CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56Agricultural Innovations and PracticesInnovation and Socioeconomic DevelopmentEvaluation and Performance Assessment

Understanding inclusive innovation processes in agricultural systems: A middle-range conceptual model

Open access
Hoffecker, Elizabeth·2021·World Development
DOI 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105382
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Inclusive innovation as a strategy for inclusive development has received increased attention from development policymakers, practitioners, and scholars in recent years. What these processes entail in practical terms, however, remains contested and under-theorized. This paper addresses the scarcity of mid-level analysis and models of inclusive innovation processes within complex systems, which are needed to enable a coherent empirical research agenda and to inform program theory-building, implementation, and evaluation. Looking to smallholder-oriented agricultural systems in the Global South, where the majority of inclusive innovation implementation and research has been located, this paper proposes that it is possible to identify the essential features and causal logic of these processes to create an empirically-derived, middle-range model with cross-context applicability. Drawing on methods from realist evaluation and social inquiry, I conducted a theory-driven, cross-case synthesis of three studies of inclusive innovation processes in agricultural systems, with one case each from South America, Southeast Asia, and Africa. I find that despite significant diversity in project designs, facilitation approaches, and local contexts, the three inclusive innovation processes unfolded in strikingly similar ways, and that this modus operandi can be modeled as a middle-range theory of change. In each case, I find that a consistent set of activities and processes changed the local context for the inclusive innovation initiative. These altered contextual factors interacted with ongoing programmatic activities in consistent ways to trigger processes of social learning, social capital strengthening, collective cognition, and consensus formation, which acted as causal mechanisms responsible for producing the intermediate outcomes that led to technical, organizational, and institutional system innovation. The middle-range model enables cross-context insights into how inclusive innovation processes work and what capacities are needed to facilitate them. It can also guide the adaptive management and assessment of these processes, while offering testable hypotheses to guide future empirical work and evaluation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105382

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A shared understanding of an initiative's transformative history and current state provides valuable insights for joint action.

    “A shared understanding of an initiative's transformative history and current state provides valuable insights for joint action and contributes to building trust and social capital necessary for effective science-society interactions (Hoffecker 2021, Koole 2022).”

    From A heuristic framework to portray agroecological transition initiatives in reflexive arrangements, illustrated with a conservation agriculture network in Denmark (2025) · cites this paper as Hoffecker 2021

    Section 4.2.3 (page unavailable) says stakeholders develop a shared understanding of the current situation and potential pathways for change, and that consensus can lead to a joint action plan. It does not say that a shared understanding of an initiative’s transformative history provides insights for joint action. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • A shared understanding of an initiative's transformative history and current state contributes to building trust and social capital necessary for effective science-society interactions.

    “A shared understanding of an initiative's transformative history and current state provides valuable insights for joint action and contributes to building trust and social capital necessary for effective science-society interactions (Hoffecker 2021, Koole 2022).”

    From A heuristic framework to portray agroecological transition initiatives in reflexive arrangements, illustrated with a conservation agriculture network in Denmark (2025) · cites this paper as Hoffecker 2021

