6. Applying the Model to Brazilian Digital Agriculture
6.5 Actors’ Position in Society as the Main Influence on the Digital Divide
The analysis of the different actors in the ecosystem of digital agriculture in Brazil has revealed a number of different factors that are political, social, cultural, and technological in nature (see Table 2). With the application of the developed model for the digital divide, the analysis has shown light on the importance of the motivational access that actors have to technology. The underlying influences on motivational access can be found at the macro and micro level, which means that that there is no one best way approach to improving perceived potential of technology in digital agriculture in Brazil. Following these observations, there seems to be a distinction between actors that are engaging with technology in a meaningful way, and those that are not. Selwyn (2004) referred to this as being on the ‘right’ or the ‘wrong’ side of the digital divide. In the ecosystem of digital agriculture in Brazil, the native community and the medium-sized farm, who are located in rural areas and are potential buyers of technology, seem to be on the ‘wrong’ side of the digital divide, whilst Embrapa and the technology start-up, who are located in urban areas and are developers of technology, seem to be on the ‘right’ side.
The different actors are interconnected, and it is interesting to see how they speak about each other as well. The topic that brought out the most feelings and opinions in all actors was the government. The native community conveyed a strong dislike for the current government, but did not seem to object if another government was willing to help them in their cause. The medium-sized farm had little interaction with the government, but perceived them
as un-modern and lacking in knowledge. The technology start-up representative, when asked about the government influences on their business, jokingly said “Bad girl, bad girl. Okay, you don’t like me!”, indicating that the topic was uncomfortable and somewhat inappropriate to discuss. All these three actors are structurally disconnected in the ecosystem of digital agriculture, but still share the perception of the government as a contested actor.
What differed most between the actors, however, was their position in society and their perceived influence on the field and ecosystem. An actor’s position in the digital divide builds on their institutional logics, past experiences with technology, as well as perceptions of future applications. They are therefore part of shaping each other’s cognitive schema, which further guides the sensemaking activities they engage in to interpret digitisation technologies. The next chapter will examine the findings of the analysis on technology frames of the different actors.
Field Level Technology
Perceived potential and uncertainties of technologies - perceived potential - perceived uncertainties
● Technology can contribute to sustainable farming. Management decisions could be better.
● Uncertainty about technologies that are not validated in the market, and potential long-term effects.
● Technology sparks good projects that can increase sustainability of farming.
● Technology can be the new standard for agriculture.
● Uncertainty because of farmers' willingness to invest.
● Negative potential of technology. Will tempt younger generations.
● Uncertain about need for technology.
What good will it do?
● GMO and genetics technology can improve land productivity.
● Uncertain how digitisation
technologies can be commercialised in Brazil.
Institutional logics
- reliance on technology - nature of work - awareness of technology
● High reliance on mechanisation technologies for farming.
● Work based on knowledge and experience, but can be automated.
● Low awareness of digitisation technologies.
● High reliance on technology for operations management and product development.
● Work is experimental and knowledge-intensive. Irreplaceable by
technology.
● High awareness of digitisation tech.
● Low reliance on technology.
Electricity and television are recent developments.
● Work is based on traditions and experience. Can be automated.
● Low or no awareness of digitisation technologies.
● High reliance on technology to conduct research.
● Nature of work is experimental.
Cannot be automated.
● Medium awareness of digitisation technologies, but variations across operational units.
Societal openness to technology - political openness to technology
- position in society
● Medium-sized farming community is open to technologies that have been proven to improve yield and operations.
● Inferior position to larger farms.
● Technology start-ups are open to technologies that offer new market opportunities.
● Perceived by society as experimental and risky investment.
● No openness to technologies that can impact ways of living.
● Inferior position to other Brazilian farming communities. Considered non-essential.
● Open to technologies that they can develop themselves.
● Considered old-school and lacking connection and innovations for the market.
Motivational access Low High Low High
Formal and Theoretical Access to Technology
National resources - national income - infrastructure
● National income is dependent on agriculture.
● Infrastructure in rural areas is unstable and lacking connectivity.
● National income is benefitting from innovations.
