Web2forDev: Web 2.0 for Development Gateway

The CGIAR Centres and Programs with their many partners are together creating a wealth of knowledge to help increase agricultural productivity and improve livelihoods of poor communities, primarily in developing countries. The knowledge the CGIAR produces is vital to addressing and finding solutions for food (in)security around the world.  However, despite the creation of this wealth of knowledge, certain obstacles to uptake and impact of agricultural research remain. Many of these obstacles are related to the way in which knowledge and innovation are treated within the research process.

Problems confound the current production and dissemination of knowledge for maximum value and use. There is still considerable underinvestment in knowledge sharing which has contributed to a lack of essential knowledge as well as the creation of a knowledge gap. Available knowledge is not being put to use fully and thus we see less than optimum linkage between knowledge and action. There are generally weak knowledge systems, characterized by a lack of engagement with end users. This has led to a lack of appropriateness and relevance of some knowledge, technology and innovation, a lack of availability and accessibility of knowledge, and a lack of buy-in and acceptance of knowledge by stakeholders and end-users. Production of knowledge and innovation are still seen as the remit of research and this traditional process doesn’t take into account other sources of knowledge. Research organizations, including the CGIAR, have therefore often played the role of ‘Emperor’.

This model reduces the effectiveness of R&D efforts and demands a fundamental rethink about the way agricultural research is carried out. In response to this the CGIAR launched a major Change Initiative in 2008 to meet these challenges, in recognition of the fact that:

“the world of agricultural research has shifted dramatically… the entry of strong new actors into the field of agricultural research is further challenging the role of the CGIAR as a major player in the world of international agricultural research… the CGIAR may no longer be perceived as the critical provider of solutions for agricultural productivity, natural resource management or policy advice…if these trends continue, and the CGIAR does not adapt, the CGIAR will rapidly become irrelevant.”  Source

The CGIAR Change Management Process has therefore been looking for ways to restructure, reposition and revitalize the CGIAR to more effectively carry out agricultural research for development through “...a more open and supportive CGIAR system (which) will build more dynamic partnerships up and down the research-to-development continuum” .

Rationale

What is needed now is a change in the way things are done. The innovations system approach is particularly interesting and pertinent to this discussion as it points out that it is not only knowledge production (by research) that is important, what is also important is involving many actors in the production of knowledge, making this knowledge available and accessible in more appropriate ways and enabling its effective use (Hall, 2005)  . In this model, according to Hall 2005, “innovation does not arise solely from a simple process of transferring knowledge from research to knowledge users, but arises from a process of interaction and learning where knowledge from diverse sources is shared and integrated in ways that allow its novel use.” The research process can no longer act autonomously from those who intend to use its products. Rather than research being central to innovation, the innovation systems concept suggests that agricultural research organizations need to be thought of as part of a much larger constellation of sources of knowledge, players and processes and thus situates research organizations in a wider set of relationships(Hall, 2005). The relationship between research organizations and these other players needs to change substantially —we need to change the Emperor.

A new CGIAR should therefore be focused on ensuring that its research process is opened up so that it reflects priorities of the sector; that the process makes use of a wide range of sources of knowledge and expertise; that the knowledge it generates reaches its intended audience (from policymakers to investors and implementers to the farmers themselves); that the resultant recommendations meet the on-the-ground needs and conditions;  and that ultimately, the findings and recommendations from the research effect positive change in the livelihoods of the world’s poor.

Theory of Change - ICTs Changing the Emperor

For innovation to take place, knowledge from codified and tacit sources, from the public and private sectors and from local and global sources needs to be integrated through partnerships and networks (Hall, 2005). For this to happen, effective knowledge systems (bridging mechanisms) are needed that facilitate communication, translation and mediation across the boundaries between the various actors in agricultural research and development and between knowledge and action. According to IICD  in their booklet on ‘ICTs for agricultural livelihoods’  “a productive sector depends on fruitful and fair interaction between the diverse-actors-communication and information flows are critical to this process” (IICD, 2006)

