The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension
Competence for Rural Innovation and Transformation
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raee20
Operationalizing the agricultural innovation
system concept in a developing country context
– examining the case of the MiDA programme in
Ghana
Daniel Adu Ankrah & Comfort Yomle Freeman
To cite this article: Daniel Adu Ankrah & Comfort Yomle Freeman (2021): Operationalizing the
agricultural innovation system concept in a developing country context – examining the case
of the MiDA programme in Ghana, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, DOI:
10.1080/1389224X.2021.1915828
To link to this article:  https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1915828
Published online: 18 Apr 2021.
Submit your article to this journal 
Article views: 217
View related articles 
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles 
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raee20
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1915828
Operationalizing the agricultural innovation system concept
in a developing country context – examining the case of the
MiDA programme in Ghana
Daniel Adu Ankrah and Comfort Yomle Freeman
Department of Agricultural Extension, College of Basic and Applied Sciences (CBAS), School of Agriculture,
University of Ghana, Legon - Accra, Ghana
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY
Purpose: This paper argues that large-scale agricultural Received 22 July 2020
programmes embedded with the Agricultural Innovations Accepted 5 April 2021
Systems (AIS) thinking helps in facilitating innovations.
Design/Methodology/Approach: The study adopted a qualitative KEYWORDSAgricultural innovation
approach involving focus group discussions, key informant system; pineapple;
interviews and secondary document analysis. This approach smallholder farmers; MiDA
helped to obtain an in-depth understanding of the processes programme; FBOs;
involved, why and how innovation takes place. Millennium Challenge
Findings: The design and implementation of the MiDA programme Account
had elements of the AIS embedded. This helped to contribute to
success in areas that aligned and failures in areas that fell short.
Stakeholders encountered implementation challenges that did
not ensure reflective learning, conversely, some actors worked
independently of others, mimicking linear extension approaches.
Practical Implications: The future of extension and research in
Ghana should not be prescriptive (top-down) but fully integrate
farmers and wider stakeholders in the design and
implementation of agricultural investment programmes. This is
premised on addressing challenges relating to trust, effective
leadership and entrepreneurship.
Theoretical Implications: Adds on to the limited use of AIS as a
conceptual and operational tool in supporting large-scale
agricultural investment in the global south by incorporating AIS
thinking in policy formulation and implementation of large-scale
programmes.
Originality/Value: This article adds to the unbalanced literature in
Sub-Saharan Africa on the use of AIS in the design and
implementation of large-scale programmes. Additionally, it
highlights the use of AIS in extension and research in facilitating
innovations.
1. Introduction
Most developing countries have high on their agenda poverty reduction and livelihood
improvements. Central to achieving this, is the development of agriculture. The
CONTACT Daniel Adu Ankrah dankrah@ug.edu.gh Department of Agricultural Extension, College of Basic and
Applied Sciences (CBAS), School of Agriculture, University of Ghana, P.O.Box LG 68, Legon Accra, Ghana
© 2021 Wageningen University
2 D. A. ANKRAH AND C. Y. FREEMAN
nuances involved however remain complex due to the nature and the multiplicity of sta-
keholders. The use of an agricultural extension and research approach that affords an
understanding of the complexities remains imperative.
Anang, Bäckman, and Sipiläinen (2020) historical account of extension delivery in
Ghana indicated that the General Agricultural Extension Approach was criticized as
highly top-down, hence it was replaced in 1978 by the Unified Extension System
(UES). The UES embedded a Training and Visit (T&V) led by extension officers who
visited farmers and provided prescriptive information. Lapses were identified, conse-
quently, decentralization was introduced in 1978 to address linearity in existing exten-
sion approaches. Amezah and Hesse (2004) underscored Ghana’s extension delivery to
be a supply-driven one that relegated farmers to the background. The authors concluded
that decentralization was only a process of decongestion and devolution of power that
failed to effectively address issues such as increased farmers participation in design, plan-
ning, budget preparation and accountability. Participatory approaches such as Farming
System Research (FSR) and Farmer Field Schools (FFS) were introduced to address chal-
lenges. Khisa (2007) argued that even though FFS and FSR were participatory, the
financial sustainability and overall impact remained questionable. Agricultural Knowl-
edge and Information Systems (AKIS) emerged and it underscored the linkages
between education, research and extension in the generation and use of knowledge.
Leeuwis (2004) indicated that AKIS examines knowledge generation and use without
taking into account the political influence in the system. Spielman (2005) argued that
the AKIS concept failed to adequately go beyond the series of connections involved in
the public sector and the heterogeneity existing among actors, context within institutions
that governs behaviour and learning processes that regulate capacity to change. The AKIS
emerged as an extension approach that places farmers central in processes leading to
innovation. Thus farmers together with other stakeholders constituted co-producers of
knowledge and not just passive agents.
Alaie (2020) describes the Agricultural Innovation System (AIS)1 as a heterogeneous
group of agents that interact in a learning process that allows agents to co-interact in an
environment supported by institutions that play a principal role in advancing novel pro-
ducts, processes and new forms of organizations into economic and social use. The AIS is
an improvement over the AKIS emphasizing innovation development as a reflective
process among all multiple actors and not just research institutions. This is particularly
useful in the global south where agriculture features prominently. Indeed, agriculture
continues to be the main source of livelihood in most developing countries characterized
by the cultivation of cash crops, traditional and non-traditional export crops. A case in
point, is Ghana where pineapple appears to be one of the most developed crop within the
traditional non-export crops and contributes the highest revenue to the sector. Ghana is
the twelfth largest producer of pineapple in the world (Pariona 2018). A plethora of
actors is therefore involved in the pineapple value chain, hence the need to understand
how various actors work together to bring about innovation. The pineapple crop there-
fore lends itself to interrogate with the application of the AIS approach2 to extension and
research.
Multinational and international donors continue to support the global south in their
quest to modernize and commercialize agriculture. The American government through
the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) supported Ghana’s agricultural
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 3
modernization by instituting the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) grant. Ghana
benefited from $547 million targeted at improving food staple and horticultural pro-
duction (MCC 2020). The grant was made up of three components – agriculture, rural
development and transportation. The agriculture component had six sub-divisions –
farmer and enterprise training in commercial agriculture, improvements in land
tenure, feeder roads improvements, provision of agricultural credit, improvements in
post-harvest handling, and irrigation development (MCC 2020). Ghana’s grant was
managed by the Millennium Development Authority (MiDA)3 in 2006. The programme
was demarcated into three zones (Southern Horticultural Belt, Afram Basin and North-
ern Zone) covering parts of Ghana. The design and subsequent implementation of the
grant incorporated multi-stakeholders with varied interests, strengths and synergies to
generate and use knowledge through MiDA that acted as an innovation intermediary.
The use and application of the AIS as a research and extension approach on a large-
scale government intervention such as MiDA especially in the pineapple industry
remains relevant. This is because the programme had elements of the AIS concept
embedded in its policy design.
The empirical literature however on Africa on the use of AIS in increasing food pro-
duction and security (Gildemacher et al. 2009) is scanty. In Ghana, the extant literature
remains scarce on livestock (Amankwah et al. 2012; Kuivanen et al. 2016), cocoa (Adu-
Acheampong et al. 2017), oil palm (Osei-Amponsah et al. 2012), maize (Munthali et al.
2018) and climate change (Totin et al. 2018). This trend observed contrasts with the
radical use of the AIS approach in the global north. Consequently, adequate literature
exists on developed countries, (Turner et al. 2016; Klerkx and Begemann 2020; Alaie
2020; Akullo, Maat, and Wals 2018; Munthali et al. 2018).
