Comments on: Research and Development: Show me the Impact… http://ictkm.cgiar.org/2007/09/04/research-and-development-show-me-the-impact%e2%80%a6/ Collaborate, Create, Communicate Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:54:53 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Mark Lundy http://ictkm.cgiar.org/2007/09/04/research-and-development-show-me-the-impact%e2%80%a6/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Mark Lundy Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:10:57 +0000 http://ictkm.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/research-and-development-show-me-the-impact%e2%80%a6/#comment-7 It is good to see that someone is finally beginning to dismantle the false assumptions behind current CGIAR evaluation indicators. In the best case scenario, even the most respectable and oft-cited articles have limited or no impact on those the system claims to assist. At the same time, capacity building activities such as training, direct work with development agencies or with farmer associations receives little weight in our evaluation system. If the CGIAR were expected to contribute to science in a way similar to a northern university, then this evaluation system is fine. For a system that strives to reduce rural hunger and poverty it is clearly not. While I agree with the overall tone of this post, there are a couple of oversights that are troubling. First, the post seems to accept that scientific knowledge is developed by a researchers in a vacuum. No less troubling is the continued vision of the end user as a passive recipient of knowledge from an advanced research center. Work over the last several decades (!!!) in areas like participatory and action research shows that both assumptions are wrong. On the one hand, few scientists in the CG fit the mold of lone researchers shut up in laboratories. Nearly all my colleagues work with other people and many of their best ideas come from interactions with people who are not "scientists". Secondly, knowledge creation rarely comes as a bolt out of the blue. Rather it is a cumulative effort that builds on the work of others. The issue of users as mere recipients of scientific largess is also mistaken. Time and again studies have shown that users evaluate, test, improve and further develop ideas that come from science to meet their own needs. Failure to recognize that the CG is itself but a small part of a much larger innovation system are disingenuous at best. We are not, however much we might want to be, the center of knowledge creation in agriculture. That title belongs to millions of farmers and other supply chain actors. Mark Lundy It is good to see that someone is finally beginning to dismantle the false assumptions behind current CGIAR evaluation indicators. In the best case scenario, even the most respectable and oft-cited articles have limited or no impact on those the system claims to assist. At the same time, capacity building activities such as training, direct work with development agencies or with farmer associations receives little weight in our evaluation system. If the CGIAR were expected to contribute to science in a way similar to a northern university, then this evaluation system is fine. For a system that strives to reduce rural hunger and poverty it is clearly not.

While I agree with the overall tone of this post, there are a couple of oversights that are troubling. First, the post seems to accept that scientific knowledge is developed by a researchers in a vacuum. No less troubling is the continued vision of the end user as a passive recipient of knowledge from an advanced research center.

Work over the last several decades (!!!) in areas like participatory and action research shows that both assumptions are wrong. On the one hand, few scientists in the CG fit the mold of lone researchers shut up in laboratories. Nearly all my colleagues work with other people and many of their best ideas come from interactions with people who are not “scientists”. Secondly, knowledge creation rarely comes as a bolt out of the blue. Rather it is a cumulative effort that builds on the work of others.

The issue of users as mere recipients of scientific largess is also mistaken. Time and again studies have shown that users evaluate, test, improve and further develop ideas that come from science to meet their own needs. Failure to recognize that the CG is itself but a small part of a much larger innovation system are disingenuous at best. We are not, however much we might want to be, the center of knowledge creation in agriculture. That title belongs to millions of farmers and other supply chain actors.

Mark Lundy

]]> By: Ajit Maru http://ictkm.cgiar.org/2007/09/04/research-and-development-show-me-the-impact%e2%80%a6/comment-page-1/#comment-6 Ajit Maru Fri, 07 Sep 2007 07:23:15 +0000 http://ictkm.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/research-and-development-show-me-the-impact%e2%80%a6/#comment-6 I agree with the opinion expressed in the blog. It is not only at the Individual level but also at the Institution and Research System level that we need to relook at assessment. In GFAR's case National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) receive very little direct financial support from GFAR. Our main partners are the Regional Forums. The regional forums' partners are the (NARS). We also support Regional Networks, Inter-regional networks, Global Partnership Programs and Projects where NARS linkages are established directly and through the regional forums. We also have parallel direct linkages with Civil society, Non Government, Farmer organizations and the private sector. Our linkages at the Global level are with the United Nationals Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and its International Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs), Non CGIAR IARCS, Advanced research institutions such as Universities. As you can see there is high complexity on assessing how GFAR achieves its outcomes of fostering dialogues on critical issues related to agricultural research and innovation development, facilitating action and in assessing outcomes of global action in agricultural research for development (ARD). The output based approach would be too shallow to measure the role and impact of GFAR. A large part of the assessment framework in all ARD activities uses the Log Frame approach because those who invest financially in ARD (Donors) are Log frame based in their assessment. There are many limitations when this approach is applied to organizations such as GFAR whose influence on ARD is significantly larger than the financially support it has or gives to its partners. I have drawn attention to the need to review current approaches to assessment of IARCs in the meta-EPMR conducted by CGIAR recently. I am of the opinion that the CGIAR as a system and its Institutes face similar problems as GFAR in its assessments. As a community interested in agricultural research for development, we should all look at whether current approaches to monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment are yielding us neccessary information to gauge how well we are doing for development through agricultural research and innovation. Ajit Maru I agree with the opinion expressed in the blog. It is not only at the Individual level but also at the Institution and Research System level that we need to relook at assessment.

In GFAR’s case National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) receive very little direct financial support from GFAR. Our main partners are the Regional Forums. The regional forums’ partners are the (NARS). We also support Regional Networks, Inter-regional networks, Global Partnership Programs and Projects where NARS linkages are established directly and through the regional forums. We also have parallel direct linkages with Civil society, Non Government, Farmer organizations and the private sector. Our linkages at the Global level are with the United Nationals Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and its International Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs), Non CGIAR IARCS, Advanced research institutions such as Universities.

As you can see there is high complexity on assessing how GFAR achieves its outcomes of fostering dialogues on critical issues related to agricultural research and innovation development, facilitating action and in assessing outcomes of global action in agricultural research for development (ARD). The output based approach would be too shallow to measure the role and impact of GFAR.

A large part of the assessment framework in all ARD activities uses the Log Frame approach because those who invest financially in ARD (Donors) are Log frame based in their assessment. There are many limitations when this approach is applied to organizations such as GFAR whose influence on ARD is significantly larger than the financially support it has or gives to its partners.

I have drawn attention to the need to review current approaches to assessment of IARCs in the meta-EPMR conducted by CGIAR recently. I am of the opinion that the CGIAR as a system and its Institutes face similar problems as GFAR in its assessments.

As a community interested in agricultural research for development, we should all look at whether current approaches to monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment are yielding us neccessary information to gauge how well we are doing for development through agricultural research and innovation.

Ajit Maru

]]>