10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17346
This essay unpacks capacity development policies, discussing its core rationales and building theory out of its main conceptual assumptions. Capacity development focuses on addressing and improving the elusive terms, qualities and means of "capacity" needed for lasting development.
The essay addresses the following questions: what are the core rationales of capacity development? What theoretical sources lay within capacity development? Is it possible to distil analytical synthesis from these theoretical sources? It draws upon the understanding of agency as described by capacity development. Its theoretical foundations are extracted and discussed, building a single corpus: the knowledge stance perspective is proposed to observe meso-level agency. It builds on institutional work and innovation intermediation scholarly streams.
The knowledge-stances perspective on agency shows a set of knowledge stances as analytical tools. Stances of boundary exploration, boundary setting and practice work are shown as forms of enacting, positioning and expanding a practice field. Stances of knowledge exploration, intermediation and supply are shown as strategies to enlarge its cognitive base. The theoretical value of this perspective accounts for a twofold purpose. First, addressing the realms of knowledge at stake in meso-level interaction, as a means to deepen conceptual reach on the myriad of discourses currently fostering change. Second, promoting a scope of practice and research that allows framing (capacity) development beyond the project level and the donor-focused scope.
application/pdf
2038-3460
17346
1
en
Alejandro Balanzo-Guzman
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Tecnoscienza – Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
social change
Theory within a Policy. Dissecting Capacity Development, Harvesting Knowledge Stances
Text.Serial.Journal
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/
8
Scenarios
2017-07-20
2023-06-22
2017-07-20
2023-08-21
73-102
TS
Alejandro Balanzo-Guzman
2017/07/20
10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17346
73
Universidad Externado de Colombia
2038-3460
1
social change
en
102
Theory within a Policy. Dissecting Capacity Development, Harvesting Knowledge Stances
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/article/download/17346/16195
8
                                                                            Scenario

Theory within a Policy
Dissecting Capacity Development, Harvesting
Knowledge Stances

Alejandro Balanzo-Guzman
Universidad Externado de Colombia (COL)



     Abstract: This essay unpacks capacity development policies, discussing its
     core rationales and building theory out of its main conceptual assumptions.
     Capacity development focuses on addressing and improving the elusive
     terms, qualities and means of ‘capacity’ needed for lasting development.
     The essay addresses the following questions: what are the core rationales
     of capacity development? What theoretical sources lay within capacity de-
     velopment? Is it possible to distil analytical synthesis from these theoretical
     sources? It draws upon the understanding of agency as described by capac-
     ity development. Its theoretical foundations are extracted and discussed,
     building a single corpus: the knowledge stance perspective is proposed to
     observe meso-level agency. It builds on institutional work and innovation
     intermediation scholarly streams.
     The knowledge-stances perspective on agency shows a set of knowledge
     stances as analytical tools. Stances of boundary exploration, boundary set-
     ting and practice work are shown as forms of enacting, positioning and ex-
     panding a practice field. Stances of knowledge exploration, intermediation
     and supply are shown as strategies to enlarge its cognitive base. The theo-
     retical value of this perspective accounts for a twofold purpose. First, ad-
     dressing the realms of knowledge at stake in meso-level interaction, as a
     means to deepen conceptual reach on the myriad of discourses currently
     fostering change. Second, promoting a scope of practice and research that
     allows framing (capacity) development beyond the project level and the do-
     nor-focused scope.

     Keywords: capacity development; knowledge stances; critical policy analy-
     sis; governance technologies; social change.

     Corresponding author: Alejandro Balanzo, Universidad Externado de
     Colombia, Observatorio de Políticas, Ejecución y Resultados de la
     Administración Pública, Cll. 12 # 0-07 Este, Bogotá, Colombia. E-mail:
     alejandro.balanzo@uexternado.edu.co.




TECNOSCIENZA
Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
8 (1) pp. 73-102 - ISSN 2038-3460                 2017
www.tecnoscienza.net
74                                                           Tecnoscienza - 8 (1)

Introduction

    This essay discusses a possible STS approach to policy analysis. The
argument is built on the Foucauldian assumption that technologies of
power are knowable objects (Jessop 2006). Rather than taking the more
common critical policy analysis approach developing criticisms of power,
this essay builds on policy as a possible ontological state of knowledge
(Jasanoff 2004), and experiments on extracting and building from theo-
retical sources likely rooting policy itself.
    Following a backwards-analytical inquiry, the essay unpacks capacity
development policies, discussing its core rationales and its main concep-
tual assumptions. Capacity development performs as an umbrella term in
the context of development practice (cf. DAC-OECD 2009). An unstable
concept, it focuses on addressing and improving the elusive terms, quali-
ties and means of ‘capacity’ needed for lasting development. Interestingly,
capacity development as a model brings together various aspects in a way
not often seen in scholarly work. The expression identifies and describes
capacity, mediating both analytical frames and practical experience in its
attempt to guide change-oriented agency: agency oriented towards what
has recently been labelled as transformative change (Grin et al. 2010).
    On the assumption that “there is nothing more practical than a good
theory” (Lewin 1951, 169), the essay addresses the following questions.
What are the core rationales of capacity development? What theoretical
sources lay within capacity development? Is it possible to distil analytical
synthesis from these theoretical sources? As a possible answer, the analy-
sis builds on institutional work and innovation intermediation literature
to propose a knowledge-stances perspective on agency.
    The essay draws specifically upon the understanding of agency as de-
scribed by capacity development policies. Capacity development is there-
fore not used here as a source of contents, rather as a knowledge refer-
ence (Keller 2011). Relevance of these questions – and the proposed ex-
ercise – can be stated at several levels. As a STS scholar approach to poli-
cy, these questions pose an example of an inquiry into the ontological sta-
tus of knowledge in policy. As such, the case has been rarely raised for
the case of social sciences. Capacity development is seen in this essay as a
performative form of knowledge (Van Egmond and Zeiss 2010) that can
be addressed as an object and further analysed. Knowledge stances de-
scribe a set of repertoires, gestures that can be played by actors in the at-
tempt of change (as inspired by capacity development).
    But there is more to it in what relates to the theory-practice continu-
um. Because of its context and sectorial challenges, policies related to ca-
pacity development attempt to set comprehensive models as means for
action. These models bring together knowledge sources and rationales
that would be otherwise divided.
    However, there is a fundamental shortcoming to it: capacity develop-
Balanzo-Guzman                                                           75
ment policies are concerned with development of other actors. Policies
are functional to developmental aims, sight focusing only in the counter-
parts of aid, on those at the other end of the string. As policy develop-
ment tools, capacity development policies aim at affecting agency of other
actors, yet they do not acknowledge the full agency of those issuing the
policy, their presence as counterparts. Actors themselves are not visible.
    One main assumption of our discussion is that it might be worth ex-
ploring the hidden theoretical implications beyond this invisibility. By
digging deeper into the theoretical foundations of these policy tools, it
should be possible to see how is it that different actors gather around new
practices. Moreover, it should be possible to illustrate how embedded in-
stitutions and rationales of these actors might affect other parties and the
extent (and deeper challenges) that actors might have to face towards the
goals of transformative change.
    Therefore, this essay focuses on the understanding of agency in capac-
ity development. Capacity development theoretical foundations are ex-
tracted and discussed, building a single corpus: knowledge stances are
proposed as analytical units to observe meso-level agency. To this effect,
we comparatively discuss institutional work and innovation intermedia-
tion scholarly streams, arguably the theoretical background of capacity
development policies.
    The essay is composed of three sections. The first section discusses the
context, foundations and overarching rationales of capacity development
policies, as enacted by international organizations, NGOs and govern-
ments playing in the sector. The second section discusses the scholarly
streams that, more or less explicitly, nurture international capacity devel-
opment thought and practice: institutional work and innovation interme-
diation. The section also builds on their theoretical overlaps and com-
plementarities, revealing both the shortcomings and potential of practice-
laden social scientific work. The third section proposes a comprehensive
theoretical synthesis focused on features of meso-level agency.


