This article was downloaded by: [University of New England], [Ray W. Cooksey]On: 29 June 2011, At: 16:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Agricultural Educationand ExtensionPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raee20

Yours, Mine or Ours: What Counts asInnovation?Ray W. Cooksey aa School of Business, Economics and Public Policy, University ofNew England, Australia

Available online: 29 Jun 2011

To cite this article: Ray W. Cooksey (2011): Yours, Mine or Ours: What Counts as Innovation?, TheJournal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 17:3, 283-295

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2011.559083

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Yours, Mine or Ours: What Counts asInnovation?

RAY W. COOKSEYSchool of Business, Economics and Public Policy, University of New England, Australia

ABSTRACT In this paper, I argue that research and development organizations (R&DOs) haveparticular perspectives on what counts as an innovation whereas the potential adopting usersusually have quite different often diverse perspectives. If these ‘worldviews’ do not overlap or speakto each other, then what R&DOs consider innovative might constitute a waste of time andresources from the potential users’ perspective, thereby negating the entire adoption process.Using complex systems theory and storytelling concepts, I argue that innovation emerges from theconfluence of diverse stories. If, however, the dominant perspectives informing these storiesoriginate from within an R&DO (in-house storytelling), then innovation will occur in a vacuum.Stories from potential adoption contexts external to an R&DO (out-of-house storytelling) needto be integrated into the innovation process at all stages whereupon out-of-house stories areactively sought out and brought into the R&DO (inward flow) and in-house stories are activelyshared within relevant external contexts (outward flow). Juxtaposing in-house and out-of-housestories provides a co-evolving emergent pathway for innovation. The R&DO focuses its energy onneeds/issues highlighted in out-of-house stories, thereby co-constructing the context for innovationand potential adoption. Those providing out-of-house stories become primed for innovationthrough an understanding of in-house stories, thereby co-constructing the adoption context.This paper integrates complex systems and storytelling concepts to provide a unique perspectiveon the innovation process; a process that explicitly harnesses the complex interactive dynamicsbetween R&DOs and adopter contexts.

KEY WORDS: Innovation, Complex systems, Storytelling, Emergence

My goal in this paper is to provoke deeper thinking about the current approaches

(often still linear, despite advances in R&D generation models) that many Research

and Development Organizations (R&DOs) take with respect to innovation and

adoption. I will argue that research and development organizations (R&DOs) have

particular perspectives on what counts as an innovation whereas the potential

adopting users usually have quite different and often diverse perspectives. If these

‘worldviews’ do not overlap or speak to each other, then what R&DOs consider

innovative might constitute a waste of time and resources from the potential users’

perspective, which could negate the entire adoption process.

Correspondence address: Ray W. Cooksey, School of Business, Economics and Public Policy, University of

New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351 Australia. Email: rcooksey@une.edu.au

Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

Vol. 17, No. 3, 283�295, June 2011

1389-224X Print/1750-8622 Online/11/030283-13 # 2011 Wageningen University

DOI: 10.1080/1389224X.2011.559083

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew E

ngla

nd],

[R

ay W

. Coo

ksey

] at

16:

42 2

9 Ju

ne 2

011

For the purposes of this paper, an R&DO will be defined as any group or

organization that has a research and development function that innovates (poten-

tially commercialisable) products or processes. In the area of diffusion and adoption

of innovation, Rogers (1995, 2004) has been the dominant perspective and driver of

practice. More recently, more complex and increasingly participative approaches haveemerged, such as 4th or 5th generation participatory R&D (e.g., Banks, 2008;

Bessant and Venables, 2008; Murray, 2000; Niosi, 1999; Miller and Morris, 1998;

Rothwell, 1994; Thomas, 2010). In the agricultural sector, several such participatory

approaches have emerged (see, for example, Clark et al., 2009; Pannell et al., 2006;

Kroma, 2006). However, a common feature all of these approaches is the tendency to

treat R&DOs, who generate the innovations, and potential adopters, who would use

or benefit from that innovation, as distinct groups, whose roles tend not to overlap. In

the typical linear approach to innovation and adoption, the R&DOs innovate firstthen work on the adoption side of the problem, connecting with potential adopters

rather late in the process, often via an intermediary group such as agricultural

extension officers. The newer approaches, such as 4th and 5th generation R&D,

attempt to overcome the linearity of this process by seeking adopter input further

back in the innovation process, enacting a participatory intent. However, I will argue

here that the linear approach as well as these more recent R&D variants does not go

far enough and that principles can be taken from both the storytelling and

complexity theory literatures to inform a more complex interactive approach tothe entire innovation and adoption process.

