This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.

Unclaimed
James A. Turner
AgResearch, Hamilton 3214, New Zealand

Honors and Awards

The user has no records in this section


Career Timeline

The user has no records in this section.


Short Biography

The user biography is not available.
Following
Followers
Co Authors
The list of users this user is following is empty.
Following: 0 users

Feed

Journal article
Published: 20 August 2021 in Sustainability
Reads 0
Downloads 0

This article presents a heuristic framework to help respond to gaps in knowledge construction in sustainability transitions. Transition theory publications highlight concerns ranging from contentious understandings of sustainability to the need for generalisable conceptual frameworks around how place specificity matters in transitions. The heuristic presented here is a flexible framework for developing place-dependent narratives of sustainability transitions grounded in investment choices. The sustainability buckets development resulted from the abduction and retroduction methods. It was also underpinned by a praxis-oriented mechanism from business (‘strategic investment buckets’), a transition theory conceptual framework (‘the multi-level perspective’—MLP), and a social sciences heuristic (‘sustainability cultures’). The sustainability buckets resulted from synthesising the critical literature with empirical findings drawn from two case studies in New Zealand. The heuristic proved helpful to navigate, organise, and code meanings and understandings of sustainability in the New Zealand agri-food context. It also helped facilitate dialogue with research participants from different backgrounds, such as government and business. The heuristic was designed to transform, remaining fit for purpose as transitions evolve. This article suggests the sustainability buckets could be used to enable investment opportunities for upscaling, reproducing, and transplanting transitions happening in distinct sectors and high-level systems.

ACS Style

Barbara Ribeiro; James A. Turner. Sustainability Buckets: A Flexible Heuristic for Facilitating Strategic Investment on Place-Dependent Sustainability Narratives. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9367 .

AMA Style

Barbara Ribeiro, James A. Turner. Sustainability Buckets: A Flexible Heuristic for Facilitating Strategic Investment on Place-Dependent Sustainability Narratives. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (16):9367.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barbara Ribeiro; James A. Turner. 2021. "Sustainability Buckets: A Flexible Heuristic for Facilitating Strategic Investment on Place-Dependent Sustainability Narratives." Sustainability 13, no. 16: 9367.

Journal article
Published: 12 July 2021 in The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Explore advisor understanding of their roles in advisory systems characterised by differing mixes of public and private funding and delivery. A systems perspective of advisory system governance is combined with an individual perspective of advisor roles. Data from a survey of 38 Australian, 19 New Zealand, 606 Argentine and 279 Brazilian respondents were analysed for statistical differences. In all contexts, advisor priorities reflect state or industry goals. Where there is more private funding and delivery, advisors also prioritise farmer commercial goals. Under public extension funding and delivery, group methods and capacity building are emphasised to reach many farmers and realise public goals. Advisors play a crucial role in reconciling competing national, industry and farmer goals at the farm-level. This emphasises participatory methods and intermediary positions in the advisory system to facilitate dialogue and support farmers to realise competing goals. A policy implication is public and industry funding is needed for advisors to engage with public and industry organisations to understand and contribute to policies and objectives they will be advising on. Combining a systems perspective of country-level advisory system governance with an individual perspective of advisor roles highlights that advisor understanding of their roles are related to the public governance context in which they operate. The advisor understanding of their roles in the advisory system is related to different governance of pluralistic advisory systems. This contributes to articulating advisory policies and practices to support coordination and inclusion in pluralistic advisory systems.

ACS Style

James A. Turner; Fernando Landini; Helen Percy; Marcos Roberto Pires Gregolin. Advisor understanding of their roles in the advisory system: a comparison of governance structures in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and New Zealand. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 2021, 1 -26.

AMA Style

James A. Turner, Fernando Landini, Helen Percy, Marcos Roberto Pires Gregolin. Advisor understanding of their roles in the advisory system: a comparison of governance structures in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and New Zealand. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2021; ():1-26.

Chicago/Turabian Style

James A. Turner; Fernando Landini; Helen Percy; Marcos Roberto Pires Gregolin. 2021. "Advisor understanding of their roles in the advisory system: a comparison of governance structures in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and New Zealand." The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension , no. : 1-26.