Hall et al. (2006) applied the AIS approach to Ghana’s cassava and pineapple industry
in understanding the usefulness of the AIS in supporting agricultural investment and
innovation. Their study covered three additional countries (India – vanilla and medicinal
plants, Columbia – cut flowers, Bangladesh – shrimps and small-scale food processing).
They considered crops that appeared promising, had integration into the world market,
offered job opportunities and traditional sectors that received transformation. The study
presented in this paper is distinct from Hall et al. (2006) in that ours is premised on a
single crop and examined in detail how a large-scale investment underpinned with an
AIS framework can produce desirable outcomes.4 Comparing different value crops
and sectors present challenges because of differences in classification (high value and
non-high value crops) and sector-specific features. Examining a single crop allows for
a more in-depth analysis. For instance, the study presented in their paper showed how
Department for International Development (DFID) support helped linked smallholders
to the market. The study presented in this paper however interrogates beyond broad
support by examining how a programme support is conceptualized in design and
implemented. This remains essential because programmes are designed with specific
theoretical underpinnings, hence it is important to analyse using the right conceptual fra-
mework. More so, different donors have different values and criteria for funding recipi-
ents, hence bulking different donor support programmes remains challenging unless
some variables are controlled for. This paper aims to widen the conversation about
how AIS can be used conceptually for policy design and as an operational tool for facil-
itating innovation in large-scale projects particularly in the global south which is
4 D. A. ANKRAH AND C. Y. FREEMAN
disadvantaged in the extant literature. This is useful given Pound and Conroy (2017)
argument that AIS has gained less traction as a conceptual and operational tool in exten-
sion and research. Recent debates have shown that the AIS is an effective research and
extension tool for understanding the interplay between multiple actors in the generation
and the use of new ideas (Leonardo et al. 2020; Kamara, Van Hulst, and Dorward 2020;
Pound and Conroy 2017; Pigford, Hickey, and Klerkx 2018; Fielke et al. 2019; Hermans
et al. 2019; Herrero et al. 2020). Finally, the study presented in this paper provides
additional insights into how AIS can be used to harness the synergies of knowledge
brokers in designing alternative interventions that go beyond the scope of research
systems investment.
Alaie (2020) underscored a recognition of the complexities existing in an innovation
system is important in the design and implementation of public policy programmes but
such recognition remains relatively uncommon. Pound and Conroy (2017) indicated that
a lack of such recognition often leads to policymakers designing interventions that are
linear and designed to be implemented through passive subordinated structures. This
necessitates the question of whether or not the AIS extension approach is relevant for
implementing large-scale investments in the global south? The study presented in this
paper, therefore, examines the applicability of the AIS as a conceptual and operational
framework that facilitates innovation using the MiDA programme as a case study in
examining its alignment or otherwise and indeed to ascertain the extent to which the
approach facilitated innovation among small-scale pineapple farmers.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows, the ensuing section presents the concep-
tual framework. Section 3 presents the methodology. Section 4 presents key findings. The
last section draws a conclusion and policy recommendations worthy to be considered.
2. Conceptual & analytical frameworks
AIS serves as a framework for analysing technological, institutional and economic change
in agriculture (Turner et al. 2016; Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. 2020; Herrero et al. 2020). The
AIS encompasses a far broader set of actors than the traditional agricultural research,
education agencies and extension. Innovation is more holistic in that, it takes place
throughout the whole economy and emphasizes the fact that not all innovations come
from formal science and technology (Klerkx, Van Mierlo, and Leeuwis 2012; Kamara,
Van Hulst, and Dorward 2020; Fielke et al. 2019). AIS includes broad actors along the
agricultural value chain. The pineapple value chain for instance is made up of farmers
(producers), input suppliers, transporters, international supermarkets, consumers, pro-
cessors, financial institutions and agribusinesses. The innovation processes remain
complex and cannot be read off linearly, the pineapple value chain thus constitutes the
fulcrum where the action takes place in reflectively developing innovation among
actors along the chain (Alaie 2020). The value chain is therefore intertwined within
the AIS. Conceptually, AIS can be seen as a collaborative arrangement where multiple
stakeholders interact reflectively to bring about technological, organizational, or insti-
tutional changes in the agricultural sector. (Alaie 2020) indicated that the AIS as a per-
spective provides an avenue to assess the interactions and roles played by multiple
stakeholders involving the processes of knowledge exchange and ways in which techno-
logical and institutional changes occur. Pound and Conroy (2017) indicated that the
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 5
World Bank used the AIS to assess and offer explanations to the global north’s economic
performance. In this light, the AIS is seen as an operational tool in understanding how a
country’s agricultural sector explores new knowledge in the design of alternative ideas
and processes that extend beyond research. Pound and Conroy (2017) underscored
that AIS has been rarely used as an operational tool, until recent where international
donors have used it as an approach to development. Operationally, key features of the
AIS include multi-stakeholders, the interplay between formal and informal institutions
and actors through processes of responsiveness, reflectivity, adaptation to challenges,
opportunities in generating new ideas and processes.
The AIS as an extension approach goes beyond the traditional extension of knowledge
but also the facilitation of knowledge, readiness to learn, capacity development of indi-
viduals, organizations, platforms and networks for systemic change. AIS is broader in the
sense that it includes additional factors such as the policy environment, market, funding,
attitude and entrepreneurship. It goes beyond just technology captured as adoption rates
to alternative ways of organizing labour, market, land tenure and sharing benefits
(Klerkx, Aarts, and Leeuwis 2010).
The study presented in this paper draws on the operationalization of the AIS from
(Klerkx, Van Mierlo, and Leeuwis 2012) that considers AIS from three perspectives –
the infrastructure, (Hall and Clark 2010; Brooks and Loevinsohn 2011), the process
and the functionalist. The infrastructure perspective views innovation to be often led
by research institutes with rules and physical infrastructures that govern their inter-
actions. This view dwells on the structure of networks among the stakeholders – weak-
nesses and strengths and how they integrate with technologies, information and practices
(Spielman, Ekboir, and Davis 2009).
A process view essentially emphasizes processes involved in AIS. This involves the co-
creation processes of technology development, institutions, practices and markets. This
implies the generation of new ideas or products from an already existing production
system or replacing an already existing system (Klerkx, Aarts, and Leeuwis 2010; Hall
and Clark 2010). This involves actors’ efforts in amending their technological and
socio-institutional ecosystem. Thus there is an inclination towards complex adaptive
systems (Leeuwis and Aarts 2011).
The functionalist view considers functions played by actors in the innovation system
and the extent to which functions are performed effectively or non-effectively. Lapses by
some sub-systems disrupt the effective performance of the overall system. There are
seven (7) elements that are pre-requisites in this view – guidance of the search, knowl-
edge development, resource mobilization, knowledge diffusion among actors, entrepre-
neurial activities and market formation. The performance of the functions under each of
the seven elements by actors facilitates or hinders innovation. The study presented in this
paper did not dwell on the guidance of the search.
Based on this framework, we disaggregated two broad areas for our analytical frame-
work – system and processes leading to innovation. Under the system component – key
questions concerning the nature of the relationship among actors, number of actors
involved in the innovation system, the extent to which the actors were representative
of the constituents of the value chain, the strength of the relationships among others
were posed to guide the development of interview guides. We considered questions con-
cerning how innovation emanates, the level of reflectivity of the learning process, how
6 D. A. ANKRAH AND C. Y. FREEMAN
ideas are generated and used, how knowledge is exchanged and used, etc. These broad
themes were used to assess the MiDA programme in terms of the project design5 and
implementation6 under the system. We further considered themes under processes to
include ideas generation, information exchange and use, institutional changes, i.e. new
ways of organizing markets, labour, land tenure and distribution of benefits.
