Blending "hard" and "soft" science: the "follow-the-technology" approach to catalyzing and evaluating technology change.

The types of technology change catalyzed by research interventions in integrated natural resource management (INRM) are likely to require much more social negotiation and adaptation than are changes related to plant breeding, the dominant discipline within the system of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Conceptual models for developing and delivering high-yielding varieties have proven inadequate for delivering natural resource management (NRM) technologies that are adopted in farmers' fields. Successful INRM requires tools and approaches that can blend the technical with the social, so that people from different disciplines and social backgrounds can effectively work and communicate with each other. This paper develops the "follow-the-technology" (FTT) approach to catalyzing, managing, and evaluating rural technology change as a framework that both "hard" and "soft" scientists can work with. To deal with complexity, INRM needs ways of working that are adaptive and flexible. The FTT approach uses technology as the entry point into a complex situation to determine what is important. In this way, it narrows the research arena to achievable boundaries. The methodology can also be used to catalyze technology change, both within and outside agriculture. The FTT approach can make it possible to channel the innovative potential of local people that is necessary in INRM to "scale up" from the pilot site to the landscape. The FTT approach is built on an analogy between technology change and Darwinian evolution, specifically between "learning selection" and natural selection. In learning selection, stakeholders experiment with a new technology and carry out the evolutionary roles of novelty generation, selection, and promulgation. The motivation to participate is a "plausible promise" made by the R&D team to solve a real farming problem. Case studies are presented from a spectrum of technologies to show that repeated learning selection cycles can result in an improvement in the performance of the plausible promise through adaptation and a sense of ownership by the stakeholders.

[1]  N. Long From paradigm lost or paradigm regained?; the case for an actor-oriented sociology of development. , 1990 .

[2]  Ravi Prabhu,et al.  Assessing the Performance of Natural Resource Systems , 2002 .

[3]  K. Lewin Field theory in social science , 1951 .

[4]  P. Engel,et al.  A Conceptual Framework for Studying the Links between Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer in Developing Countries , 2019, Making the Link.

[5]  S. Koala,et al.  Research on nutrient flows and balances in west Africa: state-of-the-art 1 Paper contributes to EC I , 1998 .

[6]  N. Long Encounters at the interface : a perspective on social discontinuities in rural development , 1989 .

[7]  Robert Chambers,et al.  Agricultural research for resource poor farmers: a parsimonious paradigm , 1986 .

[8]  N. Long Agency and Constraint, Perceptions and Practices. A Theoretical Position , 1997 .

[9]  M. Mortimore,et al.  Cowpea in traditional cropping systems. , 1997 .

[10]  D. Mackeracher Making Sense of Adult Learning , 1993 .

[11]  Boru Douthwaite,et al.  Enabling Innovation: A Practical Guide to Understanding and Fostering Technological Change , 2002 .

[12]  E. Rogers Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[13]  Joel Mokyr,et al.  The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress , 1991 .

[14]  H. Maturana,et al.  The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding , 2007 .

[15]  A. Schutz The Structures of the Life World , 1973 .

[16]  J.D.H. Keatinge,et al.  Why promising technologies fail: the neglected role of user innovation during adoption ☆ , 2001 .

[17]  Eric S. Raymond,et al.  The Cathedral and the Bazaar , 2000 .

[18]  R. Dawkins,et al.  River out of eden : a Darwinian view of life , 1996 .

[19]  Jean-François Lyotard,et al.  The Postmodern Condition , 1979 .