- Home
- About us
- ILAC Activities
- Resources
- ILAC Publications
- ILAC Briefs
- ILAC Sourcebook
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Chapter 6: Introduction Part 2
- Chapter 7: Innovation histories
- Chapter 9: Culture study as a tool for change
- Chapter 12: Collaborative agreements
- Chapter 13: Facilitation as a foundation skill for ILAC
- Chapter 14: Learning alliances
- Chapter 15: Institutional histories
- Chapter 16: Engaging Scientists through Institutional Histories
- Chapter 18: Horizontal evaluation
- Chapter 19: Appreciative inquiry
- Part 3 - Cases and experiences
- Part 4 - Challenges and strategies
- About the authors
- Glossary
- References
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Presentations by ILAC Team
- Working Papers
- Journal Articles
- Newsletter
- Reports
- ILAC Library
- Tools and methods for M&E
- Appreciative inquiry
- Biophysical measurements
- Case study
- Content analysis
- Contribution analysis
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Creative expression
- Diaries, journals and logs
- Dreams realised or visioning
- Expert review
- GIS mapping
- Graphing results
- Group assessment
- Historical trends and timelines
- Horizontal evaluation
- Impact evaluation
- Benefit-cost methods
- Case studies
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE)
- Difference-in-difference
- Econometric methods
- Ex-post comparison of project beneficiaries with a control group
- Instrumental variables
- Integrated partial indicators
- Mathematical programming
- Modified peer review
- Partial indicators of impact
- Patent analysis
- Pipeline comparison
- Production function approach
- Propensity score matching
- Quasi-experimental design, involving the use of matched control and project groups
- Randomization
- Rapid assessment or review, conducted ex post
- Regression discontinuity design
- Simulation method
- User surveys
- Impact flow diagram
- Innovation histories
- Institutional history
- Institutional linkage diagram
- Interviews
- Learning alliances
- Learning-oriented evaluation
- M&E Frameworks
- M&E wheel (or "spider web")
- Mapping (sketch)
- Matrix scoring
- Most significant change
- Net-Map
- Non-random sampling
- Observation
- Outcome mapping
- Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis
- Participatory methods
- Performance indicators
- Photographs and video
- Problem and objectives trees
- Random sampling
- Ranking and pocket charts
- Rapid appraisal methods
- Relative scales or ladders
- Rich pictures (or mind maps)
- SWOT
- Seasonal calendars
- Semantic differentials
- Social mapping or well-being ranking
- Sociograms
- Stakeholder analysis
- Survey
- Systems (or inputs-outputs) diagram
- Theory-Based Evaluation
- Transects
- Evaluation studies and reports
- Evaluating capacity development
- Partnership
- Seminars
- Video Room
- Links to other sites
- E-learning courses
- ILAC Publications
- Contact
- Blog
Knowledge Intensive Agricultural Systems
Wed, 08/06/2008 - 12:07 — Cristina Sette
C Shambu Prasad, Xavier Institute of Management
The Learning Laboratory case explores the complex issue of how learning occurs in knowledge intensive, as opposed to the conventional input intensive, agricultural systems. This case has large poverty reduction focus with specific attention to small and marginal farmers in India .
Justification for participation in the Learning Laboratory:
The problems with the linear model of agricultural innovation are reasonably well known. Models of change that have had sources of innovation outside the formal agricultural establishment present interesting opportunities for study and analysis. Some of these have been successful but have perhaps not been scaled or have diluted objectives in the process. Even in these cases of partnerships are few. The cases taken for the Learning Laboratory present contemporary ways by which organizations have been combining aspects of action research and learning to bring about institutional change.
Informal research and alliances have played a major role in the evolution of some of these ventures and this needs greater explication for the institutional implications of changed behavior for research organizations. How have scientists involved in the cases done things differently even as they were constrained in innovating within their own settings? How could these lessons be taken further in their own organizational settings? What have been their approaches to learning and how have these been facilitated? All of these would be explored through the Learning Laboratory including exploring why is it that some organizations have been more receptive to change while others have not?
The cases also provide interesting points where newer interactions might change the axioms of research. Can civil society and farmers be involved in setting the parameters for research? For example in SRI, one such axiom that has evolved is that SRI trials have to be on farmer’s fields, i.e. on-farm rather than on-station. What are the responses and institutional changes that might have to happen if these were to be tried out? These are the kinds of questions that the Learning Laboratory hopes to answer through facilitation.
Case study members:
C Shambu Prasad, Xavier Institute of Management
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page