Research article
Published: 06 June 2021 in The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension
Reads 0
Downloads 0

To analyse and compare the extension objectives of individual extension agents across nine countries. Extension agents from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Paraguay, and South Africa were surveyed using convenience sampling (n = 2707). A typology of extension agents with different profiles of objectives was built using data from five of the countries. The most frequent individual extension objectives were to increase farmers’ knowledge through training, and productive modernisation of farms. Four types of extension agents were identified: the socially-engaged extension agent; the agricultural production and business expert; the trainer of subsistence farmers, and the pro-poor practitioner. Researchers can use these results to analyse specific institutional settings, and extension institutions to reflect on the type of extension agent that best fit their institutional goals and to select practitioners accordingly. Productive modernisation persists as a fundamental individual extension objective in many countries. Individual extension objectives are not stand-alone preferences but clusters of interrelated priorities, which do not necessarily coincide with those of extension institutions or national policies. Practitioners’ agency plays a key role in realising (or not) a fit between extension service offerings and demand for extension services, and contributes to a wider repertoire of advisory styles in extension systems than implied by extension institutional objectives. This research adds to the literature by examining individual extension agents, rather than the institutional extension objectives, and providing a typology of agents with different profiles of objectives.

ACS Style

Fernando Landini; James A. Turner; Kristin Davis; Helen Percy; Johan Van Niekerk. International comparison of extension agent objectives and construction of a typology. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 2021, 1 -23.

AMA Style

Fernando Landini, James A. Turner, Kristin Davis, Helen Percy, Johan Van Niekerk. International comparison of extension agent objectives and construction of a typology. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2021; ():1-23.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fernando Landini; James A. Turner; Kristin Davis; Helen Percy; Johan Van Niekerk. 2021. "International comparison of extension agent objectives and construction of a typology." The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension , no. : 1-23.

Journal article
Published: 17 July 2020 in Journal of Rural Studies
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Historically the dominant farming culture in Western developed countries, such as Scotland and New Zealand, has been based on maximising food production and maintaining the family business. However, this culture of production and family is under pressure from societal calls to increase the uptake of environmental practices in farm management. The pressure is leading farmers to adopt environmental practices, which causes a clash with the beliefs and values underlying the culture of production and family business. This clash is problematic, as it might form a barrier to sustained environmental change, for which not only practice change is required, but also a change in beliefs and values guiding the farming culture. This study explores the clash using an institutional perspective to: i) analyse how farmer practices, beliefs and values change due to external pressure to adopt environmental practices; ii) identify mechanisms via which this change unfolds; and iii) understand the role of participatory extension programmes in this change. An institutional perspective enables this study to move beyond the role of individual's attitudes and behaviours in adoption of environmental practices, towards considering how farmers' practices, beliefs and values together constitute the culture of farming, and how these are shaped by societal and institutional mechanisms. Twenty Scottish and 52 New Zealand farmers participated in qualitative, open-ended interviews and were observed during discussion groups or advisory meetings. Our findings show that all farmers are guided by a ‘business’, ‘lifestyle’ and/or ‘learning’ logic. The institutional clash influenced practices underlying the business logic to change from being purely based on maximising productivity, to including environmental aspects. However, no change in values was observed. Participatory extension programmes influenced practices, beliefs and values underlying the learning logic (changing from a ‘linear’ to ‘multi-actor’ logic) and thus can help facilitate more effective practice change by providing support via micro-mechanisms and enabling dynamics. The study contributes to current literature by introducing a new lens for understanding change induced by participatory extension programmes and by providing change agents, such as extensionists, with more in-depth knowledge about the main logics guiding the culture of farming, and the mechanisms by which farmer practices, beliefs and values may change. The in depth-knowledge will help to communicate, frame and organise extension initiatives.

ACS Style

Jorie Knook; James A. Turner. Reshaping a farming culture through participatory extension: An institutional logics perspective. Journal of Rural Studies 2020, 78, 411 -425.

AMA Style

Jorie Knook, James A. Turner. Reshaping a farming culture through participatory extension: An institutional logics perspective. Journal of Rural Studies. 2020; 78 ():411-425.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jorie Knook; James A. Turner. 2020. "Reshaping a farming culture through participatory extension: An institutional logics perspective." Journal of Rural Studies 78, no. : 411-425.

Journal article
Published: 22 April 2020 in Journal of Rural Studies
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Innovation platforms (IPs) that support agricultural innovation to enable transition processes towards more sustainable agriculture provide a space where conflicts of interest among actors in the existing agricultural system (the so called incumbent regime) may play out. Sometimes these conflicts over how actors will benefit from an action are not revealed until actors are brought together. However, a barrier to change occurs when IP actors use their existing power to mobilise resources to influence if and how individual and collective interests are aligned. In the context of agricultural innovation and transitions, this paper uses the power in transitions framework (Avelino and Wittmayer, 2016), along with analytical perspectives on conflicts and role perceptions, to understand how consciously staging or revealing conflicts of interest among IP actors changed role perceptions and power relations among these actors. The paper explores this topic in two IPs addressing agricultural production and sustainability challenges in New Zealand's agricultural sector. Conflicts were staged in IPs when one group of actors mobilised resources that enabled them to move existing power relations from one-sided, to synergistic or a mutual dependency. This enabled conflicts to be acknowledged and solved. In contrast, conflicts were not staged when actors mobilised resources to maintain antagonostic power relations. Our cases demontrate that staging conflicts to change actors' role perceptions is an important intermediary step to forming new power relations in the agricultural system. Our findings highlight the need for IP theory to conceptualise power relations in IPs as context specific, dynamic and a force shaping outcomes, rather than solely a force exerted by actors in the incumbent regime over IP actors.

