Learning and Innovation in Agriculture and Rural Development: The Use of the Concepts of Boundary Work and Boundary Objects

Abstract Purpose: The paper explores the role of boundary work and boundary objects in enhancing learning and innovation processes in hybrid multi-actor networks for sustainable agriculture (LINSA). Design/Methodology/Approach: Boundary work in LINSA is analysed on the basis of six case studies carried out in SOLINSA project under a common methodology. In developing typologies of boundary work and objects, a grounded approach is used. Findings: LINSA analysis demonstrates the dynamic character, diverse forms and multiple functions of boundary work and objects in three domains: learning, innovation, and sustainability. Addressing specific types of goals and actors leads to specific types of boundary work and boundary objects. Context-appropriate boundary work allows aligning differing actor attitudes, gaining increased external support, and developing LINSA. The concepts of boundary work and boundary objects are relevant in a broad range of divergent LINSA settings. Boundary work has its limitations, but its facilitation supports reaching LINSA goals. Practical Implications: The paper proposes recognising context-appropriate forms of boundary work and skilful use of emerging boundary objects to both promote internal consolidation of LINSA and effective external communication to foster learning and innovation for sustainability. Originality/Value: The paper provides insights into the forms, dynamic and outcomes of boundary work in LINSA in three key domains: developing shared knowledge base, co-producing innovation and negotiating sustainability.

[1]  Laurens Klerkx,et al.  Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions , 2012 .

[2]  L. Klerkx.  Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: insights from the Dutch agricultural sector , 2009 .

[3]  James Kirwan,et al.  The Role of Tacit Knowledge in Developing Networks for Sustainable Agriculture , 2014 .

[4]  D. Guston.  Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction , 2001 .

[5]  Sue Oreszczyn,et al.  The role of networks of practice and webs of influencers on farmers' engagement with and learning about agricultural innovations , 2010 .

[6]  T. Gieryn.  Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional , 1983 .

[7]  Anna-Katharina Hornidge,et al.  'Follow the Innovation‘ - a Joint Experimentation & Learning Approach to Transdisciplinary Innovation Research , 2009 .

[8]  Michael S. Carolan,et al.  Social change and the adoption and adaptation of knowledge claims: Whose truth do you trust in regard to sustainable agriculture? , 2006 .

[9]  Flurina Schneider,et al.  Social Learning Processes in Swiss Soil Protection—The ‘From Farmer - To Farmer’ Project , 2009 .

[10]  E. Wenger.  Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems , 2000 .

[11]  Alex Koutsouris,et al.  Innovating Towards Sustainable Agriculture: A Greek Case Study , 2008 .

[12]  Cees Leeuwis,et al.  Rethinking Communication in Innovation Processes: Creating Space for Change in Complex Systems , 2011 .

[13]  James J. Chrisman,et al.  Business Networks and Economic Development in Rural Communities in the United States , 2010 .

[14]  Roger Wilkinson,et al.  Beyond Participation: Boundary Organizations as a New Space for Farmers and Scientists to Interact , 2005 .

[15]  Julie Ingram,et al.  CAP Reform and Innovation: The Role of Learning and Innovation Networks , 2013 .

[16]  K. Moore,et al.  Organizing Integrity: American Science and the Creation of Public Interest Organizations, 1955-1975 , 1996, American Journal of Sociology.

[17]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[18]  Laurens Klerkx,et al.  Design process outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects; functions and limitations , 2012 .

[19]  G. Brunori,et al.  Towards a Better Conceptual Framework for Innovation Processes in Agriculture and Rural Development: From Linear Models to Systemic Approaches , 2009 .

[20]  Talis Tisenkopfs,et al.  Learning as Issue Framing in Agricultural Innovation Networks , 2014 .

[21]  Catherine Laurent,et al.  Multifunctionality of agricultural activities, changing rural identities and new institutional arrangements , 2008 .

[22]  Pieter J. Beers,et al.  The contested redefinition of a sustainable countryside: revisiting Frouws' Rurality Discourses , 2010 .

[23]  P. Mollinga.  Boundary Work and the Complexity of Natural Resources Management , 2010 .

[24]  Chris Kimble,et al.  Innovation and knowledge sharing across professional boundaries: Political interplay between boundary objects and brokers , 2010, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[25]  Nicholas Theodorakopoulos,et al.  Intermediation for technology diffusion and user innovation in a developing rural economy: a social learning perspective , 2014 .

[26]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[27]  Tony Huzzard,et al.  Constructing interorganizational collaboration , 2010 .

[28]  Hilary Tovey,et al.  Knowledge in Sustainable Rural Development: From Forms of Knowledge to Knowledge Processes , 2008 .

[29]  David W. Cash,et al.  Knowledge systems for sustainable development , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[30]  W. Clark,et al.  Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.