David Christian Rose

This Special Issue of five empirical papers delves into the realm of co-design, a participatory approach to policy development similar to co-production that aims to engage diverse stakeholders in decision-making processes inspired by design thinking. The papers examine the inherent opportunities, challenges, and potential solutions associated with adopting co-design in policy formulation. Drawing upon literature and real-world experiences, the authors explore the potential benefits of inclusive… Show more

This Special Issue of five empirical papers delves into the realm of co-design, a participatory approach to policy development similar to co-production that aims to engage diverse stakeholders in decision-making processes inspired by design thinking. The papers examine the inherent opportunities, challenges, and potential solutions associated with adopting co-design in policy formulation. Drawing upon literature and real-world experiences, the authors explore the potential benefits of inclusive policy development, such as improved policy quality, enhanced acceptance, and innovative solutions. They also confront the complexities of time constraints, power imbalances, conflict resolution, and the translation of diverse inputs into actionable policies. In response to these challenges, the articles put forth practical strategies, including early engagement, clear communication, skilled facilitation, and the utilisation of technology, to foster effective co-design processes and encourage more inclusive governance. Show less

This paper offers an overview of research perspectives, gaps, and priorities within the field of mental health and well-being among farming communities in the Global North. Developed by an international working group of scholars with expertise in the mental health and well-being of agricultural and rural communities, it outlines the importance of developing an international research agenda in this subject area by presenting five propositions. Each of the propositions addresses current research… Show more

This paper offers an overview of research perspectives, gaps, and priorities within the field of mental health and well-being among farming communities in the Global North. Developed by an international working group of scholars with expertise in the mental health and well-being of agricultural and rural communities, it outlines the importance of developing an international research agenda in this subject area by presenting five propositions. Each of the propositions addresses current research gaps and/or highlights potential advancements in investigations into one of the following areas of study: i) who is being researched, ii) what is being researched, iii) geographical gaps in research, iv) informal and formal support systems, and v) methodological approaches and issues. The purpose of this paper is to encourage discussion and present a potential agenda around which new studies might be inspired and developed, as well as to help drive forward more focussed, joined-up research across the Global North to facilitate more effective outcomes for individuals belonging to agricultural communities. Show less

There are few examples of where co-design has been applied to active policy development on the scale or level of complexity of England’s post-Brexit Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes. ELM offers a fascinating ‘laboratory’ to analyse how co-design at this scale works in practice. This paper offers the first in-depth empirical assessment of the process from the perspectives of both the policy makers and stakeholders who were involved in the initial phase of ELM co-design from 2018 to… Show more

There are few examples of where co-design has been applied to active policy development on the scale or level of complexity of England’s post-Brexit Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes. ELM offers a fascinating ‘laboratory’ to analyse how co-design at this scale works in practice. This paper offers the first in-depth empirical assessment of the process from the perspectives of both the policy makers and stakeholders who were involved in the initial phase of ELM co-design from 2018 to 2020. Using interview data, we provide critical insights for both academics and government on 'pragmatic' applications of co-design to active policy development and reflect on what this tells us about the wider processes of policy development that may need to change in order to accommodate this more ‘democratic’ approach. Our analysis, which identified key barriers to co-design as articulated by institutional stakeholders and civil servants, revealed a mismatch between the principles and practices of ‘co-design’ in the initial development of ELM. These early-stage challenges included: (i) a lack of shared decision-making and empowering stakeholders to contribute to problem-definitions; (ii) confidentiality requirements that introduced barriers to information-sharing; (iii) insufficient transparency and feedback on what happened to stakeholder’s contributions in terms of policy development; (iv) an absence of detail on the schemes, including proposed approaches, payment rates, advice, baseline measures, the kinds of ‘outcomes’ expected, and monitoring mechanisms; and (v) a repetition of themes that participants had already discussed. Many of these mismatches may be common to other policy arenas. We argue that improved application of policy co-design in government will rely on wider changes to political processes and the institutional culture and practices within the civil service. Show less

Johne’s disease in cattle is a significant global animal health challenge. Johne’s disease is chronic, affecting the gastrointestinal tract of cattle and other ruminants and is caused by the bacteria Mycobacterium avium ssp. Paratuberculosis. Many countries have introduced schemes and programmes to try and control the spread of Johne’s disease, including the UK. Despite efforts to control it, however, Johne’s disease remains consistently ranked by UK producers as the top ranked disease… Show more

Johne’s disease in cattle is a significant global animal health challenge. Johne’s disease is chronic, affecting the gastrointestinal tract of cattle and other ruminants and is caused by the bacteria Mycobacterium avium ssp. Paratuberculosis. Many countries have introduced schemes and programmes to try and control the spread of Johne’s disease, including the UK. Despite efforts to control it, however, Johne’s disease remains consistently ranked by UK producers as the top ranked disease negatively affecting productivity, indicating that schemes are not perceived to have solved the problem fully. Building on a global systematic review of the literature on barriers and solutions for Johne’s disease control on-farm, we conducted an empirical study with over 400 farmers and 150 veterinary professionals across the UK. The study used workshops and semi-structured interviews to understand better the challenges dairy farmers and veterinarians face in implementing on-farm Johne’s disease management schemes with the aim of identifying solutions. The study found that four main challenges are faced in the on-farm control of Johne’s – (1) Management of farmer expectations around Johne’s disease, with eradication near impossible, (2) Issues regarding space for segregation and the related economics of control (3) A ‘free-riding’ problem which can be influenced by the voluntary nature of control plans and (4) Challenges in vet-farmer communication, including levels of knowledge. Our findings have relevance for the control of Johne’s disease in the UK and other countries, including for regions with voluntary and compulsory control programmes. Show less

This report explores what UK farmers think about cultured meat and how the
technology could affect them in practice. It summarises a two-year interdisciplinary
study, analysing social media, discussing the technology with groups of farmers,
working with diverse farm businesses across the UK, and modelling novel
approaches to cultured meat production based on agricultural by-products (see
Section 6). Our team and partners included natural and social scientists… Show more

This report explores what UK farmers think about cultured meat and how the
technology could affect them in practice. It summarises a two-year interdisciplinary
study, analysing social media, discussing the technology with groups of farmers,
working with diverse farm businesses across the UK, and modelling novel
approaches to cultured meat production based on agricultural by-products (see
Section 6). Our team and partners included natural and social scientists, farming
representatives, cultured meat businesses, NGOs and policy makers. Show less

Purpose:
To evaluate the success of behavioural interventions designed to improve preventative animal health planning by dairy farmers in Wales.

Methods:
Interviews of farmers, veterinarians; focus group with extension officers; post-hoc written reflections from project managers; survey of farmers and veterinarians; farmer dropout analysis.

Findings:
The combination of interventions inspired by the RESET model of behavioural change helped farmers to implement new animal… Show more

Purpose:
To evaluate the success of behavioural interventions designed to improve preventative animal health planning by dairy farmers in Wales.

Methods:
Interviews of farmers, veterinarians; focus group with extension officers; post-hoc written reflections from project managers; survey of farmers and veterinarians; farmer dropout analysis.

Findings:
The combination of interventions inspired by the RESET model of behavioural change helped farmers to implement new animal health planning behaviours. Crucial to the success of the project was the brokering role of extension agents and curation of AKIS relationships by project managers. This led to the establishment of symbiotic relationships which helped to deliver successful behavioural interventions.

Practical implications:
Illustrates the need for strong project and AKIS management to deliver combined behavioural interventions to farmers. It also demonstrates the danger of narrow evaluation methods which fail to delve deeper into the symbiotic relationships needed to deliver interventions in practice.

Theoretical implications:
Adds empirical evidence to an integrated behavioural change model (RESET) and explicitly connects the concepts of knowledge brokering and social capital with successful delivery of behavioural change.

Originality:
(1) Contributes novel empirical evidence on how to effect farmer behaviour change based on a large-scale national project. (2) explicitly highlights knowledge brokering, social capital, and good project management as crucial to delivering behavioural change projects, (3) reflects on the value of mixed method evaluations of behavioural change projects. Show less

Prof David Christian Rose, one of the speakers at a recent Westminster Forum online conference, Next Steps for Gene Edited Foods in England, argues that the overwhelmingly ‘techno-optimist’ line-up at the conference didn’t speak for everyone. We publish the text of his talk.

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… Show more

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. Show less

The agricultural sector is one of the areas that has been highlighted as requiring a sustainability transition. For these kinds of transitions to succeed over the long-term, farmers need to be able to adapt to the required changes. Identifying which individual and institutional aspects are important for farmers' adaptive capacity and willingness to adapt is therefore an essential step in gaining insight into the role of farmers’ agency in transition processes and their long-term sustainability.… Show more

The agricultural sector is one of the areas that has been highlighted as requiring a sustainability transition. For these kinds of transitions to succeed over the long-term, farmers need to be able to adapt to the required changes. Identifying which individual and institutional aspects are important for farmers' adaptive capacity and willingness to adapt is therefore an essential step in gaining insight into the role of farmers’ agency in transition processes and their long-term sustainability. So far, adaptive capacity literature has mainly focused on adaptive capacity in relation to climate change or individual innovations, thereby leaving a knowledge gap on adaptive capacity in relation to sustainability transitions. In this study, we aim to address this by deepening our understanding of these aspects through 24 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with English farmers and organisations in the context of the post-Brexit agricultural transition. Whilst we found many similarities with previous adaptation literature in the context of climate change and individual innovation, we also found aspects that have not been prominent and thus seem to be specific for adaptation in relation to sustainability transitions. These include the dual role that access to finances and information can play; land ownership status in terms of having the right to implement adaptation measures; state of mind; feeling respected, appreciated, and understood; perceived level of control and ownership; and considerations of (global) consequences. Further research is needed to strengthen and further develop our findings, for example through case studies in other geographical locations or sectors. Show less

Globally, meat production underpins the livelihoods of many rural communities, so a transition to cultured meat is likely to have deep-seated ethical, environmental, and socio-economic impacts. Within the discourse on cultured meat the voices of farmers are often lost. While not claiming to be representative of all UK farming, this study engaged UK farmer perspectives as a way of starting the substantive process of greater stakeholder inclusion in cultured meat innovation pathways, and which… Show more

Globally, meat production underpins the livelihoods of many rural communities, so a transition to cultured meat is likely to have deep-seated ethical, environmental, and socio-economic impacts. Within the discourse on cultured meat the voices of farmers are often lost. While not claiming to be representative of all UK farming, this study engaged UK farmer perspectives as a way of starting the substantive process of greater stakeholder inclusion in cultured meat innovation pathways, and which should underpin responsible technology transitions in agriculture. Show less

White Paper on future skills needs for agri-robotics in the UK

End-user participation is often encouraged to promote the uptake of Digital Livestock Technologies (DLTs). However, managing participation during DLT development can be challenging. We explore how participation decisions can impact end-users’ engagement and attitudes towards the process, before suggesting strategies for improved management of the participation process.

Animal welfare standards are used within the food industry to demonstrate efforts in reaching higher welfare on farms. To verify compliance with those standards, inspectors conduct regular on-farm animal welfare assessments. Conducting these welfare assessments can, however, be time-consuming and prone to human bias. The emergence of Digital Livestock Technologies (DLTs) offers new ways of monitoring farm animal welfare and can alleviate some of the challenges related to animal welfare… Show more

Animal welfare standards are used within the food industry to demonstrate efforts in reaching higher welfare on farms. To verify compliance with those standards, inspectors conduct regular on-farm animal welfare assessments. Conducting these welfare assessments can, however, be time-consuming and prone to human bias. The emergence of Digital Livestock Technologies (DLTs) offers new ways of monitoring farm animal welfare and can alleviate some of the challenges related to animal welfare assessments by collecting data automatically and more frequently. Whilst automating welfare assessments with DLTs may be promising, little attention has been paid to farmers’ perceptions of the challenges that could prevent successful implementation. This study aims to address this gap by focusing on the trial of a DLT (a 3D machine learning camera) to automate mobility and body condition scoring on 11 dairy cattle farms. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with farmers, technology developers and a stakeholder involved in a farm assurance scheme (N=14). Findings suggest that stakeholders perceived important benefits to the use of the camera in this context, from building consumer trust by increasing transparency to improved management efficiency. There was also a potential for greater consistency in data collection and thus for enhanced fairness across the UK dairy sector, particularly on the issue of lameness prevalence. However, stakeholders also raised important concerns, such as a lack of clarity around data ownership, reliability, and use, and the possibility of some farmers being penalised (e.g., if the technology failed to work). Better clarity should thus be given to farmers in relation to data governance and evidence provided in terms of technical performance and accuracy. The findings of this study highlighted the need for more inclusive approaches to ensure farmers’ concerns are adequately identified and addressed. Show less

David Rose is Professor of Sustainable Agricultural Systems at Cranfield University. He leads the Change in Agriculture research group which focuses on understanding how agricultural transitions are affecting farming stakeholders on the ground. The group conducts work on innovation adoption, behaviour change, just transitions, technology ethics, policy co-design and farmer mental health. He will be speaking on the How can we improve our food security? panel on 27th March [hybrid].

Digital Livestock Technologies (DLTs) can assist farmer decision-making and promise benefits to animal health and welfare. However, the extent to which they can help improve animal welfare is unclear. This study explores how DLTs may impact farm management and animal welfare by promoting learning, using the concept of boundary objects. Boundary objects may be interpreted differently by different social worlds but are robust enough to share a common identity across them. They facilitate… Show more

Digital Livestock Technologies (DLTs) can assist farmer decision-making and promise benefits to animal health and welfare. However, the extent to which they can help improve animal welfare is unclear. This study explores how DLTs may impact farm management and animal welfare by promoting learning, using the concept of boundary objects. Boundary objects may be interpreted differently by different social worlds but are robust enough to share a common identity across them. They facilitate communication around a common issue, allowing stakeholders to collaborate and co-learn. The type of learning generated may impact management and welfare differently. For example, it may help improve existing strategies (single-loop learning), or initiate reflection on how these strategies were framed initially (double-loop learning). This study focuses on two case studies, during which two DLTs were developed and tested on farms. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders involved in the case studies (n = 31), and the results of a separate survey were used to complement our findings. Findings support the important potential of DLTs to help enhance animal welfare, although the impacts vary between technologies. In both case studies, DLTs facilitated discussions between stakeholders, and whilst both promoted improved management strategies, one also promoted deeper reflection on the importance of animal emotional well-being and on providing opportunities for positive animal welfare. If DLTs are to make significant improvements to animal welfare, greater priority should be given to DLTs that promote a greater understanding of the dimensions of animal welfare and a reframing of values and beliefs with respect to the importance of animals’ well-being. Show less

This special issue seeks to extend our knowledge of how a combination of different stressors can challenge the wellbeing of farmers, farming families and farm workers, as well as how negative impacts can be unevenly distributed between different individuals. We advance the state of the art in research on farmer wellbeing, illustrating how social, economic and environmental policy drivers combine to create multiple points of stress, which are experienced differently by different individuals… Show more

This special issue seeks to extend our knowledge of how a combination of different stressors can challenge the wellbeing of farmers, farming families and farm workers, as well as how negative impacts can be unevenly distributed between different individuals. We advance the state of the art in research on farmer wellbeing, illustrating how social, economic and environmental policy drivers combine to create multiple points of stress, which are experienced differently by different individuals (e.g., age, gender). We move beyond an exploration of stressors towards a consideration of how landscapes of support for farmer wellbeing, and packages of support interventions, can improve the social resilience of farming communities. To be effective, these landscapes of support need to be accessible, well-funded, joined-up, and adaptable to evolving crises. This special issue explores farmer wellbeing in the context of global agricultural transitions, which are demanding new ways of farming (e.g., digitalisation, net zero, economic restructuring), and in light of shock events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, in four countries—Ireland, New Zealand, the UK and the US. In exploring the impacts of future shock events and agricultural transitions on wellbeing, the issue concludes with a call to move beyond broad compilations of stressors and interventions and towards nuanced investigations of why and how poor farmer wellbeing occurs and how it can be best supported in specific contexts. The research from these four countries has wide relevance across European countries (similarity in farming systems, noting some differences), but a key message from the issue is that stressors on farmer wellbeing can be highly context-dependent according to place-based social, environmental, economic and political issues. Show less

The research undertaken by Professor David Rose and his team within Change in Agriculture is delivering the evidence needed to help drive the adoption of new technologies within farming. Thanks to Professor David Rose for sharing this insight in our latest blog exploring farmer behaviour, barriers and incentives to adoption:

There is consensus that we need sustainability transitions and increasing acknowledgement that such transitions should be conducted in a just manner. However, what exactly a ‘just transition’ means and how this should be brought about is less clear. Attempts to examine the justice of transitions to date primarily rely on normative interpretations of what justice means. Using the English agricultural transition as a case, we develop an instrument that builds on the underlying dimensions of… Show more

There is consensus that we need sustainability transitions and increasing acknowledgement that such transitions should be conducted in a just manner. However, what exactly a ‘just transition’ means and how this should be brought about is less clear. Attempts to examine the justice of transitions to date primarily rely on normative interpretations of what justice means. Using the English agricultural transition as a case, we develop an instrument that builds on the underlying dimensions of justice evaluations to provide a tool for decision-makers to gain insights into societal perceptions of what a just agricultural transition means to them. When adapted, this instrument is also valuable for sustainability transitions in other sectors. We establish adequate construct reliability and validity for a number of constructs such as Equality, Entitlement, and Merit as Principles of Procedural Justice, whilst others such as the different Topics of Distributional Justice will need further refinement. Show less

Poor mental health is an important and increasingly prevalent issue facing the farming industry. The adaptability of what we, in this article, describe as ‘landscapes of support’ for farming mental health is important to allow support systems to adapt successfully in times of crisis. The term ‘landscapes of support’ refers to the range of support sources available to farmers, including government, third sector bodies and farming/community groups. This article seeks to understand the factors… Show more

Poor mental health is an important and increasingly prevalent issue facing the farming industry. The adaptability of what we, in this article, describe as ‘landscapes of support’ for farming mental health is important to allow support systems to adapt successfully in times of crisis. The term ‘landscapes of support’ refers to the range of support sources available to farmers, including government, third sector bodies and farming/community groups. This article seeks to understand the factors influencing the adaptability of these landscapes of support, especially at a time of crisis. Using a case study of the UK, we undertook a literature review, interviews with 22 mental health support providers and an online survey of people within landscapes of support (93) and farmers themselves (207). We also held an end-of-project workshop. Using an adapted three-point framework to assess adaptability, we found that support-giving organisations adapted during the pandemic using a range of interventions (e.g., enhanced digital offering, use of media), but implementation was affected by organisational challenges (e.g., limited digital training, funding shortfalls, staff trauma) and operational constraints (e.g., lack of capacity, rural digital divide, tension between providers, stigma). We discuss how landscapes of support for farming mental health can be made more sustainable to deal with future shocks. Show less

Prevalent narratives of agricultural innovation predict that we are once again on the cusp of a global agricultural revolution. According to these narratives, this so-called fourth agricultural revolution, or agriculture 4.0, is set to transform current agricultural practices around the world at a quick pace, making use of new sophisticated precision technologies. Often used as a rhetorical device, this narrative has a material effect on the trajectories of an inherently political and normative… Show more

Prevalent narratives of agricultural innovation predict that we are once again on the cusp of a global agricultural revolution. According to these narratives, this so-called fourth agricultural revolution, or agriculture 4.0, is set to transform current agricultural practices around the world at a quick pace, making use of new sophisticated precision technologies. Often used as a rhetorical device, this narrative has a material effect on the trajectories of an inherently political and normative agricultural transition; with funding, other policy instruments, and research attention focusing on the design and development of new precision technologies. A growing critical social science literature interrogates the promises of revolution. Engagement with new technology is likely to be uneven, with benefits potentially favouring the already powerful and the costs falling hardest on the least powerful. If grand narratives of change remain unchallenged, we risk pursuing innovation trajectories that are exclusionary, failing to achieve responsible innovation. This study utilises a range of methodologies to explore everyday encounters between farmers and technology, with the aim of inspiring further work to compile the microhistories that can help to challenge robust grand narratives of change. We explore how farmers are engaging with technology in practice and show how these interactions problematise a simple, linear notion of innovation adoption and use. In doing so, we reflect upon the contribution that the study of everyday encounters can make in setting more inclusionary, responsible pathways towards sustainable agriculture. Show less

In this paper, we use a UK case study to explore how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the mental health (emotional, psychological, social wellbeing) of farmers. We outline the drivers of poor farming mental health, the manifold impacts of the pandemic at a time of policy and environmental change, and identify lessons that can be learned to develop resilience in farming communities against future shocks.

Agriculture is facing increasing challenges as a result of climate change, biodiversity loss, environmental degradation, and demographic change. Yet, at the same time, currently dominant agricultural practices contribute to exacerbate these challenges. It is therefore widely recognized that there is a need for an agricultural sustainability transition. However, what this transition should look like and how it should be brought about is a value-based, normative judgement with differing… Show more

Agriculture is facing increasing challenges as a result of climate change, biodiversity loss, environmental degradation, and demographic change. Yet, at the same time, currently dominant agricultural practices contribute to exacerbate these challenges. It is therefore widely recognized that there is a need for an agricultural sustainability transition. However, what this transition should look like and how it should be brought about is a value-based, normative judgement with differing implications for different people, making transition processes inherently political. In order to govern these processes in a way that recognizes the ethical implications of the political nature of agricultural transitions, we need to understand all the components that influence, and are influenced by, transition processes, interactions across societal levels, and the normative and power dynamics that come together to shape the direction and outcomes of transition processes. In addition, we need insights into what aspects people consider when they build their perceptions of the legitimacy and justice of an agricultural transition. In this paper we draw together overarching lessons learned from extensive reviews of dominant transition, legitimacy, and justice theories, interviews with stakeholder organisations, and a survey of 400 English adults. Show less

This chapter explores the value of research evidence to policy-makers and makes a number of suggestions to researchers about how to engage productively with them. It draws on a study of research use in the UK Parliament and four initiatives (The Conservation Evidence Initiative, The Centre for Science and Policy in Cambridge Policy Fellows Scheme, The International Public Policy Observatory and The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology Fellowships) to bring research and policy… Show more

This chapter explores the value of research evidence to policy-makers and makes a number of suggestions to researchers about how to engage productively with them. It draws on a study of research use in the UK Parliament and four initiatives (The Conservation Evidence Initiative, The Centre for Science and Policy in Cambridge Policy Fellows Scheme, The International Public Policy Observatory and The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology Fellowships) to bring research and policy together. It starts by outlining why policy-makers want to use research evidence to make decisions and then goes into top tips on how researchers can improve the changes that their research evidence is used by policy makers. Show less

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… Show more

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. Show less

1. Agriculture around the world needs to become more environmentally sustainable to limit further environmental degradation and impacts of climate change.
2. Many governments try to achieve this through enrolling farmers in agri-environment schemes (AES) that encourage them to undertake conservation activities.
3. Studies show that AES can suffer from low uptake, meaning their environmental objectives remain unattained. To succeed for people and nature, policy-makers are increasingly… Show more

1. Agriculture around the world needs to become more environmentally sustainable to limit further environmental degradation and impacts of climate change.
2. Many governments try to achieve this through enrolling farmers in agri-environment schemes (AES) that encourage them to undertake conservation activities.
3. Studies show that AES can suffer from low uptake, meaning their environmental objectives remain unattained. To succeed for people and nature, policy-makers are increasingly adopting multi-actor approaches in the ‘co-design’ of AES to make them more attractive and inclusive of a full range of stakeholders, including ‘harder to reach’ farmers.
4. To address why some land managers (principally farmers) may be harder to reach in the context of co-designing England's new Environmental Land Management (ELM) approach, we undertook a quick scoping review of the literature, conducted 23 first-round and 24 s-round interviews with key informants, and held a workshop with 11 practitioners.
5. We outline why farming stakeholders may be harder to reach and how policy-makers can adjust the engagement process to make co-design more inclusive.
6. Based on the results, we make recommendations that could help policy-makers to design better, more inclusive AES that would attract greater uptake and increase their chances of success. Show less

- The future for agricultural policy is uncertain, as digitalisation of the sector progresses.

- We develop scenarios of digitalisation of Europe’s agri-food sector and derive strategies to address their policy gaps.

- We combine a Delphi study and participatory workshop to develop scenarios.

- Strategies that increase digital competencies, prevent risks and cater for diversity could address policy gaps in 2030.

- This is the first study to derive strategies… Show more

- The future for agricultural policy is uncertain, as digitalisation of the sector progresses.

- We develop scenarios of digitalisation of Europe’s agri-food sector and derive strategies to address their policy gaps.

- We combine a Delphi study and participatory workshop to develop scenarios.

- Strategies that increase digital competencies, prevent risks and cater for diversity could address policy gaps in 2030.

- This is the first study to derive strategies addressing policy gaps arising in scenarios of agricultural digitalisation. Show less

To explore the perceived credibility, relevance, legitimacy and accessibility of videos and podcasts in farm extension.

Innovations have the potential to help us address and overcome many of the challenges that agriculture is facing today. Yet, at the same time, they have the potential to create new, sometimes even more challenging, problems, especially when they are not governed in a sustainable way. Governing agricultural innovation sustainably requires understanding of all components that influence, and are influenced by, innovation processes, interactions across societal levels, and the normative and power… Show more

Innovations have the potential to help us address and overcome many of the challenges that agriculture is facing today. Yet, at the same time, they have the potential to create new, sometimes even more challenging, problems, especially when they are not governed in a sustainable way. Governing agricultural innovation sustainably requires understanding of all components that influence, and are influenced by, innovation processes, interactions across societal levels, and the normative and power dynamics that come together to shape the direction and outcomes of innovation processes. Hitherto, approaches to (agricultural) innovation and transition tend to specialize on a specific societal scale or sub-aspect of innovation or transition processes. In this article we aim to bring the strengths of some of the main approaches (Multi-Level Perspective, Agricultural Innovation Systems, Responsible Innovation, Innovation Management, Theory of Planned Behaviour) and insights from environmental governance literature together into a comprehensive framework. The framework describes seven key components and their interactions: macro context, governance system, immediate context, innovative and adaptive capacity of the actors, psychosocial factors, and the innovation process itself. Based on these, we present a subset of guiding questions that can be used diagnostically or for design purposes to support the sustainable governance of agricultural innovation processes. Show less

Autonomous equipment for crop production is on the. verge of technical and economic feasibility, but government regulation may slow its adoption. Key regulatory. issues include requirements for on-site human supervision, liability for autonomous machine error, and intellectual property in robotic learning. As an example of the impact of regulation on the economic benefits of autonomous crop equipment, analysis from the UnitedKingdom suggests that requiring 100% on-site human supervision almost… Show more

Autonomous equipment for crop production is on the. verge of technical and economic feasibility, but government regulation may slow its adoption. Key regulatory. issues include requirements for on-site human supervision, liability for autonomous machine error, and intellectual property in robotic learning. As an example of the impact of regulation on the economic benefits of autonomous crop equipment, analysis from the UnitedKingdom suggests that requiring 100% on-site human supervision almost wipes out the economic benefits of autonomous crop equipment for small and medium farms and increases the economies-of-scale advantage. of larger farms Show less

This report presents the high-level findings of research led by the University of Sheffield in collaboration with the University of Reading, carried out in 2020 & 2021. The research focused on engaging ‘harder to reach’ (HTR) farmers in policy design and delivery. It outlines the role of skilled intermediaries in supporting farmers throughout the post-Brexit agricultural transition, as well as the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on farmer engagement. Initial research involved a quick scoping… Show more

This report presents the high-level findings of research led by the University of Sheffield in collaboration with the University of Reading, carried out in 2020 & 2021. The research focused on engaging ‘harder to reach’ (HTR) farmers in policy design and delivery. It outlines the role of skilled intermediaries in supporting farmers throughout the post-Brexit agricultural transition, as well as the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on farmer engagement. Initial research involved a quick scoping review, 23 expert interviews and a workshop that brought together farm advisers who were engaged with HTR farmers (see Lyon et al., 2020; Hurley et al., 2020). The research design for the current project involved an analysis of the original data and a series of 24 new semi-structured expert interviews. Thus, two sets of interviews make up the evidence base of this research project. Show less

Despite the potential contributions of autonomous robots to agricultural sustainability, social, legal and ethical issues threaten adoption. We discuss how responsible innovation principles can be embedded into the user-centred design of autonomous robots and identify areas for further empirical research.

