This document on Good Practices in Extension Research and Evaluation is developed as a hands on reference manual to help young researchers, research students, and field extension functionaries in choosing the right research methods for conducting quality research and evaluation in extension. This manual has been compiled by the resource persons who participated in the Workshop on ‘Good

Although it is not always acknowledged, power differences between partners fundamentally affect Agricultural Research for Development (ARD) partnerships. In referring to its African-European ARD partnerships, PAEPARD has often alluded to aspects of power without naming them as such. The project was established to create “equitable and balanced partnerships” between: a) researchers and research users, and b) African and European partners.

Inclusion is a key issue for Agricultural Research for Development (ARD). Development goals in and of themselves call for better livelihoods and opportunities for the less privileged actors working in agriculture. They also call for greater equity and balanced representation of the population at an institutional level. This brief focuses on how ARD processes can more sensitively address gender relations and youth issues. Women and young people have distinctive needs and interests which can be less visible within broader “Producer Organizations”, for example.

This paper aims to map the experience of the RIU Asia projects and draw out the main innovation management tactics being observed while laying the groundwork for further research on this topic. It provides a framework to help analyse the sorts of innovation management tasks that are becoming important. This framework distinguishes four elements of innovation management: (i) Functions (ii) Actions (iii) Toolsand (iv) Organisational Format.

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.

Mounting evidence points to the fact that climate change is already affecting agriculture and food security, which will therefore make the challenge of ending hunger, achieving food security, improving nutrition, and promoting sustainable agriculture even more difficult (FAO 2016). Through Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13, the 2030 Agenda calls for strengthened resilience and adaptive capacity in response to natural hazards and climate-related disasters globally.

In early 2020, GFRAS provided support to the Agricultural Extension in South Asia (AESA) Network and the Bangladesh Agricultural Extension Network (BAEN) in order to customize one of the NELK Modules in the context of Bangladesh. The BAEN Executive Committee selected the GFRAS NELK Module 7 on ‘Facilitation for Development’ for customization. AESA and BAEN jointly implemented the development of the customized module for Bangladesh. The process of customization consisted of five phases spread over a span of six months.

Extension and advisory services (EAS) play a key role in facilitating innovation for sustainable agricultural development. To strengthen this role, appropriate investment and conducive policies are needed in EAS, guided by evidence. It is therefore essential to examine EAS characteristics and performance in the context of modern, pluralistic and increasingly digital EAS systems. In response to this need, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has developed guidelines and instruments for the systematic assessment of national EAS systems.

Extension and advisory services (EAS) play a key role in facilitating innovation processes, empowering marginalized groups through capacity development, and linking farmers with markets. EAS are increasingly provided by a range of actors and funded from diverse sources. With the broadened scope of EAS and the growing complexity of the system, the quantitative performance indicators used in the past (for example related to investment, staffing or productivity) are no longer adequate to assess the performance of EAS systems.