108
4.6.1 Sharpening Our Thinking About ‘Scaling’
While the term ‘scaling’ has some broader connotations (Wigboldus 2018;
Wigboldus et al. 2016), it is often used in a way that resembles the older terminology of ‘adoption and diffusion of innovations’ as used by Rogers (1962). Both terminologies often express a normative desire to ensure that something that is
considered to be good and desirable spreads across a greater number of users and/or
across a larger geographical area, in order to achieve some kind of societal impact.
‘Scaling’ is seen as a critically important process and frequently also as an enormous challenge. Our model of ‘reasons for (non)adoption’ may help in several ways
to sharpen our thinking about ‘scaling’.
The plurality of scaling: thinking in terms of assemblages The ‘reasons for (non)
adoption’ model is a response to the existence of several types of interdependencies
in a development setting (see above). These interdependencies imply that one cannot usefully consider the scaling of one particular practice in isolation from other
practices, including practices that are performed by other people than the originally
perceived ‘users’. Similarly, the ‘upscaling’ of one practice is likely to require the
‘downscaling’ of other practices that are being replaced or affected. Hence, it is
important to think about scaling in terms of multiple practices in an assemblage that
are simultaneously scaling up or down (Leeuwis and Wigboldus 2017; Sartas et al.
2019). Identifying the interdependent practices in a network of interdependent
stakeholders (and in time) provides useful insights in the complexity of a particular
scaling ambition (see Fig. 4.4 and Sartas et al. 2019; Sartas et al. 2020).
Targeting ‘bottleneck’ or ‘leverage’ practices as entry points Having insight in an
assemblage of interdependent practices begs the critically important question of
which practice(s) could or should be the focus of attention in a development effort
(Sartas et al. 2019). While the original entry point might be the wish to ‘scale’ a
drought-resistant variety, a consideration of the broader assemblage of practices
involved may well lead to the identification of more relevant entry points for intervention. The use of the variety by farmers may, for example, be constrained by
prevailing policies that prevent the release or distribution of the variety, thus shifting
the attention to interventions that may help to overcome such policy bottlenecks
rather than simply promote the variety. Alternatively, one may conclude that the use
of the variety can be leveraged by the creation of specific price incentives offered by
a dominant trader or wholesaler. In a complex environment of interrelated practices,
it is an illusion to think that one can bring about change by focussing on one particular issue or practice, while at the same time, it is unrealistic and inefficient to target
interventions on everything that matters. Thus, interventionists need to somehow
identify the critical interdependencies and leverages in the system in order to
develop an effective scaling strategy (Sartas et al. 2019; Vellema and Leeuwis 2019).
Diagnosing with the help of the model Finding the leverage or bottleneck practices requires an understanding of stakeholders’ (interactional) rationale in relation
C. Leeuwis and N. Aarts
4.6.1 Sharpening Our Thinking About ‘Scaling’
While the term ‘scaling’ has some broader connotations (Wigboldus 2018;
Wigboldus et al. 2016), it is often used in a way that resembles the older terminology of ‘adoption and diffusion of innovations’ as used by Rogers (1962). Both terminologies often express a normative desire to ensure that something that is
considered to be good and desirable spreads across a greater number of users and/or
across a larger geographical area, in order to achieve some kind of societal impact.
‘Scaling’ is seen as a critically important process and frequently also as an enormous challenge. Our model of ‘reasons for (non)adoption’ may help in several ways
to sharpen our thinking about ‘scaling’.
The plurality of scaling: thinking in terms of assemblages The ‘reasons for (non)
adoption’ model is a response to the existence of several types of interdependencies
in a development setting (see above). These interdependencies imply that one cannot usefully consider the scaling of one particular practice in isolation from other
practices, including practices that are performed by other people than the originally
perceived ‘users’. Similarly, the ‘upscaling’ of one practice is likely to require the
‘downscaling’ of other practices that are being replaced or affected. Hence, it is
important to think about scaling in terms of multiple practices in an assemblage that
are simultaneously scaling up or down (Leeuwis and Wigboldus 2017; Sartas et al.
2019). Identifying the interdependent practices in a network of interdependent
stakeholders (and in time) provides useful insights in the complexity of a particular
scaling ambition (see Fig. 4.4 and Sartas et al. 2019; Sartas et al. 2020).
Targeting ‘bottleneck’ or ‘leverage’ practices as entry points Having insight in an
assemblage of interdependent practices begs the critically important question of
which practice(s) could or should be the focus of attention in a development effort
(Sartas et al. 2019). While the original entry point might be the wish to ‘scale’ a
drought-resistant variety, a consideration of the broader assemblage of practices
involved may well lead to the identification of more relevant entry points for intervention. The use of the variety by farmers may, for example, be constrained by
prevailing policies that prevent the release or distribution of the variety, thus shifting
the attention to interventions that may help to overcome such policy bottlenecks
rather than simply promote the variety. Alternatively, one may conclude that the use
of the variety can be leveraged by the creation of specific price incentives offered by
a dominant trader or wholesaler. In a complex environment of interrelated practices,
it is an illusion to think that one can bring about change by focussing on one particular issue or practice, while at the same time, it is unrealistic and inefficient to target
interventions on everything that matters. Thus, interventionists need to somehow
identify the critical interdependencies and leverages in the system in order to
develop an effective scaling strategy (Sartas et al. 2019; Vellema and Leeuwis 2019).
Diagnosing with the help of the model Finding the leverage or bottleneck practices requires an understanding of stakeholders’ (interactional) rationale in relation
C. Leeuwis and N. Aarts