignon, F., and Ferreira, F. 2003. Chapter 6 Ex-Ante Evaluation of Policy Reforms using Behavioral Models [WWW Document]. URL /paper/Chapter-6-Ex-Ante-Evaluation-of-Policy-Reforms-Bourguignon-Ferreira/817616daa09d0ec7f860e5cd070e5ab8c4ac2468. Accessed 18 November 2020.
Byerlee, D. 2000. Targeting poverty alleviation in priority setting for agricultural research. Food Policy 25: 429–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(00)00021-X.
Ceballos, H., A. Rosero, J.I. Lenis, L. Rommel, J. García, J. Morelo, A. Orozco, R. Martinez, G. Silva, V. De la Ossa, C. Sierra, E. Correa, C. Cordero, L. Villalba, J. Belalcazar, S. Salazar, N. Morante, X. Zhang. 2021. EVALUACIÓN AGRONÓMICA DE LOS GENOTIPOS DE YUCA (Manihot esculenta Crantz) PARA USO INDUSTRIAL (SM3134-5, SM2834-31, SM2828-28, SM3134-73, SM3139-22 Y SM3110-15), PARA LAS SUBREGIONES NATURALES DE CARIBE HUMEDO Y CARIBE SECO, 2017-2019. Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria-AGROSAVIA. Colombia; International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)., Palmira, Colombia.
Chen, H. 1990. Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury: Sage Publications.
Douthwaite, B., J.D.H. Keatinge, and J.R. Park. 2001. Why promising technologies fail: The neglected role of user innovation during adoption. Research Policy 30: 819–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00124-4.
Douthwaite, B., S. Alvarez, S.E. Cook, R. Davies, P. George, J. Howell, R. Mackay, and J. Rubiano. 2007. Participatory impact pathways analysis: a practical application of program theory in research-for-development. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 22: 127–159.
Douthwaite, B., J.M. Apgar, A.-M. Schwarz, S. Attwood, S. Senaratna Sellamuttu, and T. Clayton. 2017a. A new professionalism for agricultural research for development. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 15: 238–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1314754.
Douthwaite, B., R. Mur, S. Audouin, M. Wopereis, J. Hellin, A. Saley Moussa, N. Karbo, W. Kasten, and J. Bouyer. 2017b. Agricultural research for development to intervene effectively in complex systems and the implications for research organizations. Amsterdam : Royal Tropical Institute, 20 p. KIT Working Paper, 12. https://www.kit.nl/sed/publications/working-paper-series/.
Dupré, M., J.M. Blazy, T. Michels, and P.-Y. Le Gal. 2021. Supporting policymakers in designing agricultural policy instruments: A participatory approach with a regional bioeconomic model in La Réunion (France). Land Use Policy 100: 105128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105128.
European Commission. 2022. Reports | Advanced Technologies for Industry. [online]. https://ati.ec.europa.eu/reports/technology-watch. Accessed 17 Aug 2022.
Faure, G., G. Blundo-Canto, A. Devaux-Spatarakis, J.L. Le Guerroué, S. Mathé, L. Temple, A. Toillier, B. Triomphe, and E. Hainzelin. 2020. A participatory method to assess the contribution of agricultural research to societal changes in developing countries. Research Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz036.
Folhes, R.T., A.P.D. de Aguiar, E. Stoll, E.L. Dalla-Nora, R. Araújo, A. Coelho, and O. do Canto. 2015. Multi-scale participatory scenario methods and territorial planning in the Brazilian Amazon. Futures 73: 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.005.
Franzel, S., R. Coe, P. Cooper, F. Place, and S.J. Scherr. 2001. Assessing the adoption potential of agroforestry practices in sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Systems 69: 37–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(01)00017-8.
Fuglie, K.O. 2007. Priorities for potato research in developing countries: Results of a survey. American Journal of Potato Research 84: 353. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02987182.
Geels, F.W., and J. Schot. 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 36: 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003.
Glover, D., J. Sumberg, G. Ton, J. Andersson, and L. Badstue. 2019. Rethinking technological change in smallholder agriculture. Outlook on Agriculture 48: 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727019864978.
Graveline, N., B. Aunay, J.L. Fusillier, and J.D. Rinaudo. 2014. Coping with urban & agriculture water demand uncertainty in water management plan design: The interest of participatory scenario analysis. Water Resources Management 28: 3075–3093. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0656-5.
Hellin, J., J. Balié, E. Fisher, G. Blundo-Canto, N. Meah, A. Kohli, and M. Connor. 2020. Sustainable agriculture for health and prosperity: Stakeholders’ roles, legitimacy and modus operandi. Development in Practice 30: 965–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2020.1798357.
Helming, K., K. Diehl, H. Bach, O. Dilly, B. König, T. Kuhlman, M. Pérez-Soba, S. Sieber, P. Tabbush, K. Tscherning, D. Wascher, and H. Wiggering. 2011. Ex ante impact assessment of policies affecting land use, Part A: Analytical framework. Ecology and Society 16.
Inayatullah, S. 2008. Six pillars: Futures thinking for transforming. Foresight 10: 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680810855991.
Joly, P.-B., A. Gaunand, L. Colinet, P. Larédo, S. Lemarié, and M. Matt. 2015. ASIRPA: A comprehensive theory-based approach to assessing the societal impacts of a research organization. Research Evaluation 24: 440–453. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv015.
Kelley, T.G., J.G. Ryan, and B.K. Patel. 1995. Applied participatory priority setting in international agricultural research: Making trade-offs transparent and explicit. Agricultural Systems 49: 177–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-521X(94)00030-U.
Leeuwis, C., L. Klerkx, and M. Schut. 2018. Reforming the research policy and impact culture in the CGIAR: Integrating science and systemic capacity development. Global Food Security 16: 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.06.002.
Löhr, K., M. Weinhardt, and S. Sieber. 2020. The “World Café” as a participatory method for collecting qualitative data. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 19: 1609406920916976. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920916976.
McBride, M., K. Lambert, E. Huff, K. Theoharides, P. Field, and J. Thompson. 2017. Increasing the effectiveness of participatory scenario development through codesign. Ecology and Society. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09386-220316.
Medina Castro, H. 1988. Métodos y modelos para priorizar la investigación agropecuaria: una revisión crítica. Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA). https://repositorio.iica.int/handle/11324/17077.
Pacheco, J.F, and E. Contreras. 2008. Manual metodológico de evaluación multicriterio para programas y proyectos. Serie Manuales - CEPAL No. 58. http://hdl.handle.net/11362/35914.
Petsakos, A., G. Hareau, U. Kleinwechter, K. Wiebe, and T.B. Sulser. 2018. Comparing modeling approaches for assessing priorities in international agricultural research. Research Evaluation 27: 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx044.
Pigford, A.-A.E., G.M. Hickey, and L. Klerkx. 2018. Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions. Agricultural Systems 164: 116–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.04.007.
Raitzer, D.A., and M.K. Maredia. 2012. Analysis of agricultural research investment priorities for sustainable poverty reduction in Southeast Asia. Food Policy 37: 412–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.04.001.
Sartas, M., M. Schut, C. Proietti, G. Thiele, and C. Leeuwis. 2020. Scaling Readiness: Science and practice of an approach to enhance impact of research for development. Agricultural Systems 183: 102874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102874.
Schindler, J., F. Graef, and H.J. König. 2016. Participatory impact assessment: Bridging the gap between scientists’ theory and farmers’ practice. Agricultural Systems 148: 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.07.002.
Sharpe, B., A. Hodgson, G. Leicester, A. Lyon, and I. Fazey. 2016. Three horizons: A pathways practice for transformation. Ecology and Society. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08388-210247.
Slaughter, R. 2008. What difference does ‘integral’ make? Futures 40: 120–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2007.11.015.
Springer-Heinze, A., F. Hartwich, J.S. Henderson, D. Horton, and I. Minde. 2003. Impact pathway analysis: An approach to strengthening the impact orientation of agricultural research. Agricultural Systems 78: 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(03)00129-X.
Staver, C., D.E. Pemsl, L. Scheerer, L. Perez Vicente, and M. Dita. 2020. Ex Ante assessment of returns on research investments to address the impact of Fusarium Wilt tropical race 4 on global banana production. Frontiers in Plant Science 11: 844. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00844.
Stone-Jovicich, S., H. Percy, L. McMillan, J.A. Turner, L. Chen, and T. White. 2019. Evaluating monitoring, evaluation and learning initiatives in the New Zealand and Australian agricultural research and innovation systems: The MEL2 framework. Evaluation Journal of Australasia 19: 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X18823567.
Thornton, P., T. Schuetz, W. Förch, L. Cramer, D. Abreu, S. Vermeulen, and B. Campbell. 2017. Responding to global change: A theory of change approach to making agricultural research for development outcome-based. Agricultural Systems 152: 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.005.
Triantaphyllou, E. 2000. Multi-criteria decision making methods, 5–21. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6_2.
UNIDO. 2011. Diagnostics for industrial value chain development: An integrated tool. United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). Vienna, Austria.
UNIDO. 2009. Agro-value chain analysis and development. The UNIDO approach. United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). Vienna, Austria.
Vergragt, P.J., and J. Quist. 2011. Backcasting for sustainability: Introduction to the special issue. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Backcasting for Sustainability 78: 747–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.03.010.
Voinov, A., and F. Bousquet. 2010. Modelling with stakeholders. Environmental Modelling & Software, Thematic Issue - Modelling with Stakeholders 25: 1268–1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.007.
Weißhuhn, P., K. Helming, and J. Ferretti. 2018. Research impact assessment in agriculture—A review of approaches and impact areas. Research Evaluation 27: 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx034.
Wolpin, K.I. 2007. Ex ante policy evaluation, structural estimation, and model selection. The American Economic Review 97: 48–52. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.97.2.48.
Woltering, L., K. Fehlenberg, B. Gerard, J. Ubels, and L. Cooley. 2019. Scaling—From “reaching many” to sustainable systems change at scale: A critical shift in mindset. Agricultural Systems 176: 102652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102652.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the all the workshop participants who graciously accepted to share with us their knowledge, experience and points of view on the past, present and future of their territories. The work we carried out was funded by Cirad under internal calls for the exploration of innovative methods. We also acknowledge Agrosavia’s research support staff who helped organise the workshops. Finally, we would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive and useful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all the authors, the corresponding author confirms that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Blundo-Canto, G., Rodríguez-Borray, G., Vásquez-Urriago, ÁR. et al. Impact Weaving: An Approach to Strengthening the Plausibility of Anticipated AR4D Impact Pathways. Eur J Dev Res 35, 402–425 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-022-00566-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-022-00566-6