IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v41y2024i3d10.1007_s10460-024-10555-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring inclusion in UK agricultural robotics development: who, how, and why?

Author

Listed:
  • Kirsten Ayris

    (University of Reading)

  • Anna Jackman

    (University of Reading)

  • Alice Mauchline

    (University of Reading)

  • David Christian Rose

    (Royal Agricultural University)

Abstract

The global agricultural sector faces a significant number of challenges for a sustainable future, and one of the tools proposed to address these challenges is the use of automation in agriculture. In particular, robotic systems for agricultural tasks are being designed, tested, and increasingly commercialised in many countries. Much touted as an environmentally beneficial technology with the ability to improve data management and reduce the use of chemical inputs while improving yields and addressing labour shortages, agricultural robotics also presents a number of potential ethical challenges – including rural unemployment, the amplification of economic and digital inequalities, and entrenching unsustainable farming practices. As such, development is not uncontroversial, and there have been calls for a responsible approach to their innovation that integrates more substantive inclusion into development processes. This study investigates current approaches to participation and inclusion amongst United Kingdom (UK) agricultural robotics developers. Through semi-structured interviews with key members of the UK agricultural robotics sector, we analyse the stakeholder engagement currently integrated into development processes. We explore who is included, how inclusion is done, and what the inclusion is done for. We reflect on how these findings align with the current literature on stakeholder inclusion in agricultural technology development, and suggest what they could mean for the development of more substantive responsible innovation in agricultural robotics.

Suggested Citation

  • Kirsten Ayris & Anna Jackman & Alice Mauchline & David Christian Rose, 2024. "Exploring inclusion in UK agricultural robotics development: who, how, and why?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(3), pages 1257-1275, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:41:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s10460-024-10555-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-024-10555-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-024-10555-6
    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/s10460-024-10555-6?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. 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).
    2. Rotolo, Daniele & Hicks, Diana & Martin, Ben R., 2015. "What is an emerging technology?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1827-1843.
    3. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    4. Andreas Neef & Dieter Neubert, 2011. "Stakeholder participation in agricultural research projects: a conceptual framework for reflection and decision-making," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(2), pages 179-194, June.
    5. Pretty, Jules N., 1995. "Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(8), pages 1247-1263, August.
    6. Erica Consterdine & Sahizer Samuk, 2018. "Temporary Migration Programmes: the Cause or Antidote of Migrant Worker Exploitation in UK Agriculture," Journal of International Migration and Integration, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1005-1020, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Vogl, Christian R. & Kummer, Susanne & Leitgeb, Friedrich & Schunko, Christoph & Aigner, Magdalena, 2015. "Keeping the Actors in the Organic System Learning: The Role of Organic Farmers’ Experiments," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 4(3 Special).
    2. Elena Pagliarino & Secondo Rolfo, 2021. "Examining Researchers’ Attitudes, Barriers, and Opportunities for Participatory Research: The Case of the Riso-Biosystems Project on Organic Rice," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-24, April.
    3. Sam Jan Cees Krouwel & Emma Rianne Dierickx & Sara Heesterbeek & Pim Klaassen, 2022. "Adopting Safe-by-Design in Science and Engineering Academia: The Soil May Need Tilling," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Kraaijvanger, Richard & Veldkamp, Tom & Almekinders, Conny, 2016. "Considering change: Evaluating four years of participatory experimentation with farmers in Tigray (Ethiopia) highlighting both functional and human–social aspects," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 38-50.
    5. Kwon, Seokbeom & Liu, Xiaoyu & Porter, Alan L. & Youtie, Jan, 2019. "Research addressing emerging technological ideas has greater scientific impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    6. Colleen M. Eidt & Laxmi P. Pant & Gordon M. Hickey, 2020. "Platform, Participation, and Power: How Dominant and Minority Stakeholders Shape Agricultural Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, January.
    7. Luján Soto, Raquel & Cuéllar Padilla, Mamen & de Vente, Joris, 2020. "Participatory selection of soil quality indicators for monitoring the impacts of regenerative agriculture on ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    8. Livia Fritz & Claudia R. Binder, 2018. "Participation as Relational Space: A Critical Approach to Analysing Participation in Sustainability Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-29, August.
    9. Harald König & Martina F. Baumann & Christopher Coenen, 2021. "Emerging Technologies and Innovation—Hopes for and Obstacles to Inclusive Societal Co-Construction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-13, November.
    10. Corrado Ciaccia & Marta Di Pierro & Elena Testani & Giancarlo Roccuzzo & Marcello Cutuli & Danilo Ceccarelli, 2019. "Participatory Research towards Food System Redesign: Italian Case Study and Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-12, December.
    11. Petersen, Alexander M. & Rotolo, Daniele & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2016. "A triple helix model of medical innovation: Supply, demand, and technological capabilities in terms of Medical Subject Headings," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 666-681.
    12. Pawera, Lukas & Manickam, Ravishankar & Wangungu, Carolyne & Bonnarith, Uon & Schreinemachers, Pepijn & Ramasamy, Srinivasan, 2024. "Guidance on farmer participation in the design, testing and scaling of agricultural innovations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    13. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    14. Seokbeom Kwon & Jan Youtie & Alan Porter & Nils Newman, 2024. "How does regulatory uncertainty shape the innovation process? Evidence from the case of nanomedicine," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 262-302, February.
    15. Mark Knell & Simone Vannuccini, 2022. "Tools and concepts for understanding disruptive technological change after Schumpeter," Jena Economics Research Papers 2022-005, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    16. Andrzej Magruk, 2021. "Analysis of Uncertainties and Levels of Foreknowledge in Relation to Major Features of Emerging Technologies—The Context of Foresight Research for the Fourth Industrial Revolution," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-16, September.
    17. Kazadi, Kande & Lievens, Annouk & Mahr, Dominik, 2016. "Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 525-540.
    18. Phélinas, Pascale & Choumert, Johanna, 2017. "Is GM Soybean Cultivation in Argentina Sustainable?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 452-462.
    19. Burmaoglu, Serhat & Sartenaer, Olivier & Porter, Alan, 2019. "Conceptual definition of technology emergence: A long journey from philosophy of science to science policy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    20. Silvia Scaramuzzi & Sara Gabellini & Giovanni Belletti & Andrea Marescotti, 2021. "Agrobiodiversity-Oriented Food Systems between Public Policies and Private Action: A Socio-Ecological Model for Sustainable Territorial Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-32, November.

    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:41:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s10460-024-10555-6. 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.