































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 5, Issue 2, 2024 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Monica Gorman, Associate Professor of Agricultural Extension and Innovation, School of Agriculture and Food Science, 

University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland, monica.gorman@ucd.ie,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8883-3530   
2. Jim Kinsella, Professor of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, School of Agriculture and Food Science, University 

College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland, jim.kinsella@ucd.ie,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6556-3555  
46 

 

 Embedding Research and Extension in Postgraduate Studies: 
A Novel Approach to Filling the Knowledge Exchange 

Competency Gap in Ireland 
 

M. Gorman1, J. Kinsella2 
 

 
Article History 
Received: November 30, 2023 
Accepted: November 30, 2023 
Published: January 31, 2024 
 
 
Keywords 
advisory competencies; knowledge 
exchange: postgraduate; innovation  
  

Abstract 
Set against the backdrop of an absence of agricultural extension in the 
curriculum of agriculture degree programs in Ireland between 1990 and 
2010, this paper examines the knowledge exchange skills needed by the 
next generation of farm advisors and presents the case of a practice-
based postgraduate program in Ireland that seeks to address the 
competency gap created. It reviews an Irish post graduate program that 
has been designed to equip graduates with the competencies to work 
effectively in advisory roles. It combines student, graduate, and 
manager survey results on their experience and assessment of 
professional development with this program.  

The evolving role of front-line farm advisors to facilitators of knowledge 
exchange and innovation is recognised while a range of essential 
competencies are highlighted. The value of this postgraduate education 
for early career farm advisors is evidenced through building 
competencies in a range of areas and gaining a deeper understanding 
through applied research of the complexities of innovation adoption 
and the barriers to change for farmers and their families. The paper 
concludes that greater attention is needed to developing core 
competencies of farm advisors to build strong relationships of trust and 
influence with farmer clients.   

mailto:monica.gorman@ucd.ie
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8883-3530
mailto:jim.kinsella@ucd.ie
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6556-3555


Gorman and Kinsella  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445   47 
 

Introduction 
 
Agricultural extension and education had been largely absent from the curriculum of 
undergraduate and postgraduate agriculture degree programs in Ireland between 1990 and 
2010. This was not a situation unique to Ireland as one-way technology transfer approaches to 
agriculture, which placed little attention to understanding farmer decision-making processes, 
reflected the dominant view of the time (Fielke et al., 2018). With an increasing recognition of 
the importance of a more two-way knowledge exchange approach to support farmer decision-
making, a postgraduate program in agricultural innovation support was designed and 
developed to address the competency gap which had emerged amongst the cohort of frontline 
advisory staff in Ireland. The development of this program and its effectiveness in addressing 
this gap is the subject of this paper.  

The depth and breadth of knowledge required to farm is considerable and growing more 
complex; consequently, more attention is being directed by advisory services to the process of 
innovation and “knowledge exchange” and understanding how to support farmers with 
knowledge more effectively (Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine [DAFM], 2020; EU 
SCAR, 2019). The challenges and opportunities facing the agriculture and food sectors globally 
have been well documented and include, inter alia, the rapidly growing global population, the 
diminishing base of natural resources, climate change, and animal welfare concerns (Charlton, 
2016; Tomlinson, 2013; van der Ploeg et al., 2020). 

Agricultural advisory services are expected to play an important role in the transformation 
process to address these challenges (Piñeiro et al., 2020) by performing a set of increasingly 
diverse functions that go beyond the mere promotion of increasing productivity (Blockeel et al., 
2023). New functions, such as promoting agro-ecological practices, promoting collective 
actions, and facilitating innovation processes, are now considered the domain of both public 
and private agricultural advisory services (Blum et al., 2020).  

Birner et al. (2009) highlighted the need for reform of advisory services to better meet the 
needs of farmers, and this includes building their capacity in an effort to better deliver their 
knowledge and innovation support requirements. Transition towards more sustainable agro-
food systems and the emphasis on systemic, multi-actor, and transdisciplinary approaches to 
innovation has led to an increasing interest about actors being able to facilitate and support 
innovation processes (Proietti & Cristiano, 2023). Brunori et al. (2013) and EU SCAR (2012) 
recognised that a “business as usual” approach of technological and organisational solutions is 
no longer adequate, and there is a growing need for increased levels of innovation in the 
agricultural knowledge and innovation system (AKIS). In supporting decision-making for these 
changes, farm families who are well linked into networks of knowledge and information are 
much better able to deal with stresses and to exploit new opportunities (Fulton et al., 2003; 
Gorman, 2004). Ingram and Mills (2019) highlight the importance of the new facilitating role of 
advisors and the need to offer them training in initiating, fostering, and brokering farmer-
centerd networks and in facilitating group problem-solving. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445


Gorman and Kinsella  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445   48 
 

This paper considers the gap which exists in developing the competencies of front-line farm 
advisors in supporting knowledge exchange process with clients. It examines the formation and 
professional development of farm advisors through the case of an Irish post graduate program 
in agricultural innovation support that has been designed to equip graduates with the 
competencies to work effectively in advisory roles. 

