The expectation that agricultural advisors will facilitate Interactive Innovation is accompanied by novel expectations for their competency profile. In addition to their traditional technical basis, advisors are now expected to organise multi-actor processes, facilitate learning, mediate conflict, etc. Innovation support services are inherently diverse. To date, no precise list of competencies required by agricultural advisors to support Interactive Innovation has been defined. To form the basis for a competency profile, we examine the competencies currently being expected from an agricultural advisor. This suggested profile, developed in the context of the H2020 i2connect project, is based on a literature review, semi-structured interviews with co-creation experts, and an online validation workshop. We explore five themes: (a) basic disposition and attitude, (b) content competence, (c) methodological competence, (d) organisational competence, and (e) reflection, learning, and personal development. In practice, the profile can be used as either a tool for setting up co-creation processes or as the foundation for the development of new training materials. We conclude with a recommendation to create teams of advisors rather than relying on individuals, as a team is more likely to comprise the diversity of required competencies.

This PhD research examines how the role of agricultural advisors is evolving in light of the transition towards more sustainable farming systems and changing policy expectations across Europe. Central to the research is the question of how advisors can support farmers in complex innovation and change processes, in which collaboration between diverse actors is becoming increasingly important. Based on a mixed-methods approach, including European surveys, interviews, and focus groups, the PhD develops a comprehensive competency profile for agricultural advisors as innovation intermediaries. This profile includes not only technical knowledge, but also competences related to collaboration, process facilitation, organisation, and reflection. The findings show that the broad range of required competences is difficult to fulfil by one individual advisor alone, highlighting the importance of complementary teams and diverse advisory services. In addition, the research develops a new instrument to assess European advisors’ visions of innovation. The results indicate that advisors are open to more system-oriented approaches to innovation, but that their daily practice remains strongly characterised by individual farmer support, administrative assistance, and the translation of complex regulations. The PhD points to an important tension between the ambitious expectations from policy — where advisors are assigned a key role in sustainable transitions — and the reality of advisory practice, which is shaped by historical roles, organisational structures, and limited resources. The findings advocate for stronger recognition of diversity and complementarity within the advisory landscape, so that agricultural advisors can be better supported in their contribution to sustainable agricultural innovation and transition processes.