ALEMAYA UNIVERSITY

COLLAGE OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION DEPARTMENT

Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems (AKIS)

By Fekadu Beyene

December, 1999

1
1. Agricultural knowledge and information systems
General Concept

Why do we study AKIS?

To understand theater of innovations

To design purposeful interventions
To recognize specific situations
To get clear picture of knowledge producers and users
To design appropriate development strategy

No single social actor can guide comprehensive processes towards innovations

Systems thinking and practice

Moving from disciplinary approaches to systems approaches and more styles of problem
solving requires a great leap. Scientists of different professions have been searching for new
approaches to meet the challenges presented by complex problems in which there is no
opportunity to reduce the number of factors that needs to be handled. This need has led them
to develop more holistic approaches based on systems thinking.

Definition: A system is a set of parts that behave in a way that an observer has chosen to
view as coordinated to accomplish one or more goals. The concern here is an observer’s
choice of parts to study. It is best not to think that systems are real.

Major systems premises

1. Holism- Systems based methodologies are based on the assumption that the world can be
viewed as consisting of structural wholes or systems that maintain their identity or integrity
under a range of conditions and that exhibit certain general properties emerging from their
wholes.

2. Transformations -Inputs to a system are transformed through major functions that can be
described or developed; as a result of transformation an output from the system is produced.

3. Control -systems are conceived as having the capacity to maintain key components within
an appropriate range of values in the face of external disturbance.

4. Communication- is related to a system’s ability to communicate information in order to

control what happens within a system and the forces that come out from without.

5. Hierarchy -the notion of hierarchy of systems (sub-systems) is the systems version of

reductionism to its properties of components.

Example: individuals----- populations---- communities---- ecosystems

(lowest) (highest)

2
6. Emergent properties- In systems it is often said that the whole is different from the sum of
its parts. That difference is the emergent property and, in any give hierarchy, emergent
properties uniquely pertain to particular hierarchical levels. In going up the hierarchy, the
emergent properties at lower levels will disappear.

We often talk of system’s movement. This implies development of system’s thinking in

specific fields of science and its application in other disciplines; and systems engineering
gave an impetus for further development of soft systems methodology

Systems ideas also provide a way of thinking about numerous problems; hence systems
thinking is not generally a discipline in itself. It is, however, utilized by a number of scientists
of various disciplines.

The system thinker- Medawar (1977) contends that nature will be hierarchically organized
with emergent properties at various level of complexities. He tried to work out on the
importance of thinking in terms of coherently organized entities which can not properly be
reduced merely to an aggregate level of their components.

It is important to see the distinction between the reductionists and holistic thinkers in terms of
their approach to problem-solving.

A system observer:

- will identify some entities and define them

- perceives (invents) some principles of coherence which makes it meaningful
- identifies mechanism of control of system’s entities to keep identity at least in the short-
term.

Systems Typology

Addressing solutions to problems of society through research requires scientific methodology

that goes further out of laboratory situations to look at wider perspectives of social and
natural phenomena. Neither example of systems thinking does provide direct guidelines for
research. Boulding warns researchers not to accept analysis at a level below the problem
actually occurs.

Systems classes

A) Natural systems- associated with the origin of the universe. They are systems not other
than they are/unchanged/, are evolution - made, irreducible wholes.

B) Designed physical systems - made by man, designed for a purpose

C) Designed Abstract Systems - structured set of thoughts representing the conscious output
of human mind. Eg. AKIS.

D) Human activity systems - less tangible than the natural and designed systems. Eg.
political, economic and social systems

3
There is also another classification of systems as follows.

a) living and non-living systems

b) concrete and abstract systems
c) closed and open systems

The third classification was made by Jordan in 1968. He started from intuitive guesses using
three organizing principles to perceive a group of entities as a system.

These are:

• rates of change - static and dynamic

• purpose - purposive and non-purposive
• connectivity - organismic and mechanistic

Jordan concludes all systems need to have in common identifiable entities and connections
among them; however, he failed to recognize the observer/describer of a system and ascribed
the purpose, or its lack, to the systems itself.

Conclusion: There is no still generally accepted classification of systems. Hence, the

classification of systems emphasizes the purpose and interest for which it serves. System’s
thinking stimulates human’s imagination.

1.2 Scientific Paradigms

Positivism-realism (Conventional paradigm)

Basic Arguments

There is one objective truth

Persons who think differently are incorrect
The choice for experts is to convince or ignore others
It favors instrumental rationality i.e. the belief in technical intervention in the biophysical
world as a solution to human problems

Elements of realist-positivist

.Reality exists independently of the human observer

.Technology is an applied science (Research generates technology, extension transfers is and
farmers use it
.Innovation is the product of research alone
.The aim of research is to contribute to the stock of agricultural knowledge

NB: Constructivism subsumes positivism. It does not always opposes constructivists

thinking.

4
Scientific Paradigms: Constructivism, positivism, relativism and eclecticism

Before going in depth, let me define what a paradigm is. It is a scientific approach based on
certain line of epistemology aiming at providing tools for looking at social problems. It is not
a science in itself. Epistemology is the study of the nature of human knowledge. The
knowledge in this case refers to the knowledge of society developing and changing through
time depending on specific situations and social circumstances.

Constructivism (The new paradigm)

It bases itself on specific arguments in providing guidelines to solve social problems. It

assumes specific rationalities such as communicative and strategic rationalities. In the former
case social actors can investigate their problems through frequent communication and
interaction while in the latter case every member or stakeholder develops its own strategy to
react or internalize the externalities that are standing against the interests and objectives of the
actor. Accommodation of multiple perspectives to arrive at sustainable solutions is therefore
the primary objective of constructivists. Constructivists are experts who believe that social
problems can be solved through entertaining the views of individual actors who are supposed
to be affected by the decision on the solution.

They are not more attracted to the results but to the decision-making processes in the process
of developing solutions. For these groups, failure is considered as an important source of
learning because mistakes are recognized to be facilitators of social learning. Hence, there is
no fear of failure unlike the positivists.

Important features of constructivism

1. There are multiple ‘lifeworlds’ towards which experts have to work to satisfy the interests
of these lifeworlds of social actors. This seems to be really idealistic; however, we would
expect solutions that are more basic and feasible within the limited skills, resources and
knowledge of the relevant actors only if they are involved at different steps in the solution
building process. This is the basic reason why constructivists strongly contend that reality is
socially constructed. The goals towards which individual actors organize their efforts,
knowledge and other resources are usually set in the process of negotiation. Hence, there is no
a sort of preoccupation that would lead to system’s bias in which only certain segments of
the society can benefit from the decision. But this is not contradictory to the notion of
targeting development intervention.

A recent research methodology called PLAR (participatory learning and action research)
relies on the fact that sustainable solutions to agricultural and other social problems can only
be developed through the active involvement of the stakeholders-those who are going to be
affected by the decision. One example is sustainable use of natural resources such as forest,
soil, minerals and water. Resources are said to be exploited on a sustainable basis only if
there is a guarantee on these resources to be used by future generation.

2. On the contrary to the above circumstances there are some social and economic costs that
the constructivist has to pay if he/she wants to select it as an epistemology to look at societal
problems. There is no ground for him to rush to the solution. It is important to be patient,

5
flexible and follow some iterative steps to construct sustainable solutions. It is thus costly in
terms of time and energy. The overall complexities that the expert is encountering in the
process may sometimes lead to mess conditions making smooth communication hardly
possible. It is also difficult to find different social actors creative and good communicant in
the decision making process. This is the challenging step for someone who is on the line of
constructivists. Furthermore, the political condition in which the expert operates can hamper
or facilitate the process. Indeed the credit for constructivist is the easiness for participants to
guide themselves towards actions on the basis of joint recommendations. Several case studies
witnesses that this paradigm works successfully in practice. The best example is that of the
Integrated Pest Management program (IPM) in Indonesia where farmers organized field
school days where they invite experts for discussion to control pests.

B. Positivism/realism/absolutism (the conventional paradigm)

It is an epistemology aiming at making ‘life easier’ with the consequences of the decision of
the expert can bring social or structural discontinuities and blocks the possibilities of
reducing uncertainties. Some of the difficulties associated with the constructivist paradigm
can be resolved in following this line of thinking. In general, I would distance myself from
choosing which one is wrong or right but it is important to compare both paradigms and look
at the notion behind their argument and investigating them in relation to the social realities
you may know in Ethiopia.

Proponents of positivism are guided by instrumental rationality; i.e. the belief in technical
solutions alone to solve agricultural problems. Moreover, technology is considered as an
applied science. That means research generates technology, extension transfers it to the
clients and farmers use it. There is some sort of linearity in making science useful for solving
complex social problems. Positivists are also reductionists in that they reduce the complex
social problems into its simplest component without considering the unintended
consequences of the decision on other elements of a system.

Other paradigms include relativism and eclecticism. The former emphasizes that social
realities that are constructed at one moment in time would be deconstructed at the other time
because social actors in the system will continue to change their strategies to react to (or
adopt to) externalities (eg, government policies and regulations). Where as the latter contends
on the importance of merging scientific disciplines from both social and natural sciences.
Basically, it seems that both emerged from constructivism.

6
2. The challenges to Extension science and its Preoccupation with knowledge
systems

Despite the existence of complexities in the growth of extension science, two points are
becoming controversial to different professionals.

These are:

1. Adaptations of the target groups to extension messages

2. Adaptation on the extension message to the target groups

The challenge to extension science is its disability to provide theoretical concepts that can
compromise the following highly interdependent elements:

- Sustainability
- Stability
- Equality
- Productivity

To resolve this, knowledge systems theory is developed and studying the AKIS of specific
situation (locality) is much more relevant than extension alone.

2.1 Theoretical models of Extension

There are about 5 theoretical (conceptual) models in extension ranging from the old to the
recent lines of thinking. The five models are inherent to the question of adaptation stated
above.

1. Social Marketing

• It aims at target’s behavior

• Emphasizes on influencing people to adapt to the designed extension message
• Raises the question: “ How can I get them where I want them?”
• People are considered as objects and their behavior is determined by specific
factors

e.g. Introduction of legislation or Manipulation.

2. Transfer of Technology (TOT)

• Technology is an applied science.

• It is the best example of positivism
• Science reflects true and right
• Less consideration to farmers’ situation and assumes that science is superior to anything;
i.e. the importance of Indigenous knowledge is undervalued.
NB: The existence of hierarchy among different individuals (actors) creates a
barrier to success of TOT.

7
Example: The green revolution became successful in employing ToT but
benefited only the potential farmers and regions.

- In TOT, no one is responsible for the end result of a technology. Due to lack of
tripartite links each of the three actors (farmers, Researchers and Extension agents)
work independently.
- In diverse agro-ecosystems, resources, interests, the ToT approach will aggravate
income inequality (and inequity).
- Researchers, extension agents and farmers make a continuum between science and
practice
- TOT requires institutions specializing in knowledge transfer
e.g. Training and visit system involving huge investment

Despite the fact we are living in an information age the linear model prohibits effective
flow of scientific and technical information.

The linear model is costly in which most technologies fail as local diversities are not often
considered. Development of technology is based on the observation of scientists.

Eg. Most sorghum varieties released do not tolerate waterlogged conditions under
farmers’ situation where as this is controlled by researchers on their experimental farm.

Therefore, the linear model, being based on a ‘one-way traffic’, appears not to be
applicable to most situations.

3 Advisory work

• The extension worker changes his attitude and becomes a consultant rather than an expert
unlike the previous situation.

• A farmer is recognized as knowledgeable and active solver of a problem; he has access to

different sources of information.

• Farmers are intelligent, fast learners, quickly changing their mind to react to changing
situations.

• Economically not feasible to developing countries’ farmers

Advice
Expert Farmer

Request

8
4. Facilitation of Learning

Does not work with representation

Focuses on the learning process of rural people

Farmers learn how the recommendation is arrived at rather than just accepting the
recommendation.

e.g. Teaching the life - cycle of pests

Importance of facilitation

1) Moving away from high - input to low - external input agriculture

2) To move to sustainable. agriculture

Conclusion: Science is not initiator of innovation but supporter of the phases in the process
of change.

5. Organization Development

Learning requires organizations of farmers and local institution building.

To support the development of organizations, human agency at higher level of social -

aggregation is absolutely necessary. This makes the learning process more sustainable by
enabling the groups to set norms that would govern them. Managing the behavior of free-
riders is a challenge to the agency.

To conclude, as moving from social marketing to organization development, there is a step -

wise increase in the tendency for accommodation of multiple perspectives.

2.2 Knowledge dynamics

The dynamics of knowledge can be seen in relation to the concepts of open & closed systems.

What makes knowledge to have dynamic nature?

Human activity systems (HAS) are open systems. HASs involve seven features: the purpose
that defines the existence of the system itself, the elements, connections, the boundaries, the
inputs (knowledge and information of each actor), the internal processing unit (the result of
elements working together) and the output.

Knowledge dynamics occurs whenever change in one of the seven features takes place. For
instance when the purpose of a system changes, it leads to changes in other features of a
system.

9
Thus the elements of the system need new knowledge and information for optimum
performance of the system.

 Knowledge is constituted by the ways in which people categorize, code, process

information’s and impute meaning to their daily life experiences.

 There is no need to equate knowledge to professional science. Every body has certain
aspects of knowledge. It is not the property of the educated alone.

 Knowledge emerges out of a complex process involving social, situational, cultural and
institutional factors.

 The complex process is affected by various social Contingencies such as:

- The skills
- Orientations
- Experiences
- Interests
- Resources &
- Patterns of social interaction
Knowledge has a ‘complex’ nature because of the variation among elements of a system in
terms of the above mentioned social contingencies.

 Therefore, knowledge is neither accumulation of facts nor is fully unified or integrated but
rather fragmentary, partial and provisional in nature because people work with a
multiplicity of understandings, beliefs and commitments.

Conclusion: Knowledge dynamics recurs to react to changing or newly

emerging agricultural problems or to react /adapt to externalities.

Knowledge Dynamics

Knowing the concept of knowledge dynamics is helpful to recognize the context in which
interventions and technologies work efficiently. Knowledge dynamics means the change in
knowledge and information required as the context in which social actors operate change
because of certain factors (resource, institutional, political, natural, demographic, policy,
etc…). Women’s needs change because of either of the above factors and hence the
knowledge and information needed to address their basic needs also changes. The cases
below exemplify this situation.

Knowledge and Practice

In any intervention scheme, knowledge alone is not suffice for realizing desirable result.
Conversely, practising is impossible unless one has required knowledge. Putting knowledge
into practice entails personal efforts as well as outsiders’ input in the form service or
cooperation. The following case focuses on this concept.

In central Ethiopia, most farmers face severe problem of feed shortage for their livestock
because of less grazing land to carry on. To solve this problem farmers came up with the idea

10
of feeding mollases - a bi-product of sugar; which is available at Nazereth town. They cannot
afford to get it home individually. Then they organized themselves and got the resource
through their application to the MOA. Once the feed is available, new questions come in: to
which livestock to feed, who should feed them (men or women), who needs new knowledge
on feeding practices (men or women)? Women are closer to livestock than men in the area.
So any service or training should be channeled to women. This case shows that new
knowledge of feeding is necessary for women because of change in resource (availability of
grazing land) which happened most probably due to demographic change. The case also
implies knowledge in itself is not enough; it requires training to practice or put the knowledge
into action.

Contextualizing External Knowledge

The means external institutions need to consider indigenous realities in which their
technologies or innovations are expected to work. Understanding the context should be the
primary task of these institutions. The following case presents a technology situation that
failed to consider the household context. A new variety of bean has been introduced to
farmers of Western Hararghe. The bean has a good quality in terms of increasing yield and
matures in short time as compared to local variety. It is preferred in water stress areas. Hence
men appreciated the technology. Nevertheless, women complained on the quality of the
variety in relation to their home criteria. This leads to the suggestion ‘external knowledge of
researchers should work not within the context of men only but of the household in general’.

2.3 Knowledge Processes

Studying knowledge processes is valuable in order to understand the roles and functions of
the different actors involved at various phases in which knowledge is transformed from its
abstract to the more concrete and applicable forms.

What are the processes?

The processes involve certain steps:

 Knowledge generation /production/ creation

 Knowledge dissemination
 Knowledge Transformation ( oral, written, simple, meaningful, relevant).
 Knowledge Exchange
 Knowledge Utilization
 Knowledge storage and retrieval

Generally, there is no as such dear demarcation among these steps in the process. For
example, in farmers’ experimentation knowledge can be generated and exchanged without
undergoing any transformation.

 And for these processes to take place, building and strengthening supporting
institutions are necessary.

 The understanding of the production, reproduction, and transformation of knowledge

11
 must be situated in terms of the “ life- worlds “ of the individuals
and groups involved in the process.

Who generates knowledge? Farmers, researchers, change agents, policy- makers, project
managers, investors, system scientists; national and intentional NGOs, etc...

On the basis of the above explanation, AKIS is defined as a network of actors (organizations,
institutions, farmers, policy-makers, extension agents, etc...) that are involved in the
generation, transformation, dissemination, exchange, utilization, storage and retrieval of
knowledge & information and are working synergistically towards improving domain of
human activities.

AKIS give concerns to:

Interface between real world and knowledge about it.

Goodness- of - fit between the collective knowledge of local actors and the
environment they seek to control, or adapt to, to reach their objectives.

Functional differentiation, integration and coordination are typically
concerns of knowledge management.

AKIS performance could be improved by mobilizing the countervailing power of the
clientele.