The new knowledge systems that have been emerging recently are geared towards achieving this and increasingly include a strong focus on the use of information communication technologies, as recognized by Maru and Ehrle in their paper on ‘Building a framework for ICT use in agricultural research and development: Is the North different from the South?’  which stated that “ the use of ICTs in agricultural research and development organizations (also) seems to be following a (similar) path with the focus on creating networks to share and exchange information” (2003). While ICTs have more often been associated with providing advanced services to number crunching and data management, geo-spatial applications, knowledge based systems and robotics, improved farm equipment and processes, and the like- less has been considered or undertaken in terms of the role of ICTs in connecting communities . Given the obvious need to engage more with stakeholders, in more aspects of research and in more meaningful ways, as reflected upon earlier in this piece, we should be exploring how ICTs can provide new opportunities to further develop and support interactions, communication and knowledge sharing.

ICTs offer the opportunity to:

1. improve knowledge flows
2. support the opening up of the research process to interactions, voices, knowledge
3. more cost-effectively widen the participation of stakeholders in the research process

The main position of this piece, therefore, is that ICTs can offer an opportunity to make real changes in the way that agricultural science, research and technology development occurs by supporting new ways of interacting and collaborating with a variety of stakeholders to enhance the innovation process and by so doing can in effect ‘change the emperor’.

Proper use of ICTs

Despite ICTs offering many possibilities in improving agricultural research towards a more innovation systems approach, certain trends in use of ICTs can limit its potential effectiveness in agricultural research and should be addressed.

• The narrow definition of ICTs

The value and effectiveness of ICTs in supporting greater involvement of stakeholders in research and technology generation is often dismissed, as illustrated by the comment that “the use of ICTs to connect sources of agricultural innovation to users, especially farmers, is limited by lack of connectivity, especially to the internet, in rural areas in developing countries” (Maru and Ehrle, 2003). The perceived limitation in effectiveness of ICTs in this regard is often due to definitions of ICTs which narrowly focus on highly sophisticated hardware and internet-based applications. However in the definition of ICTs used by the World Bank Group in their 2002 ICT Strategy , ICTs are more appropriately presented as:

“hardware, software, networks and media for collection, storage, processing,
 transmission and presentation of information in the formats of voice, data,
 text and images” (WorldBank, 2002).

This is expanded even further in the IICD booklet which states that “clearly, ICT encompasses a wide range of elements that include hardware and software, content generation, knowledge management as well as institutional and management processes” (IICD, 2006).

If ICTs are to play a role in supporting a more inclusive process of agricultural research then this concept needs to be treated in this broader manner to open up the possibilities to a spectrum of possibilities ranging from high-end sophisticated equipment all the way to processes and approaches (software) focused on facilitating greater information and communication. The IICD booklet goes on to promote that “appropriate use of ICT in agriculture requires the application of relevant combinations of traditional and modern ICT” (IICD, 2006).

• The primary focus on ICTs as individual, stand-alone tools

Quite often ICTs are known as, used and promoted as individual, stand-alone tools. However ICTs, especially for the purpose discussed above, need to be carefully integrated into the agricultural research process, linking them appropriately to particular needs and target groups. A paper by Mark Reed entitled ‘Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review’  makes a strong point about “the need to replace a "tool-kit" approach, which only emphasizes selecting the relevant tools for the job, with an approach that emphasizes participation as a process”.

ICTs need to be embedded in research activities to support particular needs and goals for making it more inclusive. Rather than being introduced and promoted just for the sake of it, analysis needs to be made of what ICTs can offer and where they can realistically serve a function of improving interaction and communication within agricultural research. Figure 1-shows an example of how ICTs can be used at certain stages of the research process to improve the collaboration and knowledge sharing at these various entry points while Table 1(at end of paper) gives some real examples of ICTs which can be used to achieve a greater innovation systems model of agricultural research through use at various key stages of the research process.

 

State-of-the-art

The CGIAR’s Program on Information and Communication Technologies and Knowledge Management (ICT-KM)  has been working over the past years on learning about and promoting ways of ‘connecting people, technology and knowledge for agricultural innovation’. With key projects dealing with a range of ICT and KM questions and topics in its portfolio it has amassed a wide range of knowledge, best practices, experiences and evidence on ICTs and KM in the context of (mostly CGIAR) agricultural research.  This knowledge and experience is oriented around both particular ICTs but also, as discussed in point number 2 above, in how to make these used and useful through necessary frameworks in which they should be embedded.

