The Digital Divide and Framing: A Vicious Cycle?

(1)

Supervisor Jawwad Raja

PAGES: 70 | CHARACTERS: 181985

The Digital Divide and Framing: A Vicious Cycle?

The Case of Digitisation of Brazilian Agriculture

Master Thesis for MSc BLC – Diversity and Change Management By Karen Granås (125326)

15.05.2020

(2)

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1: The Framing Tactics and Practices identified in Framing Literature ... 22

Figure 1: Map of Brazilian states and Cerrado Biome. (Adapted from Dias et al., 2016) ... 25

Figure 2: Data Structure Digital Divide ... 33

Table 2: Summary of Findings from Actors’ position in the digital divide ... 51

Table 3: Diagnostic Frames of Actors ... 56

Table 4: Prognostic Frames ... 58

Table 5: Motivation Frames ... 60

Table 6: Framing Tactics and Discursive Opportunities ... 62

Table 7: Summary of Framing Findings ... 63

Figure 5: The cyclical relationships between the societal context, cognition, and perceptions of technology. ... 66

(4)

Abstract

Building on theories of framing and the digital divide, I investigated the case of digitisation of Brazilian agriculture.

From an institutional perspective, I conducted interviews and gained insights into four different actor’s perspectives on digitisation technologies for agriculture, such as Internet of Things (IoT), imaging technology, and data management software. Based on theory and findings, I developed a conceptual model for categorically positioning an actor in the digital divide, which included four levels of access: motivational, material, skills, and meaningful engagement. These were found to be influenced by the cognition of the actors involved, due to their foundations in sensemaking and perceptions of digitisation technology. This was also the case for the analysis of the different actors’ technology frame, which was based on their perceived functions of technology. Essentially, the cognition of individuals is influenced by their position in society and the availability of cultural capital. This will influence both the digital divide and the technology frames, which, in turn, influence each other. The study contributes to existing theories on the relationships between cognition and framing, and adds to literature on the stages and categorisations of the digital divide.

(5)

1. Introduction

In February of 2020, the director general of the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations stated that:

"We are convinced that transforming our food systems to feed the world will be achieved with a digital agriculture"

FAO Director-General Qu Dongyu, 28.02.2020, Rome

The importance of digital technology is increasing in a range of different industries, and agriculture may be the single most important as the increasing demand for food puts pressures on the environment to produce more agricultural products than ever before (Wholey, 2018). These pressures have sparked the development of two main types of technology: digitalisation technology and digitisation technology. The former, digitalisation, allows for information and processes that were previously analogue to become digital, making use of cloud technology, and digital tools to transform analogue data into digital data. The latter, digitisation technology, refers to integrated and modern technologies such as internet of things (IoT), big data, and minimising human interaction with data (Schniederjans, Curado & Khalajhedayati, 2020; Oesterreich & Teuteberg, 2016). Studies have shown the importance and impact of implementing these types of technologies in specific industries, such as construction (Oesterreich & Teuteberg, 2016), industrial manufacturing, and also agriculture (Bacco et al., 2019). Before this new wave of digitisation, agriculture was the target of industrialisation, which allowed for a move for sustainable intensification: “increasing yields without increasing the area under agriculture or causing significant environmental degradation” (Dias et al., 2016: 2887). Digitisation technologies further contribute to this development, because they allow farmers to collect, analyse, and apply data on their farms, leading to increased accuracy in decision- making (Bacco et al., 2019). This, in turn, can reduce the use of chemicals in the fields and increase the yield per hectare of cropland (Dias et al., 2016).

With its potential impact on the whole supply chain (Wholey, 2018), agricultural digitisation technology has created a whole new market with new types of business models and sources of competitive advantage, such as artificial intelligence as a service or sale of large data sets (Porter & Heppelmann, 2014). Large agricultural companies with broad experience have invested in, for example, soil nutrition sensors (ex. Yara) and camera drones (ex. Bayer AG), and smaller companies have emerged, providing software solutions (ex. Farmbox) and imaging technology (ex.

Elio). The industry has also been prone to a series of mergers and acquisitions. Amongst the key players that have emerged, there is a growing trend for full-service technology provision (Wholey, 2018). This has allowed actors to reach parts of the market that were previously untouched, such as smallholder farmers, because of the potentially low complexity that an integrated solution provides (Accenture Digital, 2017). However, the technological advancements in the agriculture sector are moving at such a rapid pace that smaller actors risk falling behind,

(6)

because they cannot cope with the ambiguous, continuous developments (Zambon et al., 2019; Bresciani, Thrassou

& Vrontis, 2013; Gambardella & McGahan, 2010). And what about the buyers of these technologies?

Literature on the digital divide has investigated the differences between societal actors that have and do not have access to information and communication technologies (ICT), such as broadband and telephone lines (Ritchie &

Brindley, 2005; Dewan & Riggins, 2005). Major differences have been found between developing and developed countries, where influences have proven to be more complicated than just having or not having access to ICT (Selwyn, 2004; Dainty et al., 2017; van Dijk, 2005). Additionally, policies regarding digitisation technology needs to receive increased attention, because of the unintended consequences that the current EU policies have for agriculture and environmental impact (Pacini et al., 2004). Due to the nature of policy-making, there is also the risk of non-transferrable best practices, because of the different situations across nations. The micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis in this stream of literature have provided insights into the different forces that contribute to the strengthening of the digital divide, but the literature is still lacking a full recognition of the interconnectedness between these different layers if interaction. The same can be said for literature on framing, which has previously been focused on social movements and mobilisation of support within society or organisations for collective action (Snow & Benford, 1988; Kaplan, 2008; Cornelissen & Werner, 2014a). In more recent studies, the concept of a technology frame has emerged from organisational studies, which highlights the connection between an actor’s cognition and agency (Leonardi, 2011). For digital agriculture, this means that different actors may have different types of access to digitisation technology, paired with very different technology frames.

This study aims to uncover the different influencing factors that contribute to the differences and similarities between actors in the field of digital agriculture by using Brazil as an exploratory case study. Brazil is one of the largest producers of agricultural products in the world today, and is home to some of the largest farms on the planet, for example El Tejar which covers 1.1 million hectares of land (Davies, 2016). However, the average size of a Brazilian farm was 63 hectares in 2006 (Ferreira Filho & Vian, 2016). Differences in size is one thing, but what about technological capacity? Access to markets and networks? The Brazilian agricultural production field is characterised by many contrasts and inequalities, which are being addressed to different degrees, and this study will attempt to uncover which are directly related to the development of digital agriculture in Brazil. To guide the research and presentation of findings, two research questions will be answered:

RQ1: How do actors gain different types of access to technology within the different levels of the digital divide?