Farm Innovation and Knowledge Exchange 
 
European agriculture strives for sustainable intensification or the means of increasing 
productivity and profitability while coping with challenges such as climate change, 
environmental management and social concerns around food quality and animal welfare. 
Innovation is considered essential in this quest (Sayer & Cassman, 2013; Vermeulen et al., 2012) 
as reflected in the public and private sectors attention and resources focused on research and 
development for innovation in agriculture and the bio-economy (Dwyer, 2013; EU SCAR, 2019).  

The role of science in relation to innovation is being reconfigured, and there is greater 
acknowledgement of the multi-player dimensions and the institutional settings that enable 
learning and innovation to emerge (Caraça et al., 2009; Leeuwis, 2004). Farm innovation is 
increasingly seen as emerging from the lively interactions of multiple stakeholders rather than 
the traditional flow of new ideas from research to farmers as end users, and Ingram and Mills 
(2019) conclude that best practice is reflected in scenarios in which advisor, scientist, and 
farmer knowledge are effectively integrated. In the EU several CAP instruments such as the EU 
EIP-AGRI network and the Farm Advisory System directly foster these knowledge exchange, 
advisory, and innovation activities (Beck et al., 2020). These activities are also prioritised in 
Ireland’s agri-food strategy since 2020 (DAFM, 2020), which acknowledges that an effective 
innovation system and an engaged and responsive knowledge exchange environment are 
fundamental to achieving innovation in the sector. 

The models for farmer engagement in the agricultural knowledge and innovation system are 
changing as the challenges of food security, climate change, and sustainable rural development 
cause us to question the dominant productivist paradigms (Gorman, 2019). The importance of 
knowledge exchange in supporting innovation in agriculture is emphasised by Rose et al. (2019) 
who conclude that for any concept designed to communicate new management practices to 
farmers, it would be prudent to consider how projects can be co-designed and make the most 
of trusted advisor and peer networks. Velardia et al. (2021) found that to achieve sustainable 
agricultural practices with long-term impacts, facilitative knowledge exchange based on 
equitable partnerships, mutual respect, shared expectations, and shared power were 
important. However, Ingram (2008) revealed that knowledge exchange processes can be 
challenging as many agronomist–farmer knowledge exchange encounters are characterized by 
an imbalance of power, distrust, and the divergence of knowledge. 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445


Gorman and Kinsella  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445   49 
 

Evolving Farm Advisory Services 
 
There has been a gradual evolution in thinking on agricultural extension from linear models of 
technology transfer to more participatory models of knowledge exchange (Fielke et al., 2018; 
Jones & Garforth, 1997; Manning, 2013). The traditional role of the farm advisor was that of an 
instructor, expected to have the answers on how to improve farm profitability but over the 
years there has been a change in the role of farmers from one of passive learning to more 
active engagement and knowledge exchange, with the role of the farm advisor shifting to that 
of a facilitator who is able to support peer to peer learning among farmers and take on the role 
of knowledge brokerage as well (Cristóvão et al., 2012; Manning, 2013). The shift to 
participatory models of agricultural extension or advisory work has been gathering momentum 
over the past decades (Chambers, 1983; Knook et al., 2018; Leeuwis & Aarts, 2011; Pretty, 
1999) with growing recognition that farmers are not passive recipients of knowledge from 
research but active agents of their own development. In tempering this shift of emphasis, 
Koutsouris (2012) has cautioned against “over-preoccupation” with participatory techniques 
and methods and draws attention to the emerging “intermediation” functions within the AKIS 
which still has to confront the knowledge gap between the expert and the farmer and recognise 
the power relationships that shape local knowledge and the articulation of needs. Leeuwis and 
Aarts (2011) see the role of the extension agent as the intermediary, not aiming for pre-defined 
change but facilitating the potential for change in complex, dynamic settings.  

The Core Competencies in Agricultural Extension 
 
The core role of farm advisors can be viewed as “the conscious use of communication of 
information to help people form sound opinions and make good decisions” (Van den Ban & 
Hawkins, 1996, p.9). While this core role of farm advisors is well accepted, Benge et al. (2020) 
found that many extension professionals enter the field without having the appropriate 
functional competencies. 

The core competencies required by early career farm advisors have been identified by Harder 
et al. (2010) in broad groupings around interpersonal communications skills and program 
management as well as technical expertise for production, farm business management, and 
environmental conservation. In supporting interactive innovation, Lybaert et al. (2021) group 
the competence requirements for advisors similarly around content competence, 
methodological competence, and organisational competence, and they also emphasize the 
importance of commitment to reflection, learning, and personal development. The need for 
stronger business management advisory support to farmers is argued by Phillipson et al. (2004). 
However, it is prudent to recognize that many extension professionals enter the field without 
the appropriate functional competencies (Benge et al., 2020). 

