Critical reflections on 'going to scale' in agricultural research for development: Case studies from Southeast Asia Liana Jade Williams BIntSt (Hons) DipLang (Japanese) A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2017 School of Agriculture and Food Sciences Abstract Agricultural research projects in developing countries focus on modifying farming systems in order to contribute to higher-level development goals such as poverty reduction, food security, and rural development. The success of these projects is tied to the expansion of benefits beyond the projects themselves, that is, scaling out and up. There is significant pressure on research organisations and development actors more broadly to demonstrate the impact of their activities at scale, which is driving a preoccupation with scaling of research findings in agricultural research organisations. Literature on taking research to scale has largely been concerned with stories of technological transfer and spread—identifying which mechanisms best support the dissemination and adoption of new practices by farming households, or how to engage with government departments to embed a new practice in agricultural extension programs. Consideration of scaling processes has been disconnected from broader attention to innovation as a dynamic process influenced by individual, institutional, and political circumstances. The aim of this research was to explore the concepts and assumptions of taking research to scale in agricultural development. The perspective of agricultural innovation systems, which emphasises connectivity and its importance for innovation, was the conceptual starting point. However, this approach has been criticised for failing adequately to consider how these connections can marginalise some actors. Drawing also on political ecology and actor-oriented theory enabled a clearer consideration of diversity, power, structure, and agency to complement the frame provided by agricultural innovation systems. Within this broader framework, the key themes were: history and context; key actors and roles; strategies for scaling research; structure and agency; power and knowledge; and scale and networks. Drawing on analytical perspectives from agricultural innovation systems, political ecology, and actor-oriented theory encouraged critical reflection on how the benefits of new technologies and practices are expanded, and on some of the outcomes of these processes. Three cases of agricultural technology spread were compared: higher-yielding rice varieties in Laos; small-scale agricultural machinery in Thailand; and improved cattle management in Indonesia. Cases featured different social and political systems, different types of technology, different degrees of ‘success’, and different mechanisms for scaling. The case studies draw on interviews with key actors, project documents, evaluations, and reports to explore how the intersection of key actors, networks, and events influenced efforts to expand project impact. ii The cases highlight that the narratives and expectations around scaling are often over-simplified, reinforcing a focus on binary adoption of research-driven technology, and are unable to account for the complex array of actors, motivations, and ongoing learning processes that underpin efforts to take research to scale. Such findings call into question the validity of our expectations and claims around scaling. An emphasis on accountability and positive success stories by funding agencies may be useful to draw attention to the larger development goals and how research efforts can contribute to them, yet can also reinforce narratives of success that simplify complex processes of social change. Recognition of this complexity is important and would prompt a reconsideration of how agricultural development projects are designed, implemented, and evaluated to reflect the long- term processes of learning and adaptation that are at the heart of rural development. iii Declaration by author This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis. I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, financial support and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my higher degree by research candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award. I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the thesis be made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School. I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis and have sought permission from co-authors for any jointly authored works included in the thesis. iv Publications during candidature Conference abstracts Williams, LJ., Cramb, RA., and Grünbühel, CM. (2014) ‘Taking research to scale: linking local agricultural interventions with scale theory’ in Geography that matters: Unravelling the destiny for environment, society and people in Asia, 12th Southeast Asian Geography Association International Conference, Siem Reap, 25–28 Nov. 2014. Publications included in this thesis No publications included. Contributions by others to the thesis No contributions by others. Statement of parts of the thesis submitted to qualify for the award of another degree None. Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects Human research ethics approval was provided by the University of Queensland School of Agriculture and Food Sciences Ethics Committee, Approval SAFS/H13/14. Reciprocal approval was provided by the CSIRO Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee, Approval 099/13. v Acknowledgements Thank you to my enduring supervisors, Prof. Robert Cramb (University of Queensland, UQ) and Dr Clemens Grünbühel (Asian Institute of Technology). Rob, thank you for always making time to talk, for expanding and challenging my thinking, for your empathy, endless patience, and meticulous reading of several drafts. Clemens, thank you for inspiring me to start, for sticking it out until the end, and for all your good humour, engaging conversations and guidance along the way. I’d also like to acknowledge Dr Marcus Lane for his guidance and encouragement in setting me on this path. Behind the case studies in this thesis sits the generosity of many people—researchers, government officials, farmers—who have contributed their time and knowledge. Such generosity gives research like this depth, meaning, and relevance. Thank you to all of the research participants in Australia, Laos, and Indonesia, who generously put time aside in busy schedules and trusted me enough to share their knowledge, reflections and insights on the processes and events in each case. For their support of my field work in the case on improved rice varieties in Lao PDR, thank you to Dr Vanthong Phengvichith and Dr Thavone Inthavong (National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute, NAFRI), and Dr Khammone Thiravong (Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office), and Dr John Schiller (UQ). Thank you to Sysavanh Vorlasan (NAFRI) and Latsamy Phanthamisay for their invaluable support in arranging and translating interviews. For their collegiality and support in conducting research in Indonesia, thank you to Prof. Dahlannudin, Muhammad Supriyadi and Fuji Astuti (UNRAM), and Monica van Wensveen (CSIRO). Thank you to Dr Bruce Pengelly and the research teams who have supported my interest in their work in Indonesia and allowed me to put it under the microscope with exceptional good will, openness and encouragement. While completing a PhD part-time has its challenges, my friends and colleagues at CSIRO and beyond have proven to be an endless source of support. In particular, my sincere thanks to Christian Roth and the team from all corners of ACCA; to Michaela Cosijn, for making sure I took the time to get it done (and survive); to Andy Hall for scholarly inspiration; to Lucy Carter, Monica van Wensveen, Bruce Taylor, Anthea Coggan, Don Gaydon, Andrea Walton, Toni Darbas and Samantha Stone-Jovicich for your interest in how it was going, and helping me keep things in perspective. Thank you to all my project leaders and colleagues who have been patient, accommodating and understanding while I have hunkered down to get this done. vi Thank you to my friend and professional editor Karin Hosking, who provided copyediting and proofreading services, according to the guidelines laid out in the university-endorsed national ‘Guidelines for editing research theses’. Knowing you would cast your eyes over this brought me great comfort (any