A realistic explanation of long run development interventions contexts, adaptations and outcomes of dairy improvement in Kenya.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite continued pursuit of development interventions to improve people's livelihoods and reduce poverty, intended and actual outcomes of developments interventions may differ.Some scholars attribute this variation to flawed conceptualisation of development interventions while others view this divergence as evidence that implementation processes are complex and actual outcomes result from adaptations of the interventions by actors.To move beyond the discursive approaches to analysis of development interventions, this thesis addresses the question how do actors adapt them, why and with what outcomes in the long run?Empirically, it looks at how project officers and farmers adapted the National Dairy Development Project (NDDP), a dairy intervention implemented in Kenya between 1980 and 1995, and its long run outcomes.The intervention promoted zero grazing, intensive management of dairy cattle whose implementation by farmers was expected to increase land productivity as a means to address land scarcity, increase milk production and reduce poverty through generation of incomes from milk sales.The methodology of this thesis links mechanisms, contexts, and outcomes, three elements of realist explanation, to understand adaptations and outcomes of development interventions.Through thematic synthesis of in-depth interviews and analysis of project documents, this thesis explains adaptations and long run outcomes of the NDDP.Findings reveal that developers and farmers adapted several components of the intervention.With close reference to context, incentives and continuity pressures, this thesis utilises intervention effectiveness and matching mechanisms to explain how project officers adapted the NDDP.Further, through fit and resistance mechanisms, this thesis explains how farmers adapted zero grazing in the context of inadequate fodder, labour shortage and lack of resources to invest in dairy.In the long run, findings show that the intervention diminished as evident in coexistence of indigenous and modern dairy technologies and non-implementation of any dairy technologies by farmers.Despite adaptations of zero grazing by project officers and farmers, intensification of dairy cattle management has diminished in the context of resource constraints, neoliberal policies and labour shortage.Consequently, the objective to increase land productivity through intensive dairy cattle management, the rationale for initiation of the intervention, remains unresolved.iii Declaration -Plagiarism I, Obadia Okinda Miroro, declare that 1.The research reported in this thesis, except where otherwise indicated, is my original research.2. This thesis has not been submitted for any degree or examination at any other university.3. This thesis does not contain other persons' data, pictures, graphs or other information, unless specifically acknowledged as being sourced from other persons.4.This thesis does not contain other persons' writing, unless specifically acknowledged as being sourced from other researchers.Where other written sources have been quoted, then: a. Their words have been re-written but the general information attributed to them has been referenced
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".