Technological Forecasting & Social Change 190 (2023) 122405

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

Decoding technological frames: An exploratory study of access to and

meaningful engagement with digital technologies in agriculture
Karen G. Engås, Jawwad Z. Raja *, Isabelle Fabienne Neufang
Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Technological advancements undoubtedly impact development in the agricultural industry. However, the digital
Digital divide divide may constrain access to technology in developing countries. Hence, there is a need to explore and un­
Framing derstand how different actors make sense of technological advancement for a more meaningful engagement with
Digital agriculture
new technology. To this end, we undertook an exploratory study of an agricultural ecosystem in Brazil
Technological frame
Digital technologies
comprising a heterogeneous set of actors with varying experiences of digital technologies. Our findings show the
essential role of actors' technological frames, and how the type of access to digital technologies influences their
development toward digital agriculture. Different actors are found to react to technologies depending on their
past experiences and future expectations, leading them to mobilize different framing tactics to respond to the
changes that digital agriculture presents. We illuminate how the digital divide not only constrains access to
digital technologies but also limits meaningful engagement. We contribute by showing how engaging in framing
tactics can advance or preserve actors' technological frames in the digital divide. Our study details implications
for both practitioners and policymakers for future consideration.

1. Introduction
Today, almost 30 years after people first used the World Wide Web,
adequate access to the internet and other technologies is still not a given
in all parts of the world. For instance, despite the steady growth of
internet penetration in Brazil, the country still reports that large sections
of its population have restricted access to technology (Cavalli and
Jimenez, 2015). This phenomenon of unequal access to and use of in­
formation and communications technology (ICT) is also prevalent in
other parts of the world (e.g., Africa) and is often referred to as the
“digital divide” (Kabbiri et al., 2018; Senyo et al., 2021; Verma and
Sinha, 2018). Despite this unequal access, there is still an assumption
that digital technologies are the solution to the challenges faced by most
industries, with agriculture as a case in point (Wholey, 2018). For
example, precision agriculture technologies are purportedly leading to
revolutionary changes (Ryder, 2014; Sonka and Cheng, 2015), with
some even claiming that “farming is undergoing a digital revolution”
(Bronson and Knezevic, 2016, p. 1). For many emerging economies, such
as Brazil, agriculture accounts for a significant part of their gross do­
mestic product (GDP). However, technological advancements are not
far-reaching enough to influence all the actors involved, especially those
smaller actors who risk falling behind in their development. Hence, the
resulting digital divide still needs to be explored further.
A large body of existing research focuses on access to and usage of
ICT and other digital technologies (e.g., Dainty et al., 2017; Oesterreich
and Teuteberg, 2019; Selwyn, 2004; van Dijk, 2006). Over recent years,
a stream of literature focusing on digitization and digitalization,
particularly regarding integrated and modern technologies such as the
internet of things (IoT) and big data, has emerged (Oesterreich and
Teuteberg, 2019; Schniederjans et al., 2020). Of relevance for current
purposes are studies showing how technologies can impact cognitive
processes and influence information intake and learning (Marsh, 2016;
Vedechkina and Borgonovi, 2021). However, research on how cognition
influences perceptions of technology is still at a nascent stage regarding
some (smaller) actors who may experience unequal access to new
technologies. Hence, there is scope for better understanding of the ef­
fects of cognition (i.e., mental processes of knowledge creation and
meaning construction) on the access to and use of digital technologies.
In this article, we seek to understand how a heterogeneous set of
actors gains access to technology and what effects the digital divide has
on actors' technological frames by drawing on the three core fra­
mes—diagnostic, prognostic, and motivation—identified by Snow and

* Corresponding author at: Copenhagen Business School, Department of Operations Management, Solbjerg Plads 3, Frederiksberg, Denmark.
E-mail address: jr.om@cbs.dk (J.Z. Raja).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122405
Received 16 September 2021; Received in revised form 4 February 2023; Accepted 6 February 2023
Available online 20 February 2023
0040-1625/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
K.G. Engås et al.
Benford (1988). Typically, a frame describes “schemata of interpreta­
tion” (Goffman, 1974), which guide how individuals assign meaning to
certain aspects of life and the environment. In line with this, there is a
need to understand how an actor's cognitive frame guides their
engagement in different framing activities aimed at persuading other
actors in their network of the potential benefits and pitfalls of technol­
ogy that need to be understood as part of their conscious and subcon­
scious decision-making (Selwyn, 2004; van Dijk, 2005, 2006).