R&DOs: The Traditional Context of Innovation

Basic Assumption: Our Innovations Have Intrinsic Value that All Should See

as We are the Experts

The R&DO context is a traditional prime driver of innovation thinking and action.

R&DOs tend to behave as if they are the primary source of ideas for innovation,

largely following established lines of programmes and logic constructed within the

R&DO. They also tend to behave as if they are the primary source of solutions to

problems, often identified by the R&DOs themselves. In the typical culture of an

R&DO, any connection to potential adopters in their contexts tends to occur post-

innovation (see, for example, Kaine, 2008), which implies that any feedback fromadopters will tend to generate a reactive rather than a proactive response. This also

means that pre-innovation connections tend not to be pursued or reinforced. These

modes of behaviour are entirely consistent with the linear innovation adoption process

employed by many R&DOs (what Nowotny et al., 2001, have suggested reflects a

closed research/innovation process). Even with more participatory R&D models such

as 4th generation R&D (Miller and Morris, 1998), the emphasis is placed on

‘adopters’ as (reactive) customers, which implies a largely post-innovation role as well,

albeit with a greater emphasis on feedback loops. In 5th generation R&D (Rothwell,1994), knowledge and collaboration become valued assets, but still largely within the

context of a more highly integrated innovating organization coupled with external

(technologically mediated) networking. While 4th and 5th generation R&D models do

tend to distribute responsibility and input across a wider cross-section of stakeholders

in the innovation process, the innovation process is still not clearly contextually

284 R.W. Cooksey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew E

ngla

nd],

[R

ay W

. Coo

ksey

] at

16:

42 2

9 Ju

ne 2

011

situated. This means that what counts as an innovation in these models will always be

shaped more by those who innovate than by those for whom the innovation is

intended. Such logic does not recognize or value the possibilities for

co-constructing deep and contextually-relevant knowledge for driving innovation (it

should be noted that Russell and Ison, 2000, recognized this contextualizationimperative in their discussion of second-order R&D).

This suggests that an R&DO will likely form a world view that it is the central

anchor point from which innovation springs. This can lead to the creation of a sense-

making (see Seligman, 2006; Weick, 1995; Sneddon, 2008) culture that reflects beliefs

such as ‘we know what’s best’, ‘we know what is needed’ and ‘everyone needs what we

innovate’. This way of making sense of the business of an R&DO shapes not only the

mindset that drives innovation from the R&DO perspective but also the attitudes

toward and approaches to potential adopters as well as toward responsiveness/non-responsiveness to feedback. This sense-making perspective both shapes and is shaped

by the R&DO’s thinking about innovation, ideas and solutions and it influences

resource allocation efforts within the organization.

The sense-making culture, within R&DOs, can be seen to be shaped, reinforced

and spread by the storytelling (e.g., Boyce, 1996; Macleod and Davidson, 2007) that

occurs within the R&DO on a daily basis. We could refer to these stories as in-house,

emerging from within the R&DO as members talk to each other to share meanings

and ideas. In-house stories reflect this sense-making culture and reinforce the post-innovation connection to adopter contexts with an attitude of ‘you need what we have

developed’. Through listening to and interpreting in-house stories, which may

themselves be diverse, depending upon the culture(s) within the organization, we gain

some insights into the mental models, attitudes, beliefs and values that are espoused

by the R&DO members. We may also gain insights into just where, in their sense-

making mental models, adopters and their contexts actually figure in.

The Linear Innovation Adoption Perspective

Basic Assumption: First We Innovate, and Then We Get People to Adopt Our

Innovation

Roger’s conceptualization (1995, 2004) of diffusion of innovation has tended to

dominate the field and invokes a linearized unidirectional innovation*diffusionprocess (with perhaps some attention to user/adopter feedback late in the process).

To illustrate this linear process, consider the following in the context of a hypothetical

agricultural innovation, such as a new process for genetically modifying grain seeds,

designed to produce a plant that locusts will find distasteful to consume.

. The R&DO conducts the requisite genetic and entomological research and

innovates by building upon that research.

. The resulting innovation may be commercialized for diffusion and adoption;this process may occur after a range of field trials.

. The innovation is diffused through extension and marketing processes and may

be targeted to specific adoption markets.

. The innovation is adopted by target groups (at various rates depending upon

the category of adopter (e.g. innovator, early adopter, laggard*see Rogers,

Yours, Mine or Ours 285

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew E

ngla

nd],

[R

ay W

. Coo

ksey

] at

16:

42 2

9 Ju

ne 2

011

1995) and contextual factors surrounding adopters, see, for example, Waarts,

van Everdingen and van Hillegersberg, 2002).