● Able to make good use of airports infrastructure, but some areas are more difficult to get to than others.
● Big cities have good infrastructure, but unstable under extreme conditions.
● Domestic supply of agricultural products is dependent on family-run farms. Could impact ability to export.
● Infrastructure in rural areas is unstable and lacking connectivity.
● National incomes is dependent on international relationships and investments.
Infrastructure varies across Embrapa units, i.e. rural versus state capitals.
Financial resources and structures
- capital
- education and training - organisational structure and decision-making
● Run farm like 'large-scale agriculture' with high yields.
● Leave town for education. All farm managers are agronomists. No digital training.
● 100 000 hectare farm split into areas of 8 000 - 10 000 hectares with own equipment and farm manager.
● Procurement decisions made by one boss.
● Claim to be through the first 'death valley' of start-up life cycle.
● Highly educated founders and employees. Training with digital technologies through work.
● Virtual organisation, concerned with being on-the-ground and in the field.
Some autonomy.
● Considered as living in poverty.
Leave community for education. No formal training.
● Democratic leadership through election, but difficult decisions made by one person. Principle of shared resources, but controlled.
● Government-funded, subject to approval.
● Highly educated workforce, most have PhD in agriculture. Digital training through work and education.
● Decentralised units spread across Brazil and specialised in different areas of agriculture. Decisions made in Brasilia by core units and HQ.
- external relationship management
- social networks
boss.
● Strong relationships with other farms in the area to share experiences.
Follow others' lead.
customers.
● Strong social networks in Brazil, Latin America, and internationally through MIT Bootcamp program and other academic relations.
work, and do not return.
● All relations with closest town are managed by elected representatives.
Little access to external knowledge.
● Social networks based on national network of Quilombola for political discussions.
● Depending on unit focus. Some units focused on work with local
communities, but others with international researchers.
● Networks through participation in international projects and conferences.
Material Access Low High Low Medium
Skills Access Low High None Medium
Effective Access to and Basic Use of Technology
Responses to technology - past experiences with technology
- future orientation
● Electricity and internet connection have brought positive developments for the farm.
● Mechanisation from seeding to harvest has been positive.
● Positive associations to application of technologies in other industries like healthcare and biotech.
● Goal for 2024 that imaging
technologies will be 'off-the-shelf' and readily available.
● Experienced technologies as shifting the population's interests away from traditional ways of living. Negative.
● No future orientation. "No strategic plan".
● Historically praised for development of GMO and genetics technology, with widespread use and positive outcomes in Brazil.
● Focus on development of current projects.
External dependence - internal or external sourcing
of technology
- risk avoidance
● Do not develop own technology.
● Decisions based on market validation.
● Develop own technology through partnerships and agreements.
● Experimental and entrepreneurial mindset, willing to take risks.
● Have own ways of farming and hunting.
● High risk avoidance.
● Dependent on external expertise and development of digital technologies in partnerships and agreements.
● Some risk avoidance.
Environmental resources and restrictions
- government policies - government knowledge - geographical location
● Government perceived as disconnected from market. Provide no subsidies.
● Located in poorest and driest area of Brazil.
● Government policies simplifying the establishment and bureaucracy of start-up management.
● Director of innovation is "not able to understand anything", but previous director had a lot of knowledge.
● Location is connected to national and international market.
● Previous government policy obligated purchase of local produce, helping sales of native community.
● Current government does not listen or understand needs.
● Atlantic forest in state of São Paulo:
disconnected.
● The work of Embrapa influences policies.
● Perceive government knowledge as good.
● Location is connected to national and international market.
Usage Access Low Medium None Medium
Translation of technology application
- perceived ambiguity of technology application - ability to embed technology
● Technology seems to offer many opportunities, but difficult to understand how it applies to the farm.
● Introducing a new management software is difficult.
● Certainty that technology can be applied to benefit agriculture.
● Effectively changing and developing product offering to incorporate new levels of technology.
● Too many technologies, and unable to see the applications of technology for their community.
● Technology has ambiguous definition, and applications are unclear.
● Introduction of technology across units seems difficult.