<p>Studies explaining the slow agroecological transitions of farms in many parts of the world have largely focused on prescribing how extension and advisory services (EAS) should adapt to agroecology. In contrast, this study, conducted in Malawi, shifts attention from this approach to examine agricultural priorities of stakeholders and the contextual realities that should shape EAS for agroecology. Drawing on 22 key informant interviews and 16 focus group discussions, analyzed using complex systems principles, the study finds that both farmers and EAS providers reflect strong productivist priorities shaped by food security goals, profitability, and scalability, which reinforce conventional, input-intensive pathways. Although agroecology is widely recognized for its long-term benefits, such as improved soil health and resilience, these are perceived as delayed and uncertain and are therefore secondary to short-term needs. These dynamics are reinforced by contextual realities, including agricultural commercialization agenda, land pressure, climate variability, market bias toward conventional agriculture, weak certification mechanisms, limited finance, and donor-driven extension approaches. Concerns on trust and legitimacy further shape perceptions, with agroecology often viewed as externally driven and risky. Consequently, it is selectively integrated rather than mainstreamed. The study challenges assumptions that agroecology is a straightforward alternative to conventional farming, showing that despite its envisaged benefits, its practice depends on alignment with farmer priorities and contextual realities. A key gap is that EAS remain misaligned and supply-driven, limiting their ability to mediate agroecological transitions alongside these priorities and realities. The study concludes that slow transitions are driven by structural conditions and EAS misalignment, calling for reorientation toward facilitation, co-innovation, systems thinking, and reforms in markets, finance, and policy.</p>