Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Farming futures: Perspectives of Irish agricultural stakeholders on data sharing and data governance

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current research examines the emergent literature of Critical Data Studies, and particularly aligns with Michael and Lupton’s (2016) manifesto calling for researchers to study the Public Understanding of Big Data. The aim of this paper is to explore Irish stakeholders’ narratives on data sharing in agriculture, and the ways in which their attitudes towards different data sharing governance models reflect their understandings of data, the impact that data hold in their lives and in the farming sector, as well as their preferences for how data should be governed within agriculture. Seven focus groups were held in 2019 with Irish stakeholders from a variety of backgrounds, including agri-researchers, those working in SMEs, and farmers of varying ages and sectors. The primary activities carried out during these focus groups centred upon asking participants to discuss four different data sharing governance models, and to work their way through a set of value cards relating to these models. Focus group results are studied using an inductive, data-driven form of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006). Five primary themes cross-cut these focus groups: 1) Desire for a data intermediary, 2) Reversing the value chain, 3) Categorisation of data, 4) The common good, and 5) Potential danger in data sharing. These themes are explored in the paper through a detailed discussion of the focus group results, in which the authors track the manifestation of these themes across focus groups, and the ways they sometimes morphed or changed depending upon the participating stakeholder group.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Two separate workshops were held with researchers: one with agricultural scientists (n = 6) and one with mixed scientists (n = 9), comprising social scientists (n = 4), data scientists (n = 2), and agricultural/horticultural scientists (n = 3), all chosen due to their having an interest in data. The SME participants included agri-food tech start-ups and small organisations. The farmer groups did not overlap; the young farmer group was recruited from the age categories of approximately 18–25 years old, while all participants taking part in the other farming groups were middle-aged or older. The decision to have a separate young farmer group was made to leverage the views that a younger, more digitally engaged population of farmers may have.

Abbreviations

AKIS:

Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System

CDS:

Critical Data Studies

EU:

European Union

PEST:

Public Engagement with Science and Technology

PUBD:

Public Understanding of Big Data

PUS:

Public Understanding of Science

STS:

Science and Technology Studies

SME:

Small and medium-sized

References

  • Bahrke, J., M. Grammenou, and C. Manoury. 2020. Sharing Europe’s digital future: Commission presents strategies for data and Artificial Intelligence. European Commission – Press Release. Brussels, 19 February 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_273. Accessed 18 November 2021.

  • Birch, K., D. T. Cochrane, and C. Ward. 2021. Data as asset? The measurement, governance, and valuation of digital personal data by Big Tech. Big Data & Society 8 (1): 20539517211017308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., and J. Youtie. 2020. Robotic bureaucracy: Administrative burden and red tape in university research. Public Administration Review 80 (1): 157–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronson, K., and I. Knezevic. 2016. Big Data in food and agriculture. Big Data & Society 3 (1): 2053951716648174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D., and L. Holloway. 2016. Technology and restructuring the social field of dairy farming: Hybrid capitals, ‘stockmanship’ and automatic milking systems. Sociologia Ruralis 56 (4): 513–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbonell, I. 2016. The ethics of big data in agriculture. Internet Policy Review 5 (1): 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2020. Acting like an algorithm: digital farming platforms and the trajectories they (need not) lock in. Agriculture and Human Values 37: 1041–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2022. Digitization as politics: Smart farming through the lens of weak and strong data. Journal of Rural Studies 91: 208–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Central Statistics Office. 2016. Farm Structure Survey 2016. Statistics. https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-fss/farmstructuresurvey2016/. Accessed 11 August 2021.

  • Chiles, R. M., G. Broad, M. Gagnon, N. Negowetti, L. Glenna, M. Griffin, L. Tami-Barrera, S. Baker, and K. Beck. 2021. Democratizing ownership and participation in the 4th Industrial Revolution: challenges and opportunities in cellular agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 38: 943–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cieslik, K., and D. Margócsy. 2022. Datafication, power and control in development: A historical perspective on the perils and longevity of data. Progress in Development Studies: 14649934221076580.