    Section 4.2.3 links a shared understanding of the current situation to consensus about paths for change, while section 4.2.2 links stakeholder dialogue, social capital, and joint action. The paper does not establish that understanding an initiative’s transformative history builds trust and social capital for effective science–society interactions; it describes trust and social capital as developing through dialogue and social learning. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. Faure, G., Barret, D., Blundo-Canto, G., Dabat, M., Devaux-Spatarakis, A., Le GuerrouÕ, J.L., MarquiÕ, C., MathÕ, S., Temple, L., Toillier, A., Triomphe, B. & Hainzelin, E. (2018). How different agricultural research models contribute to impacts: Evidence from 13 case studies in developing countries. Agricultural Systems. 165: 128136. Journal article
  2. Faure, G., Blundo-Canto, G., Devaux-Spatarakis, A., Le GuerrouÕ, J.L., MathÕ, S., Temple, L., Toiller, A., Triomphe, B. & Hainzelin, E. (2020). A participatory method to assess the contribution of agricultural research to societal changes in developing countries. Research Evaluation. 29(2): 158170. Journal article
  3. Queste, J. & Wassenaar, T. (2019). A practical dialogue protocol for sustainability science to contribute to regional resource management: implementation in Réunion. Natural Resources Forum 43: 316. Journal article
  4. Wassenaar, T. & Queste, J. (2015). Co-designing organic residue recycling chains in off- balance regions. Conference Proceedings of the 5th International Symposiums for Farming Systems Design. Montpellier, France. pp. 227228. Conference paper
  5. Wassenaar, T., Doelsch, E., Feder, F., Guerrin, F., Paillat, J.M., Thuries, L. & Saint Macary, H. (2014). Returning Organic Residues to Agricultural Land (RORAL)-Fueling the Follow- the Technology approach. Agricultural Systems. 124: 6069. Journal article Case #2: Abaca rehabilitation in the Philippines (RinD)
  6. Douthwaite, B. & Hoffecker, E. (2017). Towards a complexity-aware theory of change for participatory research programs working within agricultural innovation systems. Agricultural Systems. 155: 88102 Journal article
  7. Paz-Ybarnegaray, R. (2015). Outcome Evidencing Report 2014: VisMin Hub, Philippines AAS CRP. CGIAR research program on aquatic agricultural systems. Penang, Malaysia. CGIAR AAS evaluation report provided by B. Douthwaite Paz-Ybarnegaray, R. & Douthwaite, B. (2017). Outcome evidencing: a method for enabling and evaluating program interventions in complex systems. American Journal of Evaluation. 38(2): 275293. Journal article Case #3: Native potato commercialization in Peru (PMCA)
  8. Albu, M. & Griffith, A. (2006). Mapping the market: participatory market-chain development in practice. Small Enterprise Development. 17(2):1 222. Journal article Anonynous. (2008). Farming families benefit from Peruvian potato project. Appropriate Technology; 35;1, 3536. News piece re-published in Appropriate Technology References
  9. Altenburg, T. (2009). Building inclusive innovation systems in developing countries: Challenges for IS research. In B. A. Lundvall, K. J. Joseph, & C. Chaminade (Eds.), Handbook on innovation systems and developing countries: Building domestic capabilities in a global context3357). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
  10. Astbury, B., & Leeuw, F. L. (2010). Unpacking Black Boxes: Mechanisms and Theory Building in Evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 363-381.
  11. Assefa, A., Waters-Bayer, A., Fincham, R., & Mudhara, M. (2009). Comparisons of Frameworks for Studying Grassroots innovation: Agricultural Innovation Systems and Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems. In Innovation Africa: Enriching farmers livelihoods (pp. 35-56). London: Earthscan.
  12. Biggs, S., & Smith, G. (1998). Beyond methodologies: Coalition-building for participatory technology development. World Development., 26(2), 239-248.
  13. Chataway, J., Hanlin, R., & Kaplinsky, R. (2014). Inclusive innovation: An architecture for policy development. Innovation and Development, 4(1), 33-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2013.876800. · DOI
  14. Devaux, A., Ordinola, M., & Horton, D. (Eds.). (2011). Innovation for development: The papa andina experience. Lima, Peru: International Potato Center.
  15. Douthwaite, B., Ahmad, F., & Shah, G.-M. (2020). Putting theory of change into use in complex settings. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 35(1), 35-52.
  16. Douthwaite, B., & Hoffecker, E. (2017). Towards a complexity-aware theory of change for participatory research programs working within agricultural innovation systems. Agricultural Systems, 155, 88-102. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.agsy.2017.04.002. · DOI
  17. Douthwaite, B., Kuby, T., van de Fliert, E., & Schulz, S. (2003). Impact pathway evaluation: An approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems. Agricultural Systems., 78(2), 243-265.
  18. Douthwaite, B., Mayne, J., McDougall, C., & Paz-Ybarnegaray, R. (2017). Evaluating complex interventions: A theory-driven, realist-informed approach. Evaluation, 23(3), 294-311.
  19. Elzen, B., & Wieczorek, A. (2005). Transitions toward sustainability through system innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(6), 651-661.
