The New Extensionist: Roles and Capacities to Strengthen Extension and Advisory Services

Abstract

Extension and advisory services (EAS) perform an important role in agricultural development and help reduce hunger and poverty. Development efforts are increasingly complicated because of challenges such as natural resource depletion and climate change. Agricultural development frameworks have moved from a linear to a more complex systems perspective. Many scholars today use the agricultural innovation systems (AIS) framework as a conceptual model. This framework has three basic elements: all of the actors in the system that brings about agricultural innovation, their interactions, and the institutions and policies governing their interactions. Taking this approach while dealing with the challenges of development today implies new roles and capacities for extension. The authors discuss these new roles and capacities based on an action inquiry process of global dialog and consensus building, to present a vision for EAS within AIS, called the new extensionist (Sulaiman & Davis, 2012). The authors explore individual roles and capacities, and also those at the organizational and system level (Sulaiman & Davis, 2012). The authors discuss the importance of agricultural education in developing these roles and capacities, and bringing more knowledge to bear on the issue. © 2014, Assoc. Int. Agricultural and Extension Education. All rights reserved.

Full text

Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education Volume 21, Issue 3
doi:10.5191/jiaee.2014.21301
The New Extensionist: Roles and Capacities to Strengthen Extension and Advisory
Services
Kristin Davis
Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS)
Pretoria, South Africa
Rasheed Sulaiman V.
Centre for Research on Innovation and Science Policy (CRISP)
Hyderabad, India
Abstract
Extension and advisory services (EAS) perform an important role in agricultural
development and help reduce hunger and poverty. Development efforts are increasingly
complicated because of challenges such as natural resource depletion and climate change.
Agricultural development frameworks have moved from a linear to a more complex systems
perspective. Many scholars today use the agricultural innovation systems (AIS) framework as
a conceptual model. This framework has three basic elements: all of the actors in the system
that brings about agricultural innovation, their interactions, and the institutions and policies
governing their interactions. Taking this approach while dealing with the challenges of
development today implies new roles and capacities for extension. The authors discuss these
new roles and capacities based on an action inquiry process of global dialog and consensus
building, to present a vision for EAS within AIS, called the new extensionist (Sulaiman &
Davis, 2012). The authors explore individual roles and capacities, and also those at the
organizational and system level (Sulaiman & Davis, 2012). The authors discuss the
importance of agricultural education in developing these roles and capacities, and bringing
more knowledge to bear on the issue.
Keywords: Agricultural Innovation System, Capacity-building, Curriculum, Development
6

Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education Volume 21, Issue 3
Introduction
Extension and advisory services
(EAS) perform an important role in
agricultural development and help to
reduce hunger and poverty (Davis, 2008;
Sulaiman & Holt, 2002). These services
need new capacities to address current
agricultural challenges and to better
contribute to innovation (Sulaiman &
Davis, 2012). Their role in doing so within
the larger agricultural innovation system
needs to be understood better.
Agricultural development
frameworks have moved from a linear to a
systems perspective. Many extension
scholars today are using the agricultural
innovation systems (AIS) framework as a
conceptual model (Davis & Heemskerk,
2012; Klerkx, Hall, & Leeuwis, 2009).
This framework considers all of the actors
in the system, their interactions, and the
institutions and policies governing their
interactions in the process of innovation
development (Spielman, 2005).
Other authors described important
changes in extension related to these
broader development frameworks.
Swanson and Rajalahti (2010) described
the different paradigms in extension from
technology transfer to facilitation
extension. Swanson (2010) and Rivera
(2009) described the roles and changes
resulting from pluralistic (multi-provider)
and market-oriented extension reforms.
Taking these changes in
development thinking and extension
approaches into account implies new
capacities and roles for extension. This is
because extension has the potential to
perform critical brokering, intermediation,
and facilitation roles within the system:
between different service providers and
between farmers, researchers,
policymakers, and market actors.
The authors present the process
conducted at a global level in response to
demands from regional extension networks
to articulate a new view of EAS within
AIS, the new extensionist. The authors
discuss the content of the new extensionist
and make recommendations to agricultural
extension and education on how to use this
vision to improve EAS globally. They
recommend adaptations at the national and
local level to sustain and up-scale the new
extensionist approach and accompanying
capacity strengthening activities.
The Global Forum for Rural
Advisory Services (GFRAS) initiated the
new extensionist concept to clarify and
promote the importance of EAS within
rural development, keeping in view the
new challenges faced by farmers and the
fresh insights from applying innovation
systems concepts in agricultural
development. GFRAS did so as part of the
Global Conference on Agricultural
Research for Development (GCARD). The
GCARD produced a roadmap that
emphasized “actions to enhance capacities
to generate, share, and make use of
agricultural knowledge for development”
among all actors involved in agricultural
innovation” (FAO, 2011, p. 5).
The new extensionist concept is a
global view of EAS that “reinvents and
clearly articulates the role of EAS in the
rapidly-changing rural and agricultural
context” (Davis & Sulaiman, 2013, p. 2). It
argues for an expanded role of EAS within
AIS and the development of new
capacities at different levels to play this
role. The new extensionist defines EAS as
all the different activities that provide the
information and services needed and
demanded by farmers and other actors in
rural settings to “assist them to develop
their own technical, organizational, and
management skills and practices” so as to
improve their livelihoods and well-being
(Christoplos, 2010, p. 3). EAS includes
actors from the public, private, and civil
society sectors.
While the new extensionist concept
is not necessarily new with regard to the
competencies that individuals need, the
expanded role of EAS in the AIS is novel,
as is the focus on organizational and
system-level capacities (Davis &
Sulaiman, 2013). The new extensionist
7