ACS Style

J.A. Turner; A. Horita; Simon Fielke; L. Klerkx; P. Blackett; D. Bewsell; B. Small; W.M. Boyce. Revealing power dynamics and staging conflicts in agricultural system transitions: Case studies of innovation platforms in New Zealand. Journal of Rural Studies 2020, 76, 152 -162.

AMA Style

J.A. Turner, A. Horita, Simon Fielke, L. Klerkx, P. Blackett, D. Bewsell, B. Small, W.M. Boyce. Revealing power dynamics and staging conflicts in agricultural system transitions: Case studies of innovation platforms in New Zealand. Journal of Rural Studies. 2020; 76 ():152-162.

Chicago/Turabian Style

J.A. Turner; A. Horita; Simon Fielke; L. Klerkx; P. Blackett; D. Bewsell; B. Small; W.M. Boyce. 2020. "Revealing power dynamics and staging conflicts in agricultural system transitions: Case studies of innovation platforms in New Zealand." Journal of Rural Studies 76, no. : 152-162.

Journal article
Published: 08 February 2020
Reads 0
Downloads 0
ACS Style

James A Turner; Will Allen; Caroline Fraser; Andrew Fenemor; Akiko Horita; Toni White; Lan Chen; Maggie Atkinson; Michelle Rush. Navigating Institutional Challenges: Design to Enable Community Participation in Social Learning for Freshwater Planning. 2020, 1 .

AMA Style

James A Turner, Will Allen, Caroline Fraser, Andrew Fenemor, Akiko Horita, Toni White, Lan Chen, Maggie Atkinson, Michelle Rush. Navigating Institutional Challenges: Design to Enable Community Participation in Social Learning for Freshwater Planning. . 2020; ():1.

Chicago/Turabian Style

James A Turner; Will Allen; Caroline Fraser; Andrew Fenemor; Akiko Horita; Toni White; Lan Chen; Maggie Atkinson; Michelle Rush. 2020. "Navigating Institutional Challenges: Design to Enable Community Participation in Social Learning for Freshwater Planning." , no. : 1.

Article
Published: 08 February 2020 in Environmental Management
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Social learning is a process suited to developing understanding and concerted action to tackle complex resource dilemmas, such as freshwater management. Research has begun to recognise that in practice social learning encounters a variety of institutional challenges from the shared habits and routines of stakeholders (organised by rules, norms and strategies) that are embedded in organisational structures and norms of professional behaviour. These institutional habits and routines influence the degree of willingness to engage with stakeholders, and expectations of behaviours in social learning processes. Considering this, there has been a call to understand how institutions influence social learning and emergent outcomes. We addresses this by presenting a heuristic for implementing social learning cognisant of institutional context to answer three questions: (i) How institutional influences impact implementation of social learning design; (ii) how implementation of social learning design modifies institutions influencing social learning; and (iii) how these changes in design and institutions together shape social learning outcomes? To answer these questions a freshwater planning exercise was designed, implemented and evaluated as a social learning process with community groups in two New Zealand catchments. Incorporating participatory reflection enabled the project team to modify social learning design to manage institutional influences hindering progress toward outcomes. Findings emphasise that social learning is underpinned by participants’ changing assumptions about what constitutes the institution of learning itself—from instruction to a dynamic, collective and emergent process. Reflecting on these assumptions also challenged participants’ expectations about their own and others’ behaviours and roles in freshwater planning.

ACS Style

James A. Turner; Will Allen; Caroline Fraser; Andrew Fenemor; Akiko Horita; Toni White; Lan Chen; Maggie Atkinson; Michelle Rush. Navigating Institutional Challenges: Design to Enable Community Participation in Social Learning for Freshwater Planning. Environmental Management 2020, 65, 288 -305.

AMA Style

James A. Turner, Will Allen, Caroline Fraser, Andrew Fenemor, Akiko Horita, Toni White, Lan Chen, Maggie Atkinson, Michelle Rush. Navigating Institutional Challenges: Design to Enable Community Participation in Social Learning for Freshwater Planning. Environmental Management. 2020; 65 (3):288-305.

Chicago/Turabian Style

James A. Turner; Will Allen; Caroline Fraser; Andrew Fenemor; Akiko Horita; Toni White; Lan Chen; Maggie Atkinson; Michelle Rush. 2020. "Navigating Institutional Challenges: Design to Enable Community Participation in Social Learning for Freshwater Planning." Environmental Management 65, no. 3: 288-305.