Millar and Curtis (1997) suggested that more emphasis is needed on the processes through 
which effective learning takes place compared to the content of information packages. The 
importance of recognising and responding to the dynamics of farm families that have such a 
bearing on the processes of farm decision-making is highlighted by Olsen et al. (2009). The need 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445


Gorman and Kinsella  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445   50 
 

for enhanced technical competence especially in relation to integrating environmental issues in 
advisory services is considered by Labarthe (2014) and Ingram and Morris (2007) who suggest 
that new policy challenges and opportunities associated with environmental management 
require a significant enhancement in the advice and support farmers require. 

Leeuwis and Aarts (2011) argue that agricultural extension has to reinvent itself as a 
professional practice as many of the challenges transcend the individual farm household and 
require new forms of collaboration. Today’s extension worker needs to be able to support and 
facilitate collective learning and decision making, build linkages between diverse stakeholders, 
and create a context for learning and innovation (Cristóvão et al., 2012; Klerkx et al., 2012). 
Gorman (2019) in a review of agricultural advisors’ competencies suggests that if agricultural 
advisors are to be able to influence individuals and groups to engage in innovative responses to 
farming challenges, then it follows that their training should expand their professional identities 
in terms of facilitation and reflective listening and encourage a critical questioning of their 
underlying assumptions. Hansen et al (2018) found that the advisor’s relational and 
professional competence is crucial to achieving satisfied farmer clients. 

In summary, the competent farm advisor needs to stay up to date on the best technical and 
practical knowledge of farming, be competent in business and financial management, 
understand the wider context of agriculture, be able to guide individual farmers and their 
families towards sound decisions, facilitate peer to peer learning, and identify and build links 
between key stakeholders. 

A Curriculum for Extension Education 
 
Mulder (2012) argues that competence-based education programs have developed to counter 
the structural disconnect between the world of education and training and the world of work 
and society. Straw et al. (1996) outlined some of the benefits of postgraduate extension 
training as development of a more professional approach with a marked improvement in core 
competencies, mental stimulation, lateral thinking, and career enhancement. At the 
postgraduate level, the challenge in curriculum design is to ensure that students develop the 
facets of mastersness, i.e. working autonomously, independent research, in-depth analysis, 
abstraction, professionalism, and being able to work in complex and unpredictable 
environments (Bamber, 2015).  

The value of experiential learning through work placements has been considered by Wilton 
(2012), including developing graduate employability and giving graduates a head start at the 
outset of their careers. Devitt et al. (2012) discuss how every profession has its concepts and 
practices, ways of thinking and acting and that these provide the pathway from novice to 
initiate within a profession. Smith (2012) outlined the key dimensions to be considered in work-
integrated learning as authenticity; integrated learning supports; alignment of teaching, 
learning activities, and assessments with integrative learning outcomes; supervisor access; and 
induction/preparation processes.  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445


Gorman and Kinsella  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445   51 
 

Building Competencies: The Masters in Agricultural Innovation 
Support 

 
In 2010 in Ireland, University College Dublin (UCD) and Teagasc1 (Ireland’s Agriculture and Food 
Development Authority) started a master’s level program in Agricultural Innovation Support 
(MAIS) with the stated aim to equip graduates with the skills and knowledge to be effective as 
front-line farm advisory and agricultural education officers. The program design combined 
theory with practical learning and action research, with students placed in a real 
advisory/education work setting.  

A novel aspect of the MAIS Program is the process through which topics for research are 
identified each year. The network of Teagasc agricultural advisors throughout Ireland (approx. 
250 staff) are invited at the start of each year to put forward research proposals that they feel 
can best inform their day-to-day work with the core criterion being that it must be focused on 
knowledge exchange challenges that they encounter. The initial list of proposals is then 
assessed and shortlisted as the “hot topics” for MAIS research in that year.  

Figure 1 illustrates how the program was structured to enable the student to develop their 
competence for agricultural advisory work and to balance academic work and action research 
as an integral part of the experiential work-based learning.  

Figure 1 
 
The building blocks of extension competence development 

 

 
1 Teagasc is the public agency with responsibility for agricultural research, advisory services and education in 
Ireland 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445


Gorman and Kinsella  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445   52 
 

For the building blocks to result in the desired technical, communications, and project 
management learning outcomes for the students, certain principles were interwoven into the 
program. These include autonomy with students encouraged to take responsibility for their 
own learning and competency development (Biggs, 2012); active and experiential learning 
(Honey & Mumford, 1992; Kolb, 1984); as well as dialogue and reflection (Newman, 2014). 

The Program Curriculum 
 

The program design is illustrated in Figure 2. Students start the program with a semester in the 
university taking three core modules in 1) agricultural extension and innovation; 2) research 
methods; and 3) biostatistics. It is possible for students to take additional modules where they 
are deemed relevant to their particular area of study.  

Figure 2 

Stages in the Masters in Agricultural Innovation Support 

 
On interview-based selection, students are matched to research projects that have been 
identified by Teagasc farm advisors reflecting real life issues and challenges in agricultural 
advisory and education contexts. A university supervisor is assigned to each research project 
with a Teagasc co-supervisor who guides the student to keep the research project focused on 
the real-life problem or challenge.  

The program’s three phases covered a 22-month period. The first phase is from September to 
December of Year 1 where the students are university-based and complete modules on 
agricultural extension, research methods, and statistics. On finishing the first phase they are 
expected to have successfully completed these modules and developed a research proposal 
and literature review on their assigned knowledge transfer topic. The second phase is for 15 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445


Gorman and Kinsella  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445   53 
 

months (January of Year 1 to end of March of Year 2), during which time the student is based at 
a Teagasc centre (advisory office or agricultural college) for this period, with at least half of 
their time allocated to research and the balance to extension and/or education support 
activities within that Teagasc centre such as preparing farm nutrient management plans, 
supporting farmer discussion groups, and delivering elements of agricultural education 
programs. Phase 3, from April to June of Year 2, is dedicated to final writing- up and submission 
of thesis. While based at the Teagasc centre in Phase 2 the students are managed and 
mentored in their day-to-day work by the relevant Regional Manager or Agricultural College 
Principal as is the case for all advisory or education staff. There are also roundtable seminars 
every 3-4 months where all students and supervisors are brought together to discuss and 
review progress on the research projects. Following completion of the program, students are 
given an opportunity to present their research publicly through presentations and posters at an 
annual “Knowledge Transfer” conference jointly hosted by UCD and Teagasc.  

Experience of the Program to Date 
 
Between 2010 and 2023 there has been an intake of 126 students into the MAIS program, an 
average of nine per year and ranging from 4 to 12. The numbers who have graduated with MSc 
degrees is 91 and with PhDs is four (with two more pending), while eight students withdrew 
from the program, eight failed to complete, and 13 are still in their 1st or 2nd year in the 
program. Of the 91 graduates of the program to date, 43% are female and 57% male.  

In order to assess whether this approach is an effective model for developing extension 
competencies, the program’s progress to date was reviewed using: 
1. A survey of the program graduates. A list of 91 graduates was compiled and contact emails 

were available for 81 of them. The survey yielded a total of 34 responses (42% response 
rate). These included at least one graduate from every year of the program with five 
graduates from 2013, 2015, and 2016.  

2. A survey of five senior regional managers (four male, one female) in the national farm 
advisory service who have hosted students on placement and have subsequently had 
graduates employed in their regions. 

 
Students and Regional Managers were asked their views on the importance of different 
competencies for agricultural extension. These competencies were identified from the 
literature (Harder et al., 2010; Leeuwis & Aarts, 2011) and from the experience with the 
program to date. Figure 3 below presents and compares the average rating by both groups 
where a score of three indicates a critical competence for the role, a score of two indicates an 
important competence while one indicates useful, and zero is not important.  

 
 
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445


Gorman and Kinsella  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445   54 
 

Figure 3 
 
Average Rating of Importance of Different Competencies by Students (N = 34) and  
Managers (N = 5) 

 
Both managers and students gave the highest level of importance to technical and 
communications skills while the managers placed more importance on the technical skills. They 
attached similar levels of importance to the administration of schemes as to farm financial and 
business management and the lowest levels of importance to project management 
competence. This finding affirms the literature with regard to the core role of extension being 
the ‘use of communications to bring about cognitive changes as triggers for other forms of 
change by farmers’ (Leeuwis, 2004, p.27)  

There are indications that the program is effective in enabling the students to build these 
critical competencies. Of the 34 graduates who responded to the survey, 17 had started their 
career in education roles; 11 had started their careers in advisory positions while the others 
included research, policy, working with government, and agri-business. The earlier graduates 
gave information on their career moves and career development showing considerable mobility 
between education and advisory roles. Nine graduates who started in education roles have 
since moved onto advisory roles while three who started as advisors have since moved into 
education roles.  

They were asked how important their master’s had been in securing their current roles, and 
71% said it had been “very important,”; 21% said it was ”important” while two respondents 
said it had not been important. The Regional Managers were asked to compare the MAIS 
graduate with other early career graduate advisors in terms of the important competencies, 
and their responses are shown in Table 1 below. 

 

 

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Communication, facilitation and teaching

Technical agriculture

Financial and business management

EU & DAFM Scheme administration

Project management

Managers Average rating Student average rating

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445


Gorman and Kinsella  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445   55 
 

Table 1 
 
Teagasc Regional Managers ratings of important advisory competencies between MAIS 
graduates and other early career graduate advisors (n = 5) 
Competence Area Stronger The Same 
Communication, facilitation, and teaching 4 1 
Technical agriculture 4 1 
Financial and business management 0 5 
EU & DAFM Scheme administration 3 2 
Project management 4 1 

 
This suggests that the key competencies developed by students during the program were in 
communications, technical agriculture, project management, and scheme administration. One 
of the managers stated that:  

It serves as an apprenticeship for advisors and, when successful, gives graduates the 
opportunity to develop themselves as advisors who can operate and think 
independently so that they can go straight into the advisor role with confidence and a 
high degree of autonomy. 

How Effective is the Learning from the Different Components of the 
Program? 

 
In terms of their own learning, students were asked to rate their learning from the different 
components and the three different stages of the program, and the average ratings are shown 
in Table 2 below where 1 = very poor and 5 = excellent.  