vision implies changes in EAS
organizations and systems, as well as the
reskilling of individuals to contribute
better to “increasing the productivity and
effectiveness of agricultural systems to
improve the livelihoods of smallholder
farmers” (Davis & Sulaiman, 2013, p. 2).
According to Sulaiman and Davis (2012,
p. 16), when new capacity strengthening
approaches are introduced, “sustainability
issues should be considered early” on, and
“project design should be founded on a
realistic assessment” of resources to
sustain them. Sustainability is also
“dependent on institutional, cultural, and
motivational factors” (Sulaiman & Davis,
2012, p. 16).
Conceptual Framework
As mentioned, the new extensionist
paper was developed by the Global Forum
for Rural Advisory Services based on the
AIS framework. It also uses the capacity
development framework of the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO).
Development scholars and
practitioners increasingly recognize the
AIS concept as a useful framework to
design projects and other interventions to
promote agricultural innovation and
equitable growth (World Bank, 2012). Key
actors in the AIS include agricultural
research, extension, and education (see
Figure 1). However, their role varies
according to physical and socio-economic
contexts. The AIS approach also considers
farmers, the private sector, policy-making
institutions, and other actors that
contribute to innovation. Applying the
innovation systems framework in different
settings provides insights on innovation
processes and helps to explore potential
roles for extension in the AIS (Davis &
Heemskerk, 2012; Rivera & Sulaiman,
2009; Sulaiman & Hall, 2002). The added
value of the AIS framework for extension
is that it helps users to see the role and
organization of extension in relation to the
“actors, processes, institutions, and
policies that are critical for innovation”
(Sulaiman & Davis, 2012, p. 4).
Research insights from the
application of AIS show that “EAS can
better contribute to the process of
innovation if they could play new roles,
undertake new functions, devise
appropriate strategies, and build new
capacities” (Sulaiman & Davis, 2012, p.
4). Research also shows that, the
traditional task of communicating new
knowledge and information just by public
extension is not enough to stimulate
innovation (Leeuwis & van den Ban 2004;
Spielman, 2005; Sulaiman, Hall,
Kalaivani, Dorai, & Reddy, 2012). Actors
in the AIS have to perform many other
supportive roles to enable innovation.
The FAO has a corporate strategy
on capacity development that guides
thinking about capacity development in
EAS (see Figure 2). The strategy shows
capacity development as functional and
technical requirements across three levels:
individual, organizational, and an enabling
environment (or system) level.
The individual level “relates to
knowledge, skills (technical and
managerial), and attitudes that can be
addressed through facilitation, training,
and competency development” (FAO,
2010, p. 4).
The organizational level “relates to
public, private, and civil society
organizations and networks of
organizations in terms of a) strategic
management functions, structures, and
relationships; b) operational capacity
(relationships, processes, systems,
procedures, sanctions, incentives, and
values); c) human and financial resources
(policies, deployment, and performance);
d) knowledge and information resources;
and e) infrastructure” (FAO, 2010, p. 4).
The enabling environment (system)
level “relates to political commitment and
vision; policy, legal, and regulatory and
economic frameworks; national public
sector budget allocations and processes;
governance and power structures;
8

infrastructure; incentives; and social
norms” (FAO, 2010, p. 4).
Figure 1. A stylized agricultural innovation system. Adapted from R., Birner, K. Davis, J.
Pender, E. Nkonya, P. Anandajayasekerem, Ekboir, J., . . . Cohen, M., 2006, Development
Strategy and Governance Division Discussion Paper 37, p. 22.
Figure 2. Capacity levels (FAO, 2010).
EAS also need capacities at these
different levels if they are to play new and more effective roles within the AIS.
Research by Swanson (2006) shows the
System
Organizational
Individual
Business services
Extension
Education
Research
Farmers
Consumer
Credit
Exporter
Agroprocessor
Input
Producer
organization
Standards
Lands
Government policy and regulatory framework;
informal institutions, practices, behaviors, and
9

importance of adjusting national strategies
due to the changing role of extension
today. Specifically, Swanson suggests a
change of focus from food security to
income and employment, organizing
farmers into groups to better reach them,
and decentralizing extension for better
accountability (Swanson, 2006, p. 6).
These strategies all require capacity at all
these levels.
Development of the New Extensionist
Concept
Design The research design was based on a
form of action inquiry using contemporary
dialog and survey methodology to find
consensus on the new extensionist concept.
Action inquiry, which involves iterative
reflection by practitioners and scholars, is
based on the work of Lewis (1946) and has
been used in educational research
(McKernan, 1991). According to
Spielman, (2005), “action research has
been a fundamental tool in identifying
agricultural innovation systems approaches
in developing countries and establishing
‘proof of concept’” (p. 35). Similarly,
action inquiry was used to find consensus
and establish proof of concept for the new
extensionist.
Position Paper
Based on a literature review, a
position paper (Sulaiman & Davis, 2012)
was developed in 2012 (see Figure 3)
detailing the role of advisory services; the
need for enhanced capacities for EAS at
individual, organizational, and system
levels; existing capacity constraints at
national, regional, and global levels; and
recommendations to strengthen the
capacities and role of EAS.
The position paper stated that EAS
collectively performs wide range of roles,
including developing networks, organizing
producers, facilitating access to credit,
input and output services, convening
innovation platforms, facilitating
knowledge management, promoting
gender equality, supporting adaptation to
climate change, and disseminating new
knowledge through training and
demonstrations (Sulaiman & Davis, 2012).
Regarding capacities, the paper
stated that at the individual level, EAS
need staff with an understanding of
technical knowledge plus skills to manage
social processes. Table 1 details the
capacities required for individuals staffing
EAS.
Figure 3. Timeline of the development of the “new extensionist” concept.
Literature
review and
draft paper
May 2012
Peer
review
June 2012
Revisions,
summary,
survey
July 2012
Electronic
discussion
August
2012
Face-to-
face
consensus
October
2012
10

Table 1
Capacities Required at the Individual Level in EAS
Technical
Functional
Good understanding of
appropriate/relevant/new
technologies/practices/
standards/regulations/ policies in agriculture
and natural resource management
Technical options to support climate change
adaptation; agribusiness; value addition and
value chain development; improving
resource use efficiency; application of
biotechnology; intellectual property and
farmer rights; use of new information and
communication technologies (ICTs)
Community mobilization (organizing
producers and rural women into different
types of interest/activity groups)
Farmer organization development (organizing,
sustaining, and federating farmer
organizations to take up new extension and
advisory service tasks in agriculture and
linking them to new source of knowledge and
services)
Facilitation (facilitating discussions, enabling
consensus building and joint action,
accompanying multi-stakeholder processes)
Coaching (guided self-reflection and expert
advice for improvement)
Reflective learning (organizing experience-
sharing workshops and facilitating learning)
Mediating in conflicts (by improving dialogue
and helping to reach agreement)
Negotiating (helping to reach a satisfactory
compromise or agreement between individuals
or groups and developing negotiating capacity
among other stakeholders)
Brokering (creating multi-directional
relationships among the wide range of actors)
Networking and partnership development
Advocating for changes in policies and
institutions
Leadership (capacity to inspire and motivate)
Managing resources (human and financial)
Critical thinking
Problem solving
Self-reflection and learning from mistakes
Service mindedness
Accountability
Responsibility
Dedication/commitment
Working in multi-organizational and multi-
sectorial teams
Working with rural women and using gender
sensitive extension approaches
Note. Adapted from R. V. Sulaiman and K. Davis, 2012, The new extensionist: Roles,
strategies, and capacities to strengthen extension and advisory services, p. 8. Adapted with
permission.
11

At the organizational level, EAS need
capacities manage human and financial
resources, facilitate partnerships and
learning, and mechanisms to deal with
institutional, legal, and regulatory issues
(Sulaiman & Davis, 2012) (see Table 2).
Table 2
Capacities Required at the Organizational Level in EAS
Broad areas
Specific areas to support capacity
strengthening
Strategic management functions
Leadership (inspiration and motivation),
vision building, change management,
capacity to respond to emergencies, policy
relations, advocacy
Structures
Ability to structure the organization as
different units in the organizational hierarchy
and ensure the different units relate and are
flexible
Relationships
Clearly defining authority, roles, and
responsibilities and resources among
different units within an organization and
across organizations within the AIS; building
trust; creating time and space for learning
from each other
Processes, systems, and procedures
Planning, organizing, leading, and
controlling methods used in internal
communication, performance assessment,
human resource development, financial
management, learning, monitoring and
evaluation, ensuring accountability to
different stakeholders and the range of
approaches used to deliver extension and
advisory support
Values, incentives/rewards
Integrity, science-based knowledge,
inclusion, partnership, learning, mechanisms
to reward and incentivize good performance,
acceptable standards which govern behavior
of individuals in an organization,
opportunities for feedback and reflection,
reputation
Human resources
Ability to provide adequate number of staff
and access to experts in other organizations
to complement and supplement its expertise;
clear job descriptions, well-defined roles and
tasks, career development and incentives,
access to new knowledge, mechanisms to
mobilize, nurture, and retain human
resources
12

Financial resources
Ability to provide adequate budget for staff
salaries, operational expenses, and
investments, and to develop and implement
programs benefiting smallholders; or a
sustainable business model that keep the
organization in business
Knowledge and information resources
Knowledge management including
relationship management to access skills and
knowledge to deal with new challenges and
opportunities
Infrastructure
Ability to support EAS in terms of mobility,
telecommunication, ICT, buildings and
training facilities, roads, market
infrastructure
Note. Adapted from The new extensionist: Roles, strategies, and capacities to strengthen
extension and advisory services, p. 11, by R. V. Sulaiman & K. Davis, Lindau: Global Forum
for Rural Advisory Services. 2012. Adapted with permission.
At the system level, capacities for
interaction, learning, and adaptation are
important. The enabling environment
could be influenced by building the
capacities detailed in Table 3.
Table 3
Capacities at the Enabling Environment Level in EAS
Capacity of policy-making bodies to adapt policies based on lessons learned from policy
implementation, for reflective learning and adaptive change management
Initiating joint activities and collaboration between organizations in the AIS and the actors of
the agricultural sector
Supporting organization of workshops, seminars, joint research, commissioned studies, and
joint evaluation that would bring out major areas that need policy attention
Organizing sector coordination mechanisms and multi-stakeholder working groups to
develop and manage relationships among multiple actors and collectively develop strategic
directions and policies for the sector
Generating adequate data that are required for evidence-based policy advocacy and decision
making
Sharing information on the activities of the EAS with farmers and their organizations,
researchers, policymakers, and policy-makers
(use of websites, policy briefs, social
networking sites)
Managing relationships with the media (communication and media management)
Note. Adapted from The new extensionist: Roles, strategies, and capacities to strengthen
extension and advisory services, p. 11, by R. V. Sulaiman & K. Davis, Lindau: Global Forum
for Rural Advisory Services. 2012. Adapted with permission.
A panel of experts from different
sectors peer-reviewed the position paper in
mid-2012. Following revision, the authors
created and sent a two-page summary of
the paper to international agricultural
listservs with an invitation to an online
survey. The survey consisted of seven
questions with Likert–type and yes/no
13

