Abstract This editorial introduces a special issue (SI) concerning quests for responsible digital agri‐food innovation. We present our interpretations of the concepts of responsible innovation and digital agri‐food innovation and show why they can and have been productively interrelated with social science theories and methods. First, each of the articles in this SI is briefly introduced and synthesised around three themes: (1) the need for a critique of digital ‘solutionism’ in current interdisciplinary research, development and innovation settings; (2) that social science contributes value via the ideas it brings to life to challenge dominant power dynamics and (3) that social scientific imagination and practice is a valuable long‐term investment to both mitigate risk but also embrace socioenvironmental opportunities as we face ongoing sustainability crises into the future. Second, we identify future research considerations arising within the field, sitting at the intersection of social science and agricultural sociotechnical transitions. Our insights relate to challenges and opportunities to ‘do’ social science within the context of contemporary and nascent transitions such as increasing digitalisation. Researchers trained in social science theory and practice can make distinctive contributions to agri‐food innovation processes by making social stakes visible and by advancing inclusive processes of research policy and technology design.
Abstract Digital transformation within agriculture involves advances in information and communication technologies that promise a ‘next generation’ of agricultural technologies that will drive improvements in productivity and efficiency while reducing risks and negative impacts. Here, we discuss the Digiscape Future Science Platform, a program that seeks to facilitate the digital transformation of Australia's agricultural industries and land sector. Digiscape is one example of significant efforts internationally to realise the transformative potential of digital agriculture. However, there are significant socio‐ethical challenges associated with digital agriculture. Responsible innovation (RI) provides one conceptual lens to address such challenges, acknowledging the power of research and innovation to create the future and posing questions about the types of futures that societies want to encourage or avoid. This article uses insights from rural sociology and innovation studies, which can complement RI dimensions–anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity and responsiveness–to reflect on how RI can be implemented in digital agriculture initiatives. We draw on insights from interviews with researchers involved in Digiscape to show how RI dimensions can be blended with applied sociological theories and co‐innovation principles and identify recommendations to help foster responsible agricultural technology development.
Innovation platforms (IPs) that support agricultural innovation to enable transition processes towards more sustainable agriculture provide a space where conflicts of interest among actors in the existing agricultural system (the so called incumbent regime) may play out. Sometimes these conflicts over how actors will benefit from an action are not revealed until actors are brought together. However, a barrier to change occurs when IP actors use their existing power to mobilise resources to influence if and how individual and collective interests are aligned. In the context of agricultural innovation and transitions, this paper uses the power in transitions framework (Avelino and Wittmayer, 2016), along with analytical perspectives on conflicts and role perceptions, to understand how consciously staging or revealing conflicts of interest among IP actors changed role perceptions and power relations among these actors. The paper explores this topic in two IPs addressing agricultural production and sustainability challenges in New Zealand's agricultural sector. Conflicts were staged in IPs when one group of actors mobilised resources that enabled them to move existing power relations from one-sided, to synergistic or a mutual dependency. This enabled conflicts to be acknowledged and solved. In contrast, conflicts were not staged when actors mobilised resources to maintain antagonostic power relations. Our cases demontrate that staging conflicts to change actors' role perceptions is an important intermediary step to forming new power relations in the agricultural system. Our findings highlight the need for IP theory to conceptualise power relations in IPs as context specific, dynamic and a force shaping outcomes, rather than solely a force exerted by actors in the incumbent regime over IP actors.
We report on qualitative social research conducted with stakeholders in a local agricultural knowledge and advice network associated with a collaborative water quality monitoring project. These farmers, advisors and researchers allude to existing social dynamics, technological developments, and (more general) social evolution which is analysed against a novel analytical framework. This framework considers notions of power, social capital, and trust as related and dynamic, forming the basis of our contribution to knowledge. We then probe the data to understand perceived impacts of the collaborative project and social interaction associated with this research project, which involved cutting edge automated and frequent water quality monitoring that allowed for near real-time access to data visualisation displayed via a bespoke mobile or web 'app' (1622WQ). Our findings indicate that a multi-faceted approach to assessing and intervening based on consideration of multiple social dimensions holds promise in terms of creating conditions that allow for individual and group learning to encourage changes in thinking required to result in improved land management practice.
To protect and improve water quality in the Great Barrier Reef, the Queensland Government's Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan targets that 90% of sugarcane, horticulture, cropping and grazing lands in priority areas be managed using best management practices for sediment, nutrient and pesticides by 2025. Progress towards this target is insufficient and variable across catchments and industries. The motivation to adopt improvements in management practices is heavily influenced by social, economic, cultural and institutional dimensions. In this paper we synthesise the literature on how these human dimensions influence decision making for land management practice and highlight where future investment could be focussed. We highlight that focussing on —1) investigating systems to support landholder decision making under climate uncertainty (risk); 2) generating a better understanding of the extent and drivers of landholder transaction cost; 3) understanding if there are competing 'right' ways to farm; and 4) improving understanding of the social processes, trust and power dynamics within GBR industries and what these means for practice change— could improve practice change uptake in the future.