Co-managing public research in Australian fisheries through convergence–divergence processes

Dentoni, Domenico; Klerkx, Laurens

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2015.07.001

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(71 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…social networks, institutional arrangements) that enable innovation and, in particular, contain the possibility of enabling institutional change. For research to play effective roles on such platforms, it has been argued that this requires different ways of setting the agenda for research and innovation, allocating funding for research, as well as determining and organising the different roles research plays in innovation processes and connects with societal stakeholders in partnerships (Klerkx and Leeuwis 2008;Pittens et al 2014;Schut et al 2014;Dentoni and Klerkx 2015). Hence, the systemic approach to innovation supported by innovation platforms also requires innovation in terms of how research practices are organised: hence the platform for innovation both influences how innovations to enhance regional water productivity are taking place and how research to support that process is systemic interaction should be adequately organised and supported, as we will argue in Section 1.2.…”

Section: The Case Of Innovation In Regional Water Productivity (Rwp) mentioning

confidence: 99%

Doing water research differently for innovation in regional water productivity in Australia

Ayre

Nettle

Bobenrieth

et al. 2016

Australian Journal of Water Resources

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research in innovation studies suggests that appropriate starting conditions are required if alignment of research to practice and policy is to be enabled. To achieve this alignment, a scoping exercise is required and must involve those people and institutions that have an interest in the research. This paper describes a consultation process to develop a Blueprint for Regional Water Productivity in Australia through a new research initiative at the University of Melbourne. This Blueprint was developed through a two-stage consultation project in which opportunities and constraints for system innovation in regional water productivity in Australia were identified and discussed with key stakeholders without pre-empting research or development questions. In this paper, we ask: Did this consultation process constitute a platform for innovation in research practices? In addressing this question, we describe this process and suggest that it constituted a fledgling platform for innovation in research practices characterised by new social arrangements, material exchanges and the discursive object of `innovation systems' . However, the potential for institutional change from this platform will depend on continued deliberation between water sector actors in new routines of research-development practice, and collective action through the formalisation of new partnerships between researchers, practitioners and policy-makers.

show abstract

Section: The Case Of Innovation In Regional Water Productivity (Rwp) mentioning

confidence: 99%

Doing water research differently for innovation in regional water productivity in Australia

Ayre

Nettle

Bobenrieth

et al. 2016

Australian Journal of Water Resources

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another example relates to the platform-led innovation funds, such as used in Humidtropics. These funds enhance IP ownership and space for innovation by making IPs less dependent on existing projects, mandates and interests of research and extension providers (see also Dentoni and Klerkx, 2015; Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008; Real and Hickey, 2013; Ton et al , 2015). However, these allocated funds are often modest, and insufficient to drive research agendas, compared to allocations for other types of research operations.…”

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovation Platforms: Experiences With Their Institutional Embedding in Agricultural Research for Development

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYInnovation Platforms (IPs) are seen as a promising vehicle to foster a paradigm shift in agricultural research for development (AR4D). By facilitating interaction, negotiation and collective action between farmers, researchers and other stakeholders, IPs can contribute to more integrated, systemic innovation that is essential for achieving agricultural development impacts. However, successful implementation of IPs requires institutional change within AR4D establishments. The objective of this paper is to reflect on the implementation and institutionalisation of IPs in present AR4D programmes. We use experiences from sub-Saharan Africa to demonstrate how the adoption and adaptation of IPs creates both opportunities and challenges that influence platform performance and impact. Niche-regime theory is used to understand challenges, and anticipate on how to deal with them. A key concern is whether IPs in AR4D challenge or reinforce existing technology-oriented agricultural innovation paradigms. For example, stakeholder representation, facilitation and institutional embedding determine to a large extent whether the IP can strengthen systemic capacity to innovate that can lead to real paradigm change, or are merely 'old wine in new bottles' and a continuation of 'business as usual'. Institutional embedding of IPs and -more broadlythe transition from technology-oriented to system-oriented AR4D approaches requires structural changes in organisational mandates, incentives, procedures and funding, as well as investments in exchange of experiences, learning and capacity development.

show abstract

“…In total, 42 of the 171 analysed papers assessed the impact of participatory research. A co-management of public research acknowledges the influence of the surrounding ecological, social, and political system and allows different types of stakeholder knowledge to shape innovation (60). Schut,et al (36) conceptualize an agricultural innovation support system, which considers multi-stakeholder dynamics next to multilevel interactions within the agricultural system and multiple dimensions of the agricultural problem.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research impact assessment in agriculture—A review of approaches and impact areas

Weißhuhn

Helming

Ferretti

2017

Research Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research has a role to play in society's endeavour for sustainable development. This is particularly true for agricultural research, since agriculture is at the nexus between numerous sustainable development goals. Yet, generally accepted methods for linking research outcomes to sustainability impacts are missing. We conducted a review of scientific literature to analyse how impacts of agricultural research were assessed and what types of impacts were covered. A total of 171 papers published between 2008 and 2016 were reviewed. Our analytical framework covered three categories: (1) the assessment level of research (policy, programme, organization, project, technology, or other); (2) the type of assessment method (conceptual, qualitative, or quantitative); and (3) the impact areas (economic, social, environmental, or sustainability). The analysis revealed that most papers (56%) addressed economic impacts, such as cost-effectiveness of research funding or macroeconomic effects. In total, 42% analysed social impacts, like food security or aspects of equity. Very few papers (2%) examined environmental impacts, such as climate effects or ecosystem change. Only one paper considered all three sustainability dimensions. We found a majority of papers assessing research impacts at the level of technologies, particularly for economic impacts. There was a tendency of preferring quantitative methods for economic impacts, and qualitative methods for social impacts. The most striking finding was the 'blind eye' towards environmental and sustainability implications in research impact assessments. Efforts have to be made to close this gap and to develop integrated research assessment approaches, such as those available for policy impact assessments.

show abstract

Co-managing public research in Australian fisheries through convergence–divergence processes

Cited by 15 publications

References 50 publications

Doing water research differently for innovation in regional water productivity in Australia

Doing water research differently for innovation in regional water productivity in Australia

Innovation Platforms: Experiences With Their Institutional Embedding in Agricultural Research for Development

Research impact assessment in agriculture—A review of approaches and impact areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About