In terms of the generation of new ideas, we asked questions about the type and
number of actors involved, the extent of representativeness of actors in the value
chain, the specificities of actors’ responsibilities, challenges among actors, who funds
what, where funding comes from, whether the processes of generating new ideas relied
heavily on public extension and research institutions, how ideas were generated
among actors, etc. With regards to the exchange of information, we asked questions
about the communication channels and whether the information exchange was reflective.
Under the use of information – questions concerning ways of organizing labour, markets,
land tenure, funding and distribution of benefits. The selection of these topics and ques-
tions were guided by the literature, the study’s conceptual and analytical frameworks.
3. Methodology
3.1. Research design
The study used a qualitative method of enquiry involving Key Informant Interviews
(KIIs) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). This enquiry was chosen to understand
actor relationships and processes leading to innovation. This design afforded the
researchers the opportunity to depart from measuring innovation as a product (adoption
rates). Schüler and Noack (2019) indicated that a qualitative enquiry allows an in-depth
narration into a given phenomenon, experiences, processes and context surrounding an
issue. It delves deeper into the ‘’why’’ and ‘’how’’ of a given phenomenon.
The study was carried out in the Nsawam Adoagyiri Municipal Assembly. The assem-
bly was selected purposively based on the presence of adequate MiDA and non-MiDA
pineapple Farmer Based Organizations (FBOs).7 A reconnaissance study carried out
from January – March, 2012 revealed other regions (Central, Eastern and Volta
regions) but communities found in these regions lacked the adequate presence of
MiDA and non-MiDA beneficiaries. Secondly, the selected municipal represents a site
typical for pineapple production – a frontier for pineapple production (dates back to
the 1970s). Third, we note that even though the production of food crops existed, pine-
apple remained a main source of income. The study was conducted in five (5) towns in
Pokrom, Nsawam, Dobro and Fotobi capturing MiDA FBOs and two towns (Fotobi and
Ahodjo) involving non-MiDA FBOs over a period of 6 months (April – October, 2012).
3.2. Methods of data collection
3.2.1 Focus group discussions
Hammarberg, Kirkman, and de Lacey (2016) indicated that FGDs present an exploratory
and in-depth discussion useful for understanding research questions on attitudes, nor-
mative behaviour, experience, related processes and meanings ascribed to a given
phenomenon.
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 7
The researchers conducted a total of 7 FGDs (6 people per group) to elicit views on
pineapple innovations facilitated by the MiDA programme. Five (5) MiDA FBOs were
randomly selected through a lottery system from fourteen (14) MiDA FBOs. Four (4)
and two (2) FGDs were conducted for MiDA and non-MiDA FBOs (42 farmers) respect-
ively. The use of random sampling afforded an equal chance of selection and reduced
selection bias. The second level involved a random selection of six (6) farmers through
a lottery system per FBO. The FGDs were used to map actors involved in the innovation
system and process. A semi-structured interview guide8 was used to guide discussions
shaped by the three perspectives of AIS in section 2 that elicited information on how
innovation occurs, factors that trigger innovations, processes leading to innovation,
source of innovations, who champions innovations, who benefits most, who losses,
type of relationship existing among actors, loops and feedbacks, innovations existing
before and those arising from the MiDA programme etc. A deliberate effort was made
to encourage participants to free expression and also ensured a fair opportunity for a con-
tribution that did not disadvantage others. In line with this, the researchers moderated
the discussions and were assisted by a reporter who recorded proceedings.
3.2.1.1 Key informant interviews. Key informants were purposively selected based on
issues that emanated from the FGDs to gain in-depth insights. A semi-structured inter-
view guide was developed in guiding interviews. This was developed based on an initial
pre-test with six key informants representing different segments of our key informants’
categories. Stakeholders inputs were elicited in shaping the design and questions
included in the key informants’ guide. A total of 25 key informants were drawn from
the MiDA, Central Management Consultants (CMCs), Technical Training Service Pro-
viders (TTSPs), Blue Skies Company, Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA),
Combine Farms and FBOs. The interview guide enabled researchers to elicit information
on actors, actor relationships, gauge strength of relationship and feedback from actors,
who sets the agenda, conceptual basis underlying innovation development and
implementation, actors who benefit and lose, reasons accounting for losers and benefici-
aries. This was based on the conceptual and analytical frameworks discussed in section 2
Table 1.
3.2.1.2 Secondary data sources. There was an initial compilation of MiDA proposal
policy documents, newsletters and training manuals. The newsletters consisted of quar-
terly reports submitted to MCC. A second stage of developing an inclusion and exclusion
criteria was advanced bringing together 20 secondary documents (5 training manuals, 5
newsletters, 2 MiDA policy proposal documents and 8 newsletters). The criteria9
included policy documents with adequate information on policy design, actors involved,
how actors were identified and included, the content of training manual, training
methods, actors engaged in training and what informed their involvement etc.
3.2.1.3 Analytical techniques. Content analysis was done. All FGDs and KIIs were tran-
scribed. First, the researchers familiarized themselves with the transcribed dataset. This
formed a basis for generating codes10 based on the constructs in section 2 by Klerkx,
Van Mierlo, and Leeuwis (2012) on the three perspectives of AIS – infrastructure,
process and functionalist. Codes generated were entered into Nvivo. Based on this,
8 D. A. ANKRAH AND C. Y. FREEMAN
Table 1. Summary of key informant interviews.
Number of key
Origin of key informants informants Profile of key informants
MiDA 2 Agricultural Support Officer & Research Economist
Central Management 1 A Central Management Consultant responsible for drafting the
Consultants (CMCs) training manuals for the MiDA programme
Technical Training Service 2 A senior lecturer with the Department of Agricultural Economics
Providers (TTSPs) and Agribusiness of the University of Ghana who acted as a
consultant for ACDI/VOCA and an agricultural Officer with ACDI/
VOCA
Blue Skies Company 2 Agronomist and an Assistant Agronomist with Blue Skies Company
MoFA 2 An Agricultural Extension Officer & a Management Information
Systems (MIS) Officer with the Department of Agriculture –
Nsawam Adoagyiri Municipal Assembly
Combine Farms 2 Farm manager & a Farm-hand at Combine Farms
MiDA FBOs
Adonten 2 A member of Adonten FBO and local chief of Pokrom village and a
Chair of Adonten FBO.
Nsabah 2 Chair and a member of Nsabah FBO
Fotobi 2 Chair and a member of Fotobi FBO
Apesika 2 A secretary and a member of Apesika FBO
Pokrom Patriotic 2 Chair and a member of Pokrom FBO
Non-MiDA FBOs
Oman Vegetables 2 Chair and a member of Oman FBO
Enkakyi 2 Chair and a secretary of Enkakyi FBO
Total 25
Source: Fieldwork, 2012.
broad and sub-themes emerged. The study achieved theme saturation in instances
where no new themes emerged. Graneheim, Lindgren, and Lundman (2017) described
a theme as a common idea that runs through several categories in giving meaning and
interpretation to an issue. In line with Ates et al. (2017) who indicated that the analysis
of in-depth qualitative interviews should target categorization of expression and
opinions to themes most relevant to understand its relationship with broader issues.
Our study, therefore, ensured that the entire set of themes reflected all the information
captured in FGDs, KIIs and secondary data sources. This was done in a way that
allowed the researchers to assess the relationship between the codes, themes and the
study’s research questions. Drawing from Dundar (2013) the study ensured a recording
of the frequency of themes in guiding the researchers in apportioning themes that
needed prominence. Direct statements illustrative of specific themes were cited in the
main text. A deliberate effort was made not to reveal the real identities of participants
to ensure confidentiality.
