21 pages, via Online Journal, This paper explores the role of regulation and legislation on influencing the development and diffusion of technologies and methods of crop production. To do this, the change in pesticide registration under European Regulation 1107/2009 ‘Placing Plant Protection Products on the Market’ was followed through the UK’s agricultural system of innovation. Fieldwork included: a series of interviews conducted with scientists, agronomists and industry organisations; a programme of visiting agricultural events; as well as sending an electronic survey to British potato growers. The innovation system is noted to have made the legislation less restrictive than originally proposed. The most notable system response to the legislation is the adjustment of agrochemical company pesticide discovery strategy and their expansion into biologically derived treatments. There have also been other innovation responses: agricultural seed companies have been breeding in pathogen resistance in their cultivars; agricultural consultancies are prepared to recommend pathogen-resistant seeds; scientists are using the change as justification for adopting their solutions; the agricultural levy boards funded research into off-label pesticide uses; and producers, potato growers in particular, have been seeking advice, but not changing their growing practices.
7pgs, This essay, which is the third in the series “Recollections, Reflections, and Revelations: Ethnobiologists and their First Time in the Field”, is a personal reflection by the researcher on his experience and involvement in kinship and friendship networks while conducting agrobiodiversity research in southern Appalachia, USA. Vignettes are given from moving moments spent with Native spiritual leaders, backcountry mountain people, and local co-collaborators in the research process. The author demonstrates how lasting field friendships have helped lead to groundbreaking ethnoecological research.
20 pages, via online journal, Purpose: This paper demystifies the processes, methodologies and outputs of three co-design projects, identifying how and to what extent are aims and principles of the multi-actor approach realised and upheld in the field. Implications from the cases for participatory principles are discussed.
Design/Methodology/approach: A detailed ethnographic account is presented of three multi-actor co-design cases, supporting diverse readers’ interpretations and learnings.
Findings: Three paradoxes were identifiable from the multi-actor processes: (1) outputs can be orphaned when they lack strong identifiers and affiliations with discrete professional communities outside of the co-design team; (2) combining diverse knowledges co-design can generate outputs that are new and strange (rather than familiar and acceptable) to end-users; (3) for Responsible Research and Innovation, co-creating interventions that are challenging (rather than popular) to society may be required.
Practical implications: Awareness of dynamics and paradoxes arising in the implementation of multi-actor co-design supports enhanced facilitation of processes and impacts of outcomes. Together, the paradoxes highlight the critical importance of communications and engagement initiatives across diverse communities in the aftermath of co-design efforts.
Theoretical implications: Although co-design processes are case-dependent, reflexive accounts of how they play out contribute to the body of knowledge of how co-design may be better understood. The cases in this paper identify paradoxes with implications for principles and theory of multi-actor co-design.
Originality/Value: This paper presents a detailed account of three unique co-design processes. Practical and theoretical implications of the cases are identified.
