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