The rise in the demand for animal products due to demographic and dietary changes has exacerbated difficulties in addressing societal concerns related to the environment, human health and animal welfare. As a response to this challenge, Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) technologies are being developed to monitor animal health and welfare parameters in a continuous and automated way, offering the opportunity to improve productivity and detect health issues at an early stage. However, ethical… Show more

The rise in the demand for animal products due to demographic and dietary changes has exacerbated difficulties in addressing societal concerns related to the environment, human health and animal welfare. As a response to this challenge, Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) technologies are being developed to monitor animal health and welfare parameters in a continuous and automated way, offering the opportunity to improve productivity and detect health issues at an early stage. However, ethical concerns have been raised regarding their potential to facilitate the management of production systems that are potentially harmful to animal welfare, or to impact the human-animal relationship and farmers’ duty of care. Using the Five Domains Model (FDM) as a framework, the aim is to explore the potential of PLF to help address animal welfare and to discuss potential welfare benefits and risks of using such technology. A variety of technologies are identified and classified according to their type (sensors, bolus, image or sound based, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)), their development stage, the species they apply to, and their potential impact on welfare. While PLF technologies have promising potential to reduce the occurrence of diseases and injuries in livestock farming systems, their current ability to help promote positive welfare states remains limited, as technologies with such potential generally remain at earlier development stages. This is likely due to the lack of evidence related to the validity of positive welfare indicators as well as challenges in technology adoption and development. Finally, the extent to which welfare can be improved will also strongly depend on whether management practices will be adapted to minimize negative consequences and maximize benefits to welfare. Show less

Videos and podcasts are potential methods of delivering information and advice to land managers that do not rely on face-to-face contact. This test set out to explore how they might be used in the delivery of advice to farmers based on a literature review, analysis of Agricology’s video/podcast channels, as well as a survey with 141 English farmers and four focus groups involving an additional 29 farmers. Though there have been many studies exploring the potential role of videos, there has been… Show more

Videos and podcasts are potential methods of delivering information and advice to land managers that do not rely on face-to-face contact. This test set out to explore how they might be used in the delivery of advice to farmers based on a literature review, analysis of Agricology’s video/podcast channels, as well as a survey with 141 English farmers and four focus groups involving an additional 29 farmers. Though there have been many studies exploring the potential role of videos, there has been limited research on the role of podcasts. Show less

Changes in agricultural policy may have a rapid impact, even on landscapes which have taken millennia to form. Here we explore the potential impact of the UK leaving the EU as a catalyst for profound changes in the pastoral landscapes of Wales. Impending change of the trading regime governing agricultural produce, concurrent with public pressure to use agricultural subsidies for environmental goals, may lead to unforeseen consequences for the Welsh natural environment. We employ a combination… Show more

Changes in agricultural policy may have a rapid impact, even on landscapes which have taken millennia to form. Here we explore the potential impact of the UK leaving the EU as a catalyst for profound changes in the pastoral landscapes of Wales. Impending change of the trading regime governing agricultural produce, concurrent with public pressure to use agricultural subsidies for environmental goals, may lead to unforeseen consequences for the Welsh natural environment. We employ a combination of change demand modelling and a ‘story and simulation approach’ to project the effect of five hypothetical plausible scenarios on land use and land use change in Wales by 2030. We show that the most extreme trade scenario would result in a significant expansion of broadleaf woodland across much of Wales. By contrast, the ‘green futures’ scenario introduced to supersede the Common Agricultural Policy, results in significant expansion of woodland but not at the level seen with the more extreme trade scenarios. Show less

1. Despite aspirations for conservation impact, mismatches between research and implementation have limited progress towards this goal. There is, therefore, an urgent need to identify how we can more effectively navigate the spaces between research and practice.

2. In 2014, we ran a workshop with conservation researchers and practitioners to identify mismatches between research and implementation that needed to be overcome to deliver evidence‐informed conservation action. Five mismatches… Show more

1. Despite aspirations for conservation impact, mismatches between research and implementation have limited progress towards this goal. There is, therefore, an urgent need to identify how we can more effectively navigate the spaces between research and practice.

2. In 2014, we ran a workshop with conservation researchers and practitioners to identify mismatches between research and implementation that needed to be overcome to deliver evidence‐informed conservation action. Five mismatches were highlighted: spatial, temporal, priority, communication, and institutional.

3. Since 2014, thinking around the ‘research–implementation gap’ has progressed. The term ‘gap’ has been replaced by language around the dynamic ‘spaces’ between research and action, representing a shift in thinking around what it takes to better align research and practice.

4. In 2019, we ran a follow‐up workshop reflecting on this shift, whether the five mismatches identified in the 2014 workshop were still present in conservation, and whether progress had been made to overcome these mismatches during the past 5 years. We found that while there has been progress, we still have some way to go across all dimensions.

5. Here, we report on the outcomes of the 2019 workshop, reflect on what has changed over the past 5 years, and offer 10 recommendations for strengthening the alignment of conservation research and practice. Show less

Technological advancement is seen as one way of sustainably intensifying agriculture. Scholars argue that innovation needs to be responsible, but it is difficult to anticipate the consequences of the ‘fourth agricultural revolution’ without a clear sense of which technologies are included and excluded. The major aims of this paper were to investigate which technologies are being associated with the fourth agricultural revolution, as well as to understand how this revolution is being perceived… Show more

Technological advancement is seen as one way of sustainably intensifying agriculture. Scholars argue that innovation needs to be responsible, but it is difficult to anticipate the consequences of the ‘fourth agricultural revolution’ without a clear sense of which technologies are included and excluded. The major aims of this paper were to investigate which technologies are being associated with the fourth agricultural revolution, as well as to understand how this revolution is being perceived, whether positive or negative consequences are given equal attention, and what type of impacts are anticipated. To this end, we undertook a content analysis of UK media and policy documents alongside interviews of farmers and advisers. We found that the fourth agricultural revolution is associated with emergent, game‐changing technologies, at least in media and policy documents. In these sources, the benefits to productivity and the environment were prioritised with less attention to social consequences, but impacts were overwhelmingly presented positively. Farmers and advisers experienced many benefits of technologies and some predicted higher‐tech futures. It was clear, however, that technologies create a number of negative consequences. We reflect on these findings and provide advice to policy‐makers about how to interrogate the benefits, opportunities, and risks afforded by agricultural technologies. Show less

Three tenets of sustainable intensification should guide the fourth agricultural revolution: people, production, and the planet. Thus far, narratives of agriculture 4.0 have been predominately framed in terms of benefits to productivity and the environment with little attention placed on social sustainability. This is despite the fact that agriculture 4.0 has significant social implications, both potentially positive and negative. Our viewpoint highlights the need to incorporate social… Show more

Three tenets of sustainable intensification should guide the fourth agricultural revolution: people, production, and the planet. Thus far, narratives of agriculture 4.0 have been predominately framed in terms of benefits to productivity and the environment with little attention placed on social sustainability. This is despite the fact that agriculture 4.0 has significant social implications, both potentially positive and negative. Our viewpoint highlights the need to incorporate social sustainability (or simply ‘people’) into technological trajectories and we outline a framework of multi-actor co-innovation to guide responsible socio-technical transitions. Through the greater inclusion of people in agricultural innovation systems guided by responsible innovation principles, we can increase the likelihood of this technology revolution achieving social sustainability alongside benefiting production and the environment. Show less

Blog for Connecting Research, University of Reading, on the Westminster Policy Forum on 'next steps for UK agriculture policy'.