In this study, we seek to extend existing knowledge about the digital
divide (van Dijk, 2006) by examining how limitations to access and use
of technology affect actors' perceptions of digital technology. Thus, we
address the following research question: How do actors' technological
frames influence access to and use of digital technologies? To do this, we
refer to the concept of technological frames (Orlikowski and Gash, 1994)
and the influence of cognition in the framing process. We investigate the
reasoning and interpretive ground for individuals' actions in relation to
digital agriculture, based on types of access within the digital divide
(van Dijk, 2006). Of particular interest is how individuals' past and
present experiences shape their technological frames (Leonardi, 2011).
To this end, we undertook a study examining the development of
digital agriculture in Brazil (i.e., the application of precision or smart
farming methods), adopting an exploratory qualitative research
approach. We studied a heterogeneous set of actors in an agricultural
ecosystem, in order to provide in-depth understanding of the different
actors' responses and experiences of digital technologies. We utilized
both primary and secondary data sources in the form of semi-structured
interviews and conversations, observations, field notes, and publicly
available sources including policy documents. All the data were
analyzed abductively to identify emergent themes in light of the theo­
retical perspectives adopted.
Our analysis leads us to propose a model of how technological frames
influence actors' access to digital technologies. Our study makes several
notable contributions as it extends the literature by explaining how a
plethora of frames and different framing processes influence access to
and use of digital technologies. We discuss the expectations, experi­
ences, and understanding of technological change across organizations,
identifying technology access as a key aspect in the formation of in­
dividuals' and groups' perceptions of technology that is shaped by past
and present experiences. We also illuminate how the digital divide not
only constrains access to digital technologies but also limits meaningful
engagement. This is particularly relevant for understanding solutions
developed in the global north that are may not be used in a meaningful
way in the global south. Further, we illustrate how engaging in framing
tactics has effects across different actors by focusing on inter-actor in­
fluence on the framing process. Thereby, we contribute by showing how
engaging in framing tactics can advance or preserve actors' technolog­
ical frames in the digital divide.
In the following sections, we provide the theoretical background to
our study by elaborating on framing and technology literature. We then
discuss the differences in access to innovative digital technologies as a
relevant consideration resulting in a digital divide for some. Following
this, we present our research approach, including case overviews of the
different actors studied, and then detail our findings. We then propose a
model of technological frames' influence on actors' access to digital
technologies. Finally, we provide the theoretical contributions and im­
plications for policy and practice, as well as detailing limitations and
avenues for future research in light of this study.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Framing for digital innovation
Snow and Benford (1988) define framing as the process of inter­
preting or attributing meaning to an occurrence. Framing processes are
said to occur at multiple levels, ranging from an individual's cognitive
level to the organizational level in the construction and negotiation of
2
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 190 (2023) 122405
meanings, and at the institutional level through cultural embeddedness
of frames (Cornelissen and Werner, 2014; Feront and Bertels, 2021).
Similarly, the concept of sense-making considers the attribution of
meaning to past experiences, and can be related to the fact that cognition
is enactioned to draw connections between moments and experiences
from the past and present (Cornelissen and Werner, 2014; Kaplan and
Orlikowski, 2013).
Based on their analysis of social movements, Snow et al. (1986) and
Snow and Benford (1988) identified three core frames: the diagnostic, the
prognostic, and the motivation frame. The first frame describes the diag­
nosis of a problematic societal issue and its underlying cause. The
diagnostic frame makes an attribution of blame, which links to the
second frame, the prognostic frame. Aimed at solving the problem
previously diagnosed, this frame entails specific targets, tactics, and
strategies related to the diagnosed blame. This alone is not sufficient to
resolve the underlying problem, but it creates a rationale for action
which motivates individuals or groups to take action (Snow and Ben­
ford, 1988). Hence, tools that create a common vocabulary and
discourse on a particular topic are a decisive factor for the motivation
frame (Hardy and Maguire, 2017; Snow and Benford, 1988).
Besides the three core frames identified by Snow and Benford (1988),
additional frames such as cultural, technological, or economic frames
also exist. For example, making sense of the nature, role, functionality,
specific conditions, and applications of a technology in a given context
describes an individual's technological frame (Orlikowski and Gash,
1994). In this case, previous experiences with technology in general
influence the individual's perception of the technology's usability and
potential (Leonardi, 2011). Due to the variety of frames that exist based
on an individual's cognition, conflicts may arise when individuals or
groups interact with and discuss others' frames to a common problem.
Motivated by the attempt to legitimize a plethora of alternative frames,
individuals and groups may even engage in framing contests (Kaplan,
2008).