2.4. Knowledge systems perspectives

“ When the centipede was asked in which under he moved his hundred legs, he became
paralyzed and starved to death because he had never thought of it before and had left his legs
to look after themselves “ (Koestler, 1968).

Features of KIS perspectives

- They stem from reflective practice rather than from scientific inquiry;
(stimulation of imagination)

- Different actors at many different levels make decisions affecting the innovation of
agriculture.

- Continuing power struggles among actors is an indicative for the type of innovation.

- Complex innovation theaters have to accommodate arbitrariness, allowing those

concerned to make their own judgments in terms of means and ends by creating space
for contextualization, (re) appreciation of views, positions, and relationships among
social actors.

12
3. Knowledge systems and Natural Resource Management

 Environmental problems from local to international levels all pose the same structural
dilemma of being beyond the ability of individual persons
(communities) and nation states to solve them.

 Solving these problems require collective decisions and cooperative action.

 Irrigation water management, mineral resources exploitation’s, soil & water conservation,
forest management & wildlife conservation are some of the areas where people can
cooperate to cope up with environmental problems.

 Thus, the knowledge of different social actors has to be combined to bring in sustainable
natural resource use.

 Knowledge systems theory provides tools to study to attain the above objective (e.g.
SSM).

3.1 Conflicts Resolution on common resource use

This is usually known with the expression of ‘ the tragedy of the commons ’.

What are the sources of conflict?

There could be diverse sources/causes of conflicts on common resources.
Let’s discuss three of them.

 Nature of settlement e.g. use of irrigation water

 Contrasting interests among users. e.g. use of forest resources.
 Political interest e.g. genetic diversity ( Biodiversity) ownership and patent right,
exploitation of mineral resources by foreign investors.

Resolution of Conflict

Conflicts can be resolved through creating human platforms that may support the regulations
of the policy on the use of common resources.

What is a platform?

It is a set of rules and regulation laid down by indigenous (local) groups via negotiation
towards which each individual is expected to act or comply with to use natural resources on a
sustainable basis.

Before creating human (villagers’) platforms, it is important to extract lessons from existing
experience of people involved on how they usually cure ’ the tragedy of the commons’. Then
comes the question; how do outsiders facilitate platform formation through non-coercive
intervention in the sustainable natural resource management (SNRM)?

13
Platform Processes

Organizing community meetings during which outsiders hear the views of the actors in
conflict. Three conditions need to be fulfilled to create a platform.

 Sacrifice of individual autonomy

 Accommodating individual interests
 Losing certain level of diversity

Conclusions:

1. In the process of conflict resolution/platform negotiation, accommodation, convergence

and agreement have of crucial importance.

2. Making interdependence visible in natural resource use is a key area for active facilitation
of platform processes at all levels of aggregation.

3. Interfaces exist not only among the stakeholders but also between the platform
and the natural environment.

4. Consensual approaches become necessary where environmental conflict leads

to an impasse that can not be resolved by government legislation .

Participatory Watershed Management (PWM): A case from India.

This case is presented to show you how a top-down approach to intervention failed in India.
Conventional soil & water conservation programs have shown remarkable failure after huge
investment of resources. (This is also true in Ethiopian situation during the past government).

This was because:

- Few farmers benefited (why do you think

has this happened?)
- Structures were rarely maintained
These are indicators for failure.

- Consequently, many rural communities have become disillusioned & resisted to

implement recommendations.
- In response to this, change in trend of intervention took place. Small-Scale Projects were
designed by joint cooperation of GOs & NGOs,

These projects were:

- Adopting flexible and long-term approaches that build on local knowledge and skills.
- Reinforcing (stimulating) village organizations.
- Involving villagers in technology generation and employing village facilitation for
appraisal.
- External institutions played only a catalytic role in facilitation & networking.

14
Results of change in approach:

- Significant increase in crop and livestock productivity;

- the measures and practices persisted beyond the life of the projects (sustainable
solutions);
- Attitudes of both ( insiders & outsiders) have changed.

3.2 Watershed management

Formation of Self -Help Groups in Watershed Management

Definition:
It is a crucial dividing point. It is a boundary line dividing/separating the areas of
ground whose water is drained by two streams, rivers, etc…

- Large associations accommodate different interest groups and socially distinct

configurations. If large groups have to stay together, there is a need for outsiders’
intervention.

- Hence, outsiders are spending much time and energy on keeping large groups together
rather than actually helping them to acquire necessary skills to mange resources.

- The social grouping within a micro-watershed must be a socially functional group or a

group that does not require outside intervention to stay together. According to Fernandez
(1998) a group with less than 20 members can have common interests and be
homogenous in terms of livelihoods.

Creation of self-help credit management groups is a strategy to enhance watershed

management. Groups, while investing their funds, learn how to set priorities, to take decisions
and risks, to draw up rules of behavior, to resolve conflicts and to apply sanctions effectively
for non-compliance. They also acquire skills required to institutionalize and administrate
cooperation that help in managing watershed resources.

Social dilemma

- It is observed when individuals situate themselves in the world of uncertainty whether to

maximize individual benefits or group benefits.
- In other words, there is tension between individuals motivated to achieve collective
outcomes and individuals who are motivated to achieve private outcomes.
- There is asymmetry between individual and collective behavior.

Note the following:

N individuals making choice between the two

D defecting (social defecting choice; individual interest gets priority)

C socially cooperative

15
 Chicken’s Dilemma

Choosing D only yields a higher pay-off than choosing C, if more than nC individuals choose
C. Whereas choosing D yields a lower pay-off if fewer than nC individuals choose C. After
the decision, the pay-off of all individuals choosing D is lower than the pay-off of all
individuals choosing C.

D = joining cooperatives
D C= working individually

Pay-off C

0C nC NC

Trust Dilemma

Choosing D only yields a higher pay-off than choosing C, if fewer than nC individuals choose
C, whereas choosing D yields a lower pay-off if more than nC individuals choose C.
After the decision, the pay-off of all individuals choosing D is lower than the pay-off of all
individuals choosing C.

C D = hoarding

Pay-off D C = not hoarding

0C nC NC

Factors that influence the dilemma

1. Group size/group identity – the smaller the group size the lesser the extent of dilemma
2. Time-horizon - the more time a community took in working together the lesser the
dilemma
3. Visibility of the behavior - the more visible the behavior and action the lesser the dilemma
4. Communication - the more efficient the interaction among groups the lesser the dilemma
5. Expectation of behavior of others - the more the community is able to expect the behavior
of each other with certain level of confidence the lesser will be the dilemma.

16
 3.3 The impact of power relations of social actors in development intervention

Power relations are expressed during social interfaces in the process of development
intervention.

What is power?
For different purposes, different basic connotations are given for the term ‘power’. In the
context of AKIS, the following statement makes sense. Power is the ability to communicate,
influences others and guide decision processes in the desirable direction. This desired
direction is often set to achieve political and economic goals of the government. One would
say people are powerful if they can use their knowledge and experience for decision-making
affecting their daily lives. That decision requires resources to be implemented and realized
practically. It is when resources are from outsiders that the power of indigenous people is
weak.

Power relations start from micro (household) level and then goes to the national levels. But at
different levels, the nature and purpose of the power relations vary. At household or
community level, bargaining power is always there implicitly or explicitly for maximizing
joint benefits or maintaining individual interests.

There are multiplicities and diversities among different relevant social actors in terms of
skills, resources, knowledge, attitudes, experiences. The question is how is it possible to
relate these aspects to the power relations? Before answering the question, let me trace on
these two statements.

1. Diversity is a basic resource for improvement in resource management. It is the

integration of these multiple perspectives that would ensure the sustainaility of the
solution since the achievement of this depends on soft systems inquiry. Management
decisions must not only include the views of experts and managers but also that of
indigenous people. AKIS helps to achieve this.
2. Diversities cause delays in the decision- making process. This is often considered as
a cost for facilitators working towards sustainable solutions or consensus building. In
this effective participation of different groups with multiple views causes a delay to
the decision making processes. In other words, power is handed over to the society at
large. Any development intervention being guided by this principle would be
successful. Research conducted by Long (1963) in Zambian maize producing farmers
shows that a change in farming systems facilitated by outsiders has increased maize
yield dramatically.

While comparing the above two ideas, it seems that they are somehow intractably
controversial at the policy implementation level. It is the belief of knowledge producing
institutions or organizations that could determine to follow the first or second line of policy
options. That is to say if participation is considered to be untimely, expert style decisions can
be helpful.

17
Social interfaces

Definitions
1. Social interface is the critical points of interaction or linkage between different social
system or levels of social under, where structural discontinuities, based up on
differences of normative values and social interests, are more likely to be found
(Long, 1988).
2. It is the force-field between any two institutions (Roiling, 1988b).

Different meanings are associated with interfaces for different practitioners. It is sometimes
referred as encounters at the interfaces- the face between any two parts of a system.

To make the concept clear, let us consider that there are four different actors in a particular
policy intervention.

Main actors Components

-Policy makers - policy analyst, advisors, planners)

-Researchers - Breeders, veterinarians, seed- multipliers, socio-

economic groups, conservation experts

-Extension professionals - extension officers, extension agents, agents for rural

Women’s affairs (heads & team leaders)

- Farmers - Farmers’ organizations (FOs) , Women’s organizations

(WOs), local training centers (LTCs), service
cooperatives (SCs).

18
 Policy analyst breeders Veterinarians

Advisors seed multipliers SEGs

Planners
conservation expert

EOs
EA s FO s WO s

ARWAs

LTC SC

Fig. The linkage of small scale systems to a large scale system

19
The notion of interfaces can be used as a methodological approach to study how small
interactional fields are linked into larger scale systems. In the above diagram, there are four main
actors each having its own components making a small scale systems. However, each system can
be considered as a component of a larger scale system. Thus we can talk of interfaces between
the large scale system components and the links of components of small scale systems. This is
somehow related to the concept of hierarchy of a system. The meaning of interfaces and links is
often confusing but it is possible to refer to the relative differences in terms of
similarities/dissimilarities of the ‘lifeworlds’ of the stakeholders participating in the intervention
process.

For example, there could be interfaces between the state and the peasantry, policy makers and
farmers but links between women’s organizations and service cooperatives. Therefore, the
question of using either links or interfaces is determined by the perception of the researcher
him/herself. There is no general rule.

Expected Outcomes of Interface Analysis

In the past, different agricultural institutions were operating independently leading to the
successful failure of these organizations. The concept of interface analysis is then introduced to
resolve these problem. A researcher employing AKIS as a methodology uses interface analysis
to achieve the following.

1. Understanding the nature of linkage between interacting parties whether it is weak or strong
and identifying the indicators for the strength as well as weakness of the linkages. This will help
the researcher to supply information to the policy makers or concerned offices. An interface
analyst can also study the history of past interventions and predict the future outcome of any
development project currently running.

2. Getting a general perception on the situation of conflict or incompatibility between the parties
under a study. This will occur as a result of the above condition. Once the nature of the linkage is
understood, it is possible to draw immediate and general conclusions about overall situations
roughly.

3. Interface knowledge generation - Interface knowledge is the combination of formal scientific

knowledge and indigenous knowledge of the grassroots. It is much more relevant for decision-
making purposes than either of the two because it is the outcome of knowledge from different
sources.

Interface Analysis focuses on:

1- differences in worldviews or cultural interpretation between the interacting parties

As mentioned above, the differences in worldviews is an indicator for the importance of relying
on interface knowledge reflecting the diversified cultures.

20
2. Groups outside of the interfaces (such as poor people, women’s groups, etc.) Even though it is
not possible to involve these groups in the research process, they are affected by decisions to be
made based on the interface knowledge. This leads the question of correlating local knowledge
and policy formulation.

3. Reproduction of structural discontinuities in time-space contexts

Discontinuity occurs as a consequence of disagreements among members of a system. If you look
at the above figure, due to the disagreements born between farmers’ organizations and service
cooperatives, the relation of farmers with policy makers or extension organizations can be
paralyzed. Thus members of the small scale systems have to work synergically to get their
relations with outsiders going smoothly. Indeed, a social analyst has to study the sources or root
causes of disagreements by associating with the behavior of the individual sub-systems’
/elements.

21
4. Strengths and Weaknesses of AKIS

As a tool to integrate knowledge and information AKIS tries to combine the knowledge form
different disciplines although it is not a disciplines in itself. Some of the disciplines may include
psychology, Anthropology, sociology, extension science & agricultural education It helps
institutions’ capacity to use information from below.

4.1. Strengths of AKIS

1. AKIS gives more emphasis to long-term objectives supporting policy proposals for
structural and functional transformation of relevant agricultural institutions.

a) Why is transformation important?

To minimize imperfection in performance

b) How is transformation possible?

Supplying research generated information to the concerned officials in the way it gives meaning
to them helps the path towards transformation.

The above questions are key to AKIS.

In the process of transformation, there is a deliberate criticism of institutions to underpin

knowledge processes.

2. It combines theory, practice and Ethics into a holistic approach to learning i.e. theory
informed by practice known by praxis.

There are three ways of learning

Propositional (learning by knowing)

Practical (learning by doing)
Experiential (learning for being) = praxis comes in here
AKIS combines these three ways of learning.

Note: Practices of today are derived from theories of yesteryear.

3. It contributed to the emergence and development of a new action research methodology

called RAAKS that increases innovation performance in agriculture.

22
What is RAAKS?

It is the outcome of field exercise developed by Paul Engel in 1991 and got recognition around
the world as an action research methodology. It is not, indeed, limited to the field of agriculture
but to solve all social problems. RAAKS centers on team building, communication and joint
learning.

RAAKS has three phases.

A. Problem definition & system segmentation

Helpful windows

A1) Defining objectives

A2) Actor identification (present & articulable actors)
A3) Tracing diversity in mission statements: Who expects what?

A mission statement helps to summarize objectives strategies and the intended beneficiaries.

Tracing diversity also helps to look at:

a) coincidence/convergence of perceptions on missions

b) fundamentally different objectives/divergences

A4) Environmental Diagnosis (factors or actors influencing the smooth functioning of

the system)
A5) Redefining the problem situation- helps for clarification or modification of the
objective

Tool at use is the prime mover septagram

Steps

1. Put the most important actors closer to the control objectives (relative position
indication).

2. indicate the reasons why such arrangement is made.

The nature/feature of the septagram changes through time when the co-ordination &
communication environments are changing

23
donors researchers

Policy maker

agro-industry
Objectives

market industry

producer

consumer

Fig. The prime mover septagram

In the above figure, the actors that are closer to the central objective are the prime movers. They
are expected to play significant role in guiding the innovation processes in RAAKS. Other actors
who do have no significant or little roles are placed further from this central objective.

Eg: In relation to the above explanation, consider that there are potential relevant actors (prime
movers) in coffee export promotion in Ethiopia; production, marketing, standardization, setting
prices through negotiation, etc. The above different actors are involved in these export processes.

B) Constraint & opportunity analysis (= Analytical windows)

B1. Impact analysis

The RAAKS Team wants to know the expectation of each actor from the system. (What
does each actor expects from the system; questioning the system objective)

Analytical questions

1. Does the supply generated by the system cause negative social, economic and
ecological effects?
2. Does the supply of knowledge , skills and technologies generated by the system
correspond with the situation of its client groups?
3. Which client groups are best served by the system?
4. Are all knowledge types, needed by the client groups available in the system: are
there discrepancies, gaps or overlaps?

24
Expected Outcome

This is what the team has to come up from its fieldwork. Summary tables on knowledge types
and coverage of needs by the system.

Knowledge type needed by Knowledge type offered by Coverage or external

an actor the system knowledge required
1
2
3
4
5
..

B2. Actor analysis (characteristics of the actors)

This window helps to analyze the detail characteristics of each actor.

Analytical questions

1. what primary activities do individual actors carry out?

2. What resources does each key actor command?
3. What is the knowledge base of each actor, e.g. experience, manpower, qualification,
knowledge and information about the issue addreesed by the team?

Expected outcome

Descriptions of each actor, summarizing their most relevant features related to the study.

B3. Knowledge network analysis

The basic objective of networking being exchange of information and experiences, when
strengthened there is an opportunity to have joint workshop and seminar. The different actors
exchange knowledge and information each having a source of information within the system.

Analytical Questions

1. What sources of information (actors, products, media, etc…) do the different actors use
regularly?
2. What types of information do they obtain from these resources?
3. In what way do they put it to use?
4. What is for each type of information their top 5 of most important sources?

25
Expected outcome

The RAAKS Team should come up with matrix of sources of information per type of
information per actor.
Sources/actors Type of information
strategic operational technical policy market
A B,C D,E C,F C,D E
B D
C B,A
D
E
F E,D

The order for each type of information shows the rank in terms of importance.

B4. Integration analysis (relationships, linkages, contacts)

This window focuses on how the different social actors are connected to each other. The type of
link can be communication, administrative or resource. Results of integration are presented using
a linkage matrix of an n*n specifying in each cell the relevant parameters of a particular link.

Expected outputs

1. A linkage matrix, summarizing information on the existence, frequency and intensity

of contacts between pairs of system actors.
2. Cluster of actors, very intensively linked to each other (system segmentation).

Actors 1 2 3 4 5 6
------------
Linkages
1 ----------- ** ** 2
2 ----------- @@
3 ---------- @ 5
4 @@@ 1 -----------
5 * -----------
6 *** ----------

@ - informal link
* - formal link
or

1 to 5 where 1 stands for strong formal link and 5 for very weak or informal link between any two actors.

The type of link - administrative, communication or resource - should be identified.

26
 B5. Task analysis (who does what and how in the system?)

Expected outputs

1. Insight regarding the quality of knowledge and information generation, transformation and
use. This window share similar features with impact analysis.