1. What is Capacity Development?

    This section discusses capacity development, following a twofold pur-
pose. First, it aims to deepen our understanding of capacity development
as a discursive dispositif (Foucault 1972; Keller 2011). Second, it aims to
set some points of reference in order to ground theory (Charmaz 2014).
Capacity development is discussed as a tool of international development
policy. The section describes its background settings, discusses its epis-
temic status and delves into its (veiled) assumptions.
    The various definitions of capacity development originate from the in-
ternational development sector – and the scholar activity taking part in it.
The most influential definitions are given by the United Nations (2008a,
PAG???), who define capacity development as: “the process through
76                                                          Tecnoscienza - 8 (1)

which individuals, organizations and societies obtain, strengthen and
maintain the capabilities to set and achieve their own development objec-
tives over time”. In the World Bank context, Otoo et al. (2009, 3) define
the term as: “locally driven process of learning by leaders, coalitions and
other agents of change that brings about changes in socio-political, poli-
cy-related, and organizational factors to enhance local ownership for and
the effectiveness and efficiency of efforts to achieve a development goal”.
The OECD (2006, 12) defines the concept as: “the ability of people, or-
ganisations and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully”.
Following a systemic approach, Ubels et al. (2010, 4) define capacity de-
velopment as: “change processes [in] the ability of a human system to
perform, sustain itself and self-renew.” Overall, capacity development re-
fers to increasing people-based autonomy deployment.
    The tenets behind these definitions can be traced to Sen’s and Nuss-
baum’s works on human capabilities. Sen (from economics) and Nuss-
baum (from ethics and law) proposed seminal insights for the human de-
velopment framework (Gasper 2003). According to their approach, hu-
man beings and social, cultural and environmental sustainability are to be
regarded as the priorities for development efforts, where capacities con-
stitute both the means and ends of development. Acknowledging, creat-
ing and maintaining capacity is, in this sense, acknowledging, creating
and maintaining development (UNDP 2010a). “When we talk about ca-
pacity” – says Sen – “what we are ultimately looking for is the capacity of
human beings, what they are capable of doing, what they have the free-
dom to do” (UNDP 2010b). These principles are at the core of the con-
cept’s axiological references.
    Beyond the realm of discourse, capacity development has brought
about institutional change for international development practice. It was
used to drive the transformation of technical assistance practices, which
with time became also a battleship to bring about changes in international
aid architecture, as seen in the various aid summits (Dabelstein 2012).
The concept brought to the table alternative approaches, creating a path
(e.g. Browne 2002) and scoping and embedding new practices into devel-
opment agencies (e.g. DAC-OECD 2006; Otoo et al. 2009; UNDP
2008b). Many actors built the term, adding formal networks (e.g. OECD's
GOVNET's reference DAC-OECD 2006), informal networks (e.g.
LenCD.org 2013) as well as independent consultants (e.g. Morgan 1997).
    In the following paragraphs, we will discuss several overarching as-
pects lying in the background thinking of capacity development. The first
relates to the understanding of social learning as a means of social change.
The second relates to the levels at which capacity is to be found and nur-
tured. The third relates to the analytical scope of capacity development,
situated at the meso-level. We will finish reflecting on what these ration-
ales entail to the understanding of change agency.
Balanzo-Guzman                                                           77
1.1 Theorizing Social Learning as Means of Social Change

    Often capacity development texts aim at making sense of social learn-
ing as a vehicle for “development” or “social change,” unveiling the nec-
essary means to strive for it (e.g. Brinkerhoff and Morgan 2010; Taylor
2007). These texts try to assemble the various pieces of the puzzle, ad-
dressing this subject as broadly as possible.
    Capacity development texts’ understanding of social learning includes
the distributed capabilities that would imply the change of individuals,
organizations and societies (e.g. Alaerts 2009; Kaspersma 2013; Morgan
2005), but also the role played by more complex social processes, like
power, local history and change drivers. DAC-OECD (2006) stresses
how: “capacity is not only about skills and procedures; it is also about in-
centives and governance”. Interestingly, this link between the account of
distributed capabilities and governance suggests some practical under-
standings of the cognitive dimension of institutional work (see Lawrence
et al. 2013).
    Expectedly, capacity development often stresses the importance of the
non-material dimension of change. Or, at least, it implies more im-
portance should be given to this aspect as a determinant of change. To
specify these realms, Ferreira (2012) introduces the concept of social
technologies. Social technologies are: “methods and designs for organiz-
ing people in pursuit of a goal or goals” (Beinhocker 2006, 262). Accord-
ing to Beinhocker, social technologies include institutions – in North’s
sense (1990) – but also include other ingredients, such as structures, roles
and cultural norms (Beinhocker 2006).
    Examples of social technologies are facilitation methodologies, man-
agement practices, electoral systems and rural small market cultures.
Changes in social technologies, says Ferreira, suppose dialogues between
various local and general knowledges. The use of the plural form for
knowledge is deliberate: it implies convergence of multiple sources, ra-
tionales and values behind knowledge. These sources would refer to so-
cial technologies’ components, dimensions or processes. Dialogue be-
tween knowledges, it would be expected, creates new ways of under-
standing and constructing local realities.
    Therefore, capacity development assumes that social change is a func-
tion of social learning, with change coming about as a result of transfor-
mations in individuals, organizations and societies, especially in the realm
of social technologies. This is seen through transformations in the ways
people organize themselves to go about their circumstances. Expectedly,
models adding to capacity development as a reference framework delve
into mechanisms of social learning – one could say absorption, learning,
and innovation on social technologies – attempting to tackle these com-
plex layers. These models are here means of theory, in the sense that they
provide an abstract understanding of the social phenomenon at hand
(Abend 2008).
78                                                             Tecnoscienza - 8 (1)


1.2 Identifying and Linking Capacity Levels

     Where is capacity to be found according to development practice?
We have already mentioned capacity is seen as a feature of individuals
and organizations. But capacity is also to be found at less concrete levels,
such as in society, the system and/or the enabling environments. Capacity
development texts often assume a close interrelation between these levels.
Here are some details of this approach.
     The notion of an enabling environment describes “the broader system
within which individuals and organizations function and one that facili-
tates or hampers their existence and performance” (Land et al. 2009). In
a sense, it describes an aggregation of social technologies, to use Bein-
hocker’s concept. The enabling environment is the changing – trending
and/or conflicting – space of encounter between organizations and the
cultures it is drawn upon. But it also appears in the multiple forms of in-
stitutions: the less tangible “rules of the game” and the formal ones in the
form of norms or policies (UNDP 2008b). All these elements constrain or
foster change. In spite of the difficulties of effectively addressing this lev-
el, it is regarded as a core objective of capacity development efforts.
     The organizational level is perceived as functional to the enabling en-
vironment level. Therefore, the capacity development framework stresses
the organization’s effectiveness at delivering on mandates as a core per-
formance criterion (ECDPM 2008; Mentz 1997). From this starting point,
various aspects referring to organizational capabilities extend the capacity
development literature. The individual level, again, is subordinated to the
organizational level. The capacity development approach supposes an
evolution from a generic provision of disperse technical assistance and
training initiatives to a more systematic understanding of social learning
and decision-making, thus to a more strategic role of an individual’s po-
tential in organizational contexts (Browne 2003).

1.3 Analytical Scope

    Expectedly, capacity development texts do not give an explicit ac-
count of their analytical scope. It is possible to infer it, however, by means
of its role and settings as a concept. In other words, it answers the ques-
tions: what kind of practice does the concept inform and for whom?
    As said, capacity development performs at the same time as an em-
bedded tool and a goal of developing practice. It informs policy-making,
project management and boundary relations of the many international aid
stakeholders and operators. Its regular setting is that of the meso level,
defined as the concrete sphere where encounters between diverse organi-
zations take place, the sphere in which, in the interaction of actors in
“fields, arenas or games […] social orders […] are constructed and re-
produced” (Fligstein 2001, 107). The meso-level comprises the interac-
Balanzo-Guzman                                                             79
tions of diverse organizations, whatever their purpose and nature, and the
forms of practice and institutional spheres they build in that process.
These arrangements play roles at the local, regional, national and interna-
tional levels.
    Capacity development texts attempt to identify and address lasting
features of the meso-level. Although its rationale is limited to the project
level – in tune with development practice – it is concerned with the build-
ing of enabling environments (e.g. DAC-OECD 2006; Otoo et al. 2009;
UNDP 2008b): understanding and intentional agency towards sustained
governance and institutional depth (e.g. World Bank 2012), is expressed
in the design of practical ways to tackle its multiple levels, multiple actors
and multiple dimensions (Ubels 2010).
    This form of agency, that is, pro-development through interaction at
the meso level, is built and suggested by the collection of models inform-
ing the framework. These models are often presented as a result of learn-
ing processes (e.g. Browne 2003; DAC-OECD 2006; ECDPM 2008).
They further inform, guide or frame practice by means of setting guide-
lines (e.g. UNDP 2008c), assessment of previous experiences (e.g.
ECDPM 2008), evaluation criteria (e.g. Otoo et al. 2009), or facilitation
references (e.g. JICA Research Institute 2008).

