Technology and Innovation Management Practices for a Sustainable Knowledge Economy: Paradoxes of Capacity, Coordination, and Epistemic Sovereignty in Agricultural Innovation in Lusaka Province, Zambia

Technology and Innovation Management Practices for a Sustainable Knowledge Economy: Paradoxes of Capacity, Coordination, and Epistemic Sovereignty in Agricultural Innovation in Lusaka Province, Zambia | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Technology and Innovation Management Practices for a Sustainable Knowledge Economy: Paradoxes of Capacity, Coordination, and Epistemic Sovereignty in Agricultural Innovation in Lusaka Province, Zambia Leviticus Nkata This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9365103/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates Technology and Innovation Management (TIM) practices among formally registered agricultural enterprises and innovation system actors in Lusaka Province, Zambia, examining how these practices align with principles of a Sustainable Knowledge Economy (SKE). Employing an interpretivist-constructivist paradigm, the study utilised a collective case study design with purposive sampling and a maximum variation strategy to capture diverse institutional perspectives across six key actor types — private consultancy, international research organisations, and national government agencies — specifically selected to represent the principal functional positions within the Lusaka Province agricultural innovation ecosystem. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with six elite participants, supplemented by documentary analysis of five organisational sources. Thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-phase framework generated contextually grounded insights. The findings reveal three fundamental paradoxes: a capacity paradox whereby donor funding abundance (approximately 90% of R&D financing) coexists with severe absorptive capacity constraints, evidenced by 50% grant burn rates and 97% application rejection rates; an epistemic sovereignty deficit in which domestic knowledge production occurs alongside externalised validation authority; and an inclusion paradox whereby sophisticated innovations systematically exclude smallholder beneficiaries through infrastructure prerequisites and financial gatekeeping. Environmental sustainability is framed instrumentally as a productivity co-benefit, whilst social inclusion rhetoric is undermined by elite capture. The research contributes theoretically by challenging the componential fallacy in National Innovation Systems theory and conceptualising epistemic sovereignty deficits in post-colonial innovation systems. Whilst findings are grounded in Lusaka Province, the structural dynamics identified resonate with broader patterns in sub-Saharan African agricultural innovation systems. Policy recommendations address infrastructure-first investment, regulatory harmonisation, domestic R&D funding sovereignty, and curriculum reform. Agricultural Economics & Policy technology and innovation management sustainable knowledge economy agricultural innovation national innovation systems Lusaka Province Zambia epistemic sovereignty capacity paradox Introduction The 21st-century global economic landscape is defined by knowledge and technology as primary drivers of competitive advantage, environmental sustainability, and inclusive growth (OECD, 2019 ; World Bank, 2021 ). For resource-dependent nations like Zambia, this transition represents a fundamental imperative in the face of volatile commodity markets, escalating climate crises, and widening social inequalities (African Development Bank, 2023 ; UNDP, 2023 ). Zambia's economic architecture exhibits profound structural vulnerabilities rooted in persistent copper export dependence, which accounted for approximately 70% of total export earnings in 2022, and rain-fed agriculture, which employs approximately 54% of the labour force and contributes roughly 20% of GDP (Mataa & Chikopela, 2024 ; Zambia Statistics Agency, 2023 ). Agriculture occupies a uniquely strategic position in Zambia's transformation narrative. It is simultaneously the sector that employs the largest proportion of the labour force and exhibits some of the lowest levels of productivity and technological sophistication (FAO, 2009 , 2023 ). Despite abundant arable land (approximately 58% of total land area) and favourable agro-climatic conditions, agricultural productivity remains stagnant in many areas, with smallholder farmers operating with technologies and practices that have changed little over decades (Mason & Jayne, 2013 ; Sitko et al., 2018 ). This productivity paradox exists within a context of enormous latent potential. Technology and Innovation Management (TIM) provides the conceptual and operational framework for agricultural transformation (Schilling, 2020 ; Tidd & Bessant, 2018 ). It encompasses the systematic identification, acquisition, development, and deployment of technological innovations, extending beyond mere technology adoption to include organisational culture, knowledge management, collaborative networks, and the institutional environment shaping innovation outcomes (Edquist, 2005 ; Lundvall, 2010 ). At the systemic level, TIM operates within a National Innovation System (NIS) — the network of actors, institutions, and linkages that collectively determine the direction and effectiveness of innovation within an economy (Freeman, 1995 ; Lundvall, 1992 ). The concept of a Sustainable Knowledge Economy (SKE), which forms the normative horizon of this research, represents an evolution beyond earlier formulations of the knowledge economy (OECD, 1996 ; Powell & Snellman, 2004 ). An SKE explicitly integrates environmental, social, and economic sustainability dimensions into the Knowledge Economy paradigm (Carayannis & Campbell, 2012 ; OECD, 2020 ), translating in the agricultural context to precision farming, climate-smart agriculture, sustainable intensification, and inclusive value chains (CGIAR, 2022 ; FAO, 2022a ; Pretty et al., 2018 ). For Zambia, the policy aspiration towards an SKE is articulated through the Eighth National Development Plan (8NDP, 2022–2026) and Vision 2030 (GRZ, 2006; Ministry of Finance and National Planning, 2022 ). Yet a persistent gap exists between policy articulation and implementation. Actual R&D expenditure remains below 0.3% of GDP against the UNESCO benchmark of 1% (UNCTAD, 2022 ; UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2025 ), university–industry linkages remain weak and fragmented, and extension services are chronically underfunded (Chavula et al., 2022 ). Infrastructure deficits compound these challenges: only approximately 7% of rural households have electricity access and 3G or better mobile internet reaches only 33% of rural areas (REA, 2024; GSMA, 2024 ). Lusaka Province represents the institutional centre of Zambia's agricultural innovation architecture. As the locus of the Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI), the Ministry of Agriculture's headquarters, the principal private advisory sector, and the Zambian offices of major international research organisations, it concentrates the key actors whose interactions — or lack thereof — determine the direction and effectiveness of TIM practice at the national policy interface. Investigating TIM at this node is therefore analytically strategic: it illuminates the system's highest-capacity actors and thus identifies ceiling constraints that cannot be attributed to peripheral resource deficits. This study addresses a critical empirical gap by investigating how formally registered agricultural enterprises and innovation system actors in Lusaka Province conceptualise, manage, and execute TIM practices, and how these practices align with SKE principles. The central research question is: How do agricultural enterprises and innovation actors in Lusaka Province conceptualise, implement, and experience TIM practices, and how do these practices align with SKE principles of knowledge intensity, environmental sustainability, and social inclusion? Four sub-questions address perceptions and lived experiences (RQ1), barriers and enablers (RQ2), SKE alignment (RQ3), and policy implications (RQ4). The paper makes three theoretical contributions. First, it challenges the componential fallacy in classical NIS theory by demonstrating that system components can coexist with profound dysfunction when relational infrastructure remains underdeveloped. Second, it theorises capacity paradoxes wherein financial capital cannot substitute for absorptive capacity. Third, it conceptualises epistemic sovereignty deficits characteristic of post-colonial innovation systems. Empirically, the study provides rich, contextualised insights into agricultural innovation at the enterprise level in Lusaka Province — a domain that existing research, which addresses either macro-level policy or micro-level farmer adoption, has largely neglected. Whilst the study's empirical scope is confined to Lusaka Province, the structural dynamics identified resonate with broader patterns in sub-Saharan African agricultural innovation systems, and the conceptual contributions are generalisable at the theoretical level. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review National Innovation Systems and Agricultural Innovation National Innovation Systems (NIS) theory, developed primarily from OECD empirical material by Freeman ( 1987 ), Lundvall ( 1992 ), and Nelson ( 1993 ), conceptualises innovation as occurring through interactions among firms, universities, research institutions, and government bodies within specific national contexts. Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) extend this framework to the sectoral level, emphasising the role of farmer organisations, extension services, and agri-value chain actors (Klerkx et al., 2012 ; Spielman et al., 2009 ). Recent NIS scholarship has addressed developing-economy contexts more explicitly: Muchie et al. ( 2003 ) foregrounded colonial disruption; Sampath and Oyelaran-Oyeyinka ( 2009 ) emphasised adaptation over frontier research; and Kraemer-Mbula and Wamae ( 2010 ) highlighted informal innovation networks in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Zambian AIS is characterised by chronic under-resourcing, weak actor linkages, policy instability, and inadequate private sector engagement (Daka, 2013 ; Suchá et al., 2024 ; UNCTAD, 2022 ). The Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI) and the National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research (NISA), nominally responsible for research and commercialisation respectively, operate in institutional silos with limited functional linkages. Agricultural R&D expenditure, estimated at 0.3% of GDP, falls catastrophically short of the 1–2% of agricultural GDP recommended by international benchmarks (ASTI, 2022; Beintema & Stads, 2019 ). Sustainable Knowledge Economy Framework The SKE framework synthesises scholarship on knowledge economies (Drucker, 1969 ; Powell & Snellman, 2004 ), sustainable development (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987 ), and inclusive innovation (Chataway et al., 2014 ; Heeks et al., 2014 ), operationalised through three pillars: knowledge intensity, environmental sustainability, and social inclusion. In the agricultural context, knowledge intensity refers to the application of science, information technology, and innovation management to increase productivity and value creation. Environmental sustainability encompasses climate-smart agriculture, ecological production methods, and reduced resource use. Social inclusion requires that smallholder farmers benefit equitably from innovation (CGIAR, 2022 ; FAO, 2022a ). Cozzens and Sutz ( 2014 ) and Schillo and Robinson ( 2017 ) have demonstrated that inclusive innovation frameworks often fail to account for power asymmetries enabling elite capture even when policies explicitly target marginalised groups. As the Lusaka Province evidence substantiates, despite rhetorical commitments to smallholder inclusion, structural mechanisms — restrictive banking criteria, high grant rejection rates, infrastructure prerequisites — systematically exclude intended beneficiaries through logics of formalisation, creditworthiness, and commercial viability. Technology and Innovation Management in Developing Agriculture TIM encompasses the systematic identification, acquisition, development, and deployment of technological innovations, extending beyond technology adoption to include strategic planning, knowledge management, collaborative networks, and organisational learning (Burgelman et al., 2009 ; Schilling, 2020 ; Tidd & Bessant, 2018 ). For agricultural enterprises in developing economies, developing TIM capabilities is challenged by limited managerial and technical expertise, severe resource constraints, weak linkages with knowledge institutions, a fragmented innovation ecosystem, and risk-averse cultures rooted in historical economic volatility (Chapoto & Jayne, 2009 ; Daka, 2013 ). The absorptive capacity framework (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990 ) is particularly relevant to the Zambian context, as it conceptualises the ability to recognise the value of new external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends. Absorptive capacity is not merely a function of current skill levels but of accumulated organisational capabilities built over time — a critical insight for understanding why sudden resource inflows cannot instantiate the procedural knowledge, tacit routines, and institutional memory necessary for effective deployment. Methodology Research Design and Paradigm This study is situated within an interpretivist-constructivist paradigm, adopting a relativist ontological stance that posits reality as multiple, socially constructed, and context-dependent (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018 ; Guba & Lincoln, 1994 ). A collective (multiple) case study design was employed, providing the depth and contextual richness required to understand TIM practices that are not easily separable from their organisational and institutional contexts (Stake, 2006 ; Yin, 2018 ). The design is justified by the research questions' focus on 'how' and 'why' phenomena, where the investigator has limited control over events and the focus is on contemporary phenomena within real-life contexts. Sampling and Participants Purposive sampling with a maximum variation strategy was employed to select six interview participants, each representing a distinct and non-redundant institutional position within the Lusaka Province agricultural innovation system (Patton, 2015 ). Maximum variation sampling does not pursue statistical representativeness but theoretical coverage — the aim is to ensure that major functional roles within the system are represented so that analytical patterns can be identified across positions rather than within them (Lincoln & Guba, 1985 ). The six participants were therefore selected to span the principal actor types that innovation system theory identifies as constitutive of an AIS: private sector intermediary, international research organisations (multiple domains), and government agencies responsible for extension and research respectively. Participants included: one private agricultural advisory consultancy (P1); three international research organisations covering agroforestry/forest science (P2), biosecurity and biosciences (P3), and crop science (P4); and two national governmental agencies responsible for extension services (P5) and agricultural research (P6). This configuration deliberately spans the enterprise-research-government triad that NIS theory identifies as central to innovation system functionality. Whilst six participants cannot claim to exhaust the diversity of Zambia's national agricultural innovation system, they represent the functional positions most densely concentrated in Lusaka Province and most directly engaged in TIM at the policy-enterprise interface. The analytical objective was not statistical generalisation but the generation of theoretically transferable insights about structural dynamics within a specific innovation system node. Documentary analysis encompassed five organisational documents including annual reports from two publicly listed agribusinesses (Zambeef Plc: P7; Zambia Sugar Plc: P8), a development agency strategic plan (P10), a parastatal commodity management report (P9), and an industry association document (P11). Interviews were conducted between October and November 2025 at participants' workplaces in Lusaka Province, each lasting 60–90 minutes. Data Collection and Analysis Semi-structured interviews constituted the primary data source, supplemented by documentary analysis and limited participant