An Analytical Framework to Study Multi-Actor Partnerships Engaged in Interactive Innovation Processes in the Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Development Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest to add definitions of innovation and partnership. The lack of the main  results.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper concerns a very interesting issue of multi-actor co-innovation partnerships’ functioning. The manuscript is well-written and appropriately designed. I have some points and suggestions that authors might take into account if needed.

MAIN POINTS:

ABSTRACT: In my opinion the clear results of the study is missing there. According to the Authors “…there are indeed differences in structures depending on the type of interaction…” in the analysed partnerships. However, the aim of the study was to make “comparison and facilitate generalizations as to the factors that support or hinder the success of partnerships”. The common points, features, characteristics of studied CoPs have to be pointed out here as well. To me a conclusion which is limited to the statement on differences between analysed objects (CoPs in this case) is not enough.

INTRODUCTION AND SECTION 3: This part of the manuscript begins with the considerations about the changes in agricultural sector, farmers and their desired attitudes and actions. But it seems to me that in the subsequent parts of the text it is very little about this issues. Authors focus rather on the structures and capacities of organisations (called CoPs) and their external and internal relationships but not on the farmers, agri-food sector an so on. I think that the main problem of the study should be put deeper in the agri-food context or, alternatively presented as a general issue concerning the management and development of organisation. Suitable decision should be made by the authors. Now I see a bit of inadequacy within the theoretical assumptions of the study.

The concept of CoP is not sufficiently defined in the text. What is its origin? How the CoP is defined in the literature and by the Authors? What are the aims of such organisations? What are the CoPs' exact examples?

A broad and/or well-stablished theoretical and empirical concepts are mentioned in the study such as: agricultural systems, innovations, resilience, socio-technical regimes without sufficient references and clarifications how were they used in the analysis. Please develop the adequate parts of the manuscript or do not use this terms (there is a little “conceptual mess” there).

MATERIAL AND METHODS: The process of identification of CoPs was not described sufficiently. Please provide the operational definition of the CoPs and main grounds of their selection.

According to table 1 50% or more of the surveyed CoPs were supported by the EU founds and programmes.  In my opinion this fact has a strong impact on the results because the structure of the sample determines the specificity of experiences, problems, challenges of organisations participating in the EU programmes. Maybe it would be better to include this fact in the main part of the text, i.e. the title, abstract, introduction and conclusions?

The Authors write about the success of surveyed CoPs  (lines 292-294). I wonder how this success was defined. Was it a given time of functioning, gaining a financial support or a subjective respondents’ declaration?

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The description of findings in this section is very interesting and accurate as well as reflects a huge analytical input. Though, due to a considerable amount of data and information it is difficult to catch and to see Authors’ effort as a whole. Hence, I advise to add to this section a summary table or a figure presenting “factors”, “interactions”, “structures” and “capacities” of the CoPs and their exact examples.

MINOR REMARKS: In the manuscript  are a lot of empty spaces (e.g. line 52, 59, 94, 134, 191, 205, 285, 289, 362). An important work by Krzywoszynska (2019) in the References is missing. In the “Introduction” the description of farmers’ situation says nothing about the importance of structural and exogenous determinants that impact their economic performance and conditions (lines 28-43). What the terms or abbreviations  like RDP, Network, OG mean exactly? – I suggest to add an appropriate description below the table 1.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is very interesting, and the authors have done very nice work with conceptualizing and implementing their analysis. I will opt for the acceptance of the paper, but before submitting their final paper, I would like the authors to consider the following comments-suggestions which I believe can improve their work.

1) I think that there is a mismatch between the theoretical and empirical parts of the paper. More precisely, the theoretical part positions the paper within the literature discussion on Communities of Practice in the agricultural sector. This is because all mentions to CoPs have to do with farmers, and this is evident from the first four lines of the manuscript. At the empirical part of the paper, it seems that the focus of the authors gets wider as it is stated that “An initial pool of 200 European multi-actor co-innovation partnerships was identified within the EU H2020 research project”. Therefore, authors should clarify what types of partnerships they have targeted their analysis to and whether these fall under the agricultural domain or also include other disciplines.

2) The term CoPs seems to be absent from the empirical part, as the authors keep presenting their respondents as representing multi-actor co-innovation partnerships with little mention to the term of CoPs. I think that authors should elaborate more on the conditions that should be fulfilled to consider multi-actor co-innovation partnerships as CoPs. The main question here is: Should the formation of a partnership for receiving funding by a European Program always be regarded as a CoP? To discuss this question, authors should rely on the relevant literature on the motives behind the partnership formations under European programs and initiatives. For instance, Shepherd and Ioannides (2020) found that many partners enter the project consortia of INTERREG just for receiving funding and not because INTERREG would be the most suitable platform for achieving their goals. Moreover, Andersson (2009) noticed a shift to the professionalization of rural projects that bring little added value to the areas where projects target. These findings may explain why many European projects are short-lived after funding ends and may not be considered as CoPs.  

Considering the aforementioned, I would propose the following amendments to the manuscript.

1) Authors should clearly define the context under which CoPs are assessed. If, as it seems, attention is paid to farmers and in the agricultural sector, this should be incorporated in the title.

2) The manuscript could be enriched with a discussion on how partnerships for funding could be regarded as CoPs. To this direction, the discussion in Section 4.2 could be enriched, and maybe some discussion could be added to the introduction. I would also advise the authors to increase the use of the term CoP in the empirical part and the conclusions, just to keep coherence with the theoretical part of the paper.

Some minor comments:

1) I am a little bit confused by the following phrase. Maybe it is the colon. I think that replacing the colon with a comma could make more sense.

The ability of a farmer to adapt to changing conditions and maintain their agricultural activities: their resilience, is not clearly related to farm type, but rather depends on the creativity, mental agility, diversity of skills, and ability of the farmer to repurpose or reallocate resources, explore possibilities, and keep options open.

2) I would like the authors to conduct a final check of the literature. For example, the in-text citation to Krzywoszynska (2019) is not included in the reference list, while the last entry of the list is not numbered.

Congratulations on this very nice work, and I am looking forward to the final draft of the manuscript.

References

Andersson, K. (2009). Orchestrating regional development through projects: The ‘innovation paradox’ in rural Finland. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 11(3), 187-201.

Shepherd, J., & Ioannides, D. (2020). Useful funds, disappointing framework: tourism stakeholder experiences of INTERREG. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 20(5), 485-502.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf