This symposium examines the multifaceted dynamics involved in agricultural research development and policy formulation in Ghana, highlighting the roles of various institutions, particularly the Crops Research Institute (CRI), the Centre for Agricultural and Biosciences International (CABI)-West Africa, the Centre for Indigenous Knowledge and Organisational Development and the Millar Institute for Trans-disciplinary and Development Studies.
The first presentation explores how Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and institutional theory illuminate the intricate relationships between human and non-human actors in the policymaking process. It highlights the negotiation of scientific knowledge among various actors, exploring power relations, institutional norms and international development agendas. The second presenter focuses on the importance of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables (ILVs) in promoting food and nutritional security for subsistence farmers. Grounded in participatory action research, this study showcases how stakeholder engagement and open selection processes enhance the acceptance and production of ILVs. The final talk challenges mainstream agricultural development, presenting "endogenous development" as a counter-narrative. It critiques the dominant agricultural system promoted by actors like the Gates Foundation and CABI for perpetuating economic and epistemic exploitation; and explores how endogenous development in Ghana emphasises both local and and external knowledge that aligns with cultural and material needs, addressing not only economic but epistemic justice as well. Together, these presentations provide an extensive analysis of the intersection between agricultural research and policy, underscoring the necessity of collaborative approaches and integration of local knowledge to foster sustainable agricultural development in Ghana.
This session brings together scientists, sociologists and philosophers working in and between Ghana and Europe, thereby building on their fieldwork and interview experiences withGhanaian agricultural research and policy. The participation of the Ghanaian invitee is funded by the ERC project "A Philosophy of Open Science for Diverse Research Environments", www.opensciencestudies.eu.
Indigenous leafy vegetables (ILVs) play a crucial role in ensuring food and nutritional security for subsistence farmers in Ghana, outperforming many other vegetables in terms of production. However, despite their significant nutritional and economic potential, the systematic promotion of ILVs' production, consumption, and utilization has been limited. This research, grounded in participatory action methods, including focus group discussions, farmer field schools, and demonstrations along the ILVs value chain, sought to enhance the acceptance and production of ILVs in Ghana.
Through stakeholder analysis, we identified and engaged diverse actors, including farmers, researchers, extension officers, and market players, to co-produce knowledge and develop engagement strategies that foster effective collaboration. Three collections of 20 accessions of ILVs were introduced to user groups, leading to the participatory selection of five preferred accessions for further multiplication and distribution. The process emphasized the importance of open selection and participatory research, fostering transparency and accessibility of research outcomes.
This approach reflects broader discussions on the co-construction of knowledge in agricultural research, aligning with Actor-Network Theory (ANT) by highlighting how scientific innovation is shaped through collaboration among human and non-human actors. It also resonates with calls for "endogenous development" by valuing local knowledge systems and integrating them with scientific research. The intersection of open science and participatory methods in this study demonstrates how agricultural innovation can be more inclusive, addressing both local needs and broader global food security challenges.
This paper examines how agricultural research in Ghana is transformed into actionable policy through the lens of Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and institutional dynamics. Focusing on two pivotal institutions—the Crops Research Institute (CRI) and the Centre for Agricultural and Biosciences International (CABI)—the paper explores the complex processes that shape the translation of scientific knowledge into policy recommendations. CRI, as a national research body, and CABI, an international organization, both play key roles in influencing agricultural policies, particularly around issues of food security, pest management, and sustainable farming. However, these institutions must navigate a web of collaborations involving farmers, researchers, extension officers, government agencies, and international stakeholders, each with their own priorities and agendas.
Using ANT, as articulated by Latour (2005), this paper analyses the relationships between human and non-human actors that drive these collaborations, revealing how knowledge and policy are co-produced. Simultaneously, institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991) provides insight into how CRI and CABI respond to the pressures of political, social, and funding demands, while balancing their scientific agendas with the practical needs of farmers and policymakers. Previous studies (Ghosh, 2010; Scoones and Thompson, 2011; Kerr, 2012; Adenle et al., 2019; Stone, 2019) have shown that international development agendas often misalign with local needs particularly in the Global South.
By focusing on CRI and CABI, this paper highlights the intersection of local and global influences in Ghana's agricultural research ecosystem. CRI’s national mandate allows for an examination of how research aligns with the needs of smallholder farmers, while CABI’s international scope reveals how global development agendas shape local policy implementation. Together, these case studies offer a nuanced understanding of how scientific rigor and practical applicability are negotiated in the process of translating research into policy and the sociological dynamics behind the policy-making processes in agricultural research.
Agricultural development is at the center of many of the most pressing questions about global justice from food security to extreme poverty. Mainstream agricultural development promises to address these questions through more productive farming systems, utilizing new seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, machines, and value chains. While these promises are embraced by dominant agricultural development actors (e.g. Gates Foundation, CABI, and CGIAR), they are also challenged by activists and scholars who consider them complicit in a violent food system that dispossesses farmers and desolates rural life in a global race for the cheapest agrifood commodities (Van der Ploeg 2018).
While Ghana has largely followed modernist narratives of agricultural development (Awanyo and Attua 2018), this talk explores “endogenous development” as a counter vision through two of its core proponents: The Center for Indigenous Knowledge and Organizational Development (Boogaard et al. 2024) and the Millar Institute for Transdisciplinary and Development Studies (Millar 2014). It is argued that the Ghanaian discourse about “endogenous development” develops unique critical and constructive perspectives by linking economic and epistemic justice. Mainstream agricultural development is not only criticized as the producer of neo-colonial forms of economic exploitation (Nkrumah 1965) but also analyzed as grounded in epistemic coloniality that exports technoscientific knowledge “from the West to the rest” without acknowledgment of local epistemic agency. In contrast to Latin American post-development discourses (Acosta 2010), however, endogenous development also aims for a positive vision of development that embraces both endogenous and exogenous knowledge as long as they are aligned with the material, cultural, and spiritual needs of local communities. While endogenous development is presented as an important counter vision for the global food system and its violent imposition in Africa (AFSA 2009), its limited influence on Ghanaian policy also reflects core governance challenges.