observation. Two interview guides were developed — one for enterprise/research participants and one for policy institution participants — both informed by the research questions and theoretical framework. Interviews were audio-recorded with participant consent, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using NVivo 15 software (QSR International, 2023 ). Thematic analysis followed Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-phase framework, employing an inductive-deductive hybrid approach combining theory-driven sensitising concepts with inductive code generation from the data. Both within-case and cross-case analysis strategies were employed. Quality and Ethical Considerations Trustworthiness was established through triangulation of data sources, methods, and theoretical frameworks; member checking of provisional findings; negative case analysis; thick description; and comprehensive audit trail documentation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985 ). Formal ethical approval was obtained from the University of Zambia Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (UNZABREC Ref. No. 6908 − 2025) prior to data collection. Participant codes (P1–P6) replace individual names in personal communication citations in accordance with ethics approval, representing an approved deviation from APA 7 Section 8.9. All data were managed according to strict confidentiality protocols. The study's geographic and sample scope warrants explicit acknowledgement. The six-participant purposive design reflects the concentration of institutional innovation actors in Lusaka Province and is appropriate for the interpretive, theory-building objective of this research. Findings should be understood as analytically generalisable to theoretical propositions about post-colonial agricultural innovation systems rather than statistically generalisable to the full diversity of Zambian agricultural enterprises, particularly those outside Lusaka Province. Findings RQ1: Perceptions and Lived Experiences of TIM Innovation as Market-Driven Pragmatism A dominant pattern across participants was the instrumental framing of innovation — the view that technologies are adopted because they solve concrete bottlenecks within value chains, not because innovation holds inherent developmental worth. P1, representing a market systems advisory consultancy, articulated this orientation with particular clarity: 'When we talk about innovation we describe, from our business point of view, we describe innovation as a tool that would help us basically unlock bottlenecks within a value chain' (P1, personal communication, October 10, 2025). Technology selection is demand-responsive and portfolio-based, with the consultancy acting as a diffusion intermediary translating global knowledge network outputs — particularly from CGIAR organisations — into local value chain applications. By contrast, P2, representing an international agroforestry research organisation embedded in Lusaka Province for over two decades, frames innovation through a problem-driven scientific paradigm. P2's definition of innovation as 'a practice, methodology, approach, or platform' reflects an institutionalist understanding of systems change — the view that coordinating mechanisms are themselves innovations reshaping how actors relate (Lundvall, 2010 ). P3, representing an international biosecurity organisation, operationalises a biosafety-plus-commercialisation logic: innovations are identified through government demand, validated through farmer-level trials, then handed to commercial entities for distribution. These divergent logics have structural consequences: P1's innovations reach mass scale quickly but may bypass equity concerns; P2's and P3's innovations are ecologically grounded but face the 'valley of death' between research and market (Markham et al., 2010 ). Research Frustration and Paternalistic Development Framing A second theme was impatience with protracted research cycles. P1's repeated use of 'research, research, research until there is nothing to research no more' (P1, personal communication, October 10, 2025) signals not merely impatience but a deeper epistemic critique: that the agricultural innovation system in Lusaka Province has become trapped in perpetual study that defers action indefinitely. This temporal frustration coexists paradoxically alongside P6's assertion that 'to make a good researcher, it takes no less than 15 years, give or take' (P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025). The mismatch between 3–5-year donor project cycles and 15-year researcher maturation creates structural tension where institutions simultaneously demand rapid outputs and lament superficial expertise. A latent but analytically significant theme was the paternalistic orientation of innovation actors towards smallholder farmers — what P4 articulated as the mission to 'bring these peasant farmers to light' through the adoption of 'modern-day technology' (P4, personal communication, October 30, 2025). This deficit framing positions local knowledge systems as obstacles rather than assets (Chambers, 1997 ), systematically under-investing in existing indigenous knowledge and reducing the cultural embeddedness and adoption sustainability of promoted technologies. P3 displayed a more sophisticated engagement with this tension through participatory trial designs, yet even here farmers are included as validators of externally developed technologies rather than co-designers of the innovation agenda. Advisory Elitism and Identity Trajectories A structurally important pattern was the implicit positioning of private consultancy and international research organisation knowledge as superior to public institutional capacity — coded as Advisory Elitism. P1's framing of AI-based crop analysis as reducing Ministry of Agriculture planning timelines 'from 12–24 months to 10 days' (P1, personal communication, October 10, 2025) positions ministerial survey methods as obsolescent, reinforcing a hierarchy of knowledge in which international technology providers occupy the apex. P1 stated bluntly: 'We never work with universities directly ourselves' (P1, personal communication, October 10, 2025), perceiving academic institutions as slow and removed from market realities. P3's reliance on international laboratory infrastructure — 'a lot of the tests we cannot be able to do here in Zambia — we have to send samples to the UK' (P3, personal communication, October 21, 2025) — reveals epistemic subordination through diagnostic incapacity. RQ2: Barriers and Enablers of Effective TIM Structural Barriers The most consistently cited barrier across all participant types was inadequate physical and digital infrastructure. P1's 'infrastructure-first logic' asserts that 'there must be infrastructure first — access roads, there must be electricity, there must be dams and water — before land parcels can be allocated to people who want to invest in agriculture' (P1, personal communication, October 10, 2025). P3 corroborated that 'even in Lusaka we are struggling with Internet — in rural areas it is actually worse' (P3, personal communication, October 21, 2025), undermining digital extension strategies promoted by donors and government alike. P5 confirmed that irrigation funds were diverted to a cholera outbreak response (P5, personal communication, November 18, 2025), illustrating the fragility of agricultural investment priorities when basic sanitation infrastructure fails. Table 1 Frequency Analysis of Barriers and Enablers to Effective TIM by Actor Type Barrier/Enabler Category Enterprise Managers (P1–P4) Policy Actors (P5–P6) Total Mentions Dominant Framing BARRIERS Infrastructure Deficits 8 6 14 Material constraint Financial Exclusion 7 2 9 Systemic gatekeeping Capacity Constraints 12 5 17 Human capital deficit Regulatory Incoherence 6 4 10 Governance failure Rural Connectivity Deficit 5 3 8 Digital divide Cultural Lock-in 4 2 6 Sociocultural barrier Laboratory Infrastructure Gap 3 2 5 Technical dependency Subsidy Crowding-Out 1 4 5 Political economy ENABLERS Network Capital 6 2 8 Relational asset Donor Funding Availability 5 3 8 Resource abundance Government Demand-Pull 4 1 5 Policy engagement MOU/Partnership Clarity 4 1 5 Institutional trust Presidential Political Will 2 2 4 High-level legitimacy Embedded Expertise Model 2 0 2 Knowledge transfer Note. Counts represent explicit coded mentions per actor group derived from NVivo 15 thematic analysis. Categories are not mutually exclusive. FISP = Farmer Input Support Programme. Data source: semi-structured interviews, Lusaka Province, October–November 2025. The Capacity Paradox Perhaps the most analytically counterintuitive finding is the capacity paradox: 'people coming with huge chunks of money which we are failing to consume' (P2, personal communication, October 13, 2025). P2's organisation achieves only a 50% resource burn rate despite chronic underfunding in the broader system. The barrier is not resource availability but absorptive capacity — the technical, managerial, and administrative capability to design proposals, manage budgets, and implement at scale (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990 ). P6 provided historical precision: a 1996–2005 employment freeze during structural adjustment created a ten-year personnel gap that still reverberates today: 'Some programmes only have one expert. And to make a good researcher, it takes no less than 15 years, give or take' (P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025). Entire technical programmes depending on a single individual renders institutional memory fragile and succession planning impossible. Financial Exclusion and Regulatory Fragmentation A critical systemic barrier is the financial exclusion of emerging enterprises from formal credit and grant mechanisms. P2 documented that of 400 applicants to a matching grant programme, 'only about 13 have required documents' (P2, personal communication, October 13, 2025) — a 97% rejection rate driven not by lack of innovative ideas but by absence of formal registration certificates, bank accounts, and audited financial statements. This creates a structural paradox: enterprises need capital to establish track records but cannot access capital without existing track records. The subsidy system exacerbates this, with the Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP) consuming over 85% of the agriculture budget, leaving minimal funding for R&D (P5, personal communication, November 18, 2025; P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025). P3 identified inter-ministerial policy incoherence as a concrete operational constraint, noting that the Zambia Environmental Management Agency does not recognise pest risk analyses conducted by the Plant Quarantine and Phytosanitary Service: 'You find that the entities are not speaking to each other' (P3, personal communication, October 21, 2025). This duplication imposes time, financial, and opportunity costs on biopesticide developers, creating additive compliance burdens that function as de facto barriers to innovation. Enablers: Network Capital and Government Demand-Pull Against this landscape of constraints, network capital emerged as a critical enabling asset. P1 emphasised relationships 'built over the years' enabling technology sourcing and partnership formation, with systematic partner vetting based on strategic fit, complementarity, shared values, and delivery history (P1, personal communication, October 10, 2025). P2's emphasis on MOU clarity and embedded expertise — noting that University of Helsinki experts based in Lusaka for two years were 'more effective than their colleagues coming from Finland' (P2, personal communication, October 13, 2025) — reveals that proximity enables iterative learning and contextual adaptation impossible in short-term technical assistance. Government demand-pull represents a second key enabler, with P2 describing government actively incorporating research into planning processes: 'They are always saying: bring the information you have; we want to incorporate it into our policies' (P2, personal communication, October 13, 2025). RQ3: SKE Alignment Knowledge Intensity Evidence of knowledge-intensive practices is abundant. P1 deploys AI-based tools reducing crop suitability analysis from 12–24 months to 10 days (P1, personal communication, October 10, 2025). P2's organisation maintains a repository of 54,000 publications. P6 characterises crop varieties as 'our flagship intellectual property' (P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025), positioning knowledge explicitly as a tradable commodity. Yet this knowledge intensity coexists paradoxically alongside persistent commercialisation failures. P6 articulated the dysfunction at the core of the knowledge commercialisation pathway in Lusaka Province: 'The linkage between NISA and basic science and basic research does not exist, or it has stopped existing. So, for example, when I develop a good variety, essentially I should be able to pass it on to NISA for them to commercialise. But that doesn't happen anymore' (P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025). The budget allocation crisis that renders domestic knowledge generation structurally dependent on external financing is quantified precisely by P6: 'If you look at the allocation that goes to research from our national budget... you are talking of 0.3%. 90% of our R&D as an institution is externally financed... we spend the bulk of our time answering questions that are good but may not be contextually relevant' (P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025). This epistemic sovereignty deficit means knowledge generated may be scientifically excellent but epistemically misaligned with national development needs. Table 2 SKE Pillar Alignment Matrix: Evidence, Scores, and Critical Gaps SKE Pillar Evidence of Alignment Evidence of Misalignment Score Critical Gap Knowledge Intensity AI reducing analysis time 12–24 months → 10 days; satellite-based remote sensing; digital extension reaching 1.3M; PhD supervision networks NISA commercialisation linkage broken; 90% external research financing; knowledge production ≠ application; weak university–industry linkages 6/10 Commercialisation pathways; domestic R&D agenda-setting Environmental Sustainability Climate-smart agriculture promotion; biopesticide development; agroforestry/carbon sequestration; drought-resistant varieties; minimal tillage adoption Climate-smart as co-benefit, not intrinsic goal; production volume targets over ecological limits; 60% export orientation; chemical-centric policy bias 5/10 Environmental practices subordinated to productivity imperatives Social Inclusion Smallholder FISP targeting; 2,600 farmers in certified seed cooperatives; youth/women special programming; lead farmer cascade models Elite science vs. smallholder reality; biopesticides only accessible to commercial farmers; 97% grant rejection; paternalistic framing; geographic exclusion 4/10 Elite capture; structural financial/geographic exclusion Note. Alignment scores apply a 10-point researcher interpretive assessment scale: 10 = full alignment operationalised at scale; 5 = rhetorical commitment with limited practice; 0 = contradiction with SKE principle. Scores represent analytical judgement derived from cross-case thematic analysis and are not statistical measures. NISA = National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research; FISP = Farmer Input Support Programme. Data source: semi-structured interviews and documentary analysis, Lusaka Province, October–November 2025. Environmental Sustainability All participants invoked environmental sustainability discourses extensively, yet systematic analysis reveals that ecological practices are primarily justified through productivity and resilience logics rather than intrinsic environmental values. P6's framing of climate-smart as an 'overarching theme' is immediately followed by emphasis on income and productivity as the institution's 'particular interest' (P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025). This implicit hierarchy — sustainability as framing condition, productivity as primary goal — reflects a co-benefit logic wherein climate-smart practices are adopted because they improve yields. When productivity and ecological objectives conflict, an institution that has internalised sustainability primarily as co-benefit lacks an analytical framework to favour the ecological option. P1's ambitions for ten million tonnes of maize with six million tonnes designated for export prioritise tonnage over ecological limits, whilst P3's work on biopesticides — representing genuine agroecological commitment — remains accessible only to commercial farmers. Social Inclusion Three distinct