The top diagram in Figure 1 depicts this linear innovation and adoption process with

respect to one R&DO and two possible adoption contexts, A and B (these contexts

could be, for example, two different types of grain growers, wheat and sorghum). The

positioning of in-house stories within the R&DO and out-of-house stories within

each adoption context is clearly shown.

Furthermore, we can assume that there may be some overlap between adoption

contexts A and B, by virtue of the common thread of grain growing, which the

innovation would seem relevant to. This overlap would allow two-way cross-sharing

of respective out-of-house stories between contexts A and B as members of each

context converse with each other (symbolized by the dashed line boundaries around

each adopter context). The R&DO commercializes their genetic modification process

and embarks on extension activities to stimulate adoption in contexts A and B. The

only flow of stories between the R&DO and the potential adoption contexts is

outward in the linear approach, which means that adopter contexts are simply

confronted by the meaning the innovation holds for the R&DO but the R&DO is not

sensitized to the meaning of such an innovation in the individual A and B contexts.

The in-house stories would be relatively immune to the influences of out-of-house

stories, except perhaps for very late post-innovation (inward flow) influences based

on feedback from contexts A and B; influences that occur far too late in the process

The Non-linear Complexity Perspectiveon the Innovation Adoption Process

•Innovation emerges & acquires meaning for both R&DO& potential adopters

•Perspective changes likely •Adoption chances enhanced

The Linear Perspective on theInnovation Adoption Process

•Innovation meaning constructedby R&DO & sold to potential adopters

•Perspective changes minimal•‘Hit-or-Miss’Adoption

PotentialAdopter Context A

‘Out-of-HouseStories’

PotentialAdopter Context B

‘Out-of-HouseStories’

R&DO‘In-House Stories’

PotentialAdopter Context A

‘Out-of-HouseStories’

PotentialAdopter Context B

‘Out-of-HouseStories’

R&DO‘In-House Stories’

stimulate adoptionOutward Flow to

Outward Flow tostimulate adoption

Post-Innovation Inward Flow (feedback)

286 R.W. Cooksey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew E

ngla

nd],

[R

ay W

. Coo

ksey

] at

16:

42 2

9 Ju

ne 2

011

to influence any shared meaning for the innovation. Equally, the out-of-house stories

would actively resist the influence of the in-house stories because they would make

little sense in A and B’s individual contexts (what Cannarella and Piccioni, 2010, have

called ‘territorial inertia’); rather they would seem like impositions or even as active

attempts to ‘convert’ members of the A and B adoption contexts to the R&DO’s wayof thinking about the innovation. This would likely lead to a ‘hit-or-miss’ adoption

pattern with much lower adoption rates than the R&DO might have originally

envisaged.

Contexts of Potential Adoption

Basic Assumption: For Us to Adopt an Innovation, it Must Meet Our Needs

in the Ways We Need it to in the Context(s) We Have to Work Within

It is entirely plausible to argue that potential adoption contexts will have evolved very

different sense-making cultures, emerging out of the dynamic confluence of potential

adopter experiences and local contextual issues and problems. Innovations may not

be seen to have intrinsic value. Such sense-making cultures may reflect very different

perspectives and attitudes toward an R&DO and the ‘innovations’ it produces,compared to what the R&DO itself holds. In many cases, this perspective could be

quite cynical, for example, ‘they’re doing it to us again’ or ‘they’re not doing anything

I need’, reflecting the view and perhaps even regret at the evident disconnect between

the R&DO producing the innovation and themselves as the ‘target’ of the innovation.

This regret could well signal a need to be involved in pre-innovation conversations

with R&DOs to enhance congruence between innovation and local needs and

contextual constraints. While it is true that 4th and 5th generation R&D models are

designed to break down this disconnect in various ways through, for example,feedback mechanisms, collaborative involvement and external networking, there

remains a linearity to the process which assumes that the innovation largely exists

prior to these participatory linkages being fully enacted.

In potential adopter contexts, sense-making would be facilitated by out-of-house

stories that are heavily contextualized, reflecting and enacting a rich source of local

contextual knowledge (Seligman, 2006). These stories may be generated by adopters,

within their families or local peer groups, by their markets and/or competitors. Here,

stories may focus on lack-of-innovation fit to context and needs, lack of sensitivity tolocal conditions and constraints, lack of respect for the R&DO or the innovation

because of their insensitivity to contexts and their ‘high-handedness’ (often reflected

in in-house R&DO stories) in trying to sell an innovation that does not suit their

particular adoption context. These stories may reinforce a particular sense-making

culture that will be resistant to innovation and overtures by the R&DO or its

extension organizations and activities. Out-of-house stories do provide market/

adopter feedback into the traditional linear innovation adoption process, but only

after the innovation process itself has largely been completed. In other words, thesestories are only really sought (and potentially heard) once the innovation has already

travelled some distance down the diffusion/extension pathway.