3.2.1.4 Subjective position of researchers. A researcher was involved in a baseline data
collection as part of an independent evaluation of the agricultural component of the
MiDA programme. This researcher however curtailed such services in 2010 and did
not make use of the baseline dataset. The researcher was not an employee of MiDA
hence the positionality of the researcher did not influence this study unduly. The
other researcher had no relationship with the MiDA programme, a situation that
ensured a fair and balanced analysis and interpretation of findings.
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 9
4. Results and discussions
The findings are presented in terms of the extent to which the MiDA programme aligned
with the AIS concept. The first section (4.1) capturing the system examines the MiDA
programme in terms of the policy design against the actual implementation. The pro-
cesses are examined in terms of the actual implementation from an AIS perspective.
First, we give a snapshot of how data was characterized and aided in evaluating the
AIS for smallholder pineapple farmers value chain.
Data characterization and evaluation of AIS.
Data collected through FGDs, KIIs and secondary sources were first coded based on
Klerkx, VanMierlo, and Leeuwis (2012) three perspectives of AIS. Major and sub-themes
emanated covering actors (system), actor relationships, processes involved in the entire
pineapple production from input purchases, finance, land tenureship arrangements, land
preparatory activities through to harvest, processing, exports and institutional changes.
Based on an inclusion and exclusion criteria,11 a rich-data-set was obtained according
to themes categorized. The data was indicative of the themes under the AIS perspectives,
theoretical, and analytical frameworks in section 2. Themes were presented in a cohesive
and chronological order based on the pineapple value chain viz-a-viz the AIS. Direct
statements illustrative of categorized themes were used. The ensuing section presents a
discussion of the system that was implemented given the policy design of the MiDA pro-
gramme. The policy design implies how the design was conceived, what was captured in
the policy, individuals and institutions involved, how the process of design was under-
taken and the consultative nature of the entire system.
4.1. System – programme design against what was implemented
The system is based on definitions by (Alaie 2020; Klerkx and Begemann 2020; Klerkx,
Álvarez, and Campusano 2015; Pound and Conroy 2017) that defines a system to be a
unit made up of varied actors that interact reflectively to bring about innovation. In
this study, a system12 denotes a relationship that exists among stakeholders, in terms
of linkages, strength, information exchange and flow. The system planned in the
policy document and the actual implementation included a broad spectrum of actors.
Before the MiDA proposal development, broader consultation processes were held in
2004 in line with the MCC selection criteria (ruling justly, investing in people and
encouraging economic freedom). The stakeholders included government agencies at
the national and local level, academia, farmers, FBOs, processors, input industries, exten-
sionists, research institutes, industry-specific stakeholders, the legislative, financial insti-
tutions, mass media and civil society organizations. The stakeholders engaged in various
interactions geared towards the generation and use of knowledge. It was observed from
the FGDs and KIIs conducted that farmers voices did not highly influence programme
design.
A key informant with the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA), reported that:
Local-level consultations took place in all intervention zones whereby information and ideas
were elicited on priority projects selection. There were series of workshops and familiariz-
ation tours that led to the design of the MCA Ghana programme, however, inputs from
FBOs remained limited. (MiDA KII, 8th/02/2012)
10 D. A. ANKRAH AND C. Y. FREEMAN
In a FGD, farmers of Pokrom Patriotic FBO indicated that:
… at the local level, few FBO leaders were engaged in consultations before the MCA Ghana
compact preparation. We did not have greater inputs into the design and preparation of the
compact. (Pokrom Patriotic Cooperative, FGD/22nd/04/2012)
This assertion was widespread among most FGDs and KIIs conducted. The finding
concurs with Rajalahti, Janssen, and Pehu (2008) and Alaie (2020). This study considers
the innovation process to include how innovation emanates through reflective learning,
generation of ideas, knowledge use and exchange. The minimal active participation by
farmers in the compact design shares similarities with the linear approach to extension
and research. Female farmers had less participation and we note the presence of few
females directly involved in pineapple production, a plausible reason could be due to
the capital intensive nature of pineapple production that discriminates against women.
Ankrah, Freeman, and Afful (2020) provide evidence of gendered access to productive
resources in their study in southern Ghana. Quisumbing et al. (2015) further shed
light on gendered relations in agriculture with respect to high value crops.
The planning and the implementation of the MiDA programme were consultative and
involved heterogeneous stakeholders which aligned with the AIS conceptually in some
regard but differed in an aspect where smallholder farmers lacked agency and recog-
nition. The knowledge base of farmers should be non-trivial in the design and implemen-
tation of agricultural development programmes to ensure success and justify an
investment.
We observed that in terms of implementation, the stakeholders involved in the inno-
vation system13 and processes did not work together as a system that fostered interactive
learning and exchange of ideas but rather one that worked independently of others. This
did not facilitate interactive learning and led to failures. A lecturer who worked as a train-
ing service provider reported that:
We trained farmers on the contents of effective bankable business plans, but we realized that
what we delivered differed from what the financial institutions required, eventually few
business plans got funded. (MiDA KII, 7th/02/2012)
Some of the actors involved in the innovation system were not very active but highly
reliant on the government for directives and financial support. In an interview with a
key informant with the Department of Agriculture, an officer remarked:
Our work is restricted since most of our activities depends on funding from government and
over the years’ discrepancies have existed in our proposed budget and what finally gets dis-
bursed, eventually some activities get shelved, rendering some stakeholders to be inactive or
dormant. (MiDA KII, 8th/02/2012)
The phenomenon of an unbalanced financial dependence on a few resourced stake-
holders stifles innovation and leads to ineffective interaction among stakeholders. This
is consistent with findings made by Rajalahti, Janssen, and Pehu (2008) that showed
that most actors remained inactive and dependent solely on others in a case study in
Bolivia (functionalist perspective).14 The case study involved the International Potato
Center (CIP) attempt to facilitate stakeholder interaction and collective learning in creat-
ing a market niche among potatoes farmers. The lesson showed that collective action is
not guaranteed but rather requires a good facilitator to actively create and sustain actors.
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 11
This is because some actors have competing interests, whilst others do not have the
luxury of time to engage in active networks, hence they remain less active or dormant.
Mistrust among actors also contributes to inactivity. In extreme cases, such actors exit
a network. It is worthy to note that funding is necessary to compensate for transaction
costs associated with partnership formation and sustenance. The MiDA programme
was partially in tune with the AIS approach in terms of the system involved in both
the planning and implementation.
The MiDA acted as an innovation intermediary that facilitated interaction and coordi-
nation among stakeholders. In a key informant interview with a representative of MiDA,
the individual indicated that:
MiDA managed the project through stakeholders. MiDA as an institution did not
implement on its own but only facilitated a system to function to achieve the objectives
under the agricultural sector policy. This was done through CMCs, TTSPs, FBOs, research
institutes, academia, government agencies, input suppliers and civil society organizations.
(MiDA KII, 7th/02/2012)
The MiDA programme did encourage strong relationships and coordination among
stakeholders. It became apparent that the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA)
strengthened stronger collaboration with stakeholders. The extensive consultative pro-
cesses that existed among key stakeholders encouraged effective networking that fos-
tered the generation, sharing and application of knowledge. Challenges such as lack
of harmony and reflective learning among actors who did not mutually interact were
recorded. Consequently, for such actors coming together the first time, posed chal-
lenges – negative actor attitudes, slippages in timelines and funding disbursement
challenges.
