Digitalisation in the New Zealand Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System: Initial understandings and emerging organisational responses to digital agriculture

Rijswijk, Kelly; Klerkx, Laurens; Turner, James A.

doi:10.1016/j.njas.2019.100313

Cited by 77 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An emphasis on frame incongruence is also evident in the literature on meso‐scale actors in smart farming, in which understandings of and responses to smart farming are characterised as ad‐hoc (Rijswijk et al 2019) and lacking in a shared and strategic vision (Fielke et al 2019). From this perspective, the development of a more systematic, integrated and strategic approach to smart farming is argued to be critical so that meso‐scale actors can more effectively translate digital innovations into better farm management decisions (Eastwood et al 2017; Ayre et al 2019; Rijswijk et al 2019). Our analysis reveals that incongruence, while important, is only evident within one of the domains that we have discussed – the technological extension domain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Meso‐scale actors – and farm advisors in particular – are increasingly recognised as playing a potentially central role in smart farming, especially in managing farmer uncertainty associated with its implementation (Eastwood et al 2017; Rijswijk et al 2019). Smart farming technology, however, represents a substantial shift from routine practices for those in farm extension and advisory positions (Nettle et al 2018) and this poses challenges in providing effective support to farmers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Framing Agri‐Digital Governance: Industry Stakeholders, Technological Frames and Smart Farming Implementation

Higgins

Bryant

2020

Sociologia Ruralis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meso-scale actors -such as farm advisors and other extension agents -are increasingly recognised as playing a critical role in managing farmer uncertainty associated with smart farming implementation. However, there has been limited research to date on how these actors navigate smart farming implementation within specific industries or commodity sectors. This article applies theoretical insights from the technological frames literature to investigate how meso-scale actors in the Australian rice industry frame smart farming technology implementation, and the ways in which relationships between frames variously afford and/or constrain industry sovereignty over implementation of technological change. Through analysis of our data, we reveal a complex relationship between participants' technological frames involving frame incongruence, frame ambivalence and frame switching. We argue that while development of a more integrated approach to enhancing the digital capacities of meso-scale actors advocated in the literature provides a way of addressing frame incongruence, more flexible strategies may be needed to address frame ambivalence and switching. Furthermore, we contend that those frame relationships supporting industry sovereignty -namely frame ambivalence and switching -may not always be conducive to the promotion of digital agency among meso-scale actors, and could in fact impose limits on smart farming implementation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Framing Agri‐Digital Governance: Industry Stakeholders, Technological Frames and Smart Farming Implementation

Higgins

Bryant

2020

Sociologia Ruralis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first systematic attempt to deal with this issue was taken by Rijswijk et al [46], who, focusing on organizational identity, found that advisory organizations in New Zealand make only some ad hoc changes to adapt to digitalization. This process leads to what organizational change scholars [86,87] term convergent change: the organizations make changes that are minor and consistent with or complementary to operating archetypical templates.…”

Section: How Do Extension and Advisory Organizations React To Punctuamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This process leads to what organizational change scholars [86,87] term convergent change: the organizations make changes that are minor and consistent with or complementary to operating archetypical templates. Rijswijk and her colleagues [46] operationalized organizational identity as a mixture of tangible and intangible elements, offering some first insights on how sub-systems, design archetypes, and interpretive schemes-albeit not naming them as such-of advisory organizations respond to the effects of the digitalization process.…”

Section: How Do Extension and Advisory Organizations React To Punctuamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Extension and Advisory Organizations on the Road to the Digitalization of Animal Farming: An Organizational Learning Perspective

Charatsari

Lioutas

Rosa

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agricultural digitalization emerged as a radical innovation, punctuating the gradual evolution of the agrifood sector and having the potential to fundamentally restructure the context within which extension and advisory organizations operate. Digital technologies are expected to alter the practice and culture of animal farming in the future. To suit the changing environmental conditions, organizations can make minor adjustments or can call into question their purposes, belief systems, and operating paradigms. Each pattern of change is associated with different types of organizational learning. In this conceptual article, adopting an organizational learning perspective and building upon organizational change models, we present two potential change and learning pathways that extension and advisory organizations can follow to cope with digitalization: morphostasis and morphogenesis. Morphostatic change has a transitional nature and helps organizations survive by adapting to the new environmental conditions. Organizations that follow this pathway learn by recognizing and correcting errors. This way, they increase their competence in specific services and activities. Morphogenetic change, on the other hand, occurs when organizations acknowledge the need to move beyond existing operating paradigms, redefine their purposes, and explore new possibilities. By transforming themselves, organizations learn new ways to understand and interpret contextual cues. We conclude by presenting some factors that explain extension and advisory organizations’ tendency to morphostasis.

show abstract

Priorities for science to overcome hurdles thwarting the full promise of the ‘digital agriculture’ revolution

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The world needs to produce more food, more sustainably, on a planet with scarce resources and under changing climate. The advancement of technologies, computing power and analytics offers the possibility that 'digitalisation of agriculture' can provide new solutions to these complex challenges. The role of science is to evidence and support the design and use of digital technologies to realise these beneficial outcomes and avoid unintended consequences. This requires consideration of data governance design to enable the benefits of digital agriculture to be shared equitably and how digital agriculture could change agricultural business models; that is, farm structures, the value chain and stakeholder roles, networks and power relations, and governance. We argue that this requires transdisciplinary research (at pace), including explicit consideration of the aforementioned socio-ethical issues, data governance and business models, alongside addressing technical issues, as we now have to simultaneously deal with multiple interacting outcomes in complex technical, social, economic and governance systems. The exciting prospect is that digitalisation of science can enable this new, and more effective, way of working. The question then becomes: how can we effectively accelerate this shift to a new way of working in agricultural science? As well as identifying key research areas, we suggest organisational changes will be required: new research business models, agile project management; new skills and capabilities; and collaborations with new partners to develop 'technology ecosystems'. © 2018 The Authors. Journal of The Science of Food and Agriculture published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

show abstract

Digitalisation in the New Zealand Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System: Initial understandings and emerging organisational responses to digital agriculture

Cited by 77 publications

References 63 publications

Framing Agri‐Digital Governance: Industry Stakeholders, Technological Frames and Smart Farming Implementation

Framing Agri‐Digital Governance: Industry Stakeholders, Technological Frames and Smart Farming Implementation

Extension and Advisory Organizations on the Road to the Digitalization of Animal Farming: An Organizational Learning Perspective

Priorities for science to overcome hurdles thwarting the full promise of the ‘digital agriculture’ revolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About