This paper explores the effective roles of public research institutions (PRIs) in social innovation and understand the element of communal support in researchers-farmers partnership. The case study on Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) reveals that the partnership between researchers and farmers is limited. The only productive and formal channel for researchers to reach the farmers is through agricultural extension agencies. It found that there are three elements that drive sustainable social innovation in agriculture: (1) quality research by PRIs; (2) efficient extension agency in disseminating knowledge to farmers; and (3) productive farmers in delivering high-yields farming. This paper claimed that the presence of partnership between researchers in PRIs and farmers is the crucial pivot in ensuring innovation reaches the target group. The study also found the potential of civil society organizations to transform farmers into more active innovation actors in the agricultural innovation system.
Adebayo, K., S.C. Babu, R. Sanusi and M. Sofola. 2015. Private sector participation in agricultural extension for cocoa farming in Nigeria: the case of multi-trex integrated foods. In: Y. Zhou and S.C. Babu (eds.) Knowledge driven development. Elsevier, New York, NY, USA, pp. 141-162.
'Private sector participation in agricultural extension for cocoa farming in Nigeria: the case of multi-trex integrated foods ', () 141 -162.
Akhtar, R., M.M. Masud and R. Afroz. 2019. Perception of climate change and the adaptation strategies and capacities of the rice farmers in Kedah, Malaysia. Environment and Urbanization ASIA 10(1): 99-115.
'Perception of climate change and the adaptation strategies and capacities of the rice farmers in Kedah, Malaysia ' () 10 Environment and Urbanization ASIA : 99 -115.
Alavi, R. and I.M.A.G. Azmi. 2013. Public research, open science and innovation: creating the path for sustainable resource-led industrialisation in Malaysia. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance 4(3): 145.
'Public research, open science and innovation: creating the path for sustainable resource-led industrialisation in Malaysia ' () 4 International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance : 145 .
Baxter, D., M. Schoeman, K. Goffin and P. Micheli. 2010. Public sector innovation: the role of commercial partnerships. Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, UK.
'Public sector innovation: the role of commercial partnerships', ().
Bekkers, V., J. Edelenbos and B. Steijn. 2011. Linking innovation to the public sector: contexts, concepts and challenges. In: V. Bekkers, J. Edelenbos and B. Steijn (eds.) Innovation in the public sector: linking capacity and leadership. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, UK, pp. 3-32.
'Linking innovation to the public sector: contexts, concepts and challenges ', () 3 -32.
Berthet, E.T., G.M. Hickey and L. Klerkx. 2018. Opening design and innovation processes in agriculture: insights from design and management sciences and future directions. Agricultural Systems 165: 111-115.
'Opening design and innovation processes in agriculture: insights from design and management sciences and future directions ' () 165 Agricultural Systems : 111 -115.
Beza, E., J. Steinke, J. Van Etten, P. Reidsma, C. Fadda, S. Mittra, P. Mathur and L. Kooistra. 2017. What are the prospects for citizen science in agriculture? Evidence from three continents on motivation and mobile telephone use of resource-poor farmers. PLoS ONE 12(5): e0175700.
'What are the prospects for citizen science in agriculture? Evidence from three continents on motivation and mobile telephone use of resource-poor farmers ' () 12 PLoS ONE : e0175700 .
Bock, B.B. 2012. Social innovation and sustainability; how to disentangle the buzzword and its application in the field of agriculture and rural development. Studies in Agricultural Economics 114(2): 57-63.
'Social innovation and sustainability; how to disentangle the buzzword and its application in the field of agriculture and rural development ' () 114 Studies in Agricultural Economics : 57 -63.
Boon-Kwee, N., K. Thiruchelvam, W. Chan-Yuan and V. Chandran. 2016. Innovation for inclusive development in Southeast Asia: the roles of regional coordination mechanisms. The Pacific Review 29(4): 573-602.
'Innovation for inclusive development in Southeast Asia: the roles of regional coordination mechanisms ' () 29 The Pacific Review : 573 -602.
Cajaiba-Santana, G. 2014. Social innovation: moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 82: 42-51.
'Social innovation: moving the field forward ' () 82 Technological Forecasting and Social Change : 42 -51.
Carayannis, E.G. and D.F. Campbell. 2009. Mode 3 and Quadruple Helix: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management 46(3-4): 201-234.
'Mode 3 and Quadruple Helix: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem ' () 46 International Journal of Technology Management : 201 -234.
Caulier-Grice, J., A. Davies, R. Patrick and W. Norman. 2012. Defining social innovation. In: Social innovation overview: a deliverable of the project: the theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe (TEPSIE): Young Foundation, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
'Defining social innovation', ().
Chambers, R. and B. Ghildyal. 1985. Agricultural research for resource-poor farmers: the farmer-first-and-last model. Agricultural Administration 20(1): 1-30.
'Agricultural research for resource-poor farmers: the farmer-first-and-last model ' () 20 Agricultural Administration : 1 -30.
Crawford, A., R. Nettle, M. Paine and C. Kabore. 2007. Farms and learning partnerships in farming systems projects: a response to the challenges of complexity in agricultural innovation. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 13(3): 191-207.
'Farms and learning partnerships in farming systems projects: a response to the challenges of complexity in agricultural innovation ' () 13 Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension : 191 -207.
Denning, G. and F. Bernardo. 1995. Partnership in rice research: rationale, experience, and implications. GeoJournal 35(3): 374-383.
'Partnership in rice research: rationale, experience, and implications ' () 35 GeoJournal : 374 -383.
Gallouj, F., L. Rubalcaba, M. Toivonen and P. Windrum. 2018. Understanding social innovation in services industries. Industry and Innovation 25: 551-569.
'Understanding social innovation in services industries ' () 25 Industry and Innovation : 551 -569.
Harun, R., E.E.E. Ariff, S. Suhaimee, A.A. Sobri, B. Ahmad and F.H. Sufian. 2016. Economic assessment for inbred paddy in MADA and IADA Pulau Pinang. Economic and Technology Management Review 11: 127-141.
'Economic assessment for inbred paddy in MADA and IADA Pulau Pinang ' () 11 Economic and Technology Management Review : 127 -141.
Howells, J. 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy 35(5): 715-728.
'Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation ' () 35 Research Policy : 715 -728.
Iizuka, M. and M. Gebreeyesus. 2018. ‘Discovery’ of non-traditional agricultural exports in Latin America: diverging pathways through learning and innovation. Innovation and Development 8(1): 59-78.
'‘Discovery’ of non-traditional agricultural exports in Latin America: diverging pathways through learning and innovation ' () 8 Innovation and Development : 59 -78.
Lauritzen, G.D. 2017. The role of innovation intermediaries in firm-innovation community collaboration: navigating the membership paradox. Journal of Product Innovation Management 34(3): 289-314.
'The role of innovation intermediaries in firm-innovation community collaboration: navigating the membership paradox ' () 34 Journal of Product Innovation Management : 289 -314.
Lember, V., T. Kalvet and R. Kattel. 2011. Public sector innovation at the urban level: the case of public procurement. In: V. Bekkers, J. Edelenbos and B. Steijn (eds.) Innovation in the public sector: linking capacity and leadership. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, UK, pp. 82-104.
'Public sector innovation at the urban level: the case of public procurement ', () 82 -104.
Lundvall, B.A. (ed.) 1992. National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter Publishers, London, UK.
'National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning', ().
Mazzoleni, R. and R.R. Nelson. 2007. Public research institutions and economic catch-up. Research Policy 36(10): 1512-1528.
'Public research institutions and economic catch-up ' () 36 Research Policy : 1512 -1528.
McKelvey, M. and O. Zaring. 2018. Co-delivery of social innovations: exploring the university’s role in academic engagement with society. Industry and Innovation 25(6): 594-611.
'Co-delivery of social innovations: exploring the university’s role in academic engagement with society ' () 25 Industry and Innovation : 594 -611.
Merrill-Sands, D. and M.-H. Collion. 1994. Farmers and researchers: the road to partnership. Agriculture and Human Values 11(2-3): 26-37.
'Farmers and researchers: the road to partnership ' () 11 Agriculture and Human Values : 26 -37.
Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Malaysia. 2011. National agro-food policy 2011-2020. Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Malaysia, Putrajaya, Malaysia.
Moulaert, F. 2016. Social innovation: institutionally embedded, territorially (re) produced. In: D. MacCallum and S.V. Haddock (eds.) Social innovation and territorial development. Routledge, London, UK, pp. 27-40.
'Social innovation: institutionally embedded, territorially (re) produced ', () 27 -40.
Mulgan, G., S. Tucker, R. Ali and B. Sanders. 2007. Social innovation: what it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. Saïd Business School University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
'Social innovation: what it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated', ().
Mumford, M.D. 2002. Social innovation: ten cases from Benjamin Franklin. Creativity Research Journal 14(2): 253-266. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402_11
National Science Research Council Malaysia (NSRC). 2013. PRA performance evaluation: unlocking vast potentials, fast-tracking the future. UiTM Press, Shah Alam, Malaysia.
Ng, B.-K., C.-Y. Wong and A.S. Magli. 2018. Clusters innovation development in Malaysia. University Malaya Press, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
'Clusters innovation development in Malaysia', ().
Ngongoni, C.N., S. Grobbelaar and C. Schutte. 2017. The role of open innovation intermediaries in entrepreneurial ecosystems design. The South African Journal of Industrial Engineering 28(3). https://doi.org/10.7166/28-3-1839
O’Byrne, L., M. Miller, C. Douse, R. Venkatesh and N. Kapucu. 2014. Social innovation in the public sector: the case of Seoul metropolitan government. Journal of Economic and Social Studies 4(1): 51-69.
