Bridging the research-practice divide in organic and low external-input agriculture Laxmi Prasad Pant lpant@uoguelph.ca School of Environment, Enterprise and Development, University of Waterloo While enhancing development impacts of the mainstream agricultural research has become a central issue of the twenty-first century, various alternative approaches to the mainstream agriculture have appeared but their impacts are also mixed. It is often ambiguous which alternative and whose reality is being sought. Non-certified organic growers and smallholder farmers are increasingly alienated from the mainstream development interventions, mainly due to the gap between research and practice, the quest for technological innovation and economic growth, and the corporate capture of alternative agricultural markets, specifically the certification of organic and fair trade produce in the global markets. Based on the empirical evidence generated through direct observation, key informant interviews, focus group interviews and document review, this paper characterizes that the community-based participatory research and development processes in conventional agriculture brings science into society, the ‘mode I research participation’ under the realm of expert-led post-normal science, while similar processes in alternative agriculture brings society into science, the ‘mode II research participation’ under the realm of farmer-led post-normal science. The findings revealed that an apparent challenge to mainstream the mode II research participation is to unlearn already learned habits and practices while learning new ones – conventional scientists and large-scale farmers have difficulty to unlearn the science and technology behind industrial agriculture, and similarly the alternative stakeholder groups have difficulty to unlearn social, cultural and spiritual embeddedness of organic and low-external input agriculture – as a preparatory step to foster broad-based learning, experimentation and innovation under the realm of post-normal science. Therefore, the role of innovation brokers would be to engage multiple stakeholders in unlearning, learning and innovation processes in their respective ‘silos’ and to facilitate wishful liberation from their ‘expert mind-sets’, the habits and practices that are entrenched within disciplinary, sectoral and organizational boundaries. Introduction The increasing divide between agricultural research, and local and indigenous practices has often compromised the development impacts of agricultural research. The notion that formal research systems as the source of innovation is being challenged by the innovation systems thinking where all relevant stakeholders, including researchers, development practitioners, local and indigenous people, rural farmers and urban consumers, are potentially creative and innovative in respective domains (Edquist 1997; Lundvall 1992; Nelson 1993). The innovation systems approach refers to the network of public and private stakeholders engaged in production, exchange, regulation, adaptation and application of knowledge pertaining to a particular economic activity, such as input-intensive agriculture and low external-input agriculture.