Search results

AbstractThis research aimed to identify the practices used by actors while innovating digitally in the field of agriculture. We also attempted to depict if and how they experience disruptions associated with the emergence of digital technologies. A qualitative research design permitted us to uncover that work‐ and system‐related disruptions follow the process of agricultural digitalisation. The study also indicated that innovating digitally is a collective process in which, however, some actors independently attempt to elevate their positions through weaving, that is, engaging in networking practices. On the other hand, despite their intense efforts to promote these technologies to farmers, innovation brokers, technology providers and researchers are not actively involved in the process of co‐creating value for and with farmers. We conclude by arguing that digital technologies are not scope‐neutral devices and by pointing out the need for redefining what responsibility means, what agricultural digitalisation research should stand upon and what it should stand for.

AbstractThe transition to Agriculture 4.0 creates new responsibilities for farm advisors and initiates changes to the professional trajectories. In this work, following a mixed research design, we examine how Greek advisors experience the transition to and anticipate the future of Agriculture 4.0. We also aim at identifying what elements they are changing in their professional identities to respond to the challenges associated with Agriculture 4.0, which are the new responsibility‐related competency needs that this transition generates, and how conceptions of the future of farming impact upon these needs. Our findings suggest that the transition to Agriculture 4.0 urges the emergence of a new culture, in which data and technology are considered more reliable than human advice, and creates new responsibility gaps. To cope with these changes, advisors add new roles in their professional identities, emphasising the principle of beneficence and paying limited attention to the societal externalities of transition. Advisors view Agriculture 4.0 as a threat or disruption more than as evolution or promise. In parallel, they prioritise different sets of competencies needed to responsibly facilitate agricultural digitalisation, depending on how they grasp the future of Agriculture 4.0.