Journal article
Published: 26 November 2019 in NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Digital agriculture is likely to transform productive processes both on- and off- farm, as well as the broader social and institutional context using digital technologies. It is largely unknown how agricultural knowledge providing organisations, such as advisors and science organisations, understand and respond to digital agriculture. The concept of ‘organisational identity’ is used to describe both initial understandings of, and emerging responses, to digital agriculture, which together show how organisations ‘digi-grasp’, i.e. make sense of and enact digitalisation in their organisations. The understanding is described using aspects of identity change (i.e. the nature, pace, source and context of digital agriculture), while the responses are outlined through the various attributes of organisational identity (i.e. capabilities, practices, services, clients, partners, purpose and values). We explore this question in the context of New Zealand through 29 semi-structured interviews with different types of agricultural knowledge providers, including farm advisors, science organisations, as well as technology providers. The findings show that digitalisation is often understood as farm-centric, despite being considered disruptive both on- and off-farm. These understandings influence an organisation’s digitalisation responses to digital agriculture. The responses were often ad-hoc, starting with adapting organisational capabilities, practices and services as their clients and partners require, rather than a strategic approach allowing for more flexibility of roles and processes and changing business models. The ad-hoc approach appears to be a response to uncertainty as digital agriculture is in early stages of development. This indicates that agricultural knowledge and innovation system should better support agricultural knowledge providers in digi-grasping and developing a digitalisation strategy, by anticipating possible futures and reflecting on the consequences of these for value propositions, business models and organisational identities of agricultural knowledge providers.

ACS Style

Kelly Rijswijk; Laurens Klerkx; James A. Turner. Digitalisation in the New Zealand Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System: Initial understandings and emerging organisational responses to digital agriculture. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 2019, 90-91, 100313 .

AMA Style

Kelly Rijswijk, Laurens Klerkx, James A. Turner. Digitalisation in the New Zealand Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System: Initial understandings and emerging organisational responses to digital agriculture. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences. 2019; 90-91 ():100313.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kelly Rijswijk; Laurens Klerkx; James A. Turner. 2019. "Digitalisation in the New Zealand Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System: Initial understandings and emerging organisational responses to digital agriculture." NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90-91, no. : 100313.

Journal article
Published: 19 March 2019 in Evaluation Journal of Australasia
Reads 0
Downloads 0

The potential for monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) to enhance innovation and impact in agricultural research and development is receiving increasing attention. New Zealand’s AgResearch Limited and Australia’s CSIRO Agriculture and Food are working with their scientists to support the organisations to achieve greater innovation and impact by embedding MEL into research programs and projects. However, both organisations have found it challenging to systematically demonstrate the value of their MEL initiatives. While there is an increasing number of case studies and anecdotes pointing towards the contribution of MEL to fostering innovation that delivers social, economic and environmental impacts, there is limited evidence, collated through systematic and rigorous methods, to substantiate this. This article presents an evaluation framework drawing on insights from complexity science (the Cynefin framework), evaluation practice and research (complexity-aware M&E and reflective practice) and innovation capacities (learning, reflection and adaptation). The framework is intended for research organisations working in agricultural innovation systems to be able to demonstrate the value of their MEL initiatives as well as carry out comparative analyses. It also supports organisational learning to better inform evaluative strategies and actions.

ACS Style

Samantha Stone-Jovicich; Helen Percy; Larelle McMillan; James Alan Turner; Lan Chen; Toni White. Evaluating monitoring, evaluation and learning initiatives in the New Zealand and Australian agricultural research and innovation systems: The MEL2 framework. Evaluation Journal of Australasia 2019, 19, 8 -21.

AMA Style

Samantha Stone-Jovicich, Helen Percy, Larelle McMillan, James Alan Turner, Lan Chen, Toni White. Evaluating monitoring, evaluation and learning initiatives in the New Zealand and Australian agricultural research and innovation systems: The MEL2 framework. Evaluation Journal of Australasia. 2019; 19 (1):8-21.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Samantha Stone-Jovicich; Helen Percy; Larelle McMillan; James Alan Turner; Lan Chen; Toni White. 2019. "Evaluating monitoring, evaluation and learning initiatives in the New Zealand and Australian agricultural research and innovation systems: The MEL2 framework." Evaluation Journal of Australasia 19, no. 1: 8-21.

