Platform, Participation, and Power: How Dominant and Minority Stakeholders Shape Agricultural Innovation

Abstract

Within agricultural innovation systems (AIS), various stakeholder groups inevitably interpret ‘innovation’ from their own vantage point of privilege and power. In rural developing areas where small-scale and subsistence farming systems support livelihoods, dominant policy actors often focus heavily on participatory modernization and commercialization initiatives to enhance productivity, access, and quality. However, existing social hierarchies may undermine the potential of such initiatives to promote inclusive and sustainable farmer-driven innovation. Focusing on the chronically food insecure smallholder agricultural systems operating in Yatta Sub-county, Eastern Kenya, this paper explores how power dynamics between stakeholders can influence, and can be influenced by, participatory agricultural innovation initiatives. Findings suggest that there are often significant disparities in access to, and control over, platform resources between smallholder farmers and other stakeholder groups, resulting in large asymmetries. We discuss how these power dynamics may increase the risk of agricultural intervention, further marginalizing already disempowered groups and reinforcing power hierarchies to the detriment of smallholders. This study highlights the need for a deeper understanding of the institutional contexts that facilitate and maintain relationships of power within agricultural innovation systems, as well as the complexities associated with promoting transformational agricultural innovation.

Full text

sustainability
Article
Platform, Participation, and Power: How Dominant
and Minority Stakeholders Shape
Agricultural Innovation
Colleen M. Eidt 1, Laxmi P. Pant 2,3 and Gordon M. Hickey 1, *
1Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences,
McGill University, 21,111 Lakeshore Road, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9, Canada;
colleen.eidt@gmail.com
2School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph,
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada; lpant@uoguelph.ca
3Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Kent ME4 4TB, UK
*Correspondence: gordon.hickey@mcgill.ca
Received: 6 November 2019; Accepted: 3 January 2020; Published: 7 January 2020


Abstract:
Within agricultural innovation systems (AIS), various stakeholder groups inevitably
interpret ‘innovation’ from their own vantage point of privilege and power. In rural developing
areas where small-scale and subsistence farming systems support livelihoods, dominant policy actors
often focus heavily on participatory modernization and commercialization initiatives to enhance
productivity, access, and quality. However, existing social hierarchies may undermine the potential
of such initiatives to promote inclusive and sustainable farmer-driven innovation. Focusing on the
chronically food insecure smallholder agricultural systems operating in Yatta Sub-county, Eastern
Kenya, this paper explores how power dynamics between stakeholders can influence, and can be
influenced by, participatory agricultural innovation initiatives. Findings suggest that there are often
significant disparities in access to, and control over, platform resources between smallholder farmers
and other stakeholder groups, resulting in large asymmetries. We discuss how these power dynamics
may increase the risk of agricultural intervention, further marginalizing already disempowered groups
and reinforcing power hierarchies to the detriment of smallholders. This study highlights the need
for a deeper understanding of the institutional contexts that facilitate and maintain relationships of
power within agricultural innovation systems, as well as the complexities associated with promoting
transformational agricultural innovation.
Keywords:
Sub-Saharan Africa; rural livelihoods; subsistence; smallholders; sustainable food security;
participatory development; sustainable agriculture; community engagement
1. Introduction
Agricultural innovation is a complex and dynamic process, involving multiple actors situated
within diverse organizational, institutional, and social contexts [
1
,
2
]. Within the agricultural innovation
systems (AIS) framework, innovation is the process and outcome of putting any information into
economic, environmental, or social use, including the integration of new and existing information [
3
].
AIS approaches have developed from realizations that technological solutions often need to be specific
to a given environment [
4
] and that innovation stems from multiple sources [
5
], requiring systems
that foster partnerships [
6
] and reflexive institutions which allow for learning and innovation [
7
,
8
].
A particular area of focus is how stakeholders (also referred to as actors) interact with each other
and their surroundings to co-create and direct innovation [
2
]. This has led to the identification of
“innovation intermediaries” or “brokers”, that can facilitate negotiations across hierarchies and help
Sustainability 2020,12, 461; doi:10.3390/su12020461 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 2 of 21
break down barriers to the participation of small-scale farmers in platforms [
9
–
13
]. Agricultural
innovation platforms have been defined as stakeholder linkages that are purposively created and
maintained to address specific agricultural innovation challenges or opportunities [
11
,
14
–
17
] within
their institutional context [
18
]. Using innovation platforms to strengthen the social networks that link
famers to diverse stakeholders in the agri-food system has the potential to facilitate the identification of
collective interests and needs [
11
], promote greater trust and co-operation [
7
], and expose individuals
to resources and adaptation strategies beyond the realm of their own experience [
19
,
20
]. Within
smallholder and subsistence farming systems, innovation platforms are generally created through
agricultural development initiatives, utilizing participatory and inclusive approaches in order to
develop locally appropriate technologies [
21
] and ensure the equitable participation of all relevant
stakeholder groups [22,23].
Community-based interventions inherently entail trade-offs between stakeholder groups with
varying degrees of power and interest [
24
], an issue often not well addressed in practice [
1
,
9
,
24
–
26
].
According to Cullen et al. [
1
], existing power hierarchies may cause innovation platforms to fall short of
their claims of inclusive, farmer-driven innovation, unless thorough consideration is given to issues of
power [
27
]. The participation of smallholder farmers in research and development initiatives has long
held the promise of improving development outcomes, including sustainably improving food security
and reducing rural poverty, through the inclusion and valuing of local knowledge [28]. Participatory
approaches have spread rapidly and can now be considered a requirement for smallholder-related
research and development in many contexts [
29
]. The proliferation of participatory methods, including
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) [
30
], Farmer Field Schools (FFSs) [
31
], and a range of other
approaches, has generated many definitions of participation that vary widely, both in theory and in
practice [
32
–
37
]. However, as noted by Neef and Neubert (2011) [
38
], effective participation often
remains ill-defined amidst a mentality of, “the more participation the better”, where participation is
seen as occurring along a gradient of low to high.
Critics of participatory approaches that are designed to increase the efficiency and effectiveness
of agricultural development have asserted that insufficient attention to issues of power can lead to
participation that reinforces existing power hierarchies, further oppressing and excluding marginalized
groups [
39
,
40
]. Complex bureaucratic institutions that maintain rigid hierarchies [
41
] and affect
stakeholders’ abilities to negotiate and to build reflexive institutions [
42
] can aid stakeholders with
the power to employ participation to their advantage [
43
]. In this way, participation can be used
to enforce policy goals which do not necessarily align well with the goals of the participating
smallholder farmers [
44
]. For example, Williams [
45
] pointed to the use of emancipation language
within participation rhetoric, that effectively incorporates marginalized groups into modernization
and commercialization projects which serve the dominant national agenda, rather than community
objectives or any type of genuine empowerment. This type of top-down control, while cloaked in the
language of participation, may lead to short-term gains in certain development indicators [
46
] at the
expense of longer-term objectives [
47
]. The unanswered question for many agricultural innovation
initiatives in smallholder and subsistence farming systems internationally is the extent to which
empowerment has been prioritized in the creation of platforms, and to what effect [29].
In this paper, we present the results of an exploratory stakeholder analysis conducted in a
chronically food insecure smallholder agricultural region of Eastern Kenya to better understand how
power dynamics between stakeholders can influence, and have been influenced by, participatory
agricultural innovation initiatives.
2. Research Context
Fostering innovation within the agricultural sector is a key priority for the Government of
Kenya (GoK) and is directly tied to the government’s role in meeting the food and economic security
challenges faced by its citizens [
48
,
49
]. The central role of agriculture in the economy is emphasized
in both the Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation (ERS) (2003) [
50
] and

