![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Purpose
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.
Methodology
We explored the experiences of end-users (e.g. farmers and farm assessors) and other stakeholders (e.g. developers, researchers, industry) involved in the development and testing of DLTs on UK farms, using semi-structured, in-depth interviews (N = 31).
Findings
Participation can help develop technologies that better align with users’ needs, promote learning, and encourage feelings of ownership. However, participation can be a double-edged sword. Inadequate levels of involvement, management of stakeholder relationships and expectations, and available support can negatively impact end-users’ engagement and attitudes.
Practical implications
Our study highlights the importance of understanding how management decisions during the participatory development of DLTs can influence the engagement and attitudes of end-users towards the process.
Theoretical implications
The study contributes to the participation literature in agriculture and demonstrates the importance of using a critical lens to avoid making normative assumptions that participation necessarily promotes uptake in a linear, uncomplicated fashion.
Originality/Value
Participation is seen as key for technology adoption. However, the potential downsides of participation have received less attention in relation to the engagement of end-users in the process.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the case study participants for their valuable contributions to the study.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Data availability statement
Not available due to industry confidentiality.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
J. Schillings
Juliette Schillings is a PhD student at the University of Reading. She holds a BSc in Biomedical Sciences from the University of Paris Descartes and an MSc in Process and Engineering in Food and Environmental Sciences. She also studied an MSc in Applied Animal Behaviour and Animal Welfare at the University of Edinburgh. Her research interests include animal welfare, animal behaviour and digital agriculture.
R. Bennett
Prof. Richard Bennett is Professor of Agricultural Economics at the University of Reading. He has broad research experience across agriculture and food but with a particular research interest in the economic, social science and policy aspects of animal health and welfare.
D. C. Rose
Prof. David C. Rose is Professor of Sustainable Agricultural Systems at Cranfield University. He runs the Change in Agriculture research group, which explores how changes in innovation, technology, and policy affects people, production, and the planet. He is a Geographer by training with previous positions at the University of Reading, University of East Anglia, UCL, and the University of Cambridge.