  • Coble, K., A. Mishra, S. Ferrell, and T. Griffin. 2018. Big Data in agriculture: A challenge for the future. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 40 (1): 79–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copa-Cogeca, C. E. M. A., CEETTAR Fertilizers Europe, and E. S. A. CEJA, ECPA, EFFAB, FEFAC. 2018. EU Code of Conduct on Agricultural Data Sharing by Contractual Agreement. https://fefac.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/eu_code_of_conduct_on_agricultural_data_sharing-1.pdf. Accessed 22 November 2021.

  • Crane, T. 2014. Bringing Science and Technology Studies into Agricultural Anthropology: Technology Development as Cultural Encounter between Farmers and Researchers. Culture Agriculture Food and Environment 36 (1): 45–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. 2020. Agricultural Knowledge & Innovation System (AKIS). Presentation. May 2020. https://assets.gov.ie/88584/6602c054-0b4b-440e-90a5-f79a0e87f8a5.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2021.

  • Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. 2021. Statement of Strategy 2021–2024. https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/a9d51-statement-of-strategy-2021-2024/. Accessed 18 August 2021.

  • Dillon, E., T. Donnellan, B. Moran, and J. Lennon. 2021. Teagasc National Farm Survey 2020 Results. Agricultural Economics and Farm Surveys Department. https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2021/Teagasc-National-Farm-Survey-2020.pdf. Accessed 15 August 2022.

  • Duncan, E., A. Glaros, D. Ross, and E. Nost. 2021. New but for whom? Discourses of innovation in precision agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 38: 1181–1199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, E., S. Rotz, A. Magnan, and K. Bronson. 2022. Disciplining land through data: The role of agricultural technologies in farmland assetisation. Sociologia Ruralis 62 (2): 231–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, A., A. Markey, and J. Kinsella. 2019. Examining the reach of public and private agricultural advisory services and farmers’ perceptions of their quality: the case of county Laois in Ireland. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 25 (5): 401–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood, C., L. Klerkx, and R. Nettle. 2017. Dynamics and distribution of public and private research and extension roles for technological innovation and diffusion: Case studies of the implementation and adaptation of precision farming technologies. Journal of Rural Studies 49: 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2020a. COM(2020) 66 Final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A European Strategy for Data. European Commission: Brussels, Belgium. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/. Accessed 18 November 2021.

  • European Commission. 2020b. COM (2020) 767 Final. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Data Governance (Data Governance Act). European Commission: Brussels, Belgium. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/. Accessed 22 November 2021.

  • European Union. 2020. European Data Strategy Fact Sheet. February 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_20_283. Accessed 22 October 2021.

  • EU SCAR AKIS. 2019. Preparing for Future AKIS in Europe. Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR), 4th Report of the Strategic Working Group on Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS). Brussels, European Commission. https://scar-europe.org/images/AKIS/Documents/report-preparing-for-future-akis-in-europe_en.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2021.

  • Faraldi, M., G. Micheletti, and C. Pepato. 2020. How to Build a Common European Agricultural Data Space Workshop Report. European Commission. https://www.opendei.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/CommonEuropeanAgriculturalDataSpace_WorkshopReportpdf.pdf. Accessed 17 November 2021.

  • Felt, U., R. Fouché, C. Miller, and L. Smith-Doerr. 2017. Introduction. In The handbook of Science and Technology Studies, fourth edition, eds. U. Felt, R. Fouché, R., C. Miller, and L. Smith-Doerr, 1–26. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, A. 2019. Land grab/data grab: precision agriculture and its new horizons. Journal of Peasant Studies 46 (5): 893–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, A. 2020. The digital revolution, data curation, and the new dynamics of food sovereignty construction. The Journal of Peasant Studies 47 (1): 208–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giles, D. B., and V. Stead. 2022. Big Data won’t feed the world: global agribusiness, digital imperialism, and the contested promises of a new Green Revolution. Dialectical Anthropology 46 (1): 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoes, A., and L. Ge. 2017. Digital compliance: Perspectives of key stakeholders; (D3.2.2 & D.3.2.3 Analysis of workshops and interviews). Wageningen, Wageningen Economic Research, Report 2017-015. https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/digital-compliance-perspectives-of-key-stakeholders-d322-amp-d323. Accessed 9 July 2020.