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 3 of 21
its successor Vision 2030 (2008) [
51
], which called for an increased contribution of more than 800
million USD annually to the national GDP, in combination with a 30% reduction in food insecurity.
These targets were to be achieved by fostering agricultural innovation through the modernization
and commercialization of small-scale agriculture [
52
]. Specific importance has been placed on the
development of the arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs), which comprise over 80% of Kenya’s land
mass [
52
,
53
]. Similar to other regions across Sub-Saharan Africa, Kenya’s ASALs are characterized
by existing environmental degradation, increasing frequency and severity of droughts and floods,
and small-scale, subsistence farming with low application of technology [
54
], as well as limited access
to services, markets, electricity, infrastructure, and water [
52
]. Despite these significant challenges,
small-scale agriculture accounts for approximately 75% of total agricultural outputs in Kenya and
more than 70% of informal employment in the rural areas, playing a vital role in rural livelihoods [
55
].
The government of Kenya therefore sees potential in focusing on smallholder farmers as a key group
in the commercialization and modernization of farming in the ASALs [52].
A farmer focused and participatory approach to integrated natural resource management has
been promoted as being central to fostering agricultural innovation and sustainable rural development
within the context of Kenya’s ASALs [
53
]. In striving to meet economic and humanitarian targets,
policy and programs have emphasized the need for stakeholder participation and linkages across the
agricultural sector, as well as significant institutional reforms considered necessary to allow for the
full participation of smallholder farmers [
56
]. Prominent examples include Kenya’s participation in
regional initiatives such as the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP);
national policies including the Strategy for Revitalizing Agriculture (SRA) (2004) and the Agricultural
Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) [
52
]; and the promulgation of a new constitution in 2010, which
greatly decentralized national government power [57].
Study Area—Yatta Sub-County
Food insecurity in Yatta Sub-county (located in Machakos County, Eastern Kenya, see Figure 1)
is pervasive due partly to an overreliance on maize as the staple crop, high average temperatures
(ranging from 29 to 36
◦
C), poor rainfall (ranging between 450 and 800 mm per year), low levels of
technology adoption (including inputs such as fertilizer and certified seeds), and poor post-harvest
management practices [
48
,
58
,
59
]. At the time of our study, the population of Yatta was ~300,000, with
~75% of households depending primarily on agriculture for their livelihood [
58
]. Farmers generally
employed intercropping methods, with many keeping poultry and larger livestock for meat, eggs,
and milk [
58
]. Rates of household food insecurity were high [
59
], particularly among women and
children [
60
], with high rates of rural poverty and gender inequality adding further complexity to
household food security and agricultural development initiatives [
61
]. Yatta is primarily inhabited
by the Kamba people, who have traditionally been involved in trade but have more recently become
widely engaged in small-scale and subsistence agriculture [
62
,
63
]. Most farming households are
male headed, have attained low levels of formal education, and operate on farm sizes smaller than
10 acres, with increasing demand for land by migrant farmers resulting in declining farm sizes [
58
].
Like other regions within the ASALs, Yatta has two short growing periods coinciding with the long
(March–April–May) and short (October–November–December) rainy seasons, with existing farming
systems considered highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change [
58
,
59
]. This is mainly because
rain-fed agriculture is the norm, rainfall variability is increasing [
59
], and there has been limited
development of irrigation infrastructure in the area. The soils range from clay-based to sandy and,
being located on the Yatta plateau, are often extremely rocky and on inclines which require terracing
(see Figure 2). The dominant vegetation is dry bush, with soils generally having low fertility and
high erosivity [
58
]. While there is a heavy reliance on maize, other staple crops grown in the area
include: cereals (sorghum and millet), pulses (beans, pigeon peas, cow pea, and green grams), and
roots and tubers (sweet potato, cassava, yam, and arrowroot). Previous development efforts have
identified numerous agricultural practices and technologies that have the potential to enhance farm

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 4 of 21
resource productivity and livelihood sustainability, however low levels of adoption remain a major
policy challenge, partly due to a history of centralized agricultural extension services and systemic
failures to adequately account for gender considerations [64].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 461 4 of 20
Figure 1. Map of study area, Yatta Sub-county, Machakos County, Kenya.
Figure 2. Terracing of a farm plot growing maize in Yatta Sub-county, Machakos County, Kenya.
Figure 1. Map of study area, Yatta Sub-county, Machakos County, Kenya.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 461 4 of 20
Figure 1. Map of study area, Yatta Sub-county, Machakos County, Kenya.
Figure 2. Terracing of a farm plot growing maize in Yatta Sub-county, Machakos County, Kenya.
Figure 2. Terracing of a farm plot growing maize in Yatta Sub-county, Machakos County, Kenya.

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 5 of 21
3. Methods
3.1. Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder analysis is useful when the system under study requires collective action to facilitate
innovation [
65
–
67
]. Stakeholders can be defined as those with the ability to affect change and
decision-making within a particular system [
68
]. By identifying key stakeholders, their interests,
behaviours, interactions, and relative power to affect change, stakeholder analysis can help to assess
some of the drivers of, and barriers to, innovation; the potential impacts of certain policy actions, as
well as the broader institutional context within which innovation occurs [
69
]. Stakeholder analysis also
allows marginalized or disempowered groups to be identified [
60
,
67
,
70
,
71
], providing insights into how
participatory approaches to learning, innovation, and food security might best promote mutual trust,
collective action, and learning [
72
,
73
]. Following the guidelines laid out by Schmeer [
74
] and adapted
by Rastogi et al. [
75
], we sought to determine each stakeholder groups’ previous engagement with
agricultural innovation projects, as follows: (1) role and interactions—role filled by each stakeholder
group within the agricultural sector and their interactions with other stakeholders; (2) knowledge—of
relevant agricultural technology, practices, and policy; (3) other resources—that may be mobilized in
support or opposition of change; (4) leadership—ability to mobilize collective action; (5) position—on
agricultural innovation through commercialization and modernization, as envisioned in the ASDS [
64
],
and potential for conflicts between stakeholder groups; and (6) power—to affect change based on the
five preceding factors. In order to analyze stakeholder collaboration dynamics, we initially used a
two-way interest-power grid to determine the stakeholder [
76
]—where “players” are those who have
both power and interest, “context setters” are those who are powerful but disinterested stakeholders,
“subjects” are those who lack power but are genuinely interested in change (e.g., food-insecure farmers),
and “crowds” are those who are low on both dimensions (Figure 3).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 461 5 of 20
3. Methods
3.1. Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder analysis is useful when the system under study requires collective action to facilitate
innovation [65–67]. Stakeholders can be defined as those with the ability to affect change and
decision-making within a particular system [68]. By identifying key stakeholders, their interests,
behaviours, interactions, and relative power to affect change, stakeholder analysis can help to assess
some of the drivers of, and barriers to, innovation; the potential impacts of certain policy actions, as
well as the broader institutional context within which innovation occurs [69]. Stakeholder analysis
also allows marginalized or disempowered groups to be identified [60,67,70,71], providing insights
into how participatory approaches to learning, innovation, and food security might best promote
mutual trust, collective action, and learning [72,73]. Following the guidelines laid out by Schmeer [74]
and adapted by Rastogi et al. [75], we sought to determine each stakeholder groups’ previous
engagement with agricultural innovation projects, as follows: (1) role and interactions—role filled by
each stakeholder group within the agricultural sector and their interactions with other stakeholders;
(2) knowledge—of relevant agricultural technology, practices, and policy; (3) other resources—that
may be mobilized in support or opposition of change; (4) leadership—ability to mobilize collective
action; (5) position—on agricultural innovation through commercialization and modernization, as
envisioned in the ASDS [64], and potential for conflicts between stakeholder groups; and (6) power—
to affect change based on the five preceding factors. In order to analyze stakeholder collaboration
dynamics, we initially used a two-way interest-power grid to determine the stakeholder [76]—where
“players” are those who have both power and interest, “context setters” are those who are powerful
but disinterested stakeholders, “subjects” are those who lack power but are genuinely interested in
change (e.g., food-insecure farmers), and “crowds” are those who are low on both dimensions (Figure
3).
Figure 3. A two-way interest-power grid for analysis of stakeholder collaboration. Source: Adapted
from Ackermann and Ede (2011) [76].
We then considered four innovation scenarios [77], irresponsible inaction, irresponsible action,
responsible inaction, and responsible action, for each broad stakeholder involved in agricultural
innovation initiatives. For the purposes of our analysis, we understood that irresponsible inaction of
context setters can put society at risk, and therefore responsible inaction would be preferred. Hence,
a responsible innovation platform would be responsible, or not innovating at all, to avoid an
irresponsible innovation trajectory, such as an attempt to misuse power to benefit those holding
power and privilege [78].
3.2. Data Collection and Analysis
•Low interest
•High power
•Low interest
•Low power
•High interest
•High power
•High interest
•Low power
Subjects Players
Context
setters
Crowds
Figure 3.
A two-way interest-power grid for analysis of stakeholder collaboration. Source: Adapted
from Ackermann and Ede (2011) [76].
We then considered four innovation scenarios [
77
], irresponsible inaction, irresponsible action,
responsible inaction, and responsible action, for each broad stakeholder involved in agricultural
innovation initiatives. For the purposes of our analysis, we understood that irresponsible inaction
of context setters can put society at risk, and therefore responsible inaction would be preferred.
Hence, a responsible innovation platform would be responsible, or not innovating at all, to avoid an
irresponsible innovation trajectory, such as an attempt to misuse power to benefit those holding power
and privilege [78].

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 6 of 21
3.2. Data Collection and Analysis
Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with key informants in order to develop
an understanding of the attitudes, beliefs, values, and motivations of stakeholders [
79
–
81
] within the
agricultural sector. Interview questions were designed following the guidelines laid out by Grimble
and Chan [
67
], but remained flexible and were dependent on the role and knowledge of the participant.
A pre-test of the interview was conducted with three respondents to ensure clarity and minimize
interviewer bias. Key informants were then identified in close consultation with colleagues from the
Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation (KALRO), Kenya Ministry of Agriculture,
Livestock, and Fisheries (MoA), Provincial Administration, and a local non-governmental organization
(NGO), who assisted with defining and categorizing stakeholders. Snowball sampling techniques
were then used to identify additional stakeholders to ensure wide coverage representing all possible
stakeholder groups [
72
]. Within each group we sought to interview a range of individuals with
varying levels of influence and power in order to minimize selection bias and improve internal
validity [
82
]. Efforts were also made to ensure the representation of women and youth within the
sample, where possible. Throughout the interview process, on-going dialogue was maintained among
the research team in order to identify and address potential researcher bias to the best of our abilities,
as recommended by Hill et al. [
83
]. In total, 46 key informant interviews were completed from July to
September 2012. Table 1presents a breakdown of interview participants by stakeholder categorization
and gender.
Table 1. Breakdown of interview participants (N=46) by stakeholder group and gender.
Stakeholder Group Participants *
Farmers
Farmer Group members 9 (4 Women)
Government of Kenya
Elected Officials 2 (1 Woman)
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries (MoA) 3 (1 Woman)
- Agricultural Extension 7
Other Ministries and Departments 5 (1 Woman)
- Provincial Administration ** 9
Research Organizations 3
Local Nongovernment Organizations (NGOs) 6 (1 Woman)
International Donors 2
* Many participants could be grouped into multiple categories (for example those working at research institutions
may also identify as farmers); therefore, participants were categorized based on the role they understood themselves
to be representing within the context of the interview. ** Provincial Administration is the term used throughout this
paper as it is still in use by stakeholders; however, in accordance with the implementation of the new constitution,
Provincial Administration officers now fall under the categorization of Government administration officers.
Interviews were fully transcribed and translated into English in order to enable manifest content
analysis and recursive data coding following the constant comparative method [
84
]. We adopted
a hybrid process of inductive and deductive thematic analysis that integrated data-driven codes
with theory-driven codes based on participation and innovation literature [
85
]. Internal member
cross-checking of responses, informal field observation, and review of available external documentation,
such as project reports, policies, and agency websites, were used to triangulate findings wherever
possible in order to improve trustworthiness and reliability in our analysis [86–88]. All field research
protocols were reviewed and approved by the McGill University Research Ethics Board (REB File #:
969-0511) prior to data collection.

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 7 of 21
3.3. Assumptions and Limitations
A limitation of this study is the age of the dataset, with data collected in 2012, and further
follow-up, member checking, and local dissemination activities occurring in 2014. We recognize that
the local agricultural development context in Yatta Sub-county may have changed since our data
collection, indeed we expect that it has, however the policy challenges of chronic household food
insecurity and low levels of agricultural sector innovation remain in the semi-arid regions of Kenya, and
also exist in many other communities internationally. The case study research method did not allow for
generalization to populations, and instead relied on demonstrating reliability and achieving high levels
of internal, content, and construct validity through the research design in order to generate substantive
theory, which can help to deepen understandings in different contexts [
89
]. We acknowledged this
limitation throughout our data analysis and discussion and were careful not to generalize beyond
the case study (i.e., perceptions of agricultural development stakeholders in the Yatta Sub-county in
2012). We interpreted the findings in light of recent literature on agricultural innovation platforms
(e.g., [
1
,
9
,
10
]), a field that continues to evolve and increasingly seeks to understand how power and
interest influence decision-making. We conducted an ex-ante assessment of agricultural research and
innovation initiatives in Yatta Sub-county rather than an ex-post assessment of an existing innovation
platform. We adopted this methodological approach to avoid certain biases concerning the perceived
merits of platforms that can arise from those who are already involved in specific innovation processes.
Beyond the commonly recognized limitations associated with qualitative case study research [
89
],
stakeholder analysis has its own drawbacks. One of the main limitations is that it tends to make
assumptions about which groups constitute legitimate stakeholders without explicitly justifying these
assumptions [
90
]. A counter to this position is that the legitimacy of a group’s claim as a stakeholder is
less important than their ability to affect change within a given system [
91
], and this was the general
approach taken in this study. Nevertheless, we recognized the assertion that legitimacy is an important
factor in determining influence [
92
] and kept this in mind in the interpretation of our findings. Reed et
al. [
72
] addressed these and other limitations associated with identifying and categorizing stakeholders
in a top-down manner, highlighting alternative bottom-up approaches that allow stakeholders to
define legitimate and non-legitimate stakeholder groups. By defining our stakeholder groups in
collaboration with local partners and then revising these categories throughout our data collection, we
were able to employ a level of bottom-up approach to defining the stakeholders. Another important
limitation of stakeholder analysis is that, due to the limited timeframe of most projects, it provides only
a snapshot of the opinions, roles, resources, relationships, and influence in the system, all of which
are dynamic and subject to unexpected transformations [
88
]. This has implications for the usefulness
and generalizability of the results. We therefore focused our discussion on the inter-relationships
between stakeholders, how these interactions may have influenced the design, implementation, and
outcomes of agricultural innovation initiatives, including associated innovation platforms, rather
than treating existing conditions as static realities. Another limitation relates to our locally driven
snowball sampling strategy, which made it difficult for us to identify and recruit farmers who were not
already members of groups in the community. Farmers who were identified as being appropriate key
informants for our study were all members of some type of group; however, these key informants
mentioned that there were farmers who may not be participating in groups, although they were not
able to recommend anyone appropriate for us to interview. As a result, our results concerning farmers
who do not participate in groups reflect only the perspectives of other stakeholder key informants.
4. Results and Discussion
Given our focus on better understanding smallholder participation in agricultural innovation
platforms, we present our results around the farmers, elaborating on the interactions and attributes of
other stakeholders as they pertain to smallholder participation and empowerment. We also combine
our results with a discussion of their implications for enhancing participatory agricultural innovation

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 8 of 21
initiatives in smallholder and subsistence farming systems. Table 2provides a summary of the reported
roles and interactions for all stakeholder groups.
Table 2.
Key stakeholders in agricultural innovation within Yatta, including their roles and interactions
with each other.
Stakeholder Group Key Roles and Interactions
Farmers Receive knowledge indirectly through other farmers or alternative
sources, such as media.
Farmer Groups
Receive knowledge through agricultural extension, research
organizations, and local NGO projects;
Determine specific project objectives within predetermined wider
project objectives.
Government of Kenya Set policy, legal framework, and broad funding priorities.
Elected Officials Determine projects funded through the Constituency Development
Fund;
Distribute farming inputs received from the MoA.
Ministry of Agriculture,
Livestock, and Fisheries (MoA)
Determine agricultural policies, funding priorities, and projects;
Inform agricultural extension on policy, projects, and objectives;
Train agricultural extension on the latest knowledge/technology in
farming;
Provide inputs to elected officials for distribution;
Work in collaboration with local NGOs.
- Agricultural Extension
Hold and distribute technical knowledge about farming;
Provide link between farmers’ groups, MoA policies, and
knowledge and technology from research institutions;
Implement MoA projects;
Work in collaboration with local NGOs.
Other Ministries/Departments Determine a range of policies and regulations;
Issue permits;
Conduct surveys and inspections.
-
Provincial Administration
Mobilize community;
Provide security to projects, group meetings, training exercises, etc.;
Call community meetings;
Inform community about policies and regulations;
Distribute aid and farm inputs.
Research Organizations
Identify research needs;
Generate new knowledge;
Provide expertise and knowledge to agricultural extension and local
NGOs;
Implement on the ground projects;
Supply seeds (at a cost).
Local Nongovernment Organizations
(NGO)
Mobilize farmer groups;
Work in collaboration with agricultural extension;
Source funding from international donors;
Provide inputs.
International Donors Fund the Government of Kenya, research organizations, and local
NGOs.
Private Sector Provide marketing materials to distribute/display;
Sell seeds developed by research institutions.
4.1. A Difficult Journey from Technology Transfer to Co-Creation
The participation of smallholder farmers in innovation initiatives was described by participants
as being lower than would be desired, based on our understanding that successful participation
facilitates social change and empowers the community. Farmers who were not affiliated with a
farmer group were described by other stakeholders as being particularly marginalized (high interest,
low power). Stakeholders involved in the implementation of agricultural innovation projects—i.e.,
the Government of Kenya through the MoA and agricultural extension officers, local NGOs, and

