Digitalisation of agricultural knowledge and advice networks: A state-of-the-art review

Fielke, Simon; Taylor, Bruce; Jakku, Emma

doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102763

Cited by 203 publications

(176 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

164

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This can be combined with agricultural and food systems assessment and modelling approaches focusing for example on resilience ( Meuwissen et al, 2019 ; Tittonell, 2020 ), and drawing on recent frameworks to analyse different aspects of food systems transformation ( Gaitán-Cremaschi et al, 2019 ; Hebinck et al, 2018 ; Kanter et al, 2015 ; Termeer et al, 2018 ; Zurek et al, 2018 ). Such analysis may make use of data science or citizen science driven approaches bringing together large datasets of biophysical and socioeconomic data to track mission evolution ( Beza et al, 2017 ; Fielke et al, 2020 ; Guo et al, 2020 ; Klerkx et al, 2019 ; Sauermann et al, 2020 ). Since MAIS are often global with national or regional ‘branches’, initiatives like the Food Systems Dashboard ( Fanzo et al, 2020 ), the CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture, the Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators network (ASTI), and Capacity Development for Agricultural Innovation Systems project (CDAIS) could play roles in enabling or hosting ‘MAIS mapping’.…”

Section: Mission-oriented Agricultural Innovation Systems: What Whymentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting food systems transformation: The what, why, who, where and how of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems

Klerkx

Begemann

2020

Agricultural Systems

224

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agricultural innovation systems has become a popular approach to understand and facilitate agricultural innovation. However, there is often no explicit reflection on the role of agricultural innovation systems in food systems transformation and how they relate to transformative concepts and visions (e.g. agroecology, digital agriculture, Agriculture 4.0, AgTech and FoodTech, vertical agriculture, protein transitions). To support such reflection we elaborate on the importance of a mission-oriented perspective on agricultural innovation systems. We review pertinent literature from innovation, transition and policy sciences, and argue that a mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems (MAIS) approach can help understand how agricultural innovation systems at different geographical scales develop to enable food systems transformation, in terms of forces, catalysts, and barriers in transformative food systems change. Focus points can be in the mapping of missions and sub-missions of MAIS within and across countries, or understanding the drivers, networks, governance, theories of change, evolution and impacts of MAIS. Future work is needed on further conceptual and empirical development of MAIS and its connections with existing food systems transformation frameworks. Also, we argue that agricultural systems scholars and practitioners need to reflect on how the technologies and concepts they work on relate to MAIS, how these represent a particular directionality in innovation, and whether these also may support exnovation.

show abstract

Section: Mission-oriented Agricultural Innovation Systems: What Whymentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting food systems transformation: The what, why, who, where and how of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems

Klerkx

Begemann

2020

Agricultural Systems

224

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The terms "digital" and "smart" refer to data-rich services and applications, which-supported by advanced hardware-permit farmers and farm managers to smartly analyze, plan, and control farm operations [7]. The process through which these smart innovations penetrate the agrifood sector is termed agricultural digitalization [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The new duties that they are expected to perform urge these organizations to alter themselves [44]. New practices, work routines, structures, and organizational arrangements can, and already do, emerge [8,40,45], whereas changes in core organizational attributes (purposes, values) are also possible [46].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…Many games in agriculture are, however, not effective or efficient as a result of the costs of visiting remote villages and the limited number of facilitators and participants. Scalability will likely be improved in the near future with the increasing connectivity observed between humans and technologies with respect to agricultural knowledge and advice networks [65]. For example, researchers can use mobile applications (e.g., ODK) to input responses offline, which makes data cleaning and analysis more efficient [32].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonetheless, 70 percent of the poorest 20 percent in low and middle-income countries have access to a mobile phone, and one in three people have internet access [72][73][74]. Although connectivity prevails in urban settings, it has spread to rural areas, where the ratio of farmers to extension workers exceeds 1000 to one [65,[72][73][74]. And with increased physical restrictions from COVID-19, there is a need to reach and engage with farmers using innovative technologies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Framed Experiments and Games in Agriculture: A Systematic Review of the 21st Century in Economics and Social Science

Jn¹,

Mauerman²,

A³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Framed experiments and games are a useful medium to understand how context affects individual and group decision-making. They are particularly relevant for field research in agriculture, where alternative experimental designs can be costly and unfeasible. After a systematic review of the literature, we found that the volume of published studies employing coordination and cooperation games increased during the 2000-2020 period. In recent years, there has been greater attention given to natural resource management, conservation, and ecology areas, especially in strategic regions for agriculture sustainability. Other games, such as trust and risk games, have come to be regarded as standards of framed field experiments in agriculture. Regardless of sectoral focus, most games' results are subject to internal and external validity criticism. In particular, a significant portion of the games showed potential recruitment biases against women and no opportunities for a continued impact assessment. However, games' validity should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Specific cultural aspects of games might reflect the real context, and generalizing games' conclusions to different settings is often constrained by cost and utility. Overall, games in agriculture could benefit from more significant, frequent, and inclusive experiments and data – all possibilities offered by digital technology. Present-day physical distance restrictions may accelerate this shift. New technologies and engaging ways to approach farmers might represent a turning point for games in agriculture in the 21st century.

show abstract

Digitalisation of agricultural knowledge and advice networks: A state-of-the-art review

Cited by 203 publications

References 80 publications

Supporting food systems transformation: The what, why, who, where and how of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems

Supporting food systems transformation: The what, why, who, where and how of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems

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

Framed Experiments and Games in Agriculture: A Systematic Review of the 21st Century in Economics and Social Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About