RQ2: What factors account for actors’ similarities or differences in technology frames?

The research will be presented in several different parts. First, an outline of the relevant literature from the digital divide and framing will be presented, anchored in the lens of institutional theory. The thesis then outlines the methodology for the case based research, with detailed descriptions of how primary and secondary data were

(7)

the different actors included in the study is given before the results of the analysis are presented in three parts:

creating a conceptual model for positioning actors in the digital divide, applying the model, and lastly the results from the framing analysis. The findings are followed by a brief discussion of the contributions the study has made to current literature in the field, and some managerial and policy implications of these findings. Finally, the conclusion outlines some limitations of the study, as well as suggestions for further research beyond the fields of digital divide and framing at the institutional level.

(8)

2. Literature Review

2.1 Field Level Change

Instances of different actors working together in groups has received much attention, giving room for a number of different concepts to emerge, such as markets, industries, ecosystems, and institutional fields. The differentiating factors between these definitions are essentially the level of inter-dependencies, the types of interactions that actors engage in, and the types of actors that are considered. An industry relates mostly to organisations that engage in trade, who will experience threats to their competitive advantages when changes occur (McGahan, 2004). An ecosystem is a more intricate web of connections between actors that depend on each other to deliver a more valuable product to an end customer, and requires coordination of autonomous actors to work (Jacobides et al., 2016). An institutional field may be the most researched of the concepts, and is defined as a group of organisations that constitute a recognised area of institutional life (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). An institutional field is made up of actors that are trying to respond to their environment, which is, in turn, made up of other actors trying to respond to their environment (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). In both ecosystems and institutional fields actors come from a variety of backgrounds, and industries, and create value and change through network effects. The actors are not only business organisations, but can also be government, social activist groups, the media, and the academic and scientific communities (Callon, 1984). Therefore, an ecosystem consists of actors from different fields that are connected through a common goal, but that have different ways of responding to other actors and changes.

2.1.1 What defines a field?

Due to the different nature of the different actors in a field, it can be studied at different levels. The interactions in a field cross between the micro, meso, and macro levels (van Wijk et al., 2019), which means that there a range of factors influence what happens in a field, from global challenges (George, McGahan, & Prabhu, 2012) to the nature of goals (Leblebici, Salancik, Copay & King, 1991). Actors in a field, particularly organisations, are also social and cultural systems, meaning that they will be influenced by their own systems when trying to make sense of the context around them, i.e. the field, and determine the appropriate line of action (Hinings, Gegenhuber &

Greenwood., 2018). Whilst making sense of their context, actors formulate goals that subsequently guide their choice of action in a field, for example what change mechanisms they apply (Leblebici et al., 1991). One type of change is innovations, which often emerge as novelties in a field that actors have to either accept or reject. The nature of the field provides a context that guide actors to choose their strategic influence on the diffusion and outcomes of innovations (Abrahamson, 1991; van Wijk et al., 2019). Particularly digital innovation can have significant consequences for the actors in the field, through for example design of business models, organisational structures, and new policies (Hinings et al., 2018).

2.1.2 How does field change happen?

The ways in which changes come about have significant consequences for the types of changes that prevail or fail,

(9)

widespread diffusion (Haack, Schoeneborn & Wickert, 2012), and become legitimised at the institutional level (Lawrence, Winn & Jennings, 2010). This taken-for-granted nature of an institutionalised object or practice is embedded in individuals’ and organisations’ cognition, which guides their behaviours and decision-making (Bitektine & Haack, 2015). An actor’s cognition will become visible in the interactions that they engage in, and it has therefore been found that interactive and discursive spaces are important for the acceptance and rejection of innovations and other changes in fields (van Wijk et al., 2019; Hardy & Maguire, 2010). By redefining what is appropriate behaviour, fields guide the appropriate responses of organisations and other actors. For example, Leblebici and colleagues (1991) found that a change in the institutionalised definitions of the content of transactions will change the practices that actors engage in. Similarly, McGahan (2004) found that, depending on whether an organisation’s core assets or core activities are threatened by a change, their strategic response will be different. This also means that changes to a field will depend on individuals’, organisations’, and other institutions’

embeddedness in cultural beliefs and value systems, as well as their engagement with feelings of fear, greed, and ignorance (Bitektine & Haack, 2015).

2.1.3 Strategic responses to field level change

The fact that these emotions and values influence a field change brings to light the strategic opportunities for field actors to influence the outcomes of changes. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) argue that all change in a field is a process of isomorphism, where actors follow in each others’ footsteps either on the basis of coercive incentivisation, i.e. mimicking others to retain their position in the field, or following normative pressures to conform. This process of homogenisation has been found to be true in cases of institutional stability, but the process can be quite different in times of institutional instability (Bitektine & Haack, 2015). Actors can deliberately engage in strategic activities to influence the change that is happening. For example, the use of aspirational goals can be a strategic activity, because the intention of an innovation can significantly influence the outcome of the change it aims to produce (George et al., 2012). Another activity can be participation in field-configuring events, which bring together different perspectives and approaches to a change, and thereby acted as an arena for discussion, acceptance, and rejection of the change (Hardy & Maguire, 2010). Other strategic activities are discursive tools such as the use of analogies in communication, private agreements between different actors to cooperate, and conventions to persuade other actors in a legitimate way (Leblebici et al., 1991). All these strategic activities outlined above are of a social nature, meaning that they involve interactions to influence the cognitions and thereby the behaviours of individuals and organisations. These interactions will occur over a period of time, which means that institutional change is temporal in nature, where both the pace and the stability of institutionalisation will vary (Lawrence, Winn & Jennings, 2001; McGahan, 2004). A change in a field is a process of institutionalisation.

2.1.4 A resource and a strategy: Legitimacy

An impactful factor for an actors’ ability to influence the institutionalisation process is its legitimacy in the field.

