Knowledge and Innovation in Mexican Agricultural Organizations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I recommend reinforcing the research objectives in this paper.

Similarly, I recommend to improve the background the references

I recommend that the author makes a better connection between the background and the results obtained.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: I recommend reinforcing the research objectives in this paper.

Response 1: Given the relevance of the topic and the sector, the objective of this project is to determine the relationship between the knowledge management and innovation in rural agricultural organizations in the northern of the state of Sonora, Mexico, Mexico; therefore, a quantitative, correlational study was carried out in which a 36-item questionnaire with Likert-type answers was applied to 91 enterprises. This information will be added in the summary and in the introduction.

Point 2: I recommend to improve the background the references

Response 2: The following consulted sources in the introduction part were added and some are taken up in the results part:

Abebe, G. K., Bijman, J., Pascucci, S., & Omta, O. (2013). Adoption of improved potato varieties in ethiopia: The role of agricultural knowledge and innovation system and smallholder farmers’ quality assessment. Agricultural Systems, 122, 22-32. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2013.07.008

Adolwa, I. S., Schwarze, S., Bellwood-Howard, I., Schareika, N., & Buerkert, A. (2017). A comparative analysis of agricultural knowledge and innovation systems in kenya and ghana: Sustainable agricultural intensification in the rural–urban interface. Agriculture and Human Values, 34(2), 453-472. doi:10.1007/s10460-016-9725-0

Ben Hassen, T., & El Bilali, H. (2020). Knowledge and innovation in agriculture: Contribution to food security and sustainability. (pp. 457-467). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95675-6_108

Chenu, C., Angers, D. A., Barré, P., Derrien, D., Arrouays, D., & Balesdent, J. (2019). Increasing organic stocks in agricultural soils: Knowledge gaps and potential innovations. Soil & Tillage Research, 188, 41-52. doi:10.1016/j.still.2018.04.011

Fáziková, M., & Melichová, K. (2014). The problems of knowledge economy and innovation processes in agriculture case study of the nitra region. Acta Regionalia Et Environmentalica, 11(1), 24-29. doi:10.2478/aree-2014-0005

Grigoraş, M. (2009). integrating local knowledge and local innovation with development policies for a sustainable agriculture. Journal of Central European Agriculture, 9(4), 635-640.

Jiggins, J. L. S., Ison, R., & Röling, N. G. (2014). Special issue: System innovation - towards sustainable agriculture introduction. Outlook on Agriculture, 43(3), 145-146. doi:10.5367/oa.2014.0180

Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2008). Matching demand and supply in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure: Experiences with innovation intermediaries. Food Policy, 33(3), 260-276. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.10.001

Klerkx, L., Schut, M., Leeuwis, C., & Kilelu, C. (2012). Advances in knowledge brokering in the agricultural sector: Towards innovation system facilitation. IDS Bulletin (Brighton. 1984), 43(5), 53-60. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2012.00363.x

 

 

 

 

O'Flynn, P. (2017). From knowledge to invention: Exploring user innovation in irish agriculture

Pascucci, S., & de-Magistris, T. (2011). The effects of changing regional agricultural knowledge and innovation system on italian farmers’ strategies. Agricultural Systems, 104(9), 746-754. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2011.07.005

Rijswijk, K., Klerkx, L., & Turner, J. A. (2019). Digitalisation in the new zealand agricultural knowledge and innovation system: Initial understandings and emerging organisational responses to digital agriculture. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 90-91, 100313. doi:10.1016/j.njas.2019.100313

Shiferaw, B. A., Okello, J., & Reddy, R. V. (2007;2009;). Adoption and adaptation of natural resource management innovations in smallholder agriculture: Reflections on key lessons and best practices. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 11(3), 601-619. doi:10.1007/s10668-007-9132-1

Sued, G., Estébanez, M. E., Nicosia, S., & Turkenich, M. (2016). Género e innovación en la producción agrícola de baja escala. CTS: Revista Iberoamericana De Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad, 11(31), 217-246.

Tello, M. (2016). Productividad, capacidad tecnológica y de innovación, y difusión tecnológica en la agricultura comercial moderna en el perú: Un análisis exploratorio regional. Economía (Lima), 39(77), 103-144. doi:10.18800/economia.201601.003

Vargas Canales, J. M., Palacios Rangel, M. I., Aguilar Ávila, J., Camacho Vera, J. H., Ocampo Ledesma, J. G., & Medina Cuellar, S. E. (2018). Efficiency of small enterprises of protected agriculture in the adoption of innovations in mexico. Estudios Gerenciales, 34(146), 52-62. doi:10.18046/j.estger.2018.146.2811

Zahran, Y., Kassem, H. S., Naba, S. M., & Alotaibi, B. A. (2020). Shifting from fragmentation to integration: A proposed framework for strengthening agricultural knowledge and innovation system in egypt. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 12(12), 5131. doi:10.3390/su12125131

 

Point 3: I recommend that the author makes a better connection between the background and the results obtained.

