IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v40y2023i2d10.1007_s10460-022-10378-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intellectual property meets transdisciplinary co-design: prioritizing responsiveness in the production of new AgTech through located response-ability

Author

Listed:
  • Karly Ann Burch

    (University of Otago)

  • Dawn Nafus

    (Intel)

  • Katharine Legun

    (Wageningen University)

  • Laurens Klerkx

    (Wageningen University)

Abstract

This paper explores the complex relationship between intellectual property (IP) and the transdisciplinary collaborative design (co-design) of new digital technologies for agriculture (AgTech). More specifically, it explores how prioritizing the capturing of IP as a central researcher responsibility can cause disruptions to research relationships and project outcomes. We argue that boundary-making processes associated with IP create a particular context through which responsibility can, and must, be located and cultivated by researchers working within transdisciplinary collaborations. We draw from interview data and situated IP practices from a transdisciplinary co-design project in Aotearoa New Zealand to illustrate how IP is a fluid boundary-requiring-and-producing object that impels researchers into its management, and produces tensions that need to be noticed and skillfully navigated within research relations. We propose located response-ability as a conceptual tool and practice to reposition IP within the relations that make up a transdisciplinary co-design project, as opposed to prioritizing IP by default without recognizing its possible impacts on collaborative relations and other project aims and accountabilities. This can support researchers practicing responsible innovation in making everyday decisions on how to protect potential IP without disrupting the collaborative relations that make the creation of potential IP possible, and the existence of protected IP relevant and beneficial to project collaborators and wider societal actors. This may help to ensure that societal benefits can be generated, and positive science–society relationships prioritized and preserved, in the design of new AgTech.