With the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union and increasing pressures from climate change, English arable farming resilience is in a fragile position. Most Brexit impact assessments have focused on quantitative analysis, however here we take a qualitative approach to assess how future trade agreements could impact the resilience of the UK arable farming system. We discuss the main strategies that are currently taken by English arable farmers to improve resilience using evidence from a… Show more

With the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union and increasing pressures from climate change, English arable farming resilience is in a fragile position. Most Brexit impact assessments have focused on quantitative analysis, however here we take a qualitative approach to assess how future trade agreements could impact the resilience of the UK arable farming system. We discuss the main strategies that are currently taken by English arable farmers to improve resilience using evidence from a large‐scale survey in the East of England. Using information from a multi‐stakeholder workshop, we look at arable farming resilience in three forms characteristic of the farming system; namely, robustness, adaptability and transformability and how these relate to and are potentially influenced by three different Brexit trade scenarios. Stakeholders’ recommendations suggest that a ‘hard’ no‐deal scenario will require policies for social protection of farmers in more vulnerable rural areas, while in a ‘softer’ scenario a ‘public money for public goods’ policy could be implemented effectively by learning from previous environmental schemes. Nevertheless, resilience can be enhanced only by addressing structural and policy issues, such as generational renewal, advice and extension, tenancy duration limits and smarter PPP regulations, regardless of what post‐Brexit deal with the EU finally emerges. Show less

ELM scheme may fail without farmer input.

The new Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme in England will reward farmers and land managers with public money for the provision of various public goods, including improved biodiversity, cleaner air and water, healthier soils, and natural hazard protection. Since the new scheme represents a dramatic shift away from the previous subsidy regime, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has committed to ‘co-designing’ the new policy. To this end, Defra have invited… Show more

The new Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme in England will reward farmers and land managers with public money for the provision of various public goods, including improved biodiversity, cleaner air and water, healthier soils, and natural hazard protection. Since the new scheme represents a dramatic shift away from the previous subsidy regime, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has committed to ‘co-designing’ the new policy. To this end, Defra have invited farmers and land managers across England to share their views on what the new policy should look like, running two major online consultations, outreach workshops, and a network of nationwide ‘Test and Trials’ to date. We know, however, from previous research on land manager participation with government that participation can be unequal with a set of ‘usual suspects’ dominating engagement and a substantial group of ‘harder to reach’ stakeholders being less involved. Defra wants 82,500 holdings to participate in the new ELM scheme and thus wide engagement in both design and implementation is crucial. This paper explores why some land managers (focusing on farmers) might be ‘harder to reach’ in the context of ELM, who they might be, and how Defra can improve its forms of engagement to ensure that no-one is excluded from the co-design process. We identify ten different predispositions towards ELM that harder to reach farmers might have and make six recommendations that could help Defra improve ELM co-design and delivery: (1) make engagement worthwhile, (2) offer online engagement activities whilst improving connectivity, (3) reduce bureaucracy, (4) enhance trust through skilled intermediaries, (5) pay farmers promptly, and (6) ensure transitions to the new scheme are well-managed. Show less

Parliaments are the apex of democratic societies. Elected representatives of the people set laws, scrutinise the work of executives and debate the great issues of the day. Three recent reports focused on knowledge exchange suggest how universities can improve the way that they bring evidence to bear on legislative actors and processes. The authors of those reports distill their expertise into a 12 point plan.

The figure of the decision maker is often invoked as a key conduit for academic research to be transformed into social impact. Drawing on work undertaken for their recently published book chapter (with Dr Megan Evans), David Rose and Rebecca Jarvis distill findings from a review of how academics have engaged with decision makers in the field of conservation science to present 10 practical points of advice for researchers seeking to engage with decision makers.

Parliamentarians and their staff want to use evidence to support their decisions, but they can often feel ‘bombarded’ with the sheer amount of material that is sent their way. Drawing on the findings of a wide ranging study looking at the use of evidence by UK parliamentarians and their staff, Dr David Rose and Dr Chris Tyler provide seven insights for how academics can improve the chances of their evidence being used in the fast-paced, time-poor, information environment of the UK Parliament.

Chris Tyler and David Rose describe how researchers can help Parliament do its job.

Despite claims that we now live in a post-truth society, it remains commonplace for policy makers to consult research evidence to increase the robustness of decision making. Few scholars of evidence-policy interfaces, however, have used legislatures as sites of study, despite the fact that they play a critical role in modern democracies. There is thus limited knowledge of how research evidence is sourced and used in legislatures, which presents challenges for academics and science advisory… Show more

Despite claims that we now live in a post-truth society, it remains commonplace for policy makers to consult research evidence to increase the robustness of decision making. Few scholars of evidence-policy interfaces, however, have used legislatures as sites of study, despite the fact that they play a critical role in modern democracies. There is thus limited knowledge of how research evidence is sourced and used in legislatures, which presents challenges for academics and science advisory groups, as well as to others interested in ensuring that democratic decisions are evidence-informed. Here, we present results from an empirical study into the use of research in the UK Parliament, obtained through the use of a mixed methodology, including interviews and surveys of 157 people in Parliament, as well as an ethnographic investigation of four committees. Here we are specifically interested in identifying the factors affecting the use of research evidence in Parliament with the aim of improving its use. We focus on providing advice for the Higher Education Sector, which includes improving knowledge of, and engagement in, parliamentary processes, reform of academic incentives to stimulate the production of policy-relevant information and to assist engagement, and working with trusted knowledge brokers. Implementing this advice should improve the chances that parliamentary decision making is informed by research evidence. Show less

We are on the cusp of a revolution in farming in which emergent technologies promise to change production systems beyond recognition. But as well as the promised benefits, writes Dr David Rose, Elizabeth Creak Associate Professor of Agricultural Innovation and Extension at the University of Reading, there will inevitably be some risks.

Chapter ten on how conservation scientist can engage well with decision-makers. Part of an open access book on Conservation Research, Policy and Practice. Open Access book.

Agriculture 4.0 is comprised of different already operational or developing technologies such as robotics, nanotechnology, synthetic protein, cellular agriculture, gene editing technology, artificial intelligence, blockchain, and machine learning, which may have pervasive effects on future agriculture and food systems and major transformative potential. These technologies underpin con­cepts such as ver­ti­cal farm­ing and food systems, dig­i­tal agri­cul­ture, bioe­con­omy, cir­cu­lar… Show more

Agriculture 4.0 is comprised of different already operational or developing technologies such as robotics, nanotechnology, synthetic protein, cellular agriculture, gene editing technology, artificial intelligence, blockchain, and machine learning, which may have pervasive effects on future agriculture and food systems and major transformative potential. These technologies underpin con­cepts such as ver­ti­cal farm­ing and food systems, dig­i­tal agri­cul­ture, bioe­con­omy, cir­cu­lar agri­cul­ture, and aquapon­ics. In this perspective paper, we argue that more attention is needed for the inclusion and exclusion effects of Agriculture 4.0 technologies, and for reflection on how they relate to diverse transition pathways towards sustainable agricultural and food systems driven by mission-oriented innovation systems. This would require processes of responsible innovation, anticipating the potential impacts of Agriculture 4.0 through inclusive processes, and reflecting on and being responsive to emerging effects and where needed adjusting the direction and course of transition pathways. Show less

Improving the use of scientific evidence in conservation policy has been a long-standing focus of the conservation community. A plethora of studies have examined conservation science-policy interfaces, including a recent global survey of scientists, policy-makers, and practitioners. This identified a list of top barriers and solutions to evidence use, which have considerable overlap with those identified by other studies conducted over the last few decades. The three top barriers – (i) that… Show more

Improving the use of scientific evidence in conservation policy has been a long-standing focus of the conservation community. A plethora of studies have examined conservation science-policy interfaces, including a recent global survey of scientists, policy-makers, and practitioners. This identified a list of top barriers and solutions to evidence use, which have considerable overlap with those identified by other studies conducted over the last few decades. The three top barriers – (i) that conservation is not a political priority, (ii) that there is poor engagement between scientists and decision-makers, and (iii) that conservation problems are complex and uncertain – have often been highlighted in the literature as significant constraints on the use of scientific evidence in conservation policy. There is also repeated identification of the solutions to these barriers. In this perspective, we consider three reasons for this: (1) the barriers are insurmountable, (2) the frequently-proposed solutions are poor, (3) there are implementation challenges to putting solutions into practice. We argue that implementation challenges are most likely to be preventing the solutions being put into practice and that the research agenda for conservation science-policy interfaces needs to move away from identifying barriers and solutions, and towards a detailed investigation of how to overcome these implementation challenges. Show less

The UK Parliament performs an important role in shaping policies and legislation, including those related to agriculture. Parliamentarians (MPs and Peers) and the staff supporting them often want to use evidence to inform the passage of legislation and the scrutiny of government policy since it decreases the chances of making a bad decision. This viewpoint explores how communities of science and practice working in the agricultural sphere can engage with Parliament to ensure that evidence… Show more

The UK Parliament performs an important role in shaping policies and legislation, including those related to agriculture. Parliamentarians (MPs and Peers) and the staff supporting them often want to use evidence to inform the passage of legislation and the scrutiny of government policy since it decreases the chances of making a bad decision. This viewpoint explores how communities of science and practice working in the agricultural sphere can engage with Parliament to ensure that evidence informs decision-making. It makes five recommendations: (1) know how to engage with parliamentary processes, (2) communicate relevant evidence in a clear and concise fashion, (3) ensure that evidence is credible, (4) work with trusted knowledge brokers, and (5) persevere over a long timescale. Show less

An article urging us to consider the potential losers of the fourth agricultural revolution as well as the winners.

In a previous series of papers (Sutherland, Dicks, Everard, & Geneletti, 2018), we summarise the use of a range of social science methods in conservation decision‐making. Moon et al. (2008) claim that the special feature risks narrowing the scope of social science research and suggest that we presented a limited perspective on the field. They thereby criticise the special feature for not doing something that it never intended to do in the first instance. We did not claim that the list of… Show more

In a previous series of papers (Sutherland, Dicks, Everard, & Geneletti, 2018), we summarise the use of a range of social science methods in conservation decision‐making. Moon et al. (2008) claim that the special feature risks narrowing the scope of social science research and suggest that we presented a limited perspective on the field. They thereby criticise the special feature for not doing something that it never intended to do in the first instance. We did not claim that the list of articles covered in the special feature is a comprehensive list (which it obviously is not) and we are unclear why anyone would think it is. Show less

While smart technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence, robotics, and the Internet of Things, could play an important role in achieving enhanced productivity and greater eco-efficiency, critics have suggested that the consideration of social implications is being side-lined. Research illustrates that some agricultural practitioners are concerned about using certain smart technologies. Indeed, some studies argue that agricultural societies may be changed, or “re-scripted,” in undesirable… Show more

While smart technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence, robotics, and the Internet of Things, could play an important role in achieving enhanced productivity and greater eco-efficiency, critics have suggested that the consideration of social implications is being side-lined. Research illustrates that some agricultural practitioners are concerned about using certain smart technologies. Indeed, some studies argue that agricultural societies may be changed, or “re-scripted,” in undesirable ways, and there is precedent to suggest that wider society may be concerned about radical new agricultural technologies. We therefore encourage policy-makers, funders, technology companies, and researchers to consider the views of both farming communities and wider society. In agriculture, the concept of responsible innovation has not been widely considered, although two recent papers have made useful suggestions. We build on these interventions by arguing that key dimensions of responsible innovation—anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, and responsiveness—should be applied to this fourth agricultural revolution. We argue, however, that ideas of responsible innovation should be further developed in order to make them relevant and robust for emergent agri-tech, and that frameworks should be tested in practice to see if they can actively shape innovation trajectories. In making suggestions on how to construct a more comprehensive framework for responsible innovation in sustainable agriculture, we call for: (i) a more systemic approach that maps and attends to the wider ecology of innovations associated with this fourth agricultural revolution; (ii) a broadening of notions of “inclusion” in responsible innovation to account better for diverse and already existing spaces of participation in agri-tech, and (iii) greater testing of frameworks in practice to see if they are capable of making innovation processes more socially responsible. Show less

An open access paper discussing how to do good knowledge exchange for sustainable agriculture.

While optimism can inspire efforts to connect the spheres of science, policy, and practice, it does little to remove the real boundaries between them. Systematic investigation of “bright spots” – or success stories – would likely yield some interesting learning points but, as David Christian Rose suggests, it may be unwise to cherry-pick evidence of what works by only analysing success stories. What’s more, it seems unlikely that further study would throw up any truly novel solutions to how… Show more

While optimism can inspire efforts to connect the spheres of science, policy, and practice, it does little to remove the real boundaries between them. Systematic investigation of “bright spots” – or success stories – would likely yield some interesting learning points but, as David Christian Rose suggests, it may be unwise to cherry-pick evidence of what works by only analysing success stories. What’s more, it seems unlikely that further study would throw up any truly novel solutions to how evidence is used in policy and practice. Instead, focus should shift to overcoming institutional barriers that are preventing progress, such as a lack of incentives and training. Show less

An editorial arguing for the need to change our approach to behavioural change.

In order to make a difference, policies, innovations, and best practices must be implemented on-farm. This report set out to review the lessons learned from existing behavioural change work in agriculture, supplemented with insights gained from similar work in other fields.

Featured researcher interviewed by Julia Rosen for this article on how to influence policy with science.

A response to Salomaa. We argue that co-production of knowledge is important, but we must be honest about when we can and cannot do it given various constraints (e.g. time, money).

"Hydraulic fracturing has provided a persistent, polarizing, and highly politicized source of controversy internationally and in numerous national contexts for just under a decade. This research uses hydraulic fracturing (i.e., fracking) operations in New Zealand as a vignette through which to understand the underlying causes of controversy and the appropriateness of attempts to address them. A multi‐method approach using interviews (n = 25), diagrammatic analysis, and newsprint media was… Show more

"Hydraulic fracturing has provided a persistent, polarizing, and highly politicized source of controversy internationally and in numerous national contexts for just under a decade. This research uses hydraulic fracturing (i.e., fracking) operations in New Zealand as a vignette through which to understand the underlying causes of controversy and the appropriateness of attempts to address them. A multi‐method approach using interviews (n = 25), diagrammatic analysis, and newsprint media was applied to evidence two major findings. First, previous attempts to explain fracking controversy based on social constructivist theory lack a multi‐scalar approach to the assessment of factors that influence risk perceptions. It is found that risk perception surrounding fracking in New Zealand reflects intra‐scalar interactions between factors originating at the international, national, regional, and local scale. Second, there is a concerning absence of critique pertaining to the concept of “social license to operate” (SLO), which has been advocated both internationally and nationally as an appropriate form of stakeholder engagement. This article contributes to the SLO outcomes literature by establishing a need to consider multi‐scalar influences on risk perception when explaining diverse SLO outcomes in communities where fracking operations are prospective or already taking place." Show less

"In response to unexpected election results across the world, and a perceived increase of policy decisions that disregard scientific evidence, conservation scientists are reflecting on working in a ‘post-truth’ world. This phrase is useful in making scientists aware that policy-making is messy and multi-faceted, but it may be misused. By introducing three different scenarios of conservation decision-making, this perspective argues that a mythical era of ‘science or truth conservation’ has never… Show more