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 9 of 21
research institutions—placed a strong emphasis on increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of farmer
participation by working with existing groups. This allows project-implementing stakeholders to
capitalize on the existing trust and respect among group members [
52
]. For example, Bruges and
Smith [
44
] suggested that existing groups may be better able to articulate their concerns and objectives
because of the already established levels of trust, making them more ideal candidates for learning,
innovation, and policy change. Participants described this approach as being reinforced by a need to
deliver measurable outcomes to project funding organizations within limited timeframes. Based on
our interviews, farmers who had not previously joined local groups likely had limited interactions
with knowledge-rich dominant stakeholders, such as agricultural extension officers and researchers
(high interest, high power). Instead, our respondents suggested these farmers may access knowledge
concerning agricultural technologies, practices, and policy informally through secondary sources,
including the media and other farmers within the community, potentially an ‘under the radar’ minority
coalition. Further research specifically focusing on farmers who are not participating in community
groups would be valuable. Participation in groups was considered effective for co-creation, as members
were able to gain more direct access to new knowledge through their involvement in projects spanning
a wide range of activities, from soil management to post-harvest marketing strategies. However,
knowledge was reported as generally flowing from the dominant stakeholders at the ‘top’, who set
policy and develop new technologies, and who were not necessarily interested in developing inclusive
spaces for co-creation.
Transfer of knowledge and technology between project-implementing stakeholder groups was
described as generally well facilitated, as they often worked together in their efforts, including the
participation of agricultural research institutions in project implementation. This change in the level of
stakeholder coordination was summarized by a government researcher as follows:
We have done a lot of reforms in Kenya in agriculture. Before, we were not allowed to go
to the farms. We were doing what we call basic science here at the Centre. We developed
technologies
. . .
and then we looked for ways of giving those technologies to extension
officers, either through documentation or through meetings. And then there were reforms
that we must do ‘on farm’. So ‘on farm’ is multidisciplinary. The farmers’ face is there in the
farm, the MoA is there in the farm, the local administration is there in the farm, the local
NGOs are there in the farm, and the government scientists are there in the farm, the same
day, the same farm, all of us looking at that problem, all of us looking at that solution. That is
how we reformed research and development.
The MoA also organized training sessions for extension officers to stay up to date on current
research, development priorities, and policies as well as stakeholder meetings, held on a quarterly basis
throughout the year. An agricultural extension officer described his view of stakeholder coordination
through these meetings by stating: “We facilitate mainly the operationalization of the stakeholder
concept, whereby all stakeholders in extension and training in Yatta, we bring them together and
discuss and share on what we actually do in the field. So far the stakeholder concept is being
operationalized here very well
. . .
” However, other stakeholders were less directly involved—either
those farmers who did not belong to a group or the private sector. Larger private sector firms, for
example, were largely removed from agricultural development conversations and policy initiatives in
Yatta Sub-county. While they may have attended stakeholder meetings or held occasional training
demonstrations, their products and services were mainly communicated passively through posters
and brochures distributed to agricultural extension officers. International donors were described as
generally taking a ‘hands-off’ role, increasingly leaving project implementation to local extension
officers and NGOs, while sometimes providing them with training on new technologies developed
abroad. Other government ministries were described as being primarily involved in agricultural
innovation projects through their role as regulatory agencies, conducting evaluation surveys and
inspections and issuing permits, for example, for irrigation and water harvesting efforts. As a result,

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 10 of 21
agricultural extension officers, local NGO workers, and agricultural researchers were described as
collectively having a large store of relevant knowledge surrounding agricultural policies, technologies,
and farming activities, that makes its way to farmers working in groups directly, with the goal of it
then spreading to farmers outside groups indirectly (see [64] for an example).
Farmers were described as having an abundance of local and indigenous knowledge that could
make for more effective and relevant agricultural innovation and sustainable development. However,
the existing approach to participation was described as not being effective at communicating knowledge
“from the bottom to the top” of the agricultural system hierarchy. In many cases, the experiential
knowledge of smallholder farmers seemingly conflicted with what expert knowledge suggested.
Despite the existence of District Agricultural Development Committees (DADC or DAC), created, in
part, to give farmers a platform for communicating their knowledge and concerns to the government,
a farmer representative reported never having actually met as a committee:
When there is a report from the District, we wait for them to call us. And one of the functions
that we are supposed to be doing is, during the meeting of the DAC, we may give the
committee the feelings of the farmers, the problems they might be facing, the help they need,
and then the DAC could discuss ways of helping the farmers. But then we only wait to be
called. Unless we are called, we do not have the power ourselves to call
. . .
I would say, the
functions of these DACs, if they were active they could have helped the farmer but they are
not active.
Furthermore, the day-to-day interactions of agricultural extension officers, NGO workers, and
researchers with farmers was described as often maintaining fairly rigid hierarchical structures. This can
make it difficult for food-insecure farmers (high interest, low power) to comfortably voice their opinions
or share their knowledge. Likewise, entrenched hierarchical structures were described as making it
difficult for field-based project implementers to voice concerns to their superiors at the MoA or research
institutions. Reciprocal feedback mechanisms for communicating knowledge across the smallholder
agricultural innovation system were identified as generally lacking, despite the increase in farmer
participation. This finding supports the need to organize around common goals from the beginning
to enable interactions and networks that can build social capital and trust [
93
], which are important
factors in effectively communicating knowledge [94], social learning, and innovation [19,95,96].
4.2. Leadership to Create Attractive Visions for Innovation Platforms
Chiefs and assistant chiefs were described as playing an important leadership role within their
communities, as they have the mandate to mobilize people with low power and low interest. This
was most often done in the form of calling local meetings to make announcements, for example, the
enactment of a new policy, or to give a platform to other stakeholders to communicate information.
However, there was a wide range in the degree of community engagement by chiefs and assistant
chiefs. While some were described as deeply engaged and regularly called meetings, others were not.
In other words, some of them were ‘players’ while others were ‘context setters’. One farmer expressed
his frustration: “
. . .
those people who have powers, like the (provincial) administrators, chiefs and
assistant chiefs, if you tell them, can you call a meeting and you come there to sensitize people, they
won’t take note” [the context setters with high power, but low interest]. This was described as affecting
which provincial administration the agricultural extension officers chose to work with, and therefore a
community’s potential involvement in innovation projects, as well access to all of the human, social,
financial, and natural capital that go along with this involvement.
Farmers were also identified as having many opportunities to take on leadership roles and
promote collective action. They could, for example, do this through forming and managing groups for
the purposes of participating in development projects, creating co-operatives, and preparing proposals
for funding. However, farmers’ knowledge of the many routes and opportunities that are available for
them to engage in collective action was identified as likely to affect how local leaders emerge and the

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 11 of 21
extent to which farmers lead innovation initiatives. As it is largely the role of provincial administration
to communicate project opportunities to farming communities, the level of engagement by chiefs and
assistant chiefs beyond the role of context setters (having low interest, high power) was seen as playing
a significant role in agricultural innovation. A farmer articulated this as follows:
The community may not be the main problem, but the community may need first to get the
knowledge, to be educated so that they have the interest [high interest, low power]. We do
not have the powers to call meetings
. . .
I have been telling them that I don’t see why they
should rely on the assistant chiefs and the chiefs for meetings because they have a role to
play in agriculture. If they only told us, we want to come and talk to the community down
there, we ourselves could organize and they could come and talk. But they say no we cannot
come unless the chief, the assistant chiefs call the meeting. I have been telling them they have
to break away from this protocol . . .
Despite these challenges, the individual leadership of local NGOs, agricultural extension officers,
and researchers was also discussed as playing an important role in how agricultural innovation
projects are carried out and therefore their impacts on the community. When stakeholders were
more engaged, appropriately trained, and supported in their efforts then mutual trust and respect
were described as growing, facilitating collaboration and communication in support of innovation
(see also [
97
]). These relationships were also identified as improving the success of future projects.
In cases where a community’s trust had been diminished through improper management of expectations
and poor communication, new innovation initiatives were described as being more likely to face
community dissent. For example, in Yatta Sub-county, previous attempts at introducing new varieties
of sorghum created unexpected and negative outcomes for participating communities, including what
many farmers considered wasted labor resources. This can result in an undesirable situation where
vulnerable participants would fail to influence decisions that affect their lives and livelihoods (high
interest, low power). This was described as resulting in a lack of trust, with the affected communities
resisting (at the time of our interviews) efforts to introduce new crop varieties which have the potential
to enhance their food production. Such a situation highlights the important leadership role that NGOs,
agricultural extension officers, and researchers working directly to empower communities can play in
agricultural innovation, by managing community expectations and ensuring appropriate engagement
and support.
4.3. Stakeholder Positions on Learning and Innovation
Our research participants described a wide range of potential advantages accruing to each
stakeholder through improved agricultural system innovation, particularly as conceptualized in the
ASDS (2010) [
52
]—as the commercialization and modernization of small-scale agriculture for increased
income generation. However, there were also clear disadvantages identified (see Table 3for a summary
of the advantages and disadvantages for each stakeholder group). For some groups, such as elected
officials and members of the provincial administration, participants felt that there were personal
advantages associated with not supporting agricultural system innovation due to conflicts of interest
among context setters (high power, low interest). Larger private sector operators did not have influence
in Yatta Sub-county, which may be partially explained by financial disincentives due to the high levels
of poverty and low purchasing capacity among smallholder farmers and the low levels of infrastructure
which make profits very difficult to realize. Interestingly, for most non-farmer stakeholder groups,
the ASDS (2010) [
52
] vision of agricultural innovation was seen as being well aligned with their own
mandate, with most concerns relating to the potential for conflicts between their own organizational
objectives and those of the communities.

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 12 of 21
Table 3.
Advantages and disadvantages associated with agricultural innovation as defined by the
Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) for each stakeholder group.
Stakeholder Group Position on Learning and Innovation
Advantages Disadvantages
Farmers Potential increases in yields, income
generation, and food security.
Risks associated with investing time,
labor, income, and other resources.
Farmer Groups Potential for collective action to
negotiate for community objectives.
Risk of corruption within group
management;
Risk of project failure once external
support is removed.
Government of Kenya
Elected Officials Mandate to assist in development
efforts for the betterment of the
community.
Resources can be used to achieve
personal political goals.

Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock,
and Fisheries (MoA)
Mandate to end hunger and increase
economic growth through increased
agricultural production in small-scale
farming.
Potential conflict between policies that
are beneficial at the national level or
for big industry (coffee, tea, sugar) but
detrimental at the local level or to
small-scale agroecological farming.
- Agricultural Extension
Mandate to assist farmers in becoming
self-sufficient and increase agricultural
production in small-scale farming.
Potential conflict between balancing
project and community objectives.
Other Ministries/Departments
- Provincial Administration Mandate to assist in development
efforts for the betterment of the
community.
Resources can be used to achieve
personal goals.
Research Organizations Mandate to get new knowledge and
technology to end-users.
Potential conflict between pushing
new knowledge and technology and
allowing farmers to determine project
objectives through co-creation.
Local Nongovernment Organizations
(NGOs)
Mandate to assist in development
efforts for the betterment of the
community.
Potential conflicts between meeting
objectives defined by funding
agencies and community objectives.
International Donors
Various mandates to assist in
development efforts for the
betterment of communities.
Potential conflicts between meeting
externally defined objectives and
community objectives.
Private Sector
Getting products to end-users;
Increasing market demand for
products.
Not financially beneficial to focus on
small-scale farmers who do not have
the resources or access to credit to
purchase products.
The largest disadvantages associated with supporting the ASDS (2010) [
52
] vision for agricultural
innovation were attributed to smallholder farmers, both those in groups and those outside groups.
These stakeholders are the ones whose livelihoods are at stake and whose limited capital assets need
to be invested. They therefore risk the most in efforts to modernize their farming systems. They are,
however, also the group with the most to gain from agricultural system innovation or structural change
through increased opportunity, efficiency, yields, income, household food security, and resilience to
the negative effects of environmental change. Nevertheless, the commercialized version of agriculture
being pushed by some stakeholder groups primarily interested in farmer profit maximization conflicted
with how many farmers viewed farming. For example, selling agricultural products was described
by many smallholder farmers as a coping strategy in times of food insecurity rather than a viable
business option.
Farmers were therefore reported as being sometimes disinterested in forming groups and
participating in innovation projects when they did not see the potential for immediate returns on
their time investment (low interest, low power). A farmer captured this sentiment when describing

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 13 of 21
what went wrong with one particular innovation initiative in his community: “They were saying
they can’t be coming, wasting time. They were not refunded. They were not given food. So they
were not seeing what they would benefit
. . .
So they stopped coming.” This points to a need for
greater time, open discussion, and careful attention being paid to the various stakeholder objectives for
agricultural innovation.
4.4. Empowerment of Minority Coalitions for Learning and Innovation
Overall, despite the increase in participatory innovation projects being undertaken by
many stakeholder groups in Yatta Sub-county, smallholder farmers were identified as remaining
under-empowered in the agricultural innovation system (see Figure 4). Our research participants
identified that there were few functional channels available to farmers for openly communicating their
knowledge, needs, and objectives to those responsible for facilitating collective agricultural innovation.
As a result, the need for values and beliefs to be well-aligned in order to facilitate project success
was predominantly being achieved through farmers aligning their objectives with the innovation
project objectives, and rarely the other way around. The power to drive innovation in this context
was identified as resting in the hands of those powerful stakeholders who define the policy objectives,
distribute resources, and have the ability to mobilize collective action through leadership. What makes
a difference is whether these stakeholders choose be context setters, as most elected officials were
reported to be (high power, low interest), or turn into genuinely interested players (high power, high
interest), such as government researchers in our study.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 461 13 of 20
Farmers were therefore reported as being sometimes disinterested in forming groups and
participating in innovation projects when they did not see the potential for immediate returns on
their time investment (low interest, low power). A farmer captured this sentiment when describing
what went wrong with one particular innovation initiative in his community: “They were saying they
can’t be coming, wasting time. They were not refunded. They were not given food. So they were not
seeing what they would benefit… So they stopped coming.” This points to a need for greater time,
open discussion, and careful attention being paid to the various stakeholder objectives for
agricultural innovation.
4.4. Empowerment of Minority Coalitions for Learning and Innovation
Overall, despite the increase in participatory innovation projects being undertaken by many
stakeholder groups in Yatta Sub-county, smallholder farmers were identified as remaining under-
empowered in the agricultural innovation system (see Figure 4). Our research participants identified
that there were few functional channels available to farmers for openly communicating their
knowledge, needs, and objectives to those responsible for facilitating collective agricultural
innovation. As a result, the need for values and beliefs to be well-aligned in order to facilitate project
success was predominantly being achieved through farmers aligning their objectives with the
innovation project objectives, and rarely the other way around. The power to drive innovation in this
context was identified as resting in the hands of those powerful stakeholders who define the policy
objectives, distribute resources, and have the ability to mobilize collective action through leadership.
What makes a difference is whether these stakeholders choose be context setters, as most elected
officials were reported to be (high power, low interest), or turn into genuinely interested players
(high power, high interest), such as government researchers in our study.
Figure 4. Stakeholder groups’ relative power to drive innovation within the agricultural system based
on levels of access to knowledge and other platform resources, and leadership; circle size represents
interest in agricultural innovation (the larger the circle, the higher the interest), circle shading
represents stakeholder groupings, and connecting lines represent reported interactions between
stakeholder groups.
Figure 4.
Stakeholder groups’ relative power to drive innovation within the agricultural system
based on levels of access to knowledge and other platform resources, and leadership; circle size
represents interest in agricultural innovation (the larger the circle, the higher the interest), circle shading
represents stakeholder groupings, and connecting lines represent reported interactions between
stakeholder groups.
In Yatta Sub-county the groups with high power were identified as the elected officials, the
provincial administrators, and the Government of Kenya, including the MoA and Agricultural
Extension and Advisory Services. These more powerful stakeholders, shown in Figure 4, were
in most cases described as disinterested context setters within agricultural innovation initiatives.
For farmers, what mattered the most was whether an incumbent regime could facilitate collective

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 14 of 21
action for agricultural innovation and sustainable development in Yatta Sub-county. Our results
suggest that the incumbent actors were either players in their own right (high interest, high power) or
context setters (high power, low interest) when it comes to an agricultural innovation initiative. Both
types of stakeholders could be responsible for sub-optimal results or inaction (either responsible or
irresponsible), unless they were genuinely interested in empowering the vulnerable actors who were
often viewed as subjects (high interest, low power) or mobilizing disinterested crowds (low power,
low interest). A farmer described the situation facing local community members as follows:
They do not have that capacity to confront the MP. They just tend to keep quiet
. . .
according
to the former way of ruling those chiefs and administrators they were the ones who were
telling people not to speak anything about these people. So due to that you find that the
community still has that mentality even though the constitution has changed. They don’t
have that freedom to air their grievances, or problems
. . .
this will take place only if they are
sensitized to their rights.
Importantly, smallholder farmers in Yatta Sub-county reported increasing ability to define their
own innovation objectives, visions, and interests. However, they would not be able to challenge those
in power unless they mobilize minority stakeholders as a group against inaction or raise resources in
favor of a preferred policy change. For example, within one agricultural innovation project a farmers’
group was empowered to select which crop they would like to focus their efforts on, ultimately choosing
green grams over a list of other options. This represented an increase in their level of power in learning
and innovation, although they were unable to affect the broader project objective of commercializing
small-scale agriculture by promoting the selling and marketing of a list of pre-determined crops. In this
way, participation often requires locals to ‘fit in’ to external ideas and beliefs of what an appropriate
platform looks like [
98
] in order to access information or technology. Nevertheless, an NGO worker
expressed his view as follows, “If we compare the current policies, which the government has put in
place, they are better by far”, a sentiment shared among most stakeholders interviewed in our study.
Our case study points to the potential for stakeholder participation in agriculture development
initiatives to reinforce policy goals that are misaligned with the objectives of smallholder farmers [
44
].
In Yatta Sub-county, agricultural innovation was being defined in terms of commercializing and
modernizing small-scale agriculture in line with the ASDS (2010) [
52
], and subsequently driving the
types of initiatives being proposed and implemented by agricultural extension officers and researchers.
What was missing in this supply-side focus is that the farmers do not necessarily produce for the
market, although the introduction of commercial crops can generate extra income for them to meet
other essential services, such as school fees and medical expenses [
63
]. While we found provisions for
farmers to have a voice in policy and programs, through the establishment of local committees that
can define priorities and areas of financial focus, our results suggest that in practice these committees,
as minority coalitions—within or outside the purview of dominant coalitions—may remain inactive
(irresponsibly or otherwise) unless they are empowered to advocate for their shared identity, interests,
and beliefs. Such coalitions can be formed within an innovation platform to empower vulnerable
stakeholders from within or forming a parallel, often competing, innovation platform to negotiate with
the dominant actors from outside. Positive outcomes may result from adopting inclusive definitions of
legitimate stakeholders and ensuring an explicit focus on the empowerment of marginalized groups
from the very beginning of agricultural innovation initiatives (see [99]).
4.5. Mobilization of Platform Resources
Respondents described that the decisions of powerful stakeholders determine farmers’ access
to resources beyond knowledge, including farm inputs, such as fertilizer or new seed varieties, new
devices for post-harvest processing and storage, and livestock vaccinations. As long as these powerful
actors remain context setters, without a genuine interest in making a difference ‘on the ground’, those
representing the dominant coalitions may choose inaction, which could be responsible or irresponsible