The study further discusses the MiDA programme in terms of its implementation viz-
a-viz the AIS conceptual and analytical frameworks in section 2. This is examined in
terms of the processes involved in the generation of ideas, exchange, use of ideas and
institutional changes.
4.2. Processes – actual implementation through an AIS lens
The processes are examined in terms of ideas generation, information exchange, infor-
mation use among different stakeholders and institutional change, i.e. ways of organizing
markets, labour, land tenure and distribution of benefits.
4.2.1. Generation of new ideas
A committee known as the Research – Extension – Farmer Linkage Committee (RELC’s)
was tasked to facilitate innovation among actors. However, RELCs remained ineffective
because they rarely (once a year) met with stakeholders to gather relevant information.
This situation did not augur well for innovation development and use. A KII with a
representative of MoFA indicated that:
RELC’s did not give feedback to the stakeholders on inputs solicited. RELC’s role within the
innovation processes did not fully encourage the generation of new ideas among stake-
holders but rather gathered ideas from stakeholders and passed it on to research institutes.
(MiDA KII, 8th/02/2012)
12 D. A. ANKRAH AND C. Y. FREEMAN
The limited budgetary allocation to RELC’s constrained their expected effective role from
an infrastructural and functionalist perspective. Ragasa (2011) found ineffectiveness in
the role played by RELC’s in their study in Ghana and Nigeria. Confraria and Wang
(2020) found limitations in national research funding in most African countries. It
also mirrors findings by Klerkx, Aarts, and Leeuwis (2010), Hall et al. (2006) and
Pound and Conroy (2017) who argued that failures in coordinating actors in a chain
lead to weak linkages. RELC’s role was not totally in tune with the AIS approach of
enhancing innovation through interactive learning, ideas exchange and timely feedback.
We observed from a KII involving a MiDA representative that academic and research
institutions recorded weakness in association and coordination, this aligns with Klerkx,
Van Mierlo, and Leeuwis (2012) infrastructural and functionalist perspective. Consult-
ants from the traditional universities in Ghana and research institutes from the
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) trained the FBOs. Smallholder
farmers widely indicated in FGDs that they had a weak association with research and aca-
demic institutions. This is partly explained by the ineffective role played by RELCs in
innovation intermediation. We note however that the MiDA programme cannot radi-
cally change stakeholder linkages but could lay a strong foundation for future stronger
synergies from Klerkx, Van Mierlo, and Leeuwis (2012) process perspective. This
finding contrasts with the AIS approach to extension and research as indicated by
(Klerkx and Begemann 2020; Turner et al. 2016). This finding is however consistent
with the findings of Alaie (2020) who indicated a disconnect between research, academic
institutions and farmers.
The MiDA training sessions were participatory and encouraged the voluntary contri-
bution of ideas. Farmers indicated in all FGDs that the trainings were participatory in
comparison with other past training programmes. In a FGD, participants indicated:
We expected to see a facilitator leading and dominating training sessions, we were taken
aback when facilitators rather stepped back and coordinated responses. Indeed, the training
sessions were very participatory and gave us the confidence to believe in ourselves. (Pokrom
Patriotic FBO, FGD/25th/November/2011)
The process for the generation of ideas under the training component aligned with
Klerkx, Van Mierlo, and Leeuwis (2012) AIS process perspective in the sense that the
MiDA programme only facilitated the generation of ideas by all stakeholders through
greater stakeholder consultation. New ideas emanated from agribusiness actors and
farmers.
Agribusiness sector players (Bomart, Jei-River, Prudent, George Fields, Gold Coast)
adopted an improved innovation in pre-cooling and cooling pineapple fruits before
export. This technology improved the shelf-life of pineapple fruits, offered farmers a
competitive advantage and consequently reduced post-harvest losses. This implied that
farmers profitability was improved and justified MCC investment.
MiDA FBOs were more diversified and approached farming as a business as empha-
sized in the training modules. Before farmers started production, they sought buyers,
signed contracts and produced according to the buyer’s specification. This led to the
improvement in profit because signed agreements enforced a binding obligation for
the buyer to purchase all fruits. This reduced the practice where farmers sourced for
buyers or buyers dictated prices signifying a new way of organizing (AIS concept).
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 13
A FGD with Fotobi Cooperative, members indicated that:
After going through the MiDA training, we now secure a buyer before getting into pro-
duction. We engage in written contracts with witnesses from both parties and it is
binding on the buyer to purchase all fruits once an agreement has been signed. This has
relieved us and increased our profit margins because hitherto, we often had to source for
buyers and when we were unsuccessful, the local market women took advantage and
offered uncompetitive prices. This dis-incentivized pineapple production. (Fotobi Coopera-
tive, FGD/3rd /February/2012)
This assertion was widely reported in many interviews conducted in both FGDs and KIIs.
The MIDA FBOs after going through sessions on group formation and dynamics saw the
need to build strong team cohesion and developed good bargaining skills for ensuring
fair transactions as a group and not individuals. Previously farmers who belonged to
FBOs sold their pineapple fruits individually. After going through the training,
framers collectively agreed on a common price to sell their produce and maintained
such prices among its members. This minimized exploitation by buyers and exporters.
In an FGD, farmers indicated that:
In the past, we belonged to an FBO but ironically we existed as individuals. Exporters and
local market women dictated prices to us and given the perishable nature of pineapple fruits,
we had no option than to accept unfair prices. (Apesika Cooperative, FGD/17th/April/2012)
We observed a strong team cohesion between the MiDA FBOs than the non-MiDA
FBOs. Strong team cohesion and bargaining power make FBOs self-sustaining and
this needs to be underscored in future training policies for ensuring FBOs sustainability
beyond programme interventions.
The training component for the MiDA programme remained distinct from others
because farmers were taken through the development of viable business plans that
were used to obtain loans from the banks and accredited Micro-Financial Institutions
(MFIs). This represented an innovative way of doing things but there was a huge disap-
pointment because only few a FBOs were successful with their loan applications. There
was a disconnect between the acceptable criteria by the banks and MFIs and what the
TTSPs delivered. This was a departure from the AIS perspective of reflective learning
among stakeholders.
4.2.2. Exchange of information
The exchange of information was participatory covering various aspects of agricultural
production. The mass media were used frequently to keep update the general public.
The MiDA programme encouraged regular meetings. The programme encouraged con-
tinuous consultations and information exchange through the creation of twenty-eight
(28) district advisory committees. Fotobi Cooperative indicated in a FGD that they
exchanged agricultural information among themselves through regular meetings.
Indeed, Kwapong et al. (2020) indicated in their study in Ghana how farmers share inno-
vation peer-to-peer through FBOs. This phenomenon observed was widespread among
all the MiDA FBOs. Members of the Fotobi Cooperative indicated in a FGD that:
The MiDA programme encouraged regular meeting and discussion of problems bothering
us. This improved group cohesion, a situation missing in the past. (Fotobi Cooperative,
FGD/24th/04/2012)
14 D. A. ANKRAH AND C. Y. FREEMAN
The regular meetings helped in the exchange of ideas which facilitated innovation among
the MiDA FBOs. Information was exchanged through other means such as demon-
stration plots and workshops.
Information was exchanged via demonstration plots that enabled farmers to observe the
outputs of recommended practices. A total of 107 demonstration farms were set up
across three intervention zones. (MCC 2010)
Demonstration plots proved as a useful means of sharing best practices. The use of dem-
onstration plots allowed farmers to make informed decisions about what to produce and
how to produce. The plots were managed and led by selected farmers with other
members having unlimited access. The MiDA training programme emphasized a high
level of facilitation of farmers exchange of ideas, thus aligned with the AIS concept of
exchange of information consistent with Klerkx and Nettle (2013), Douthwaite and
Hoffecker (2017) and Pigford, Hickey, and Klerkx (2018). Large-scale investments are
encouraged to embed this in design and implementation. Even though the exchange
of ideas was interactive, it was however not a reflective process that allowed for feedback
integration.
4.2.3. Use of information
It emerged from the FGDs and KIIs that MiDA FBOs formed sub-groups, including a
marketing sub-group. This was missing in the case of non-MiDA FBOs. The formation
of sub-groups and specifically marketing sub-groups remained important because pine-
apple farmers in the past were exploited by exporters.
4.2.4. Institutional change, i.e. ways of organizing markets, labour, land tenure,
finance and distribution of benefits
The MiDA programme linked FBOs to markets. In the Southern Horticultural Belt
(SHB)15 a total of 135 FBOs were linked. Five pineapple out-grower FBOs in the
Nsawam Adoagyiri Municipal Assembly, Awutu, Effutu and Senya districts were
linked to nucleus farmers and the Blue Skies Company. Twenty (20) buyers and suppliers
were linked to FBOs (MCC 2009).
It was however observed in most FGDs with MiDA FBOs that market access remained
a major challenge. Farmers indicated that MiDA was ineffective in this regard. This not-
withstanding, the MiDA programme helped to bring up new ways of accessing the
market and creating new market niches. A new arrangement involved the supply of
MD2 pineapple variety by Bomart Farms who supplied pineapple suckers to farmers
and based on a submission of an invoice, payment was received directly from the Agri-
cultural Development Bank (ADB). Universal Tractor Service (UTS) was given a contract
to provide tractor services. Similarly, based on the provision of an invoice, UTS was paid
directly from ADB. This concurs with findings in the literature that justify new ways of
organizing markets and labour (Pound and Conroy 2017; Kamara, Van Hulst, and
Dorward 2020; Klerkx and Begemann 2020).
The MiDA programme made conscious efforts to improve tenure security through
land registration and issuance of land title certificates (Please see the introduction on
MiDA agricultural component). This was in tune with the AIS concept in bringing
about institutional changes. Institutions such as the Lands Commission, the Judicial
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 15
Service were brought together to interact and exchange ideas leading to reorganization in
the land tenure system. Farmers thereby had an opportunity to easy land registration
thereby improving tenure security. A process that was hitherto very cumbersome and
time-consuming.
The MiDA programme distributed benefits through the use of starter packs. The pack
consisted of agricultural inputs such as one-acre maize seed valued at $28, wellington
boots, fertilizers, face masks, gloves and payment of GH¢30 for land preparation. The
value of the entire starter pack was $230. Farmers were expected to contribute about
20% bags of maize to their FBO at the end of a farming season to help build FBO
financial viability and improve farmer commitment. The introduction of the starter
pack was unsuccessful to some extent. This was because some farmers just adhered to
recommended practices on the proposed one-acre starter pack farms but resorted to
their old practices on their farms. This situation was not widespread among the MiDA
FBOs but the unintended benefit of the practice was that it unconsciously allowed
farmers to compare the output from the one-acre starter pack farms to parts of their
own farms where they resorted to their old practices. Another problem linked to the
starter pack was the refusal of some MiDA FBOs to contribute the expected 20% bags
of harvested maize to consolidate FBOs financial strengths. Farmers did this based on
a perceived notion that government officials remain corrupt hence there was a justifica-
tion to do the same. This constituted an implementation setback.
The MiDA programme was envisaged to encourage FBOs to form bigger unions to
improve pricing, bargaining power and market access. This was however not effective.
It was observed widely from the MiDA FBOs FGDs that most FBOs were unable to
form bigger unions to serve as a strong voice at the national level. Interviews with
farmers showed that resource-poor farmers still felt voiceless in influencing agricultural
policy formulation and implementation.
The MiDA programme facilitated the opening of bank accounts for smallholder pine-
apple farmers who were un-banked (Please see the introduction on agricultural com-
ponent). It emerged from a FGD conducted with a representative each from MoFA
and MiDA that the Bank of Ghana (BoG), facilitated financial institutions such as
ADB, rural banks and export finance companies to implement the objectives under
the financial component. This involved the automation of rural banks in facilitating agri-
cultural credit and transactions that improved farmers banking and savings culture. It
was reported widely by all MiDA FBOs that financial institutions did not achieve most
of the targets, contributing to the exit of some actors. This mirrors a finding made by
Pound and Conroy (2017) that indicated that actors may leave or enter the system at
any point in time.
5. Conclusion
In terms of the design of the MiDA programme viz-a-viz the AIS perspective, the system
implemented brought onboard heterogeneous stakeholders. It was consultative but
farmers active participation remained limited lending itself to linear extension and
research models. MiDA acted as an innovation intermediary.
In terms of processes, the MiDA programme implemented aligned strongly with the
AIS approach even though most of the agents within the system acted independently and
16 D. A. ANKRAH AND C. Y. FREEMAN
lacked a high level of reflectivity and synergy in the generation and use of knowledge. The
alignment to the AIS facilitated success in programme implementation and non-align-
ment contributed to programme failures. RELC’s intermediation role remained ineffec-
tive, additionally, research and universities remained disconnected from farmers.
Alignment with AIS led to improvements in institutional changes through increased
financial inclusion, effective ways of organizing agricultural labour, distribution of
benefits and improvement in land tenure. Non-alignment to the AIS framework contrib-
uted to low loan success rates, actor dormancy and exit. We conclude that the AIS is a
useful conceptual and operational framework16 for the design and implementation of
large-scale agricultural programmes, particularly within the developing country
context. There will however be no meaningful headway for subsequent future large-
scale government programmes if the issues to deal with the recognition and harnessing
of synergies reflectively existing among heterogeneous stakeholders remains unad-
dressed. Cognizance should be taken of actors who do not mutually interact and allow
flexibility in an ecosystem that remains supportive and encouraging. The AIS approach
presents a good conceptual and operational tool to plan and implement development
projects. It should be noted however that there is no blueprint for the application of
AIS. However, recognition of varied actors, coupled with the need for flexibility and
interactive learning is encouraged. Overall this study provides new insights into the oper-
ationalization of the AIS concept. It offers empirical data in support of the perspectives
proposed by (Klerkx, Van Mierlo, and Leeuwis 2012) and builds on these to contribute
new insights on AIS thinking.
5.1. Policy implications and recommendations
RELC’s and institutions of higher learning are encouraged to engage farmers in low-
input innovations that are cost-effective. RELC’s should take charge as an innovation
intermediary to collate actor needs, challenges and opportunities and feed such inputs
to higher educational institutions and research institutes to jointly develop pragmatic sol-
utions that address actors’ constraints in a loop.
The future of extension and research in Ghana should not be prescriptive (top-down
with research institutions leading and dominating). There should be full integration of
AIS as a conceptual and operational tool by recognizing different actors including small-
holder farmers and harnessing their synergies in driving innovation.
5.1.2 Limitations of the study
The data for the study was collected in 2012 but it remains relevant in proving the theor-
etical and practical relevance of AIS given the fact that less prominence is given to AIS in
Ghana and SSA in general. We however acknowledge this as a limitation of the study.
Additionally, little attention was devoted to a gendered analysis in the study.
Notes
1. This is also known as the systems thinking as captured by Fielke et al. (2019). The systems
thinking goes beyond the mere creation of knowledge to include both demand and supply
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 17
factors that affect knowledge generation, access, transmission, exchange learning and use in
novel and pragmatic ways.