  20. Elzen, B., Geels, F. W., & Green, K. (Eds.). (2004). System innovation and the transition to sustainability: theory evidence and policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
  21. Emmel, N., Greenhalgh, J., Manzano, A., Monaghan, M., & Dalkin, S. (Eds.). (2018). Doing realist research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  22. Faure, G., Blundo-Canto, G., Devaux-Spatarakis, A., Le GuerrouÕ, J. L., MathÕ, S., Temple, L., ... Hainzelin, E. (2020). A participatory method to assess the contribution of agricultural research to societal changes in developing countries. Research Evaluation, 29(2), 158-170.
  23. Foster, C., & Heeks, R. (2013). Conceptualizing inclusive innovation: Modifying systems of innovation frameworks to understand diffusion of new technology to low-income consumers. European Journal of Development Research., 25(3), 333-355.
  24. Frankelius, P. (2009). Questioning two myths in innovation literature. Journal of High Technology Management Research., 20, 40-51.
  25. George, G., McGahan, A. M., & Prabhu, J. (2012). Innovation for inclusive growth: Towards a theoretical framework and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), 661-683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01048.x. · DOI
  26. Gupta, J., Pouw, N., & Ros-Tonen, M. (2015). Towards an Elaborated Theory of Inclusive Development. European Journal of Development Research, 27, 541-559. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2015. · DOI
  27. Heeks, R., Foster, C., & Nugroho, Y. (2014). Introduction: New models of inclusive innovation for development. Innovation and Development., 4(2), 175-185. · DOI
  28. Hounkonnou, D., Brouwers, J., van Huis, A., Jiggins, J., Kossou, D., R-ling, N., Sakyi- Dawson, O., & TraorÕ, M. (2018). Triggering regime change: A comparative analysis of the performance of innovation platforms that attempted to change the institutional context for nine agricultural domains in West Africa. Agricultural Systems, 165, 296-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.08.009. · DOI
  29. Jiggins, J., Essegbey, G., Klerks, L., van Paassen, A., Pyburn, R., & Tossou, R. (2016). The uses of research: Action researching in and across nine agro-enterprise domains: The experience of the Convergence of Sciencies-Strengthening Innovation Systems Programmes in Benin, Ghana and Mali. In J. Francis, L. Mytelka, A. van Huis, & N. Roling (Eds.), Innovation systems: Towards effective strategies in support of smallholder farmers (pp. 101-123). Wageningen: Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation and Wageningen University.
  30. Gibbon, & B. Dedieu (Eds.), Farming systems research into the 21st century: The new dynamic (pp. 457-483). Netherlands: Springer.
  31. Klerkx, L., Hall, A. & Leeuwis, C. (2009). Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: Are innovation brokers the answer? International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 8: 409438.
  32. Koelen, M., & Das, E. (2002). Social learning: A construction of reality. In C. Leeuwis & R. Pyburn (Eds.), Wheelbarrows full of frogs: Social learning in rural resource management (pp. 437-446). The Netherlands: Assen.
  33. Koleros, A., Mulkerne, S., Oldenbeuving, M., & Stein, D. (2020). The Actor-Based Change Framework: A pragmatic approach to developing program theory for interventions in complex systems. American Journal of Evaluation., 41(1), 34-53.
  34. Lazonick, W., & Mazzucato, M. (2013). The risk-reward nexus in the innovation- inequality relationship: Who takes the risks? Who gets the rewards? Industrial and Corporate Change., 22(4), 1093-1128.
  35. Leeuwis, C., & van den Ban, A. (2004). Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
  36. Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  37. Mayne, J. (2015). Useful theories of change models. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation., 30(2), 119-142.
  38. Meinzen-Dick, R., Devaux, A., & Antezana, I. (2009). Underground assets: Potato biodiversity to improve the livelihoods of the poor. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability., 7(4), 235-248.
  39. Merton (1967). On theoretical sociology: Five essays old and new. New York: Free Press.
  40. Mookherji, S., & LaFond, A. (2013). Strategies to maximize generation from multiple case studies: Lesson from the Africa Routine Immunization System Essentials (ARISE) project. Evaluation, 19(3), 284-303.
  41. Opola, F. O., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., & Kilelu, C. (2020). The hybridity of inclusive innovation narratives between theory and practice: A framing analysis. The European Journal of Development Research. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-020- 00290-z. · DOI
  42. Ordinola, M., Devaux, A., Manrique, K., Fonseca, C., & Thomann, A. (2011). Strengthening competitiveness of the potato market chain: An experience in Peru. In A. Devaux, M. Ordinola, & D. Horton (Eds.), Innovation for development: The papa andina experience (pp. 151-160). Lima, Peru: International Potato Center.
  43. Owusu-Addo, E., Renzaho, A. M. N., & Smith, B. (2020). Developing a middle-range theory to explain how cash transfers work to tackle the social determinants of health: A realist case study. World Development., 130, 104920. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104920. · DOI
  44. Pansera, M., & Owen, R. (2018). Framing inclusive innovation within the discourse of development: Insights from case studies in India. Research Policy, 47(1), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.007. · DOI
