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.
There is growing interest and importance for responsible research and innovation (RRI) among academic scholars and policy makers, especially, in relation to emerging technologies in the agricultural context. While the evolution of smart technologies in agriculture has led to an increase of available solutions that can be used by farmers, the RRI process of new farming technology has been minimally detailed in research contributions to date. This paper thus aims to describe the first 3 phases of a design thinking process to aid with the development of an agricultural innovation, namely, a geotag photo application for use on smart devices. The design thinking approach involved engaging with target users, such as farmers, farm advisors and inspectors, alongside research scientists, app developers and the national agricultural governing body in Ireland to commence the app development process. This paper describes methodology used to elicit the first three major phases of the design thinking approach: empathise, define and ideation. In the first phase a stakeholder mapping activity was conducted, as well as 7 focus groups and 10 interviews with users and other key actors regarding the challenges and needs related to using the app. The define phase included a reflection of results from the first phase and subsequent development of user-personas and problem statements to inform the third phase. The third phase, ideation, consisted of four interactive user-centred workshops, focusing on app needs, in which ideas and solutions were developed and prioritised. The design thinking approach supported multiple stakeholders to express and evaluate the benefits and challenges they associated with the initial development phases involved in designing a new geotag photo app. It also revealed that, by including farmers and additional actors in developing new farming technology enables technology developers to harness the full value of multiples types of knowledge and expertise. In conclusion, future research on innovation development should consider that by enabling engagement among a wide variety of actors, such as that offered by the initial stages of design thinking, and attending to a greater diversity of values is essential to the development of a responsible, and responsive, digital tool. This study is the first to methodically document the early stages of developing a geotag smartphone app using a design thinking approach. This paper will therefore benefit other scholars aiming to include farmers, and other agricultural stakeholders to have an input on the agri-tech development decisions that will ultimately impact their farming lives.
In dairy farming, mastitis treatment is the most common reason for antimicrobial use. The overuse or misuse of antibiotics in agriculture has been associated with the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Traditionally, blanket dry cow therapy (BDCT), in which all cows receive antibiotic treatment, was used prophylactically to prevent and manage disease spread. In recent years, there has been a move toward selective dry cow therapy (SDCT), in which only clinically infected cows are treated with antibiotics. This study aimed to explore farmer attitudes toward antibiotic use (ABU), using the COM-B (Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behavior) model as a framework, to identify predictors of changing behavior toward SDCT and suggest interventions to encourage its uptake. Participant farmers (n = 240) were surveyed online between March and July 2021. Five items were found to be significant predictors of farmers having stopped BDCT: (1) having lower knowledge of AMR, (2) greater awareness of AMR and ABU (Capability), (3) feeling social pressure to reduce ABU (Opportunity), and (4) having greater professional identity, and (5) having positive emotions associated with stopping BDCT (Motivation). Direct logistic regression found that these 5 factors explained between 22 and 34.1% of the variance in making changes to BDCT practices. Additionally, objective knowledge was not correlated with current positive antibiotic practices, and farmers often perceived their antibiotic practices as more responsible than they actually were. A multifaceted approach, encompassing each of the predictors highlighted, should be taken to encourage farmer behavior change in relation to stopping BDCT. Additionally, as farmers' perceptions of their own behaviors may not align with their actual practices, awareness raising of what constitutes "responsible" behavior should be targeted at dairy farmers to motivate them to take action and adopt more responsible antibiotic practices.
Purpose With increasing emphasis on public engagement and scientific communication and dissemination, scientists are increasingly required to redefine their academic identity. Theoretical frameworks of academic identity and social media functionality were used to explore food researchers' attitudes towards social media. Design/methodology/approach An online study was carried out with 80 scientists working in publicly funded food research. Findings Commitment to scientific rigour, disseminating science to society, and being part of an academic community were important facets of academic identity and shaped participants' perceptions of social media functions. Functions offered by social media were most favourably viewed by the food research community for academic peer engagement and academic community building. Social implications Cultural and organisational changes are needed to mobilise food researchers to view public engagement as an important facet of academic identity. Originality/value The current study adds to the theoretical literature on academic identity and social media functionality by providing empirical evidence outlining how scientists working in publicly funded food research feel about engaging with social media within their professional role.
Employing a theoretical model of human behaviour (COMB), the current study explores the factors influencing veterinarians' engagement with antibiotic use stewardship on Irish dairy farms. One-to-one semi structured interviews were carried out by telephone with 12 veterinarians whose daily work focused on dairy cattle. A thematic analysis approach was undertaken. The identified themes and sub-themes were then mapped to the COM-B model. This study identified challenges faced by veterinarians when trying to prescribe responsibly which included lack of training to encourage farmer behaviour change, issues with laboratory testing, pressures from farmers to prescribe antimicrobials, concern for animal welfare and farmers going elsewhere for prescriptions. Having a good knowledge of AMR, peers as an advice source, potential financial benefits for farmers as a result of reduced antimicrobial costs and accepting a shared responsibility for AMR, facilitate veterinarians in their role as antimicrobial stewards. The barriers and facilitators identified as influencing veterinarians' capability, opportunity and motivation to responsibly prescribe antimicrobials formed the basis for a number of practical recommendations which should be considered by advisory and policy making teams. Recommendations include; continuous training for veterinarians on AMR and alternatives to overcome the barriers faced when trying to promote reduced AMU, veterinarian peer support groups to improve confidence in their knowledge and decision making to minimise the effect of client pressures/expectations, setting up collaborative farmer and veterinarian working groups to promote a transparent working relationship and the development of affordable and efficient diagnostic and susceptibility testing.
Understanding how consumers react to what is happening as a crisis evolves is crucial for those charged with risk management and risk communication.Responsibility, blame and accountability are important concepts in any crisis, particularly when consumer confidence has been damaged.In this article we examine to what extent, and to what effect, responsibility, blame and accountability figure in consumer reactions in the immediate aftermath of a food crisis.The data we draw on in this article is derived from an online engagement study which took place in 'real time' as the crisis unfolded.Through this study we were able to explore how consumers responded to the adulteration of processed beef products with horsemeat in early 2013 in Ireland and the UK.We found that consumers attributed causal responsibility and allocated blame for the adulteration to three factors, the deliberately deceitful practices of the food industry, the complexity of the food supply chain, and demand from (other) consumers for cheap food.We found that consumers were willing to begin the process of rebuilding their confidence in the food system and accountability was viewed as the primary means for restoring confidence.
Abstract Background Selective dry cow therapy (SDCT) is widely promoted in dairy farming as a method to reduce antimicrobial usage. New legislation introduced by the European Union will restrict and regulate the prophylactic and metaphylactic use of antibiotics from January 2022. Blanket dry cow therapy continues to be a practice engaged in by many farmers in Ireland and for many of these farmers, moving towards SDCT would require a significant infrastructural, behavioural and/or cultural change on their farm. Existing research has reported the important need to understand farmers’ motivations to initiate any substantial behaviour change. However, it is currently unknown what farmers know, think and believe about SDCT in Ireland. The aim of this study was to use qualitative methods to explore what barriers and facilitators farmers perceived to exist with SDCT and explore if they had chosen to implement SDCT after voluntarily participating in a funded dry cow consult with a trained veterinarian, with the objective of maximising the dry period udder health performance and moving safely to SDCT. Results In this study, 19 farmers were contacted, and telephone interviews were conducted regarding farmers’ beliefs about the consequences of SDCT. Audio recordings were professionally transcribed verbatim and analysed qualitatively using an inductive thematic analysis. The analysis identified 6 barriers and 6 facilitators to implementing SDCT. A significant fear of increasing mastitis incidence was evident that caused reluctance towards SDCT and reliance on antibiotics. Mixed perceptions on SDCT, infrastructure limitations, a perceived lack of preventive advice as well as peer influence were presented as barriers to SDCT. Farmers can build confidence when a graded approach to SDCT is implemented, which could help overcome the fear of SDCT and reliance on antibiotics. Regulatory pressure, high standards of farm hygiene and use of targeted veterinary consults were found to facilitate SDCT. Education was suggested to motivate farmers in the future uptake of SDCT. Despite cited negative influences, peer influence can be utilised to encourage the farming community. Conclusions This study prioritises areas to facilitate the major behaviour change required as a dairy industry in order to move from blanket dry cow therapy to SDCT.
'/%3e%3cpath d='M200 752.362h200v300H200z' style='fill:%23fff;fill-opacity:1;stroke:none' transform='translate(0 -752.362)'/%3e%3cpath d='M400 752.362h200v300H400z' style='fill:%23ff883e;fill-opacity:1;stroke:none' transform='translate(0 -752.362)'/%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)