social inclusion logics emerged: inclusion via market access (P1), via capacity building (P2), and via structural value chain repositioning (P3). Despite rhetorical commitments to smallholder targeting, evidence reveals systematic elite capture. P3 acknowledged explicitly regarding biopesticides: 'Right now only accessible to commercial farmers — trying to see how small-scale farmers could also access them' (P3, personal communication, October 21, 2025). P4's irrigation demonstrations face the barrier that target farmers cannot afford the showcased systems (P4, personal communication, October 30, 2025), creating the perverse outcome where publicly funded research serves as commercial marketing rather than smallholder extension. The 97% grant rejection rate reinforces this pattern: access to innovation support is effectively reserved for formalised, capitalised actors. Cultural lock-in compounds these structural barriers: P3's fieldwork revealed that nshima monoculture consumption functions as an identity performance signalling non-poverty, making nutritionally superior legume alternatives socially unacceptable despite agronomic superiority. RQ4: Policy Implications Findings across participants converge on two clusters of policy recommendations: foundational enabling conditions that must precede sector-specific innovations, and governance reforms addressing coordination, financing, and sovereignty deficits. Infrastructure as Non-Negotiable Prerequisite. The most consistent recommendation was an 'infrastructure-first policy priority.' P1 argued unequivocally for roads, electricity, dams, and water before land allocation or technology investment (P1, personal communication, October 10, 2025). P5 confirmed from within government that 'tablet-based communication fails in low-network zones' (P5, personal communication, November 18, 2025), revealing frugal substitution strategies as constraint-driven workarounds rather than genuine upgrades. P6 linked infrastructure to human capital retention: 'With financing you have infrastructure, attract the best minds' (P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025). Domestic R&D Funding Sovereignty. P6 advocated a fundamental rebalancing from the current architecture where over 85% of the agriculture budget funds input subsidies and 90% of institutional R&D is externally financed: 'By taking a bold step to reduce the funding going to subsidies, you unlock financing for R&D... The framework is there — all we need is just to be bold and implement' (P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025). P6 also proposed IP royalty mechanisms for self-financing — a strategy that can only succeed if the NISA-ZARI commercialisation linkage is first repaired. Regulatory Harmonisation. P3 identified development of a domestic biopesticide regulatory framework as the foremost reform priority, noting that the current vacuum forces Zambia to register only products approved by Botswana (P3, personal communication, October 21, 2025). Inter-agency harmonisation requiring ministries to recognise each other's existing evaluations would eliminate redundant approval processes. P1 called for institutionalised stakeholder dialogue in policy development to prevent regulatory failures such as the veterinary bill case, where legislation was developed without consulting affected parties (P1, personal communication, October 10, 2025). Multi-Stakeholder Co-Creation. P6's 'shared goals' framework shifts the foundation of partnership from procedural compliance to substantive alignment on common development objectives: 'Shared goals — yes, in my view that is the starting point... your greatness comes from not just knowing your abilities but also understanding your weaknesses, because that opens a pathway for collaboration' (P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025). P3's 'data collection with farmers, not on farmers' principle moves closer to genuine partnership, positioning farmers as knowledge producers rather than passive subjects and directly addressing the paternalistic development framing identified in RQ1. Discussion Theoretical Contributions to NIS Scholarship The central empirical revelation — the 'paradoxical innovation landscape' — demands theoretical explanation. How can an innovation system simultaneously exhibit abundance and scarcity, sophistication and dysfunction, rhetorical commitment and structural betrayal? Freeman ( 1987 ), Lundvall ( 1992 ), and Nelson ( 1993 ) developed NIS theory primarily from OECD empirical material characterised by mature institutions, stable governance, and domestic control over research agendas. The Lusaka Province case presents fundamentally different conditions: fragmented institutions shaped by colonial legacies and structural adjustment; inter-ministerial silos; capacity deficits that render resource abundance paradoxically problematic; and innovation agendas substantially determined by external actors despite formal sovereignty. The findings contribute three insights extending NIS theory for developing contexts. First, they challenge the componential assumption: that system components constitute an innovation system through their mere existence. Lusaka Province possesses international research organisations, government research institutes, extension systems, private consultancies, and policy frameworks, yet these operate in relative isolation. NIS effectiveness depends less on component quality than on the density and quality of inter-institutional connections — what might be termed the relational infrastructure of innovation. Second, the capacity paradox — wherein abundant donor funding encounters institutional inability to absorb resources — reveals a flaw in linear models of innovation system strengthening. P6's revelation that a 10-year employment freeze during structural adjustment created personnel gaps persisting two decades later illustrates how historical shocks generate persistent deficits that financial resources alone cannot remedy (Mahoney, 2000 ; Pritchett et al., 2013 ). Third, the sovereignty deficit — 90% external research financing, samples sent abroad for testing, regulatory protocols borrowed from Botswana — points to a post-colonial NIS pattern wherein the assumption of domestic autonomy over research priority-setting does not hold. Knowledge production occurs domestically yet epistemic authority remains externalised, constituting epistemic subordination rather than merely dependency (Foucault, 1980 ; Jasanoff, 2004 ). SKE Pillar Tensions and Theoretical Implications The findings reveal that SKE's three pillars operate in tension rather than harmony within the Lusaka Province agricultural innovation context. Knowledge intensity concentrates benefits among actors with prerequisite digital literacy and capital, systematically excluding remote smallholders. Environmental sustainability functions as a productivity co-benefit rather than intrinsic design criterion, subordinated when export targets demand volume over ecological limits. Social inclusion remains aspirational, constrained by structural barriers — restrictive banking criteria, 97% grant rejection rates, biopesticides accessible only to commercial farmers — that reforms fail to dismantle. These tensions substantiate Cozzens and Sutz's (2014) critique that inclusive innovation frameworks often fail to account for power asymmetries enabling elite capture. The paternalistic development framing documented represents a deeper challenge, encoding colonial-era hierarchies that formal decolonisation and participatory rhetoric have failed to dislodge. Li's (2007) concept of 'rendering technical' illuminates how complex political-economic challenges are reframed as technical problems solvable through expert intervention, depoliticising processes inherently about power and resource distribution. When innovation actors frame their mission as enlightening farmers about 'potentials that lie within the country' or rescuing them from 'traditional methods,' structural issues — land concentration, input cartel pricing, export commodity dependence — disappear from view, replaced by farmer-level behavioural targets. The Three Mutually Reinforcing Tensions Three overarching tensions form a mutually reinforcing constraint system. The Capacity Paradox is partly produced by the Sovereignty Deficit, as donor-financed projects require compliance overhead that consumes institutional capacity. The Coordination Failure is partly produced by the Sovereignty Deficit, as competing for external funding reduces incentives for domestic coordination. The Sovereignty Deficit is partly reproduced by the Capacity Paradox, as institutional inability to absorb resources prevents the track record accumulation required to attract domestic investment. Breaking this system requires simultaneous reform across all three dimensions, supported by the multi-stakeholder co-creation mandates that the RQ4 findings collectively recommend. These findings contribute to understanding donor–recipient relationships in development finance more broadly. The post-project innovation mortality documented — P3's observation that 'if project goes, innovations disappear' (P3, personal communication, October 21, 2025) — contrasts with Malawi's plant clinic success, where sustained government ownership across a 3–5-year project produced genuine institutional capacity. The distinction is not merely temporal but structural: Malawi's success reflects government ownership investment, not simply a longer project timeline. Analytical Scope: Lusaka Province as an Innovation System Node It is essential to be explicit about the epistemological status of these findings. This study does not claim to represent the totality of Zambia's agricultural innovation system. Findings are grounded in the experiences of six actors operating in Lusaka Province and are analytically generalisable to theoretical propositions rather than to all enterprises across Zambia's ten provinces. However, the choice of Lusaka Province is not an arbitrary geographic convenience: it represents the institutional apex of the national AIS, concentrating the actors — government ministries, ZARI, international research organisations, private advisories — whose interactions constitute the national policy interface. Structural dynamics identified at this apex — the capacity paradox, epistemic sovereignty deficit, and inclusion paradox — are therefore likely to represent ceiling constraints on national innovation performance rather than peripheral phenomena. This does not authorise generalisation to Zambia at large, but it does justify the claim that these findings illuminate critical systemic vulnerabilities that no reform agenda can responsibly ignore. Limitations and Future Research Several limitations merit acknowledgement. The study's geographic concentration in Lusaka Province, whilst analytically justified by institutional density, means that findings cannot be assumed to capture dynamics in more remote agricultural contexts, where structural conditions, actor configurations, and innovation practices may differ substantially. The small interview sample (six participants), whilst appropriate for qualitative depth and aligned with the maximum variation logic employed, necessarily limits cross-case comparison and analytical breadth. The cross-sectional design cannot capture how TIM practices evolve over time. Participants from international research organisations, who were disproportionately represented given access constraints, may exhibit systematically different perspectives from purely domestic enterprises. Future research should include comparative analysis across Zambian provinces — particularly more rural and remote provinces such as Western and Muchinga — to test whether the structural paradoxes identified here persist or take different forms in lower-capacity contexts. Longitudinal designs to trace capacity development over time, and investigation of smallholder farmer perspectives — the ultimately intended beneficiaries who were not directly represented in this study — are critical next steps. Comparative analysis with other sub-Saharan African countries at similar development stages would also strengthen theoretical generalisability and permit assessment of whether the conceptual contributions advanced here — the componential fallacy, capacity paradox, and epistemic sovereignty deficit — constitute broadly applicable analytical tools for post-colonial innovation system scholarship. Conclusion This study has investigated TIM practices among agricultural enterprises and innovation system actors in Lusaka Province, Zambia, through the lens of NIS theory and the SKE framework, revealing a paradoxical innovation landscape characterised by simultaneous abundance and scarcity, sophistication and dysfunction, rhetorical commitment and structural betrayal. The findings expose a consistent pattern: the formal aspirations of Zambia's policy framework — knowledge intensity, environmental sustainability, social inclusion, and domestic R&D sovereignty — are structurally undermined by interacting institutional failures that are systemic rather than motivational. On knowledge intensity, enterprises deploy sophisticated digital tools and produce substantial research outputs, yet commercialisation linkages remain broken and absorptive capacity constraints prevent translation into broad-based economic value. On environmental sustainability, climate-smart practices are rhetorically pervasive but operationally subordinated to production volume targets, functioning more as rhetorical legitimation than as binding ecological constraints. On social inclusion, all three inclusion models — market-mediated, capacity-building, and value chain repositioning — confront persistent elite capture dynamics whereby infrastructure deficits, financial exclusion, and geographic remoteness systematically disadvantage smallholders. Theoretically, this research challenges the componential fallacy in NIS theory by demonstrating that system components can coexist with profound dysfunction when relational infrastructure remains underdeveloped. It theorises capacity paradoxes whereby financial capital cannot substitute for absorptive capacity, and conceptualises epistemic sovereignty deficits characteristic of post-colonial innovation systems where knowledge authority remains externalised despite formal sovereignty. These concepts extend NIS scholarship beyond its predominantly OECD empirical base and provide analytical tools for understanding innovation system dynamics in other resource-dependent developing economies. Whilst grounded empirically in Lusaka Province, these theoretical contributions are offered as generalisable propositions subject to testing in other sub-Saharan African and developing-economy contexts. Practically, the findings call for an integrated policy response addressing infrastructure deficits as non-negotiable prerequisites for innovation diffusion, rebalancing agricultural budget allocation from input subsidies towards R&D investment, developing domestic regulatory frameworks for emerging biotechnologies, building domestic laboratory and diagnostic infrastructure, and reforming extension systems towards genuine co-creation partnerships with smallholder farmers. Without addressing these foundational structural conditions, knowledge-intensive innovations will continue benefiting elite commercial actors whilst bypassing the smallholder majority — perpetuating the structural contradictions embedded in Zambia's political-economic configurations and reproduced through prevailing market mechanisms. Declarations Competing Interests: The author declares no competing interests. Funding: This research received no external funding. Ethics Approval: Approved by UNZABREC (Ref. No. 6908-2025). Data Availability: Data are not publicly available due to participant confidentiality. Author Contributions: The sole author conducted all stages of the research. References African Development Bank (2023) African economic outlook 2023. ADB Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (2022) Agricultural R&D in sub-Saharan Africa. ASTI Beintema N, Stads GJ (2019) A comprehensive overview of investments and human resource capacity in African agricultural research. IFPRI Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol 3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Burgelman RA, Christensen CM, Wheelwright SC (2009) Strategic management of technology and innovation, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill Carayannis EG, Campbell DF (2012) Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2062-0 . Springer CGIAR (2022) CGIAR 2030 research and innovation strategy. CGIAR System Organisation Chambers R (1997) Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. Intermediate Technology Chapoto A, Jayne TS (2009) The impacts of trade barriers and market interventions on maize price predictability: Evidence from Eastern and Southern Africa. Michigan State University Chataway J, Schuerer N, Wield D (2014) New models of inclusive innovation for development. Innov Dev 4(2):175–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2014.928982 Chavula P, Muleba M, Shentema S, Umer Y, Teressa B, Turyasingura B (2022) Description of agricultural extension and advisory service system in Zambia. Int J Appl Agricultural Res 2(10):1–12 Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35(1):128. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553 Cozzens SE, Sutz J (2014) Innovation in informal settings: Reflections and proposals for a research agenda. Innov Dev 4(1):5–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2013.876803 Daka E (2013) Government and private sector: Case of the Zambia national system of innovation [Conference presentation]. Triple Helix 11th International Conference, London, UK Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) (2018) The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 5th edn. Sage Drucker PF (1969) The age of discontinuity. Elsevier Edquist C (2005) Systems of innovation: Perspectives and challenges. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, Nelson RR (eds) The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press, pp 181–208 FAO (2009) Global agriculture towards 2050. FAO FAO (2022a) FAO science and innovation strategy. FAO of the United Nations. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb9931en FAO (2023) The state of food and agriculture 2023. FAO of the United Nations. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc7724en Foucault M (1980) In: Gordon C (ed) Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. Pantheon Books Freeman C (1987) Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. Pinter Freeman C (1995) The national system of innovation in historical perspective. Camb J Econ 19(1):5–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035309 Government of the Republic of Zambia (2006) Vision 2030: A prosperous middle-income nation by 2030 GSMA (2024) Driving digitalisation of the economy in Zambia: Leveraging policy reforms. GSMA Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, pp 105–117 Heeks R, Foster C, Nugroho Y (2014) New models of inclusive innovation for development. Innov Dev 4(2):175–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2014.928982 Jasanoff S (2004) States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203413845 Klerkx L, van Mierlo B, Leeuwis C (2012) Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: Concepts, analysis and interventions. In I. Darnhofer, D. Gibbon, & B. Dedieu (Eds.), Farming systems research into the 21st century: The new dynamic (pp. 457–483). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2_20 Kraemer-Mbula E, Wamae W (2010) Adapting the innovation systems framework to Sub-Saharan Africa. In Innovation and the development agenda (pp. 65–90). OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264088924-7-en Li TM (2007) The will to improve: Governmentality, development, and the practice of politics. Duke University Press Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Lundvall B-Å (1992) National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning (Vol. 242). Pinter Lundvall B-Å (2010) National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Anthem Mahoney J (2000) Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory Soc 29(4):507–548. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007113830879 Markham SK, Ward SJ, Aiman-Smith L, Kingon AI (2010) The valley of death as context for role theory in product innovation. J Prod Innov Manage 27(3):402–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00724.x Mason NM, Jayne TS (2013) Fertiliser subsidies and smallholder commercial fertiliser purchases: Crowding out, leakage and policy implications for Zambia. J Agric Econ 64(3):558–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12025 Mataa M, Chikopela L (2024) Agriculture in Zambia: Field crops and horticulture. In H. Chitonge (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Zambian Economy (pp. 358–383). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780192864222.013.44 Ministry of Finance and National Planning (2022) Eighth National Development Plan 2022–2026: Socio-economic transformation for improved livelihoods. GRZ Muchie M, Gammeltoft P, Lundvall B-Å (eds) (2003) Putting Africa first: The making of African innovation systems. Aalborg University Nelson RR (1993) National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford University Press OECD (1996) The knowledge-based economy. OECD OECD (2019) Measuring the digital transformation: A roadmap for the future. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311992-en OECD (2020) A territorial approach to the Sustainable Development Goals. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/e86fa715-en Patton MQ (2015) Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice, 4th edn. Sage Powell WW, Snellman K (2004) The knowledge economy. Ann Rev Sociol 30:199–220. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100037 Pretty J, Benton TG, Bharucha ZP, Dicks LV, Flora CB, Godfray HCJ, Wratten S (2018) Global assessment of agricultural system redesign for sustainable intensification. Nat Sustain 1(8):441–446. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0114-0 Pritchett L, Woolcock M, Andrews M (2013) Looking like a state: Techniques of persistent failure in state capability for implementation. J Dev Stud 49(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2012.709614 QSR International (2023) NVivo (Version 15) [Computer software]. Lumivero. https://lumivero.com/products/nvivo REA. (2024) 2022 annual report. Rural Electrification Authority Sampath PG, Oyelaran-Oyeyinka B (2009) Rough road to the market: Constrained biotechnology innovation and entrepreneurship in Nigeria and Ghana. J Int Dev 22(7):962–977. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1560 Schilling MA (2020) Strategic management of technological innovation, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill Education Schillo RS, Robinson RM (2017) Inclusive innovation in developed countries: The who, what, why, and how. Technol Innov Manage Rev 7(7):34–46. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1089 Sitko NJ, Burke WJ, Jayne TS (2018) The quiet rise of large-scale trading firms in East and Southern Africa. J Dev Stud 54(5):895–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2018.1430773 Spielman DJ, Ekboir J, Davis K (2009) The art and science of innovation systems inquiry: Applications to sub-Saharan African agriculture. Technol Soc 31(4):399–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2009.10.004 Stake RE (2006) Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press Suchá L, Dušková L, Leventon J, Seidlová A, Bubák Š, Harmáčková ZV (2024) Knowledge based interventions for sustainable development cooperation: Insights from knowledge systems mapping in Zambia. Sustain Sci 19:1543–1559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01536-z Tidd J, Bessant J (2018) Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organisational change, 6th edn. Wiley UNCTAD (2022) Science, technology and innovation policy review: Zambia. UNCTAD UNDP (2023) Annual report 2023: Regional Programme for Africa. UNDP UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2025) Research and development expenditure (% of GDP): Zambia. World Bank Data World Bank (2021) World development report 2021: Data for better lives. World Bank World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press Yin RK (2018) Case study research and applications: Design and methods, 6th edn. SAGE Zambia Statistics Agency (2023) Zambia in Figs. 2023. ZamStats Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9365103","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":625741187,"identity":"a73dee17-3213-4869-8188-f0b8f5f2859a","order_by":0,"name":"Leviticus Nkata","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4321-3275","institution":"UNZA: University of Zambia","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Leviticus","middleName":"","lastName":"Nkata","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-09 07:57:42","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":true,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9365103/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9365103/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":107488120,"identity":"75a2fa80-0a61-4b3d-a053-af51227015fb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-22 02:43:39","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":420215,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9365103/v1/02467533-070c-4122-acb5-685c52f5a65f.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTechnology and Innovation Management Practices for a Sustainable Knowledge Economy: Paradoxes of Capacity, Coordination, and Epistemic Sovereignty in Agricultural Innovation in Lusaka Province, Zambia\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe 21st-century global economic landscape is defined by knowledge and technology as primary drivers of competitive advantage, environmental sustainability, and inclusive growth (OECD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; World Bank, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). For resource-dependent nations like Zambia, this transition represents a fundamental imperative in the face of volatile commodity markets, escalating climate crises, and widening social inequalities (African Development Bank, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; UNDP, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Zambia's economic architecture exhibits profound structural vulnerabilities rooted in persistent copper export dependence, which accounted for approximately 70% of total export earnings in 2022, and rain-fed agriculture, which employs approximately 54% of the labour force and contributes roughly 20% of GDP (Mataa \u0026amp; Chikopela, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Zambia Statistics Agency, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgriculture occupies a uniquely strategic position in Zambia's transformation narrative. It is simultaneously the sector that employs the largest proportion of the labour force and exhibits some of the lowest levels of productivity and technological sophistication (FAO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Despite abundant arable land (approximately 58% of total land area) and favourable agro-climatic conditions, agricultural productivity remains stagnant in many areas, with smallholder farmers operating with technologies and practices that have changed little over decades (Mason \u0026amp; Jayne, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Sitko et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This productivity paradox exists within a context of enormous latent potential.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology and Innovation Management (TIM) provides the conceptual and operational framework for agricultural transformation (Schilling, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Tidd \u0026amp; Bessant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). It encompasses the systematic identification, acquisition, development, and deployment of technological innovations, extending beyond mere technology adoption to include organisational culture, knowledge management, collaborative networks, and the institutional environment shaping innovation outcomes (Edquist, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Lundvall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). At the systemic level, TIM operates within a National Innovation System (NIS) \u0026mdash; the network of actors, institutions, and linkages that collectively determine the direction and effectiveness of innovation within an economy (Freeman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; Lundvall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe concept of a Sustainable Knowledge Economy (SKE), which forms the normative horizon of this research, represents an evolution beyond earlier formulations of the knowledge economy (OECD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Powell \u0026amp; Snellman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). An SKE explicitly integrates environmental, social, and economic sustainability dimensions into the Knowledge Economy paradigm (Carayannis \u0026amp; Campbell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; OECD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), translating in the agricultural context to precision farming, climate-smart agriculture, sustainable intensification, and inclusive value chains (CGIAR, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; FAO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022a\u003c/span\u003e; Pretty et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor Zambia, the policy aspiration towards an SKE is articulated through the Eighth National Development Plan (8NDP, 2022\u0026ndash;2026) and Vision 2030 (GRZ, 2006; Ministry of Finance and National Planning, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Yet a persistent gap exists between policy articulation and implementation. Actual R\u0026amp;D expenditure remains below 0.3% of GDP against the UNESCO benchmark of 1% (UNCTAD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; UNESCO Institute for Statistics, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), university\u0026ndash;industry linkages remain weak and fragmented, and extension services are chronically underfunded (Chavula et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Infrastructure deficits compound these challenges: only approximately 7% of rural households have electricity access and 3G or better mobile internet reaches only 33% of rural areas (REA, 2024; GSMA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLusaka Province represents the institutional centre of Zambia's agricultural innovation architecture. As the locus of the Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI), the Ministry of Agriculture's headquarters, the principal private advisory sector, and the Zambian offices of major international research organisations, it concentrates the key actors whose interactions \u0026mdash; or lack thereof \u0026mdash; determine the direction and effectiveness of TIM practice at the national policy interface. Investigating TIM at this node is therefore analytically strategic: it illuminates the system's highest-capacity actors and thus identifies ceiling constraints that cannot be attributed to peripheral resource deficits.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study addresses a critical empirical gap by investigating how formally registered agricultural enterprises and innovation system actors in Lusaka Province conceptualise, manage, and execute TIM practices, and how these practices align with SKE principles. The central research question is: How do agricultural enterprises and innovation actors in Lusaka Province conceptualise, implement, and experience TIM practices, and how do these practices align with SKE principles of knowledge intensity, environmental sustainability, and social inclusion? Four sub-questions address perceptions and lived experiences (RQ1), barriers and enablers (RQ2), SKE alignment (RQ3), and policy implications (RQ4).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe paper makes three theoretical contributions. First, it challenges the componential fallacy in classical NIS theory by demonstrating that system components can coexist with profound dysfunction when relational infrastructure remains underdeveloped. Second, it theorises capacity paradoxes wherein financial capital cannot substitute for absorptive capacity. Third, it conceptualises epistemic sovereignty deficits characteristic of post-colonial innovation systems. Empirically, the study provides rich, contextualised insights into agricultural innovation at the enterprise level in Lusaka Province \u0026mdash; a domain that existing research, which addresses either macro-level policy or micro-level farmer adoption, has largely neglected. Whilst the study's empirical scope is confined to Lusaka Province, the structural dynamics identified resonate with broader patterns in sub-Saharan African agricultural innovation systems, and the conceptual contributions are generalisable at the theoretical level.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Theoretical Framework and Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eNational Innovation Systems and Agricultural Innovation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational Innovation Systems (NIS) theory, developed primarily from OECD empirical material by Freeman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e), Lundvall (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e), and Nelson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e), conceptualises innovation as occurring through interactions among firms, universities, research institutions, and government bodies within specific national contexts. Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) extend this framework to the sectoral level, emphasising the role of farmer organisations, extension services, and agri-value chain actors (Klerkx et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Spielman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Recent NIS scholarship has addressed developing-economy contexts more explicitly: Muchie et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) foregrounded colonial disruption; Sampath and Oyelaran-Oyeyinka (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) emphasised adaptation over frontier research; and Kraemer-Mbula and Wamae (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) highlighted informal innovation networks in Sub-Saharan Africa.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Zambian AIS is characterised by chronic under-resourcing, weak actor linkages, policy instability, and inadequate private sector engagement (Daka, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Such\u0026aacute; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; UNCTAD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI) and the National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research (NISA), nominally responsible for research and commercialisation respectively, operate in institutional silos with limited functional linkages. Agricultural R\u0026amp;D expenditure, estimated at 0.3% of GDP, falls catastrophically short of the 1\u0026ndash;2% of agricultural GDP recommended by international benchmarks (ASTI, 2022; Beintema \u0026amp; Stads, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSustainable Knowledge Economy Framework\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe SKE framework synthesises scholarship on knowledge economies (Drucker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1969\u003c/span\u003e; Powell \u0026amp; Snellman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), sustainable development (World Commission on Environment and Development, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e), and inclusive innovation (Chataway et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Heeks et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), operationalised through three pillars: knowledge intensity, environmental sustainability, and social inclusion. In the agricultural context, knowledge intensity refers to the application of science, information technology, and innovation management to increase productivity and value creation. Environmental sustainability encompasses climate-smart agriculture, ecological production methods, and reduced resource use. Social inclusion requires that smallholder farmers benefit equitably from innovation (CGIAR, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; FAO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022a\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCozzens and Sutz (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) and Schillo and Robinson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) have demonstrated that inclusive innovation frameworks often fail to account for power asymmetries enabling elite capture even when policies explicitly target marginalised groups. As the Lusaka Province evidence substantiates, despite rhetorical commitments to smallholder inclusion, structural mechanisms \u0026mdash; restrictive banking criteria, high grant rejection rates, infrastructure prerequisites \u0026mdash; systematically exclude intended beneficiaries through logics of formalisation, creditworthiness, and commercial viability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTechnology and Innovation Management in Developing Agriculture\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTIM encompasses the systematic identification, acquisition, development, and deployment of technological innovations, extending beyond technology adoption to include strategic planning, knowledge management, collaborative networks, and organisational learning (Burgelman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Schilling, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Tidd \u0026amp; Bessant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). For agricultural enterprises in developing economies, developing TIM capabilities is challenged by limited managerial and technical expertise, severe resource constraints, weak linkages with knowledge institutions, a fragmented innovation ecosystem, and risk-averse cultures rooted in historical economic volatility (Chapoto \u0026amp; Jayne, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Daka, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe absorptive capacity framework (Cohen \u0026amp; Levinthal, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e) is particularly relevant to the Zambian context, as it conceptualises the ability to recognise the value of new external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends. Absorptive capacity is not merely a function of current skill levels but of accumulated organisational capabilities built over time \u0026mdash; a critical insight for understanding why sudden resource inflows cannot instantiate the procedural knowledge, tacit routines, and institutional memory necessary for effective deployment.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eResearch Design and Paradigm\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study is situated within an interpretivist-constructivist paradigm, adopting a relativist ontological stance that posits reality as multiple, socially constructed, and context-dependent (Denzin \u0026amp; Lincoln, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Guba \u0026amp; Lincoln, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). A collective (multiple) case study design was employed, providing the depth and contextual richness required to understand TIM practices that are not easily separable from their organisational and institutional contexts (Stake, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Yin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The design is justified by the research questions' focus on 'how' and 'why' phenomena, where the investigator has limited control over events and the focus is on contemporary phenomena within real-life contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSampling and Participants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePurposive sampling with a maximum variation strategy was employed to select six interview participants, each representing a distinct and non-redundant institutional position within the Lusaka Province agricultural innovation system (Patton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Maximum variation sampling does not pursue statistical representativeness but theoretical coverage \u0026mdash; the aim is to ensure that major functional roles within the system are represented so that analytical patterns can be identified across positions rather than within them (Lincoln \u0026amp; Guba, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e). The six participants were therefore selected to span the principal actor types that innovation system theory identifies as constitutive of an AIS: private sector intermediary, international research organisations (multiple domains), and government agencies responsible for extension and research respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants included: one private agricultural advisory consultancy (P1); three international research organisations covering agroforestry/forest science (P2), biosecurity and biosciences (P3), and crop science (P4); and two national governmental agencies responsible for extension services (P5) and agricultural research (P6). This configuration deliberately spans the enterprise-research-government triad that NIS theory identifies as central to innovation system functionality. Whilst six participants cannot claim to exhaust the diversity of Zambia's national agricultural innovation system, they represent the functional positions most densely concentrated in Lusaka Province and most directly engaged in TIM at the policy-enterprise interface. The analytical objective was not statistical generalisation but the generation of theoretically transferable insights about structural dynamics within a specific innovation system node.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDocumentary analysis encompassed five organisational documents including annual reports from two publicly listed agribusinesses (Zambeef Plc: P7; Zambia Sugar Plc: P8), a development agency strategic plan (P10), a parastatal commodity management report (P9), and an industry association document (P11). Interviews were conducted between October and November 2025 at participants' workplaces in Lusaka Province, each lasting 60\u0026ndash;90 minutes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData Collection and Analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSemi-structured interviews constituted the primary data source, supplemented by documentary analysis and limited participant observation. Two interview guides were developed \u0026mdash; one for enterprise/research participants and one for policy institution participants \u0026mdash; both informed by the research questions and theoretical framework. Interviews were audio-recorded with participant consent, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using NVivo 15 software (QSR International, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Thematic analysis followed Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-phase framework, employing an inductive-deductive hybrid approach combining theory-driven sensitising concepts with inductive code generation from the data. Both within-case and cross-case analysis strategies were employed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eQuality and Ethical Considerations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTrustworthiness was established through triangulation of data sources, methods, and theoretical frameworks; member checking of provisional findings; negative case analysis; thick description; and comprehensive audit trail documentation (Lincoln \u0026amp; Guba, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e). Formal ethical approval was obtained from the University of Zambia Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (UNZABREC Ref. No. 6908\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2025) prior to data collection. Participant codes (P1\u0026ndash;P6) replace individual names in personal communication citations in accordance with ethics approval, representing an approved deviation from APA 7 Section 8.9. All data were managed according to strict confidentiality protocols.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study's geographic and sample scope warrants explicit acknowledgement. The six-participant purposive design reflects the concentration of institutional innovation actors in Lusaka Province and is appropriate for the interpretive, theory-building objective of this research. Findings should be understood as analytically generalisable to theoretical propositions about post-colonial agricultural innovation systems rather than statistically generalisable to the full diversity of Zambian agricultural enterprises, particularly those outside Lusaka Province.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Findings","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRQ1: Perceptions and Lived Experiences of TIM\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInnovation as Market-Driven Pragmatism\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA dominant pattern across participants was the instrumental framing of innovation \u0026mdash; the view that technologies are adopted because they solve concrete bottlenecks within value chains, not because innovation holds inherent developmental worth. P1, representing a market systems advisory consultancy, articulated this orientation with particular clarity: 'When we talk about innovation we describe, from our business point of view, we describe innovation as a tool that would help us basically unlock bottlenecks within a value chain' (P1, personal communication, October 10, 2025). Technology selection is demand-responsive and portfolio-based, with the consultancy acting as a diffusion intermediary translating global knowledge network outputs \u0026mdash; particularly from CGIAR organisations \u0026mdash; into local value chain applications.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy contrast, P2, representing an international agroforestry research organisation embedded in Lusaka Province for over two decades, frames innovation through a problem-driven scientific paradigm. P2's definition of innovation as 'a practice, methodology, approach, or platform' reflects an institutionalist understanding of systems change \u0026mdash; the view that coordinating mechanisms are themselves innovations reshaping how actors relate (Lundvall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). P3, representing an international biosecurity organisation, operationalises a biosafety-plus-commercialisation logic: innovations are identified through government demand, validated through farmer-level trials, then handed to commercial entities for distribution. These divergent logics have structural consequences: P1's innovations reach mass scale quickly but may bypass equity concerns; P2's and P3's innovations are ecologically grounded but face the 'valley of death' between research and market (Markham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eResearch Frustration and Paternalistic Development Framing\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA second theme was impatience with protracted research cycles. P1's repeated use of 'research, research, research until there is nothing to research no more' (P1, personal communication, October 10, 2025) signals not merely impatience but a deeper epistemic critique: that the agricultural innovation system in Lusaka Province has become trapped in perpetual study that defers action indefinitely. This temporal frustration coexists paradoxically alongside P6's assertion that 'to make a good researcher, it takes no less than 15 years, give or take' (P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025). The mismatch between 3\u0026ndash;5-year donor project cycles and 15-year researcher maturation creates structural tension where institutions simultaneously demand rapid outputs and lament superficial expertise.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA latent but analytically significant theme was the paternalistic orientation of innovation actors towards smallholder farmers \u0026mdash; what P4 articulated as the mission to 'bring these peasant farmers to light' through the adoption of 'modern-day technology' (P4, personal communication, October 30, 2025). This deficit framing positions local knowledge systems as obstacles rather than assets (Chambers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), systematically under-investing in existing indigenous knowledge and reducing the cultural embeddedness and adoption sustainability of promoted technologies. P3 displayed a more sophisticated engagement with this tension through participatory trial designs, yet even here farmers are included as validators of externally developed technologies rather than co-designers of the innovation agenda.