Technology in the Wild: Dynamics and Uncertainty in Field Experiments, Vietnam

Technology “in the Wild”Dynamics and uncertainty in field experiments

Ben Corrigan Technology and Agrarian Development Group

Supervisor: Dr. Harro Maat

Clearing up some concepts• Technology

– Skills, tools & social structures – “making things”• Innovation

– “What seems to be a better way of making things” (MacDonald, 1975)

• Impact– Why are the ‘users’ effectively amputated from ‘technology’?

• Paradigm– Where are the ‘frontier shocks’?

• Knowledge (thinking)– ‘Brain bound’ to outside the ‘skin and skull’

Normal Science Paradigm• Adoption

• Participation

• Field experiments as randomised treatment / control plots

• Boundaries of public and private sector

• Culture as norms and values

Theoretical debatesNormal Science

– Adoption / Non-Adoption– Transfer of Technology– Participatory research– Social networks– Individual as rational– Failure is unacceptable

Theoretical debatesNormal Science

– Adoption / Non-adoption– Transfer of Technology– Participatory research– Social networks– Individual as rational– Failure is unacceptable

Where Science should be– Adjusting– Inventiveness as on-going– Performance – Social and technical networks– Individual as unpredictable– Accept failure

We need…

Case Study: 1 Must Do – 5 Reductions, Viet Nam

• Activities and dynamics between those involved in a field experiment

• To examine the impact of the 1MD5R on the agroecosystem

• Who’s involved? – Technicians– Scientists– Farmers

What do I do?

Objectives

• What do farmers really think and do? • What can be said about the field experiment

process?

Dynamics inside the Field experiment

Activities inside the field experiment

Activity 1) Organising participants

Activity 2) Collecting field data

Activity 3) Communicating posters

Activity 3) Communicating posters

Activity 4) Pest incidence & economic threshold data

‘Real’ outcomes• Uncertainty– Unresolved ‘everyday’ science of farmers

• FFS not delivering true results– Technicians demonstrating their ‘expert’ knowledge – Failure is unacceptable

• Private sector Training versus FFS– Better resourced– Able to formulate strategy, marketing and institutional

development to meet demand

Certainty Trough

Certainty Trough

NARS Extensionists

End user

What are some of the causal mechanisms?

• Bias in selection of participants• Interference by external parties in FFS (i.e. private

sector, academe)• Technical literacy: ability to comprehend the

concentration, active ingredient, etc• Culture of science and technology: reverence for

‘western’ science

Seeking a Paradigm for Science in the Future

• Beyond adoption / participation– Mechanisms / Performance

• Field experiments as randomised treatment / control plots– Holistic thinking

• Boundaries of public and private sector – No longer applicable (dualistic)

• Hypothetical and actual explanations– Alternative mechanisms explain success or failure in

technology adoption

Multiple dimensions of technology

Material (product)

Political

Linguistic

Social

Cognitive

Organisational

IRRC recommendations I• In realising the complex web of political, legislative, moral and cultural

constraints, the IRRC and partners need to be realistic about the conditions under which livelihoods of farmers can be improved with a limited government capacity and conformity to GAP or GlobalGAP standards – Realist evaluation – Systems thinking (Not FSR!)

• PPD/DARD should see project funding as an academic research project – not as extra funding. – Financial auditing– Adaptive research and adaptive administration– Learning alliances is a good tool to kick start this, but not a solution to

rearranging organisational cultures

IRRC recommendations II• Enhance national capacity through design and delivery of training to

help ‘reinvent the PPD technician’ as an innovation broker (leeuwis)– Foster youth energy and make pay performance related – not project related

• Integrate a form of ‘risk assessment’ into any needs assessment based on political and legislative matters, organisational capacity and skills as a means of designing an appropriate intervention

• Current KAP method is time consuming for sub-PPD to collate and analyse. Find better ways to measure innovation. It’s easy to measure “the number of people coming through the door”, but less so about a projects effects

1. Reconnect the social and technical sciences – new theory is out there

2. Understand interactions in the workplace (scientific institutions and farms)

3. Re-evaluate the reality of the extension system

Take home message

Thank you for your time

Please feel free to ask any questions