RESEARCH WORK

Changes in the organizational research model of the EEPF «Indio Hatuey». Some reflections

F. Blanco, G. Martín, J. Suárez y Milagros Milera

Estación Experimental de Pastos y Forrajes «Indio Hatuey» Central España Republicana, CP 44280, Matanzas, Cuba
E-mail: felix.blanco@rect.uh.cu

ABSTRACT

The first organizational research model of the EEPF «Indio Hatuey» was the result of a collective building process, driven by the need and wish to follow a scientific policy mandate in relation to the search and evaluation of pasture and forage plants that exceeded the limitations of the autochthonous ones. The model, called genocentric, was institutionalized in 1976 and placed at the center of the scientific strategy the attainment, through certain ways, of new high yield species and varieties, with high quality and persistence; it included the objectives, the ways to achieve them and the flow of results in time. It gave signs of exhaustion in the 80's and was substituted by another one which focused on technology production, placing the main output in a new device called department of Livestock production technologies. Transition was quickly made towards a systemocentric research model, under the influence of the agroforestry paradigm; the scientific strategy was focused on the design and evaluation of silvopastoral or agroforestry livestock production systems; ecological vocation and rationality began to play a prevailing role. At present, a new, complex, context-focused, diversified and integrating research model is forged, conceiving the livestock production organizations as socio-eco-technical systems, and paying attention to the livestock production problems as part of local development strategies. The influence of context factors on the changes in the organizational model, as well as its features and current trends, is discussed.

Key words: Organizational model, research

INTRODUCTION

Since the mid 90's of the 20^th century, it became evident for the management board of the EEPF «Indio Hatuey» that the changes occurred in its research agenda and in the scientific strategies, stumbled upon the organizational conception under which the research practice of the Institution had been historically developed. The phenomenon was perceived by some as a curiosity, and by others as something interesting. The historical studies on the scientific work of the Institution, gathered in a book dedicated to its 45^th anniversary, paid attention to the description of these changes for the selected period (1962-2005). In general, the book was about changes in the organizational research model.

The study identified four moments in the change dynamics of such organizational model:

• Institutionalization of the genocentric model, which placed the selection of genotypes (species and varieties) at the center of the scientific strategy.

• The brief passing through a technocentric model, which gave priority to technology production.

• The establishment of a systemocentric model, which focused mainly on the research, design and development of production systems, mainly silvopastoral or livestock production agroforestry systems.

• The emergence of a fourth model, under construction, characterized by the diversification of research topics; the search for integrality, but mainly for its sensitivity to context changes.

The reading of the above-mentioned book suggested new questions regarding these changes. In this work the authors aimed at approaching some of them framed in the following objectives:

• To analyze and make precisions about the proposed concept: `organizational research model'.

• To extend the study, with the contribution of new aspects on the technocentric model and ideas about the current developing organizational model.

• To reflect on the links of the organizational model to other factors; the influence of the context and the meaning of these changes.

Some considerations about the concept `organizational research model'

The notion of `organizational research model' emerged from the analysis and interpretation, and certain intention of updating, which was called at the EEPF «Indio Hatuey» the General Work Scheme of the Station (Memoria EEPF-IH, 1975-1976).

In such publication it was stated: «…the general scheme of the Station has been made and in the different sections and work groups, framing the objectives to be fulfilled, the main ways to accomplish them, as well as the work flow for the five-year period».

The conception adopted represented those organizational aspects of the research process that were basically determined by the techno-scientific objectives to be achieved and the main steps of the knowledge production process, based on the scientific strategy of the institution or research area.

The concept that is being proposed did not practically appear in those terms in the consulted bibliography, although others which are in one way or the other related to it did appear, such as: organizational models, organization models, innovation models and research models.

In the lineal models proposed by Marquis or Kline (cited by Escorsa and Valls, 1997), it can be observed that the R+D process appears as a stage of the innovation process, not always essential for the latter to occur. But it is precisely in this process in which the organizational model, supportive of the scientific strategy, is located. In this sense, it is timely to introduce the comment made by Bernal (1986), who said: «The essential characteristic of a scientific discovery strategy lies on the determination of the successive order of the problems to be solved». A vision of the research complexities and trends nowadays can consider Bernal's approach limited, but the idea of a new organizational order constitutes a basic idea for later considerations.

Clearly management models are linked to the organizational research models, and the latter to innovation models. On the other hand, the notion research model appears with varied usages and meanings.

Authors from the field of medical sciences use this phrase to refer to laboratory animals that serve as pattern or model for scientific studies. Fuentes and Álvarez (2003) use it to delimit the two large methodological research sides: quantitative and qualitative. Other authors refer to research model to mean the particularities of forms acquired by research methods in their interaction with disciplines or disciplinary fields with very specific scientific strategies. Mills (1969) acknowledged the existence of different research models within social sciences; to which he referred in a critical way, and established the difference between research method and research model.

