Bridging the ‘Output-Outcome’ Gap in Sustainability R and D

A Fifth Generation R and D ‘Punctuated Arena’ Model
  • N. D. MacLeod
  • A. D. Shulm

Abstract

Research and development (R and D) activities within the agriculture and land resource management domain are increasingly focussed on sustainable use of land and water resources. In Australia, this is occurring within the context of a complex environment characterised by substantial climatic and market uncertainty, poor understanding of fundamental ecosystem processes, conflicts between different land use practices and a recognition of the interests of a wide array of community groups. Traditional research and extension (R,D and E) models based on linear transfer of technology have been criticised as inappropriate to solving such problems, particularly with their focus on output, including technological information and scientific publications, rather than their application or outcome. While R and D specialists may regard this as an extension failure, the problems most likely lie at more basic levels, including the relevance of the research questions and the fact that different users of the information are interested in the application of technology regardless of its source (e.g. Jiggins, 1993), or its underlying causal mechanism (Russell and Ison, 1991). The path towards achieving these ideals is increasingly seen to lie within the domain of multidisciplinary and collaborative approaches to R and D problem-solving and communication endeavours (e.g. Jiggins, 1993). However, the performance for both generation and adoption of R and D-sourced technologies remains poor and an output-outcome gap remains. This performance is reviewed and means to improve it are suggested.

Keywords

Water Resource Research Extension Failure Intermediate Technology Publication Work Group Performance Fourth Generation Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Argyris, C., 1994, Good communication that blocks learning, Harvard Business Rev. July–Aug:77-85. Bellamy, J.A., and Lowes, D., Decision support for sustainable management of grazing lands, in: Improving Management of sustainable R&D Technology Transfer, Vol. 2. (A.D. Shulman, and R. Price, eds.) Land and Water Resources Research & Development Corporation, Canberra, in press.Google Scholar
  2. Cox, P.G., MacLeod, N.D., Ridge, P.E., and Shulman, A.D., 1996, Reengineering agricultural RD&E to support management decision-making: Problems and prospects, Proc. of 8th Australian Agronomy Conf Toowoomba, Aust. Agron. Soc., Melbourne pp. 168-171.Google Scholar
  3. Cunningham, R., and Barawryh, Y.K., 1993, Wasta: The hidden force in Middle East society, Praeger: Westport, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  4. Dean, J. W., and Sharfman, M. P., 1996, Does decision process matter?: A study of strategic decision-making, Academy of management J 39:368–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunn, T., Gray I., and Phillips, E., From personal barriers to community plans: A farm and community planning approach to the extension of sustainable agriculture, in: Improving Management of sustainable R&D Technology Transfer, Vol. 2. (A.D. Shulman, and R. Price, eds.) Land and Water Resources Research & Development Corporation, Canberra, in press.Google Scholar
  6. Ison, R.L., 1993, Changing community attitudes, Rangeland J 15(1): 154–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jiggins, J., 1993, From technology transfer to resource management, Proc. of XVII Int. Grasslands congr., Palmerston North, New Zealand (February 1993), N.Z. Agron. Soc., pp. 615-22.Google Scholar
  8. Kanter, R.M., 1994; Collaborative advantage, Harvard Business Rev. July–Aug: 96-108.Google Scholar
  9. MacLeod, N.D., 1995, Effective strategies for increasing the suitability and adoption of complex technologies for sustainable grazing land management, LWRRDC-GRDC-RIRDC Project CTC2 Report, CSIRO Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures, St Lucia, Qld. (November 1995).Google Scholar
  10. MacLeod, N.D., and Shulman, A.D., 1996, What is wrong with conventional technology transfer practice for Australian Rangeiand R&D?, Proc. 9th Binennial Conf. Aust. Rangeland Soc., Port Augusta, South Australia (September 1996), pp. 189-90.Google Scholar
  11. MacLeod, N.D., Shulman, A.D., and Taylor, J.A., 1996, Effective management for R&D projects addressing sustainable rangeland management issues: Resolving complex problems with multiple stakeholders, Proc. Vth Int. Rangelands Congr. Salt Lake City, Utah (July 1995), pp. 332-3.Google Scholar
  12. McGrath, J., 1991, Time, interaction and performance: A theory of groups, Small Group Res. 22:147–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Penman, R., 1994, Environmental matters and communication, J of Communication 21(3):26–39.Google Scholar
  14. Penman, R., The researcher in communication: The primary research position, in: Context and Communication Behaviour (ed. Owen, J.), Context Press, Reno, in press.Google Scholar
  15. Pfeffer, J., 1992, Management with power politics and influences in organisations, Harvard Business Press: Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  16. Ridge, P.E., and Cox, P.G., Market for decision support systems for dryland crop production., in: Improving Management of Sustainable R&D Technology Transfer, Vol. 2. (A.D. Shulman, and R. Price, eds.) Land and Water Resources Research & Development Corporation, Canberra, in press.Google Scholar
  17. Roling, N.G., 1992, The emergence of knowledge systems thinking: A changing perception of relationships among innovation, knowledge process and configuration, Knowledge and Policy 5:2–64.Google Scholar
  18. Ross, J., and Staw, B. M., 1993, Organisational escalation and exit: Lessons from the Shoreham nuclear power plant, Academy of management Rev. 36(4):701–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Roussel, P., Saad, K., and Erickson, T., 1991, Third Generation R&D, Harvard Business School Press: Boston.Google Scholar
  20. Russell, D.B., and Ison, R.L., 1991, The research-development relationship in rangelands: An opportunity for contextual science, Proc. IVth Int. Rangelands Congr. Montpellier, France (April 1991), pp. 1047-54.Google Scholar
  21. Scoones, I., and Thompson, J., 1994, Beyond farmer first, Intermediate Technology Publications: London, pp. 16–32.Google Scholar
  22. Shulman, A.D., 1996, Putting group information technology in its place: Communication and good work group performance, in: Handbook of Organisation Studies (S.R. Clegg, C. Handy and W. Nord, eds.), pp. 357–74, Sage Publications, Newbury Park.Google Scholar
  23. Shulman, A.D. and Martinek, T., Managing institutional collaboration in catchment systems research, in: Farming Action: Catchment Reaction (J. Williams, ed.), CSIRO, Canberra, in press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. D. MacLeod
    • 1
  • A. D. Shulm
    • 2
  1. 1.CSIRO Tropical AgricultureSt LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.Communication Research Institute of AustraliaHackettAustralia

Personalised recommendations