2. Insight in functional linkages between actors performing different but complementary tasks.

The procedure for representing the task analysis is putting on the X-axis the knowledge related
tasks and actors who perform these tasks on the Y-axis.

Look at the example below from Ethiopian AKIS.

Tasks Technology Technical Training Input research Consultancy Financial market

--------- transfer advise supply support
Actors
Extension
Department
EARO
GTZ
CARE
Bio-diversity
institute
Science and
technology
commission
Alemaya
University
Menschen
fur
Menschen
Farmers
Ethiopian
seed agency
National
fertilizer
industry
Cooperative
department

The above tasks matrix provide information about the gaps and overlaps in essential tasks

27
B6. Coordination Analysis: directly controlling (leadership)

Who takes the most important decisions?

This window helps to identify leadership (leading actors) and coordination efforts by social
actors directed at innovation. Moreover, it leads to characterization of the ways tasks are
coordinated between relevant actors and a clarification of criteria for assessing social actors’
influence on the direction of innovation.

Analytical questions

Why is the current situation a problem and who thinks so?

Who is affected most?
Who may effectively change the situation?
Who else may show an interest?

Expected Outcome

1. A multiple system model, reflecting dominant coordinating mechanisms in the system and
the influence of different types of prime movers.

2. Possibilities for intervention in the way coordination is achieved in the system.

For instance in a large corporate organizations, coordination mechanism can be done through
direct supervision, skill standardization, work process standardization, output standardization,
mutual adjustment and standardization of norms and/or behavior.

B7. Communication Analysis: information systems

Do people speak the same language? This window focuses whether the different actors
understand each other and they mean the same thing for the issue. It emphasizes on factors that
constrain effective communication such as culture and organizational norms.

Analytical Questions

Are the opinions of the actors about the problem and the objective to be achieved different?
Do the actors differ in worldview, language and ideology?

How do these differences influence communication among actors?

Expected outcome

1. Identifying social, cultural and cognitive differences between the actors.

2. Identifying constraints and opportunities in communication among the actors.

28
B8: Understanding the Social Organization of innovation

At this stage the RAAKS team is preparing a report for actor workshop. The results of the
analysis using the windows as a tool will be presented for discussion. The overall picture of the
system is clearly understood at this stage.

Note: Not all windows are important for all problems. Choices can be made depending on the
nature of the problem and the actors expected to be involved in the process of solution building.

C) Policy articulation ( Intervention Planning )

Depending on the results of the second phase policy implementation can be

planned to take actions along the line chosen as “desirable” by the stakeholders.

In this case, efforts and resources are committed from insiders (as well as outsiders if necessary)
for the implementation.

Three steps for action planning

C1. Knowledge management analysis - starting points for action

C2. Actor potential analysis -the power of the actors that have ability to control,
direct/guide the process of action plan is evaluated & followed by selection.

C3. Action Planning

- Who will be responsible for what, how?

- Actors and up with strategic commitments to invest available resources
from their own.

4.2. Weaknesses of AKIS

1. It gives less emphasis to situations constraining knowledge processes eg. power

differences can obstruct knowledge generation in a participatory atmosphere.

In this case, the process is not under the users’ control.

2. Both RAAKs and AKIS are guided by the assumption that different social actors can
arrange themselves around specific problems. However, they never have an answer for “
if not?”. How can a problem affecting certain members be solved if the solution to
problem creates undesirable consequences to others?

Hence, it is important to consider and study social actors independently before rushing
for the possibility of their collaboration.

29
Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems

In today’s social sciences research, different participating methodologies are existing to respond
to some of the imperfections of linear approach to research and extension system. Some of these
tools of social science research are Farming system research, participatory rural Appraisal,
participatory technology development, RARKS, participatory Action research, Farmers’
participatory research, etc.

These methodologies have common features in the process of knowledge generation and their
differences are not as such significant. They all emphasize on :

1) Mobilization of indigenous knowledge for planning intervention and policy formulation.

2) Collective learning in process planning towards solution proposal,

3) Utilization of information from all categories of formers, organizations and relevant

institutions.

In addition to these, RAAKS enables practitioners to study the impacts of policy implementation
on the lives of different people. At the same time, it gives helpful tools for the formulation of
policy proposals by heavily relying on local knowledge and information. It usually ends with
motivating participating actors to commit themselves to take actions based on the joint
recommendations developed in the process. RAAKs, being developed from AKIS (knowledge
systems theory), is a participatory action research. RAAKs is organized and modified via field
level exercise. Basically, it does not provide a recipe for change in farmers’ activities but
contributes much to the processes of change through reflecting people’s views and perceptions. It
helps to work with individuals combining the following nature.

Concrete

practices reflections

Practice Theory
decisions thinker

Abstract

The RAAKs exercise provides an opportunity for practitioners (farmers and outsiders) to
combine multiple bounces of knowledge generated from different learning styles and experiences

30
of years. In the above figure, for instance, a practitioner combines concrete and practical
knowledge to give information for decisions.

RAAKS has three phases: A, B and C. Each phase has steps/ windows through which the
RAAKS team looks at the different worlds. These windows have tools for investigation and each
tool has list of checklist questions for generating information from the exercise.

Phase A: Problem definition and system segmentation

During this phase, individual social actors collectively discuss on their problems , their causes
and complexity to prioritize on which problem to apply RAAKS. Objectives will be clearly
defined while simultaneously identifying relevant actors who can potentially contribute to the
RAAKS process. Pre-exercise meeting with officials and community members is important to get
on the line. In an area where RAAKs is not exercised, it is often challenging to get the process
started.

After objectives are defined and actors identified, the relevant actors once again trace on the
diversity of the mission statement. While tracing the mission statement, all actors identified will
forward their expectation from the system. They raise questions like: What can we benefit from
the system? The objective set previously will be revised again. Following this, the social actors
would run environment diagnosis. By then, they are finding out the potential barriers from the
system’s environment that can inhibit/ constrain their missions. That is other factors or actors
should be identified (if any).

After the critical diagnosis of the system’s environment, the problem situation can be redefined
to ensure more and better understanding. Finally, the team will continue to use the analytical
windows of the second phase (phase B).

Phase B: Constraint and opportunity Analysis

In this phase, the main constraints and opportunities of the relevant social actors will be analyzed
with the help of the windows (analytical tools). Each window emphasizes on specific issues and
in some cases it is important to think over the important windows for specific problems.

Not all windows are chosen for all problems. Indeed, choices of windows are determined by the
nature and complexity of the problem and more importantly by the perception and understanding
of the research team.

Since RAAKs focuses on team building, communication of actors and opportunity creation for
collective learning, the choices of windows can also depend on the team size, the personality
characteristics of actors and the motivation of the participants towards discovery learning. There
are about seven analytical windows of RAAKs in phase B. There are (1) impact analysis (2)
Actor analysis (3) knowledge network analysis (4) integration analysis (5) Task analysis (6)
Coordination analysis and (7) communication analysis. Engel (1995) stressed that none of the
windows provides unequivocal recipe for analysis. On the contrary, each of them has to be

31
studied, discussed, and if necessary, redesigned before it can be used in the field. Specific plans
will have to be made on how to collect, consolidate and interpret relevant information and how to
make cross- references among different windows.

Phase C: Policy Articulation (Intervention Planning)

One of the objectives of RAAKs is to provide tools to agricultural institutions (especially

researchers and extension organization) in the areas of knowledge generation and information
processing for policy formation, appraisal and implementation. The aim of agricultural research
is primarily to inform policy decision through incorporating the values, beliefs, practices,
attitudes and knowledge of the people affected by the top-level decisions in to the process. In the
Ethiopian context, this seems very ideal given the past and present social and political
complexities on the ground. Here comes the question of exploiting the knowledge of policy
relevant actors.

Generally, RAAKS gives greater emphasis to correlating local knowledge with policy decisions
to make policy implementation more effective and need-based. Depending on the outcome of
phase B, the relevant actors will get committed to invest their time, resources and efforts in
taking actions based on the recommendations of the team work (exercise). In this case, RAAKs
gives more attention to what to implement and why? and less on how to take action. Since the
actors get convinced before strategic commitment on what to do, they will definitely cooperate
during implementation. During commitment they share ideas on who can do what and why
sharing responsibility for later implementation.

32
5. The Advantages of Studying Knowledge Systems

Development in human knowledge always goes against absolutism and the essentiality of
massive participation is driven by the notion of constructivism.

There can be several advantages of studying the knowledge systems of a particular region or
country at large. The following three are most relevant to the social and economic situations of
different countries.

5.1 Policy designing, implementation & evaluation

With simple definition, policy involves economic and political decisions made to achieve general
goals. Policy makers develop program and formulate projects at macro & micro-levels to convert
policy proposals into practices. These projects and programs can have specific objectives and
target groups in such a way that the combined effect of different projects and programs jointly
contribute to the overall policy goals.

During designing, appraisal and implementation, policy is on the level of analysis. These stages
are contingent to each other.