Other studies on managerial cognition indicate that organizational
responses are driven by the interpretation of the industry context and
environment (Eggers and Kaplan, 2013; Nadkarni and Barr, 2008). The
seminal study by Tripsas and Gavetti (2000) even shows that organi­
zations may experience cognitive inertia in responding to radical tech­
nological change. They illustrate this in their study of Polaroid and its
failure to move from analogue to digital imaging technologies, despite
having developed the technical capabilities to do so. They attribute this
failure to the managerial frames giving primacy to the successful razor
blade business model adopted at the time, but neglecting the changing
digital landscape. More recently, some researchers have also argued that
organizations may refrain from innovating their existing business model
because management engages in inflexible framing (Raffaelli et al.,
2019). Such organizations' framing instead focuses on affirming past
strategies and practices supporting their legacy. Their cognitive frames
“are frequently stuck in an old understanding of the environment”
(Eggers and Kaplan, 2013, p. 317). The work by Raffaelli et al. (2019)
explores how cognitive and emotional framing affect incumbent firms'
adoption of non-incremental innovations. They advance previous
research by challenging the assumption that cognitive frames are static
“things” and argue for frame flexibility, which can overcome top man­
agement's constraints toward adopting innovations. They put forward a
more dynamic view of constructing, contesting, and transforming
cognitive frames, which suggests the need for a processual perspective
(Langley, 1999) to understand the framing practices at play.
One framing tactic with the aim of achieving congruency among
individuals' values, ideologies, interests, and goals is defined as frame
alignment (Snow et al., 1986). A further four general framing practices
fall under the category of frame alignment: amplification, extension,
bridging, and transformation. Of relevance to the current study are the
latter two. Frame bridging entails bringing together groups of individuals
who have previously been structurally disconnected but share the same
ideology (Benford and Snow, 2000). Frame transformation entails
K.G. Engås et al.
identifying target groups based on their shared ideology. Actors delib­
erately create spaces to bring these individuals together. They aim to
create clarity and certainty by bringing new understandings and
meanings to a diagnosed problem (Benford and Snow, 2000), resulting
in drastic changes to a topic's discourse and creating a new one in its
place.
In line with the framing tactic of frame alignment outlined above,
Cornelissen and Werner (2014) present two additional framing tactics:
frame shifting and frame blending. Frame shifting suggests creating a
novel frame by questioning existing institutionalized schemas. It re­
quires individuals to formulate contrasting arguments that provide al­
ternatives to the current frame, in order to mobilize others to move to a
novel frame (Cornelissen and Werner, 2014). Frame blending focuses on
combining elements of two similar frames to form a hybrid frame that
encapsulates a new structure. However, these framing tactics do have
some limitations, as individuals often utilize multiple schemata of
interpretation when making sense of life's happenings (Snow et al.,
1986). Hence, they evaluate a frame's underlying beliefs against their
own schemata of interpretation. This may also guide their selection of an
appropriate framing tactic.
Thus, we need to understand how an actor's cognitive frame guides
their engagement in different framing activities aimed at persuading
other actors in their network of the potentials and pitfalls of certain
technologies. Although a large body of literature has focused on cogni­
tive inertia and resistance to technological change in a firm-based
context (see, for example, Tripsas and Gavetti, 2000), little is known
about the dynamics of technological adaptation (Azad and Faraj, 2008)
that occurs in an ecosystem in which different actors are connected. Of
particular interest is how the technological frames of actors in devel­
oping countries and the global south are shaped by contextual consid­
erations. Such considerations are largely neglected in the propagation of
digitalization in academic literature, which heavily privileges a global
north perspective (Fairbarn and Kish, 2022), without due consideration
for how frames and framing activities may vary in other parts of the
globe or where conditions vary. Hence, further exploration is needed of
the framing tactics that different actors mobilize in order to respond
to—and resist—technological advancements in their industry, specif­
ically in the neglected global south (Alcadipani et al., 2012; Jack et al.,
2022).
Next, we discuss differences in accessing digital technologies and
unpack the types of access associated with the digital divide.
2.2. Differences in accessing and using digital technology
To a large extent, today's society is governed by technological ad­
vancements, widely heralded by many as the fourth industrial revolu­
tion. The introduction of new digital technologies to automate
processes, simplify operations, and improve efficiency is commonly
considered advantageous. Of particular note is the discussion of terms
such as “digitization” and “digitalization,” which are sometimes used
interchangeably despite being conceptually distinct and describing two
separate phenomena. The former, digitization, refers to the process of
transforming analogue data into digital data (Brennen and Kreiss, 2016;
Ritter and Pedersen, 2020). The latter, digitalization, refers to the
adoption and application of digital technologies (e.g., artificial intelli­
gence (AI), drones) to alter existing business models and processes, in
order to enhance their organizational competitiveness. Capitalizing on
the potential of digitalization requires stable access to, and use of, the
internet. The latest figures show that only 59.9 % of the global popu­
lation actively uses the internet (Johnson, 2021).