Perspective
Published: 22 October 2018 in Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture
Reads 0
Downloads 0

The world needs to produce more food, more sustainably on a planet with scarce resources and under changing climate. The advancement of technologies, computing power and analytics offers the possibility that ‘digitalisation of agriculture’ can provide new solutions to these complex challenges. The role of science is to evidence and support the design and use of digital technologies to realise these beneficial outcomes, and avoid unintended consequences. This requires consideration of data governance design to enable benefits of digital agriculture to be shared equitably and how digital agriculture could change agricultural business models, i.e. farm structures, the value chain and stakeholder roles, networks and power relations, and governance. We argue that this requires transdisciplinary research (at pace) including explicit consideration of the above socio‐ethical issues, data governance and business models, alongside addressing technical issues, as we now have to simultaneously deal with multiple interacting outcomes in complex technical, social, economic and governance systems. The exciting prospect is that digitalisation of science can enable this new, and more effective, way of working. The question then becomes: how can we effectively accelerate this shift to a new way of working in agricultural science? As well as identifying key research areas, we suggest organisational changes will be required; new research business models, agile project management; new skills and capabilities; and collaborations with new partners to develop ‘technology ecosystems’. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

ACS Style

Mark Shepherd; James Alan Turner; Bruce Small; David Wheeler. Priorities for science to overcome hurdles thwarting the full promise of the ‘digital agriculture’ revolution. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 2018, 100, 5083 -5092.

AMA Style

Mark Shepherd, James Alan Turner, Bruce Small, David Wheeler. Priorities for science to overcome hurdles thwarting the full promise of the ‘digital agriculture’ revolution. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2018; 100 (14):5083-5092.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mark Shepherd; James Alan Turner; Bruce Small; David Wheeler. 2018. "Priorities for science to overcome hurdles thwarting the full promise of the ‘digital agriculture’ revolution." Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 100, no. 14: 5083-5092.

Journal article
Published: 19 September 2018 in Technological Forecasting and Social Change
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Welfare state transitions require not only experimentation and social learning to explore the potential of innovations for sustainable development but also monitoring to draw vital lessons from experiments for application now and in the future. However, current approaches to learning are mostly concerned with what happens within the boundaries of innovation experiments, whereas transitions in the making feature important boundary-crossing processes between initiatives and their environment. In this paper, we explore the learning approach of negotiation of meaning as a basis for transition monitoring in a New Zealand programme for agricultural innovation called ‘Primary Innovation’. We used a mix of specifically crafted value add documents and workshops to foster learning processes between innovation projects and incumbents. Results suggest that a negotiation-of-meaning perspective offers an important complement to our understanding of learning processes in transition contexts and how to facilitate them.

ACS Style

Pieter J. Beers; James A. Turner; Kelly Rijswijk; Tracy Williams; Tim Barnard; Sam Beechener. Learning or evaluating? Towards a negotiation-of-meaning approach to learning in transition governance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2018, 145, 229 -239.

AMA Style

Pieter J. Beers, James A. Turner, Kelly Rijswijk, Tracy Williams, Tim Barnard, Sam Beechener. Learning or evaluating? Towards a negotiation-of-meaning approach to learning in transition governance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2018; 145 ():229-239.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pieter J. Beers; James A. Turner; Kelly Rijswijk; Tracy Williams; Tim Barnard; Sam Beechener. 2018. "Learning or evaluating? Towards a negotiation-of-meaning approach to learning in transition governance." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 145, no. : 229-239.

Journal article
Published: 05 September 2018 in Sustainability
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Calls for transformation, transformative research, and transformational impact are increasingly heard from governments, industry, and universities to recast a course towards sustainability. This paper retraces a social, qualitative, and interpretive research endeavor to contribute to broadening the conceptual base of transformation. Drawing on perspectives of practitioners involved in working with communities to bring about change in how land and water are managed, the objective of the research was to elicit a range of practice-based encounters of transformation to inform policy and theory. In identifying precursors and processes for change, the findings bring into view the often unseen internal and experiential dimensions of transformation. As such, the research provides insights on where transformation takes place, what the first step of transformation might look like, and what might be deemed transformational. The paper also builds on social practice theory to produce an explanatory model of transformational capacity that is enabled and constrained by structures, processes, understanding, and authority that impact on social practices of knowledge generation (including science) and land and water decision-making.

ACS Style

Ronlyn Duncan; Melissa Robson-Williams; Graeme Nicholas; James A. Turner; Rawiri Smith; David Diprose. Transformation Is ‘Experienced, Not Delivered’: Insights from Grounding the Discourse in Practice to Inform Policy and Theory. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3177 .

AMA Style

Ronlyn Duncan, Melissa Robson-Williams, Graeme Nicholas, James A. Turner, Rawiri Smith, David Diprose. Transformation Is ‘Experienced, Not Delivered’: Insights from Grounding the Discourse in Practice to Inform Policy and Theory. Sustainability. 2018; 10 (9):3177.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ronlyn Duncan; Melissa Robson-Williams; Graeme Nicholas; James A. Turner; Rawiri Smith; David Diprose. 2018. "Transformation Is ‘Experienced, Not Delivered’: Insights from Grounding the Discourse in Practice to Inform Policy and Theory." Sustainability 10, no. 9: 3177.

