This presentation sets out a future research agenda for research on agricultural extension and advisory services, under influence of sustainability transitions and disruptive technologies such as digital agriculture technology, and synthetic foods. For a recording of the presentation see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03V7zSD63pw

This paper argues that Dutch-funded capacity development projects in developing countries for tertiary agricultural education organisations as they are currently carried out are not able to successfully achieve the sustained changes required. That is, changes in how an organisation functions, its cultural norms and rules, and also in how it interacts within wider networks. Rather, long-term institutional change is needed.

This chapter documents the learning process within the framework of innovation of soil fertility management practices that emerged from the implementation of Participatory Extension Approach (PEA) as part of service delivery reorientation within the Limpopo Department of Agriculture in South Africa.The chapter gives a narrative description of what transpired during the interaction between researchers, extension officers and farmers, the processes involved, the lessons and the conclusion.

The guide on Reflexive Monitoring in Action offers principles, practical guidelines as well as theory and tools. Additional tools, developed more recently, are provided separately. The guide and tools focus on three target groups: Reflexive monitors Consultants, innovation brokers and action researchers who are (or will be) handling the actual monitoring Innovation managers Project managers or innovation champions who feel responsible for the progress of the innovation process and the realisation of the system innovation ambition.

This manual describes a number of tools that can be used in courses to facilitate the process of reflecting on the knowledge and experiences participants acquire, with the aim of making their leaning more explicit and articulated and contribute to their professional performance in their own working context. 

We are facing complex societal problems such as climate change, human conflict, poverty and inequality, and need innovative solutions. Multi-stakeholder processes (MSPs) are more and more seen as a critical way of coming to such innovative solutions. It is thought that when multiple stakeholders are able to meet, share experiences, learn together and contribute to decisions, new and innovative ways of dealing with problems are found and turned into action. Still, much remains to be understood about the role and effectiveness of social learning in multi-stakeholder settings.

This research project aims to build ACP capacity to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the local science, technology and innovation system in the agricultural sector.

This paper introduces a new research framework for social learning, to be able to derive ways to facilitate social learning. The authors report on an explorative interview study to substantiate the framework. One interesting conclusion was that hidden agenda’s were shown to undermine trust, which in turn undermined the social learning process. This explains the importance of openness for social learning. Research results show substantiate the research framework, and show that it can be used to derive methods to facilitate social learning. 

Multi-stakeholder (MS) platforms, such as innovation platforms (IP), public-private partnerships (PPP) are becoming more common but what they can achieve in innovation and scaling is limited and depends on different factors. This poster and the broader research paper provide evidence what MS platforms can and cannot achieve in their early phases and give insights about effectiveness and efficiency of Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) interventions such as CGIAR research programs (CRPs) in low and middle income countries.

The capacity of existing monitoring and decision making tools in generating evidence about the performance of R4D with multi-stakeholder processes, such as innovation platforms (IPs), public private partnerships (PPP), participatory value chain management (PVCM) is very limited. Results of these tools are either contextual and qualitative such as case studies that can not be used by other R4D interventions or quantitative i.e. impact assessments that do not inform what works in R4D.