Various scientific disciplines have different methodological approaches. They sometimes have complementary or competing perspectives on complex issues such as nutrition and poverty
Charles Dhewa
Zimbabwe currently has three important knowledge bases that can be harnessed towards building a superior agriculture-driven economy. These are: political know how, systematic research and practical professional practice. Although there seems to be more emphasis on technical solutions, authentic success is likely to be a negotiated outcome between these three knowledge perspectives.Technical solutions can only go so far without the other two knowledge bases. Given the absence of workable technical solutions, economic development policy makers have to experiment with broader relational and systemic approaches. These approaches bring evidence in the form of relevant information, interpretations and priorities from diverse stakeholders to the negotiation table.
As policy makers, development partners, farmers, financial institutions and other actors gain fuller appreciation of the complexities of Zimbabwe’s agro-based economy, the need for multiple forms of relevant knowledge is now apparent. Many people now agree that effective policy strategies depend on several evidence bases. The prestige of scientific evidence, validated by standards of scientific methodology, is now being questioned and placed in a wider context.
Scientific research-based knowledge
Scientific research-based forms of knowledge primarily comprise the work of professionals trained in systematic approaches to gathering and analysing information. This knowledge is the product of systematic analysis of current and past conditions and trends, and analysis of the causal inter-relationships that explain conditions and trends, for instance, market trends. In agriculture there is a range of disciplinary and cross-disciplinary knowledge such as crop production, veterinary science, agricultural economics, statistics, banking and finance, etc.).
All these contribute positively to implementation. However, one of the limitations of research-based knowledge is that there is rarely consensus among researchers from different scientific disciplines on the nature of agriculture and rural development problems, causes of trends or relationships and the best approach for solutions. Various scientific disciplines have different methodological approaches. They sometimes have complementary or competing perspectives on complex issues such as nutrition and poverty.
Practical implementation
knowledge
This refers to practical wisdom of farmers, traders and other professionals in their communities of practice as well as organisational knowledge associated with managing agricultural and rural development programmes. These communities operate within local associations and across the public sector, the private sector and NGO sectors. Every day, these professionals wrestle with agricultural and rural development challenges.
Their practical experiences are often under-valued by the political and scientific sectors. They also tend to become systematised, codified and linked to standards and guidelines which become best practices. Unfortunately, in Government departments and large organisations, best-practice guidelines may be overridden by bureaucratic rules and protocols.
Political knowledge
Although often overlooked and sometimes ridiculed by scientific researchers, politics generates valuable knowledge. Political knowledge refers to the know-how, analysis and judgement of political actors such as members of parliament, cabinet ministers and various portfolio committees. Their roles include agenda-setting, determining priorities, communicating key messages and making contextual judgements about what is possible and desirable.
The implications of political know-how for the use of evidence are quite significant. For instance, selection of convenient facts may be harnessed to an argument with large areas of other information being either ignored, dismissed or otherwise deemed irrelevant. However, there are some areas of policy that become the subject-matter of clear Government commitments. For instance, the indigenisation policy privileges some evidence as relevant and rules out other evidence as irrelevant. In this context, the official framing of a problem is also crucial in regard to what research is commissioned. Very few research projects are commissioned without some expectation that the reports may assist in upholding a certain Government viewpoint.
Weaving these knowledge
strands together
Bringing together these knowledge perspectives is a realisation that social realities are not controllable but they are evolving challenges with unique characteristics. As a practical craft, agricultural and rural development policy development should involve weaving strands of information and values as seen through the three knowledge bases described above (researchers, practitioners and politicians). These disparate bodies of knowledge become multiple sets of evidence that inform and influence agricultural and rural development policy.
Systematic research ensures rational evaluation and well-informed debate of options. It is linked to the modern emphasis on rational problem-solving, with its focus on accurate diagnosis and knowledge of causal linkages. Technocrats have a strong aspiration to produce the knowledge required for fine-tuning programmes as well as constructing guidelines and tool-kits for dealing with known problems.
On the other hand, Government remains a major investor and user of applied research. The Government does not simply receive, scan and utilise research but engages on many levels to influence research processes and outcomes. Government can shape applied research through investment in Government-funded research units on specific problems, managing the policy-research functions inside many Government departments, and commissioning external consultants to undertake specific contract research.
The Government also exercises strong indirect influence through determining national priority areas for allocation of research funding. By investing in applied research, Government strengthens its cycle of producing, analysing, managing and reinvesting in the bank of useful knowledge. However, direct and indirect ways through which Government influence the generation of evidence are not enough. This raises the critical importance of co-operation and partnership among Government departments, NGOs, financial institutions and business towards collaborative evidence generation and problem solving.
Why collaborative
evidence generation
Government departments and development actors are being pressured to tackle complex problems such as poverty and climate change, in response to the demands and pressures of citizens for whom services remain inadequate, piecemeal and inappropriate. The frustration being felt by policy makers and leaders in government departments regarding the poor rate of return on major social programme investments is leading them to search more widely for new approaches.
Endemic social problems such as poverty seem to persist regardless of the massive funding directed towards their alleviation. Performance information shows that results are not being achieved. Policy makers and development agencies are wondering what new approaches can enable them to gain greater control over fuzzy and messy realities such as poverty and youth unemployment. Incremental adjustment around business as usual no longer suffices. Solutions based on old fashioned ideological recipes are becoming much less persuasive. New more integrated approaches to policy interventions are badly needed.
Another critical question from a performance-based perspective is: What kind of investment in data and information would be needed to generate the necessary knowledge, both to understand complex agricultural and financial inclusion challenges and to create viable solutions?
While data gathering and analysis is important for measuring the extent of our challenges and providing benchmarks for judging future performance, obtaining more data to fill the known gaps may not necessarily get us where we want to go unless we also reconcile different knowledge perspectives (politics, research and professional practice).
Each of the three knowledge perspectives described above has its distinctive protocols of knowledge, expertise, strategy and what counts as evidence. How do these perspectives fit together? From the viewpoint of Government, there is an expectation that research findings should assist but not determine agricultural and rural development policy directions.
On the other hand, researchers are not sure what kind of policy analysis is relevant and how to communicate and package their research outcomes most effectively for government officials. With a few exceptions, communities of practice are feeling disenfranchised, especially when those who are practical experts in delivery are not centrally involved in early discussions about how agricultural and rural development programmes are designed and delivered.
Charles Dhewa is a proactive knowledge management specialist and chief executive officer of Knowledge Transfer Africa (Pvt) (www.knowledgetransafrica.com) whose flagship eMKambo (www.emkambo.co.zw) has a presence in more than 20 agricultural markets in Zimbabwe. He can be contacted on: [email protected] ; Mobile: +263 774 430 309 / 772 137 717/ 712 737 430.