1.4 Change Agents as Means of Governance

    Who brings about change? One can infer from capacity development
texts that social change can be triggered and led by any actor within soci-
ety. We have above introduced the World Bank’s (2011) definition, coin-
ing change agents as: “leaders, groups, coalitions and others that can ini-
tiate and drive positive changes towards the achievement of a develop-
ment goal”. In this sense, neither the type of agent nor his or her impact
scale is relevant, for developmental value is not exclusively a state matter
(DAC-OECD 2011).
    The assumption that “any actor can initiate and drive change” sug-
gests a specific understanding of policy and governance. Here we are re-
minded of Ostrom’s definition of an actor being: “a single individual or a
group functioning as a corporate actor”, and action being those “human
behaviors to which the acting individual attaches a subjective and instru-
mental meaning” (Ostrom 2007, 30). This understanding implies power
distribution at multiple levels, including that of the international and non-
governmental agencies authoring the framework.
    In effect, pursuing ‘developmental’ value (as any other value) suppos-
es defying (with more or less degrees of antagonism) a certain state of af-
fairs. It is not difficult assuming that such endeavour enacts a purpose, re-
sponds to (more or less legitimate and shared) motives, is expressed in a
(more or less elaborated) discourse and is (more or less) contested by
other actors. Policy, following this thread, is seen (and enacted) by the
capacity development framework as the result of a multiple governance
80                                                          Tecnoscienza - 8 (1)

grid (Hupe 2006).
    Capacity development texts do not overlook the existence of political
struggle in these processes. However, following the rationale of social
learning as social change, they emphasize its contents. Or, as Li (1999)
has argued, social change is rendered as a technical matter. Change
agents, from this perspective, are vehicles of knowledge and institutional
entrepreneurs (DiMaggio 1988). They are means for the building of com-
petence, organizational accountability and institutions.
    In summary, capacity development texts, scholarly and practice alike,
reflect the means by which actors play a governing role at the meso-level.
Capacity development is a collection of models, guides, recommendations
and reports informing practice, in which models inspired in theoretical
sources mix with accounts of experience. As such, capacity development
illustrates the inner workings of a governance technology.


2. What is the Epistemic Status of Capacity Development?

    What is the reach of capacity development as a reference, which is
created in the realm of policy? A brief answer to this question allows un-
derstanding the particular approach of capacity development to its object,
and therefore its theoretical limits. In the context of this essay, this an-
swer accounts for the reason why digging deeper in capacity develop-
ment’s tenets is needed.
    As loosely sketched in the introduction, we argue that capacity devel-
opment was constructed as a developmental practice-based reference.
Various threads come in line with this assumption. First, capacity devel-
opment knowledgeable sources are practice-based sources. The work by
Mosse about how development is cultivated allows interpreting capacity
development as a practice-based reference model. Following Mosse, it is
likely that capacity development emerged “through critical reflections on
practice” providing “‘second-order’ rationalizations […] helping the way
in which […] practice is represented and communicated” (2005, 154).
    Capacity development reference documents from international organ-
izations show semi-formal and informal networks playing a role as
knowledge reservoirs (e.g. OECD 2006). These reservoirs include all
kinds of reference sources. Websites linking to informal networks, such
as LenCD.org and Capacity.org, display experiences (cases, editorials,
and critical reflections), practice-oriented resources (handbooks, concept
notes, toolboxes) or focused peer-to-peer assistance (topic communities).
Sometimes they also edit bulletins or journals. These networks are spe-
cially focused on Capacity development as a topic. Others, such as
km4dev – knowledge management for development – link to practice fol-
lowing practitioners’ interest in addressing knowledge in development,
focusing on knowledge-related functions, problems or tools, addressed by
Balanzo-Guzman                                                              81
and to any setting within the world of development.
    Following this thread, the epistemic value of capacity development is
shaped by international development cultures to the scope of a model-
based, project-sized prescriptive approach. Except for one critical essay
(Kühl 2009), scholarly work shares both the scope of practice and the
prescriptive approach. Nurtured by the various development fields, scales
and functions within development practice, Capacity development plays a
role as an umbrella concept (Swierstra and Rip 2007). More a tentative
than a mandatory or stable concept, it works as a transversal reference for
the sector, set to affect its everyday routines and operative protocols: core
documents of capacity development are meant to bring new rationales in-
to project design (e.g. World Bank 2012; UNDP 2008c).

2.1 Conceptual Anchors

    However, this does not mean the capacity development framework
lacks conceptual anchoring. A knowledgeable reader will see that institu-
tional thought is embedded in the approaches of the World Bank, OECD
and United Nations. The systemic complex adaptive thinking shapes,
more explicitly, the European Center for Development Policy Manage-
ment – ECDPM approach.
    The existence of institutional and systemic thought as theoretical ref-
erences would allow seeing the capacity development framework as a per-
formative form of knowledge or, as Van Egmond and Zeiss (2010) have
suggested in a similar case, a boundary object informing policy. However,
scholarly capacity development texts do not delve into these disciplinary
fields. They do not give step-by-step accounts of its rationales and as-
sumptions, nor do they discuss any disciplinary research (Alaerts 2009).
These texts mostly draw on sources – and their experience – to sketch
models that development actors could follow in order to develop the ca-
pacity of others.
    Scholarly references nurturing these networks are scattered in types of
content, purpose and approach. The references somehow resemble prac-
tice itself, in the sense of bringing in analytical frames to describe, justify
or explain everyday uses. In order to do this, disciplinary sources are
adapted or re-contextualized. The texts embed disciplinary explanations
as model rationales, in the form of normative references (e.g. Otoo et al.
2009). Innovation studies or knowledge management languages appear
often, although their ‘natural’ settings do not necessarily fit development
rationales. Interestingly, the development sector is rapidly acquiring in-
novation jargon (e.g. Klerkx et al. 2011; Ngwenya and Hagmann 2011).
82                                                              Tecnoscienza - 8 (1)

3. Building Blocks: A Conceptual Discussion

    What does the previous account of capacity development unveil? In
short, it describes practical means for governance, a detailed illustration
of governance agency. As previously said, capacity development embeds a
theoretically and practically informed understanding of: i) governance
settings, set at the meso-level in interaction with actors; ii) governance
layered accounts, specified by capacity levels; iii) governance means, fo-
cused on the realm of social learning; and iv) embedding of various disci-
plinary streams.

3.1 Constructive Means for Theory Grounded in Capacity Devel-
opment

    The overall approach builds on an interpretative reading of capacity
development’s disciplinary foundations. Arguably, this exercise will open
capacity development’s black box, informing scholarship from a practice-
informed boundary-object model. As such, the exercise illustrates a con-
structivist effort, sets as an epistemological lens to read policy as well as to
deepen the theoretical reflection. We propose this approach as a plausible
way of unpacking knowledge within a policy: it means as a dispositif
(Foucault 1972).
    The discussion builds on linking capacity development policies to
plausible scholar streams laying on its background. This approach builds
on various assumptions. The first is that if capacity development is a per-
formative form of knowledge, there might be some value in unveiling and
intertwining core concepts of theoretical sources plausibly inspiring prac-
tice. For this, we use literature on institutional work, innovation and
learning intermediation, and cognitive studies.
    A second assumption sets the specific intersection linking capacity de-
velopment practice and literature: the focus is set on agency. Capacity de-
velopment will be understood as a performative form of institutional
work and innovation and learning intermediation strategies. Capacity de-
velopment agency is seen as embedding rationales and repertoires re-
minding those described by literature.
    We will discuss the theoretical sources following two steps. First, we
will discuss an overview of the bodies of literature. We will discuss also
those layers detailing agency, pointing and nurturing at both complemen-
tary and overlapping sets of concepts of each stream relating to one an-
other and possibly to capacity development. This will be the starting
point in order to attempt a comprehensive analytical synthesis afterwards:
a set of knowledge stances.
Balanzo-Guzman                                                               83
3.2 Institutional Work

    The notion of institutional work is used to describe “the broad cate-
gory of purposive action aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting
institutions” (Lawrence and Suddaby 2006, 215), where institutions are
understood as “the rules of the game in a society or, more formally, are
the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction” (North
1990, vi).
    As a field of study, institutional work interconnects various roots. The
first root brings agency to the fore of institutional change. It describes
agency as “dependent on cognitive (rather than affective) processes and
structures [and] focuses on understanding how actors accomplish the so-
cial construction of rules, scripts, schemas and cultural accounts” (2006,
218). This foundation is based on contributions by DiMaggio (1988) and
Oliver (1991) on institutional entrepreneurship and institutional process-
es, respectively. Therefore institutions – and change processes in institu-
tions – are the result of deliberate agency.
    A second root of institutional work comes from the so-called practice
turn in sociology. Practice draws attention to how institutions are ex-
pressed in embodied, incarnated forms. It refers to “embodied, materially
mediated arrays of human activity centrally organized around shared
practical understanding” (Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina and von Savigny 2001),
as quoted by Lawrence and Suddaby (2006, 218).
    Practice builds on the assumption that all human action, speech and
object embody knowledge (Berger 1991). Here knowledge is enacted (re-
lated to the world-at-hand in which knowledge has a domain), incarnated
(received and shaped in a human body basis), and intersubjective (a
product of human collective nature) (Maturana and Varela 1990). This
assertion shares scholarly roots with cognitive science (Varela 2000), soci-
ology of knowledge (Hornidge 2013; Hornidge et al. 2013; Keller 2011),
and knowledge management (e.g., Goldkuhl and Röstlinger 2002).
    Here the domain of experience is set as a first – given, spontaneous –
feature of agency. The domain of experience provides a setting to
acknowledge the features of specific actors in their specific contexts. This
accounts for the multiple relations of non-tangible human features (e.g.
culture, organizational culture, cognition, capabilities, social capital, etc.),
as well as their location and multiple possible relations with a materially
bounded space and time (Boisier 2006).
    This local character is a source of boundaries: practice expresses the
social technologies of a local culture at a given time. This token applies to
international agencies and grassroots organizations alike: local situations
bound practice itself. Inter-organizational exchange, encounter, clash,
agreement or compromise at the meso-level can be understood as a fea-
ture of practice diversity. We argue that boundary effects of practice
show a way towards the understanding of knowledge and governance in-
teraction. Boundary effects of practice also point to the interplay of insti-
84                                                            Tecnoscienza - 8 (1)