Finally, some authors, when referring to the term model, identify it with scheme (Arellano, 2005) and others relate it to system (Cruz Méndez et al., 2003).

Only two authors, among our reviewed bibliography, approach and pay attention to the topic of what has been called here `organizational research model': Arellano (2005) with his notion of socio-technical production scheme (STPS), based on studies and reflections on the attempts to introduce the breeding model of American corn, and Kreimer and Rossini (2005) with the organization model of research activities in the agricultural area. The latter assign importance to considering the new shareholders and new socio-cognitive strategies, which transformations are explained as the consequence of the cross between institutional scientific policies and professional strategies.

According to the above-mentioned elements, the research model appears as the meeting, in a common space, between the method and the professional specialty strategy. On the other hand, the organizational research model operates at a larger scale, the institution, the department or the program, and constitutes the conception and organizational design that supports the scientific strategy searching for the fulfillment of farther-reaching objectives, the generally called strategic objectives.

Antecedents: the genesis of the genocentric model

In order to refer to the organization and management aspects in this period, it is convenient to stress that there barely was at the EEPF-IH a strategic orientation that would be equivalent to what in today's modern language is called mission; but it was not written anywhere. The antecedents, what was done in the first moments, refer to what this mission would be and that maybe today it could be formulated as follows: «Conduct studies for the development of pasture-based livestock production, focusing on the attention to the search and evaluation of pasture and forage plants that excel the limitations of natural pastures from the country».

The Station was born linked to the National Institute of Agrarian Reform (INRA), particularly to the Department of Special Experiments, and in 1969 it began to be attended by the University of Havana. During the first four years it was impossible to speak about organization of the research activity.

Since 1967 an orientation and search stage began, within which elements emerged that started to conform the model.

The discussions around the preparation of the research agenda and the design of a scientific strategy to achieve the proposed objectives lead to build the genocentric model, as a practical reality, but not in an explicit, systematized and documented way.

The model building followed the logic of the research agenda priorities, which resulted from a political orientation of the High Direction of the Revolution. The changes in the research agenda aimed at achieving the livestock production development of the country.

But the model, in its building process, did not escape other influences, such as the conceptions of the Green Revolution and the lineal conception of what is known today as the mode 1 of knowledge production; in addition, an important influence came from the organizational model of CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization), considered then reference institution in everything related to tropical pasture research. The attention to the results of pasture science in Australia was a feature of the early 70's, which influenced remarkably the final result of the discussions and the later course of research.

Institutionalization of the genocentric research model

In 1976, the General Work Scheme of the Station was presented to the Scientific Council; it was a document that gathered the general stages of research work and the order in which they should occur. For each section and research group a scheme was also built, except for the Breeding Group, which already had it since 1974 and whose initiative seems to be one of the inspiring elements, together with the existence of an organizational conception in the research work of the Institution developed through a large search for the ways to follow.

Among the external aspects, the approval of the National Scientific Policy by the First Congress of the Cuban Communist Party (PCC) (Partido Comunista de Cuba, 1976) and the creation in 1976 of the Ministry of Higher Education and the State Committee of Science and Technique, constituted a strong stimulus due to their meaning regarding science promotion and organization.

The logic of the research process developed by the Station, which placed the genotype (species and variety) in the focus of its scientific objectives, showed a certain «gravitational force» that made an important part of the projects or research protocols spin around this main objective, in correspondence with the historical mission for which Indio Hatuey had been founded.

The model frequently induced the comparative study of species and varieties, not only in the first evaluation stages, but also in other advanced stages of research work.

Obtaining species and varieties, from the introduction and breeding of pastures and forages, constituted the starting point of the general research process which had as objective obtaining varieties with all the basic information about the yield and seed production potentials, performance when grazed, adaptation to edafoclimatic conditions, critical values for several nutrients and indicators of the nutritional value, as well as the full technology for planting, establishing and exploiting the variety.

The logic of the genocentric research model became a reference aspect to evaluate the projects that were presented to the scientific council. It was rapidly detected that they were not always in agreement with the pursued purposes. The fertilization, plant management, irrigation or nutritional value determination projects did not consider the same species and varieties, and there was not a priority criterion regarding which species or varieties should be studied.

The creation of a Commission of Varieties adjoining the Scientific Council, with representatives from the departments and work groups which comprised the main research topics, was the solution. This should begin working with a survey of the existing results for the different species and varieties and conclude with a report, specifying «what each variety was missing in order to be recommended for production».

Such model deeply marked the research work of the Institution, which was shown in its scientific productions, the characteristics of the Pastos y Forrajes journal, the thematic structuring of events and the organization of training processes. The scientific work was not structured under a disciplinal model. Physiological studies, for example, were made linked to problems to be solved; thus, seed physiology aspects were approached by the Seed group; the critical nutrient levels, by the section of Agronomic Studies; and the botanical composition studies, by all the departments and different researchers.

