Scaling up development measures to target global food insecurity has a distinctly spatial character and is often cited as a solution to the global hunger crisis. Development does not occur without scaling and consensus on the ontological meaning of scaling up is a vital component to developing sustainable solutions to the global hunger crisis across geographical scales. Yet ‘scaling up’, while frequently used throughout Research and Development (R&D) and Natural Resource Management (NRM) literature, lacks ontological agreement. We begin by considering the noun, ‘scale’ and existing literature on scaling up, then present a visual analysis of definitions provided for scaling up across development institutions. Our study finds that the organization of terms used across these definitions falls into three distinct categories: Interventions, Mechanisms, and Outcomes. Further, we contend that the continued uncertainty is linked to scale being applied in two fashions: as a noun (outcome) and verb (process). Rather than calling for reformed definitions, we argue for precision of definitions. To that end, we present a conceptual framework of scaling up that gives greater emphasis on separating the noun scale, from the verb, to scale. Further, Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) in our model complements scaling efforts beginning with how scaling up is defined by program, through to final evaluation of success.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Frake et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: