Presentation short abstract

This study examines how agroecology researchers at Embrapa engage with diverse knowledges while navigating institutional constraints. It challenges the dichotomous framing of agroecology as either "political" or "institutional" to explore the plurality of agroecological pathways to sustainability.

Presentation long abstract

Agroecology's multiple dimensions— as science, practice, and movement—encompass a plurality of knowledge systems. Yet these dimensions receive different weights in different social contexts. Current scholarship has come to frame agroecology as a binary between "political" (movement-led) and "institutional" variants, with the latter representing the co-optation of agroecology and arguably the loss of its transformative potential. Agricultural research organizations generally privilege positivist, technocratic approaches, and might be assumed to neglect the political dimension of agroecology.

However, the political - institutional dichotomy oversimplifies the complex positionality of agroecology researchers who actively engage with farmers' and Indigenous knowledges while working within institutional contexts. This paper examines how researchers at Embrapa, Brazil's national agricultural research organization, engage with diverse knowledges while advancing agroecology. Drawing on the concept of "co-productive agility", the paper analyses how these Embrapa researchers strategically navigate tensions between institutional constraints and their participation in Brazil's agroecology movement. In doing so, the paper presents these actors not as external to social movements but as part of agroecology's plural, dynamic constellation—a perspective that opens space for productive engagement across difference rather than reinforcing polarization.

Based on interviews with Embrapa researchers as well as other actors in local agroecology networks, the paper explores multiple, situated pathways to sustainability. By recognizing the plurality and complexity of agroecological approaches, we can move beyond polarization toward more nuanced understandings that facilitate dialogue among different agendas and ultimately strengthen agroecology's transformative potential.