Adoption contexts are closest to the localized constraints in their systems that

adopters have to confront and circumvent, where possible. These constraints would

largely remain outside the control and perhaps even the awareness of R&DOs, which

Yours, Mine or Ours 287

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew E

ngla

nd],

[R

ay W

. Coo

ksey

] at

16:

42 2

9 Ju

ne 2

011

would tend to produce their innovations in more abstract perhaps optimized

context(s) (e.g. laboratories and other highly controlled contexts). The only way

for an R&DO to gain insights into these constraints is to connect to the potential

adopter contexts in ways that reflect genuine listening and learning prior to shaping

an innovation concept rather than simply pushing the case for a pre-existinginnovation concept. The simple act of listening and responding to these out-of-house

stories may help to smooth the way for adoption. The further back into the

innovation system this listening and responding process goes, the greater the chances

of successful and more widespread adoption, simply because R&DO and adopter

context meanings for the innovation will have converged rather than diverged. Local

contextual knowledge and understanding of local constraints have great potential to

be harnessed if adopter contexts evolve toward a deeper participatory dialog with

R&DOs*an idea that bears some similarities to the concept of engaged scholarship,which is intended to more closely connect scientific research and practice (Van de

Ven, 2007). This immediately suggests that a more complex and nonlinear perspective

on innovation and adoption is required.

Innovation as Dynamic Emergent Meaning

Basic Assumption: What Counts as an Innovation Depends Upon Who You

Ask, When You Ask, Why You Ask and How You Ask and this Changes

Over Time and Situations

Lessons from recent research into complex systems and storytelling suggest that

innovation emerges from the confluence of diverse conversations and stories that

surround all activities associated with the innovation process, from inception to

market. However, if the dominant perspective driving these conversations and storiesoriginates from within an R&DO amongst its own members (in-house storytelling),

then innovation may be occurring in a vacuum. Fonseca (2002) argued that

innovation involves the creation of new meaning which is frequently embedded in

conversations and stories*the twist is who is talking to whom and who is sharing

stories with whom (in-house vs out-of-house) in terms of innovation ‘developers/

promoters’ and ‘users/adopters’. In the linear process typically employed for

innovation adoption and diffusion, this conversation is often one-way until very

late in the innovation process.

When those who have participated in its creation regard an innovation as

‘ready’, the new meaning is passed on, as an artefact embodying this new

knowledge, to a new context . . .. [This is] a unidirectional activity that

promoters seem to control*potential users simply being those whose objec-

tions must be overcome. (Fonseca, 2002, p. 117)

A complexity perspective demands that the conversation needs to be two-way fromthe beginning of the innovation processes (reflecting both inward and outward flows of

conversation and storytelling). Conversations and stories from outside the immediate

internal context of an R&DO (out-of-house storytelling) need to be integrated into the

innovation process at all stages. Out-of-house storytelling could come from a wide

variety of sources, including most importantly, potential beneficiaries and adopters

288 R.W. Cooksey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew E

ngla

nd],

[R

ay W

. Coo

ksey

] at

16:

42 2

9 Ju

ne 2

011

of an innovation. While virtually everyone within a particular adoption context will

have stories to tell about innovations, needs and so on, there will be some key

storytellers (formal or informal community leaders, for example) out in adopter

contexts that would be important to connect with. Meaning for an innovation then

becomes a dynamic emergent phenomenon, something that Fonseca clearly signalledwhen he said:

the new meaning, materialized into some tangible thing, is just input to new

conversational activities where it will act as the enhancer of the potential for

misunderstanding. Those exposed to the material outcome of the innovation

process will engage in the same kind of redundant conversations as those who

created the innovation did before. As far as potential ‘adopters’ of an

innovation are concerned, this potential new meaning simply represents adisruption of their living present . . . They will appreciate the innovation using

their own patterns of talk, not the pattern that emerged among the creators of

the innovation. (2002, p. 117)

What is critical for emergent meaning to evolve is that out-of-house stories must be

actively sought out and brought into the R&DO (inward flow) and in-house stories

must be actively shared in the external context of the R&DO (outward flow).

Juxtaposing in-house and out-of-house stories and conversations provides a richsource of learning for all concerned. When this juxtapositioning occurs in a genuine

and authentic way, meaningful innovation can emerge as a pathway for solving the

problems or meeting the needs that various stories bring to the surface. Both types of

stories will have co-evolved to achieve a shared understanding of the context of

innovation (van Buuren and Edelenbos, 2006, discuss a somewhat similar process in

the context of innovation in communities of practice). The process of juxtaposing

stories is distinctly nonlinear, intermixing in-house and out-of-house perspectives to

influence the innovation process early on, unlike the typically linear process where theR&DO innovates first, then tries to stimulate adoption posthoc. Often the stories will

be quite diverse which will mean that time and effort will be required from all parties

to work toward a shared meaning for innovations in context.

