Search

The multi-actor approach in the EU's Horizon 2020 program has seen use across a large number of research projects. However, there remain questions about the extent and depth of participation that is achieved in these research projects, and how it may enable joint production of scientific theory next to readily applicable practical knowledge. This article aims to explore the latter question by focusing on the potential of such co-theorising, understood as the involvement of stakeholders in producing scientific outputs. We analyse how researchers involved in this research project view the participation of stakeholders, how they deal with tensions in participation, and how these tensions are resolved. Through 17 semi-structured interviews with researchers involved in the project's Living Labs we show that there are tensions between the interests of stakeholders, the project requirements and research interests. The findings indicate that a focus on including the stakeholders in theorising comes at a cost of practical relevance to the stakeholder. To safeguard the practical relevance of participation, researchers choose to exclude discussion on theory and theoretical concepts from the living labs. This is despite an initial belief that co-theorising and the further participation of stakeholders in producing scientific outputs holds merit. Hence, researchers purposefully prioritize practical relevance to stakeholders, thereby reducing the potential for co-theorising. The fact that theories already need to be defined in a proposal stage and project's limit scope for redefinition of core concepts, make that advancing theory together with stakeholders is not well accommodated for in Horizon 2020. This also bears relevance for the Horizon Europe program which follows a similar approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Digital technologies are often seen as an opportunity to enable sustainable futures in agriculture and rural areas. However, this digital transformation process is not inherently good as it impacts on many aspects (e.g. economic, environmental, social, technological, institutional) and their relations. The responsible research and innovation approach calls for a better understanding and anticipation of the often unknown impacts. To meet this aim we have developed a framework that allows to gain insight on the relations between the social, the cyber and the physical, i.e. a socio-cyber-physical system and have described conditions for a successful digital transformation of such a system. These are design of, and creating access to digital technologies, and navigating system complexity. This framework allows for a better problematisation of digital transformation and has been illustrated through an example of digital dairy farming. It supports an enhanced understanding of moral responsibilities regarding digital transformation, fitting within the responsible research and innovation approach, as well as a better understanding who is responsible or accountable for the identified (positive or negative) impacts, i.e. responsibilisation. • Digital transformation requires Responsible Research and Innovation. • Responsible Research and Innovation requires clear problematisation. • A Socio-Cyber-Physical System for problematisation is presented. • This framework can support responsibilisation in digital transformation. • An illustration of the framework in digital dairy farming is given. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many tools to analyse and support sustainable development exist, but their use in the agricultural sector remains obstructed by the sector's complexity and diversity. The objective of this research was to analyse, with a participatory action-research approach, various aspects of the design and use of sustainability assessment tools. The research originated from a Flemish farmers' union request to develop a sector-specific sustainability assessment tool (SAT). This request allowed action research by combining: (i) stakeholder involvement to clarify needs regarding sustainability assessment; (ii) the link between SAT and strategic decision-making and (iii) a supra-farm coordination or governance. The research, applied to four Flemish agricultural sub-sectors resulted in a context-specific SAT for each sector. They differed in complexity; procedural differences are described for two sub-sectors, in particular the links of SATs with strategic decision-making and the importance of supra-farm governance. We concluded with key attention points for future SAT development: (i) tuning sustainability assessment to stakeholders' needs, in particular with respect to strategic decision-making, (ii) the development context of a SAT, in particular with respect to governance and continuity in the envisioning process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Responding to future challenges and societal needs, various actions are taken in agriculture to evolve towards more sustainable farming practices. These actions imply strategic choices and suppose adequate sustainability assessments to identify, measure, evaluate and communicate sustainable development. However, literature is scarce on the link between strategic decision making and sustainability assessment. As questions emerge on how, what and when to measure, the objective of this paper is to construct a framework for guiding sustainability assessment and on-farm strategic decision making. Qualitative research on own experiences from the past and a recent project revealed four categories of actual needs farmers, advisors and experts have regarding sustainability assessment: context, flexibility, focus on farm and farmer and communication. These stakeholders' needs are then incorporated into a two-dimensional framework that marries the intrinsic complexity of sustainability assessment tools and the time frame of strategic decision making. The framework allows a farm-specific and flexible approach leading to harmonized actions towards sustainable farming. As this framework is mainly a procedural instrument to guide the use of sustainability assessment tools within strategic decision making, it fits to incorporate, even guide, future research on sustainability assessment tools themselves and on their adoption on farms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Arcobacter cryaerophilus is a heterogeneous species in which two distinct subgroups have been reported. In the present study, the taxonomic status of these subgroups was reassessed using amplified fragment length polymorphism and heat shock protein 60 gene sequence analysis. The results demonstrated that A. cryaerophilus has a complex taxonomic structure, which consists of multiple cores of strains that share intermediate levels of DNA–DNA hybridisation and exhibit low levels of DNA–DNA hybridisation towards other Arcobacter species. One of these cores consisted of the majority of strains and included most subgroup 2 strains from previous studies. A. cryaerophilus subgroup 1 strains represented three distinct cores, among which the type strain occupied a distinct position. These results therefore also demonstrate that the current subgroup nomenclature in A. cryaerophilus should be abandoned, and that the type strain is genetically aberrant and poorly represents strains belonging to this species. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]