Styles of policy formulation

There are two styles

1. An expert style

- The communication between policy relevant actors during the process of analysis is
negligible or is a considered as secondary activity.
- The effect of implementing policies formulated in this style becomes continuous production
of discontinuities.
- This style of policy formulation is often directed to reducing heterogeneity through
standardization.

The style assumes linearity:

Policy formulation implementation evaluation

Since cultural perceptions and social interests are not getting considerations, the implementation
stage is accompanied by unexpected/unanticipated and often undesirable consequences.

This suggests that instead of asking why a certain policy, project or program did not work out as
planned it is important to concentrate on the emergent forms of interaction, strategies, discourse,
& actors involved in intervention practices.

33
2. Participatory style

- Various types of policy relevant actors participate and communicate actively during the
process.
- Ensures knowledge generation, transformation and utilization in the process of investigation
due to the high level of actors involvement.
- It is the information and knowledge obtained through scientific research involving local
groups that yield better opportunity for informing policy - makers.
- The assumption of linearity does not work unlike the expert style. There is continuous
redesigning of policies through revising the planned objectives of projects and programs and
changing them to respond to the real needs of the target groups.
- Instead of standardization, there is targeting of policies to specific situations and cultural
interpretations.

For instance, similar policy decisions may not favor;

a) traditional and progressive formers
b) the poor and the rich
c) landless and land owners

Therefore, using the experiential knowledge of either groups will lead to policy bias. Even if any
policy does not equally favor different target groups, it has to be associated with compensation
for slightly disfavored groups.

Participatory Policy Analysis methods

There are two methods

a) Consensus conference
b) Gaming /simulation (Economists use models to simulate policy)

We will discuss only about the consensus conference method.

- CCM was practiced initially by united states in the public health sector and, later on, the
approach is developed by Danish board of technology (DBT) in to a general tool for
technology assessment.
- CCM is recently practiced in the Dutch agriculture genetic modification of plants and
animals.
- The method arranges a high quality debate on potentially controversial and complex societal
problems with active participation of actors.

In CCM, panel discussions are commonly organized.

34
Panel types

a. Laymen panel /question panel - have no special knowledge

b. Expert panel - have special knowledge on the subject.

Differences in knowledge may inhibit effective participation.

The role of the policy analyst is to play a mediating role without advocating or opposing the
views /issues raised by either of the two

The analyst can also use specific criteria for selection of participants in the panel. (sex, age, level
of education, disciplines)

In CCM, an expert is not a special kind of person, but each person is a special kind of expert,
especially with respect to his/her problem (Hisschemoler, 1993).

In CCM, if a certain policy problem is not equally important for relevant actors, an intractable
controversy will emerge. A controversy is intractable if the policy relevant actors can not come to
negotiated agreements in the policy analysis process.

To overcome the controversy problem in participatory policy analysis, problem structuring is

very helpful. Problem structuring involves a high degree of consensus on relevant values and
norms and certainty about relevant knowledge for policy analysis. During these processes of
structuring, policy relevant actors (laymen & experts) continually arrange debate to clarify the
policy problem situation.

There are four policy problem types. Look at the table below.

Consensus on relevant norms & valus

NO YES
unstructured Moderately
Problem Structured
problem (ends)
NO

Certainty about
relevant knowledge Moderately Structured structured
problem (means ) problem
YES

Source: Hisschemoller, 1993:247

35
Structured and moderately structured policy problems can move straight from recognition to
resolution but unstructured policy problems are too controversial and ambiguous.

Solving an unstructured policy problems requires problem structuring, which is essentially a

political activity, involves development of new insights and constructive views from the policy
relevant actors on what the problem is about.It is sometimes difficult to make clear distinctions
between policy environment and problem environment since policies aim at problem solving.

Look at the chain exemplified below.

Environmental uncertainty and low

degradation productivity

Agricultural effects on receptor

activities (farmers and
(sources of the others)
problem)

the problem environment

the policy environment

recognition of the
control issue (understanding
the problem)

Planning and
Solving the formulation of
issue Policy

Fig. The problem - policy environment cycle.

36
5.2. Promoting Sustainable Changes in Agriculture

This is the second advantage of studying knowledge systems.

- The current change in trend of scientific paradigms from positivism to constructivism is a

good indicator for the demand to promote sustainable agriculture.
- Change in agricultural production system is said to be sustainable if the current activity in
agricultural production does not have deleterious effect on the economy, ecology and society
of the future.
- In order to ensure sustainable agricultural production system, in a given locality or region, the
knowledge and information of farmer in that specific area is basically important. This is
because it is the combined effect of knowledge of different individuals that could guarantee
formation of new and desirable behavior in the whole activity system.
- Thus studying indigenous knowledge systems greatly contributes to the promotion &
sustainable charges in agricultural system.

Dimensions of sustainability

a) Economic sustainability - reasonable prices are secured for producers; that is there will be
reliable market for products.

- This can take place through strengthening the marketing system by forming new institutions.

b) Ecological Sustainability

This takes place if individual actions cooperate in the areas of;

a) Pollution prevention (alternative methods of weed & insect control)

b) Protecting environmental degradation ( over grazing, Ecological farming )

The knowledge system of community can be used as a means to design strategies to achieve the
above goal. For this to take place, the organization of educational program at village level instead
of enforcing though regulations is the best alternative.

c) Social Sustainability

- Emphasis on psychological and moral values of society in production system.

- eg . 1) - Uncertainty of staying in the farming business

2) - Migration of people to urban areas due to shortage/ lack of agricultural resources.

37
5.3. Improving Institutions’ Performance

This is the third advantage of studying knowledge systems.

General: Performance is improved through transforming the structure and function of relevant
institutions and changing policies favoring such transformation.

Look at the comparison given below between old & new (desired) institutional settings.

Themes ‘’old’’ institutions ‘’new’’ institutions

1. Mode of Centralized and Decentralized and adapted

decision - making standardized to the context (flexibility,
multiplicity)

2. Mode of planning Static design, fixed Evolving design, wide

and technology packages, supply-push choice, demand-pull
delivery

3. Response to Collect more data Act immediately and

external change before acting monitor consequences

4. Field learning By ‘rural development Learning by dialogue &

tourism’ and questionnaire participatory inquiry and
surveys; error concealed methods; error embraced

5. How those in Self-deceiving; misleading Learning through

institution at the feedback from peripheries feed back; adaptive
top learn ? give falsely favorable and iterative process
impressions of impact

6. Linkages and Institutions work in Institutions linked

alliances isolation formally & in formally
to each other.

Source: (pretty and chambers, 1994)

The practical importance of systemic thinking (AKIS and RAAKS) and other participatory social
research methodologies is they help to gather realistic information through systemic inquiry
(qualitatively) that would give answers to certain policy questions:

38
These questions may include;

a) What factors constrain the old institutions’ performance?

b) What should be done to bring context change?
c) Which challenges should institutions face to enhance their performance?
d) How can indicators for improved performance be identified?

- In general, the new institutional settings suggest debeaurocratization of development

interventions i.e. there must be down-sizing of external control on the processes of change.
- From sociological point of views, contextual (process) planning of systemic inquiry can
easily respond to the above policy questions. This approach guides to the exploitation of local
diversities. To achieve this three aspects have to be integrated.

These are:

a) Participatory methods - support local innovativeness

b) Interactive learning environment - encourages participatory methods by
creating attitude changes
c) Institutional support - for scaling up (dissemination) of the methods

This condition provides the best opportunity for building upon already existing knowledge of the
producers through facilitation. Facilitation of learning processes with local groups leads to
changes from the TOT to new professionalism.

TOT New Professionalism

adoption quality of decision making

applied communication soft systems methodology (SSM)

scientific truth consensus (negotiated agreements)

Conclusion: AKIS and RAAKS (systems approach in general ) help as a tool to improve
performance of institutions through enabling them to shift to the ‘new’ line of thinking that goes
further away from controlling with emphasis on enabling.

39
6. Soft Systems Practices in Development Intervention

The Concept of soft systems

Generally speaking, interventions activate the collective memory of villagers that can either
obstruct or facilitate current practices. What has happened in the past contributes to the failure or
success of future interventions. In this way they clear the path for greater transformations of plans
into actions.

There is distinction between:

a) Intervention models and

b) Intervention Practices

Intervention models refer to the ideal-typical construction that planners, implementers or clients
may have about the process of intervention.

Intervention practices refer to the actual real-world complexities the practitioners (experts and
local people) face in the implementation of projects and programs (direct forms of interventions).

Soft systems thinking helps to build intervention models whereas soft systems practices focus on
the learning from the real-life situations during the intervention practices that of course help to
improve intervention models.

Soft systems methodology

SSM is a non-standardized (flexible) set of methods or steps that are designed to guide field level
systemic inquiry. The methodology is developed from the field and continuously change based
on the circumstances in which the practitioners work.