tutional settings as means and arenas of power positioning.
    Practice is an object of concern of institutional work: practice work, as
a form of institutional work, studies “how actors affect the practices that
are legitimate within a domain… [focusing] on how practices are created,
maintained or disrupted” (Zietsma and Lawrence, 2010, 242).
    A third root of institutional work comes from boundary work litera-
ture. Boundaries separate practices, organizations, constituencies or
stakeholders. Boundary work refers to various forms of agency oriented
to “establishing, expanding, reinforcing, or undermining” these borders
(Zietsma and Lawrence 2010; Gieryn 1999, 190). When conceptually set
as a reference for agency, boundaries allow describing forms of positioning.
    In a “within” position, an agent creates ways to “protect autonomy,
prestige and control of resources” (Zietsma and Lawrence 2010 quoting
Abbott 1988, 194). In a “between” or “outside” position, agency focuses
on strategies to create connections. Creating connections is performing as
a boundary spanning actor (Bartel 2001; Hargadon and Sutton, 1997)
and, going some steps further, aiming at various possible effects at the
boundaries. This role might account for managing cross-boundary con-
nections, as Hoppe (2010a) discusses, for science/government interac-
tions in the Netherlands. Or perform, in less collaborative contexts, strat-
egies of boundary breaching, that is, framing and mobilizing resources as
strategies to influence opportunity structures (Benford and Snow 2000;
Zald and McCarthy, 1987).
    A fourth root of institutional work brings to the fore the role of
boundary objects. Boundary objects are different kinds of processes or ar-
tifacts establishing a shared context between boundaries (Bechky 2003;
Carlile 2002; Kellogg et al. 2006; Star and Griesemer 1989). Boundary ob-
jects are relevant in the context of capacity development, for shared con-
texts create room for repertoires of institutional work and practice work.
In global development, for example, projects, programs and policies have
special interest. Hoppe (2010b), for example, discusses the extent to
which such devices perform as the effective means of collaboration in In-
tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) efforts.
    It is evident that capacity development describes forms of institutional
work. As such, it is “intelligent, situated institutional action … [which is
based on] the creative and knowledgeable work of actors which may or
may not achieve its desired ends and which interacts with existing social
and technological structures in unintended and unexpected ways” (Law-
rence and Suddaby 2006, 219). Capacity development can be read as a
(normative) attempt to push forward the cycle of creation, maintenance
and disruption of institutional change (Zietsma and Lawrence 2010).

3.3 Learning and Innovation Intermediation

    Arguably, in the realm of capacity development the notion of innova-
tion is rather generic. It stands for the incorporation of alternative ways of
Balanzo-Guzman                                                               85
thinking, doing and organizing. Its relevance resides more in its change-
oriented purpose than in the extent of its originality. We have given here
this ampler sense by introducing a learning dimension, as developed by
Marcus (1995). Learning and innovation intermediation is understood
here as the support of innovation processes between various parties
(Howells 2006) that aim to obtain and sustain knowledge-related assets
such as skills, competences and/or new knowledges.
    Naturally this understanding already bridges learning and innovation
intermediation and institutional work literature, the former highlighting
an intentional purpose to affect a cognitive dimension. It is evident here
that local processes from the parties start in a given context at a given
moment, and exchange – at the spatial, organizational, functional or field
level – implies shifting, scaling, expanding, recreating or resignifying a
field of practice and/or its bounding institutional settings.
    ‘Innovation intermediary’ is a key concept in this regard. It is defined
as an organization or body that acts as an agent or broker in any aspect of
the innovation process between two or more parties (Howells 2006). Such
intermediary activities include helping to provide information about po-
tential collaborators; brokering a transaction between two or more par-
ties; acting as a mediator, or go-between, for bodies or organizations that
are already collaborating; and helping find advice, funding and support
for the innovation outcomes of such collaborations.
    Any actor can play the role of an innovator intermediary. It has been
noted how public, private or civil actors perform this role (Van Lente
2003). It has also been noted that this role can be performed as a special-
ized function or as one amongst other activities (Yang et al. 2014). Litera-
ture on innovation intermediaries has labelled some agents as systemic in-
termediaries. A systemic intermediary is an actor that “functions primarily
in networks and systems […], primarily operate in the public, public-
private, but not exclusively in the private domain and focus on support at
a strategic level” (Van Lente 2003, 255).
    Innovation intermediation encompasses a wide range of functions.
The World Bank (2007) points out how various support activities are as
important as knowledge access in innovation processes. Some of these ac-
tivities relate forms of institutional work, in various aspects. A first aspect,
related to norms and standards, includes fostering change in norms, regu-
lations or other regulating practices. A second aspect, related to boundary
work, includes activities to find and create connections between various
actors and prompting policy changes. A third aspect relates to gatekeep-
ing in networking activities, such as filtering and matchmaking (Kilelu et
al. 2011). Some of these boundary activities exceed the realm of searching
for innovation opportunity settings. Depending on the context, boundary
work relates to strategic positioning of the intermediary. Therefore,
boundary work at this level implies also leverage strategies in markets and
political arenas. This aspect shows institutional work’s manoeuvres played
by intermediaries that innovation literature has not yet discussed at length.
86                                                           Tecnoscienza - 8 (1)

    Knowledge intermediation describes various forms of engagement
within or between knowledge stakeholders. There are two distinguishable
streams of literature. One refers to knowledge intermediation, while the
other to knowledge brokering. Both describe similar phenomena, with a
different emphasis: while literature on knowledge intermediation brings
to the fore the theoretical discussion about mediation (Latour 1994) and
intermediation (Doganova 2013; Meyer and Kearnes 2013; Schlierf and
Meyer 2013), knowledge brokering brings about a descriptive approach
on agency repertoires (Schut et al. 2013; Turnhout et al. 2013). This dis-
cussion will profit both streams.
    A first form of knowledge intermediation repertoires is close to
knowledge supply. It involves a clarifying role about the knowledge de-
mand of the user (Turnhout et al. 2013). This role resembles the retrieval
phase of knowledge management cycles, focused on “identifying
knowledge that is likely to result in the satisfaction of a need or solution
to a problem” (Carlile and Rebentisch 2003, 1189), or as Howells (2006)
describes it, filtering. Knowledge supply refers an offer-demand relation
in which knowledge solutions are provided to a knowledge user either di-
rectly (on the assumption the agent has the solution his or herself) or indi-
rectly (appointing suitable sources with a solution) (Turnhout et al. 2013).
    Supply should not be associated solely with technical or expert forms
of knowledge. Literature also addresses context-related knowledges, such
as foresights, forecasting, strategic intelligence and market research
(Howells 2006; Kuhlmann 2002). Further, we argue that this knowledge
base includes incarnated forms of knowledge: experiencing contact with
specific contexts, such as markets, organizations, procedures or fora, is a
form of expanding a practice base and prompting forms of boundary
work. Which means, in other words, that knowledge supply refers prac-
tice itself as a source.
    Supply is also performed at other moments, as with legal or technical
advice, as means of a support function. In such cases, effects of
knowledge supply might have a different impact: although this repertoire
can be spontaneously assimilated as a repertoire close to practice, it has a
place on boundary work strategies as well.
    Another function of innovation intermediation refers to knowledge
exploration. It refers generically to practices of knowledge production,
accounting for different kinds of knowledge contents and sources nurtur-
ing knowledge supply and intermediation. In intermediation processes, it
implies knowledge processing, generation and combination. Howells
(2006) recognizes two forms of this repertoire: first, a combinatorial form,
in which the intermediary helps to combine knowledge; second, a genera-
tion and recombination form, in which the in-house result is combined
with partner knowledge. There are clear examples at the grassroots level:
there are practices of “engaging and supporting actors (farmers, research-
ers) in participatory knowledge generation through facilitating demand
led research or articulating experimental/local knowledge” (Yang et al.,
Balanzo-Guzman                                                            87
2014). In its more specialized forms, intermediation supposes forms of
translation between domains and facilitation in pursuit of “doable prob-
lems” (Fujimura 1987; Latour 1994) within feasible inter-organizational
frameworks.
    There is also knowledge exploration in the pursuit of joint quests. A
salient feature in these cases relates to its effect on boundaries: they tend
to blur, or redefine. This phenomenon captures “how knowledge inter-
mediators account for the unpredictability and uncertainty of their prac-
tices and activities and the fact that new knowledge and identities arise
out of this” (Schlierf and Meyer 2013, 435). In other words, knowledge
exploration has possible effects both at the innovation and the boundary
levels. Doganova describes a distinctive characteristic of exploration as
the fact that “the socio-technical collective involved cannot be known ex
ante: it is a result of the exploratory process, rather than its point of de-
parture” (2013, 450). Hoppe (2010a) discusses a similar image in a differ-
ent setting. He raises a case about scientific advice and policy-making in
the Netherlands, describing how both advisors and policy-makers to
some extent share knowledge production at a given time.
    In this sense, a knowledge exploration repertoire could be described
as a form of coproduction (Ostrom 1996), and as such, a form of bounda-
ry work with a twofold possible outcome. The first possible outcome re-
lates to practice innovation in a specific niche (Geels 2002), affecting
practice to some extent (local, sectorial or regime level) by collaborative
means. The second outcome relates to describing mechanisms of bounda-
ry work as a form of change by engagement in collaborative/explorative
settings (Cajaiba-Santana 2014).
    Innovation intermediation literature gives texture to the cognitive di-
mension of capacity development. It adds conceptual richness to the un-
derstanding of forms of knowledge circulation, scaling out and scaling up.
As a function, it can be attributed to a variety of agents and, most im-
portant from the point of view of agency, it describes the deployment of
various possible repertoires. This understanding brings about the oppor-
tunity to attune the more abstract objects of institutional work with those
more concrete objects of learning and innovation intermediation. To the
goal of this essay, this adds to the aim of capturing the features of agency
as an array of deployed repertoires involving knowledge.