'Social innovation in the public sector: the case of Seoul metropolitan government ' () 4 Journal of Economic and Social Studies : 51 -69.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2011. Public research institutions: mapping sector trends. OECD Publishing, Paris, France. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264119505-en
Parra, C. 2013. Social sustainability: a competitive concept for social innovation? In: F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood and A. Hamdouch (eds.) The international handbook on social innovation: collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
'Social sustainability: a competitive concept for social innovation?', ().
Phills, J.A., K. Deiglmeier and D.T. Miller. 2008. Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review 6(4): 34-43.
'Rediscovering social innovation ' () 6 Stanford Social Innovation Review : 34 -43.
Pol, E. and S. Ville. 2009. Social innovation: buzz word or enduring term? The Journal of Socio-Economics 38(6): 878-885.
'Social innovation: buzz word or enduring term? ' () 38 The Journal of Socio-Economics : 878 -885.
Short, J. and A. Kopp. 2005. Transport infrastructure: investment and planning. Policy and research aspects. Transport Policy 12(4): 360-367.
'Transport infrastructure: investment and planning ' () 12 Transport Policy : 360 -367.
Snapp, S. 2002. Quantifying farmer evaluation of technologies: the mother and baby trial design. In: M.R. Bellon and J. Reeves (eds.) Quantitative analysis of data from participatory methods in plant breeding. CIMMYT, Mexico, DF, Mexico.
'Quantifying farmer evaluation of technologies: the mother and baby trial design', ().
Snapp, S., G. Kanyama-Phiri, B. Kamanga, R. Gilbert and K. Wellard. 2002. Farmer and researcher partnerships in Malawi: developing soil fertility technologies for the near-term and far-term. Experimental Agriculture 38(4): 411-431.
'Farmer and researcher partnerships in Malawi: developing soil fertility technologies for the near-term and far-term ' () 38 Experimental Agriculture : 411 -431.
Strong, D.R., V. Chandran and C.S. Hayter. 2018. Great expectations: assessing the impact of commercialization-focused policies among Malaysia’s public research institutes. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 27(5-6): 438-453.
'Great expectations: assessing the impact of commercialization-focused policies among Malaysia’s public research institutes ' () 27 Economics of Innovation and New Technology : 438 -453.
Thiruchelvam, K. 2004. Towards a dynamic national system of innovation in Malaysia: enhancing the management of R&D in public research institutions and universities. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation 12(2): 127-150.
'Towards a dynamic national system of innovation in Malaysia: enhancing the management of R&D in public research institutions and universities ' () 12 Asian Journal of Technology Innovation : 127 -150.
Thutupalli, A. and M. Iizuka. 2016. Catching-up in agricultural innovation: the case of Bacillus thuringiensis cotton in India. Industrial and Corporate Change 25(6): 923-940. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtv055
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2014. Social innovation for public service excellence. UNDP Global Centre for Public Service Excellence, New York, NY, USA. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/yd5z2fml
Voorberg, W.H., V.J. Bekkers and L.G. Tummers. 2015. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review 17(9): 1333-1357.
'A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey ' () 17 Public Management Review : 1333 -1357.
Wong, C.Y. and G. Lim. 2019. A typology of agricultural production systems: capability building trajectories of three Asian economies. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 61(1): 37-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12220
Wu, M.C. 1995. Culture, social organisation and economic activities of a Chinese farming community: a case study in Sekinchan, Selangor, Malaysia. PhD-thesis, Institute of Higher Studies, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Culture, social organisation and economic activities of a Chinese farming community: a case study in Sekinchan, Selangor, Malaysia
Yang, H. and W.-S. Jung. 2016. Assessing knowledge structures for public research institutes. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia 15(1): 27-40.
'Assessing knowledge structures for public research institutes ' () 15 Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia : 27 -40.
Yin, R.K. 2003. Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
'Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edition', ().
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Full Text Views | 213 | 140 | 21 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 152 | 94 | 19 |
This paper explores the effective roles of public research institutions (PRIs) in social innovation and understand the element of communal support in researchers-farmers partnership. The case study on Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) reveals that the partnership between researchers and farmers is limited. The only productive and formal channel for researchers to reach the farmers is through agricultural extension agencies. It found that there are three elements that drive sustainable social innovation in agriculture: (1) quality research by PRIs; (2) efficient extension agency in disseminating knowledge to farmers; and (3) productive farmers in delivering high-yields farming. This paper claimed that the presence of partnership between researchers in PRIs and farmers is the crucial pivot in ensuring innovation reaches the target group. The study also found the potential of civil society organizations to transform farmers into more active innovation actors in the agricultural innovation system.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Full Text Views | 213 | 140 | 21 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 152 | 94 | 19 |