Despite the vast and rapid spread of digital technologies around the
globe, access to technology remains limited for some parts of the world,
such as developing and rural areas. Besides demographic factors (Kab­
biri et al., 2018; Moon et al., 2010; Pick and Nishida, 2015), specific
training is needed to develop digital competencies (Hidalgo et al., 2020)
that enable access to, and usage of, technology. Formerly often referred
3
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 190 (2023) 122405
to as information inequality or the information gap, unequal access to
and use of ICT was newly coined as the digital divide at the end of the
1990s (Bach et al., 2013; van Dijk, 2006). The digital divide describes
the gap between those who can and those who cannot make use of new
information technology (i.e., ICT). In general, ICT encapsulates a variety
of technologies and devices such as mobile phones, computers, tele­
phones, the internet, or AI, which allow users to engage seamlessly in
the digital world.
Scholars from various disciplines identify specific factors and con­
sequences relating to the digital divide (Bach et al., 2013; van Dijk,
2006). Research further suggests that such factors, outcomes, and con­
sequences exist at societal, organizational as well as individual levels
(Riggins and Dewan, 2005; Selwyn, 2004). Within the extant literature,
the definition of the digital divide differs, either being referred to as first
or second order. The first order captures existing differences in access to
ICT (Bach et al., 2013), whereas the second order deals with ICT usage.
Thus, the latter considers whether or not actors are able to use a tech­
nology over time (van Dijk, 2006).
In an attempt to unpack the notion of the digital divide, Selwyn
(2004) defined different stages of the digital divide, which allow for
varying types of access to technology (van Dijk, 2005). An examination
of the perceived significance and underlying fondness for technology is
useful for understanding actors' motivational access (van Dijk, 2006). The
time an individual is willing to invest in technological education as well
as their position in society are decisive factors affecting their access to
technology (Selwyn, 2004). Previous experiences with technology in­
fluence an individual's perceived significance of and underlying fond­
ness for technology. Physical access—granted through connectivity and
infrastructure—of an individual, organization, or society to technology
can be described as material access (van Dijk, 2005). According to van
Dijk (2005, 2006), there are different types of digital skills (e.g.,
instrumental and operational skills, structure or information skills, and
strategic skills), which may be acquired through training and education
or social networks whereby knowledge is transferred between in­
dividuals. Across different demographics, we find variations in the
digital skills of individuals and groups (Corrocher and Ordanini, 2002),
as well as resistance to advance these (Dainty et al., 2017; Oesterreich
and Teuteberg, 2019; Selwyn, 2004; van Dijk, 2006), which influences
their skills access. Geographical locations influence actors' physical ac­
cess to and consequently their use of technology. For van Dijk (2005),
unequal distribution of resources is the main factor that causes differ­
ences in physical access to technology. Hence, individuals' usage access
may be measured by the time spent using technology and the number
and diversity of applications in use (van Dijk, 2006).
Moving beyond mere usage access, meaningful engagement discusses
the extent to which actors interact with technology. In other words, it
describes a close relationship with the technology and a meaningful use
of ICT. It refers to a “use where the user exercises a degree of control and
choice over technology and content” (Selwyn, 2004, p. 352). According
to Selwyn (2004), the level of meaningful engagement with technology
plays a significant role in terms of an actor's positioning in the digital
divide. Importantly, we know from previous research that to avoid
inertia among individuals (Leonardi, 2011), the usage of a particular
technology must have significance or relevance for its user. So, although
digitalization is touted as a supposed panacea for optimizing processes
and achieving efficiencies, the discussion largely neglects whether ac­
cess and usage is experienced uniformly across contexts and what
meaningful engagement means. A simplistic prognosis for solving
developmental issues with technological solutions from the global north
often fails to account for more complex and local considerations.
In summary, the discussion on frames and framing allows analysis of
how individuals make sense of their own and shape others' technological
understanding. In particular, individuals' past and present experiences
of technologies are of interest, as they shape their technological frames
(Leonardi, 2011) and the potential framing tactics that actors engage in.
Drawing on the literature by van Dijk (2005, 2006) and Selwyn (2004)
K.G. Engås et al.
regarding different types of access to technology and stages of the digital
divide provides fertile ground for exploring how differences in access
and use of technology influence technological advancement. Thus, we
posit that research on digitization and digitalization, when combined
with the concept of framing, can elucidate actors' cognitive schemata
toward the technology that influences their access to and use of digital
technology. We examine this by exploring and elaborating on de­
velopments in digital agriculture in Brazil in subsequent sections.