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAdvisory Elitism and Identity Trajectories\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA structurally important pattern was the implicit positioning of private consultancy and international research organisation knowledge as superior to public institutional capacity \u0026mdash; coded as Advisory Elitism. P1's framing of AI-based crop analysis as reducing Ministry of Agriculture planning timelines 'from 12\u0026ndash;24 months to 10 days' (P1, personal communication, October 10, 2025) positions ministerial survey methods as obsolescent, reinforcing a hierarchy of knowledge in which international technology providers occupy the apex. P1 stated bluntly: 'We never work with universities directly ourselves' (P1, personal communication, October 10, 2025), perceiving academic institutions as slow and removed from market realities. P3's reliance on international laboratory infrastructure \u0026mdash; 'a lot of the tests we cannot be able to do here in Zambia \u0026mdash; we have to send samples to the UK' (P3, personal communication, October 21, 2025) \u0026mdash; reveals epistemic subordination through diagnostic incapacity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRQ2: Barriers and Enablers of Effective TIM\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStructural Barriers\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe most consistently cited barrier across all participant types was inadequate physical and digital infrastructure. P1's 'infrastructure-first logic' asserts that 'there must be infrastructure first \u0026mdash; access roads, there must be electricity, there must be dams and water \u0026mdash; before land parcels can be allocated to people who want to invest in agriculture' (P1, personal communication, October 10, 2025). P3 corroborated that 'even in Lusaka we are struggling with Internet \u0026mdash; in rural areas it is actually worse' (P3, personal communication, October 21, 2025), undermining digital extension strategies promoted by donors and government alike. P5 confirmed that irrigation funds were diverted to a cholera outbreak response (P5, personal communication, November 18, 2025), illustrating the fragility of agricultural investment priorities when basic sanitation infrastructure fails.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFrequency Analysis of Barriers and Enablers to Effective TIM by Actor Type\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBarrier/Enabler Category\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnterprise Managers (P1\u0026ndash;P4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicy Actors (P5\u0026ndash;P6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal Mentions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDominant Framing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBARRIERS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInfrastructure Deficits\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaterial constraint\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinancial Exclusion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSystemic gatekeeping\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCapacity Constraints\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHuman capital deficit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulatory Incoherence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGovernance failure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural Connectivity Deficit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital divide\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCultural Lock-in\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSociocultural barrier\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLaboratory Infrastructure Gap\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnical dependency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubsidy Crowding-Out\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolitical economy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eENABLERS\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNetwork Capital\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelational asset\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDonor Funding Availability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResource abundance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGovernment Demand-Pull\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicy engagement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMOU/Partnership Clarity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional trust\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePresidential Political Will\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh-level legitimacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmbedded Expertise Model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKnowledge transfer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. Counts represent explicit coded mentions per actor group derived from NVivo 15 thematic analysis. Categories are not mutually exclusive. FISP\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Farmer Input Support Programme. Data source: semi-structured interviews, Lusaka Province, October\u0026ndash;November 2025.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Capacity Paradox\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerhaps the most analytically counterintuitive finding is the capacity paradox: 'people coming with huge chunks of money which we are failing to consume' (P2, personal communication, October 13, 2025). P2's organisation achieves only a 50% resource burn rate despite chronic underfunding in the broader system. The barrier is not resource availability but absorptive capacity \u0026mdash; the technical, managerial, and administrative capability to design proposals, manage budgets, and implement at scale (Cohen \u0026amp; Levinthal, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). P6 provided historical precision: a 1996\u0026ndash;2005 employment freeze during structural adjustment created a ten-year personnel gap that still reverberates today: 'Some programmes only have one expert. And to make a good researcher, it takes no less than 15 years, give or take' (P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025). Entire technical programmes depending on a single individual renders institutional memory fragile and succession planning impossible.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFinancial Exclusion and Regulatory Fragmentation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA critical systemic barrier is the financial exclusion of emerging enterprises from formal credit and grant mechanisms. P2 documented that of 400 applicants to a matching grant programme, 'only about 13 have required documents' (P2, personal communication, October 13, 2025) \u0026mdash; a 97% rejection rate driven not by lack of innovative ideas but by absence of formal registration certificates, bank accounts, and audited financial statements. This creates a structural paradox: enterprises need capital to establish track records but cannot access capital without existing track records. The subsidy system exacerbates this, with the Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP) consuming over 85% of the agriculture budget, leaving minimal funding for R\u0026amp;D (P5, personal communication, November 18, 2025; P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eP3 identified inter-ministerial policy incoherence as a concrete operational constraint, noting that the Zambia Environmental Management Agency does not recognise pest risk analyses conducted by the Plant Quarantine and Phytosanitary Service: 'You find that the entities are not speaking to each other' (P3, personal communication, October 21, 2025). This duplication imposes time, financial, and opportunity costs on biopesticide developers, creating additive compliance burdens that function as de facto barriers to innovation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEnablers: Network Capital and Government Demand-Pull\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgainst this landscape of constraints, network capital emerged as a critical enabling asset. P1 emphasised relationships 'built over the years' enabling technology sourcing and partnership formation, with systematic partner vetting based on strategic fit, complementarity, shared values, and delivery history (P1, personal communication, October 10, 2025). P2's emphasis on MOU clarity and embedded expertise \u0026mdash; noting that University of Helsinki experts based in Lusaka for two years were 'more effective than their colleagues coming from Finland' (P2, personal communication, October 13, 2025) \u0026mdash; reveals that proximity enables iterative learning and contextual adaptation impossible in short-term technical assistance. Government demand-pull represents a second key enabler, with P2 describing government actively incorporating research into planning processes: 'They are always saying: bring the information you have; we want to incorporate it into our policies' (P2, personal communication, October 13, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRQ3: SKE Alignment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eKnowledge Intensity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvidence of knowledge-intensive practices is abundant. P1 deploys AI-based tools reducing crop suitability analysis from 12\u0026ndash;24 months to 10 days (P1, personal communication, October 10, 2025). P2's organisation maintains a repository of 54,000 publications. P6 characterises crop varieties as 'our flagship intellectual property' (P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025), positioning knowledge explicitly as a tradable commodity. Yet this knowledge intensity coexists paradoxically alongside persistent commercialisation failures. P6 articulated the dysfunction at the core of the knowledge commercialisation pathway in Lusaka Province: 'The linkage between NISA and basic science and basic research does not exist, or it has stopped existing. So, for example, when I develop a good variety, essentially I should be able to pass it on to NISA for them to commercialise. But that doesn't happen anymore' (P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe budget allocation crisis that renders domestic knowledge generation structurally dependent on external financing is quantified precisely by P6: 'If you look at the allocation that goes to research from our national budget... you are talking of 0.3%. 90% of our R\u0026amp;D as an institution is externally financed... we spend the bulk of our time answering questions that are good but may not be contextually relevant' (P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025). This epistemic sovereignty deficit means knowledge generated may be scientifically excellent but epistemically misaligned with national development needs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSKE Pillar Alignment Matrix: Evidence, Scores, and Critical Gaps\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSKE Pillar\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvidence of Alignment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvidence of Misalignment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScore\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritical Gap\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKnowledge Intensity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAI reducing analysis time 12\u0026ndash;24 months \u0026rarr; 10 days; satellite-based remote sensing; digital extension reaching 1.3M; PhD supervision networks\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNISA commercialisation linkage broken; 90% external research financing; knowledge production\u0026thinsp;\u0026ne;\u0026thinsp;application; weak university\u0026ndash;industry linkages\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6/10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommercialisation pathways; domestic R\u0026amp;D agenda-setting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental Sustainability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClimate-smart agriculture promotion; biopesticide development; agroforestry/carbon sequestration; drought-resistant varieties; minimal tillage adoption\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClimate-smart as co-benefit, not intrinsic goal; production volume targets over ecological limits; 60% export orientation; chemical-centric policy bias\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5/10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental practices subordinated to productivity imperatives\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Inclusion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSmallholder FISP targeting; 2,600 farmers in certified seed cooperatives; youth/women special programming; lead farmer cascade models\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eElite science vs. smallholder reality; biopesticides only accessible to commercial farmers; 97% grant rejection; paternalistic framing; geographic exclusion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4/10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eElite capture; structural financial/geographic exclusion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. Alignment scores apply a 10-point researcher interpretive assessment scale: 10\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;full alignment operationalised at scale; 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;rhetorical commitment with limited practice; 0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;contradiction with SKE principle. Scores represent analytical judgement derived from cross-case thematic analysis and are not statistical measures. NISA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research; FISP\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Farmer Input Support Programme. Data source: semi-structured interviews and documentary analysis, Lusaka Province, October\u0026ndash;November 2025.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEnvironmental Sustainability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll participants invoked environmental sustainability discourses extensively, yet systematic analysis reveals that ecological practices are primarily justified through productivity and resilience logics rather than intrinsic environmental values. P6's framing of climate-smart as an 'overarching theme' is immediately followed by emphasis on income and productivity as the institution's 'particular interest' (P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025). This implicit hierarchy \u0026mdash; sustainability as framing condition, productivity as primary goal \u0026mdash; reflects a co-benefit logic wherein climate-smart practices are adopted because they improve yields. When productivity and ecological objectives conflict, an institution that has internalised sustainability primarily as co-benefit lacks an analytical framework to favour the ecological option. P1's ambitions for ten million tonnes of maize with six million tonnes designated for export prioritise tonnage over ecological limits, whilst P3's work on biopesticides \u0026mdash; representing genuine agroecological commitment \u0026mdash; remains accessible only to commercial farmers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSocial Inclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree distinct social inclusion logics emerged: inclusion via market access (P1), via capacity building (P2), and via structural value chain repositioning (P3). Despite rhetorical commitments to smallholder targeting, evidence reveals systematic elite capture. P3 acknowledged explicitly regarding biopesticides: 'Right now only accessible to commercial farmers \u0026mdash; trying to see how small-scale farmers could also access them' (P3, personal communication, October 21, 2025). P4's irrigation demonstrations face the barrier that target farmers cannot afford the showcased systems (P4, personal communication, October 30, 2025), creating the perverse outcome where publicly funded research serves as commercial marketing rather than smallholder extension. The 97% grant rejection rate reinforces this pattern: access to innovation support is effectively reserved for formalised, capitalised actors. Cultural lock-in compounds these structural barriers: P3's fieldwork revealed that nshima monoculture consumption functions as an identity performance signalling non-poverty, making nutritionally superior legume alternatives socially unacceptable despite agronomic superiority.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRQ4: Policy Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFindings across participants converge on two clusters of policy recommendations: foundational enabling conditions that must precede sector-specific innovations, and governance reforms addressing coordination, financing, and sovereignty deficits.