4. A Knowledge Stances Perspective on Meso-level Agency

    We discussed institutional work and innovation intermediation
streams of literature in the last section. We also reflected deeper on their
tenets, pointing at overlapping and complementary features to be found
on its foundations. As a whole, the section shows a strong focus on meso-
level agency, sketching on its relations to practice, boundaries and institu-
88                                                            Tecnoscienza - 8 (1)

tions. As a result of this analysis we propose here an analytical synthesis,
in an attempt to define a set of concepts likely capturing agency as it is il-
lustrated by capacity development.
    The synthesis discusses possible repertoires played by actors, labelled
here as knowledge stances. Knowledge stances are agency gestures to be
found in actors’ relations to their contexts. Stances appear here as plausi-
ble heuristics allowing a comprehensive view of knowledge flows at the
meso-level, pointing at the ways practice, boundaries and institutions
might link to one another. By way of synthesis, knowledge stances reduce
the complexity of the theoretical discussion to a comprehensive set of
meaningful notions.
    Agency is here seen as an act of positioning (Downey 1992), describ-
ing strategies as adaptive forms of practical coping (Chia and Holt 2006).
Agency strategies are, in this sense, a function of agents’ relative positions
in their contexts. Therefore, knowledge contents feeding these repertoires
are context specific and relate to a specific appreciation of institutional
and cognitive settings that might be political (Mosse 2005) or calculative
(Callon 1998).
    The assumption is here that (meso-level-change-oriented) agency de-
scribes a variety of repertoires in the pursuit of creating, stabilizing and
expanding specific fields of practice, and knowledge stances are useful to
specify the agency situations in which these repertoires materialize.
    As analytical tools, knowledge stances work as heuristics addressing
moments, scopes, situations or performance of the various repertoires
taking place in this kind of agency. Stances allow for making distinctions
amongst various possible gestures of an actor, as well as pointing to the
ways these gestures condition one another.
    To add clarity, we will refer to a Colombian example, adding empiri-
cal detail to each of the stances. Built as a multi-sited case, the example
refers strategies of cocoa producer organizations as change agents. Data
was collected in various regions of Colombia (Balanzo 2016).

4.1 Boundary Exploration

    Strategies under this category refer to coping strategies linking actors
to their peers or to other partners. Simply, boundary exploration summa-
rizes moments of “collaborating”, “joining forces”, “working together to
achieve” or “finding solutions together.”
    Boundary exploration refers to meso-level collaborative quests, sug-
gesting forms of shared agency where boundaries might blur. Implica-
tions of collaborative searches vary for involved agents. Boundary explo-
ration is a form of institutional work aiming to create collaborative oppor-
tunities to generate or expand practice fields.
    Boundary exploration supposes a form of rescaling the size or reach of
the actors by means of collaborating. The scope and depth of rescaling
depends on the means and ends of collaboration. Boundary blurring ap-
Balanzo-Guzman                                                              89
pears only in forms of shared performance. These grouped forms of
agency overlap local, sub-regional, national or international scales and
can have effects on any practice field as a whole. This stance is at the base
of inter-actor collaboration, at any level, in the search of new institutional
arrangements.
    A good example appears in producer organizations, where boundary
exploration appears in various possible degrees. The first set of strategies
relates to partnering to share assets. Physical assets include logistical solu-
tions, distribution channels and storage infrastructure. Some other intan-
gible assets could also be included here, such as information about mar-
ket conditions and support opportunities, linking to organizations’ peer-
to-peer technical and non-technical training, and advising. Because of its
natural link to knowledge practices it will be detailed later. It is worth
noting, however, that peer-to-peer knowledge supply is also a feature of
boundary exploration.
    Another group of strategies refers to forms of shared performance,
namely, networking to access public investment, partnering with third
parties and scaling public investment. Unlike the first set, where bounda-
ries are kept except to take better advantage of specific assets, these types
describe modes of shared operation, showing repertoires of boundary ex-
pansion. This is the case of some clusters of organizations at subregional
levels. Shared operation, interestingly, takes place also in some collabora-
tive projects involving enterprises, farmers’ organizations and NGOs.
    The last set of types relates to boundary exploring as a means to pow-
er shared positions, namely, to coordinate positions to negotiate prices
(which might entail also partnering to collect cocoa grain), gain sector in-
fluence and demand local accountability. Boundary strategies here at-
tempt to supersede disadvantageous boundary situations by means of
showing the extent of re-scaled potential. While this might work at the
business level to negotiate price, this allows organizations at the sector
level to voice their interests in policy-making fora. At the local level this
allows organizations to bring topics to the territorial agenda.
    Strengthening the network is itself another type of boundary explora-
tion. Which is telling about the place of this strategy in organizations’
priorities. In effect, networking aims to be useful for organizations in
terms of facilitating economies of scale, optimizing support access and
striving to achieve a steering position in the sector.

4.2 Boundary Setting

    Boundary setting describes the actor-related and normative contexts
bounding an actor’s agency, as well as the ongoing actions of an actor to-
wards these contexts. Simply, boundary setting focuses on agency react-
ing to and coping with the given circumstances in which actors perform
vis-à-vis other actors.
    Boundary setting can refer to boundary situations, focused on the po-
90                                                              Tecnoscienza - 8 (1)

sition of an actor in relation to other actors, or can refer to boundary
conditions, focused on the effects on the actor of norms, rules or regula-
tions. Boundary conditions and situations (are set to, and) bound the ex-
tent and means to which organizations can actually interact.
    A good example is set in the case of producer organizations. Bounda-
ry setting shows differentiated patterns. Some strategies relate to position-
ing patterns while others relate to protecting patterns. When positioning,
organizations are striving to be visible, to highlight their existence and de-
termine the way to go about their business. This can take place in the
realm of boundary situations (as in the case of demanding attention from
authorities at the local level) or conditions (as in the case of creating a legal
persona as a means of existence and representation at the national level).
    Some other strategies attempt protecting a space. Drawing boundaries
is understood here as a rather defensive move, shielding the organization
or its practice base. It is the case with strategies such as assessing risk of
partnerships and keeping gates, avoiding local disruption and adjusting
terms and conditions of support schemes. The latter also include strate-
gies such as blocking, negotiating and re-formulating.
    Organizations deploy protecting strategies to safeguard their bounda-
ries by filtering exogenous input, for example, when public initiatives
seem unfit for organizations’ priorities or when project terms have been
set beforehand. Adjusting terms or blocking initiatives are forms of buff-
ering, or shielding. The organizations take care of their boundaries by
deploying means to take place before or after engaging in partnerships,
both within and between contracts and projects.
    Amongst these, shifting boundaries deserve some attention. This
strategy appeared empirically in two situations. First, it appeared as a
move to shield the organization from politics by rendering politics a mat-
ter of individuals. Afterwards it appeared to shield practice by engaging
in projects with contested actors from the sector, despite bitter negotia-
tions taking place at the negotiation table. The strategy speaks for itself
on the complexity of social phenomena always at play, and somehow
points to further scholar links yet to be made in order to tackle its full ex-
tent vis-à-vis, for example, literature on social movements.
    It is worth mentioning that the deployment of some of these strategies
takes place in markets. In these cases, the boundary strategy employs
price as a means of calculative agency (as in the case of local price regula-
tion and quality incentives) or expected return (as in the case of invest-
ment schemes).