  • Holloway, L., C. Bear, and K. Wilkinson. 2014. Robotic milking technologies and renegotiating situated ethical relationships on UK dairy farms. Agriculture and Human Values 31 (2): 185–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iliadis, A., and F. Russo. 2016. Critical data studies: An introduction. Big Data & Society 3 (2): 2053951716674238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakku, E., B. Taylor, A. Fleming, C. Mason, S. Fielke, C. Sounness, and P. Thorburn. 2019. "If they don’t tell us what they do with it, why would we trust them?” Trust, transparency and benefit-sharing in Smart Farming. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91: 100285. 

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, L., S. van der Burg, Á. Regan, and P. Mooney. 2020. Report on the 2019 Focus group on Smart Farming and Data Analytics (SFDAI). https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.03088. Accessed 26 January 2021.

  • Kitchin, R., and T. Lauriault. 2018. Toward Critical Data Studies: Charting and unpacking data assemblages and their work. Thinking Big Data in geography: New regimes, new research, eds. J. Thatcher, J. Eckert, and A. Shears, 3–20. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

  • Klerkx, L., E. Jakku, and P. Labarthe. 2019. A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: New contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91: 100315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klerkx, L. 2020. Advisory services and transformation, plurality and disruption of agriculture and food systems: towards a new research agenda for agricultural education and extension studies. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 26 (2): 131–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klerkx, L. 2021. Digital and virtual spaces as sites of extension and advisory services research: social media, gaming, and digitally integrated and augmented advice. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 27 (3): 277–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lioutas, E., and C. Charatsari. 2020. Big data in agriculture: Does the new oil lead to sustainability? Geoforum 109: 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, D. 2016. The diverse domains of quantified selves: self-tracking modes and dataveillance. Economy and Society 45 (1): 101–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, D. 2018. How do data come to matter? Living and becoming with personal data. Big Data & Society 5 (2): 2053951718786314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, D., and M. Michael. 2017. ‘Depends on who’s got the data’: Public understandings of personal digital dataveillance. Surveillance and Society 15 (2): 254–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michael, M., and D. Lupton. 2016. Toward a manifesto for the ‘public understanding of big data’. Public Understanding of Science 25 (1): 104–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, C. 2019. The combine will tell the truth: On precision agriculture and algorithmic rationality. Big Data & Society 6 (1): 2053951719849444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R., J. Rutherford, K. Hinde, and K. Clancy. 2017. Signaling safety: Characterizing fieldwork experiences and their implications for career trajectories. American Anthropologist 119 (4): 710–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, J. E., R. Nettle, and J. E. Pryce. 2020. Farming smarter with big data: Insights from the case of Australia’s national dairy herd milk recording scheme. Agricultural Systems 181: 102811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nost, E., and J. E. Goldstein. 2022. A political ecology of data. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 5 (1): 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popham, J., J. Lavoie, and N. Coomber. 2020. Constructing a public narrative of regulations for big data and analytics: Results from a community-driven discussion. Social Science Computer Review 38 (1): 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prager, K., P. Labarthe, M. Caggiano, and A. Lorenzo-Arribas. 2016. How does commercialisation impact on the provision of farm advisory services? Evidence from Belgium, Italy, Ireland and the UK. Land Use Policy 52: 329–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prainsack, B. 2020. The political economy of digital data: introduction to the special issue. Policy Studies 41 (5): 439–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, Á. 2019. "Smart farming” in Ireland: A risk perception study with key governance actors. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91: 100292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rempel, E., J. Barnett, and H. Durrant. 2017. Beyond the hype: using story-telling to explore the use of new forms of data in local government. Datapower Conference Proceedings, 2017.