Response 3: The objective of the study was added with precision in the introductory part the content for a greater location and interrelation between the elements of the report. In the results part, the objective of the study and the results related to it are mentioned, as well as the discussion was improved with quotes related to the objective of the research.

Reviewer 2 Report

The text requires additions and corrections. 

1/ The aim and the main hypothesis were not precisely defined in the abstract and in the introductions. The cosiderations show that the authors have attempted to prove the hypothesis that there is a posiive correrations between knowledge management and innovation in rural agricultural organizations. However, the adopted hypothesis and the research results are not original. The are many studies and publications on this relationship in industrial organizations . It will be more valuable to study this correlations in organizations located in different regions of Mexico  and to isolate the factors determining the knowledge management and then to indicate of this factors on level of innovativeness of organizations. 

2/ Specify what kind of innovations the authors means , i.e. product, process, marketing or organizational innovations,

3/ It was not notify what measures of innovation were adopted in the research

4/ Errror in table 1. The shoud be incubation instead of the process. However, the adopted variabless, i.e. intoduction, research and incubations process, mean the phases of the innovations process, not innovation.

5/ The method of selecting the organizations for the research has not be specified.

6/ Lack of recommendations for managers regarding the knowledge management  and its improvement which could increase innovativeness of organizations.   

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: The aim and the main hypothesis were not precisely defined in the abstract and in the introductions. The cosiderations show that the authors have attempted to prove the hypothesis that there is a posiive correrations between knowledge management and innovation in rural agricultural organizations. However, the adopted hypothesis and the research results are not original. The are many studies and publications on this relationship in industrial organizations . It will be more valuable to study this correlations in organizations located in different regions of Mexico  and to isolate the factors determining the knowledge management and then to indicate of this factors on level of innovativeness of organizations. 

Response 1: Given the relevance of the topic and the sector, the objective of this project is to determine the relationship between the knowledge management and innovation in rural agricultural organizations in the northern of the state of Sonora, Mexico. To this end, a quantitative, correlational study was carried out in which a 36-item questionnaire with Likert-type answers was applied to 91 enterprises. This information will be added in the summary and in the introduction. In the industrial sector, there is a diversity and amplitude of studies in the primary sector, particularly in the agriculture, including an approach of administrative processes; and in the rural sector, the studies are much smaller and even scarce.

That is why, the relevance of this research, which focuses precisely on the above. A subsequent study will consider the extension of this to other regions of the country.

Point 2: Specify what kind of innovations the authors means , i.e. product, process, marketing or organizational innovations,

Response 2: It will be specified in the document that the study refers to organizational innovation.

 

Point 3: It was not notify what measures of innovation were adopted in the research

Response 3: An instrument was utilized to identify the actions taken by farmers in relation to the two variables mentioned, consisting of 36 items with a Likert scale from 1 to 5, in which 1 is totally disagreeable to 5 is totally agreeable.

 

Point 4: Errror in table 1. The shoud be incubation instead of the process. However, the adopted variabless, i.e. intoduction, research and incubations process, mean the phases of the innovations process, not innovation.

Response 4: Table adjusted

 

Table 1. Table of Variables

Variables	Items	Dimension
Knowledge management	1-6	Generation
	7-10	Adaptation
	11-15	Socialization
Innovation Phases	16-19	Introduction
	20-25	Development
	26-29	Research
	30-36	Incubation

 

 

Point 5: The method of selecting the organizations for the research has not be specified.

Response 5: The study was carried out in a Rural Production Society, located in the municipality of Benito Juarez, Sonora, Mexico, which is dedicated to the sale of fertilizer products, agrochemicals and seeds, and necessary implements for agricultural activity, integrated by a total of 200 producers in the region. This organization was selected as a case study because it is one of the largest in the region, dedicated to the agricultural sector and has more than 100 members, including individual farmers and companies. It was decided to carry out a census to cover all the members; however, a response rate of 45% was obtained with a total of 91 farmers who responded, who are mainly dedicated to the cultivation of basic grains such as wheat, corn, chickpeas, beans, safflowers and soybeans, in a territorial extension of 12,000 hectares in the region of the Valleys: Yaqui and Mayo.

 

 

Point 6: Lack of recommendations for managers regarding the knowledge management  and its improvement which could increase innovativeness of organizations.   

Response 6: Derived from the results of this study, it is suggested to motivate the employees to generate ideas, to value them and to take them up again in organizational improvements; also, since it can be observed there is a close relationship between knowledge management for innovation, another action is to encourage creativity. It is also very important to systematize this knowledge and formalize it once it has been applied to organizational innovations. Likewise, it is advisable to move from internal administrative innovations to those with the greatest impact on essential activities and even to convert them into patents for economic use.

 

It is recommended in the academic and research field to continue with studies in these sectors that are deliberately omitted by researchers, such as primary sectors, along with other types of non-profit organizations, whose interest and contribution to society are relevant.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of the article adapted their considerations to the comments of reviewers , introducing changes in the introduction and the methodological part. The changes are not controversial. The presented article is sustable to publication.