20 pages, via online journal, Purpose: This paper demystifies the processes, methodologies and outputs of three co-design projects, identifying how and to what extent are aims and principles of the multi-actor approach realised and upheld in the field. Implications from the cases for participatory principles are discussed.
Design/Methodology/approach: A detailed ethnographic account is presented of three multi-actor co-design cases, supporting diverse readers’ interpretations and learnings.
Findings: Three paradoxes were identifiable from the multi-actor processes: (1) outputs can be orphaned when they lack strong identifiers and affiliations with discrete professional communities outside of the co-design team; (2) combining diverse knowledges co-design can generate outputs that are new and strange (rather than familiar and acceptable) to end-users; (3) for Responsible Research and Innovation, co-creating interventions that are challenging (rather than popular) to society may be required.
Practical implications: Awareness of dynamics and paradoxes arising in the implementation of multi-actor co-design supports enhanced facilitation of processes and impacts of outcomes. Together, the paradoxes highlight the critical importance of communications and engagement initiatives across diverse communities in the aftermath of co-design efforts.
Theoretical implications: Although co-design processes are case-dependent, reflexive accounts of how they play out contribute to the body of knowledge of how co-design may be better understood. The cases in this paper identify paradoxes with implications for principles and theory of multi-actor co-design.
Originality/Value: This paper presents a detailed account of three unique co-design processes. Practical and theoretical implications of the cases are identified.
17 pages., Via online journal., Purpose: This paper presents economic and pedagogical motivations for adopting information and communications technology (ICT)-mediated learning networks in agricultural education and extension. It proposes a framework for networked learning in agricultural extension and contributes a theoretical and case-based rationale for adopting the networked learning paradigm.
Design/methodology/approach: A review of the literature highlights the economic and pedagogical need for adopting a networked learning approach. Two examples are described to instantiate the language for learning networks: a small community of farmers in India and large Twitter community of Australian farmers.
Findings: This paper reviews evidence that successful networked learning interventions are already occurring within agricultural extension. It provides a framework for describing these interventions and for helping future designers of learning networks in agricultural extension.
Practical implication: Facilitation of learning networks can serve to achieve efficient agricultural extension that connects farmers across distances for constructivist learning. To realize these benefits, designers of learning networks need to consider set design, social design and epistemic design.
Theoretical implication: This paper contributes a theoretical framework for designing, implementing and analysing learning networks in agriculture. It does this by integrating existing ideas from networked learning and applying them to the agricultural context through examples.
Originality/value: This paper contributes an understanding of the value of networked learning for extension in terms of economic and pedagogical benefits. It provides a language for talking about learning networks that is useful for future researchers and for practitioners.