SSM includes

a) Models - conceptual framework for a systemic study

b) Actual practices

Soft Systems Methodology serves three purposes:

a) Building intervention models (policy designing)

b) Understanding a problem situation
c) Comparison of models with realities they conceptualize

All these together improve managerial efficiency.

40
6.1 Differences between hard and soft systems

Hard systems thinking Soft systems thinking

- the world is systemic - the world is not systemic but considered as
- system has objective if it is
- system images are compared with - a system has no objective but individuals
processes, inputs and outputs using it
- processes are functionally articulated into a (objective setting is part of the problem)
goal seeking whole - system images are concerned with social
- systems images are used to construct actors, their activities and relationships
models to represent the world boundaries and goals are permanently
(re) negotiated
- system images are used to construct
windows to study the world

To conclude, soft systems thinking;

1) stimulates imagination of actors to enable them improve their performance,

2) does not totally reject the idea of hard systems but subsumes it and

3) helps to reduce uncertainties of knowledge in decision making for instance by sharing

perceptions

It is possible to ‘engineer’ a nitric acid (hard) and agreements (soft). Although there is difference
in approach (line of thinking) between the two, both contribute to certain overall goal.

eg) a) Engineering agreements on the use of irrigation water

b) Engineering designs on how to use this irrigation water effectively

Both situations contribute to irrigation development because the two aspects ( a and b)
respectively combine ‘ myths and meanings’ with ‘facts and logic’ as the later alone do not give
complete description of human activities.

Soft systems thinking motivates battles on the images of people on social reality which plays a
role in the social organization of probing and coordination of agricultural innovation processes.

By putting greater emphasis on probing and assessing the influence of social relationships, SSM
helps in developing different perspectives upon the human activities.

In constructing their systemic images, soft systems thinkers should choose to include the
elements of choice too. Then SSMs should emphasize on the permanent (re)construction of
views, opinions, interpretations, propositions and commitments. Finally, using communication as

41
an instrument, soft systems thinkers create a situation for mutual adjustments among the social
actors.

P. Checkland (1981) published a book on SSM. He did an empirical research on the Textile
Company operating at loss. He was advised to find out the solution to the company’s
management. He interviewed and organized group inquiry with the different departments of the
company( marketing, production, finance ) and came up with different solution proposals among
the parallel team investigation. Through the inter-group inquiry process a solution which is
fundamentally different from individual group’s was proposed. After implementation, the
Company became successful. SSM is applicable to most complex problem situations.

Therefore, knowledge management focuses at three different levels.

1. Individual
2. Network
3. Organizational

SSM can be used as a tool to manage knowledge at network and organizational levels. The
assumption is individual’s knowledge contribute to network and organizational knowledge.

Since group inquiry is inherent in SSM, team wise investigation is necessary.

SSM is a learning system. The learning concerns the ‘’complex problematical human situation
leading’’ to purposeful action, bringing improvement through making the action sensible.

The learning process is continuous as actions lead to new problems for which new actions are
required. Hence, the learning never ends. How do you see this in relation to the logframe ?

The lifeworld: a flux of interacting events and ideas

time

Perceptions ideas action new perception out of action

Deciding to act
perceiving and leads to
evaluating parts of the flux

Fig. A broad concept of managing (source: Checkland and Cascar, 1986).

42
6.2 Assumptions of SSM

1. It is the process of managing, taking a particular view on what managing is and what a
knowledge manager does. Anyone who is a manager in any field of activity is reacting
and trying to cope with an ever-changing flux of interacting events and ideas. Managing
means reacting to the flux: perceiving and evaluating it, deciding up on action which
itself becomes part of the on-going ideas/events in flux, leading to new perceptions and
evaluations and further actions.

2. Given the above broad view of meaning SSM assumes that different individuals, being
relatively autonomous, make different evaluations leading to different actions. The
manager has to hope with these differences.

3. The systems ideas are helpful in consciously articulating the processes of knowledge
management

4. The concept of SSM is largely rooted in that of the “designed & natural” systems. The
concepts of those systems lack adequacy in describing the complex human situations. The
new concept going along these two systems is “human activity system” aiming at
constituting interconnected links to contribute to a purposeful whole.

The readiness to talk of purposeful human activity system (HAS) only in terms of a particular
interpretation (a bias) implies that:

a) There will be multiple possible descriptions of any named real-world purposeful action
and
b) Any description of purposeful activity will have to be explicit concerning assumptions
about the world.

To respond to (minimize) the above bias (specificity), the development of SSM includes:

- the accounting to the need to describing any human activity system in relation to particular
image of the world.
- accepting that any real-world purposeful action could be mapped by several HASs
descriptions based on different assumptions.

This leads to the fifth assumptions.

5. SSM learns by comparing pure models of purposeful activity (in the form of models of
HASs) with perceptions of what is going on in a real world problem situation eg: we
could learn about real prisons (HAS) by comparing what goes on in it with set of
activities in the models (rehabilitation system, punishment system, a system to protect
society and storage system).

43
6. SSM is an articulation of a complex social process in which assumptions about the world
- the relevant myths and meanings as well as logic of achieving purposes that are
expressed in the systems models- are teased out, challenged and tested. This makes the
methodology having a real participatory nature.

6.3 The Stages of Soft Systems Methodology

SSM supplements “experience” by an explicit use of systems thinking.

SSM involves “ debate that helps to define changes which would bring about improvement, and
seeks to motivate people to take action to implement the defined changes.

There are seven stages in SSM. Users of the SSM cycle do not necessarily move straight forward
from stay 1 to 7 because for different problem situations different stages can be emphasized. It
embraces flexibility as far as the logical connection b/n stages are kept in mind.

Stages 1 & 2: Finding out (Sense making)

This combines entering the considered problematic situation and expressing the problem
situation.

There are three phases in these stages

1. Pictures of the situation are assembled by recording elements of slow- to-change

structure,
2. Recording the dynamic elements of continuously changing process, and
3. Forming a view of relating structure to process to create a climate of the situation.

The above phases lead to getting clear/rich picture.

Stage 3: Formulating Root Definitions (Rds)

Involves writing down the names of some systems for carrying aut purposeful activity.
as the prison (crime reduction systems)

There is coherence between the Formulating Root Definitions and CATWOE questions from
which models can be built.

(C- customer; A- the actors who would do activities in the system; O- the system owner who
could demolish it, W- world views; environmental constraints T- transformation process)
CATWOE questions in formulating root definitions.

Formulation of Root Definitions

C -customer Who would be victims/beneficiaries

44
 of the purposeful activity?

A -actors Who would do the activities?

T -transformation What is the purposeful activity expressed as

process input output
T ?

W - worldviews What view of the world makes this definition meaningful?

O - owner Who could stop this activity?

E -environmental What constraints in its environment

constraints does this system take as given?

Stage 4: Building Conceptual Models.

The building process consists of assembling the verbs describing the activities that have to be in
the system named in the Formulating Root Definitions and structuring them according to logical
dependencies.

The emphasis is an the operational part of the system that would achieve the transformation
preserves named in the RD. (Use Fig. 6)

Any system model is a combination of an operational system and a monitoring and controlling
system. It is thus useful to unpack the concept ‘monitoring and control’ by asking the question;
how could the system fail?

In this case, three aspects can be considered as “ possible sources of a system’s failure’:

- effectiveness the right thing to do

- efficiency resource use in the transformation processes
- efficacy using the right means /instruments,

• Any monitoring and control system must pay attention to all three Es.
• The effectiveness of a smaller scale system is determined by the nature of the larger scale
system in which it is operating. The poor performance of a small-scale system is attributed to the
ineffectiveness of the larger scale system. Thus building of a system model relies on the nature of
the wider system. The major system’s premises from chapter one are important at this stage of
SSM.

Stage 5: Comparing models and “Reality”

The models from stage 4 provide a means for perceiving reality and initiating a discussion from
which “changes” to improve the problem situation.

45
- Focusing on differences b/n models and perceived reality.
- During discussion assumption, about the world considered.

There are 4 ways of comparisons.

a. Simply record the differences between the models and current perceptions and
happenings List the differences, discuss on them to check whether the differences
matter. This way is useful if the concern is with roles and strategies.
b. More formal listing of differences if the concern is more detailed, for example,
improving operations and necessary information flows.
c. Operating the activity systems, on paper, and writing a scenario describing how things
might happen given the root definition in question. Such scenarios can often be
compared with “historical happenings known to people in the problem situation.
d. Building a model conceptualising part of reality which is similar to the model thought to
be relevant to it, following as closely as possible the structure of the latter model itself.
By gradually expanding the new model and simultaneously comparing with the previous
model built during stage 4, it is possible to reveal the differences. If this difference is
larger, it is necessary to revise the Formulating Root Definitions

The fourth method of comparison is not often used. It is difficult although it is efficient.

Stage 6. Defining changes.

The purpose of comparison is to use the differences between models and reality to discuss
possible changes which could bring about improvement in the problem situation.

