Search

The multi-actor approach in the EU's Horizon 2020 program has seen use across a large number of research projects. However, there remain questions about the extent and depth of participation that is achieved in these research projects, and how it may enable joint production of scientific theory next to readily applicable practical knowledge. This article aims to explore the latter question by focusing on the potential of such co-theorising, understood as the involvement of stakeholders in producing scientific outputs. We analyse how researchers involved in this research project view the participation of stakeholders, how they deal with tensions in participation, and how these tensions are resolved. Through 17 semi-structured interviews with researchers involved in the project's Living Labs we show that there are tensions between the interests of stakeholders, the project requirements and research interests. The findings indicate that a focus on including the stakeholders in theorising comes at a cost of practical relevance to the stakeholder. To safeguard the practical relevance of participation, researchers choose to exclude discussion on theory and theoretical concepts from the living labs. This is despite an initial belief that co-theorising and the further participation of stakeholders in producing scientific outputs holds merit. Hence, researchers purposefully prioritize practical relevance to stakeholders, thereby reducing the potential for co-theorising. The fact that theories already need to be defined in a proposal stage and project's limit scope for redefinition of core concepts, make that advancing theory together with stakeholders is not well accommodated for in Horizon 2020. This also bears relevance for the Horizon Europe program which follows a similar approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: It remains a critical question how to support farmers to develop towards more sustainable practices. Earlier experiences reveal that on-farm demonstrations (OFDs) can be part of the answer. Therefore, we investigate OFDs as potential transformative learning spaces. Methodology: We apply a mixed methods approach, using an observation tool, participant surveys and telephone interviews. We compare 15 different OFDs, divided into two groups: OFDs with and without facilitated dialogue. We investigated differences based on core inducing processes of transformative learning: disorienting dilemma and (self-)reflection. Additionally we investigated the adoption decision making process half a year after the OFD took place. Findings: Participants in facilitated dialogue OFDs agreed significantly more on experiencing surprise, an indication of disorienting dilemma, and on having reflected and learned. Most mentioned adoption barriers are a lack of relevance for the specific situation and a need for more information. Most mentioned suggestions indicate a request for more real life application. Practical implications: This research indicates that OFDs with facilitated dialogue can trigger more cognitive conflict and reflection processes of attendees, and thus support learning processes on (more) sustainable agricultural practices, as opposed to OFDs without deliberate dialogue facilitation. Theoretical implications: Our study demonstrates that transformative learning theory can inform research on agricultural learning spaces, such as OFDs, on effective triggers to support learning and competencies towards more sustainable agriculture. Originality: Based on rich empirical quantitative and qualitative data we reveal that facilitated dialogue enhances learning during OFDs, but this does not seem to be a common practice.

Purpose: The paper aims to examine interactions between demonstrations at programme level and Agricultural Advisory Services (AAS). It situates analysis of the demonstration programme activities within contemporary advisory contexts, asking: how do demonstration programmes interact with the AAS in which they are situated; and what role do demonstration programmes play in enhancing and contributing to the AAS? Methodological approach: Data, pertaining to organisational arrangements, were collected using interviews and workshops representing 35 demonstration programmes across Europe. Themes from the literature together with emergent themes were used to progressively unpack and understand the interaction between the programmes and the AAS. Findings: Demonstration organisational arrangements show different degrees of embedding in, and adapting to, the AAS. Embedding is being incorporated into existing formalised structures and is more likely in the AAS with a low level of pluralism. Adaptation occurs through collaboration, partnership and networking and is more likely in more pluralistic AAS. Practical Implications: The need to support demonstration programmes to create more stable networks, to strengthen their linking role in the AAS, and to foster strategies for the progression of farmers' learning was identified. Theoretical implications: The paper contributes to the literature by providing insights at the demonstration programme level (as opposed to farm or event level) and revealing embedded and adaptive processes with many interdependencies between the programmes and AAS components. Originality: This paper opens up new perspectives on understanding how demonstrations are positioned in contemporary AAS contexts, looking at AAS influences on delivering demonstrations beyond farm and event level methods.