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 15 of 21
inaction. Similar to knowledge (human capital), other resources (social, political, financial, physical, and
sometimes natural capital) are channeled through agricultural innovation projects to farmers working
within groups [
97
]. However, beyond direct project involvement, politically powerful stakeholders,
such as elected officials and members of the provincial administration, local chiefs and assistant
chiefs, were also identified as playing a large role in deciding where resources get channeled. Elected
officials were identified as having considerable influence when determining which local initiatives
were funded, and where, through their control of the Constituency Development Fund (CDF). These
public funds were available to local initiatives, through the submission of a proposal to a committee,
for all development activities. However, our participants indicated that elected officials ultimately
controlled which projects received funding and expressed concerns over the potential for capture if
appropriate checks and balances were not in place. This was a sensitive issue for our participants;
however, in response to questions about how political influence exerted by Members of Parliament
(MPs) affected project funding, one chief replied, “Yes, that is there; it is there. There is always that
political influence.” Another respondent, who was a government researcher, speculated: “MPs don’t
see what we see because sometimes they look at it like they want that community to be hungry so that
they can be getting relief (aid). So sometimes it depends on which MP.”
Chiefs and assistant chiefs were also involved in the distribution of relief seeds along with the
provision of security services, and there was a similar potential for unfair dealings raised by our
respondents. Additionally, chiefs and assistant chiefs were often directly involved in determining
which farmer groups become involved in agricultural innovation projects, as agricultural extension
officers and researchers generally worked with them to identify potential farmers’ groups that could
be included in their projects. In our study area, individuals who were already disadvantaged by
provincial administrators who did not facilitate their engagement in community collective action may
become further marginalized by their likely exclusion from agricultural innovation initiatives. This
finding is also supported by Lebel et al. [
100
] who, after analyzing multiple case studies, concluded
that authority figures with legitimate power can be very influential in preventing the marginalization
of vulnerable groups.
While innovation platforms can offer a practical way to mobilize collective innovation resources
through capacity building, the formation of networks and trust, articulating demands and objectives,
negotiating with other stakeholders, sharing knowledge, and advocating for policy change [
11
], without
thoroughly considering existing power dynamics, they risk falling short of their stated participation
and responsible innovation objectives [1].
5. Conclusions
The challenges facing many of Kenya’s rural communities, including widespread poverty and
household food insecurity, make increasing the productivity of the agricultural sector a high government
priority. The agricultural policies and programs that have been put in place tend to emphasize the
importance of building stakeholder linkages and ensuring the participation of small-scale farmers in
driving innovation and economic growth. Within this context, innovation platforms have been identified
as a viable way to promote technological innovation and market access in rural Kenya [
101
]. However,
the extent to which they also account for the more intangible and normative institutional aspects of
empowering vulnerable smallholder farmers remains unclear. Depending on who leads an innovation
initiative, with what interests and beliefs, existing power structures will be reinforced or challenged to
varying degrees. While innovation platforms may create inclusive spaces for participation, dominant
stakeholders with legitimate power and privilege can reinforce the trajectory of modernization and
commercialization for their own interests and benefits [
1
]. Community-led initiatives can be an answer
to irresponsible innovation or inaction, but their success depends on platform members’ capacity
to negotiate with more powerful stakeholders to initiate and mainstream responsible innovation
initiatives [
9
]. Our empirical case study suggests that unless vulnerable stakeholders are empowered
through the formation of minority coalitions within or outside a formal innovation platform, existing