“ Models” of SSM are different from the “designs” of hard systems and the purpose is to create a
coherent debate to “ define “ possible changes.

Systemically desirable changes fulfill certain requirements such as instituting mechanisms for
assessing effectiveness, making sure resources are appropriate, ensuring that logical dependents
are reflected in real- world sequential actions.

Culturally feasible changes emphasize on the myths and meanings of the “defined” changes in
addition to the facts and logic associated with differences between models and the reality. Indeed,
the difficulty for professionals is on identifying requirements for culturally feasible changes.

If both logical and cultural criteria are not there, the chance of achieving changes is very
minimal even though cultures are not completely static.

46
Stage 7: Taking action

When changes accepted as “desirable and feasible “are identified, the SSM cycle is completed by
implementing changes.

Relevant systems will now include a system to implement the defined changes.

Conclusions:

Based on the assumptions and stages of SSM, the following theoretical conclusions can be made.

1. SSM treats “what to do as well as “how to do as part of the problem.

2. SSM accepts that real-world action will be much messier than the pure models, and uses the
models to structure a debate in which different objectives, needs, purposes, interests and values
can be discussed.

3. SSM is a learning, not an optimizing, system and does not rely only on the views of outsiders.

4. Ending a system study which uses SSM is an arbitrary act. As there are flux of events & ideas
moving on, then are no permanent solutions. This makes systems thinking a never ending
iterative learning process.

5. SSM ends in enabling relevant actors to shift from questioning “ what to do “ to ‘ how to do it
‘ i.e. ends are agreed.

47
7. The relationship between indigenous and scientific knowledge systems

There are terms that seem to replace the word ‘ indigenous’.

1. Traditional knowledge
2. Local knowledge
3. “Unscientific”
4. Farmers’ knowledge

“Scientific” knowledge is often referred to as western knowledge

7.1. Differences and similarities

What are the differences?

There are three basic differences between IK & SK

a) substantive grounds

This refers to the subject matter history and distinctive characteristics of indigenous
and scientific knowledge.

IK is anchored to a particular “social group” in a particular “setting” at a particular

time.

IK is concerned with immediate and concrete necessities of people daily lives where as
SK makes (constructs) general explanation and does not give emphasis to daily lives.

IK encompasses non-technical insights-ideas, wisdom, perceptions and innovative

capabilities.

b. Methodological and epistemological differences

SK is open, systematic, objective and analytical. It builds on prior achievements for

advancement; however, IK is closed, non-systematic, holistic rather than analytical, without an
over all conceptual framework.

- IK advances on the basis of new experiences, not on the basis of deductive logic. (Banuri, et al,
1993).

- IK supporters attack on the dogmatism and intolerance of scientists towards insights and
methods of inquiry outside the established & institutionalized science.
- IKSs have of closed nature

48
C. Contextual differences

- IK is specific to local context in terms of social group and time ( temporal and spatial
differences) where as SK is diverted from such epistemic framework to attain universal Validity.

The Danger of Dichotomizing between IK & SK.

This notion reflects the similarities between the two.

In the face of evidence that suggests contact, diversity, exchange, communication, learning, and
transformation among different systems of knowledge and beliefs, it is difficult to adhere to the
view that separates IK&SK.

Evidences from the past indicate that the failure of technical solution-oriented development
policies and, programs is attached to making a clear distinction b/n IK&SK. This ignored the
contexts in which they were implemented (Agrawal, 1995).

Thus emphasis must be given to the continuous interaction or interweaving of IK & SK in which
SK provides theoretical framework and IK helps to discern the cultural situation in which
policies are implemented.

Bridging the dichotomy implies associating science with culture making the indigenous of the ‘
western’ knowledge.

The above situation can happen if there is a suitable environment for conservation of indigenous
knowledge.

According to Agrawal, 1995, two conditions contradict the above recommendation.

1. If IK is inherently scattered and local in character, and gains its validity from being deeply
implicated in people’s lives, then the effort to isolate and document it is contradictory.

2. Because of the dynamic mature of IK and its changing character with the changing needs of
peoples, the above strategy of conservation seems ill-suited in preserving IK.

Note: If indigenous knowledge systems are disappearing, the primary cause will be
modernization and cultural homogenization.

Conclusion:

Making distinction as IK & SK is potentially ridiculous. It is important to talk of multiple

domains or types of knowledge with differently logic & epistemologies.

However, the distinction is unavoidable as far as both serve different interest (of scientists and
local people).

49
Specific strategies for protecting, systematizing and disseminating knowledge benefit different
groups of people in different ways.

7.2 The role of local group in information management

In 1970s and ‘80s the CGIAR groups such as ICRISAT, CIMMYT, ICARDA, ILRI, IRRI, etc...
were trying to impose the beliefs, values and concepts of professionals.

Local groups and institutions were relatively neglected in agricultural research, extension and
development. This happened when agricultural development focused on technology rather than
on the organizational and institutional setting.

However, after recognizing the failure of such approach, CGIAR came to revisit their approaches
and methods in that local groups are fundamental for sustainable development.

There are four types of local groups.

• community development groups

• farmer experimental and village research groups
• farmer to farmer extension groups
• natural resource management groups

Each group has to communicate with one another to promote sustainable agricultural
development and also they facilitate information exchange within and between groups.

Functions of local groups

• improve access of rural population to information

• improve flow of information to government and NGOs
• create framework for cooperative action
• assist some groups to gain new access to productive resources

Forming local groups is a typical and useful strategy for conservation of indigenous knowledge
overcoming the problems associated with simple documentation while favoring the principle of
IK imbedded into specific cultural context.

- How to form local group networks enable them to continuously interact with institutions
driven with SK is a challenging question.
- Managing information at different levels is only possible if local group networks are built
and strengthened.

a. Strengthening farmers’ organization

This is considered as the missing link in agricultural research and extension system.
Organizing farmers helps to ‘’exert pressure’’ on research and extension organization...

50
A study by J. Farringtion (1994) shows that farmers organization in Bolivia, Mali & Zimbabwe
became successful in generating large amount of information of use to the clients within donor
agencies and domestic governments as well as within their organizations themselves.

b. Establishing farmers’ training centers (FTC)

This gives a wider opportunity for improving the communication & learning process b/n the local
groups and outsiders.

It also helps in establishing rural producers’ cooperatives.

- Composition of the trainees

- time and content of training
- reform of external institutions and professional approaches

Conclusions:

1) If (a) and (b) are successfully achieved, then the preservation and utilization of indigenous
knowledge will be realized.

2. It is thus more important to emphasize on the preservation of IK and its supplementarity to the
development of SK.

51
8. The Social Organization of Information and Innovations

This is often taken as the 8th window of RAAKS in phase B. ==> Diving into the deep by
choosing KS perspective.

When innovation is socially organized, it does not attribute to the possession by an individual. It
becomes the out come of group’s effort in certain dimensions.

Locally available information, when shared properly, induce the basis for group’s innovativeness.

Innovation can be the result of individual as well as group efforts. The social organization of
innovation refers to the condition in which the innovation processes largely depend on the
combined activities of various actors, such as farmers, farmer networks, GOs & NGOs, agro-
based industries and formal and informal markets.

In every organized human activity, there are two fundamental and opposing requirements:

1) The division of labor in to various tasks to be performed (system segmentation & functional
specialization).

2) the coordination of tasks to accomplish the activity. (Mintzbery, 1983).

One of the reasons why we study AKIS is to understand the theatres of innovation since no single
social actor, alone, cannot guide processes in innovation.

Therefore, the social organization of innovation involves many actors, multiple interests and
multi-facetted interactions.

It also involves two polarities: reflecting the behavior of actors.

A) Self- assertiveness- uniqueness of individuals

b) Integrativeness- the tendency to maintain certain level of integration to a higher level whole.

- Understanding this polarity is important in managing organizations for innovation because

actors generally derive at least part of their identity, power and room for manoeuvre from the
latter.

How much ‘room for manoeuvre’ does each actor need in innovation process is a challenging
question to knowledge manager.

In order to improve the innovative performance of an organization, certain condition mechanisms

are necessary.

In coordination, emphasis is given to convergence, resource coalition and communication

networks.

52
Coordinating Mechanisms in Social organization of Innovation

Mintz beng (1983) concludes that that there are six ways of coordinating mechanisms.

A) Direct supervision - most hierarchical mechanism in which the boss gives instruction to the
subordinates.
General manager

managers of different actors

field staff

B) Standardization of outputs-

Refers to divisions in the organization specifying the development of products as well as services

C) Standardization of skills (Knowledge)

Specialization in accomplishing specific jobs for which the actors have knowledge & skills.

D) Standardization of work process-

Refers to the administration procedures and framework within which each actor operates.

E) Mutual adjustment-

This provides actors with power to directly influence operations by making ad-hoc decisions.
This coordination mechanism rarely exists.

f) Standardization of norms-
Coordination is achieved through shared ideology

53