Should we do agricultural research FOR development or agricultural research IN development?
February 23, 2026
By Shaun Coffey FTSE FAIA CRSNZ FAICD
For decades, the global community has rallied under the banner of AgR4D: Agricultural Research FOR Development. It is a comfortable acronym that implies a noble service, a clear objective, and a structured path to impact. But as we face the multiple crises of climate change, broken supply chains, and persistent malnutrition, we could ask ourselves: is that tiny preposition – for – holding us back?
If we are to meet the challenges of the 21st century, we need more than a change in strategy; we need a subtle but impactful mindshift. We can move from doing research for development to conducting research in development.
The Myth of the Pipeline
The “Research FOR Development” model is built on a linear, industrial-age logic. It imagines a pipeline: scientists in a laboratory or on a research station identify a problem, develop a technology (a higher-yielding seed or a more efficient irrigation tool) and then “transfer” that technology to the development sector for “adoption.”
In this model, research is an external engine. The scientist is the expert, and the farmer is the “end-user.” This approach works for “complicated” problems where cause and effect are clear. But food systems are complex. As noted by Douthwaite et al. (2017) in their analysis of intervening in complex systems, traditional AgR4D often fails because it ignores the emergent, unplanned outcomes that define real-world development. When we do research for development, we often create perfect solutions for a world that doesn’t exist.
The “IN” Perspective: Research as a Living Function
Shifting to Research IN Development means abandoning the pipeline in favour of the ecosystem. It suggests that research is not a precursor to development, but a continuous, embedded function of it.
An explicit champion of this shift is the Prolinnova network. In their Strategy 2021–25, they deliberately use the term “Agricultural Research in Development” to stress that research and development are “inextricably intertwined.” They argue that research should not be a separate activity carried out for a subsequent phase, but a process that supports experimentation and adaptation within the development journey itself.
In this paradigm, the boundaries between the researcher, the extension agent, and the farmer dissolve. This aligns with the concept of Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D), pioneered by FARA (Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa), which treats R&D as a “fused continuum” rather than a series of hand-offs.
Power-With, Not Power-Over
This shift is, at its core, about power. The management theorist Mary Parker Follett spoke of the difference between “Power-Over” and “Power-With.”
AgR4D is often an exercise in “Power-Over.” It relies on the authority of the expert and the hierarchy of the institution. It assumes that the “centre” knows what the “periphery” needs. Research in development demands “Power-With.” It recognizes that a farmer is also a researcher. As highlighted in Descheemaeker et al. (2019) regarding “socio-ecological niches,” success depends on tailoring options to local contexts through co-learning. It is not about delivering blanket recommendations from a distance.
Navigating Complexity
Using the Cynefin framework, we see that the “FOR” model treats food security as a “Complicated” problem requiring expert analysis. But real-world development is “Complex.” In a complex system, there are no “best practices,” only “emergent practices.”
Research in development is designed for this. It allows us to be agile. If a new pest emerges, an embedded research team could “probe, sense, and respond” immediately within the current program, rather than waiting for a new three-year grant cycle.
The Challenge to Our Institutions
Why haven’t we made this shift? Because “Research IN Development” is harder to manage and measure. Our incentive structures reward peer-reviewed publications over messy, real-world outcomes. However, if our research doesn’t result in a more resilient development system, what is it actually for?
A Path Forward
The “Mindshift” requires us to move:
- From Technical Transfer to Systemic Facilitation.
- From Expert Authority to Collaborative Inquiry.
- From Linear Planning to Adaptive Learning.
We have spent decades doing research for a world we hope to see. It is time we started doing research in the world in which we actually live.
Is that a bridge too far? Or is it the bridge we have been avoiding?
References
- Prolinnova. (2020). Enhancing capacity to innovate: Key to sustainable development – Strategy 2021–2025. Prolinnova International Secretariat; Royal Tropical Institute (KIT). http://prolinnova.net/wp-content/files/documents/About_Us/prolinnova_strategy_2021-25_final_190121.pdf
- Douthwaite, B., Apgar, J. M., Schwarz, A. M., McDougall, C., Attwood, S., Senaratna Sellamuttu, S., & Clayton, T. (2017). A new perspective on theory of change: Allowing for complexity in agricultural research for development. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 23(3), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2017.1323061
- Descheemaeker, K., Ronner, E., Ollenburger, M., Franke, A. C., Ritters, H. P., & Giller, K. E. (2019). Which options fit best? Operationalizing the socio-ecological niche concept. Experimental Agriculture, 55(S1), 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1017/S001447971600021X
- Snowden, D. J., Friends, & Riva, A. (2021). Cynefin – Weaving sense-making into the fabric of our world. Cognitive Edge.
- Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68–76