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 16 of 21
power dynamics have the potential to result in tokenistic participation of vulnerable stakeholders
and the interests of stakeholders holding positions of legitimate power and privilege being advanced.
Research results revealed substantial asymmetries between smallholder farmers and other stakeholder
groups, including access to and control over human and other (social, financial, physical, and natural)
forms of capital, the leadership to mobilize collective action, the prioritizing of objectives, and the
resulting power, interests, and beliefs to drive and direct change and innovation within and beyond
their communities. The potential for further marginalizing disempowered groups and reinforcing
existing power hierarchies should be of interest to those looking to implement responsible innovation
interventions, particularly given the historically entrenched, highly bureaucratic institutions that
regulate development activities in rural Kenya. Forming minority coalitions within or outside of an
innovation initiative can put vulnerable stakeholders in a better position to advocate for their rights
and effectively articulate their concerns. The challenge, however, is not only the empowerment of
vulnerable stakeholders, but also creating a sense of urgency among powerful stakeholders who serve
as context setters. Based on our findings, these issues may include how to practically deal with power
asymmetries between stakeholders, advocate for disempowered groups, and avoid conforming to the
objectives of those holding positions of authority, despite their legitimate influence within innovation,
change, and decision-making processes.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, C.M.E., L.P.P. and G.M.H.; methodology, C.M.E. and G.M.H.; formal
analysis, C.M.E.; investigation, C.M.E.; resources, G.M.H. and C.M.E.; writing—original draft preparation, C.M.E.;
writing—review and editing, C.M.E. L.P.P. and G.M.H.; visualization, C.M.E.; supervision, G.M.H.; project
administration, C.M.E. and G.M.H.; funding acquisition, G.M.H. and C.M.E. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This work was carried out with the aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre
(IDRC), Ottawa, Canada, and with the financial support of the Government of Canada provided through Foreign
Affairs, Trade and Development Canada (DFATD). C.M.E. would also like to acknowledge the additional funding
support she received through an IDRC Doctoral Research Award 2012–2013 and the Margaret A. Gilliam Graduate
Fellowship 2013–2014, McGill University. G.M.H. acknowledges the funding support provided through the
William Dawson Scholar Award, McGill University.
Acknowledgments:
We are grateful to our research participants for donating their valuable time and energy to
our study. We would also like to thank the research assistants George Nzioka. This research was completed as
part of a project titled Enhancing Ecologically Resilient Food Security in the Semi-Arid Midlands of Kenya, led by
McGill University and the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (Principal Investigators: Gordon M. Hickey and
Lutta W. Muhammad).
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.
References
1.
Cullen, B.; Tucker, J.; Snyder, K.; Lema, Z.; Duncan, A. An analysis of power dynamics within innovation
platforms for natural resource management. Innov. Dev. 2014,4, 259–275. [CrossRef]
2.
Klerkx, L.; van Mierlo, B.; Leeuwis, C. Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: Concepts,
analysis and interventions. In Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic; Darnhofer, I.,
Gibbon, D., Dedieu, B., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 457–483.
3.
Spielman, D.J. Innovation Systems Perspectives on Developing-Country Agriculture: A Critical Review.
In International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) Discussion Paper No. 2; International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
4.
Biggs, S.D.; Clay, E.J. Sources of innovation in agricultural technology. World Dev.
1981
,9, 321–336. [CrossRef]
5.
Biggs, S.D. A multiple source of innovation model of agricultural research and technology promotion.
World Dev. 1990,18, 1481–1499. [CrossRef]
6.
Hall, A.; Bockett, G.; Taylor, S.; Sivamohan, M.V.K.; Clark, N. Why Research Partnerships Really Matter:
Innovation Theory, Institutional Arrangements and Implications for Developing New Technology for the
Poor. World Dev. 2001,29, 783–797. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 17 of 21
7.
Hall, A.; Rasheed Sulaiman, V.; Clark, N.; Yoganand, B. From measuring impact to learning institutional
lessons: An innovation systems perspective on improving the management of international agricultural
research. Agric. Syst. 2003,78, 213–241. [CrossRef]
8.
Pigford, A.; Hickey, G.M.; Klerkx, L. Beyond Agricultural Innovation Systems? Exploring an Agricultural
Innovation Ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions. Agric. Syst.
2018,164, 116–121. [CrossRef]
9.
Schut, M.; Cadilhon, J.-J.; Misiko, M.; Dror, A.I. Do mature innovation platforms make a difference in
agricultural research for development? A meta-analysis of case studies. Exp. Agric.
2018
,54, 96–119.
[CrossRef]
10.
Schut, M.; Kamanda, J.; Gramzow, A.; Dubois, T.; Stoian, D.; Andersson, J.A.; Dror, I.; Sartas, M.; Mur, R.;
Kassam, S.; et al. Innovation platforms in agricultural research for development: Ex-ante appraisal of the
purposes and conditions under which innovation platforms can contribute to agricultural development
outcomes. Exp. Agric. 2018,55, 575–596. [CrossRef]
11.
Kilelu, C.W.; Klerkx, L.; Leeuwis, C. Unravelling the role of innovation platforms in supporting co-evolution
of innovation: Contributions and tensions in a smallholder dairy development programme. Agric. Syst.
2013,118, 65–77. [CrossRef]
12.
Klerkx, L.; Aarts, N.; Leeuwis, C. Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions
between innovation networks and their environment. Agric. Syst. 2010,103, 390–400. [CrossRef]
13.
Klerkx, L.; Leeuwis, C. Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system
levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technol. Soc. 2009,76, 849–860. [CrossRef]
14.
Kilelu, C.W.; Klerkx, L.; Leeuwis, C.; Hall, A. Beyond knowledge brokering: An exploratory study on
innovation intermediaries in an evolving smallholder agricultural system in Kenya. Knowl. Manag. Dev. J.
2011,7, 84–108. [CrossRef]
15.
Hounkonnou, D.; Kossou, D.; Kuyper, T.W.; Leeuwis, C.; Nederlof, E.S.; Röling, N.; Sakyi-Dawson, O.;
Traor
é
, M.; Huis, A. An innovation systems approach to institutional change: Smallholder development in
West Africa. Agric. Syst. 2012,108, 74–83. [CrossRef]
16.
Nyikahadzoi, K.; Siziba, S.; Mango, N.; Mapfumo, P.; Adekunhle, A.; Fatunbi, O. Creating food self reliance
among the smallholder farmers of eastern Zimbabwe: Exploring the role of integrated agricultural research
for development. Food Secur. 2012,4, 647–656. [CrossRef]
17.
Struik, P.C.; Klerkx, L.; van Huis, A.; Röling, N.G. Institutional change towards sustainable agriculture in
West Africa. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2014,12, 203–213. [CrossRef]
18.
Foran, T.; Butler, J.R.A.; Williams, L.J.; Wanjura, W.J.; Hall, A.; Carter, L.; Carberry, P. Taking Complexity in
Food Systems Seriously: An Interdisciplinary Analysis. World Dev. 2014,61, 85–101. [CrossRef]
19.
Saint Ville, A.S.; Hickey, G.M.; Locher, U.; Phillip, L.E. Exploring the role of social capital in influencing
knowledge flows and innovation in smallholder farming communities in the Caribbean. Food Secur.
2016
,8,
535–549. [CrossRef]
20.
Tompkins, E.L.; Adger, W. Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate
change? Ecol. Soc. 2004,9, 10. [CrossRef]
21.
Swaans, K.; Boogaard, B.; Bendapudi, R.; Taye, H.; Hendrickx, S.; Klerkx, L. Operationalizing inclusive
innovation: Lessons from innovation platforms in livestock value chains in India and Mozambique. Innov. Dev.
2014,4, 239–257. [CrossRef]
22.
Amaru, S.; Chhetri, N.B. Climate adaptation: Institutional response to environmental constraints, and the
need for increased flexibility, participation, and integration of approaches. Appl. Geogr.
2013
,39, 128–139.
[CrossRef]
23.
Pereira, L.; Ruysenaar, S. Moving from traditional government to new adaptive governance: The changing
face of food security responses in South Africa. Food Secur. 2012,4, 41–58. [CrossRef]
24.
Bahadur, A.; Tanner, T. Transformational resilience thinking: Putting people, power and politics at the heart
of urban climate resilience. Environ. Urban. 2014,26, 200–214. [CrossRef]
25.
Cote, M.; Nightingale, A.J. Resilience thinking meets social theory Situating social change in socio-ecological
systems (SES) research. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2012,36, 475–489. [CrossRef]
26.
Turner Ii, B.L. Vulnerability and resilience: Coalescing or paralleling approaches for sustainability science?
Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010,20, 570–576. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 18 of 21
27.
Mulema, A.A.; Mazur, R.E. Motivation and participation in multi-stakeholder innovation platforms in the
Great Lakes Region of Africa. Community Dev. J. 2016,51, 212–228. [CrossRef]
28.
Chambers, R. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last; Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd (ITP):
London, UK, 1997.
29.
Cornwall, A.; Pratt, G. The use and abuse of participatory rural appraisal: Reflections from practice.
Agric. Hum. Values 2011,28, 263–272. [CrossRef]
30.
Chambers, R. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Analysis of experience. World Dev.
1994
,22, 1253–1268.
[CrossRef]
31.
Kenmore, P.E. How rice farmers clean up the environment conserve biodiversity raise more food make
higher profits. Indonesia’s integrated pest management—A model for Asia. In FAO Inter-country Program
for the Development and Application of Integrated Pest Control in Rice in South and South-east Asia; FAO: Metro
Manila, Philippines, 1991.
32.
Cornwall, A. Unpacking ‘Participation’: Models, meanings and practices. Community Dev. J.
2008
,43,
269–283. [CrossRef]
33. Arnstein, S.R. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1969,35, 216–224. [CrossRef]
34.
Ashby, J.A. What do We Mean by Participatory Research in Agriculture? 1997. Available
online: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/55892/S540.8.C4_N4_C3_International_seminar_
on_participatory_Research_and_Gender.pdf?sequence=1(accessed on 29 October 2019).
35.
Biggs, S.D. Resource-Poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of Experiences from Nine National
Agricultural Research Systems (No. 0185–0601); International Service for National Agricultural Research:
The Hague, The Netherlands, 1989.
36.
Lambrou, Y.; Ashby, J.A. A Typology: Participatory Research and Gender Analysis in
Natural Resource Management Research. Cali, Colombia 2000. Available online: https:
//cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/69998/A_Typology_Participatory_Research_Gender_Analysis_
Natural_Resource_Management.pdf?sequence=1(accessed on 29 October 2019).
37. Pretty, J.N. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Dev. 1995,23, 1247–1263. [CrossRef]
38.
Neef, A.; Neubert, D. Stakeholder participation in agricultural research projects: A conceptual framework
for reflection and decision-making. Agric. Hum. Values 2011,28, 179–194. [CrossRef]
39. Cooke, B.; Kothari, U. Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed Books: London, UK, 2001.
40.
Agarwal, B. Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a
Conceptual Framework. World Dev. 2001,29, 1623–1648. [CrossRef]
41.
Kellert, S.R.; Mehta, J.N.; Ebbin, S.A.; Lichtenfeld, L.L. Community natural resource management: Promise,
rhetoric, and reality. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2000,13, 705–715.
42.
Leach, M.; Mearns, R.; Scoones, I. Environmental entitlements: Dynamics and institutions in community-based
natural resource management. World Dev. 1999,27, 225–247. [CrossRef]
43.
Michener, V.J. The participatory approach: Contradiction and co-option in Burkina Faso. World Dev.
1998
,26,
2105–2118. [CrossRef]
44.
Bruges, M.; Smith, W. Participatory approaches for sustainable agriculture: A contradiction in terms?
Agric. Hum. Values 2008,25, 13–23. [CrossRef]
45.
Williams, G. Evaluating participatory development: Tyranny, power and (re) politicisation. Third World Q.
2004,25, 557–578. [CrossRef]
46.
Holling, C.S.; Meffe, G.K. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management.
Conserv. Biol. 1996,10, 328–337. [CrossRef]
47.
Reed, M.S. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biol. Conserv.
2008,141, 2417–2431. [CrossRef]
48.
KFSSG. The 2014 Long Rains Season Assessment Report; Government of Kenya: Nairobi, Kenya, 2014.
Available online: https://reliefweb.int/report/kenya/2014-long-rains-season-assessment-report-august-2014
(accessed on 29 October 2019).
49.
Government of Kenya (GoK). Constitution of Kenya; Government of Kenya: Nairobi, Kenya, 2010. Available
online: http://kenyalaw.org/kl/index.php?id=398 (accessed on 29 October 2019).
50.
GoK. Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation 2003–2007; Government of Kenya:
Nairobi, Kenya, 2003. Available online: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/KENYAEXTN/Resources/ERS.pdf
(accessed on 29 October 2019).

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 19 of 21
51.
GoK. Kenya Vision 2030; Government of Kenya: Nairobi, Kenya, 2008. Available online: https://vision2030.go.
ke/(accessed on 29 October 2019).
52.
GoK. Agricultural Sector Development Strategy 2010–2020; Government of Kenya: Nairobi, Kenya, 2010.
Available online: http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/ken140935.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2019).
53.
Miruka, M.; Okello, J.; Kirigua, V.; Murithi, F. The role of the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) in
the attainment of household food security in Kenya: A policy and organizational review. Food Sec.
2012
,4,
341–354. [CrossRef]
54.
Müller, C.; Cramer, W.; Hare, W.L.; Lotze-Campen, H. Climate change risks for African agriculture. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 2011,108, 4313–4315. [CrossRef]
55.
Hickey, G.M.; Pelletier, B.; Brownhill, L.; Kamau, G.; Maina, I. Preface: Challenges and opportunities for
enhancing food security in Kenya. Food Sec. 2012,4, 333–340. [CrossRef]
56. MAFAP. Review of Food and Agricultural Policies in Kenya; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013.
57.
Brownhill, L.; Moturi, T.; Hickey, G.M. Accountability and citizen participation in devolved agricultural
policy-making: Insights from Makueni County, Kenya. In Food Security, Gender and Resilience: Improving
Smallholder and Subsistence Farming; Brownhill, L., Njuguna, E., Bothi, K., Pelletier, B., Muhammad, L.W.,
Hickey, G.M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 158–174.
58.
Mburu, K. Effects of Climate Variability and Change on Dry land Agriculture and the Adaptation strategies
by Small Scale Farmers in Yatta District. Ph.D. Thesis, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya, 2013.
59.
Mburu, B.K.; Kung‘u, J.B.; Muriuki, J.N. Effects of climate variability and change on household food
sufficiency among small-scale farmers of Yatta district, Kenya. J. Environ. 2014,3, 19–27.
60.
Bukania, Z.N.; Mwangi, M.; Karanja, R.M.; Mutisya, R.; Kombe, Y.; Kaduka, L.U.; Johns, T. Food Insecurity
and Not Dietary Diversity Is a Predictor of Nutrition Status in Children within Semiarid Agro-Ecological
Zones in Eastern Kenya. J. Nutr. Metab. 2014,2014, 9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61.
Po, J.Y.T.; Bukania, Z.; Muhammad, L.; Hickey, G.M. Associations between maternal participation in
agricultural decision-making and child nutrition in semi-arid Kenya. J. Hunger. Environ. Nutr.
2019
, 1–26.
[CrossRef]
62.
Nelson, H.D.; Kaplan, I. Kenya, a Country Study; Area Handbook Series; United States Government Printing:
Washington, DC, USA, 1983.
63.
Po, J.Y.T.; Hickey, G.M. Local institutions and smallholder women’s access to land resources in semi-arid
Kenya. Land Use Pol. 2018,76, 252–263. [CrossRef]
64.
Muhammad, L.W.; Maina, I.N.; Pelletier, B.; Hickey, G.M. A participatory and integrated agricultural
extension approach to enhancing farm resilience through innovation and gender equity. In Food Security,
Gender and Resilience: Improving Smallholder and Subsistence Farming; Brownhill, L., Njuguna, E., Bothi, K.,
Pelletier, B., Muhammad, L.W., Hickey, G.M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 35–61.
65.
Benedetto, G.; Carboni, D.; Corinto, G.L. The Stakeholder Analysis: A Contribution toward Improving
Impact of Rural Policy. In Agricultural Cooperative Management and Policy; Zopounidis, C., Kalogeras, N.,
Mattas, K., van Dijk, G., Baourakis, G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014;
pp. 179–196.
66.
Grimble, R.; Wellard, K. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: A review of principles,
contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agric. Syst. 1997,55, 173–193. [CrossRef]
67.
Grimble, R.; Chan, M.-K. Stakeholder analysis for natural resource management in developing countries.
Nat. Resour. Forum 1995,19, 113–124. [CrossRef]
68.
Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK,
2010.
69.
Brugha, R.; Varvasovszky, Z. Stakeholder analysis: A review. Health Policy Plan.
2000
,15, 239–246. [CrossRef]
70.
Prell, C.; Hubacek, K.; Reed, M. Stakeholder Analysis and Social Network Analysis in Natural Resource
Management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2009,22, 501–518. [CrossRef]
71.
Mitchell, R.K.; Agle, B.R.; Wood, D.J. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining
the principle of who and what really counts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1997,22, 853–886. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 20 of 21
72.
Reed, M.S.; Graves, A.; Dandy, N.; Posthumus, H.; Hubacek, K.; Morris, J.; Prell, C.; Quinn, C.H.; Stringer, L.C.
Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management.
J. Environ. Manag. 2009,90, 1933–1949. [CrossRef]
73. Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Pitman Publishing: Boston, MA, USA, 1984.
74.
Schmeer, K. Guidelines for Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis; PHR, Abt Associates: Bethesda, MA, USA, 1999.
75.
Rastogi, A.; Badola, R.; Hussain, S.A.; Hickey, G.M. Assessing the utility of stakeholder analysis to Protected
Areas management: The case of Corbett National Park, India. Biol. Conserv.
2010
,143, 2956–2964. [CrossRef]
76.
Ackermann, F.; Eden, C. Strategic Management of Stakeholders: Theory and Practice. Long Range Plan.
2011
,
44, 179–196. [CrossRef]
77.
Guston, D.H. Responsible innovation: Who could be against that? J. Responsible Innov.
2015
,2, 1–4. [CrossRef]
78.
de Hoop, E.; Pols, A.; Romijn, H. Limits of responsible innovation. J. Responsible Innov.
2016
,3, 110–134.
[CrossRef]
79.
Berg, B.L.; Lune, H. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA, 2006;
Volume 5.
80. Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Research; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005.
81.
Wengraf, T. Qualitative Research Interviewing: Biographic Narrative and Semi-Structured Methods;
Sage Publications: Oaks, CA, USA, 2001.
82.
Maxwell, J.A. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA,
USA, 2012; Volume 41.
83.
Hill, C.E.; Knox, S.; Thompson, B.J.; Williams, E.N.; Hess, S.A.; Ladany, N. Consensual qualitative research:
An update. J. Couns. Psychol. 2005,52, 196. [CrossRef]
84.
Glaser, B.G.; Strauss, A.L. Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research; Routledge: London,
UK, 1967.
85.
Fereday, J.; Muir-Cochrane, E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive
and deductive coding and theme development. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2006,5, 80–92. [CrossRef]
86.
Creswell, J.W.; Clark, V.L.P. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research; Sage Publications: Thousand
Oaks, CA, USA, 2007.
87. Johnson, R.B. Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education 1997,118, 282.
88. Varvasovszky, Z.; Brugha, R. A stakeholder analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2000,15, 338–345. [CrossRef]
89.
Yin, R.K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA,
USA, 2017.
90. Friedman, A.L.; Miles, S. Developing stakeholder theory. J. Manag. Stud. 2002,39, 1–21. [CrossRef]
91. Frooman, J. Stakeholder influence strategies. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1999,24, 191–205. [CrossRef]
92. Friedman, A.L.; Miles, S. Stakeholders: Theory and Practice; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006.
93.
Mayunga, J.S. Understanding and Applying the Concept of Community Disaster Resilience: A Capital-based
Approach; Working Paper Prepared for the Summer Academy for Social Vulnerability and Resilience Building;
Munich, Germany, 2007; Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org (accessed on 19 December 2019).
94.
Eidt, C.; Hickey, G.; Curtis, M. Knowledge integration and the adoption of new agricultural technologies:
Kenyan perspectives. Food Sec. 2012,4, 355–367. [CrossRef]
95.
Pant, L.P. Learning and innovation competence in agricultural and rural development. J. Agric. Educ. Ext.
2012,18, 205–230. [CrossRef]
96.
Saint Ville, A.; Hickey, G.M.; Phillip, L.E. Addressing food and nutrition insecurity in the Caribbean through
domestic smallholder farming system innovation. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2015,15, 1325–1339. [CrossRef]
97.
Reed, G.; Hickey, G.M. Contrasting innovation networks in smallholder agricultural producer cooperatives:
Insights from the Niayes Region of Senegal. J. Co-Oper. Organ. Manag. 2016,4, 97–107. [CrossRef]
98.
Olwig, M.F. Multi-sited resilience: The mutual construction of “local” and “global” understandings and
practices of adaptation and innovation. Appl. Geogr. 2012,33, 112–118. [CrossRef]
99.
Berthet, E.T.; Hickey, G.M.; Klerkx, L. Opening design and innovation processes in agriculture: Insights from
design and management sciences and future directions. Agric. Syst. 2018,165, 111–115. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2020,12, 461 21 of 21
100.
Lebel, L.; Anderies, J.M.; Campbell, B.; Folke, C.; Hatfield-Dodds, S.; Hughes, T.P.; Wilson, J. Governance
and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc.
2006
,11, 19. [CrossRef]
101.
Makini, F.W.; Kamau, G.M.; Makelo, M.N.; Adekunle, W.; Mburathi, G.K.; Misiko, M.; Pali, P.; Dixon, J.
Operational Field Guide for Developing and Managing Local Agricultural Innovation Platforms; KARI: Nairobi,
Kenya, 2013; p. 92.
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).