  • Rempel, E. S., J. Barnett, and H. Durrant. 2018. Public engagement with UK government data science: Propositions from a literature review of public engagement on new technologies. Government Information Quarterly 35 (4): 569–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. 2006. Risk Communication – Consumers Between Information and Irritation. Journal of Risk Research 9 (8): 833–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richterich, A. 2018. The Big Data agenda: Data ethics and Critical Data Studies. London, UK: University of Westminster Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rijswijk, K., L. Klerkx, M. Bacco, F. Bartolini, E. Bulten, L. Debruyne, J. Dessein, I. Scotti, and G. Brunori. 2021. Digital transformation of agriculture and rural areas: A socio-cyber-physical system framework to support responsibilisation. Journal of Rural Studies 85: 79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotz, S., E. Duncan, M. Small, J. Botschner, R. Dara, I. Mosby, M. Reed, and E. D. Fraser. 2019. The politics of digital agricultural technologies: a preliminary review. Sociologia Ruralis 59 (2): 203–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadowski, J. 2019. When data is capital: Datafication, accumulation, and extraction. Big Data & Society 6 (1): 2053951718820549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, M., J. Turner, B. Small, and D. Wheeler. 2020. Priorities for science to overcome hurdles thwarting the full promise of the ‘digital agriculture’ revolution. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 100 (14): 5083–5092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soma, T., and B. Nuckchady. 2021. Communicating the benefits and risks of digital agriculture technologies: Perspectives on the future of digital agricultural education and training. Frontiers in Communication 6: 762201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stock, R., and M. Gardezi. 2021. Make bloom and let wither: Biopolitics of precision agriculture at the dawn of surveillance capitalism. Geoforum 122: 193–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teagasc. 2021. Teagasc Statement of Strategy 2021–2024: “Teagasc Together” Harnessing the Power of Research, Advisory and Education to Create a Sustainable Food System. https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2021/Teagasc-Statement-of-Strategy.pdf. Accesesed 2 June 2021.

  • van der Burg, S., M. Bogaardt, and S. Wolfert. 2019. Ethics of smart farming: Current questions and directions for responsible innovation towards the future. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91: 100289.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Burg, S., E. Oosterkamp, M. Bogaardt, Á. Regan, T. Tabeau-Kowalska, E. Popa, C. Wattel, G. Grunori, and E. Favelli. 2020. D7.4 Analysis report of the interactive sessions: Futures of farm data sharing practices, perspectives of European farmers, researchers and agri-tech businesses. Internet of Food and Farm 2020. https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/d74-analysis-report-of-the-interactive-sessions-futures-of-farm-d. Accessed 10 March 2021.

  • van der Burg, S., L. Wiseman, and J. Krkeljas. 2021. Trust in farm data sharing: Reflections on the EU code of conduct for agricultural data sharing. Ethics and Information Technology 23 (3): 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visser, O., S. R. Sippel, and L. Thiemann. 2021. Imprecision farming? Examining the (in) accuracy and risks of digital agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies 86: 623–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weersink, A., E. Fraser, D. Pannell, E. Duncan, and S. Rotz. 2018. Opportunities and challenges for big data in agricultural and environmental analysis. Annual Review of Resource Economics 10: 19–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiseman, L., J. Sanderson, A. Zhang, and E. Jakku. 2019. Farmers and their data: An examination of farmers’ reluctance to share their data through the lens of the laws impacting smart farming. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91: 100301.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for the data analysis and drafting of the manuscript is supported by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine under Grant Award No. 19/R/539 (AgriDISCRETE). Funding for study design was supported by the Horizon 2020 Framework Program of the European Union. Grant Agreement No. 731884 (IOF2020). Data collection in Ireland was supported by Horizon 2020 Framework Program of the European Union. Grant Agreement No. 818488 (FAIRshare).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agri-food Business & Spatial Analysis, Rural Economy and Development Programme, Teagasc Mellows Campus, Athenry, H65 R718, Galway, Ireland

    Claire Brown & Áine Regan

  2. Wageningen Economic Research, Wageningen University and Research, Droevendaalsesteeg 4, 6708 PB, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Simone van der Burg

Authors
  1. Claire Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Áine Regan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simone van der Burg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire Brown.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

Competing interests: the authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brown, C., Regan, Á. & van der Burg, S. Farming futures: Perspectives of Irish agricultural stakeholders on data sharing and data governance. Agric Hum Values 40, 565–580 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-022-10357-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-022-10357-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation