Thinking about the futiure

Dalija and I had a Skype meeting with Hanne and Herman last week. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the progress we have made since the Leuven training event at the end of February, and our plans for the remainder of 2018. 

We told them about the workshop we organised at the end of April, where we discussed the possibility of adding our proposed tool to an existing online information repository, which was developed as part of a different project. We also noted that advisers in Latvia have a pronounced preference for face-to-face meetings. Furthermore, the participants indicated that technologically proficient farmers were open to using novel methods of instruction.

We also talked about our plans for the summer and early autumn. On the supply side, Dalija and I hope to come up with a list of advisers who would be willing to participate in the living lab.The plan is to engage up to 3-4 advisers per topic, though we realise that not all areas are well-covered, so choice will be limited on some topics. In addition, we hope to identify all published and online materials that provide information and/or advice in the field of agriculture. On the demand side, we intend to come up with list of issues and topics that are currently relevant to farmers and entrepreneurs. This list could be used when designing the platform and getting in touch with advisers. 

On the whole, I think we are on the right track, but it remains to be seen how enthusiastic local professionals are about this kind of platform in the long run. It may seem like a good idea at first, but it all depends on whether the idea is good enough for people to keep putting the work in.

Best,

Emils

Reflecting on reflexivity

Today, I read the monitoring and evaluation plan that was prepared for all Agrilink living lab monitors. The purpose of the document was to give monitors a better sense of their role, and also to outline the proposed approach to monitoring.

One of the key concepts used in the document was reflexive monitoring. This is basically the idea that monitors should be reflexive and encourage the living lab collective as a whole to examine its assumptions, proposals and the innovation process as a whole. The claim is that reflexivity is crucial for “the development of new innovation support services”, which “better connect research and farmer-based innovations, while appreciating the diversity of farmers’ micro-AKIS”.

Now, I have no particular issue with reflexivity, and I generally agree that an awareness of the limits and structures we all impose when thinking about processes and the consequences of introducing changes can be useful. However, I have always taken issue with the assumption that the feedback loop generated by critically reflecting on one’s actions somehow leads to a more complete and, perhaps, accurate perception of the situation.  You can maybe identify possible limitations, but this does not necessarily lead to your overcoming them.

However, my reading of the M&E plan suggests that the intended value-added of reflexivity in the context of the living lab is, in fact, greater contextual sensitivity that can lay the groundwork for  a successful introduction of changes.  My reason for thinking this is that reflexive monitoring is intended to (i) assist in understanding interdependent, complex, uncertain and possibly conflictual situations and (ii) facilitate the implementation of “targeted systemic interventions” in complex systems. 

Basically, the monitor has to make participants aware of the consequences that their proposed solutions and innovations may have. Looking forward to reading the literature suggested by the M&E plan.

Best,

Emils