Suggested Citation

  • Karly Ann Burch & Dawn Nafus & Katharine Legun & Laurens Klerkx, 2023. "Intellectual property meets transdisciplinary co-design: prioritizing responsiveness in the production of new AgTech through located response-ability," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(2), pages 455-474, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:40:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10460-022-10378-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-022-10378-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-022-10378-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-022-10378-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hiroyuki Okamuro & Junichi Nishimura, 2013. "Impact of university intellectual property policy on the performance of university-industry research collaboration," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 273-301, June.
    2. Carbonell, Isabelle M., 2016. "The ethics of big data in big agriculture," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13.
    3. Louisa Prause, 2021. "Digital Agriculture and Labor: A Few Challenges for Social Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, May.
    4. Eastwood, C.R. & Chapman, D.F. & Paine, M.S., 2012. "Networks of practice for co-construction of agricultural decision support systems: Case studies of precision dairy farms in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 10-18.
    5. Erik de Bakker & Carolien de Lauwere & Anne-Charlotte Hoes & Volkert Beekman, 2014. "Responsible research and innovation in miniature: Information asymmetries hindering a more inclusive ‘nanofood’ development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 294-305.
    6. Lundström, Christina & Lindblom, Jessica, 2018. "Considering farmers' situated knowledge of using agricultural decision support systems (AgriDSS) to Foster farming practices: The case of CropSAT," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 9-20.
    7. Newton, Joanna E. & Nettle, Ruth & Pryce, Jennie E., 2020. "Farming smarter with big data: Insights from the case of Australia's national dairy herd milk recording scheme," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    8. Klerkx, Laurens & van Bommel, Severine & Bos, Bram & Holster, Henri & Zwartkruis, Joyce V. & Aarts, Noelle, 2012. "Design process outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects: Functions and limitations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 39-49.
    9. Fleming, Aysha & Jakku, Emma & Fielke, Simon & Taylor, Bruce M. & Lacey, Justine & Terhorst, Andrew & Stitzlein, Cara, 2021. "Foresighting Australian digital agricultural futures: Applying responsible innovation thinking to anticipate research and development impact under different scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mascha Gugganig & Karly Ann Burch & Julie Guthman & Kelly Bronson, 2023. "Contested agri-food futures: Introduction to the Special Issue," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 787-798, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ingram, Julie & Maye, Damian & Bailye, Clive & Barnes, Andrew & Bear, Christopher & Bell, Matthew & Cutress, David & Davies, Lynfa & de Boon, Auvikki & Dinnie, Liz & Gairdner, Julian & Hafferty, Caitl, 2022. "What are the priority research questions for digital agriculture?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    2. David Christian Rose & Anna Barkemeyer & Auvikki Boon & Catherine Price & Dannielle Roche, 2023. "The old, the new, or the old made new? Everyday counter-narratives of the so-called fourth agricultural revolution," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(2), pages 423-439, June.
    3. Eastwood, C.R. & Turner, F.J. & Romera, A.J., 2022. "Farmer-centred design: An affordances-based framework for identifying processes that facilitate farmers as co-designers in addressing complex agricultural challenges," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    4. Sarah Hackfort, 2021. "Patterns of Inequalities in Digital Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-18, November.
    5. Metta, Matteo & Ciliberti, Stefano & Obi, Chinedu & Bartolini, Fabio & Klerkx, Laurens & Brunori, Gianluca, 2022. "An integrated socio-cyber-physical system framework to assess responsible digitalisation in agriculture: A first application with Living Labs in Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    6. Ayorinde Ogunyiola & Maaz Gardezi, 2022. "Restoring sense out of disorder? Farmers’ changing social identities under big data and algorithms," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1451-1464, December.
    7. Lioutas, Evagelos D. & Charatsari, Chrysanthi & De Rosa, Marcello, 2021. "Digitalization of agriculture: A way to solve the food problem or a trolley dilemma?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    8. Katrin Martens & Jana Zscheischler, 2022. "The Digital Transformation of the Agricultural Value Chain: Discourses on Opportunities, Challenges and Controversial Perspectives on Governance Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, March.
    9. Claire Brown & Áine Regan & Simone van der Burg, 2023. "Farming futures: Perspectives of Irish agricultural stakeholders on data sharing and data governance," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(2), pages 565-580, June.
    10. McGrath, Karen & Brown, Claire & Regan, Áine & Russell, Tomás, 2023. "Investigating narratives and trends in digital agriculture: A scoping study of social and behavioural science studies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    11. Reichelt, Nicole & Nettle, Ruth, 2023. "Practice insights for the responsible adoption of smart farming technologies using a participatory technology assessment approach: The case of virtual herding technology in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    12. Hidalgo, Francisco & Quiñones-Ruiz, Xiomara F. & Birkenberg, Athena & Daum, Thomas & Bosch, Christine & Hirsch, Patrick & Birner, Regina, 2023. "Digitalization, sustainability, and coffee. Opportunities and challenges for agricultural development," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    13. Pataki, György & Bajmócy, Zoltán & Málovics, György & Gébert, Judit, 2019. "Miről szól(hatna) a felelősségteljes kutatás és innováció?. Rendszerkonform versus transzformatív megközelítés [What is responsible research and innovation about? Contrasting the reform and transfo," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(3), pages 286-304.
    14. Balaine, Lorraine & Dillon, Emma J. & Läpple, Doris & Lynch, John, 2020. "Can technology help achieve sustainable intensification? Evidence from milk recording on Irish dairy farms," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    15. Pant, Laxmi Prasad, 2016. "Paradox of mainstreaming agroecology for regional and rural food security in developing countries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 305-316.
    16. Salembier, Chloé & Segrestin, Blanche & Sinoir, Nicolas & Templier, Joseph & Weil, Benoît & Meynard, Jean-Marc, 2020. "Design of equipment for agroecology: Coupled innovation processes led by farmer-designers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    17. Katharine Legun & Karly Ann Burch & Laurens Klerkx, 2023. "Can a robot be an expert? The social meaning of skill and its expression through the prospect of autonomous AgTech," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(2), pages 501-517, June.
    18. Sophia Xiaoxia Duan & Santoso Wibowo & Josephine Chong, 2021. "A Multicriteria Analysis Approach for Evaluating the Performance of Agriculture Decision Support Systems for Sustainable Agribusiness," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-16, April.
    19. Pedersen, Michael Friis & Gyldengren, Jacob Glerup & Pedersen, Søren Marcus & Diamantopoulos, Efstathios & Gislum, René & Styczen, Merete Elisabeth, 2021. "A simulation of variable rate nitrogen application in winter wheat with soil and sensor information - An economic feasibility study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    20. Beata Michaliszyn-Gabryś & Joachim Bronder & Janusz Krupanek, 2024. "Social Life Cycle Assessment of Laser Weed Control System: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-28, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:40:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10460-022-10378-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.