Article S7.8 Networks, Social Learning, and Open Innovation in Indian Agricultural Innovation: A Socio-Technical Study of the System of Rice Intensification Seminar Leader: Andreas Mitzschke Research Student, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Maastricht University, The Netherlands andreas.mitz[at]gmail.com The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) is a practice for increasing the productivity of irrigated rice cultivation by changing the management of plants, soil, water, and nutrients. SRI practices lead to healthier, more productive soil and plants by supporting greater root growth and by nurturing the abundance and diversity of soil organisms (“The System of Rice Intensification,” 2010). It not only raises the output but is also successful in reducing the inputs required. SRI has become even more important due to the widespread scarcity of water, scarcity of arable land, and the ever growing demand for food grains. SRI has also increased in importance owing to the necessity of making crops “climate proof” and securing them from the hazards of inorganic fertilisers and pesticides. Conventional rice research follows the linear model. Technology is derived through laboratory-based scientific research and flows from researchers to users, through an intermediary agency such as an extension service. The results obtained through this method are sometimes acceptable. However, in this linear and unidirectional process, the possibility of new knowledge creation by the users does not exist. The model has been criticised for being closed to farmers’ indigenous knowledge and their practical innovations. SRI, in contrast, is multidirectional and it allows multiple sources of innovation. Farmers are encouraged to make their own improvements to SRI and share experience within the farming community. These improvements are then tested and validated by researchers. SRI has managed to encompass the unstructured knowledge of farmers and other informal research actors in developing a body of knowledge based on scientific principles. Mitzschke tried to observe the practice of SRI in India through the conceptual filters of social network, social learning, and open innovation. He found that SRI is heavily dependent on processes of learning and knowledge exchange, which propagate through networks such as SRI Electronic Discussion Group and SRI Voluntary Camps. It appeared that SRI is not an input intensive, but knowledge intensive process. Farmers’ knowledge is enriched and propagated through social learning. They extend their traditional knowledge of rice cultivation by observing other farmers’ experiments and innovations in SRI, and by participating in knowledge sharing sessions. They observe the method, describe and explain it to each other, question it, raise doubts, and resolve those doubts through meetings and discussions (cf. “Social Learning Theory,” 2010). Once they realise the advantages of the SRI process, they reproduce it in their own fields. In his three and a half months of field research in Orissa, Mitzschke used ethnographic techniques such as participant observation (e.g., weeding in the rice fields) and semi-structured interviews. During the data collection process, he encountered obstacles such as language barrier, distrust among farmers, and lack of concentration during interview sessions. There seemed to be an inhibition among the villagers in speaking upfront. Mitzschke was trying to address the following questions: Q1. What kind of community is involved with SRI? Q2. How is the training processes undertaken in the SRI community? Q3. Is the dissemination of agricultural innovation different in the case of SRI? Q4. What kind of innovation is SRI? The SRI network in India seems to accommodate a huge variety of contributors from India and abroad. This network and the learning and innovation processes in it are worth studying further to improve our understanding of the mechanisms of sustainable agriculture. It appears to be an instance of “social construction of technology” that some authors have written about (Pinch & Bijker, 1987). As he has narrated in his blog, Observant, Mitzschke found himself challenged by the Indian heat and humidity. Of course, he liked some Indian food (such as samosa) and felt comfortable in some Indian clothing (such as kurta). As a social researcher, one cannot be fully isolated from the cultural and the bodily experiences one goes through in the research process. One needs to recognise their consequences, both in the formal results of the research project and also in the researcher’s own process of formation. References Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 17-50). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Social Learning Theory. (2010). Retrieved August 10, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_learning_theory The System of Rice Intensification. (2010). Retrieved August 10, 2010, from http://ciifad.cornell.edu/sri/ Reported by Swati Panda, with inputs from C. Shambu Prasad and Andreas Mitzschke; edited by D. P. Dash. [September 5, 2010] Copyleft Xavier Institute of Management, Xavier Square, Bhubaneswar 751013, India Research World (ISSN 0974-2379) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/Home | ||
 |