Table 2 
 
Student rating of their own learning from different phases and components of MAIS program  
(1 = very poor; 5 = excellent) 

Phase 1 Agricultural 
Extension 

Research 
Methods 

Advanced Bio-
Statistics Electives 

Preparing 
research 
proposal 

Building 
relationships 

with 
classmates 

Average 
Rating 3.90 3.62 2.70 3.37 3.39 4.09 

Phase 2 Advisory 
Office 

Agricultural 
College 

Conducting 
Research Supervision 

Round Table 
seminars  

Average 
Rating 3.73 4.13 3.88 4.16 3.97  

Phase 3 Thesis write 
up 

Thesis 
examination & 

feedback 
Dissemination 

(KT conference)    
Average 
Rating 3.68 3.62 3.72    

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445


Gorman and Kinsella  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445   56 
 

In Phase 1 of the Program, the two most valued modules were Agricultural Extension and 
Research Methods, both providing a solid basis for their research and their entry to the 
extension profession. The value of the Agricultural Extension module was noted as “important 
due to been put into practice for phase 2 (Work placement)” and learning “how broad 
agricultural extension is and the complexities around adoption, innovation, and behavior 
change, while learning about the different methods available and the pros and cons of each 
was also useful.” The importance of research methods was critical to “adapting a research 
mindset with a strong focus on social science compared to the hard science background that we 
were used to in Undergrad.”  While the subject Biostatistics was less valued, one graduate 
mentioned that “advanced biostatistics course has been the most useful over time, particularly 
as I've used varied analytical programs through the course of my employment.” While most of 
the responses about the first phase were positive, two respondents felt that there had been 
limited value to Phase 1 in UCD in terms of “proper preparation in undertaking a research 
masters.” 

The highest average rating in the first phase of the Program was given to building relationships 
with classmates and one third of respondents specifically mentioned how valuable this was 
leading to support networks that have persisted into their professional lives – “The relationship 
with my classmates was the most important thing I would say. Even to this day we are still in 
touch.” 

Phase 2 of the program was highly rated in terms of learning by the respondents. Most 
reported an “excellent" experience in their advisory office or agricultural college while a small 
number (two respondents) were dissatisfied. Typical comments about the advisory placements 
include “placement in agricultural advisory office is very beneficial as you learn the day-to-day 
tasks of an advisor’s role and also education role. It helps you gain experience in different 
areas.” For those in education placements “being immersed in the agricultural college so I fully 
understood the life of an agricultural teacher which was extremely important to my research.” 
Comments from those on advisory and college placements included praise for the overall 
support they received from the wider staff cohort and appreciation for the range of activities 
they gained experience with. The process of conducting their research and the supervision and 
support given were valued for learning, and one respondent commented that Phase 2 of the 
program had provided “so many learnings - phase 2 pulled everything together for me. Time 
management, putting learnings from phase 1 into action, working with experienced advisors, 
research work, working to deadlines, meeting with supervisors.” Others spoke of growing 
independence and autonomy in this period leading to personal and professional growth from 
“trusting own ability and making decisions.” Two respondents were not happy with their 
supervision but did comment that they had learned from this experience.  

Respondents felt they learned a lot in Phase 3 (Thesis write-up), and that “it was great to see 
the fruits of our labour come together at this stage.” Many commented on how challenging it 
was especially in terms of underestimating the time required to complete the writing up, and 
one commented that “I learned a lot about writing and editing. It made me appreciate just how 
much work goes into producing a written piece, whether large or small.” For some their key 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445


Gorman and Kinsella  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445   57 
 

learning was about making sense of their research and thinking about its relevance with one 
saying that this phase “challenged me to really think of what the research actually meant 
beyond simply presenting the stats.” Many of them emphasised how important their regular 
communication with supervisors and receiving feedback was during this period. Almost all the 
students had also presented their research findings at the annual UCD/Teagasc annual 
Knowledge Transfer Conference, and this was a valued experience for most respondents in 
terms of “developing my presentation skills and being able to communicate my research to 
academic and non-academic audiences” while another commented that “presenting at the KT 
conference built up confidence and promoted my research and my profile.” 

Discussion 
 
Farmers’ engagement with the AKIS is changing as global issues of food security, climate change 
and sustainable development challenge the existing productivist paradigms (Gorman, 2019), 
and there is a shift in understanding as to what constitutes “good” extension and education 
practice to support agricultural innovation —from one-way models to exchange models and 
increasingly towards models of co-creation and interactive innovation (Fielke et al., 2018).  

There is also increasing recognition that many extension professionals are entering the field 
without appropriate functional competencies (Benge et al., 2020). Lybaert et al. (2021) suggest 
that alongside the basic disposition and attitude required in an advisor, they also require 
content competence, methodological competence, organisational competence, and a 
commitment to reflection, learning and personal development. However, as we consider the 
challenge of building these competencies, Lybaert et al (2021) asks whether we need to focus 
on the competence development of individuals or should more people be involved in the 
innovation process as a team. We argue that both are necessary, and that individual 
competence complements team competence through the building of strong relationships 
within the AKIS.  

Different models and approaches are needed to support the development of extension 
competence within the overall AKIS, within extension teams, and at the individual level. The 
model that has been tested with the MAIS program is designed for new entrants to extension 
and education services and is grounded in the reality of the Irish AKIS, with the research topics 
arising from the challenges that advisors face. By engaging the AKIS actors centrally in 
supervision and mentoring of students, it creates an environment in which cross-generational 
knowledge exchange can happen, and young advisors get the opportunity to develop and shape 
their own professional identity and build a sense of belonging within the community of 
advisors. The process of research in MAIS allows students to develop a disciplined and reflective 
approach to the design of advisory programs. Building a cohort of critical, reflective thinkers 
within extension services has been increasingly emphasised in relation to addressing 
sustainability issues with farmers (Howlett et. al, 2016), and the MAIS approach is helping early 
career advisors to think deeply about the implications of their research and their advisory work.   

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445


Gorman and Kinsella  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445   58 
 

Collectively, academia and the public and private sectors’ advisory services need to strengthen 
their research and knowledge on the factors influencing on-farm innovation and to share 
learning on how to better engage farmers as seekers of knowledge and in processes of learning. 
The opportunities and options for postgraduate training and continuous professional 
development on knowledge transfer and exchange need to be extended at the national and EU 
levels, particularly utilizing the potential of digital and blended learning.   

Acknowledgements 
 
The authors are grateful to the graduates and advisory services’ managers who provided 
information for this paper. They also acknowledge the central role of Teagasc in the 
development and delivery of the MAIS postgraduate program. 
 

References 
 
Bamber, V. (2015). Mixing decks: Frameworks for master's scholarship. Higher Education 

Quarterly, 69(3), 221-236. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12070  

Beck, M., Van Bunnen, P., Wathelet, J.M., Cozier, J., Ghysen, A., Dwyer, J., Micha, N., 
Kubinakova, K., & Mantino, F. (2020). Evaluation support study on the CAP’s impact on 
knowledge exchange and advisory activities. European Commission. 
https://doi.org/10.2762/045268  

Benge, M., Muscato, A. F., & Beattie, P. N. (2020). Professional development needs of early-
career extension agents beyond the first year: Florida county extension director 
perspectives. The Journal of Extension, 58(6), Article 11. 
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.58.06.11 

Biggs, J. (2012). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education 
Research & Development, 31 (1), 39-55. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.642839   

Birner, R. , Davis, K. , Pender, J. , Nkonya, E., Anandajayasekeram, P., Ekboir, J., Mbabu, 
A., Spielman, D.J., Horna, D., Benin S. & Cohen, M. (2009). From best practice to best fit: 
A framework for designing and analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services 
worldwide. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 15(4), 341-
355. https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240903309595  

Blockeel, J., Chuluunbaatar, D., Holley, A., Sulaiman, R., Djamen, P. & Grovermann, C. (2023). 
Taking a snapshot of extension and advisory systems performance and outcomes: 
Insights on a semi-quantitative evaluation approach. The Journal of Agricultural 
Education and Extension, 29(4), 489-509. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2022.2089178  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445
https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12070
https://doi.org/10.2762/045268
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.58.06.11
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.642839
https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240903309595
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2022.2089178


Gorman and Kinsella  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445   59 
 

Blum, M., F., Cofini, & Sulaiman, R. (2020). Agricultural extension in transition worldwide: 
Policies and strategies for reform. Food and Agriculture Organization. 
https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8199en  

Brunori, G., Barjolle, D., Dockes, A. C., Helmle, S., Ingram, J., Klerkx, L., Moschitz, H., Nemes, G., 
& Tisenkopfs. T. (2013). CAP reform and innovation: The role of learning and innovation 
networks. EuroChoices, 12(2), 27-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12025  

Caraça, J., Lundvall, B.A. & Mendonça, S. (2009). The changing role of science in the innovation 
process: From queen to Cinderella?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6), 
861-867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.08.003  

Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. Pearson Education Ltd. 

Charlton, K. E. (2016). Food security, food systems and food sovereignty in the 21st century: A 
new paradigm required to meet sustainable development goals. Nutrition & Dietetics, 
73(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12264   

Cristóvão, A., Koutsouris, A. & Kügler, M. (2012). Extension systems and change facilitation for 
agricultural and rural development. In I. Darnhofer, D. Gibbon, & B. Dedieu 
(Eds.), Farming Systems Research into the 21st century: The new dynamic (pp. 201-227). 
Springer Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2_10  

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. (2020). Food vision 2030: A world leader in 
sustainable food systems. gov.ie. https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/c73a3-food-vision-
2030-a-world-leader-in-sustainable-food-systems/ 

Devitt, A., Kerin, M., & O’Sullivan, H. (2012, June 28-29). Threshold concepts and practices in 
teacher education: Professional, educator and student perspectives. 4th Biennial 
Threshold Concepts Conference, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. 
http://hdl.handle.net/2262/69299  

Dwyer, J., (2013). Transformation for sustainable agriculture: What role for the second pillar of 
CAP?. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 2(1), 29-47. https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-
12174  

EU SCAR. (2012). Agricultural knowledge and innovation systems in transition–a reflection 
paper. European Commission. https://scar-
europe.org/images/AKIS/Documents/AKIS_reflection_paper.pdf  

EU SCAR. (2019). Preparing for future AKIS in Europe. European Commission. 
https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/publication/preparing-future-akis-europe_en 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445
https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8199en
https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.08.003
https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12264
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2_10
https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/c73a3-food-vision-2030-a-world-leader-in-sustainable-food-systems/
https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/c73a3-food-vision-2030-a-world-leader-in-sustainable-food-systems/
http://hdl.handle.net/2262/69299
https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-12174
https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-12174
https://scar-europe.org/images/AKIS/Documents/AKIS_reflection_paper.pdf
https://scar-europe.org/images/AKIS/Documents/AKIS_reflection_paper.pdf
https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/publication/preparing-future-akis-europe_en


Gorman and Kinsella  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445   60 
 

Fielke, S. J., Botha, N., Reid, J., Gray, D., Blackett, P., Park, N., & Williams, T. (2018). Lessons for 
co-innovation in agricultural innovation systems: A multiple case study analysis and a 
conceptual model. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 24(1), 9-27. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2017.1394885  

Fulton, A., Fulton, D., Tabart, T., Ball, P., Champion, S., Weatherley, J. & Heinjus, D. (2003). 
Agricultural extension, learning and change: A report for the rural industries research 
and development corporation. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. 
https://agrifutures.com.au/wp-content/uploads/publications/03-032.pdf  

Gorman, M. (2019). Becoming an agricultural advisor – the rationale, the plan and the 
implementation of a model of reflective practice in extension higher education. The 
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 25(2), 179-191. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2018.1559742  

Gorman, M. (2004). The socio economic impact of rural development: Livelihood realities and 
potential for Irish farm families [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University College 
Dublin. 

Hansen, B. G., Stræte, E. P., & Kvam, G.T. (2018). The importance of the advisor’s relational and 
professional competence and formal power in meetings with farmers. The Journal of 
Agricultural Education and Extension, 24(4), 361-375. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2018.1479280  

Harder, A., Place, N. T. & Scheer, S. D. (2010) Towards a competency-based extension education 
curriculum: A Delphi study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 51(3), 44-52. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2010.03044  

Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The manual of learning styles (3rd ed.). Peter Honey 
Publications. 

Howlett, M., Ferreira, J. A., & Blomfield, J. (2016). Teaching sustainable development in higher 
education: Building critical, reflective thinkers through an interdisciplinary 
approach. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17(3), 305-
321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2014-0102  

Ingram, J., & Morris, C. (2007). The knowledge challenge within the transition towards 
sustainable soil management: An analysis of agricultural advisors in England. Land Use 
Policy, 24(1), 100-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.07.002  

Ingram, J. (2008). Agronomist–farmer knowledge encounters: An analysis of knowledge 
exchange in the context of best management practices in England. Agriculture and 
Human Values, 25(3), 405–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9134-0  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2017.1394885
https://agrifutures.com.au/wp-content/uploads/publications/03-032.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2018.1559742
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2018.1479280
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2010.03044
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2014-0102
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.07.002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9134-0


Gorman and Kinsella  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445   61 
 

Ingram J., & Mills, J. (2019). Are advisory services “fit for purpose” to support sustainable soil 
management? An assessment of advice in Europe. Soil Use Management, 39(4), 1447-
1490. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12905  

Jones, G. E., & Garforth, C. (1997). Chapter 1 - the history, development, and future of 
agricultural extension. FAO.  https://www.fao.org/3/W5830E/w5830e03.htm  

Klerkx, L., Schut, M., Leeuwis, C., & Kilelu, C. (2012). Advances in knowledge brokering in the 
agricultural sector: Towards innovation system facilitation. IDS Bulletin, 43(5), 53-60. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2012.00363.x  

Knook, J., Eoryb, V., Brandera, M., & Moran, D. (2018). Evaluation of farmer participatory 
extension programmes. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 24(4), 309–325 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2018.1466717 

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and 
development. Englewood Cliffs. 

Koutsouris, A. (2012). Facilitating agricultural innovation systems: A critical realist 
approach. Studies in Agricultural Economics, 114(2012), 64-70. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.7896/j.1210  

Labarthe, P. (2014). AKIS and advisory services in France. Report for the AKIS inventory (WP3) of 
the PRO AKIS project. The French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA). 
https://hal.science/hal-01608698/document  

Leeuwis, C., & Aarts, N. (2011). Rethinking communication in innovation processes: creating 
space for change in complex systems. The Journal of Agricultural Education and 
Extension, 17(1), 21-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2011.536344  

Leeuwis, C. (2004). Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension (3rd 
ed.). Blackwell Science Ltd.  