2. Please see section 2 for an overview of what constitutes an extension approach within the
remit of AIS.
3. The study presented in this paper refers to the MCA programme implemented in Ghana as
the MiDA programme.
4. The desirable outcomes include but are not limited to reflective processes leading to new
ways of doing things, alternative ways of sharing benefits, organizing labour, changes in
land tenure arrangements and market.
5. In this study, the analysis of the project design viz-a-viz the AIS is referred to as conceptu-
alization or how AIS can be used as a conceptual framework.
6. How the MiDA programme was implemented against the AIS framework, the study con-
siders to be operationalization. Thus reference is made in the study presented in this
paper about AIS used as a conceptual and operational tool.
7. See Page 3 for the definition of FBOs.
8. The semi-structured guide was shaped by the themes identified under conceptual and
analytical frameworks in section 2.
9. These criteria were shaped by the conceptual and analytical frameworks as captured in
section 2.
10. Braun and Clarke (2006) described a code as a label for identifying an area of interest in
data.
11. This included sources that contained information on programme design, participants
involved in programme design and implementation, processes of implementation, gener-
ation of ideas, exchange of information and use of information.
12. This system is discussed in relation to the themes captured under the conceptual and
analytical frameworks in section 2 particularly the 3 perspectives of AIS.
13. Essentially the training was farmer-centered allowing farmers to own the training sessions
through increased participation with the trainer only acting as a facilitator.
14. Please see section 2 from the functionalist perspective.
15. There were three zones (Northern Zone, Afram Basin and Southern Horticultural Belt) in
Ghana where the MiDA programme covered, see information captured in the introduction.
16. Conceptual and operational frameworks imply that the AIS can be used to conceive ideas
and design agricultural sector policies that can the implemented (operationalized). In the
study presented in this paper, we provide evidence to show how the contents and the
MiDA policy had resemblance with the AIS ensured programme success and failures in
instances of non-alignment.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
Dr. Daniel Adu Ankrah is a Lecturer with the Department of Agricultural Extension, University of
Ghana. His researcher interest cut across agricultural innovation system, agricultural communi-
cation, agricultural extension, gender, climate change, food security, agricultural policy and agri-
cultural commercialization.
Dr. Comfort Yomle Freeman is a Senior Lecturer and Head of the Department of Agricultural
Extension, University of Ghana. Her research interest centers on agricultural innovation
system, agricultural communication, agricultural extension and gender.
18 D. A. ANKRAH AND C. Y. FREEMAN
ORCID
Daniel Adu Ankrah http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9360-0854
References
Adu-Acheampong, Richard, Janice Jiggins, Ebenezer Tei Quartey, Nana Maxwell Karikari,
William Jonfia-Essien, Edward Quarshie, Paul Osei-Fosu, Maxwell Amuzu, Charles Afari-
Mintah, and Kwasi Ofori-Frimpong. 2017. “An Innovation Platform for Institutional Change
in Ghana’s Cocoa Sector.” Cahiers Agricultures 26 (3): 35002.
Akullo, Diana, Harro Maat, and Arjen EJ Wals. 2018. “An Institutional Diagnostics of Agricultural
Innovation; Public-Private Partnerships and Smallholder Production in Uganda.” NJAS-
Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 84: 6–12.
Alaie, Sheeraz Ahmad. 2020. “Knowledge and Learning in the Horticultural Innovation System: A
Case of Kashmir Valley of India.” International Journal of Innovation Studies 4 (4): 116–133.
Amankwah, K., L. Klerkx, S. J. Oosting, O. Sakyi-Dawson, A. J. van der Zijpp, and D. Millar. 2012.
“Diagnosing Constraints to Market Participation of Small Ruminant Producers in Northern
Ghana: An Innovation Systems Analysis.” NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 60: 37–47.
Amezah, Kwame, and Johann Hesse. 2004. “Ghana: Reforms in the Ghanaian Extension System.”
Agriculture and Rural Development: Discussion Paper 8: 12–18.
Anang, Benjamin Tetteh, Stefan Bäckman, and Timo Sipiläinen. 2020. “Adoption and Income
Effects of Agricultural Extension in Northern Ghana.” Scientific African 7: e00219.
Ankrah, Daniel Adu, Comfort Y. Freeman, and Albert Afful. 2020. “Gendered Access to
Productive Resources – Evidence from Small Holder Farmers in Awutu Senya West District
of Ghana.” Scientific African 10: e00604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00604.
Ates, Hacer Celik, Hasan Yilmaz, Vecdi Demircan, Mevlut Gul, Erdogan Ozturk, and Murside
Çagla Ormeci Kart. 2017. “How did Post-2000 Agricultural Policy Changes in Turkey Affect
Farmers?–A Focus Group Evaluation.” Land Use Policy 69: 298–306.
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative
Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.
Brooks, Sally, and Michael Loevinsohn. 2011. “Shaping Agricultural Innovation Systems
Responsive to Food Insecurity and Climate Change.” Natural Resources Forum.
Confraria, Hugo, and Lili Wang. 2020. “Medical Research Versus Disease Burden in Africa.”
Research Policy 49 (3): 103916.
Douthwaite, Boru, and Elizabeth Hoffecker. 2017. “Towards a Complexity-Aware Theory of
Change for Participatory Research Programs Working Within Agricultural Innovation
Systems.” Agricultural Systems 155: 88–102.
Dundar, Selma. 2013. “Students’ Participation to the Decision-Making Process as a Tool for
Democratic School.” Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 13 (2): 867–875.
Fielke, Simon J, Robert Garrard, Emma Jakku, Aysha Fleming, Leanne Wiseman, and Bruce M
Taylor. 2019. “Conceptualising the DAIS: Implications of the ‘Digitalisation of Agricultural
Innovation Systems’ on Technology and Policy at Multiple Levels.” NJAS-Wageningen
Journal of Life Sciences 90: 100296.
Gaitán-Cremaschi, Daniel, Laurens Klerkx, Jessica Duncan, Jacques H Trienekens, Carlos
Huenchuleo, Santiago Dogliotti, María E Contesse, Francisco J Benitez-Altuna, and Walter
AH Rossing. 2020. “Sustainability Transition Pathways Through Ecological Intensification:
an Assessment of Vegetable Food Systems in Chile.” International Journal of Agricultural
Sustainability 18 (2): 131–150.
Gildemacher, Peter R, Wachira Kaguongo, Oscar Ortiz, Agajie Tesfaye, Gebremedhin
Woldegiorgis, William W Wagoire, Rogers Kakuhenzire, Peter M Kinyae, Moses Nyongesa,
and Paul C Struik. 2009. “Improving Potato Production in Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia: a
System Diagnosis.” Potato Research 52 (2): 173–205.
Graneheim, Ulla H, Britt-Marie Lindgren, and Berit Lundman. 2017. “Methodological Challenges
in Qualitative Content Analysis: A Discussion Paper.” Nurse Education Today 56: 29–34.
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 19
Hall, A., and N. Clark. 2010. “What do Complex Adaptive Systems Look Like and What are the
Implications for Innovation Policy?” Journal of International Development: The Journal of the
Development Studies Association 22 (3): 308–324.
Hall, Andy, Wilhelmus Gerardus Janssen, Eija Pehu, and Riikka Rajalahti. 2006. Enhancing
Agricultural Innovation: how to go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems.
Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Hammarberg, Karin, Maggie Kirkman, and Sheryl de Lacey. 2016. “Qualitative Research Methods:
When to use Them and how to Judge Them.” Human Reproduction 31 (3): 498–501.
Hermans, Frans, Floor Geerling-Eiff, Jorieke Potters, and Laurens Klerkx. 2019. “Public-private
Partnerships as Systemic Agricultural Innovation Policy Instruments–Assessing Their
Contribution to Innovation System Function Dynamics.” NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life
Sciences 88: 76–95.
Herrero, Mario, Philip K Thornton, Daniel Mason-D’Croz, Jeda Palmer, Tim G Benton, Benjamin
L Bodirsky, Jessica R Bogard, Andrew Hall, Bernice Lee, and Karine Nyborg. 2020. “Innovation
Can Accelerate the Transition Towards a Sustainable Food System.” Nature Food 1 (5): 266–
272.
Kamara, Lamin Ibrahim, Freddy Van Hulst, and Peter Dorward. 2020. “Using Improved
Understanding of Research and Extension Professionals’ Attitudes and Beliefs to Inform
Design of AIS Approaches.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 1–18.
doi:10.1080/1389224X.2020.1828114.
Khisa, G. 2007. “Farmer Field School Experience in Kenya.” Presentation at the IFAD TAG
Regional Meeting Bukoba, Tanzania.
Klerkx, Laurens, Noelle Aarts, and Cees Leeuwis. 2010. “Adaptive Management in Agricultural
Innovation Systems: The Interactions Between Innovation Networks and Their
Environment.” Agricultural Systems 103 (6): 390–400.
Klerkx, Laurens, Roberto Álvarez, and Rolando Campusano. 2015. “The Emergence and
Functioning of Innovation Intermediaries in Maturing Innovation Systems: the Case of
Chile.” Innovation and Development 5 (1): 73–91.
Klerkx, Laurens, and Stephanie Begemann. 2020. “Supporting Food Systems Transformation: The
What, why, who, Where and how of Mission-Oriented Agricultural Innovation Systems.”
Agricultural Systems 184: 102901.
Klerkx, Laurens, and Ruth Nettle. 2013. “Achievements and Challenges of Innovation co-
Production Support Initiatives in the Australian and Dutch Dairy Sectors: A Comparative
Study.” Food Policy 40: 74–89.
Klerkx, Laurens, Barbara Van Mierlo, and Cees Leeuwis. 2012. “Evolution of Systems Approaches
to Agricultural Innovation: Concepts, Analysis and Interventions.” In Farming Systems Research
Into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic, edited by D. Gibbon and B. Dedieu, 457–483.
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2_20.
Kuivanen, K. S., S. Alvarez, Mirja Michalscheck, S. Adjei-Nsiah, Katrien Descheemaeker, S.
Mellon-Bedi, and Jeroen CJ Groot. 2016. “Characterising the Diversity of Smallholder
Farming Systems and Their Constraints and Opportunities for Innovation: A Case Study
from the Northern Region, Ghana.” NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 78: 153–166.
Kwapong, Nana Afranaa, Daniel Adu Ankrah, Dominic Boateng-Gyambiby, Joseph Asenso-
Agyemang, and Lydia Oteng Fening. 2020. “Assessment of Agricultural Advisory Messages
from Farmer-to-Farmer in Making a Case for Scaling Up Production: A Qualitative Study.”
The Qualitative Report 25 (8): 2011–2025.
Leeuwis, C. 2004. with Van den Ban, A.(2004) Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking
Agricultural Extension. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Leeuwis, Cees, and Noelle Aarts. 2011. “Rethinking Communication in Innovation Processes:
Creating Space for Change in Complex Systems.” Journal of Agricultural Education and
Extension 17 (1): 21–36.
Leonardo, Elias, Peter Dorward, Chris Garforth, Chloe Sutcliffe, and Freddy Van Hulst. 2020.
“Conflict-induced Displacement as a Catalyst for Agricultural Innovation: Findings from
South Sudan.” Land Use Policy 90: 104272.
20 D. A. ANKRAH AND C. Y. FREEMAN
MCC. 2009. Quarterly Report 8, Jan - March.
MCC. 2010. Quarterly Report 14 July - Sept.
MCC. 2020. Measuring Results of the Ghana Agriculture Project.
Munthali, Nyamwaya, Cees Leeuwis, Annemarie van Paassen, Rico Lie, Richard Asare, Ron van
Lammeren, and Marc Schut. 2018. “Innovation Intermediation in a Digital age: Comparing
Public and Private new-ICT Platforms for Agricultural Extension in Ghana.” NJAS-
Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 86: 64–76.
Osei-Amponsah, C., Leontine Visser, S. Adjei-Nsiah, P. C. Struik, O. Sakyi-Dawson, and T. J.
Stomph. 2012. “Processing Practices of Small-Scale Palm oil Producers in the Kwaebibirem
District, Ghana: A Diagnostic Study.” NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 60: 49–56.
Pariona, Ameber. 2018. “Top Pineapple Producing Countries.” https://www.worldatlas.com/
articles/top-pineapple-producing-countries.html.
Pigford, Ashlee-Ann E, Gordon M Hickey, and Laurens Klerkx. 2018. “Beyond Agricultural
Innovation Systems? Exploring an Agricultural Innovation Ecosystems Approach for Niche
Design and Development in Sustainability Transitions.” Agricultural Systems 164: 116–121.
Pound, Barry, and Czech Conroy. 2017. “The Innovation Systems Approach to Agricultural
Research and Development.” In Agricultural Systems, edited by Nancy Maragioglio, 371–405.
London: Elsevier.
Quisumbing, Agnes R, Deborah Rubin, Cristina Manfre, Elizabeth Waithanji, Mara Van den Bold,
Deanna Olney, Nancy Johnson, and Ruth Meinzen-Dick. 2015. “Gender, Assets, and Market-
Oriented Agriculture: Learning from High-Value Crop and Livestock Projects in Africa and
Asia.” Agriculture and Human Values 32 (4): 705–725.
Ragasa, C. 2011. “Are Research-Extension-Farmer-Linkage Committees Effective and Inclusive?
Perspective of Agricultural Researchers and Extension Agents in Nigeria and Ghana.”
International Conference on Innovations in Extension and Advisory Services Proceedings.
Rajalahti, Riikka, Willem Janssen, and Eija Pehu. 2008. Agricultural Innovation Systems: From
Diagnostics Toward Operational Practices: Agriculture & Rural Development Department,
World Bank.
Schüler, Stefan, and Eva Maria Noack. 2019. “Does the CAP Reflect the Population’s Concerns
About Agricultural Landscapes? A Qualitative Study in Lower Saxony, Germany.” Land use
Policy: The International Journal Covering All Aspects of Land Use 83: 240–255.
Spielman, David J. 2005. Innovation Systems Perspectives on Developing-Country Agriculture: A
Critical Review: International food policy research institute (IFPRI). International service for
national agricultural research (ISNAR) division.
Spielman, David J, Javier Ekboir, and Kristin Davis. 2009. “The art and Science of Innovation
Systems Inquiry: Applications to Sub-Saharan African Agriculture.” Technology in Society 31
(4): 399–405.
Totin, Edmond, Carla Roncoli, Pierre Sibiry Traoré, Jacques Somda, and Robert Zougmoré. 2018.
“How Does Institutional Embeddedness Shape Innovation Platforms? A Diagnostic Study of
Three Districts in the Upper West Region of Ghana.” NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life
Sciences 84: 27–40.
Turner, James A, Laurens Klerkx, Kelly Rijswijk, Tracy Williams, and Tim Barnard. 2016.
“Systemic Problems Affecting co-Innovation in the New Zealand Agricultural Innovation
System: Identification of Blocking Mechanisms and Underlying Institutional Logics.” NJAS-
Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 76: 99–112.