Legitimacy has been defined as “the social acceptance of business organisations and their activities” (Scherer,

(10)

Palazzo & Seidl, 2013: 260), and is therefore a desirable resource for actors to have when engaging in discussions of field change. Legitimacy can be obtained in a number of ways, for example policies can give some actors more influence than others (Hinings, Gegenhuber & Greenwood, 2018), and an actor’s position in a stable field can actually come with a certain degree of legitimacy (Scherer, Palazzo & Seidl, 2013). Essentially, legitimacy is an outcome of micro and macro level actors’ interactions and sensemaking activities (Bitektine & Haack, 2015), and gaining this legitimacy is therefore a process of stakeholder management which can be executed in a number of different ways (Scherer et al., 2013). Everything from actors, to practices, to goals can become legitimised in a field (van Wijk et al., 2019; Scherer, Palazzo & Seidl, 2013; Leblebici et al., 1991). With the introduction of digitisation technology, who is then in a position to influence the development of this?

2.2 Digitisation and the Digital Divide

As the world moves into an increasingly technologically driven society, there are several issues that emerge.

Technology can be helpful to those who have it, but what about those who do not have access? An increasing body of research has focused on the access to and usage of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and other digital technologies. Selwyn (2004) defines ICT as an umbrella term, which encapsulates the variety of technology and its consequences. The term covers a range of different technological applications which provide access to an array of different types of information and resources, for example broadband internet amongst SMEs in Italy which was found to impact their ability to compete in the market (Arbore & Ordianni, 2006; Lucchetti &

Sterlacchini, 2004).

In the past decade an emerging stream of literature on digitisation has emerged, on integrated and modern technologies such as internet of things (IoT), big data, and minimising human interaction with data (Schniederjans et al., 2020; Oesterreich & Teuteberg, 2016). Studies have shown the importance and impact of implementing these types of technologies in specific industries, such as construction (Oesterreich & Teuteberg, 2016), industrial manufacturing, and agriculture (Bacco et al., 2019). Based on these definitions, and the literature which will be explored below, ICT refers to basic technologies that have an impact on societal participation and development, whilst digitisation technologies have been studied mostly at the organisational level. In order to get a holistic picture of the digital divide and its impact on individuals, organisations, and societies of today, this thesis combines the two streams of literature. Research on ICT lends some relevant and useful concepts to both research design and analysis of digitisation trends, particularly in relation to the digital divide. For the purpose of this thesis, ‘ICT’ will be used to describe basic technologies such as broadband connection and internet access, and ‘digitisation technology’ to describe modern and integrating technologies.

2.2.1 Defining the Digital Divide

Defining the digital divide has been a problem, and still is, in literature (Bach et al., 2013). There is general agreement that the digital divide refers to a gap between those who can and cannot make use of ICT and digitisation

(11)

from several disciplines have suggested influencing factors, outcomes, and consequences of the digital divide (Bach et al., 2013; van Dijk, 2006). Research has also shown that all these different elements exist at societal, organisational, and individual levels, suggesting that there is a link between the different levels of analysis (Dewan

& Riggins, 2005; Selwyn, 2004). In order to get a holistic view of the digital divide this section will examine the different suggested factors.

One main differentiator of digital divide definitions is the reference to either the first or second order of the digital divide. First order digital divide refers to the differences in access to ICT, literally whether or not an actor has access to ICTs (Bach et al., 2013). Second order digital divide refers to the usage of ICT, and addresses the issue of whether or not an actor is able to use a technology over time (van Dijk, 2006). Several authors have suggested that the digital divide is not simply characterised by whether or not an individual has access to and is able to use technology (Selwyn, 2004; van Dijk, 2006), but that gaining access is a cumulative and sequential process.

Selwyn (2004) has found that the level of meaningful engagement that an actor has with technology is a strong indicator of whether a society is on the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ side of the digital divide. He argues that meaningful engagement stems from a close relationship with technology, and has the potential to influence an individual’s social quality and engagement with society. Selwyn (2004) uses the basis of social inequality in his analysis of the digital divide, and argues that in today’s information age, inequality consists of economic, cultural, social, and technological capital. Van Dijk (2005) integrates the resource distribution approach, arguing that unequal distribution of resources is the main factor for differences in physical access to technology, which is in turn influenced by population demographics. Demographics includes age, sex, intelligence, and personality, but also an individual’s labour, educational, and household positions in society. Research has supported these findings, showing that there are significant differences in access across geographic areas and population groups (Dainty et al., 2017; van Dijk, 2005). Ultimately, the different types of capital affect the potential for a society to mobilise resources to acquire technology, use it, and engage with it effectively (Selwyn, 2004; van Dijk, 2005). Additionally, the social inequalities will be influenced by the individuals’ and communities’ access to ICT, because of the impact on their capacity to participate in political, production, social, consumption, and savings activities (Selwyn, 2004;

van Dijk, 2005; Dainty et al., 2017; Pearce & Rice, 2013). At both the individual and societal level, the consequences of this dyadic relationship has been found to be that ‘the rich get richer’, an effect coined ‘The Matthew Effect’

(Pearce & Rice, 2013).

2.2.2 The Stages, Types of Access, and Influencing Factors of the Digital Divide

There is a distinction between the stages of the digital divide and the types of access that are achieved in the digital divide. The stages of the digital divide are outlined by Selwyn (2004) as: formal or theoretical access to ICT, effective access to ICT and its content, basic use of ICT, meaningful engagement with ICT, followed by the actual and perceived outcomes of ICT interaction, which leads to actual and perceived consequences for the long-term.

(12)

These different stages are dependent on and create different types of access: motivational, material, skills, and usage access (van Dijk, 2005). These are influenced by factors at the global, organisational, and individual levels.

Motivational access: Motivational access can be measured by looking at the perceived significance of technology, the amount of time an individual sets aside to spend on understanding technology, and the underlying fondness for technology (van Dijk, 2006). The perceived significance of a technology depends on the previous experiences that an individual has with it, which will influence the perceived functionalities (Leonardi, 2011). If an individual or organisation is working in an industry which relies heavily on the use of one type of technology, it is more likely to be perceived as significant, because it is necessary to participate in the field (Forman et al., 2005; Ritchie &

Brindley, 2005). Uncertainties may also arise at the field level in the form of unclear policies and contracts, which will deter actors from engaging with technology on the basis of feeling incompetent and appearing to lack knowledge (Oesterreich & Teuteberg, 2016). This is true for several industries, such as construction (ibid), industrial manufacturing (Bacco et al., 2019), and tourism (Crenshaw & Robison, 2006). The insecurities about technology have also been manifested at the national or governmental level, and the political openness of a nation has a strong influence on whether or not the country adopts ICT (Crenshaw & Robison, 2006). These attitudes also have implications for the individual level, where one’s position in society has a strong influence on access to technology (Selwyn, 2004). The individual’s fondness for technology may also be influenced by the nature of the field. If, for example the nature of work is repetitive and easily automated, workers may dislike technology because of its perceived potential to replace them in the future (Oesterreich & Teuteberg, 2016). The mixture of psychological, cultural, and societal influencing factors create perceived uncertainties of technology, along with perceived uncertainties and risks of not adopting it (Ritchie & Brindley, 2005), which affect the individuals’ and organisations’ motivational access to technology.