Lybaert, C., Debruyne, L., Kyndt, E., & Marchand, F. (2021). Competencies for agricultural 
advisors in innovation support. Sustainability, 14(1), 182. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010182  

Manning, L. (2013). A knowledge exchange and diffusion of innovation (KEDI) model for primary 
production. British Food Journal, 115(4), 614-631. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070701311317883  

Millar, J., & Curtis, A. (1997). Moving farmer knowledge beyond the farm gate: An Australian 
study of farmer knowledge in group learning. European Journal of Agricultural Education 
and Extension, 4(2), 133-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/13892249785300241  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445
https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12905
https://www.fao.org/3/W5830E/w5830e03.htm
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2012.00363.x
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2018.1466717
http://dx.doi.org/10.7896/j.1210
https://hal.science/hal-01608698/document
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2011.536344
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010182
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070701311317883
https://doi.org/10.1080/13892249785300241


Gorman and Kinsella  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445   62 
 

Mulder, M. (2012). Competence-based education and training. The Journal of Agricultural 
Education and Extension, 18(3), 305-314. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.670048  

Newman, M. (2014). Transformative learning: Mutinous thoughts revisited. Adult Education 
Quarterly, 64(4), 345-355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713614543173 

Olsen, C., Shoup, R., Jones, R., Jost, J., & Griffin C. L. (2009). Integrating economics, 
management, and human relationship issues into training for successful farm family 
businesses. Journal of Extension, 47(5). 
https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol47/iss5/15/  

Phillipson, J., Gorton, M., Raley, M., & Moxey, A. (2004). Treating farms as firms? The evolution 
of farm business support from productionist to entrepreneurial models. Environment 
and Planning C: Politics and Space, 22(1), 31-54. https://doi.org/10.1068/c0238  

Pretty, J. (1999). The living land: Agriculture, food and community regeneration in the 21st 
Century. Earthscan. 

Piñeiro, V., Arias, J., Dürr, J., Elverdin, P., Ibáñez, A.M., Kinengyere, A., & Opazo, C.M. (2020). A 
scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their 
outcomes. Nature Sustainability, 3, 809–820. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-
00617-y  

Proietti, P., & Cristiano, S. (2023). Innovation support services: An evidence-based exploration 
of their strategic roles in the Italian AKIS. The Journal of Agricultural Education and 
Extension, 29(3), 351-371.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2022.2069828  

Rose, D. C., Sutherland, W. J., Barnes, A. P., Borthwick, F., Ffoulkes, C., Hall, C., Moorby, J. M., 
Nicholas-Davies, P., Twining, S., & Dicks, L. V. (2019). Integrated farm management for 
sustainable agriculture: Lessons for knowledge exchange and policy. Land Use Policy, 81, 
834-842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.001  

Sayer, J., & Cassman, K.G. (2013). Agricultural innovation to protect the 
environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(21), 8345-8348. 
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208054110  

Smith, C. (2012). Evaluating the quality of work-integrated learning curricula: A comprehensive 
framework. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2012), 247-262. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.558072  

Straw, W. M., Kerridge Stubbs, A., & Mullaney, P. D. (1996). Rural Extension Training Courses: A 
Comparative Evaluation. A Report for RIRDC. Rural Industries Research & Development.  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.670048
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713614543173
https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol47/iss5/15/
https://doi.org/10.1068/c0238
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00617-y
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00617-y
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2022.2069828
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.001
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208054110
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.558072


Gorman and Kinsella  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445   63 
 

Tomlinson, I. (2013). Doubling food production to feed the 9 billion: A critical perspective on a 
key discourse of food security in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies, 29, 81-90. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.09.001  

Van den Ban, A.W., & Hawkins, S. (1996). Agricultural extension (2nd ed.). Blackwell Science Ltd. 

van der Ploeg J. D., Barjolle, D., Bruil, J., Brunori, G., Costa Madureira, L. M., Dessein, J., Drąg, Z., 
Fink-Kessler, A., Gasselin, P., Gonzalez de Molina, M., Gorlach, K., Jürgens, K., Kinsella, J., 
Kirwan, J., Knickel, K., Lucas, V., Marsden, T., Maye, D., Migliorini, P., …Wezel, A. (2019). 
The economic potential of agroecology: Empirical evidence from Europe. Journal of 
Rural Studies, 71, 46-61 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.09.003  

Vermeulen, S. J., Aggarwal, P. K., Ainslie, A., Angelone, C., Campbell, B. M, Challinor, A. J., & 
Hansen, J. W. (2012). Options for support to agriculture and food security under climate 
change. Environmental Science & Policy, 15(1), 136-144. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.09.003  

Velardia, S., Leahya, J., Collumb, K., McGuire, J., & Ladenheim, M. (2021). Adult learning theory 
principles in knowledge exchange networks among maple syrup producers and 
beekeepers in Maine. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 27(1), 3-20 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1773283  

Wilton, N. (2012). The impact of work placements on skills development and career outcomes 
for business and management graduates. Studies in Higher Education, 37(5), 603-620. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.532548  

 
 
 
 
 
© 2024 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.445
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.09.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.09.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.09.003
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1773283
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.532548