4.3 Practice Work

    Practice work describes those arrays of activity enacting, making pos-
sible, sustaining on time and shaping the rationale and values of a practice
field. Put more simply, practice work refers to those activities describing
how actors ‘go about’ creating and sustaining a practice field for a long
Balanzo-Guzman                                                              91
time. An integrating category, practice work adds texture to the under-
standing of various knowledge repertoires as means to create, consolidate
or disrupt a practice field.
    We will give an example to better demarcate this notion: soccer clubs
‘go about’ their field by means of being voluntary associations, its field
expanding by internal and external selection of players and technical di-
rectors. Organizations for the promotion of Zen meditation ‘go about’
their field by means of master-to-disciple teaching and past learners’ do-
nations, and its field expands by means of voluntary shared practice and
specialization of the apprentices.
    We could say then that farmers’ organizations go about cocoa busi-
ness in a different way than other players. Not just in the more evident
sense of having a specific place and heft in a value chain, but in the sense of
striving to perform in such a way that will secure having a societal impact.
    Practice work takes place through different means. The first way is
through agency itself, by means of enactment. A set of practices (often
starting with a promise) is incorporated in the actions of an organization
to engage or develop with a practice field, as is the case when local cham-
pions take on breeding cocoa as an alternative and strive to convince oth-
ers to follow.
    Organizations are here a vehicle of exogenous practices entering the
local realm. Knowledge is enacted by organizations’ own means or by
bringing third parties to the table in what constitutes a form of bringing
about a role and positioning an identity. It is the case when leaders risk
everything to start with a cocoa project out of the blue. Actors’ presence
comprises here a form of knowledge supply, embedding itself as a cul-
ture, a way of doing, and an example of practice. These acts embed or
mark an initial or original stance. Arguably, this stance goes hand in hand
with the boundary strategy of ‘negotiate to exist’ as its inner facet.
    A second means of practice work refers to intermediation through
practice. Here organizations devise ways of sourcing and financing prac-
tice itself. In effect, deepening existence of the practice field as an em-
bedded social reality implies accessing, for example, financial resources,
technologies and legal advice.
    Strategies include creating funding and support opportunities and by-
passing level restrictions. This latter strategy refers to organizations’ at-
tempts to solve gaps at the local level due to corruption or municipal
weakness. It is worth remembering these strategies are played in different
fields and therefore require deployment of different protocols. Some are
business based, while others are development-project based or politically
lobbied. The common feature between them relates to how meso-level
endeavours are carried out in order to secure means allowing developing
the field of practice.
    Organizations look for partnerships or sponsorships making it possi-
ble to fund research, training or specialized staffing. Often the process
describes some sort of triangulation: A partnership lacks a piece of a puz-
92                                                             Tecnoscienza - 8 (1)

zle and then the organization strives to obtain it. For example, an organi-
zation can fund specialized internships in agreement with a university, the
logistic costs of expert training or a cocoa quality lab. Organizations de-
ploy these strategies to strengthen the endogenous realm with a long-term
rationale, striving to breed the field of practice. Complementary strate-
gies, namely, allocating resources incrementally, informing and including
are telling about organizations’ aims given a scarce or shifting context.
    The last type of practice work refers to normalizing practices. Here, or-
ganizations set rules as means to guide and stabilize a field of practice. For
example, they can set rules with quality contests, best organizational and
developmental practices, or visions attempting to influence local policies.
    Some of these strategies, such as setting a market access vision, pro-
ductive standards or best practices, take place within the sphere of action
of organizations. Here organizations aim at developing practice in a spe-
cific direction by utilizing these normative devices.
    Some other attempts go beyond the immediate sphere of action of or-
ganizations, as with organizations’ attempts to position a vision to influ-
ence policy. Policy is a way organizations stream their visions, values and
interests at territorial and sectorial levels. By targeting policy, organiza-
tions strive to set a guiding compass in a broader scale, shaping mid-to-
long-term planning sceneries of other actors.

4.4 Knowledge Supply

    Knowledge supply refers to knowledge delivery complementing other
stances. Contents of knowledge supply include local, contextual, tech-
nical, expert and/or scientific forms of knowledge. Along with these vari-
ous forms of knowledge, there are also different knowledge containers,
including up-to-date information (e.g. program calls), reports of various
kinds (e.g. technical or legal), technologies (e.g. protocols, eventually link-
ing to new objects) and persons. Knowledge supply is a crosscutting
stance, performing in boundary exploration, boundary setting and prac-
tice work stances.
    A good example is set in the case of producer organizations, where
knowledge supply has shown to play strategies related to knowledge fil-
tering, allocating and delivery. First, we will refer to knowledge filtering.
Here organizations (or their scaled forms) cope with knowledge require-
ments or gaps and manoeuver to satisfy them. For example, organizations
request legal advice to assess possible intermediary legal structures or de-
velop a better understanding of their assets and decide on technological
requirements to access specialized marketing niches. Knowledge filtering
includes strategies such as clarifying knowledge demands and appointing
providers.
    The second group of strategies describes knowledge allocation. The
term allocation stresses a conscious function of targeting or distributing
knowledge means, in various ways. One way, knowledge scaling, focus on
Balanzo-Guzman                                                             93
training strategies, assigning at different scales (that is, at member, organ-
izational, node or network levels). Another way, staffing, refers to ap-
pointing or shifting the appointment of people and knowledge provisions
to other levels, as is the case, for example, with member-sourced provi-
sion schemes or the flexible scaling or re-design of organizations based on
sub organizational emerging capabilities.
    The last group of strategies clusters forms of knowledge delivery.
Naturally, delivery stresses the knowledge providing function as such.
Strategies such as training, gathering and circulating information, and
peer advising are included in this group. Strategies take on specific con-
tents and rationales in each field. In-field technical aspects of seedling
breeding, for example, have different vehicles and containers than project
management.

4.5 Knowledge Exploration

    Knowledge exploration is the process of knowledge unveiling and
production. Knowledge exploration includes research, as broadly under-
stood, but also includes facilitating access to unknown contexts and scal-
ing out of tacit knowledges.
    The experience of organizations can give nuances to this broad under-
standing. In their case, some strategies describe repertoires of knowledge
unveiling outside the immediate practice field of organizations, namely,
performing in other links of the value chain and piloting complementary
income sources. Not the original core of organizations’ activities, these
are understood as forms of expansion by means of relating to comple-
mentary fields, often linking to territorial or sectorial scaling strategies.
    Other strategies refer to knowledge exploration within the field of
practice, which, in other words, refers to its deepening as a field. For ex-
ample, organizations’ attempts to identify and try cocoa genetic materials
are by all means their most important asset. Creating, actualizing and re-
trieving knowledge as strategies relate to a core aim: building a
knowledge base for the field of practice, in other words, setting reference
foundations to normalize their practice field as cocoa organizations.

4.6 Knowledge Intermediation

     Knowledge intermediation refers to forms of knowledge work (that is,
knowledge storage, manipulation and delivery) aiming to protect a prac-
tice field. Knowledge intermediation describes here creative forms of re-
ceiving, filtering and delivering knowledge in the attempt to adequately
fit boundary crossroads.
     The case of Colombian cocoa organizations adds detail to this broad
understanding. Here knowledge intermediation consists of knowledge
translation and mediation. The former illustrates attempts to better match
94                                                          Tecnoscienza - 8 (1)

endogenous interests or capabilities with external input, manoeuvring to
synchronize paces and priorities, adjusting internal and external lan-
guages and providing internal bases to match external standards. The lat-
ter strategy, mediation, stresses organizations’ conscious design of educa-
tive means.
    Translation and mediation strategies show organizations’ interests in
securing mid-to-long-term knowledge provisions, which we referred to
before as a keen interest in knowledge sustainability. Evidence also indi-
cates the interest to deliver education in both physical and social technol-
ogies, this includes technical productive aspects as well as managerial and
personal development knowledge. To this end, organizations partner with
actors both from the rural development sector as well as actors within the
cocoa value chain.


5. Conclusions

    This essay discusses a constructivist theoretical approach to work the-
oretically from the inner rationales of a policy tool: capacity development.
Institutional work and innovation intermediation literature bring insights
to understand this purpose. By intertwining them analytically, the article
proposes a knowledge-stances perspective on agency as an overarching
approach, with a set of knowledge stances as its analytical tools.
    To sum up, figure 1 illustrates knowledge stances. Rather than match-
ing one another linearly, stances complement one another. The figure
sketches the rough, uneven, adaptive landscape in which developmental
agency takes place. Stances of boundary exploration, boundary setting
and practice work are shown as forms of enacting, positioning and ex-
panding a practice field, tackling the institutional features of the field.
Stances of knowledge exploration, intermediation and supply are shown
as strategies to enlarge its cognitive base.
    The theoretical value of this perspective accounts for a twofold pur-
pose. First, it addresses the realms of knowledge at stake in meso-level in-
teraction, as a means to prompt further research and inform emerging
policy settings, development practice and the myriad of local discourses
and initiatives currently fostering change.
    Second, it promotes a scope of practice and research that allows fram-
ing (capacity) development beyond the project level and the donor-
focused scope, which gives a natural reach to the concept as a policy tool.
This feature suggests that the epistemic status of the capacity develop-
ment framework (and therefore its conceptual scope) is but a result of the
boundary setting in which it was created.
    This theoretical approach is meant as a heuristic tool, and it accounts
for phenomena with political and ethical implications. Li (1999) and
Mosse (2005) accounts of development projects describe knowledge-
intensive forms of disguising contradictory practice, as well as questiona-
Balanzo-Guzman                                                            95
ble forms of boundary work with project partners and beneficiaries. It is
likely that capacity development in volatile or sensitive contexts prompt
‘grey’ arrangements as forms of strategic coping with exceptional circum-
stances. The focus on knowledge stances and a cognitive approach will
help tackle explicit as well as implicit forms of institutional work, thus
maximizing the impact of diverse agencies tackling the challenges of so-
cial change.




            Fig. 1 – Meso-level agency featuring knowledge stances.



Acknowledgments
   The author is grateful to Stefan Kuhlmann and Gonzalo Ordoñez-Matamoros,
doctoral supervisors; and to Francesca Musiani and Annalisa Pelizza for their
comments on previous versions of this paper.
The author is also grateful to COLCIENCIAS and Universidad Externado de Co-
lombia, whose funding made this research possible.
96                                                                  Tecnoscienza - 8 (1)

References
Abbott, A. (1988) The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert
   Labor, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Abend, G. (2008) The Meaning of ‘Theory’, in “Sociological Theory”, 26 (2), pp.
   173-199.
Alaerts, G. and Kaspersma, J. (2009) Progress and Challenges in Knowledge and
   Capacity Development, in M.W.A. Blokland, G.J.M. Hare and J.M.
   Kaspersma (eds.) Capacity Development for Improved Water Management,
   Delft: UNESCO-IHE, pp. 3-30.
Balanzo, A. (2016) Unfolding Capacity: Strategies of Farmers' Organizations as
    Change Agents. Enschede, PhD Thesis, University of Twente.
Balanzo, A. and Herrera, P. (2016) Cuando la descentralización no es suficiente:
    conceptos para la territorialización de políticas, in L. Martinez, M. Moreno
    (eds.) Desafíos para el desarrollo: políticas públicas y sostenibilidad. Santiago,
    Universidad Central de Chile, pp. 31-44.
Bartel, C.A. (2001) Social Comparisons in Boundary-Spanning Work: Effects of
   Community Outreach on Members' Organizational Identity and
   Identification, in “Administrative Science Quarterly”, 46 (3), pp. 379-413.
Bechky, B.A. (2003) Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The
   Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor, in “Organization
   Science”, 14 (3), pp. 312-330.
Beinhocker, E.D. (2006) The Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the
   Radical Remaking of Economics, Boston, Harvard Business School Press.
Benford, R.D. and Snow, D.A. (2000) Framing processes and social movements:
   An overview and assessment, in “Annual Review of Sociology”, 26 (1), pp.
   611-639.
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1991) The Social Construction of Reality, London,
   Penguin Books.
Boisier, S. (2006) Imágenes en el espejo: acerca del crecimiento y el desarrollo
   territorial, Santiago de Chile, Editorial Puerto de Palos.
Brinkerhoff, D. W. and Morgan, P. J. (2010) Capacity and Capacity
    Development: Coping with Complexity, in “Public Administration and
    Development”, 30 (1), pp. 2-10.
Browne, S. (2002) Developing Capacity through Technical Cooperation, New
   York, Earthscan.
Browne, S. (2003) Developing Capacity through Technical Cooperation: Country
   Experiences, Vol. 14. London, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014) Social Innovation: Moving the Field Forward. A
   Conceptual Framework, in “Technological Forecasting and Social Change”,
   82, pp. 42-51.
Balanzo-Guzman                                                               97
Callon, M. (1998) Laws of the Markets, Oxford, Wiley.
Carlile, P. (2002) A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary
   Object in New Product Development, in “Organization Science”, 13 (4), pp.
   442-455.
Carlile, P., and Rebentisch, E. (2003) Into the Black Box: The Knowledge
   Transformation Cycle, in “Management Science“, 49 (9), pp. 1180-1195.
Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory, London, Sage.
Chia, R. and Holt, R. (2006) Strategy as Practical Coping: A Heideggerian
   Perspective. In “Organization Studies”, 27(5), pp. 635-655.
Dabelstein, N. (2012) The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness: History and
   Significance, in “Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation”, 27 (3), pp. 19-36.
DAC-OECD (2006) The Challenge of Capacity Document. Working towards
  Good Practice, Paris, OECD.
DAC-OECD (2009) Inventory of Donor Approaches. What We Are Learning,
  Paris, OECD.
DAC-OECD (2011) Civil Society Organizations and Capacity Development.
  Perspectives Note. Paris, OEDC.
DiMaggio, P.J. (1988) Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory, in L.G.
   Zucker (ed.), Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and
   Environment, Cambridge, Ballinger, pp. 3-21.
Doganova, L. (2013) Transfer and Exploration: Two Models of Science-Industry
   Intermediation, in “Science and Public Policy”, 40 (4), pp. 442-452.
Downey, G. (1992) Human Agency in CAD/CAM Technology, in “Anthropology
  Today”, 8 (5), pp. 2-6.
ECDPM (2008) Capacity Change and Performance, Insights and Implications for
  Development Cooperation, Maastricht, Policy Management Brief (21),
  European Centre for Development Policy Management.
Ferreira, S. (2012) Evolution and Future of the Knowledge Commons: Emerging
   Opportunities and Challenges for Less Developed Societies, in “Knowledge
   Management for Development Journal”, 8 (2-3), pp. 141-168.
Fligstein, N. (2001) Social Skill and the Theory of Fields, Hamburg, paper
    presented at “Power and Organization” conference.
Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge, New York, Pantheon
   Books.
Fujimura, J.H. (1987) Constructing Doable Problems in Cancer Research:
    Articulating Alignment, in “Social Studies of Science”, 17 (2), pp. 257-293.
Gasper, D. (2003) Nussbaum's Capabilities Approach in Perspective: Purposes,
   Methods and Sources for an Ethics of Human Development, in “Working
   Essays”, The Hague, Institute of Social Studies.
98                                                               Tecnoscienza - 8 (1)

Geels, F.W. (2002) Technological Transitions as Evolutionary Reconfiguration
   Processes: A Multi-Level Perspective and a Case-Study, in “Research Policy”,
   31 (8-9), pp. 1257-1274.
Gieryn, T.F. (1983) Boundary-work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-
   science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists, in
   “American Sociological Review”, pp. 781-795.
Gieryn, T.F. (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line,
   Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Goldkuhl, G. and Röstlinger, A. (2002) The Practices of Knowledge–investigating
   Functions and Sources, Dublin, paper presented at “3rd European
   Conference on Knowledge Management”.
Grin, J., Rotmans, J. and Schot, J. (2010) Transitions to Sustainable Development:
   New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change, New
   York, Routledge.
Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R.I. (1997) Technology Brokering and Innovation in a
   Product Development Firm, in “Administrative Science Quarterly”, 42 (4),
   pp. 716-749.
Hoppe, R. (2010a) From 'Knowledge Use' towards 'Boundary Work'. Sketch of
  an Emerging New Agenda for Inquiry into Science-Policy Interaction, in
  R.J.i.t. Veld (ed.) Knowledge Democracy. Consequences for Science, Politics
  and Media, Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 169-186.
Hoppe, R. (2010b) Lost in Translation? A Boundary Work Perspective on
  Making Climate Change Governable, in P.J. Driessen, P. Leroy and W. Van
  Vierssen (eds.), From Climate Change to Social Change. Perspectives on
  Science-Policy Interactions, Utrecht, International Books.
Hornidge, A.-K. (2013) ‘Knowledge’, ‘Knowledge Society’ & ‘Knowledge for
   Development’. Studying Discourses of Knowledge in an International
   Context, in R. Keller and I. Truschkat (eds.), Methodologie und Praxis der
   Wissenssoziologischen Diskursanalyse, Augsburg, VS Verlag für
   Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 397-424.
Hornidge, A.-K., Oberkircher, L. and Kudryavtseva, A. (2013) Boundary
   Management and the Discursive Sphere. Negotiating ‘Realities’ in Khorezm,
   Uzbekistan, in “Geoforum”, 45, pp. 266-274.
Howells, J. (2006) Intermediation and the Role of Intermediaries in Innovation, in
  “Research Policy”, 35 (5), pp. 715-728.
Hupe, P.H. (2006) The Three Action Levels of Governance: Re-Framing the
  Policy Process beyond the Stages Model, in “Handbook of Public Policy”,
  London, Sage.
Yang, H., Klerkx, L., and Leeuwis, C. (2014) Functions and Limitations of
   Farmer Cooperatives as Innovation Intermediaries: Findings from China, in
   “Agricultural Systems”, 127, pp. 115-125.
Jasanoff, S. (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and The
    Social Order, London, Routledge.
Balanzo-Guzman                                                                99
Jessop, B. (2006) From Micro-Powers to Governmentality: Foucault's Work on
    Statehood, State Formation, Statecraft and State Power, in “Political
    Geography”, 26 (1), pp. 34-40.
JICA Research Institute (2008) Capacity Assessment Handbook, Retrieved from
   http://gwweb.jica.go.jp/km/FSubject9999.nsf/03a114c1448e2ca449256f2b
   003e6f57/3923e49bcc5eb5d54925772800216a5c/$FILE/Capacity%20
   Assessment%20Handbook%20Eng.pdf (assessed May 28, 2017).
Kaspersma, J.M. (2013) Competences in Context. Knowledge and Capacity
   Development in Public Water Management in Indonesia and the
   Netherlands, Delft, UNESCO-IHE Institute for water education.
Keller, R. (2011) The Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (SKAD), in
    “Human Studies”, 34 (1), pp. 43-65.
Kellogg, K.C., Orlikowski, W.J., and Yates, J. (2006) Life in the Trading Zone:
    Structuring Coordination across Boundaries in Postbureaucratic
    Organizations, in “Organization Science”, 17 (1), pp. 22-44.
Kilelu, C., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C. and Hall, A. (2011) Beyond Knowledge
    Brokering: An Exploratory Study on Innovation Intermediaries in an Evolving
    Smallholder Agricultural System in Kenya, in ”Knowledge Management for
    Development Journal”, 7 (1), pp. 84-108.
Klerkx, L., Pant, L.P., Leeuwis, C., Cummings, S., le Borgne, E., Lamoreux, L.,
   Kulis, I., Senmartin, D. (2011) Beyond the Conventional Boundaries of
   Knowledge Management: Navigating the Emergent Pathways of Learning and
   Innovation for International Development, in “Knowledge Management for
   Development Journal”, 7 (1), pp. 1-7.
Kühl, S. (2009) Capacity Development as the Model for Development Aid
   Organizations, in “Development and Change”, 40 (3), pp. 551-577.
Kuhlmann, S. (2002) Governance and Intelligence in Research and Innovation
   Systems, Utrecht, Universiteit Utrecht.
Land, T., Hauker V. and Baser L. (2009) Capacity Change and Performance.
   Capacity Development: Between Planned Interventions and Emergent
   Processes. Implications for Development Cooperation, Policy Management
   Brief (22) 8, Maastricht, European Centre For Development Policy
   Management.
Latour, B. (1994) On Technical Mediation, in “Common Knowledge”, 3 (2), pp.
   29-64.
Lawrence, T.B., Leca, B., & Zilber, T.B. (2013) Institutional Work: Current
   Research, New Directions and Overlooked Issues, in “Organization Studies”,
   34 (8), pp. 1023-1033.
Lawrence, T.B. and Suddaby, R. (2006) Institutions and Institutional Work, in. S.
   Clegg, C. Hardy, T.B. Lawrence and W. Nord (eds.), Handbook of
   Organization Studies, 2nd Edition, London, Sage, pp. 215-254.
LenCD.org. (2013) LenCD Learning Network on Capacity Development,
   Retrieved from http://www.lencd.org.
100                                                             Tecnoscienza - 8 (1)

Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Essays,
   (edited by D. Cartwright), Oxford, Harpers.
Li, T. (1999) Compromising Power: Development, Culture, and Rule in
    Indonesia, in “Cultural Anthropology”, 14 (3), pp. 295-322.
Marcus, G.E. (1995) Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of
   Multi-Sited Ethnography, in “Annual Review of Anthropology”, 24, pp. 95-
   117.
Maturana, H.R. and Varela, F. J. (1990) El árbol del conocimiento: las bases
   biológicas del conocimiento humano, Madrid, Debate.
Mentz, J.C.N. (1997) Personal and Institutional Factors in Capacity Building and
  Institutional Development, in “Working Essays” (14), Maastricht, European
  Centre for Development Policy Management.
Meyer, M. and Kearnes, M. (2013) Introduction to Special Section:
   Intermediaries between Science, Policy and the Market, in “Science and
   Public Policy”, 40 (4), pp. 423-429.
Morgan, P. (1997) The Design And Use Of Capacity Development Indicators,
  Political and Social Policies Division, Policy Branch, Hull, Canadian
  International Development Agency (CIDA).
Morgan, P. (2005) The Idea and Practice of Systems Thinking and Their
  Relevance for Capacity Development, The Hague, draft essay. Retrieved at
  http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/SPICAD/13.%20Idea%20and%20practic
  e%20of%20systems%20thinking%20(ECDPM).pdf on 28/05/2017.
Mosse, D. (2005) Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and
  Practice, London, Pluto Press.
Ngwenya, H. and Hagmann, J. (2011) Making Innovation Systems Work in
  Practice: Experiences in Integrating Innovation, Social Learning and
  Knowledge in Innovation Platforms, in “Knowledge Management for
  Development Journal”, 7 (1), pp. 109-124.
North, D.C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change           and    Economic
   Performance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Oliver, C. (1991) Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes, in “The Academy
    of Management Review”, 16 (1), pp. 145-179.
Ostrom, E. (1996) Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and
   Development, In “World Development”, 24 (6), pp. 1073-1087.
Ostrom, E. (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity, New Jersey, Princeton
   University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2007) Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the
   Institutional Analysis and Development Framework, in P.A. Sabatier (ed.),
   Theories of the Policy Process, Cambridge, Westview Press.
Balanzo-Guzman                                                               101
Otoo, S., Agapitova, N., and Behrens, J. (2009) The Capacity Development
   Results Framework. A Strategic and Results-Oriented Approach to Learning
   for Capacity Development, Washington D.C., World Bank Institute.
Schatzki, T.R., Knorr-Cetina, K. and von Savigny, E. (2001) (eds.) The Practice
   Turn in Contemporary Theory, London, Routledge.
Schlierf, K. and Meyer, M. (2013) Situating Knowledge Intermediation: Insights
   from Science Shops and Knowledge Brokers, in “Science and Public Policy”,
   40 (4), pp. 430-441.
Schut, M., van Paassen, A., Leeuwis, C. and Klerkx, L. (2013) Towards Dynamic
   Research Configurations: A Framework for Reflection on the Contribution of
   Research to Policy and Innovation Processes, in “Science and Public Policy”,
   41 (2), pp. 207-218.
Star, S.L., and Griesemer, J.R. (1989) Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and
    Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of
    Vertebrate Zoology, in “Social Studies of Science”, 19 (3), pp. 387-420.
Swierstra, T., and Rip, A. (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of Moral
   Argumentation about New and Emerging Science and Technology, in
   “NanoEthics”, 1 (1), pp. 3-20.
Taylor, P.C. (2007) Capacity for a Change, London, Institute of Development
   Studies.
Turnhout, E., Stuiver, M., Klostermann, J., Harms, B., and Leeuwis, C. (2013)
   New Roles of Science in Society: Different Repertoires of Knowledge
   Brokering, in “Science and Public Policy”, 40 (3), pp. 354-365.
Ubels, J., Acquaye-Baddoo, N. and Fowler, A. (2010) Capacity Development in
   Practice, London, Earthscan.
UNDP (2008a) Capacity Development. Practice Note, New York, UNDP.
UNDP (2010a) Capacity is Development, New York, Global Event - A Report,
  UNDP.
UNDP (2010b) Capacity is Development, New York, Global Event, Video
  Summary (17 minute version - Part 1), UNDP.
Van Egmond, S. and Zeiss, R. (2010) Modeling for Policy, in “Science Studies”,
   23 (1), pp. 58-78.
Van Lente, H. (2003) Roles of Systemic Intermediaries in Transition Processes, in
   “International Journal of Innovation Management”, 7 (3), pp. 247-279.
Varela, F. (2000) El fenómeno de la vida, Santiago de Chile, Dolmen Ediciones.
World Bank. (2007) Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the
  Strengthening of Research Systems, Washington D.C., World Bank.
World Bank (2011) Capacity Development Resource Center, retrieved from
  http://go.worldbank.org/U7WIN8DE00.
102                                                            Tecnoscienza - 8 (1)

World Bank (2012) Guide to Evaluating Capacity Development Results,
  Washington D.C., World Bank.
Yang, H. (2013) Farmer Cooperatives as Intermediaries for Agricultural and
   Rural Development in China, PhD Thesis, Wageningen, Wageningen
   University.
Zald, M.N., and McCarthy, J.D. (1987) Social Movements in an Organizational
   Society: Collected Essays, New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers.
Zietsma, C., and Lawrence, T.B. (2010) Institutional Work in the Transformation
    of an Organizational Field: The Interplay of Boundary Work and Practice
    Work, in “Administrative Science Quarterly”, 55 (2), pp. 189-221.
