2003; Choi et al 2010), to shape the adoption of specific types of innovations. Our findings have surfaced the strong value-driven emotions that underpin the Irish dairy farmers' beliefs about what farming is, and means, and the influence that this has on innovation choices. Emotional or affective dimensions are rather under-represented in research into innovation adoption and rejection, especially by businesses; most of the research that has examined the interaction between emotions and innovation adoption has focused on industries other than agriculture (Vuori and Huy, 2016). We would argue that the important role of emotions in social settings (Parkinson and Manstead, 2015), combined with the heavily values-driven nature of Irish farming (Fahey, 2002; Ni Laoire, 2005) and the inherently emotional nature of work that involves interactions with the land and with animals (Scotney et al., 2015), means that innovation in Irish dairy farming is worthy of investigation. The rural literatures have also tended to 'understate emotional dimensions' and have seldom made feelings an explicit focus for analysis (Jennings et al., 2015) despite the fact that these "loom large in idealised imaginings of rurality" (Pini et al., 2010). We also challenge the prevailing dominance within *Manuscript (WITHOUT AUTHOR DETAILS). . 2. innovation adoption theory of a bias toward a pro-change stance, which we address by shedding light on the underpinnings of passive and active innovation resistance (Talke and Heidenreich, 2014; Heidenreich et al., 2016). This paper unfolds as follows. We first review the innovation adoption and emotions literatures to understand the factors that influence acceptance of, or resistance to, innovation and the types of innovations adopted, focusing especially on the role of emotions in the innovation adoption or rejection decision. We then describe our methodology and research setting, including the selection of interviewees, our interview protocols and data analysis methods. The following section discusses our findings and proposes a novel framework for understanding the interaction of external and emotional influences on the adoption of innovation and the types of innovations adopted in the Irish dairy industry. This is followed by a final section that draws out implications for theory and for further research.. 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND. 2.1 Innovation Adoption. Research on both the adoption and the diffusion of innovations has a long and wide-ranging history (Kapoor et al 2014; Büschgens et al., 2013). Much of this body of literature focuses on the role of innovation in fulfilling a perceived need or solving a problem, whether this is economic or social (Rogers, 2003). Much of the early literature focused on product or technology innovation; subsequent theory has extended to include innovation in services and in business models. Each tends to be diffused via a different path (Rieple and Kapetaniou, 2017) and involves different players in the process. .

Background In addressing the threat of antimicrobial resistance, it is critical to understand the barriers to the uptake of strategies for the reduction of antimicrobial use (AMU) in the pig industry. In several EU countries, factors such as education level, habits and social pressures are recognised as affecting farmers’ decision-making process in relation to AMU. However, there is a lack of information on the Irish scenario. The aim of this study was to investigate pig farmers’ perspectives and their behaviour towards AMU to identify potential barriers to effectively reduce AMU in Irish pig production. We conducted face-to-face semi-structured interviews with 30 pig farmers, 5 pig veterinarians and 4 focus groups of pig farm personnel. We employed qualitative analyses to explore the objective of the study. Results Qualitative analysis revealed six convergent themes as potential barriers: perceptions about the need for AMU on farm, concept of animal welfare and associated management practices, legislation, culture, economics and standards of communication/type of advice-network. Overall, pig farmers believed that there is poor communication between stakeholders (i.e. farmers, vets and advisors) and a lack of reliable people to approach for advice. They considered themselves as operating responsibly in terms of AMU compared to their national and international colleagues and expressed the importance of a so-called ‘Irish solution’ to the problem of AMU because it was associated with what ‘has always been done’ and was therefore considered reliable and safe. Conclusions Barriers and challenges were in line with those identified in other EU countries highlighting similarities in behavioural and attitudinal patterns among pig farmers. Overall, farmers appeared to be more likely to rely on previous experiences or to wait for an imposed change (e.g. legislation) instead of taking personal action. Thus, considerable behavioural and attitudinal changes are needed to adopt a more responsible AMU in Irish pig production and to develop effective intervention strategies.