  45. Papaioannou, T. (2014). How inclusive can innovation and development be in the twenty-first century? Innovation and Development, 4(2), 187-202. https://doi. org/10.1080/2157930X.2014.921355. · DOI
  46. Santiago, F. (2014). Innovation for inclusive development. Innovation and Development, 4(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2014.890353. · DOI
  47. Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach. London: Routledge.
  48. Schillo, R. S., & Robinson, R. (2017). Inclusive innovation in developed countries: The who, what, why, and how. Technology Innovation Management Review., 7(7), 34-46.
  49. Scriven, M. (1974). Maximizing the power of causal investigations: The modus operandi method. In W. J. Popham (Ed.), Evaluation in education: Current applications (pp. 68-84). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
  50. Smith, A., Fressoli, M., & Thomas, H. (2014). Grassroots innovation movements: Challenges and contributions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, 114-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.025. · DOI
  51. Spielman, D., Ekboir, J., & Davis, K. (2009). The art and science of innovation systems inquiry: Applications to Sub-Saharan African agriculture. Technology in Society, 31(4), 399-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2009.10.004. · DOI
  52. Springer-Heinze, A., Hartwich, F., Henderson, J. S., Horton, D., & Minde, I (2003). Impact pathway analysis: an approach to strengthening the impact orientation of agricultural research. Agricultural Systems, 78, 267-285. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0308-521X(03)00129-X. · DOI
  53. Swaans, K., Boogaard, B., Bendapudi, R., Taye, H., Hendrickx, S., & Klerkx, L. (2015). Operationalizing inclusive innovation: Lessons from innovation platforms in livestock value chains in India and Mozambique. Innovation and Development, 4 (2), 239-257. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2014.925246. · DOI
  54. Thiele, G., Devauz, A., & Horton, D. (2007). Horizontal evaluation: Fostering knowledge sharing and program improvement within a network. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(4), 493-508. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1098214007308989. · DOI
  55. Triomphe, B., Floquet, A., Kamau, G., Letty, B., Almekinders, C., & Waters-Bayer, A. (2016). Making sense of innovation processes in African smallholder agriculture. In J. Francis, L. Mytelka, A. van Huis, & N. Roling (Eds.), Innovation systems: Towards effective strategies in support of smallholder farmers (pp. 170-182). Wageningen: Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation and Wageningen University.
  56. Triomphe, B, Waters-Bayer, A., Klerkx, L., Schut, M., Kamau, G. & Le Borgne, E., (Eds.) (2013). Innovation in smallholder farming in Africa: Recent advances and recommendations. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Agricultural Innovation Systems in Africa. Nairobi, Kenya.
  57. Uphoff, N., & Wijayaratna, C. M. (2000). Demonstrated benefits from social capita: The productivity of farmer organizations in Gal Oya, Sri Lanka. World Development., 28(11), 1875-1890.
  58. van Mierlo, B., Arkesteijn, M., & Leeuwis, C. (2010). Enhancing the reflexivity of system innovation projects with system analyses. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 143-161.
  59. Wassenaar, T. & Queste, J. (2015). Co-designing organic residue recycling chains in off-balance regions. Conference Proceedings of the 5th International Symposiums for Farming Systems Design. Montpellier, France. pp. 227228.
  60. Westhorp (2018). Understanding mechanisms in realist evaluation and research. In N. Emmel, J. Greenhalgh, A. Manzano, M. Monaghan, & S. Dalkin (Eds.), Doing Realist Research (pp. 42). London: Sage.
  61. Westhorp, G. (2012). Using complexity-consistent theory for evaluating complex systems. Evaluation, 18(4), 405-420.
  62. Wong, G., Westhorp, G., Manzano, A., Greenhalgh, J., Jagosh, J., & Greenhalgh, T. (2016). RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations. BMC Medicine, 14 (96). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0643-1. · DOI · Paper page
  63. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoffecker, E.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Hoffecker, Elizabeth
ORCID
Hoffecker, Elizabeth
Venue
World Development
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-04
Volume
140
Pages
105382
ISSN
0305-750X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105382
OpenAlex
W3123333230
Cited by
56
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3
FWCI
14.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • World Development (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
United States Agency for International Development (AID-OAA-A-12-00095, AID-OAA-A-12-0095)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Business and International Management › Innovation and Socioeconomic Development
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
inclusive innovation, agricultural innovation, smallholder farmers, middle-range theory, theory of change, social learning, social capital, collective cognition, consensus formation, institutional innovation, facilitation approach, inclusive development, Global South, complex systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review