responses, with the option of providing
open-ended responses. More than 200
global respondents took part in the survey
in mid-2012, and many joined an ensuing
in-depth electronic discussion, which
enabled dialogue and consensus on the
concepts and recommendations. Finally,
the authors presented and affirmed the
position paper contents in a face-to-face
meeting at the GCARD in October 2012, a
global gathering of stakeholders from the
entire agricultural sector, including
extension.
Following the global conference,
GFRAS again revised the paper and
thereafter convened a small group of
global extension experts in early 2013 to
prioritize the new extensionist
recommendations for different regions. As
a result of this meeting, a consortium on
extension education and training under
GFRAS formed at this meeting, with the
purpose of championing, refining, and
disseminating the new extensionist concept
(GFRAS, 2013). The consortium began to
exchange and examine extension curricula
worldwide, develop a guide on how to
identify capacity gaps, and to support the
Association for International Agricultural
and Extension Education’s professional
development core group regarding the new
extensionist concept (AIAEE, 2013).
Survey respondents who reviewed
the position paper came predominantly
from development agencies, research,
education, and public advisory services.
Even though they came from all over the
world, areas such as Australia and the
Caribbean were under-represented.
Overall, the response to the position paper
was positive and the respondents affirmed
the concept and recommendations.
Respondents supported the core roles
suggested in the paper, except for the
suggested role of mediating conflicts.
Respondents also considered most of the
capacities suggested to fulfill these roles to
be essential and in need of further
development. Respondents agreed that the
paper was useful for raising awareness of
the importance of EAS. On the whole
agreement was reached that the
recommendations at the three different
levels (national, regional, global) were
actionable and clear.
Following up on comments from
the survey respondents and experts, an
electronic discussion debated further on
the need to focus on gender issues, the role
of private and civil society EAS, and the
use of information and communication
technologies (ICTs).
In the GCARD meeting at the end
of 2012, agricultural development
stakeholders met in a session to discuss
and affirm the paper’s contents. Four main
outcomes emerged from that meeting:
1. Participants endorsed the new
extensionist recommendations for
essential capacities to strengthen
advisory services;
2. GFRAS regional networks will use
the revised new extensionist
concept to advocate for
strengthening knowledge and
advisory services;
3. GFRAS will catalyze dialog to
prioritize and implement the
recommendations to strengthen
knowledge and advisory systems;
and
4. Key elements included reaching
grassroots, women and youth, and
adapting ICTs.
Thereafter, global extension
experts met in early 2013 to define a plan
of priority activities for the next two years
that would best contribute to enhancing the
capacity of EAS to effectively play their
part in AIS as aligned with the GCARD
agenda. Participants at the meeting put
major focus on education and training as
well as other recommended actions (see
Table 4). The experts called for research
on extension and the promotion of
extension science. The group formed a
consortium of education and training
institutions to conduct research on and
curricula reform of extension. Finally, the
14

participants stated the need to
contextualize the recommendations to
various regions of the world.
The new extensionist concept
continues to be taken forward by educators
and practitioners. The summary was
translated into Arabic and French and used
as a starting point for discussions on how
to strengthen extension in some regions of
the world. The consortium continues to
collect and document curricula and to
identify core competencies needed by
extension professionals, as well as
methodologies to identify capacity gaps.
Table 4
Priority Actions to Strengthen EAS by Different Regions of the World
Action
Region
Survey EAS providers, analyze EAS
models, conduct research
Africa, Latin America, Pacific, South Asia
Support establishment of regional
networks and synergize their
activities
Asia, Caribbean, Latin America, Pacific
Develop curricula for vocational and
continuing education and skill up-
grading; regular curricula revision
Africa, Asia, Caribbean, Latin America,
North Africa, South Asia
Develop policy briefs and position papers
to influence policy processes
Asia, Caribbean, Latin America, Pacific
Recommendations and Conclusions
Much global interest exists
surrounding the role of EAS and how to
strengthen these institutions to contribute
to innovation and reducing hunger and
poverty. The use of the AIS framework
and the FAO strategy for capacity
development help to frame the roles EAS
can play and the capacities needed to
perform at the individual, organizational,
and system levels (see Figure 2). The
position paper by GFRAS made 12
recommendations for national-level
capacity strengthening, five for the
regional level, and seven for the global
level. These recommendations also
detailed which actors should take lead.
Agricultural education and training have a
major role, as well as extension scholars
and researchers. Five major
recommendations relevant for agricultural
education and training emerged from the
paper:
1. The agricultural education and
extension community should
revisit the competencies of
individual extension personnel as
well as the organizations and
systems. We need reformed
agricultural education curricula to
further strengthen the roles and
capacities of extension to better
contribute to agricultural
development. We must share and
examine curricula to see if they are
suitable for extension today. We
need methodology on how to
identify capacity gaps at the
individual, organizational, and
system level.
2. Along with revised curricula, the
international agricultural extension
community should develop
delivery mechanisms to support the
expanded role of EAS. This
includes developing improved and
targeted curricula (pre- and in-
service) for extension and rural
advisory services and creating
demand-driven courses by local or
15

regional entities with strong
support from international and
regional networks and partners. We
should create and promote a
certification model, in consultation
with regional employers and
educators, which links modules and
curricula to skills required for
employment.
3. Extension scholars and research
institutes should conduct research
on extension and its role within the
AIS. We need research on many
fronts, but specific
recommendations from this paper
are to better understand the
contribution of extension to
agricultural innovation and on the
capacities needed for effective
performance of extension as a
system. We must promote
extension science that is
recognized as a valid and evolving
discipline.
4. Regional and national extension
and education institutions should
prioritize and adapt the new
extensionist recommendations to
their specific realities, that is, be
contextualized, before being up-
scaled and out-scaled. The new
extensionist position paper is rather
generic, and although it makes
recommendations for national and
regional levels, these
recommendations must be
examined and implemented for the
specific needs of different regions
and countries.
5. Finally, extension educators and
professionals around the world
need to advocate the new
extensionist principles within their
regions and with the wider
development community, to
promote the important role that
EAS play in rural development.
EAS have a critical role to play in
development today. Much work is needed
to retool the community to adequately
address the new and evolving challenges.
Interested professionals from extension
education are welcome to engage with the
GFRAS consortium on extension
education and training to conduct research
on extension education, reform curricula,
and share knowledge with one another.
GFRAS is also keen to work with the
regional EAS networks and country
chapters; national governments, and
donors to support changes at the
organizational and enabling environment
levels as recommended in this paper.
Without fundamental changes in the
conceptual and operational dimensions of
EAS, its ability to address the new and
evolving challenges in promoting
agricultural innovation will be
compromised. The new extensionist offers
an opportunity for EAS to reform itself
and remain relevant in the days to come.
References
Association for International Agricultural
and Extension Education. (2013).
AIAEE professional development
core group. Retrieved from
https://www.aiaee.org/professional
-development.html
Birner, R., Davis, K., Pender, J., Nkonya,
E., Anandajayasekerem, P., Ekboir,
J., . . . Cohen, M. (2006). From
“best practice” to “best fit”: A
framework for analyzing pluralistic
extension services worldwide.
Development Strategy and
Governance Division Discussion
Paper 37. Washington, DC:
International Food Policy Research
Institute.
Christoplos, I. (2010) Mobilizing the
potential of rural and agricultural
extension. Rome, Italy: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations and the Global
Forum for Rural Advisory
Services.
16

Davis, K. (2008). Extension in sub-
Saharan Africa: Overview and
assessment of past and current
models and future prospects.
Journal of International
Agricultural and Extension
Education 15(3), 15-28. doi:
10.5191/jiaee.2008.15302
Davis, K., & Heemskerk, W. (2012).
Investment in extension and
advisory services as part of
agricultural innovation systems.
Module 3 of Agricultural
Innovation Systems: An
Investment Sourcebook.
Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Retrieved from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/I
NTARD/Resources/335807-
1330620492317/9780821386842_c
h3.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organization.
(2010). Corporate strategy on
capacity development. Rome, Italy:
Author.
Food and Agriculture Organization.
(2011). The GCARD road map:
Transforming agricultural
research for development (AR4D)
systems for global impact. Rome,
Italy: Author.
Global Forum for Rural Advisory
Services. (2013). Introduction:
Consortium on extension and
advisory services. Pretoria, South
Africa: Author.
Hall, A., Sulaiman R.V., Clark, N., &
Yoganand, B. (2003). From
measuring impact to learning
institutional lessons: An innovation
systems perspective on improving
the management of international
agricultural research. Agricultural
Systems, 78(2), 213–241.
Klerkx, L., Hall, A., & Leeuwis, C.
(2009). Strengthening agricultural
innovation capacity: Are
innovation brokers the answer?
International Journal of
Agricultural Resources,
Governance and Ecology, 8(5/6),
409–438.
Leeuwis, C., & van den Ban, A.W. (2004)
Communication for rural
Innovation: Rethinking
agricultural extension (3rd ed.).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
McKernan, J. (1991). Action inquiry:
Studied enactment. In E. Short
(Ed.), Forms of curriculum inquiry.
(2nd ed., pp. 309-326). Albany,
New York: State University of
New York Press.
Rivera, W. R. (2009). The market-link
imperative: Refocusing public
sector extension. Journal of
International Agricultural and
Extension Education, 16(2), 47-59.
doi: 10.5191/jiaee.2009.16204
Rivera, W., Alex, G., Hanson, J., & Birner,
R. (2006). Enabling agriculture:
The evolution and promise of
agricultural knowledge
frameworks. Paper presented at the
conference of the Association for
International Agricultural and
Extension Education (AIAEE),
Clearwater Beach, Florida.
Rivera, W., & Sulaiman, R.V. (2009)
Extension: Object of reform,
engine for innovation. Outlook on
Agriculture, 38(3), 267–273.
Spielman, D. J. (2005). Innovation systems
perspectives on developing-country
agriculture: A critical review.
International Service for National
Agricultural Research (ISNAR)
Division Discussion Paper 2.
Washington, DC: International
Food Policy Research Institute.
Sulaiman, R.V., & Davis, K. (2012). The
new extensionist: Roles, strategies,
and capacities to strengthen
extension and advisory services.
Global Forum for Rural Advisory
Services (GFRAS) Position Paper.
Lindau: GFRAS.
Sulaiman, R.V., & Davis, K. (2013). The
“New Extensionist”: Roles,
strategies, and capacities to
17

strengthen extension and advisory
services. Summary and
Recommendations. Global Forum
for Rural Advisory Services
(GFRAS) Position Paper. Lindau:
GFRAS.
Sulaiman, R.V., & Hall, A. J. (2002). An
innovation system perspective on
the restructuring of agricultural
extension: Evidence from India.
Outlook on Agriculture, 30(4),
235–343.
Sulaiman, R.V, Hall, A., Kalaivani, N.J.,
Dorai, K., & Reddy, T.S.V. (2012).
Necessary, but not sufficient:
Critiquing the role of information
and communication technology in
putting knowledge into use.
Journal of Agricultural Education
and Extension, 18(4), 331-346.
doi:10.1080/1389224X.2012.6917
82
Sulaiman, R.V., & Holt, G. (2002).
Extension, poverty and
vulnerability in India. Country
study for the Neuchatel Initiative.
Working Paper 154. London, UK:
Overseas Development Institute.
Swanson, B. (2006). The changing role of
agricultural extension in a global
economy. Journal of International
Agricultural and Extension
Education, 13(3), 5-17. doi:
10.5191/jiaee.2006.13301
Swanson, B. (2010). Roles and changes
within pluralistic extension systems
in different regions and countries.
Presentation for the Modernizing
Extension and Advisory Services
(MEAS) and United States Agency
for International Development
(USAID). University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Illinois:
MEAS.
Swanson, B., & Rajalahti, R. (2010).
Strengthening agricultural
extension and advisory systems:
Procedures for assessing,
transforming, and evaluating
extension systems. Agriculture and
Rural Development Discussion
Paper 44. Washington, DC: The
World Bank.
World Bank. (2012). Agricultural
innovation systems: An investment
sourcebook. Washington, DC:
International Bank for
Reconstruction and
Development/International
Development Association or The
World Bank.
18