Evaluation of technical production in agricultural sciences: a new certification scheme in Uruguay

Federico Vasen; Miguel Sierra; José María Paruelo; Carlos Negro; Federico Nolla; Joaquín Lapetina; Marcelo Salvagno

doi:10.31285/AGRO.25.491

Authors

Federico Vasen Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9132-6206
Miguel Sierra Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA), Montevideo, Uruguay. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6344-5507
José María Paruelo Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA), Montevideo, Uruguay. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8784-9431
Carlos Negro Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA), Montevideo, Uruguay. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9131-8353
Federico Nolla Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA), Montevideo, Uruguay. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2822-3110
Joaquín Lapetina Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA), Montevideo, Uruguay. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8988-660X
Marcelo Salvagno Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA), Montevideo, Uruguay. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8130-668X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31285/AGRO.25.491

Keywords:

agricultural research, evaluation, certification

Abstract

The evaluation of technological production in agricultural sciences presents specific challenges. Unlike scientific publications, for which there are standardized evaluation criteria, technological developments require a more multidimensional and situated approach. This article analyzes a technology certification scheme developed by the National Institute of Agricultural Research (INIA by its Spanish acronym) in Uruguay. The process aims to validate the developments based on the perspective of potential users. Based on a literature review and interviews with participants, we reviewed the process design and the first implementation round in 2019. Given the study results, we reported on the innovative nature of the process, both at national and regional levels. At the same time, we highlight the importance of incorporating a variety of stakeholders and prioritizing feedback and learning over bureaucratic control. Finally, we recommend linking this process with analogous instances that may exist in other institutions within the local science system.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Albicette M, Bortagaray I, Scarlato S, Aguerre V. Co-innovación para promover sistemas ganaderos familiares más sostenibles en Uruguay: análisis de tres años de cambios en la dimensión social de la sostenibilidad. Rev latinoam estud rural [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2021 Jun 04];1(2):105-36. Available from: https://bit.ly/3cisIIk.

Alvarez S, Douthwaite B, Thiele G, Mackay R, Córdoba D, Tehelen K. Participatory index pathways analysis: a practical method for project planning and evaluation. Dev Pract [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2021 Jun 04];20(8):946-58. Available from: https://bit.ly/3gdbQno.

Andreoni A, Tregenna F. Escaping the middle-income technology trap: a comparative analysis of industrial policies in China, Brazil and South Africa. Struct Chang Econ Dyn [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Jun 04];54:324-40. Available from: https://bit.ly/3ii81jv.

Bianco M, Gras N, Sutz J. Academic evaluation: Universal Instrument? Tool for Development? Minerva [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2021 Jun 04];54(4):399-421. Available from: https://bit.ly/3cdwByn.

Borrás S, Edquist C. Holistic innovation policy. Oxford: OUP; 2019. 320p.

Boyce W, Percy H, Turner J, Fear A, Mills T, Craven C. Building co-innovation into your research proposal [Internet]. Christchurch: AgResearch; 2016 [cited 2021 Jun 04]. 15p. Available from: https://bit.ly/34NpUyR.

Détang-Dessendre C, Guyomard H, editors. Quelle politique agricole commune demain? Versailles: Éditions Quæ; 2020. 306p.

Douthwaite B, Kuby T, van de Fliert E, Schulz S. Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems. Agric Syst [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2021 Jun 04];78:243-65. Available from: https://bit.ly/2TJ8Rf6.

Hobbs JE. Incentives for the adoption of good agricultural practices: background paper for the FAO expert consultation on a good agricultural practice approach [Internet]. Rome: FAO; 2013 [cited 2021 Jun 04]. 34p. Available from: https://bit.ly/34PGv4Z.

Horton D. Disciplinary roots and branches of evaluation: some lessons from agricultural research. Knowledge and Policy [Internet]. 1998 [cited 2021 Jun 04];10(4):31-66. Available from: https://bit.ly/3ivbZ8T.

Horton D, Mackay R. Using evaluation to enhance institutional learning and change: recent experiences with agricultural research and development. Agric Syst [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2021 Jun 04];78:127-42. Available from: https://bit.ly/34Owhlq.

INIA. Plan estratégico 2016-2020: visión 2030 [Internet]. Montevideo: INIA; 2017 [cited 2021 Jun 04]. 60p. Available from: https://bit.ly/3ckDPk5.

INIA. Protocolo de certificación y registro de tecnologías agropecuarias [Internet]. Versión julio 2020 [cited 2021 Jun 04]. 19p. Available from: https://bit.ly/3cxfOVV.

Jaffe A, Trachtenberg M. Patents, citations and innovations. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2005. 496p.

Jaramillo H, Lugones G, Salazar M. Normalización de indicadores de innovación tecnológica en América Latina y el Caribe: manual de Bogotá. Bogotá: RICYT; 2001 [cited 2021 Jun 04]. 99p. Available from: https://bit.ly/3fT44jX.

Joly PB, Gaunand A, Colinet L, Larédo P, Lemarié S, Matt M. ASIRPA: a comprehensive theory-based approach to Assessing the Societal Impacts of a Research Organization. Res Eval [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2021 Jun 04];24(4):440-53. Available from: https://bit.ly/3g98dit.

Leeuwis C, Aarts N. Rethinking communication in innovation processes: creating space for change in complex systems. J Agric Educ Ext [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2021 Jun 04];17(1):21-36. Available from: https://bit.ly/3g3XLZC.

Mankins J. Technology readiness assessments: a retrospective. Acta Astronaut [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2021 Jun 04];65(9-10):1216-23. Available from: https://bit.ly/2S8Hz16.

Molas-Gallart J. Research governance and the role of evaluation: a comparative study. Am J Eval [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2021 Jun 04];33(4):583-98. Available from: https://bit.ly/2S9QCz0.

Naidorf J, Vasen F, Alonso M, Cuschnir M. De evaluar diferente a orientar como siempre: burocratización e inercias institucionales en la implementación de una política científica orientada al desarrollo tecnológico y social. Rev iberoam cienc tecnol soc [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Jun 04];45:163-82. Available from: https://bit.ly/2TJBkS0.

OECD. Oslo manual: guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data [Internet]. Paris: OECD; 2015 [cited 2021 Jun 04]. 162p. Available from: https://bit.ly/3cgr1eo.

Percy H, Turner J, Boyce W. Five principles of co-innovation. Integration and Implementation Insights [Internet]. 2019 Jul 16 [cited 2021 Jun 04]. Available from: https://bit.ly/2RnBNbL.

Ryan S, Bisio C, Bergamin G, Fuentes E. Políticas públicas diferenciales orientadas a la sustentabilidad: orígenes de las Buenas Prácticas Agropecuarias en el mundo y en Argentina. Rev Am Empreendedorismo Inov [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Jun 04];2(1):312-25. Available from: https://bit.ly/3z4ZC9l.

Sanderson J. Plants, people and practices: the nature and history of the UPOV Convention. Cambridge: Cambridge UP; 2019. 346p.

Sartas M, Schut M, Proietti C, Thiele G, Leeuwis C. Scaling Readiness: Science and practice of an approach to enhance impact of research for development. Agric Syst [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Jun 04];183:102874. Available from: https://bit.ly/3pogNxT.

Saviotti P. The measurement of changes in technological output. In: Van Raan A, editor. Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1988. p. 555-610.

Smith S. The foundations, continuing evolution, and outcomes from the application of intellectual property protection in plant breeding and agriculture. Plant Breed Rev [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Jun 04];43:121-213 Available fom: https://bit.ly/34PeBpK.

Somoza A, Vazquez P, Zulaica L. Implementación de buenas prácticas agrícolas para la gestión ambiental rural. RIA, Rev investig agropecu [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Jun 04];44(3):398-423. Available from: https://bit.ly/3uQoFJT.

Sugimoto C, Larivière V. Measuring Research. New York: Oxford UP; 2018. 168p.

Temple L, Barret D, Blundo Canto G, Dabat MH, Devaux-Spatarakis A, Faure G, Hainzelin E, Mathé S, Toillier A, Triomphe B. Assessing impacts of agricultural research for development: a systemic model focusing on outcomes. Res Eval [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2021 Jun 04];27(2):157-70. Available from: https://bit.ly/3wV8Sea.

Temple L, Biénabe E, Barret D, Saint-Martin G. Methods for assessing the impact of research on innovation and development in the agriculture and food. African J Sci Technol Innov Dev [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2021 Jun 04];8(16):399-410. Available from: https://bit.ly/3pmojtf.

Thomas H, Becerra L, Trentini F. Introducción. Redes [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Jun 04];25(49):103-9. Availabe from: https://bit.ly/34NiEmB.

Turner J, Klerkx L, Rijswijk K, Williams T, Barnard T. Systemic problems affecting co-innovation in the New Zealand Agricultural Innovation System: identification of blocking mechanisms and underlying institutional logics. NJAS-Wagen J Life Sc [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2021 Jun 04];76:99-112. Available from: https://bit.ly/2THCMnX.

Article metrics
Abstract views
Galley vies
PDF Views
HTML views
Other views

Evaluation of technical production in agricultural sciences

a new certification scheme in Uruguay

Authors

DOI:

Keywords:

Abstract

Downloads

References

Downloads

Published

How to Cite

Issue

Section

Altmetric

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Language

Make a Submission

index

redes_sociales

Current Issue

Developed By