# How AKIS players deal with the idea that farmers know best: attempts to redefine modes of knowledge production and dissemination in France

Nicolas J. Giraud, Laurent Hazard, Hélène Brives

## ► To cite this version:

Nicolas J. Giraud, Laurent Hazard, Hélène Brives. How AKIS players deal with the idea that farmers know best: attempts to redefine modes of knowledge production and dissemination in France. 27th European Seminar on Extension & Education. Inclusivity and transformations of agricultural extension and education, CETRAD, Jun 2025, Vila Real (UTAD), France. 5 p., 10.5281/zenodo.18111917. hal-05485262

HAL Id: hal-05485262

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05485262v1

Submitted on 30 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# How AKIS players deal with the idea that farmers know best: attempts to redefine modes of knowledge production and dissemination in France

Giraud, N.<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, Hazard, L.<fnref n="2" />, Brives, H.<fnref n="3" />

nicolas.giraud@aude.chambagri.fr

## Conference topic: Topic 1 - AKIS approaches and policies: from concepts to action and impact

## Short abstract (200 words):

The transfer-of-technology model which has served industrial and green revolution agriculture misfits the transition towards agroecology. Starting in 2012, the French government began promoting agroecology. This political shift aimed to reform the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) in France. It encouraged a "farmer first" approach, valuing farmers' knowledge. This new direction led to a redistribution of epistemic authority, which had previously been concentrated in historical institutions such as the Chambers of Agriculture. As agricultural advisory services became increasingly subject to competition (market and project-based logics), the Chambers repositioned themselves. They reinvested in back-office functions to ensure the reliability of knowledge produced through bottom-up approaches. They also sought to update the skills of front-office staff, represented by agricultural advisors. The roles of agricultural development professionals began to change. They now included tasks such as networking, formalizing practices, and disseminating knowledge. This strategic repositioning partly revived diffusionist logics based on centralization. However, it also generated operational tensions, especially regarding the meaning of work, professional recognition, and the match between required skills and the demands of agroecological transitions.

## 4 pages extended abstract<fnref n="1" />

### 1. Purpose

Agricultural advisory actors form part of an Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) (Leeuwis, 2004; Sutherland et al., 2023). This system brings together a wide range of actors involved in the production of agricultural knowledge: universities, research institutes, experimental stations, farmers, agri-food companies, specialized journals, agricultural schools, and others. Within this system, advisory work has long followed a "technology transfer" model. Knowledge generated by researchers was disseminated to farmers or passed on from "pioneers" to others (Girard, 2014). This linear view of innovation is increasingly challenged, especially in the face of the complex and diverse problems posed by agroecology (Meynard, 2017).

In France, the current organization of agricultural development and advisory services stems from the modernization of agriculture in the 1960s (Vedel, 2008). It follows a Fordist logic of knowledge production, structured like a chain: researchers produce knowledge, technical institutes and Chambers of Agriculture adapt it, and farmers apply it (Girard, 2014). In this model, epistemic authority is held by technoscientific actors—mainly researchers, engineers, and advisors (Compagnone, 2022).

Agroecology legitimizes the participation of new actors—including farmers themselves—as co-producers of knowledge (Utter et al., 2021). Epistemic communities—groups with recognized

<footnote n="1">¹ Chambre d'agriculture de l'Aude, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² UMR AGIR, INRAE, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ ISARA-Lyon, France</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ Maximum length: 20 000 characters, spaces, tables and references included</footnote>
expertise and authority in knowledge production—can emerge and produce distinct forms of knowledge (Meyer & Molyneux-Hodgson, 2011). As a result, epistemic authority is becoming more dispersed (Compagnone, 2022). This study examines how agricultural development in France is evolving to integrate this dispersion of authority and the new forms of knowledge it brings. More specifically, we analyze (1) how development actors renegotiate their roles in the production and sharing of knowledge, and (2) how professional roles, especially that of the agricultural advisor in the Chambers of Agriculture, are being redefined.

## 2. Design/Methodology/Approach

This study focuses on the creation, from 2016 onward, of Innovation and Research & Development (IRD) units within the Chambers of Agriculture in France. These new units introduced new roles and tasks to strengthen the skills of agricultural advisors. One of these new knowledge management functions to integrate farmer-led innovation within the AKIS. Our analysis is based on institutional document review (laws, reports...), around thirty interviews conducted between 2022 and 2023 with actors involved in structuring these new services, and participant observation during ten professional events focused on the structuration of knowledge transfer and IRD units. Our analytical framework traces the main steps in the emergence of these new roles within the Chambers of Agriculture. It also seeks to highlight the controversies related to the redefinition of the Chambers' role in the agricultural development landscape.

## 3. Findings

### Farmers' experiences as sources of knowledge to support agroecology

In 2012, France adopted a public policy promoting agroecology, framing it as an “overarching reference” (Lamine et al., 2019). This policy aimed to reorganize the agricultural development system by integrating farmers’ experiential knowledge into processes of knowledge production and sharing (Compagnone et al., 2018). The 2014 Agricultural Orientation Law gave this ambition a legal foundation. It created the “Groupements d’Intérêt Économique et Environnemental” (GIEE), which recognized collective action as a lever for agroecological innovation. This policy was led by the Minister of Agriculture at the time, Stéphane Le Foll. He promoted a “pragmatic” approach. According to him, the idea was to learn from pioneers in order to foster collective dynamics. The aim was to demonstrate the benefits of systemic change, starting from successful local initiatives and scaling them up. This logic was framed as “massification” (Le Foll, 2013; Slimi et al., 2025). Before this political shift, farmers’ experiences were not widely considered legitimate sources of knowledge in debates on the greening of agriculture. Yet the idea that “farmers know best” had existed in academic spheres since the 1980s, notably in the work of Robert Chambers (Salembier et al., 2021). This school of thought argued that agroecological transition requires a shift from input-intensive to knowledge-intensive agriculture (Duru et al., 2015). Recognition of farmers’ knowledge also existed in non-institutional networks, such as those promoting conservation agriculture. These networks inspired Minister Le Foll.

Implementing agroecology involved a dual imperative: supporting grassroots innovations and ensuring their wide dissemination. This compromise structured the governance of the GIEE and, more broadly, agricultural development. From 2014, the Chambers of Agriculture were assigned a new mission: to coordinate the out-scaling of GIEE projects, in partnership with other development organizations. The task was to support, connect, and give visibility to GIEE initiatives in all their diversity. The goal was to foster experience sharing beyond the initial collectives. It also aimed to make the knowledge produced useful to all actors in agricultural development, including those in R&D. Nationwide, this coordination was based on roadmaps co-constructed by regional Chambers and state services. In Occitanie, this roadmap included support actions for knowledge management (seminars, webinars, etc.), where
facilitators discovered tools to highlight group experiences (guides, newsletters, resource centers). Some tools were mandatory, such as the R&D Agri platform and the website collectifs-agroecologie.fr, where outputs from collectives (factsheets, testimonials, CASDAR deliverables) had to be listed and made accessible.

## Knowledge quality within a distributed knowledge system

With the promotion of agroecology from 2012 onward, agricultural knowledge became increasingly fragmented. Farmers, digital actors, NGOs, and public and private institutions all began producing knowledge, each with its own logic. New information and communication technologies became a target for investment, particularly among tech companies viewing them as market opportunities (Compagnone, 2022). This multiplication of sources raised concerns about the reliability of knowledge produced through bottom-up innovation. In 2013, just before the Agricultural Orientation Law, the Minister of Agriculture tasked the head of the development actors' consortium with identifying agroecological practices to promote and relevant policy measures (Doré, 2013). This report stressed the need to "*capitalize references*" and to build "*a shared information system, qualification mechanisms for knowledge, and a joint technical review.*"

Although agroecology implies a renewed relationship to knowledge and innovation (Meynard, 2017), knowledge produced by local initiatives was often considered unreliable. The Guillou Report stated: "*Farmers' references exist and are numerous, but they are partial and lack precision. They are not comparable, not multi-annual. They do not always include economic and environmental dimensions.*" The report also pointed out that some publicly funded data was hard to access. It cited information overload caused by the proliferation of poorly interconnected digital systems (CGAAER, 2020). Each organization developed its own platform, which raised issues of accessibility, clarity, and knowledge sharing. As a result, both the transfer and practical use of knowledge were reportedly limited (Gachie-Vinson, GIS RA, 2013).

In this context, historical development structures—particularly Chambers of Agriculture and technical institutes—reinvested in mechanisms to centralize, standardize, and validate knowledge from dispersed innovation processes, in order to redistribute it to advisors. This strategic repositioning took form in 2016, when a decree established innovation and R&D services within the Chambers of Agriculture. In partnership with technical institutes, these services took charge of qualification and centralization efforts. In Occitanie, innovation services were explicitly designed as "support to agricultural advisory work." The unit was named "IRD-Advice" to underline its support role to *front-office* activities. The goal was to back up existing structures and act as a true "*back-office*" for advisors. A Chamber official involved in designing these services explained: "*Internally, we often say that our main target is not farmers, but advisors.*"

## Reinvesting the back-office to update front-office skills in a more competitive advisory field

The recognition of farmers as knowledge producers, the rise of digital technologies, and the arrival of new advisory actors reshaped the balance in agricultural development (Compagnone, 2022). Facing this reconfiguration, historical institutions—Chambers of Agriculture and technical institutes—sought to reaffirm their role in knowledge production and validation in an increasingly competitive landscape.

"*Advisory work is very competitive. [...] There are innovations everywhere now. Everyone is a bit lost*", said a Chamber official. The reorganization of agricultural development was not just about embracing grassroots innovations. It reflected a strategic repositioning, with new functions of coordination, qualification, and dissemination of knowledge.
Innovation and R&D services created from 2016 in regional Chambers were explicitly tasked with supporting field advisory services by facilitating knowledge management of on-farm innovations. This involved collecting, formatting, and disseminating technical content for advisors, while strengthening partnerships with innovation stakeholders such as technical institutes, CIVAMs, and farmer networks. The idea was to structure a back-office to equip the front-office with relevant knowledge material resources. These included thematic seminars (e.g., on climate change adaptation), booths at agricultural fairs, and platforms publishing factsheets based on expert-reviewed feedback (AGLAE).

However, this top-down logic raised concerns. One advisor voiced skepticism: “Yes, the innovation seminars, the IRD days, it's nice, of course. But in the end, it's just big shows—what does it actually produce? In the end, we put all the institute logos, those of the Chambers, and we put the institutes on a pedestal, and they barely give us a crumb of what they do in R&D. They keep everything for their own events at 100 euros a ticket. It's funny because we often talk about peer-to-peer exchange for farmers, but for advisors, there's nothing.” Others pointed to poorly recognized work overload: “That's not my job. My job is to be with my farmers. When I write a report for a platform, speak at a seminar, or work on a booth, I'm not in the field” (agricultural advisor, April 2023).

4. Practical and Theoretical Implications

Our analysis shows how the institutionalization of agroecology is reshaping the French AKIS. This evolution reflects a response to the fragmentation of epistemic authority in agriculture (Compagnone, 2022). It raises the question of who is legitimate to produce and disseminate qualified knowledge. Chambers of agriculture, historical actors in the knowledge field, are reinvesting in *back-office* functions. They are creating new services and roles to ensure the quality of knowledge drawn from field experience and to update *front-office* skills (Labarthe & Laurent, 2011). The reinvestment in knowledge management activities to integrate farmers’ innovations within institutional R&D processes embodies this new configuration.

This reconfiguration is also transforming the professions in agricultural development. New roles are emerging (knowledge transfer manager), and the role of the agricultural advisor is evolving. The advisor no longer simply transmits research-based knowledge to a local group of farmers. They are now involved in broader dynamics of knowledge production, formalization, and circulation. However, a tension remains between the desire to structure and share knowledge—typical of a service standardization logic—and the realities of supporting practice changes in the field. In agroecology, this support relies more than ever on a personalized logic (Labarthe & Laurent, 2011). This raises questions about the actual effectiveness of upskilling schemes and the system's ability to fully recognize advisors' expertise in the production and circulation of agroecological knowledge.

5. References

Compagnone, C., Lamine, C., & Dupré, L. (2018). The production and circulation of agricultural knowledge as interrogated by agroecology. Revue d'anthropologie des connaissances, 122(2), a-aa.

Compagnone, C. (2022). Nouveau régime de savoirs et transformation des autorités épistémiques en agriculture. L'émergence de l'agroécologie dans un contexte de numérisation de l'agriculture. Sciences, techniques et agricultures: gouverner pour transformer, 231-236p.

Doré, T. (2013). Note de lecture de" Vers des agricultures doublement performantes pour concilier compétitivité et respect de l'environnement", rapport de M. Guillou et al. au Ministre en charge de l'agriculture. Agronomie, Environnement & Sociétés, 3(2), 167-168.
Duru, M., Therond, O., Martin, G., Martin-Clouaire, R., Magne, M. A., Justes, E., ... & Sarthou, J. P. (2015). How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review. Agronomy for sustainable development, 35, 1259-1281.

Girard, N. (2014). Quels sont les nouveaux enjeux de gestion des connaissances. L'exemple de la transition écologique des systèmes agricoles. ESKA | Revue internationale de psychosociologie et de gestion des comportements organisationnels

Labarthe, P., & Laurent, C. (2011). Économie des services et politiques publiques de conseil agricole. Cahiers Agricultures, 20(5), 343-351.

Lamine, C., Niederle, P. A., & Ollivier, G. (2019). Alliances et controverses dans la mise en politique de l'agroécologie au Brésil et en France. Natures Sciences Sociétés, 27(1), 6-19.

Leeuwis, C., Leeuwis, C., & Ban, A. (2004). Communication for rural innovation (Vol. 231). Blackwell publishers.

Le Foll, S. (2013). Une vraie ambition pour l'agroécologie. Revue Projet, 332(1), 20-23.

Meyer, M., & Molyneux-Hodgson, S. (2011). «Communautés épistémiques»: une notion utile pour théoriser les collectifs en sciences?. Terrains & travaux, 18(1), 141-154.

Meynard, J. M. (2017). L'agroécologie, un nouveau rapport aux savoirs et à l'innovation. OCL Oilseeds and fats crops and lipids, 24(3), 9-p.

Salembier, C., Segrestin, B., Weil, B., Jeuffroy, M. H., Cadoux, S., Cros, C., ... & Meynard, J. M. (2021). A theoretical framework for tracking farmers' innovations to support farming system design. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 41(5), 61.

Slimi, C., Prost, L., & Jeuffroy, M. H. (2024). Massification de l'agroécologie: que dit l'état de l'art et quelle stratégie construire? (Doctoral dissertation, INRAE; OFB, Office Français de la Biodiversité).

Sutherland, L. A., & Labarthe, P. (2022). Introducing 'microAKIS': a farmer-centric approach to understanding the contribution of advice to agricultural innovation. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 28(5), 525-547.

Utter, A., White, A., Méndez, V. E., & Morris, K. (2021). Co-creation of knowledge in agroecology. Elem Sci Anth, 9(1), 00026.

Vedel, G. (2008). Développement agricole: la fin du modèle à la française? 1. Pour, (1), 199-207.