Journal article
Published: 19 September 2017 in Land Use Policy
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Problems in agriculture and land use are increasingly recognised as complex, uncertain, operating at multiple levels (field to global value chains) and involving social, economic, institutional, and technological change. This has implications for how projects navigate complexity to achieve impact. However, few studies have systematically evaluated how project actors engage with other actors to configure capabilities and resources across multiple levels in agricultural innovation systems (AIS), from the individual to the network, to mobilise and build systemic innovation capacity. An analytical framework conceptualising the nested configuration of capabilities at multiple levels in the AIS is applied to two projects that successfully tackled agricultural and land management problems of differing complexity: (i) improving lamb survival; and (ii) sustainable land management in New Zealand. Findings indicate that innovation capacity constitutes project actors interacting with other AIS actors to configure capabilities and resources at different levels of the AIS in order to leverage positive project path dependencies and break path dependencies that are created by existing and historical capability configurations. Project actors also balance exploiting existing innovation capabilities, as well as using adaptive capability for exploring and creating new capability configurations to respond to emerging circumstances. This implies that projects should have strategic ambidexterity in terms of how they combine exploiting existing and exploring new networks to access, combine, create, or disconnect certain capabilities to address ‘capability voids’ in AIS. This requires support to projects to constantly scrutinise, through reflexive monitoring by dedicated facilitators, specific agriculture and land use policies connected to major sustainable development models (e.g. climate smart agriculture, urban farming, smart farming). The can help assess whether the AIS provides the right mix of capabilities and whether this is adequately supported by innovation policy, to realize transformative policy objectives.

ACS Style

James A. Turner; Laurens Klerkx; Toni White; Tracy Nelson; Julie Everett-Hincks; Alec Mackay; Neels Botha. Unpacking systemic innovation capacity as strategic ambidexterity: How projects dynamically configure capabilities for agricultural innovation. Land Use Policy 2017, 68, 503 -523.

AMA Style

James A. Turner, Laurens Klerkx, Toni White, Tracy Nelson, Julie Everett-Hincks, Alec Mackay, Neels Botha. Unpacking systemic innovation capacity as strategic ambidexterity: How projects dynamically configure capabilities for agricultural innovation. Land Use Policy. 2017; 68 ():503-523.

Chicago/Turabian Style

James A. Turner; Laurens Klerkx; Toni White; Tracy Nelson; Julie Everett-Hincks; Alec Mackay; Neels Botha. 2017. "Unpacking systemic innovation capacity as strategic ambidexterity: How projects dynamically configure capabilities for agricultural innovation." Land Use Policy 68, no. : 503-523.

Research article
Published: 08 June 2017 in Outlook on Agriculture
Reads 0
Downloads 0

This article describes a process for stimulating engagement among change agents to develop a shared understanding of systemic problems in the agricultural innovation system (AIS), challenge prevalent institutional logics and identify actions they might undertake to stimulate system innovation. The process included (i) multiple actors from the AIS, (ii) reflexivity regarding underlying institutional logics, (iii) an iterative process of practical experimentation to challenge current practices and (iv) actions to encourage generative collaboration. Problem structuring supported change agents’ development of a shared understanding of systemic problems and the role that interrelationships, perspectives and boundaries play in reinforcing or destabilizing current practices and institutional logics. Involving multiple actors from the AIS in challenging underlying institutional logics and encouraging collaboration appeared to stimulate project-level actions and recognition of wider AIS barriers. Collective system analyses for addressing structural changes, including the potential for system innovation, were beneficial. Simultaneously resolving innovation project actions with AIS actions remains a challenge.

ACS Style

James Alan Turner; Tracy Williams; Graeme Nicholas; Jeffrey Foote; Kelly Rijswijk; Tim Barnard; Sam Beechener; Akiko Horita. Triggering system innovation in agricultural innovation systems: Initial insights from a community for change in New Zealand. Outlook on Agriculture 2017, 46, 125 -130.

AMA Style

James Alan Turner, Tracy Williams, Graeme Nicholas, Jeffrey Foote, Kelly Rijswijk, Tim Barnard, Sam Beechener, Akiko Horita. Triggering system innovation in agricultural innovation systems: Initial insights from a community for change in New Zealand. Outlook on Agriculture. 2017; 46 (2):125-130.

Chicago/Turabian Style

James Alan Turner; Tracy Williams; Graeme Nicholas; Jeffrey Foote; Kelly Rijswijk; Tim Barnard; Sam Beechener; Akiko Horita. 2017. "Triggering system innovation in agricultural innovation systems: Initial insights from a community for change in New Zealand." Outlook on Agriculture 46, no. 2: 125-130.

Research article
Published: 08 June 2017 in Outlook on Agriculture
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Approaches to accelerate innovation have become more integrated and systemic over time, such as Agricultural Innovation Systems and co-innovation. Primary Innovation is a New Zealand co-innovation programme in which innovation is conceived as being ‘co-produced’ by stakeholders who contribute their unique knowledge to solving a problem or realizing an opportunity. In co-innovation, cyclical processes of planning, doing, observing and reflecting enable innovation to emerge from interactive learning among stakeholders. In this article, we argue that when flexibly applied and adapted to capture dynamics typical in systems innovation projects, the log frame approach and logical frameworks have considerable utility to support evaluation for both learning and accountability and for identifying and addressing institutional logics, which lead to system innovation. We demonstrate this for the case of Primary Innovation and compare our experiences with the limitations and solutions suggested by other recent researchers when applying logic models, logical frameworks, programme theories or theories of change as part of an ‘adapted accountability framework’.

ACS Style

Neels Botha; Jeff Coutts; James Alan Turner; Toni White; Tracy Williams. Evaluating for learning and accountability in system innovation: Incorporating reflexivity in a logical framework. Outlook on Agriculture 2017, 46, 154 -160.

AMA Style

Neels Botha, Jeff Coutts, James Alan Turner, Toni White, Tracy Williams. Evaluating for learning and accountability in system innovation: Incorporating reflexivity in a logical framework. Outlook on Agriculture. 2017; 46 (2):154-160.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Neels Botha; Jeff Coutts; James Alan Turner; Toni White; Tracy Williams. 2017. "Evaluating for learning and accountability in system innovation: Incorporating reflexivity in a logical framework." Outlook on Agriculture 46, no. 2: 154-160.

Research article
Published: 08 June 2017 in Outlook on Agriculture
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Primary Innovation is a 5-year collaborative initiative demonstrating and evaluating co-innovation, a systemic approach to innovation addressing complex problems, in five “innovation projects” (active case studies) in different agricultural industries. In defining the elements of co-innovation, Primary Innovation has emphasized nine principles that guide activity in the innovation projects. To understand how useful these principles were in guiding practice, and their influence on co-innovation, project participants assessed and reflected on how the principles were applied in practice, issues that arose, how each influenced the project, and how important each principle was perceived as being in influencing project outcomes. The nine principles should be understood in each individual project’s context because their appropriateness and usefulness were affected by the type of problem being addressed and the stage of the project. It was also evident that they need to be built into the process from the outset.

ACS Style

Jeff Coutts; Toni White; Paula Blackett; Kelly Rijswijk; Denise Bewsell; Nicola Park; James Alan Turner; Neels Botha. Evaluating a space for co-innovation: Practical application of nine principles for co-innovation in five innovation projects. Outlook on Agriculture 2017, 46, 99 -107.

AMA Style

Jeff Coutts, Toni White, Paula Blackett, Kelly Rijswijk, Denise Bewsell, Nicola Park, James Alan Turner, Neels Botha. Evaluating a space for co-innovation: Practical application of nine principles for co-innovation in five innovation projects. Outlook on Agriculture. 2017; 46 (2):99-107.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jeff Coutts; Toni White; Paula Blackett; Kelly Rijswijk; Denise Bewsell; Nicola Park; James Alan Turner; Neels Botha. 2017. "Evaluating a space for co-innovation: Practical application of nine principles for co-innovation in five innovation projects." Outlook on Agriculture 46, no. 2: 99-107.

Research article
Published: 08 June 2017 in Outlook on Agriculture
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Co-innovation can be effective for complex challenges – involving interactions amongst multiple stakeholders, viewpoints, perceptions, practices and interests across programmes, sectors and national systems. Approaches to challenges in the primary sector have tended to be linear, where tools and outputs are developed by a few, mostly scientists/researchers, and then extended to stakeholders. A co-innovation approach first deciphers and delineates the biophysical, societal, regulatory, policy, economic and environmental drivers, constraints and controls influencing these challenges at multiple levels. Second, stakeholder interactions and perspectives can inform and change the focus as well as help in co-developing solutions to deliver agreed outcomes. However, there is limited systematic and comparative research on how co-innovation works out in different projects. Here we analyse the results of applying a co-innovation approach to five research projects in the New Zealand primary sector. The projects varied in depth and breadth of stakeholder engagement, availability of ready-made solutions and prevalence of interests and conflicts. The projects show how and why co-innovation approaches in some cases contributed to a shared understanding of complex problems. Our results confirm the context specificity of co-innovation practices.

ACS Style

Jessica Dohmen-Vereijssen; Ms Srinivasan; Sarah Dirks; Simon Fielke; Catharina Jongmans; Natasha Agnew; Laurens Klerkx; Ina Pinxterhuis; John Moore; Paul Edwards; Rob Brazendale; Neels Botha; James A Turner. Addressing complex challenges using a co-innovation approach: Lessons from five case studies in the New Zealand primary sector. Outlook on Agriculture 2017, 46, 108 -116.