The Complexity Perspective

Basic Assumption: Innovation and Adoption are Intimately and Dynamically

Intertwined, Not Sequentially Distinct Links in a Linear Chain; Innovation

and Adoption are Co-emergent

Carlisle and McMillan (2006), Cooper (1998), Fonseca (2002) and Harris (2007) have

all argued that there is value in viewing the innovation-adoption problem through the

interpretive lenses of complex adaptive systems theory. A key feature of complex

adaptive systems is that nonlinear dynamics and complex interactions over time, overa range of relevant contexts, can move an entire system, often in unpredictable ways,

toward a newer and more adaptive way of fitting itself into the environmental context

in which it must operate (reflecting the key principle of self-organization). Cooksey

(2001) argued that virtually all social systems (of which the innovation-adoption

continuum is but one example) comprise networks of densely interacting contexts

Yours, Mine or Ours 289

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew E

ngla

nd],

[R

ay W

. Coo

ksey

] at

16:

42 2

9 Ju

ne 2

011

and that linear pathways through such contexts greatly over-simplify the dynamics

that play out. Furthermore, changing dynamics through time and contexts means

that equilibrium or a state of relative stability (in our case, a single consistent

meaning for an innovation that endures through time and across contexts) will be

difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. The result is inherent unpredictability with

respect to any of the typical measures used to gauge the adoption and success of an

innovation. One way of coping with this problem is to be continually open to new

perspectives, new sources and types of data, new ways of learning and new ways of

responding. Storytelling is a major vehicle of social interaction that can facilitate the

achievement of such openness.

One essential problem with the linear perspective on innovation and adoption is

that it ignores the potential complex dynamics between R&DOs and adopter

contexts. By ignoring or downplaying these dynamics, it is not possible to capitalize

on them to ensure the shared meaning of an innovation between the R&DO and an

adopter context and thus enhance commitment to adoption. One strong precursor of

innovation adoption is shared meaning, not imposed meaning. Another problem is

that R&DOs and adopter contexts are treated as distinct non-overlapping entities,

which minimizes the insights that each may gain into the other.

In the complexity perspective, innovation ideas may arise in-house or out-of-house

or both. This will have an impact on what will be seen as an innovation. Unless the

meaning of an innovation is shared between R&DOs and potential adopter contexts,

neither will come to see a common purpose or context for the innovation and neither

will come to understand why the innovation will have missed the mark. R&DOs need

the local contextual knowledge embedded within out-of-house stories and poten-

tial adopters need the contextual knowledge linked to innovation research and

development embedded with in-house stories. Thus, in the complexity perspective,

innovation and adoption can be seen as a sense-making ‘power circuit’ where both an

R&DO and potential adopters in an adoption context must come to ‘see’ the

innovation as an ‘innovation’. Only then will they each achieve shared meaning for

the innovation, which is the precursor condition for adoption. This will often be an

iterative process, involving listening to and interpreting in-house and out-of-house

stories as well as listening to how those stories change as the interactions continue

through time.

It is from this interaction that meaningful innovation will emerge and the

groundwork for adoption will be established. One consequence of this interaction

is that the R&DO and adopter contexts may begin to blur into each other (i.e. have

semi-permeable boundaries) as learning will be occurring in both contexts.

A dynamic balance point between inward flow of out-of-house stories and outward

flow of in-house stories may be sought, but if the system is embedded in a larger very

dynamic and unstable context, a stable equilibrium point may not be achievable.

Power issues must be delicately handled here as R&DOs must give up some control

over the innovation process to the contexts of adoption if any sort of balance is to be

achieved. Inward flow of out-of-house stories must occur much earlier in the

innovation process than has been traditionally the case in the linear perspective.

Inward and outward flows both have to be active and well-resourced processes.

Furthermore, there will be an inherent dynamism and iterative nature to inward and

290 R.W. Cooksey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew E

ngla

nd],

[R

ay W

. Coo

ksey

] at

16:

42 2

9 Ju

ne 2

011

outward flows as each moves toward shared meaning for an innovation*this process

needs to commence early on (i.e., pre-innovation) instead of post-innovation.