"In response to unexpected election results across the world, and a perceived increase of policy decisions that disregard scientific evidence, conservation scientists are reflecting on working in a ‘post-truth’ world. This phrase is useful in making scientists aware that policy-making is messy and multi-faceted, but it may be misused. By introducing three different scenarios of conservation decision-making, this perspective argues that a mythical era of ‘science or truth conservation’ has never existed. Since an ‘extended peer community’ of decision-makers (policy-makers, practitioners, stakeholders) are present in multi-layered governance structures, conservation has always been ‘post-normal’. To decrease the chances of ‘post-truth’ decision-making occurring, the perspective encourages scientists to think carefully about scientific workflows and science communication. Developing a conservation narrative which does not see values, beliefs, and interests, as key parts of modern functioning democracies risks upholding a perception of the disconnected ivory tower of science. Rather, co productive relationships should be established with decision-makers, and we should harness the power of storytelling to engage people on a personal level. This perspective encourages scientists to take heed of research on stakeholder engagement and storytelling, and to embrace workflows suited to post normal conservation, rather than trying to deny that a post-normal world exists." Show less

"In 2008, a group of conservation scientists compiled a list of 100 priority questions for the conservation of the world's biodiversity [Sutherland et al. (2009) Conservation Biology, 23, 557–567]. However, now almost a decade later, no one has yet published a study gauging how much progress has been made in addressing these 100 high‐priority questions in the peer‐reviewed literature. Here we take a first step toward re‐examining the 100 questions and identify key knowledge gaps that still… Show more

"In 2008, a group of conservation scientists compiled a list of 100 priority questions for the conservation of the world's biodiversity [Sutherland et al. (2009) Conservation Biology, 23, 557–567]. However, now almost a decade later, no one has yet published a study gauging how much progress has been made in addressing these 100 high‐priority questions in the peer‐reviewed literature. Here we take a first step toward re‐examining the 100 questions and identify key knowledge gaps that still remain. Through a combination of a questionnaire and a literature review, we evaluated each of the 100 questions on the basis of two criteria: relevance and effort. We defined highly‐relevant questions as those which – if answered – would have the greatest impact on global biodiversity conservation, while effort was quantified based on the number of review publications addressing a particular question, which we used as a proxy for research effort. Using this approach we identified a set of questions that, despite being perceived as highly relevant, have been the focus of relatively few review publications over the past ten years. These questions covered a broad range of topics but predominantly tackled three major themes: the conservation and management of freshwater ecosystems, the role of societal structures in shaping interactions between people and the environment, and the impacts of conservation interventions. We see these questions as important knowledge gaps that have so far received insufficient attention and may need to be prioritised in future research." Show less

Results from a global survey of 758 research scientists, practitioners, and people in policy positions identifying the barriers preventing the use of conservation science in policy and possible solutions.

1. Interviews are a widely used methodology in conservation research. They are flexible, allowing in-depth analysis from a relatively small sample size and place the focus of research on the views of participants. While interviews are a popular method, several critiques have been raised in response to their use, including the lack of transparency in sampling strategy, choice of questions and mode of analysis.
2. In this paper, we analyse the use of interviews in research aimed at making… Show more

1. Interviews are a widely used methodology in conservation research. They are flexible, allowing in-depth analysis from a relatively small sample size and place the focus of research on the views of participants. While interviews are a popular method, several critiques have been raised in response to their use, including the lack of transparency in sampling strategy, choice of questions and mode of analysis.
2. In this paper, we analyse the use of interviews in research aimed at making decisions for conservation. Through a structured review of 227 papers, we explore where, why and how interviews were used in the context of conservation decision making
3. The review suggests that interviews are a widely used method for a broad range of purposes. These include gaining ecological and/or socio-economic information on specific conservation issues, understanding knowledge, values, beliefs or decision-making processes of stakeholders, and strengthening research design and output. The review, however, identifies a number of concerns. Researchers are not reporting fully on their interview methodology. Specifically, results indicate that researchers are: failing to provide a rationale as to why interviews are the most suitable method, not piloting the interviews (thus questions may be poorly designed), not outlining ethical considerations, not providing clear guides to analysis and not critically reviewing their use of interviews.
4. Based on the results of the review, we provide a detailed checklist aimed at conservation researchers who wish to use interviews in their research (whether experienced in using the methodology or not), and journal editors and reviewers to ensure the robustness of interview methodology use. Show less

A paper looking at the interactions between technology and agricultural society - discussing how technology might change life on the farm.

A new framework for the user-centred design of decision support systems - following it will help to ensure that systems are usable, relevant, and make a difference. Read the blog about the article here: https://wordpress.com/view/academicoptimism.wordpress.com

An article summarising our report on the use of research in the UK Parliament. It identifies 10 top tips for conservation scientists to follow when engaging with Parliament.

A report looking at how the UK Parliament defines and uses research, with important messages for researchers, NGOs/think tanks, and Parliament itself.

An editorial on good decision support system design. We end with the following recommendations:
"We encourage developers of DSS to take heed of the good advice already in the literature; firstly, to consult users from the outset; secondly, to include team members with specialist user- oriented software knowledge (Lindblom et al., 2017); and thirdly, to pursue impact as a measure of success beyond academic publication. These three stages require a culture shift for those designing systems… Show more

An editorial on good decision support system design. We end with the following recommendations:
"We encourage developers of DSS to take heed of the good advice already in the literature; firstly, to consult users from the outset; secondly, to include team members with specialist user- oriented software knowledge (Lindblom et al., 2017); and thirdly, to pursue impact as a measure of success beyond academic publication. These three stages require a culture shift for those designing systems, one which acknowledges that farmers must be consulted from the outset, and further that scientific sophistication should never trump the needs and views of those who are doing the farming." Show less

An editorial discussing whether co-assessment of local and global knowledge about conservation is more cost effective than co-producing new knowledge. It is now fashionable for a researcher to suggest that knowledge should be co-produced, but with little discussion of the practicalities (e.g. cost, time). Co-assessment may be more cost-effective.

A report from our workshop sharing skills and experiences of how to involve users in the design of decision support tools in conservation.

A paper discussing how conservation scientists (and other environmentalists) can predict, seize upon, and create windows of opportunity for the uptake of scientific knowledge into policy.

A blog on our policy windows work.

A blog exploring the role of the social sciences in sustainable intensification research.

A blog reporting on a workshop exploring user-centred design of decision support systems for conservation.

Co-author of paper on designing effective knowledge products to support marine conservation policy

Journalist article on our work about designing effective decision support tools for agriculture

Highlights key factors affecting use of decision support tools in agriculture - with William J Sutherland, Caroline Parker, Carol Morris, Matt Lobley, Michael Winter, Charles Ffoulkes, Susan Twining, Tatsuya Amano and Lynn V Dicks

Exploring the impact of the Lawton Review on UK Government nature conservation policy - with Peter Brotherton, Susan Owens, and Thomas Pryke

Encourages climate scientists to become politically astute

"Drawing on the “evidence-based” versus “evidence-informed” debate, which has become prominent in conservation science, I argue that science can be influential if it holds a dual reference that contributes to the needs of policy makers whilst maintaining technical rigor" (quote from paper)

Discussing how climate scientists may span the boundary between science and policy

"Embracing an 'evidence-informed' rather than 'evidence-based' attitude to policy-making should result in more effective action on climate change, recognizing that evidence must be used in such a way as to interact persuasively with other factors." (quote from paper)

A blog describing the complexity of environmental science-policy interfaces, and suggesting ideas for scientists seeking to improve knowledge uptake.