AMA Style

Jessica Dohmen-Vereijssen, Ms Srinivasan, Sarah Dirks, Simon Fielke, Catharina Jongmans, Natasha Agnew, Laurens Klerkx, Ina Pinxterhuis, John Moore, Paul Edwards, Rob Brazendale, Neels Botha, James A Turner. Addressing complex challenges using a co-innovation approach: Lessons from five case studies in the New Zealand primary sector. Outlook on Agriculture. 2017; 46 (2):108-116.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jessica Dohmen-Vereijssen; Ms Srinivasan; Sarah Dirks; Simon Fielke; Catharina Jongmans; Natasha Agnew; Laurens Klerkx; Ina Pinxterhuis; John Moore; Paul Edwards; Rob Brazendale; Neels Botha; James A Turner. 2017. "Addressing complex challenges using a co-innovation approach: Lessons from five case studies in the New Zealand primary sector." Outlook on Agriculture 46, no. 2: 108-116.

Editorial
Published: 08 June 2017 in Outlook on Agriculture
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Co-innovation has gained interest in recent years as an approach to tackle issues in agriculture and natural resource management. Co-innovation requires new roles for researchers supporting these processes and enabling settings in the programs they work in and the organizations they pertain to. The contributions to this special issue explore experiences with co-innovation in different settings from different angles. The special issue presents several studies on co-innovation in a large program in New Zealand, a study based on an EU Horizon 2020 project in the Czech Republic, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom as well as co-innovation experiences from Uruguay and Tanzania. Cross-cutting findings and emergent issues include (i) the need to consider the issue of simultaneously scaling both co-innovation project results and the co-innovation practice, (ii) the issue of flexibility in pace of co-innovation to allow different participants to converge and the flexibility in learning space needed to enable reflection, (iii) the issue of changing the dominant logics of the innovation systems in which co-innovation is embedded and (iv) the need for reflexive monitoring to support processes of co-innovation and their institutional embedding.

ACS Style

Neels Botha; James A Turner; Simon Fielke; Laurens Klerkx. Using a co-innovation approach to support innovation and learning: Cross-cutting observations from different settings and emergent issues. Outlook on Agriculture 2017, 46, 87 -91.

AMA Style

Neels Botha, James A Turner, Simon Fielke, Laurens Klerkx. Using a co-innovation approach to support innovation and learning: Cross-cutting observations from different settings and emergent issues. Outlook on Agriculture. 2017; 46 (2):87-91.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Neels Botha; James A Turner; Simon Fielke; Laurens Klerkx. 2017. "Using a co-innovation approach to support innovation and learning: Cross-cutting observations from different settings and emergent issues." Outlook on Agriculture 46, no. 2: 87-91.

Journal article
Published: 01 March 2016 in NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences
Reads 0
Downloads 0
ACS Style

James A. Turner; Laurens Klerkx; Kelly Rijswijk; Tracy Williams; Tim Barnard. Systemic problems affecting co-innovation in the New Zealand Agricultural Innovation System: Identification of blocking mechanisms and underlying institutional logics. NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 2016, 76, 99 -112.

AMA Style

James A. Turner, Laurens Klerkx, Kelly Rijswijk, Tracy Williams, Tim Barnard. Systemic problems affecting co-innovation in the New Zealand Agricultural Innovation System: Identification of blocking mechanisms and underlying institutional logics. NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences. 2016; 76 (1):99-112.

Chicago/Turabian Style

James A. Turner; Laurens Klerkx; Kelly Rijswijk; Tracy Williams; Tim Barnard. 2016. "Systemic problems affecting co-innovation in the New Zealand Agricultural Innovation System: Identification of blocking mechanisms and underlying institutional logics." NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 76, no. 1: 99-112.

Journal article
Published: 26 May 2015 in New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research
Reads 0
Downloads 0
ACS Style

Seth Laurenson; Ja Turner; Jm Rendel; David Houlbrooke; Stevens; John Rendel. Economic benefits of mechanical soil aeration to alleviate soil compaction on a dairy farm. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 2015, 58, 1 -5.

AMA Style

Seth Laurenson, Ja Turner, Jm Rendel, David Houlbrooke, Stevens, John Rendel. Economic benefits of mechanical soil aeration to alleviate soil compaction on a dairy farm. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research. 2015; 58 (3):1-5.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Seth Laurenson; Ja Turner; Jm Rendel; David Houlbrooke; Stevens; John Rendel. 2015. "Economic benefits of mechanical soil aeration to alleviate soil compaction on a dairy farm." New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 58, no. 3: 1-5.