Recall the hypothetical example developed earlier to the development of a new

process for genetically modifying grain seeds. The bottom diagram in Figure 1 depicts

the nonlinear complexity innovation and adoption process, again with respect to one

R&DO and two possible adoption contexts, A and B. The positioning of in-house

stories within the R&DO and out-of-house stories within each adoption context is

again clearly shown and we assume that there may be some overlap between adoption

contexts A and B, by virtue of the common thread of grain growing, which

the innovation would seem relevant to. However, in this perspective, there is a balance

between the inward flow of out-of house stories among all contexts, including the

R&DO, and the outward flow of in-house stories. The adopter contexts become

aware of meaning the innovation holds for the R&DO but the R&DO is equally

sensitized to the meaning(s) of such an innovation in the individual A and B contexts.

This balance will likely be dynamic (i.e. may never achieve equilibrium) because the

story sharing process would be iterative and nonlinear (symbolized by the spiral

pathway in the bottom portion of Figure 1) with changes evolving through time.

Through this iterative process, in-house stories become susceptible to the influence

of out-of-house stories and vice-versa. All contexts, including that of the R&DO,

thus become semi-permeable to the meanings held for the innovation in the other

contexts. In short, perspective changes on all sides are likely; an outcome that would

send nonverbal signals to all concerned that voices have been listened to and

perspectives taken on board*a very potent influencer of commitment to the

innovation and adoption process, especially from the adopter perspective. The

earlier this balance between inward and outward flows of stories evolves, the greater

the chances of the R&DO achieving shared meanings and understandings of what

adopters perceive to be relevant with respect to the area of innovation being pursued.

In fact, very early inward and outward sharing of stories could result in the

innovation taking an unanticipated direction that has been shaped equally (or at least

approximately so) by what the R&DO perceives is needed in the context of their

research agenda and the adopters in their local contexts would find most meaningful.

Making the Complexity Perspective Work

What types of resources/effort will be needed to make this complexity perspective

work? The first step in implementing the complexity perspective is for R&DOs to

realize that the relationship they share with potential adopter contexts is not

hierarchical, but basically co-partnering. Equally, the people inhabiting potential

adopter contexts need to realize that they have a genuine voice in the process and that

the R&DO perspective is not dominant over their voice. This insight has been

realized in recent work on 4th and 5th generation of participatory R&D systems, but

not nearly to the extent required by the complexity perspective. The influence of

stories (in-house and out-of-house) must be two-way, whereas 4th and 5th generation

R&D models tend to emphasize increasing the inputs to the R&DO side of the

equation, rather than a genuine bi-directional co-evolutionary process. About the

only way to put this two-way dialog process in place is to resource and enact it

consistently over time.

Yours, Mine or Ours 291

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew E

ngla

nd],

[R

ay W

. Coo

ksey

] at

16:

42 2

9 Ju

ne 2

011

It may help to identify boundary spanners, that is, people who are comfortable

and familiar with both in-house and out-of-house stories and have some experience

in or empathy with both the R&D and adoption contexts, who can facilitate the

stories and meanings flowing both ways (inward and outward) instead of

predominantly from R&DO to adoption contexts. In agricultural innovation

contexts, this may mean reconceptualizing the role of extension from outward

flow story emphasis to both outward and inward story and dialog emphasis (see

also related discussions in Fell, 2000; Ison and Russell, 2000; and Kerston and Ison,

1998). For example, one could imagine an emergent intermediary role between

the R&DO and potential adopter contexts, that of a ‘knowledge broker’ (Jacobson

et al., 2003)

Some research organizations are finding success with a linking role, called aknowledge broker. Knowledge brokers mediate between researchers and user

communities. Individuals serving as brokers must understand both the research

process and the users’ decision-making process. (Jacobson et al., 2003)

[It should be mentioned, in passing, that the word ‘extension’ itself suggests

unidirectional communication (i.e., R&DO ‘extends’ what it has done to potential

adopters), which is congruent with the linear traditional view, but is often counter-

productive from user/adopter perspectives. It may be prudent to avoid using this term

while trying to implement the complexity perspective.]

The realization of the complexity perspective could also be enhanced through

identification of key in-house and out-of-house storytellers to serve as nodes or lynch

pins in various social networks where stories are shared*a role not dissimilar to that

ascribed to ‘influential informal leaders’ in the management of change (see, for

example, Harris, 2007, p. 284; Mento et al., 2001, p. 52). Once such pivotal

storytellers have been identified in each context, their skills can be harnessed to

enhance trust and connectedness between contexts, build a critical mass of support

behind the innovation process and generate commitment to the innovation into the

future. It should be noted that trust will be an essential foundation to establish in

order to maximize the value to be realized from both inward and outward flows of

stories (Harris, 2007, pp. 287�288). Technology could also be harnessed to enhance

the multi-directional sharing of innovation stories (note that this builds on a feature

of 5th generation R&D, see Rothwell, 1994). For example, James and Gururajan

(2008) discussed the possibilities for stimulating and facilitating web collaboration

between various groups and contexts through the judicious use of wikis, blogs and

podcasts. In this way, stories may be shared in a virtual mode and extended beyond a

one-to-one (often face-to-face) emphasis to a one-to-many emphasis. R&DOs could

actually serve as one hub of such a virtual storytelling network, which would greatly

assist both inward and outward flows.

It should be understood that the implementation of this complexity perspective

so that it becomes sustainable into the future is not without its costs. Realizing the

type of genuine inward and outward flow of stories relevant to innovation will take

time and effort to achieve. The conversations to be undertaken will need to work

more deeply than what is generally implied by participative collaboration or

networking. It will take time for out-of-house stories to begin to reflect trust in the

292 R.W. Cooksey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew E

ngla

nd],

[R

ay W

. Coo

ksey

] at

16:

42 2

9 Ju

ne 2

011

efforts of the R&DO; similarly it will take time for in-house stories to reflect not

only respect for the flow of stories and ideas from adopter contexts but also the

willingness to give up complete control over the innovation process. Within an

R&DO, the genuine outward flow sharing of in-house stories must be rewarded if it

is to be sustainable. Equally, the adopter contexts must be able to see genuine

responsiveness to and respect for their out-of-house stories while simultaneously

acknowledging and respecting the in-house stories they are now engaged with. In

short, the success or failure of the process will critically hinge upon the two-way

sharing of stories and working toward shared meaning for innovation being

genuine, symmetrical (not dominated by one party) and consistent over time. As

well, the process must not be predicated upon a pre-existing innovation concept

that is so tightly prescribed or shaped by the R&DO that there is little room for

dynamic change and responsiveness to new inputs and local adopter contextual

knowledge. The investment of effort and incurring of costs will likely be higher

upfront during the early stages of the complexity process. The benefits will begin to

accrue once trust and story flows have been established (these being enabling

benefits in themselves) and could likely include: higher adoption rates that are more

robust over time, innovations that are more adaptable to a wider array of

circumstances and whose limits are more clearly understood across various

contexts, fewer false starts, blind alleys and unanticipated consequences in the

innovation process and a more accelerated pathway to innovation adoption through

increased willingness to trial ideas.

Conclusion

The upshot of the previous detailed argumentation can be captured in a few conclu-

ding statements. Successful engagement of the complexity perspective can mean that

the R&DO can focus its innovation energy on matters highlighted in out-of-house

stories, thereby co-constructing the context for innovation and potential adoption

(Kim et al., 2010). Those who have provided the out-of-house stories can become

primed for innovation emergence through exposure to and understanding of in-house

stories, thereby co-constructing the context for adoption. In the end, adopters will

have taken on board an innovation that actually means something to them in their

local context and, from the R&DO perspective, not only will adoption rates be

substantially enhanced, but the relationship groundwork will have been laid for

innovations into the future.

References

Banks, R. (2008) Radical Transformation of the Australian Lamb Industry 1980�2008: 4th Generation

R&D in Practice. Paper Presented at the Symposium on New Pathways to Adoption and Diffusion of

Primary Industries Innovations. Armidale, Australia: University of New England, Primary Industries

Innovation Centre.

Bessant, J. & Venables, T. (Eds) (2008) Creating Wealth from Knowledge Meeting the Innovation Challenge.

Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Boyce, M.E. (1996) Organizational Story and Storytelling: A Critical Review. Journal of Organizational

Change, 9, pp. 5�26.

Cannarela, C. & Piccioni, V. (2010) Innovation Diffusion and Territorial Inertia. International Journal of

Rural Management, 3(2), pp. 181�211.

Yours, Mine or Ours 293

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew E

ngla

nd],

[R

ay W

. Coo

ksey

] at

16:

42 2

9 Ju

ne 2

011

Carlisle, Y. & McMillan, E. (2006) Innovation in Organizations From a Complex Adaptive Systems

Perspective. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 8, pp. 2�9.

Clark, R., Gray, J., Griffith, G., Madzivhandila, T., Nengovhela, N., Mulholland, C. & Timms, J. (2009)

A Model to Achieve Sustainable Improvement and Innovation in Organisations, Industries, Regions

and Communities. Extension Farming Systems Journal, 5(1), pp. 73�84.

Cooksey, R.W. (2001) What Is Complexity Science? A Contextually-grounded Tapestry of Systemic

Dynamism, Paradigm Diversity, Theoretical Eclecticism, and Organizational Learning. Emergence:

A Journal of Complexity Issues in Organizations and Management, 3, pp. 77�103.

