Considerations for Determining Research Priorities: Learning Cycles and Impact Pathways

Bantilan, M C S; Keatinge, J. D. H.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6057-1_3

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mainstreaming poverty considerations is an important issue in ICRISAT priority assessment (Bantilan and Keatinge, 2007) in the light of recent developments in the global research agendas of international organizations, which have identified poverty eradication as a common goal (UN, 2002;CGIAR, 2005). Mainstreaming poverty recognizes that there are at least five ways by which agricultural research can benefit the poor: (i) increasing poor farmers' productivity; (ii) greater agricultural employment opportunities for small farmers and landless workers; (iii) higher wages and growth in adopting regions; (iv) lowering food prices; and (v) greater access to nutritive crops.…”

Section: Mainstreaming Poverty Considerations In Priority Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritizing agricultural research for development: experiences and lessons

Raitzer¹,

Norton²

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter documents the research priority assessment methods used at the International Crop Research Institute for the Semi-arid Tropics (ICRISAT). Research evaluation and priority assessment have evolved to provide continuous cycles of learning to improve impacts. Prior to 1992, research priorities were established based on consultative meetings with ICRISAT and National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) scientists to identify key productivity constraints and propose research themes and approaches to address them. For its 1994-1998 Medium-term Plan (MTP) cycle, ICRISAT undertook a quantitative priority-setting exercise using clear criteria for establishing choices among competing research activities. This drew on scientists' empirical and intuitive knowledge base. Research themes identified were impact-oriented, projecting clear milestones against which progress can be measured and evaluated ex post. This identification formed an integral part of the research evaluation process and facilitated revising priorities in the light of such experiences. Following the quantitative priority assessment exercise, ICRISAT pursued extensive discussions with partners in the MTP 1998-2000 cycle and broad targets were identified to capture the areas of research and the nature of the benefits they intended to deliver. Hence, four targets were articulated by ICRISAT including prosperity, diversity, environment and inclusiveness. Due to time and cost constraints, simple scoring methods were used to rank identified constraints through a broader consultation between ICRISAT and all partners in the research and development (R&D) continuum. The target of inclusiveness included participatory methods that facilitate the participation of stakeholders and allow them to express their preferences. Scoring methods were used to rank priorities in the subsequent three-year MTP cycles.

show abstract

Section: Mainstreaming Poverty Considerations In Priority Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritizing agricultural research for development: experiences and lessons

Raitzer¹,

Norton²

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This shift is particularly relevant in mission-oriented areas, such as health and agriculture (Wright, 2012), where research is related explicitly to social goals such as reducing the disease burden or improving yields (Kahlon et al, 1977;Joly et al, 2015). However, some authors suggest that evaluation should consider not only the magnitude of the social impact of research but also the type of impact, for example, whether and to what extent it addresses and satisfies societal needs (Pinstrup-Andersen and Franklin, 1977;Bantilan and Keatinge, 2007;Sarewitz and Pielke, 2007;Kinge et al, 2014). "For the effective allocation of their scarce human and financial resources, institutions such as those involved in public agricultural research must take into consideration the needs of farmers as well as overall national, social, and economic goals" (Pinstrup-Andersen and Franklin, 1977, p. 416).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ely et al, 2014;Wallace and Rafols, 2018;Gläser and Laudel, 2016), especially work on agriculture (e.g. Arvanitis and Chatelin, 1988;Norton et al, 1992;Kelley et al, 1995;Sumberg, 2002;Dalrymple, 2006;Bantilan and Keatinge, 2007;Raitzer and Norton, 2009;Vanloqueren and Baret, 2009;Touzard and Temple, 2012;Sumberg et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice

Ciarli

Ràfols

2019

Research Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the same time, tightened budgets have led agricultural research organizations to formalize priority setting approaches for the identification of research activities with the highest possible impact in terms of economic efficiency, poverty alleviation, and other institutional, social, and environmental objectives, to inform decisions on the optimal allocation of research funds. Priority setting increases the credibility and objectivity of the decisions taken at the various institutional levels (institutes, programs, and projects) and offers a systematic way of planning and managing research which is consistent with informed scientific opinion and stakeholder needs (Bantilan and Keatinge 2007 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing modeling approaches for assessing priorities in international agricultural research

Petsakos

Hareau

Kleinwechter

et al. 2018

Research Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines how the estimated impacts of crop technologies vary with alternate methods and assumptions, and also discusses the implications of these differences for the design of studies to inform research prioritization. Drawing on international potato research, we show how foresight scenarios, realized by a multi-period global multi-commodity equilibrium model, can affect the estimated magnitudes of welfare impacts and the ranking of different potato research options, as opposed to the static, single-commodity, and country assumptions of the economic surplus model which is commonly used in priority setting studies. Our results suggestthatthe ranking oftechnolo- gies is driven by the data used for their specification and is not affected by the foresight scenario examined. However, net benefits vary significantly in each scenario and are greatly overestimated when impacts on non-target countries are ignored. We also argue that the validity of the singlecommodity assumption underpinning the economic surplus model is case-specific and depends on the interventions examined and on the objectives and criteria included in a priority setting study.

show abstract

Considerations for Determining Research Priorities: Learning Cycles and Impact Pathways

Cited by 5 publications

References 8 publications

Prioritizing agricultural research for development: experiences and lessons

Prioritizing agricultural research for development: experiences and lessons

The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice

Comparing modeling approaches for assessing priorities in international agricultural research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About