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInfrastructure as Non-Negotiable Prerequisite. The most consistent recommendation was an 'infrastructure-first policy priority.' P1 argued unequivocally for roads, electricity, dams, and water before land allocation or technology investment (P1, personal communication, October 10, 2025). P5 confirmed from within government that 'tablet-based communication fails in low-network zones' (P5, personal communication, November 18, 2025), revealing frugal substitution strategies as constraint-driven workarounds rather than genuine upgrades. P6 linked infrastructure to human capital retention: 'With financing you have infrastructure, attract the best minds' (P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDomestic R\u0026amp;D Funding Sovereignty. P6 advocated a fundamental rebalancing from the current architecture where over 85% of the agriculture budget funds input subsidies and 90% of institutional R\u0026amp;D is externally financed: 'By taking a bold step to reduce the funding going to subsidies, you unlock financing for R\u0026amp;D... The framework is there \u0026mdash; all we need is just to be bold and implement' (P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025). P6 also proposed IP royalty mechanisms for self-financing \u0026mdash; a strategy that can only succeed if the NISA-ZARI commercialisation linkage is first repaired.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulatory Harmonisation. P3 identified development of a domestic biopesticide regulatory framework as the foremost reform priority, noting that the current vacuum forces Zambia to register only products approved by Botswana (P3, personal communication, October 21, 2025). Inter-agency harmonisation requiring ministries to recognise each other's existing evaluations would eliminate redundant approval processes. P1 called for institutionalised stakeholder dialogue in policy development to prevent regulatory failures such as the veterinary bill case, where legislation was developed without consulting affected parties (P1, personal communication, October 10, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulti-Stakeholder Co-Creation. P6's 'shared goals' framework shifts the foundation of partnership from procedural compliance to substantive alignment on common development objectives: 'Shared goals \u0026mdash; yes, in my view that is the starting point... your greatness comes from not just knowing your abilities but also understanding your weaknesses, because that opens a pathway for collaboration' (P6, personal communication, November 20, 2025). P3's 'data collection with farmers, not on farmers' principle moves closer to genuine partnership, positioning farmers as knowledge producers rather than passive subjects and directly addressing the paternalistic development framing identified in RQ1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e "},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheoretical Contributions to NIS Scholarship\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe central empirical revelation \u0026mdash; the 'paradoxical innovation landscape' \u0026mdash; demands theoretical explanation. How can an innovation system simultaneously exhibit abundance and scarcity, sophistication and dysfunction, rhetorical commitment and structural betrayal? Freeman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e), Lundvall (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e), and Nelson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) developed NIS theory primarily from OECD empirical material characterised by mature institutions, stable governance, and domestic control over research agendas. The Lusaka Province case presents fundamentally different conditions: fragmented institutions shaped by colonial legacies and structural adjustment; inter-ministerial silos; capacity deficits that render resource abundance paradoxically problematic; and innovation agendas substantially determined by external actors despite formal sovereignty.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings contribute three insights extending NIS theory for developing contexts. First, they challenge the componential assumption: that system components constitute an innovation system through their mere existence. Lusaka Province possesses international research organisations, government research institutes, extension systems, private consultancies, and policy frameworks, yet these operate in relative isolation. NIS effectiveness depends less on component quality than on the density and quality of inter-institutional connections \u0026mdash; what might be termed the relational infrastructure of innovation. Second, the capacity paradox \u0026mdash; wherein abundant donor funding encounters institutional inability to absorb resources \u0026mdash; reveals a flaw in linear models of innovation system strengthening. P6's revelation that a 10-year employment freeze during structural adjustment created personnel gaps persisting two decades later illustrates how historical shocks generate persistent deficits that financial resources alone cannot remedy (Mahoney, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Pritchett et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Third, the sovereignty deficit \u0026mdash; 90% external research financing, samples sent abroad for testing, regulatory protocols borrowed from Botswana \u0026mdash; points to a post-colonial NIS pattern wherein the assumption of domestic autonomy over research priority-setting does not hold. Knowledge production occurs domestically yet epistemic authority remains externalised, constituting epistemic subordination rather than merely dependency (Foucault, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e; Jasanoff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSKE Pillar Tensions and Theoretical Implications\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings reveal that SKE's three pillars operate in tension rather than harmony within the Lusaka Province agricultural innovation context. Knowledge intensity concentrates benefits among actors with prerequisite digital literacy and capital, systematically excluding remote smallholders. Environmental sustainability functions as a productivity co-benefit rather than intrinsic design criterion, subordinated when export targets demand volume over ecological limits. Social inclusion remains aspirational, constrained by structural barriers \u0026mdash; restrictive banking criteria, 97% grant rejection rates, biopesticides accessible only to commercial farmers \u0026mdash; that reforms fail to dismantle. These tensions substantiate Cozzens and Sutz's (2014) critique that inclusive innovation frameworks often fail to account for power asymmetries enabling elite capture.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe paternalistic development framing documented represents a deeper challenge, encoding colonial-era hierarchies that formal decolonisation and participatory rhetoric have failed to dislodge. Li's (2007) concept of 'rendering technical' illuminates how complex political-economic challenges are reframed as technical problems solvable through expert intervention, depoliticising processes inherently about power and resource distribution. When innovation actors frame their mission as enlightening farmers about 'potentials that lie within the country' or rescuing them from 'traditional methods,' structural issues \u0026mdash; land concentration, input cartel pricing, export commodity dependence \u0026mdash; disappear from view, replaced by farmer-level behavioural targets.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Three Mutually Reinforcing Tensions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree overarching tensions form a mutually reinforcing constraint system. The Capacity Paradox is partly produced by the Sovereignty Deficit, as donor-financed projects require compliance overhead that consumes institutional capacity. The Coordination Failure is partly produced by the Sovereignty Deficit, as competing for external funding reduces incentives for domestic coordination. The Sovereignty Deficit is partly reproduced by the Capacity Paradox, as institutional inability to absorb resources prevents the track record accumulation required to attract domestic investment. Breaking this system requires simultaneous reform across all three dimensions, supported by the multi-stakeholder co-creation mandates that the RQ4 findings collectively recommend.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings contribute to understanding donor\u0026ndash;recipient relationships in development finance more broadly. The post-project innovation mortality documented \u0026mdash; P3's observation that 'if project goes, innovations disappear' (P3, personal communication, October 21, 2025) \u0026mdash; contrasts with Malawi's plant clinic success, where sustained government ownership across a 3\u0026ndash;5-year project produced genuine institutional capacity. The distinction is not merely temporal but structural: Malawi's success reflects government ownership investment, not simply a longer project timeline.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec30\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAnalytical Scope: Lusaka Province as an Innovation System Node\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is essential to be explicit about the epistemological status of these findings. This study does not claim to represent the totality of Zambia's agricultural innovation system. Findings are grounded in the experiences of six actors operating in Lusaka Province and are analytically generalisable to theoretical propositions rather than to all enterprises across Zambia's ten provinces. However, the choice of Lusaka Province is not an arbitrary geographic convenience: it represents the institutional apex of the national AIS, concentrating the actors \u0026mdash; government ministries, ZARI, international research organisations, private advisories \u0026mdash; whose interactions constitute the national policy interface. Structural dynamics identified at this apex \u0026mdash; the capacity paradox, epistemic sovereignty deficit, and inclusion paradox \u0026mdash; are therefore likely to represent ceiling constraints on national innovation performance rather than peripheral phenomena. This does not authorise generalisation to Zambia at large, but it does justify the claim that these findings illuminate critical systemic vulnerabilities that no reform agenda can responsibly ignore.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec31\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations merit acknowledgement. The study's geographic concentration in Lusaka Province, whilst analytically justified by institutional density, means that findings cannot be assumed to capture dynamics in more remote agricultural contexts, where structural conditions, actor configurations, and innovation practices may differ substantially. The small interview sample (six participants), whilst appropriate for qualitative depth and aligned with the maximum variation logic employed, necessarily limits cross-case comparison and analytical breadth. The cross-sectional design cannot capture how TIM practices evolve over time. Participants from international research organisations, who were disproportionately represented given access constraints, may exhibit systematically different perspectives from purely domestic enterprises.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture research should include comparative analysis across Zambian provinces \u0026mdash; particularly more rural and remote provinces such as Western and Muchinga \u0026mdash; to test whether the structural paradoxes identified here persist or take different forms in lower-capacity contexts. Longitudinal designs to trace capacity development over time, and investigation of smallholder farmer perspectives \u0026mdash; the ultimately intended beneficiaries who were not directly represented in this study \u0026mdash; are critical next steps. Comparative analysis with other sub-Saharan African countries at similar development stages would also strengthen theoretical generalisability and permit assessment of whether the conceptual contributions advanced here \u0026mdash; the componential fallacy, capacity paradox, and epistemic sovereignty deficit \u0026mdash; constitute broadly applicable analytical tools for post-colonial innovation system scholarship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study has investigated TIM practices among agricultural enterprises and innovation system actors in Lusaka Province, Zambia, through the lens of NIS theory and the SKE framework, revealing a paradoxical innovation landscape characterised by simultaneous abundance and scarcity, sophistication and dysfunction, rhetorical commitment and structural betrayal. The findings expose a consistent pattern: the formal aspirations of Zambia's policy framework \u0026mdash; knowledge intensity, environmental sustainability, social inclusion, and domestic R\u0026amp;D sovereignty \u0026mdash; are structurally undermined by interacting institutional failures that are systemic rather than motivational.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn knowledge intensity, enterprises deploy sophisticated digital tools and produce substantial research outputs, yet commercialisation linkages remain broken and absorptive capacity constraints prevent translation into broad-based economic value. On environmental sustainability, climate-smart practices are rhetorically pervasive but operationally subordinated to production volume targets, functioning more as rhetorical legitimation than as binding ecological constraints. On social inclusion, all three inclusion models \u0026mdash; market-mediated, capacity-building, and value chain repositioning \u0026mdash; confront persistent elite capture dynamics whereby infrastructure deficits, financial exclusion, and geographic remoteness systematically disadvantage smallholders.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretically, this research challenges the componential fallacy in NIS theory by demonstrating that system components can coexist with profound dysfunction when relational infrastructure remains underdeveloped. It theorises capacity paradoxes whereby financial capital cannot substitute for absorptive capacity, and conceptualises epistemic sovereignty deficits characteristic of post-colonial innovation systems where knowledge authority remains externalised despite formal sovereignty. These concepts extend NIS scholarship beyond its predominantly OECD empirical base and provide analytical tools for understanding innovation system dynamics in other resource-dependent developing economies. Whilst grounded empirically in Lusaka Province, these theoretical contributions are offered as generalisable propositions subject to testing in other sub-Saharan African and developing-economy contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePractically, the findings call for an integrated policy response addressing infrastructure deficits as non-negotiable prerequisites for innovation diffusion, rebalancing agricultural budget allocation from input subsidies towards R\u0026amp;D investment, developing domestic regulatory frameworks for emerging biotechnologies, building domestic laboratory and diagnostic infrastructure, and reforming extension systems towards genuine co-creation partnerships with smallholder farmers. Without addressing these foundational structural conditions, knowledge-intensive innovations will continue benefiting elite commercial actors whilst bypassing the smallholder majority \u0026mdash; perpetuating the structural contradictions embedded in Zambia's political-economic configurations and reproduced through prevailing market mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe author declares no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis research received no external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eApproved by UNZABREC (Ref. No. 6908-2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eData are not publicly available due to participant confidentiality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe sole author conducted all stages of the research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfrican Development Bank (2023) African economic outlook 2023. ADB\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAgricultural Science and Technology Indicators (2022) Agricultural R\u0026amp;D in sub-Saharan Africa. ASTI\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeintema N, Stads GJ (2019) A comprehensive overview of investments and human resource capacity in African agricultural research. IFPRI\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol 3(2):77\u0026ndash;101. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurgelman RA, Christensen CM, Wheelwright SC (2009) Strategic management of technology and innovation, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarayannis EG, Campbell DF (2012) Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2062-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-1-4614-2062-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Springer\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCGIAR (2022) CGIAR 2030 research and innovation strategy. CGIAR System Organisation\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChambers R (1997) Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. Intermediate Technology\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChapoto A, Jayne TS (2009) The impacts of trade barriers and market interventions on maize price predictability: Evidence from Eastern and Southern Africa. Michigan State University\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChataway J, Schuerer N, Wield D (2014) New models of inclusive innovation for development. Innov Dev 4(2):175\u0026ndash;185. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2014.928982\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/2157930X.2014.928982\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChavula P, Muleba M, Shentema S, Umer Y, Teressa B, Turyasingura B (2022) Description of agricultural extension and advisory service system in Zambia. Int J Appl Agricultural Res 2(10):1\u0026ndash;12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35(1):128. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/2393553\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/2393553\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCozzens SE, Sutz J (2014) Innovation in informal settings: Reflections and proposals for a research agenda. Innov Dev 4(1):5\u0026ndash;31. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2013.876803\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/2157930X.2013.876803\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDaka E (2013) Government and private sector: Case of the Zambia national system of innovation [Conference presentation]. Triple Helix 11th International Conference, London, UK\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDenzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) (2018) The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 5th edn. Sage\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDrucker PF (1969) The age of discontinuity. Elsevier\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEdquist C (2005) Systems of innovation: Perspectives and challenges. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, Nelson RR (eds) The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press, pp 181\u0026ndash;208\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAO (2009) Global agriculture towards 2050. FAO\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAO (2022a) FAO science and innovation strategy. FAO of the United Nations. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4060/cb9931en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4060/cb9931en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAO (2023) The state of food and agriculture 2023. FAO of the United Nations. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4060/cc7724en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4060/cc7724en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFoucault M (1980) In: Gordon C (ed) Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972\u0026ndash;1977. Pantheon Books\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFreeman C (1987) Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. Pinter\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFreeman C (1995) The national system of innovation in historical perspective. Camb J Econ 19(1):5\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035309\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035309\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGovernment of the Republic of Zambia (2006) Vision 2030: A prosperous middle-income nation by 2030\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGSMA (2024) Driving digitalisation of the economy in Zambia: Leveraging policy reforms. GSMA\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuba EG, Lincoln YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, pp 105\u0026ndash;117\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeeks R, Foster C, Nugroho Y (2014) New models of inclusive innovation for development. Innov Dev 4(2):175\u0026ndash;185. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2014.928982\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/2157930X.2014.928982\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJasanoff S (2004) States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9780203413845\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9780203413845\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKlerkx L, van Mierlo B, Leeuwis C (2012) Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: Concepts, analysis and interventions. In I. Darnhofer, D. Gibbon, \u0026amp; B. Dedieu (Eds.), Farming systems research into the 21st century: The new dynamic (pp. 457\u0026ndash;483). Springer. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2_20\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2_20\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKraemer-Mbula E, Wamae W (2010) Adapting the innovation systems framework to Sub-Saharan Africa. In Innovation and the development agenda (pp. 65\u0026ndash;90). OECD. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1787/9789264088924-7-en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1787/9789264088924-7-en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi TM (2007) The will to improve: Governmentality, development, and the practice of politics. Duke University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLundvall B-\u0026Aring; (1992) National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning (Vol. 242). Pinter\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLundvall B-\u0026Aring; (2010) National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Anthem\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMahoney J (2000) Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory Soc 29(4):507\u0026ndash;548. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007113830879\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1023/A:1007113830879\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarkham SK, Ward SJ, Aiman-Smith L, Kingon AI (2010) The valley of death as context for role theory in product innovation. J Prod Innov Manage 27(3):402\u0026ndash;417. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00724.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00724.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMason NM, Jayne TS (2013) Fertiliser subsidies and smallholder commercial fertiliser purchases: Crowding out, leakage and policy implications for Zambia. J Agric Econ 64(3):558\u0026ndash;582. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1477-9552.12025\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMataa M, Chikopela L (2024) Agriculture in Zambia: Field crops and horticulture. In H. Chitonge (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Zambian Economy (pp. 358\u0026ndash;383). Oxford Academic. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780192864222.013.44\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780192864222.013.44\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of Finance and National Planning (2022) Eighth National Development Plan 2022\u0026ndash;2026: Socio-economic transformation for improved livelihoods. GRZ\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMuchie M, Gammeltoft P, Lundvall B-\u0026Aring; (eds) (2003) Putting Africa first: The making of African innovation systems. Aalborg University\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNelson RR (1993) National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD (1996) The knowledge-based economy. OECD\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD (2019) Measuring the digital transformation: A roadmap for the future. OECD Publishing. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311992-en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1787/9789264311992-en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD (2020) A territorial approach to the Sustainable Development Goals. OECD Publishing. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1787/e86fa715-en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1787/e86fa715-en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePatton MQ (2015) Qualitative research \u0026amp; evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice, 4th edn. Sage\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePowell WW, Snellman K (2004) The knowledge economy. Ann Rev Sociol 30:199\u0026ndash;220. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100037\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100037\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePretty J, Benton TG, Bharucha ZP, Dicks LV, Flora CB, Godfray HCJ, Wratten S (2018) Global assessment of agricultural system redesign for sustainable intensification. Nat Sustain 1(8):441\u0026ndash;446. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0114-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41893-018-0114-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePritchett L, Woolcock M, Andrews M (2013) Looking like a state: Techniques of persistent failure in state capability for implementation. J Dev Stud 49(1):1\u0026ndash;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2012.709614\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00220388.2012.709614\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQSR International (2023) NVivo (Version 15) [Computer software]. Lumivero. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://lumivero.com/products/nvivo\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://lumivero.com/products/nvivo\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eREA. (2024) 2022 annual report. Rural Electrification Authority\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSampath PG, Oyelaran-Oyeyinka B (2009) Rough road to the market: Constrained biotechnology innovation and entrepreneurship in Nigeria and Ghana. J Int Dev 22(7):962\u0026ndash;977. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1560\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/jid.1560\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchilling MA (2020) Strategic management of technological innovation, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill Education\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchillo RS, Robinson RM (2017) Inclusive innovation in developed countries: The who, what, why, and how. Technol Innov Manage Rev 7(7):34\u0026ndash;46. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1089\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.22215/timreview/1089\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSitko NJ, Burke WJ, Jayne TS (2018) The quiet rise of large-scale trading firms in East and Southern Africa. J Dev Stud 54(5):895\u0026ndash;914. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2018.1430773\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00220388.2018.1430773\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpielman DJ, Ekboir J, Davis K (2009) The art and science of innovation systems inquiry: Applications to sub-Saharan African agriculture. Technol Soc 31(4):399\u0026ndash;405. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2009.10.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.techsoc.2009.10.004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStake RE (2006) Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSuch\u0026aacute; L, Duškov\u0026aacute; L, Leventon J, Seidlov\u0026aacute; A, Bub\u0026aacute;k Š, Harm\u0026aacute;čkov\u0026aacute; ZV (2024) Knowledge based interventions for sustainable development cooperation: Insights from knowledge systems mapping in Zambia. Sustain Sci 19:1543\u0026ndash;1559. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01536-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11625-024-01536-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTidd J, Bessant J (2018) Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organisational change, 6th edn. Wiley\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNCTAD (2022) Science, technology and innovation policy review: Zambia. UNCTAD\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNDP (2023) Annual report 2023: Regional Programme for Africa. UNDP\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNESCO Institute for Statistics (2025) Research and development expenditure (% of GDP): Zambia. World Bank Data\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Bank (2021) World development report 2021: Data for better lives. World Bank\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYin RK (2018) Case study research and applications: Design and methods, 6th edn. SAGE\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZambia Statistics Agency (2023) Zambia in Figs. 2023. ZamStats\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"technology and innovation management, sustainable knowledge economy, agricultural innovation, national innovation systems, Lusaka Province, Zambia, epistemic sovereignty, capacity paradox","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9365103/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9365103/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates Technology and Innovation Management (TIM) practices among formally registered agricultural enterprises and innovation system actors in Lusaka Province, Zambia, examining how these practices align with principles of a Sustainable Knowledge Economy (SKE). Employing an interpretivist-constructivist paradigm, the study utilised a collective case study design with purposive sampling and a maximum variation strategy to capture diverse institutional perspectives across six key actor types \u0026mdash; private consultancy, international research organisations, and national government agencies \u0026mdash; specifically selected to represent the principal functional positions within the Lusaka Province agricultural innovation ecosystem. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with six elite participants, supplemented by documentary analysis of five organisational sources. Thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-phase framework generated contextually grounded insights. The findings reveal three fundamental paradoxes: a capacity paradox whereby donor funding abundance (approximately 90% of R\u0026amp;D financing) coexists with severe absorptive capacity constraints, evidenced by 50% grant burn rates and 97% application rejection rates; an epistemic sovereignty deficit in which domestic knowledge production occurs alongside externalised validation authority; and an inclusion paradox whereby sophisticated innovations systematically exclude smallholder beneficiaries through infrastructure prerequisites and financial gatekeeping. Environmental sustainability is framed instrumentally as a productivity co-benefit, whilst social inclusion rhetoric is undermined by elite capture. The research contributes theoretically by challenging the componential fallacy in National Innovation Systems theory and conceptualising epistemic sovereignty deficits in post-colonial innovation systems. Whilst findings are grounded in Lusaka Province, the structural dynamics identified resonate with broader patterns in sub-Saharan African agricultural innovation systems. Policy recommendations address infrastructure-first investment, regulatory harmonisation, domestic R\u0026amp;D funding sovereignty, and curriculum reform.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Technology and Innovation Management Practices for a Sustainable Knowledge Economy: Paradoxes of Capacity, Coordination, and Epistemic Sovereignty in Agricultural Innovation in Lusaka Province, Zambia","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-21 03:40:10","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9365103/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"17eb5334-91e4-4485-b6f2-63a6d224ef3a","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 21st, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":66695953,"name":"Agricultural Economics \u0026 Policy"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-21T03:40:10+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-21 03:40:10","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9365103","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9365103","identity":"rs-9365103","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}