Some key ICTs which have been explored and examined by the Program and found to be useful in supporting greater interaction, communication and knowledge flows include :

• Web 2.0 tools—wikis, blogs, CMS
• Social media- microblogging, photos and document sharing,
• Creation of online learning resources
• Collaborative information sharing platforms-e.g CGMAP, Collective action online , interactive map
• Knowledge sharing approaches

But the program has also found that ICTs should not, and will generally not be successfully adopted in isolation. The ICT-KM program has been looking at how ICTs can support:

• Greater knowledge sharing  to support more effective institutional sharing and learning processes
• Improved knowledge sharing and collaboration with stakeholders in research
• Collation of relevant information on research across the CGIAR—and searching and analysis functions (CGMAP, Online maps for improved access to information on agricultural research projects for CGIAR regional Plan for Collective Action: Eastern and Southern Africa)
• Opening access to CGIAR research by making it more Available, Accessible and Applicable (Triple A Initiative). 

Future

However, despite exciting pockets of use and work on ICTs in agricultural research there is not a wide application of this concept or the many tools it covers. Instrumental to this is the need for a much better understanding of how a wider utilization of ICTs can bridge the gap within and between the CGIAR Centers, as well as between the CGIAR and its many external stakeholders at national, regional and global levels. Despite a growing body of literature, experience, evidence and guidance on ICTs in agriculture and ICTs for development, relatively little has been adapted or documented for use of ICTs in agricultural research. With an enormous, and growing, amount of ICT options available and little offered in terms of guidance or experience in operationalising ICTs within agricultural research to support an innovations systems model of agricultural research for development, it is often difficult for researchers and institutions to choose, prioritize and implement this.

If the CGIAR is serious about changing to a partnerships centred-approach to carrying out its agricultural research for development, then it will need to employ a number of tools and approaches to support the necessary interactions, communication and knowledge sharing which supports such partnerships. It is necessary then to invest in figuring out what ICTs will help us to most effectively change the Emperor.

For this topic of the role of ICTs in agricultural research to be properly considered and made use of within a new and Revitalized CGIAR some questions should be addressed:

• Are the CGIAR and its partners ready to fully capitalize on the use of ICTs in agricultural research?
• How can the CGIAR adjust to the transformation from primary knowledge creator to one of a multitude of actors involved in developing innovations by making use of ICTs?
• What ICTs are currently in use or can be adopted to bring about this transformation?
• How can institutional and individual mindsets be opened to these opportunities when the investments of time and effort may not bear immediate returns?
• Should the CGIAR simply be following the trends or be playing a leadership role in exploring the use of ICTs for improving the effectiveness of agricultural research for development efforts?
• If “little systematic scholarship exists”, should the CGIAR be a recipient or provider of such scholarship on ICTs in agricultural research?

For additional information, please see:

• Presentation of this think-piece at the Science Forum on- http://ictkm.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/ict-enabled-collaboration-a-presentation-at-the-science-forum/
• CGIAR ICT-KM Program website- www.ictkm.cgiar.org
• CGIAR ICT-KM Program’s Knowledge Sharing Project website- www.ks-cgiar.org
• KS blog- http://ictkm.wordpress.com/category/knowledge-sharing/
• KS Toolkit- http://kstoolkit.wikis.cgiar.org/

 

Table: Inspired by Table 2-MDG 1 ‘Poverty’ and types of ICT interventions in the agricultural sector (pg 16) in IICD report ‘ICTs for agricultural livelihoods: Imapct and lessons learned from IICD supported activities’ 

Author: Nadia Manning-Thomas, IWMI/ICT-KM 

Think-piece prepared for the Workshop 3 at the Science Forum, Wageningen, The Netherlands 16-17 June 2009, and as part of ongoing work in the CGIAR ICT-KM Program (www.ictkm.cgiar.org) and it’s Knowledge Sharing in Research Project (www.ks-cgiar.org)