Material access and formal and theoretical access to ICT: Formal or theoretical access to ICT (Selwyn, 2004), or material access (van Dijk, 2005), is the physical access that an individual, organisation, or society has to technology. An influencing factor for ICT adoption at a national level is its national income (Dewan et al., 2005), which creates differences in access to technology between countries. Within countries, the individual’s position in society is an influential factor to gaining access (Selwyn, 2004), because of the perceived need or privilege of certain persons to have material access. Physical access to technology is also a question of resources, where some societies are in fact less connected to infrastructure that allows for connectivity, which is the foundation of digital technology (Oesterreich & Teuteberg, 2016). For example, in the agricultural industry there is a lack of connectivity in rural areas, which presents a barrier for implementing digital solutions such as sensors and big data analysis (Bacco et al., 2019). The formal or theoretical access that a person or organisation has to technology therefore depends on a number of physical conditions.

Skills access and effective access to ICT: Van Dijk (2005; 2006) found that there are three different types of skills that

(13)

or information skills to formally use search engines and select and process substantial information, as well as strategic skills to use the information gathered to achieve general or specific goals. Training and education have been recognised as instruments to achieve the level of knowledge needed (Hargittai, 2006; Lucchetti & Sterlacchini, 2004), which poses a significant cost to individuals, organisations, and societies (Oesterreich & Teuteberg, 2016).

Additionally, the underlying skills that an individual has varies significantly across demographics (Corrocher &

Ordanini, 2002). For example, older workers may perceive technology as temporary because they are on their way out of the labour market anyway, leading to a resistance and unwillingness to engage in training and skills development (Dainty et al., 2017).

Another way to acquire digital skills is through the use of social networks, which can transfer knowledge across different areas of expertise and hierarchy (van Dijk, 2006). However, organisational structures can be a barrier to efficient use of networks, because underdeveloped systems for change could create silos and resistance across the organisation (Ritchie & Brindley, 2005; Leonardi, 2011). Research has also shown that the effective access to ICT, or the freedom to use it and its content, can be a barrier for usage access (Selwyn, 2004). This freedom is a subjective judgement of access, and will therefore be influenced by past and present experiences with culture, society, and technology (Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013; Selwyn, 2004). At the societal level, government policies could influence perceived freedom through strict guidelines and stated sanctions of use, for example of BIM technology in the UK (Dainty et al., 2017). Digital skills are therefore a part of shaping individuals’ feelings of freedom and ability to use ICT (Selwyn, 2004).

Basic use of ICT and usage access: All the stages and types of access outlined above can lead to the basic use of ICT, or usage access, which can be any type of use of any type of technology (Selwyn, 2004; van Dijk, 2005). This can be measured on the basis of time spent using technology, the diversity of applications that an individual or organisation is using, and the creativity and agency portrayed in their usage of technology (van Dijk, 2006). One major influence can be access to broadband, where users with broadband connections have been found to be less concerned with the cost of connectivity, and therefore use more applications for longer periods of time (ibid). The relationship that an actor has with ICT is shaped through basic use of ICT (Selwyn, 2004), which can be hampered by the geographical location and size of an actor (Arbore & Ordanini, 2006). Geographical locations can, as outlined above, influence the physical access to connectivity, and therefore also the broadband connection.

The actor’s size, mostly researched at the organisational level, is influential because of the resources available to apply technology within operations or management. For example, without resources to train and educate the workforce in digital skills, managers may decide to outsource ICT activities, which then hinders the workforce from using the technology and gaining digital skills in this way (Arbore & Ordanini, 2006). Another example could be the nature of contracts that come with organisational size, like in the UK construction industry where small companies only get access to use BIM technology through contracts with larger firms who already have it in place (Dainty et al., 2017). Discontinuous usage dependent on external relationships may lead to increased perceived

(14)

risks of not adopting technology (Ritchie & Brindley, 2005), and eventually perceived pressures for coercive isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). These types of pressures will have negative effects on the psychological and pragmatic experiences and attitudes that actors have with technology (Selwyn, 2004), which can lead back to a decrease in motivational access. Essentially, the level of basic use of technology represents a stage in the digital divide with clear connections between psychological, economic, and social influences of society and relationships.

Meaningful engagement: As outlined above, meaningful engagement is different from just engagement, because it is a manifestation of the relationships that individuals have forged with technology (Selwyn, 2004). It can be measured by observing the degree of control and choice that individuals have over technology and its content, and the purposeful application of it (ibid), i.e. the application of structural and strategic skills (van Dijk, 2005). Ambiguity and obscurity regarding applications of technology can create inertia amongst individuals (Leonardi, 2011), which is further amplified by the various applications of a multitude of technologies in a field (Oesterreich & Teuteberg, 2016). At the field level, this ambiguity can be created by competing industry standards for technology, where actors are engaging in legitimacy battles over which technology is right (Kauffman & Techatassanasoontorn, 2005;

Werner & Cornelissen, 2014). The high level industry standards may also be disconnected from the reality of the individuals and organisations, where technology requirements vary depending on context and application. For example, at construction sites there will be a demand for mobile devices that can withstand shocks and weather conditions, because of the outdoors and on-site nature of the work (Oesterreich & Teuteberg, 2016). Meaningful engagement with digital technologies is influenced by all the abovementioned factors, because these make up the relationship that an actor has with technology.

Perceived and actual outcomes of meaningful engagement with ICT: Meaningfully engaging with technology will produce both perceived and actual short-term consequences for individuals and organisations (Selwyn, 2004), which will differ depending on choice and application of technology. An organisation’s perceived outcome of technology may guide their strategic decisions, which then influences the actual outcomes of technology engagement (McGahan, 2004). This means that some actors may make the ‘wrong’ decisions, leaving them behind in the industry evolution (ibid). Outcomes are not necessarily only behavioural in nature, but can also be strategic, organisational, and technological (Ritchie & Brindley, 2005). For example, communications technology can be applied to supply chain management, which can in turn help nurture relationships that can enhance knowledge sharing, and potentially result in actual new innovations (Schniederjans et al., 2020). Essentially, the perceived outcome of a technology will guide the actual outcome of technology engagement because of the sense that actors have made of what technological engagement means to them (Selwyn, 2004; Orlikowski & Gash, 1994).

Perceived and actual consequences of meaningful engagement with ICT: Similar to the outcomes outlined above, long-term consequences of meaningful engagement be perceived and actual (Selwyn, 2004). At the individual level, Selwyn (2004) finds that consequences of ICT engagement manifest in production and consumption activities, political

(15)

technology, which means that consequences also depend on the type of technology, application, and engagement an actor has (Ritchie & Brindley, 2005). For example, actors engaging in smart farming activities - the use of IoT technologies in mapping and managing farm activities - can experience reduced costs due to more controlled and accurate activities (Bacco et al., 2019). An actor’s relationships with technology also has an implication for their relationships with other actors, be it internal or external (Ritchie & Brindley, 2005; Arbore & Ordanini, 2005).

Meaningful engagement with technology can lead to new relationships being forged, and can further contribute to the usage and skills access that the individual or organisation has (van Dijk, 2006). The idea of agency in meaningful engagement highlights the human role in digitisation (Schniederjans et al., 2020). The perceived consequences that individuals and organisations have of technology will shape the way they act in relation to that technology, and can lead to reshaping of institutional logics in the long-term (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). In summary, the individual, organisational, and global level are together contributing to the emergence and persistence of the digital divide.

2.3 Frames and Framing

A frame is a ‘schemata of interpretation’ (Goffman, 1974) which guides the ways in which in which individuals assign meaning to different aspects of life and the environment. It is closely linked to sensemaking, which has been defined as the attribution of meaning to past experience, because this activity puts your ‘cognition in action’ and is a process of connecting the dots between ‘past moments of socialisation’ and ‘present moments of experience’

(Weick, 1995: 111 in Cornelissen & Werner, 2014a; Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013). The frame is therefore made up of the sensemaking that an individual engages in, but also the politics that they adhere to (Kaplan, 2008). Due to the composite nature of a frame, it is therefore fragile, making it a potential ‘locus of contestation’ (ibid). Building on this conception of a frame, framing is the process by which an event or condition is interpreted or attributed meaning (Snow & Benford, 1988). Literature has focused on a number of different levels at which this process of framing can occur, such as the cognition of the individual, construction and negotiation of meanings in organisations, and the cultural embeddedness of frames at the institutional level (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). In order to better understand how framing happens, three different aspects need to be considered: what types of frames actors can develop, why actors engage in framing, and how they do so.

2.3.1 Types of Frames

Cultural frames allow individuals to attribute meaning to events and experiences by drawing on a number of cultural resources that come from their context, be it national culture, organisational culture, or occupational culture (Leonardi, 2011). It is one type of framing which involves the consideration of the broader societal context (Werner

& Cornelissen, 2014), but there also exist other types of frames. Further, a technology frame is an attempt by individuals to make sense of “not only the nature and role of the technology itself, but the specific conditions, applications, and consequences of that technology in particular contexts” (Orlikowski & Gash, 1994: 178). It is influenced by the perceived functions and potential that an individual sees in the technology (Leonardi, 2011), making it strongly based on past experience. Also, an economic frame is where economic agents describe, explain,

(16)

and solve economic problems for others, and in that way appropriating certain types of economic activities in relation to specific topics (Callon, 2002).

Snow and Benford (1986; 1988) found three different core framing tasks in social movements, resulting in three core frames: the diagnostic, the prognostic, and the motivation frame. The diagnostic frame is a summary of the diagnosis of an issue or aspect of society that is problematic, and the underlying cause of this problem, essentially an attribution of blame. This can be simple if the problematic aspect is straightforward, but becomes more complex when dealing with, for example, a wicked problem. A wicked problem such as climate change involves a wider array of actors trying to solve a problem that affects them all, but it may be unclear who is to blame for the problem, and therefore also who is responsible for solving it (Reinecke & Ansari, 2016). This feeds into the prognostic frame that actors develop, which consists of targets, strategies, and tactics for action that aim to solve the diagnosed problem (Snow & Benford, 1988). The prognostic frame can be directly related to the blame and responsibility identified in the diagnostic frame, but it can also differ, depending on the causal linkages that the individuals draw between the past and the present experiences of the problem (Reinecke & Ansari, 2016; Snow & Benford, 1988).

In order to get this group of people to take action to solve the problem, there also needs to be a motivation frame, which consists of a call to arms and a rationale for action (Snow & Benford, 1988). In this frame, discursive tools such as handbooks and position papers for policy-makers can be mobilised to create a common vocabulary and discourse around the topic (ibid; Hardy & Maguire, 2010).

The different types of frames vary in content, but all need to carry credibility and support in order to be legitimised.

The empirical credibility of a frame needs to be taken into account, as individuals will search for evidence that confirms or refuses the frame that is presented to them, meaning that the frame needs to fit the events of the world that they are living in (Snow & Benford, 1988). Building on the fit to world events, the experiential commensurability of the frame needs to be considered, i.e. the individual’s perceived resonance to own experiences of the world (ibid), which will condition their attribution of meaning and importance to certain aspects.

Additionally, the narrative fidelity of a frame covers the cultural resonance of a frame, namely how it links to the culture, cultural beliefs, and narrations of individuals (ibid). Together, these factors may influence the amount of followers that a frame has amongst an audience.

2.3.2 Framing Conflict

Given that frames are connected to the cognitions of individuals, it follows that when different individuals meet and discuss their different frames of the same problem, conflicts arise. Once an individual frame has been shaped, consisting of personal and political interests and sensemaking (Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013; Kaplan, 2008), individuals will seek out groups that share congruent ideologies, creating segments (Snow & Benford, 1988).

Consequently, different groups develop that have different ideologies and frames. For example, a group of technologically inclined individuals versus a group of religious individuals will come up with technological or belief

(17)

as an organisation, conflict will arise because of the continuous exposure to the differences in frames from working alongside each other (Kaplan, 2008). The interactions between individuals from different segments are therefore a source of conflict.

A conflict can manifest in a number of different ways, one of which is a legitimacy battle (Kaplan, 2008). In this type of frame conflict, or contest, different segments will create counterframes that delegitimise the opposing segment’s frame. This can be done by gathering evidence to either support the credibility of their own fame, or to disprove the credibility of the opposing frame (ibid). Empirical legitimacy can be effective in many situations, but establishing social legitimacy may be equally important. This can be done by mobilising a leader for a segment or group, whom then uses discursive tools such as catchphrases and metaphors to legimitise their own frame or delegitimise the opposing (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). The leader, often referred to as a spearhead, can either be chosen or emerge naturally, but has often been found to be ‘strategically inclined’ and in a position with awareness and influence over both internal and external actors to the group, for example a manager in an organisation. This allows them to better control how the frame disseminates across the organisation (Werner &

Cornelissen, 2014).

Framing conflicts can continue until one group wins the legitimacy battle. It may be that the different segments are unaware of each other’s existence, in which instance it could be useful to attempt to understand the areas of contestation between the two frames (Leonardi, 2011; Werner & Cornelissen, 2014), be it the interests or sensemaking of the individuals that make up the group. If, however, there is no attempt at understanding the other group’s frame, an environment of ambiguity could persist, leading to inertia amongst the actors (Leonardi, 2011).

For example, if two different organisational departments have conflicting frames of a technology’s functions, the organisation could come to a halt as no action could be taken until the overall goal of the organisation was aligned (ibid).

These activities allude to the strategic nature of framing, which has been found to be a process of persuasion, in addition to impression management (Kaplan, 2008). Actors within a group can ‘use their social skills to incite collective action’ (Kaplan, 2008: 738) by creating a compelling diagnostic, prognostic, and motivation frame. In relation to technology, two possible management techniques could be applied to overcome the inertia created by conflicts: creating a sense of urgency around the adoption of technology, or ‘granularisation’ (Leonardi, 2011). The latter refers to a breaking down of the problem related to technology in order to create specialisations within a broader technology frame. In this way, the organisational actors would attend to their perception of the problem and potential of technology, whilst contributing to the overall organisational development (ibid). The underlying motivation for engaging in framing conflicts is to legitimise your own frame, but what are the specific tools and tactics that can be applied to achieve this?

These practices have been outlined above as frame bridging, frame alignment, frame extension, and frame transformation, which are all practices that aim to realign frames (Snow et al., 1986).

(18)

Both legitimacy battles and frame realignment practices are therefore strategic tools to gain support for a collective action frame. In accordance with the definition of frame shifting (Werner & Cornelissen, 2014), this framing tactic can also be described as an instigator of framing conflicts, meaning that, despite the fact that no direct framing practices are linked to it, legitimacy battles can be a tool in the process of mobilisation and diffusion of this type of frame.

2.3.3 Framing Processes and Practices

A framing process can be defined as “situated performances in which knowledgeable actors use their social skills to incite collective action” (Kaplan, 2008: 783). Literature has categorised the different framing activities into three separate levels: framing processes are the overarching category of different framing activities that actors engage in (Kaplan, 2008), framing tactics are the categories of framing practices (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014b), and framing practices are the concrete activities that actors engage in (Snow et al., 1986). According to the descriptions of framing processes and tactics, they are similar in their deliberate and broad nature, and can therefore collectively be referred to as framing tactics. The main aim of all the different levels of framing is to communicate and gain support for a diagnostic, prognostic, and motivation frame, or to develop and concretise a frame. Importantly, the tactics draw upon salient discourses in the institutional field, i.e. discourses that are conventional, familiar, and at the front of the mind of all field actors, and are thereby strategic and deliberate mobilisations of discourse and discursive tools (Werner & Cornelissen, 2014).

One framing tactic is frame alignment, which aims to ensure congruency and complementarity between the values, beliefs and interests of individuals, and the goals, ideology and activities of the social movement organisation (Snow et al., 1986). A social movement organisation can be equated to a group or segment which is united by a shared ideology, as outlined above. Within frame alignment there exist four main framing practices, namely framing bridging, frame amplification, frame extension, and frame transformation.

● Frame bridging is an activity that brings together groups of individuals that share the same ideology, but have previously been incapable of sharing this information with one another due to structural disconnection (Benford & Snow, 2000). By bridging a frame, an actor is deliberately identifying groups of people as targets, and creating spaces or causes around which they can come together.

● Frame amplification is the practice of emphasising and clarifying values or beliefs that have previously been blurred by individual uncertainties and experiences (Benford & Snow, 2000). This means that certain aspects of a frame are highlighted in communication, so that the groups that give importance to these aspects are more likely to come onboard.

● Frame extension is the practice of enlarging the scope of the values and interests that are covered by a frame, in an attempt to reach more people. Actors must be cautious when using this practice, as there is a risk of extending the frame too far, and thereby losing the original target group due to perceived blurring of

(19)

● Finally, frame transformation involves changing the discourse about a topic so drastically that a new one is created and replaces the old: there is a transformation of meanings and understandings by creating new ones (Benford & Snow, 2000). Transformation is often done by framing a particular area of a problem, such as a relationship or practice, as unjust. For example, in the social movement to save neighbourhoods from demolition in the USA, meaning was attributed to frame a cause. Although the houses were not valued, but rather taken for granted by the residents, they managed to reframe them as architecturally and historically important by highlighting their significance to the way of life of the neighbourhood residents (Snow et al., 1986). Through presentation of evidence and counter-diagnosis of the problem, a frame transformation can give new clarity and certainty to an issue (Benford & Snow, 2000; Snow et al., 1986).

Two other framing tactics have been outlined by Werner and Cornelissen (2014), namely frame shifting and frame blending. Frame shifting aims to question the institutionalised schema and propose a new one through articulation and promotion of contrasting marks (Werner & Cornelissen, 2014: 450), making use of disjunctive and counter- factual language. This requires an awareness and connection with the past schemas for the purpose of formulating arguments that contrast, or provide alternatives, to the current frame, convincing individuals to move away from it. Frame blending is a tactic which involves the use of conjunctive language to integrate and iterate connections between and across past and novel schemas (Werner & Cornelissen, 2014).

Although not categorised as a framing tactic in itself, frame diffusion is an important activity that actors engaging in a framing process can choose to instigate (Benford & Snow, 2000). Frame diffusion can happen across cultures (Benford & Snow, 2000), either through a push or a pull process in an attempt to gain a wider audience. A push process involves intentional promotion and tailoring of objects and practices in one domain to fit in another, such as from culture to culture or from technology to technology. This is a strategic fitting or accommodation, and requires the sending culture to adapt the objects and practices. A pull process involves intentional borrowing and strategic selection of items from one culture to another, instigated by the receiving culture, who then must make the effort to tailor and adapt items. In either scenario, there is a sharing of elements that make up a frame, which will influence and be influenced by the current frames within which the groups are operating. These diffusion practices are similar to, for instance, the framing tactic of frame blending (Werner & Cornelissen, 2014), which indicates that the underlying importance of appealing to individuals’ familiar and widespread interpretations is key throughout the whole framing process.

All framing tactics (summarised in Table 1) have limitations if used inconsistently or excessively, because the underlying values and beliefs of a frame are continuously being evaluated by individuals against their own personal

‘schemata of interpretation’. During the framing process, the spearhead of a frame must continuously evaluate the empirical legitimacy, experiential commensurability, and narrative fidelity of their frame, as outlined above (Snow

& Benford, 1988). Individuals often operate with more than one schemata of interpretation, and therefore need to make sense of things that are happening in more than one domain of their life (Snow et al., 1986). Overflows are

(20)

changes in one domain that spill over to another domain like, for example, an improvement in transcription methods that influences the research contract that was signed some time ago (Callon, 1998). Building on the temporal element of framing, it has also been suggested that the framing process as a whole is cyclical in nature (Snow et al., 1986). Some framing practices may be more appropriate at specific times than others, such as frame transformation at the beginning of a cycle in order to make a radical impression.

However, the eventual success of a framing process, assuming that the goal is to gain as many followers as possible, will depend on the context in which the framing activities are happening. A discursive opportunity is created as a result of a change in a field, and prompts actors to make a number of evaluations (Werner & Cornelissen, 2014).

The first is the breadth of the discourse provided in the change, which can be of either a narrow or a broad nature.

Next, the opportunity can be volatile or stable, referring to its embeddedness and longevity in the broader culture.

Finally, the extension that the opportunity has to the existing words and schemas in a field can be either connected or disconnected. The actor’s evaluation of this opportunity will guide its decision of whether or not to exploit it in the first place (Werner & Cornelissen, 2014). The actor’s evaluation of the discursive opportunity may also guide their choice of framing tactics, where research has found frame shifting to be more appropriate in a volatile and broad opportunity, whilst frame blending would be more successful in a stable and connected opportunity (ibid).

Again, the array of different influencing factors on a frame and its framing makes it difficult to control, because the schemata of interpretation that individuals operate within can be subject to external changes (Callon, 1998).

This makes it increasingly difficult for actors propagating a frame to gain and maintain support over time, unless they have reached a level of institutionalisation.

2.3.4 Framing at the Institutional Level

The institutional level of analysis allows for insights into the power structures that exist in a field, where cultural meaning help to stable power arrangements and appropriate interaction patterns and practices (Lounsbury et al., 2003). Despite the conflicts that may arise at this level of practice, there exist certain institutional logics that guide the behaviours of actors, essentially providing the frames of reference that condition actors’ choices for sensemaking, their vocabulary in motivating actions, and their sense of self and identity (Thornton et al., 2012).

They resemble a field frame which is “the context within which shared and cognitively meaningful models of appropriate action are constructed and diffused” (Lounsbury et al., 2003: 96). Essentially, both are a taken-for- granted cognitive frame that guides actors’ behaviours and reactions to innovations (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014).

Due to the constructed nature of the frame, the political interests of actors will influence the degree to which framing practices will be effective (ibid). However, the politically powerful actors do not always win the framing contests, because of the wide array of actors that engage in the process (Kaplan, 2008). Different framing practices and discursive tools enable an actor to create a position of power through either demonising or idolising one particular frame (Kaplan, 2008; Hardy & Maguire, 2010). Even fringe actors can influence the field if they engage in emergent and innovative practices (Lounsbury et al., 2003).

(21)

An arena in which the different field actors can interact to engage in these framing conflicts and contests that shape the field frame is a discursive space (Hardy & Maguire, 2010). These spaces can be events or conferences that bring different actors, such as trade associations, producers, and governments together to discuss issues of change in their field over an extended period of time. All actors, regardless of power relations, can engage in these discursive spaces, which contributes to a process of translation amongst other actors, resulting in the creation of shared metaphors and ways of organising experiences, or translated meanings (Callon, 1984; Cornelissen & Werner, 2014).

Interestingly, two actors in the same field will be operating with some shared cognitive elements (Callon, 1998).

However, discursive spaces are most likely to result in the negotiation of a new field frame (Benford & Snow, 2000). Once this frame has become naturalised and taken-for-granted by the actors, it becomes conventionalised as an institutional frame, which deflects attention to some aspects whilst simultaneously rendering some aspects of social life objective (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). At this point, the frame provides the salient discourse in the field, meaning that a new institutional logic has emerged, which is now at the forefront of actors’ minds, and will guide their sensemaking behaviours moving forward.

(22)

Table 1: The Framing Tactics and Practices identified in Framing Literature Framing

Tactic Framing

Practice Discursive

opportunity Main characteristics Example Frame

alignment (Snow &

Benford, 1988; Snow et al., 1986)

Bridging - Bridging the structural

disconnection between groups that share ideology/frame.

Pro-choice social movement using mailing lists and direct contact to reach other communities of pro-choice and mobilise support for action.

Amplification - Emphasising and

clarifying values or beliefs that have previously been blurred by individual uncertainties and experiences

During the peace

movement, speakers would refer to their ‘constitutional rights’ during speeches to amplify the value of democracy.

Extension - Enlarging the scope of

values and interests included in a frame.

Aim to reach more people.

The Austin Peace and Justice Coalition added a sentence to their slogan in order to appeal to ethnic minorities. Extended their mission from rechanneling nuclear weapons funding to also include fighting social injustice like racism and sexism.

Transformation - Replacing old

meanings and understandings with new ones. A radical change of frame.