Purpose: The objective of this paper is to undertake an in-depth exploration of how structural characteristics of on-farm demonstration events impact the effectiveness of the demonstration as perceived by participants. Methodology: An explanatory mixed-methods approach was used based on the responses to 356 post-demonstration questionnaires filled out by the attendees of 31 demonstration events held in 12 EU countries in 2018, together with the qualitative data from an observation tool, interviews and case study reports relating to the same 31 events. Factor analysis was employed to predict general effectiveness, complemented with a qualitative analysis of participants' responses to improve the understanding of the quantitative results. Findings: Results indicate that peer-to-peer learning activities and good facilitation increase participants' perception of the effectiveness of a demonstration event. Furthermore, characteristics such as the structure of the day, the suitability of the host farm, a trustworthy demonstrator, and group size add much to the effectiveness of a demo event. Group dynamics -- including group connectedness and composition -- have the potential to impact perceived effectiveness. Practical implications: The paper contains clear messages for practitioners when designing a demonstration event. Theoretical implications: Our results connect with theories on motivation and adult learning in the context of farmer learning during on-farm demonstration. Originality: The paper is based on a rich empirical dataset. It reveals that group size and learning methods are crucial to achieve effective learning outcomes during demonstration events.

Purpose: To assess the inclusivity of on-farm demonstration across Europe, in relation to age, gender, and geographical location of participants. Methodology: The paper is based on a survey of 1162 on-farm demonstrators (farmers and organisations) and three supra-regional workshops. Findings: Overall, on farm-demonstrations were found to be engaging young(er) farmers who are at a career stage of being able to implement long-term innovations. However, across Europe demonstrations were primarily attended by men. On-farm demonstrations were most common in Northern Europe, where advisory services brought together multiple AKIS actors. There were fewer on-farm demonstrations in Southern Europe, where demonstrations were more likely to be led by research institutes or individual farmers. Eastern Europe is notable for greater diversity in terms of gender and age of demonstration participants. Within countries, on-farm demonstrations occurred more frequently in regions of high agricultural profitability; more remotely located farmers had fewer opportunities to participate. Practical implications: Demonstrations led by public and privately funded advisory services appear to attract primarily male farmers, thus reinforcing gendered patterns of participation in European agriculture. The location of advisory services and research institutes in high profitability locales disproportionately privileges farmers located there. More targeted efforts are required to ensure the participation of farmers who are female, older and located in less productive regions. Theoretical implications: The paper draws attention to the lack of inclusivity of on-farm demonstration, developing a conceptual framework based on Lukes' three faces of power. Originality: The paper utilises the first European-wide inventory of on-farm demonstration to assess inclusivity.

Purpose: This article describes the development and validation of a survey designed to measure the vision of European agricultural advisors towards innovation. Design/Methodology/Approach: The items of the instrument were developed based on the conceptual framework provided by the position paper for the Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium. The resulting instrument was completed by 656 advisors recruited through the network of the European Horizon 2020 i2connect project. The data was divided into two random subsets. The structure of the instrument was explored using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using one subset and convergent validity was tested by applying confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to the second subset. Findings: The EFA resulted in a three-factor solution. In accordance with the conceptual framework, these factors were labelled (a) linear innovation, (b) innovation systems and (c) transformative change. The CFA demonstrated an adequate fit and a satisfactory level of internal consistency. Practical implications: The instrument can assist in eliciting advisors' views on innovation, which could be used in advisors' selection and recruitment. Theoretical implications: Building on a strong conceptual basis, the paper presents a theoretically robust instrument for assessing advisors' views on different innovation models. Such assessments could in turn lead to further expand and elaborate concepts on this aspect. Originality/Value: The survey is the first instrument to include the emerging policy paradigm of transformative change and as such allows measuring the degree to which European advisors are willing to support transformative innovation policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Precision agriculture is often seen as disembodied and placeless, promised to either bring about a fourth agricultural revolution or as the start of dystopian rural futures, where farmers and their knowledge will be replaced by machines. A growing body of literature shows more nuanced ways of working with precision agriculture. This illustrates the need to investigate how, and under which conditions, precision agriculture is integrated and internalised by farmers. Based on 25 in‐depth interviews with male Dutch crop farmers, contractors, researchers, and ag‐tech developers, we develop the concept of the cyborg farmer, who embodies the use of precision technology while maintaining an intimate relationship with agro‐ecological context. This approach challenges the mind–body dichotomy in that the cognitive is not understood as primary, as emotions and the materiality of the body are taken seriously. This perspective emphasises the importance of embodied knowledge in how farmers interpret precision agriculture data. Our findings highlight the productive tension between data‐driven elements of precision agriculture and the embodied and intuitive understanding of agro‐ecological context. This productive tension consists of the successful integration of different forms of knowledge by the cyborg farmer, where embodied sense‐making and precision agriculture data are integrated into the formation of useable knowledge. The cyborg farmer maintains farmer agency and resists the dominance of algorithmic rationality over other forms of knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]