The model efficaciously fulfilled the function for which it was created. The 31 pasture varieties approved by the National Commission of Variety Certification constituted products of high added value, because they were released with wide information, not only about their biology, nutritional value and reproduction potential, but also about their potential for animal production, their basic plant science and the elements for their management.

However, it also had negative effects, basically two: a) its lineal and hierarchical character affected to some extent the researcher's autonomy; b) it made it difficult to arrive at a systemic vision of the livestock production reality.

The model showed exhaustion symptoms towards the mid 80's; the concerns of the productive sector were more focused on the utilization of the stock of varieties in what was called «the creation of the variety structure», according to the soil and climate realities of the sector's firms, as well as on other technological demands.

The transition through a model focused on technology production

In the 80's the term technology is introduced and begins to be used in the institution, in a generalized and increasing way. It emerged firstly linked to the feed production and conservation activity and it was quickly incorporated to the language of the Seed group and the other plant science activities, and even to animal production research. The term was used as synonym of techniques, group of related and complementary techniques, and even as a substitute of the term system. This trend had its climax in the change of name and professional composition adopted by the department of Pastureland management and utilization, which was then called department of Livestock production technology.

The exhaustion of the genocentric model passed through a non-explicit model, which placed technology in the focus of its objectives. The question was not only to produce technologies for the varieties, but also for seed and feed production, and animal management, with a clear trend to articulating them to production systems. The main output of the knowledge production process was placed in the department of Livestock production technologies, to which part of the researchers who worked in the department of Agronomic studies was integrated.

The relative exhaustion of the variety as the main scientific product and the demand for technologies by the livestock production sector in several areas, as well as the presence and management of the concept in the academic circles1 as well as in the productive sector, contributed to that trend.

The focusing of research on technology and the location of the main outputs in the department of Livestock production technologies originated some conflicts related to this question: who had the main bearing when information on a new variety was obtained, geneticists or those who determined its performance before the animal, and defined its technology and management?

The technology-focused model was fugacious, lasting three or four years. Within the scientific group the evaluation of the importance about production systems had increased.

Establishment of the systemocentric model

In the mid 80's a meeting of leaders of research topics was developed, promoted by the Academy of Sciences, to coordinate the efforts of the research centers and prevent unnecessary duplicities. In this meeting a research division strategy was agreed between the EEPF «Indio Hatuey» and the Institute of Animal Science (ICA). Indio Hatuey would be in charge of doing its research without irrigation and with moderate-potential animals; while the ICA would study more intensive systems with high genetic potential animals. Such decision produced deep changes in the research strategy of Indio Hatuey. The main consequence was that serious thought began to be given to forage trees and shrubs as an alternative for animal feeding and the development of new production systems.

However, the turning point in the research model change is produced in the 1991-1996 quinquennium, amid the crisis and later disintegration of the European socialist block; a strong school of thought searches for the solution to the problems that begin to be faced with the onset of the Special Period. The school of thought focused the search for solutions to the livestock production problem on production systems and was influenced by the new promotion from the high leadership of the country of Voisin's Rational Grazing, with the support of the Brazilian specialist Luis Carlos Pinheiro.

At the Station the reaction was enthusiastic and a multidisciplinary group was created with a well-defined objective: to contribute to improving a management technology of wide possibilities for the livestock production systems of the country, aiming at achieving the optimum utilization of pasturelands.

Another important proposal in the same direction was made by the work: «Multiassociation and biodiversity: alternative to produce milk only with pastures». The solution was also searched in the system and not in the value of individual pastures, which had been given priority in research and was in correspondence with the one developed in livestock production firms of creating monospecific pastures, which yield and quality should be achieved from the genotype and the application of irrigation and fertilizers.

In the early 90's the proposal of Silvopastoral system technology emerged, which was later presented with the title: «Silvopastoral systems: sustainable development support for Cuban livestock production», emerged. It was acknowledged and awarded in the National Forum of Science and Technique. Although the use of plant genetic resources was the starting point, the focus of the strategy was on the creation of a system which main element was the presence of a forage tree or shrub of the legume family.

From that moment on varieties had to be found for silvopastoral systems, which adapted to shade and the eventual competition originated by trees. The technologies for planting, establishing and managing the ligneous component could not be considered independent from the pasture; the system entered the focus of the research strategy.

The next quinquennium would consolidate this strategic thinking. Work had begun to be done on strategic planning by objectives and the general objective of the 1996-2000 quinquennium was the following: «To enhance the development of basic and applied research which can be used in sustainable production systems, in order to produce an increase in the livestock production of the country, as well as to increase the dissemination of the obtained results».

Sustainable technologies and production systems were the key words. From the five specific objectives, the first two specified the essential aspects of the scientific policy that was adopted:

• Enhance the main applied studies, in order to complement the sustainable livestock production systems.

• Develop sustainable technologies for livestock production systems, from forage genetic resources and other feedstuffs.

It was clear in the statement that genetic resources were subordinated to technologies and the latter to production systems. The two basic components (plant genetic resources and technologies) were ingredients for the development and improvement of sustainable production systems.

The systemic and holistic vision of the Socioeconomy and management group, later turned into the Sustainable rural development program, contributed to stress the centrality of the production system and promoted a wider vision of the agroecosystem and firms as socio-eco-technical systems, from which neither technological nor human components could be separated. Thus the general work objective of the Station in 2001 showed this influence and was formulated as follows:

«To conduct studies in integrated agroforestry systems and in rural development management which allow to create the basis for the articulation of the nature-society relation in the Cuban livestock production sector».

The specific objectives gave priority to environmental and socioeconomic studies linked to the technological proposals and the promotion of the elaboration of technological innovation projects, so that a higher incidence on the livestock production sector was achieved.

It seems interesting to emphasize that the organizational model change carried an implicit epistemological transformation: the thinking and rationality induced by genetic science and plant breeding technologies, stopped playing the main role in the structuring of the scientific strategy, to give way to the ecological thinking and rationality.

The historical role of genetics and plant breeding in the structuring of livestock production research models is mentioned by Arellano (2005) and by Kreimer and Rossini (2005). The latter authors stressed how modern biotechnology and genetic engineering have been substituting the old genetic thinking in these functions in new institutions.

A new research model is forged

The changes that were occurring in Cuban agriculture during the 1990-2000 decade (García Álvarez, 2004) and even in the research centers themselves with the self-financing mechanism, the increasing perception regarding the importance of the local aspects as complementary element for a development strategy under the current conditions, as well as other changes in the context, have had incidence on the scientific strategy of the EEPF «Indio Hatuey». These transformations, together with a techno-scientific history and a conscience that ascribes high importance to the institutional change management, have promoted a new evolution movement in the scientific conception and strategy and, thus, in the organizational research model. Martín and Suárez (2007) called it context-focused.

The main features of this model are:

• The research spectrum is widened and diversified; it is not limited only to cattle, but expands to other species that can utilize the forage resources and created systems, and includes socioeconomic and environmental topics.

• It is considered necessary to pay attention to the agriculture-livestock production links and synergies within the systemic conception. Hence, the livestock production problem is not abandoned, but it is inserted in a wider concept.

• A full-cycle turfing research and service area is consolidated, highly accepted in the Cuban tourism and sports sector. A technology-based turfgrass industry emerges.

• The attention to the livestock production problem emerges within the local development strategy, which constitutes a great opportunity of transdisciplinary integration for the Institution.

• The emergence of the mode II of knowledge production, which subsists with the proper styles of mode I, becomes evident. Research and innovation are promoted in the application context; there is a trend towards interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity, and the shared commitment in the research-innovation-development process is appreciated and searched for.

• The energy issue of agricultural production in general and livestock production in particular, begins to be considered as part of the large technical, productive and environmental problem.

• Particular sensitivity to context changes is shown.

The first attempts to systematize and document this new model have been publicly presented (Martín and Suárez, 2007); the authors explain the introduction of a new concept constituted in organizational reality «the research-production-innovation groups», which are defined as: «…the physical space in which researchers, technicians, service and agricultural workers coexist to generate new knowledge, adopt technologies and make innovations in certain technological processes within a production system, in order to achieve a productive, efficient and sustainable result. It is the place where the science projected in the scientific line and conceived in the project becomes reality».

The strategic priorities of the research process are defined as research lines and the management unit of the process is the project, which is also used as management unit of the scientific-technical services. The authors state that success goes through institutional improvement and agree with the ideas expressed by Silva et al. (2001) of paying priority attention to «the change of the people who change things».

The new model that is being built is complex and integrating and tends to advance towards mode II of knowledge production.

Conclusions

1. The organizational research models at institutional scale, appears as a much less approached subject than innovation or management models.

2. The changes in the organizational research model of the EEPF show that it is a variable under the influence of diverse context factors.

3. The first model focused its attention on obtaining plant species and varieties, in correspondence with a world trend that placed genetic science and plant breeding technologies
as structure builders of the scientific strategies of agricultural research during the past century.

4. The change of organizational model carried an implicit epistemological transformation: the thinking and rationality induced by genetic science and plant breeding technologies stopped playing the main role in structuring the scientific strategy, to give way to ecological thinking and rationality.

5. The changes that have occurred in the organizational research model show a trend to having traits of mode II of knowledge production.