Evidence and counter- diagnosis of problem.

Neighbourhood at risk of demolition, where

community framed houses as historically significant and gained legitimacy

Frame shifting (Werner &

Cornelissen, 2014)

- Discursive

opportunity is volatile and a broad change, which provides cultural resonance.

Disjunctive and counter-factual language.

Contrasting the current frame.

Chefs in movement for nouvelle cuisine took advantage of the anti- establishment movement in France, and reframed themselves as ‘creators’ of a new cuisine.

Frame blending (Werner &

Cornelissen, 2014)

- Discursive

opportunity is stable and connected to current discourse.

Conjunctive language.

Integrating and iterating connections between past and novel frame.

Commercial microfinance blending elements from the development and banking schemas to create a ‘hybrid’

compound

(23)

2.4 Framing and Field Level Influences in the Digital Divide

As shown in the literature on framing, critical authors have recognised the agency that individuals and organisations have in changing the digital divide. By discarding the idea that individuals and societies can be categorised as either having or not having access to ICT, Selwyn (2004) and van Dijk (2005; 2006) suggest that they make conscious and subconscious decisions whilst going through the stages of access to technology. The potential of digital technology and ICT to shape and reshape the digital divide is therefore twofold: it can deliberately exclude certain actors from society, and it can be a channel for excluded actors to gain access to broader societal activities. The ways in which this is done is influenced by individuals’ past and present experiences of technologies, which are a part of shaping their technology frames (Leonardi, 2011). Once a diagnostic, prognostic, and motivation frame have been shaped, actors will engage in framing activities to get others on board, or simply prove the common idea of knowledge, i.e. the field frame, as false (Benford & Snow, 2000). The tactics chosen for these persuasions are in turn guided by the actor’s cognitive frame, which is also linked to the current institutional logic that they operate within (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). Focusing on the micro-level of analysis is not sufficient in this stream of research, as studies have shown that individuals are indeed influenced by their context, but that they also have the agency to influence their context. Literature has not sufficiently addressed the inter-relatedness between the institutional level, framing, and the digital divide. This thesis hopes to contribute to this gap through the example of digitisation of agriculture in Brazil.

(24)

3. Digital Agriculture and the Case of Brazil

This chapter provides an overview of digital agriculture and its history at the global level, as well as an introduction to the Brazilian context, which is the focus of this study. It begins by outlining the global trends for digital agriculture and the ecosystems that have emerged around it, followed by an overview of the unique Brazilian agriculture context. Lastly, the chapter provides a brief description of each of the four actors in this study, namely the medium-sized farm, the technology start-up, the native community, and Embrapa, the government-funded research institution.

3.1 Digital Agriculture at the Global Level

As outlined in the introduction, digitisation technologies for the agricultural sector include IoT and sensors. This includes analytics, data management, aerial imaging, robotics, machinery, and automation, which have varying degrees of complexity and application in agricultural production (Wholey, 2018). One of the most developed technologies in the field is imaging, which ranges from traditional and basic RGB, to modern and complex hyperspectral imaging, and satellite imaging (Adão et al., 2017). Combined with a range of other technology, such as drones or heat sensor systems, this type of technology can be used to map agricultural fields, identifying areas where crops need extra attention, and guiding farming decisions such as application of pesticides (Elio, 2020).

Sensors enable the creation of an IoT system. Sensors have become cheaper, smaller, and smarter, and have experienced an accelerated rate of change that bodes well for a range of future opportunities (Vázquez-Arellano, et al., 2016). In the field of agriculture, these technologies have been developed for soil nutrition management, for example, allowing farmers to have real-time data on how the soil in their farm is composed, guiding their decision- making (Yara, 2019). The potential influence on decision-making has been referred to as precision agriculture (Elio, 2020) or smart farming (Bacco et al., 2019), which could result in more controlled and accurate farming, thereby reducing costs and environmental impact by increasing productivity (ibid). A system of sensors is reliant on connectivity, however, which is limited across geographical areas (ex. Arbore & Ordianni, 2005). A proposed, and applied, solution has been LoRa, a low range power wireless network that provides a basis for connectivity between devices (Semtech, 2019). Altogether, the IoT technology has the potential to contribute to development of vehicle navigation, crop husbandry, and animal husbandry, which in turn can contribute to increased productivity and yields (Vázquez-Arellano et al., 2016).

3.2 The Brazilian Mindset and Digital Agriculture

Agriculture is a part of Brazilian history. The country was colonised by the Portuguese in the 1500s, which led to the establishment of international trade of gold and agricultural products such as cotton. With this came a wave of slave trade, as well as infrastructure. The major cities of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo were developed around the gold and cotton trade, and have since become the largest cities in the country. Brasilia was established as the federal capital in 1960, following construction of a brand new city in the center of Brazil, a symbol of a new Brazil. Since

(25)

one federal district (Figure 3). The different states have their own state governing systems, but are under federal law.

Over the past decades the country has experienced an enormous growth in food production, albeit less than forecasted. A barrier for development of agriculture is government instability, combined with an informal labour market, which causes fluctuations in both demand and supply of food, as well as demand and supply of workers (Novaes & Riveli, 2019). The vast land area of Brazil means that it covers a range of different biomes, classifications of climate zones. The latest target for agricultural expansion and intensification is the Cerrado biome, the savannah (Dias et al., 2016). This has been made possible because of government focus in the 1970s on mechanisation and industrialisation of Brazilian agriculture, which introduced technologies that allowed for cultivation of this biome (Helfand, Rada & Mahalhães, 2017; Filho & Vian, 2016). In 2018 Brazil had an agriculture productivity level of 15.6 tonnes per hectare, which is almost 70% higher than the European Union’s productivity of 9.3 (OECD, 2019).

This high productivity reflects efforts to increase intensification of agriculture by increasing productivity of land (Dias et al., 2016). Strategies have included development of strains of crop that are better suited for Brazilian biomes (Embrapa, 2019), policies that aim to increase agricultural research (Camargo et al., 2017), and dual-crop rotation systems (Dias et al., 2016).

Figure 1: Map of Brazilian states and Cerrado Biome. (Adapted from Dias et al., 2016)

The historical context of Brazil is reflected in their current culture, which is diverse and dispersed. The different regions have developed in different directions, where for example Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul have

The Digital Divide and Framing: A Vicious Cycle?

Supervisor Jawwad Raja