Cooper, J.R. (1998) A Multidimensional Approach to the Adoption of Innovation. Management Decisions,

36, pp. 493�502.

Fell, L.R. (2000) Time to Converse: The Importance of Language, Conversation and Electronic Media in

Agricultural Extension. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 40, pp. 503�509.

Fonseca, J. (2002) Complexity and Innovation in Organizations. London: Routledge.

Harris, G. (2007) Seeking Sustainability in an Age of Complexity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ison, R.L. & Russell, D.B. (2000) Agricultural Extension and Rural Development: Breaking Out of

Traditions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jacobson, N., Butterill, D. & Goering, P. (2003) Development of a Framework for Knowledge Translation:

Understanding User Context. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 8, pp. 94�99.

James, J. & Gururajan, R. (2008) Web 2.0 Technologies and How They Can Contribute to Enabling

Practice Change in Australian Agriculture. Paper presented at the Symposium on New Pathways to

Adoption and Diffusion of Primary Industries Innovations. Armidale, Australia: University of New

England, Primary Industries Innovation Centre.

Kaine, G. (2008) Adoption of Agricultural Innovations. PhD Thesis, University of New England,

Armidale, NSW, Australia.

Kerston, S. & Ison, R. (1998) Listening, Interpretive Cycles and Dialogue: Process Design for

Collaborative Research and Development. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 5, pp.

163�177.

Kim, J., Lund, A. & Dombrowski, C. (2010) Mobilizing Attention: Storytelling For Innovation.

Interactions, March�April, pp. 24�26.

Kroma, M. (2006) Organic Farmer Networks: Facilitating Learning and Innovation for Sustainable

Agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 28(4), pp. 5�28.

MacLeod, M. & Davidson, E. (2007) Organizational Storytelling and Technology Innovation. In

Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. Big Island, Hawaii:

IEEE Computer Society, pp. 248�257.

Mento, A.J., Jones, R.M. & Dirndorfer, W. (2001) A Change Management Process: Grounded in Both

Theory and Practice. Journal of Change Management, 3, pp. 45�59.

Miller, W.L. & Morris, L. (1998) 4th Generation R&D: Managing Knowledge, Technology, and Innovation.

New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Murray, P. (2000) Evaluating Participatory Extension Programs: Challenges and Problems. Australian

Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 40, pp. 519�526.

Niosi, J. (1999) Fourth-generation R&D from Linear Models to Flexible Models. Journal of Business

Research, 45, pp. 111�117.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P. & Gibbons, M. (2001) Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of

Uncertainty. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Pannell, D., Marshall, G.R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F. & Wilkinson, R. (2006) Understanding and

Promoting Adoption of Conservation Practices by Rural Landholders. Australian Journal of

Experimental Agriculture, 26, pp. 1407�1424.

Rogers, E.M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.

Rogers, E.M. (2004) A Prospective and Retrospective Look at the Diffusion Model. Journal of Health

Communication, 9, pp. 13�19.

Rothwell, R. (1994) Towards the Fifth Generation Innovation Process. International Marketing Review,

11(1), pp. 7�31.

Russell, D.B. & Ison, R.L. (2000) The Research-development Relationship in Rural Communities: An

Opportunity for Contextual Science. In: Ison, R. and Russell, D. (Eds), Agricultural Extension and

Rural Development: Breaking Out of Traditions. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 10�31.

294 R.W. Cooksey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew E

ngla

nd],

[R

ay W

. Coo

ksey

] at

16:

42 2

9 Ju

ne 2

011

Seligman, L. (2006) Sensemaking Throughout Adoption and the Innovation-decision Process. European

Journal of Innovation Management, 9, pp. 108�120.

Sneddon, J. (2008) Innovation in the Australian Wool Industry: A Sensemaking Perspective. PhD Thesis,

University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA, Australia.

Thomas, P. (2010) Cooperative Research Centres as Effective Institutions for Contemporary Models for

Achieving Innovation in Primary Industry. Animal Production Science, 50, pp. 424�428.

van Buuren, A. & Edelenbos, J. (2006) Innovations in the Dutch Polder: Communities of Practice and the

Challenge of Innovation. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 8(1), pp. 42�49.

Van de Ven, A.H. (2007) Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Waarts, E., van Everdingen, Y.M. & van Hillegersberg, J. (2002) The Dynamics of Factors Affecting the

Adoption of Innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, pp. 412�423.

Weick, K.E. (1995) Sensemaking in Organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Yours, Mine or Ours 295

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew E

ngla

nd],

[R

ay W

. Coo

ksey

] at

16:

42 2

9 Ju

ne 2

011