3. Research approach
The primary purpose of this research was to examine how advanced
technologies are being propagated for digital agriculture. Agriculture
forms an important part of the world economy, and certain emerging
economies—commonly referred to as BRICS1—are deemed important
players, as they produce a third of the world's output. Hence, these
countries present attractive opportunities for investment and economic
growth with lower labor costs. Moreover, given their land size, these
countries are deemed important actors in global food production.
Advanced digital technologies for precision agriculture are advocated as
a way of improving production methods and achieving efficiencies
(Clark et al., 2018; Ryder, 2014). As such, a number of newer actors
have emerged who are developing technologies to support local actors
(government agencies, farmers, etc.) in these countries. Thus, it is
particularly relevant to focus on one of these countries to understand
how digitalization is playing out in the context of an emerging economy
where agriculture is pivotal.
To this end, Brazil was chosen as an appropriate country, as it is
located in the global south and is a major supplier of agricultural
products (e.g., soybean products, corn, sugar, coffee, etc.). In particular,
the agricultural industry was deemed relevant, given that it contributes
significantly to the gross domestic product (GDP) and farming is a sig­
nificant source of income for many local actors. Parts of Brazil also have
a semi-temperate climate with fertile land, including some areas esti­
mated to be among the largest undeveloped fertile lands, thus attracting
considerable interest from investors within the country and
internationally.
The aim of this research was to scrutinize the technology frames of
different actors, in order to better understand how they influence the
diffusion of newer digital agricultural technologies. Rather than
assuming that such technologies can be applied uniformly across
different contexts, we examined how a particular setting can play an
important part in constraining and shaping the take-up of the techno­
logical advancements being propagated. To this end, we adopted a
multi-case approach (Yin, 2018). This enabled us to better understand
the differing frames with respect to digital technologies. Importantly,
studying multiple actors provides a more holistic and nuanced under­
standing of the representative actors found in an agricultural ecosystem.
One researcher undertook the field research and closely studied the
development of digital agriculture in certain parts of the country.
Following an exploratory qualitative study design (Corbin and Strauss,
2015), the different actors studied were asked a series of questions, and
further data were gathered to gain a better understanding of the con­
cerns and issues related to the use of (digital) technology in Brazilian
agriculture. Adopting an abductive approach (Dubois and Gadde, 2002;
Sætre and Van de Ven, 2021), whereby multiple actors were studied in
depth, allowed the researchers to move continuously between theory
and findings, and incorporate new findings into an emerging under­
standing of the phenomenon under investigation.
1
BRICS refers to Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Since this
research was undertaken, the position of Russia as a BRICS member has become
more questionable due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the trade re­
strictions imposed by certain, mainly Western, countries.
4
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 190 (2023) 122405
3.1. Sampling and data collection
In this study, a theoretical sampling approach was adopted (Miles
and Huberman, 1994; Patton, 2015) to examine and elaborate on the
digital divide and framing concepts. Qualitative data collection methods
were chosen to explore the current situation within an agricultural
ecosystem in Brazil regarding digitization and digital technology, and to
understand the differing perspectives and framing activities undertaken
by different actors. Data were collected as part of a research project that
spanned over eight months with a range of actors, including a medium-
sized farm, a technology start-up, a native community, and a
government-supported research and development organization,
Embrapa (see Table 1). These actors represent differing perspectives
with regard to digital technology access and use in agriculture. The
medium-sized farm and native community studied are actors often
neglected in discussions and pertinent for ascertaining the type of access
to and use of technology, whereas the technology start-up is an advocate
of new digital innovations as a way toward sustainable development.
Lastly, Embrapa's role is to support research and development as a
quango. Thus, these four different groups of actors illustrate well the
varying frames and framing activities needing to be decoded and
accounted for in the context of the digital divide.
The lead researcher attended conferences and talks by social activ­
ists, lawyers, academics, and journalists throughout their stay in Brazil,
which provided valuable contextual information and lines of further
inquiry for additional data collection. Following data collection with a
native community in the form of observations and taking field notes, a
conversation with one of the academics involved in the project led to
interview data and further observations of the technology start-up.
Following the snowballing approach employed (Patton, 2015), these
conversations highlighted the importance of a comprehensive explora­
tion involving multiple actors in a Brazilian agricultural ecosystem.
Further interviews with the medium-sized farm representative resulted
from consultation with the researcher's own network. An interview topic
guide covering, among other things, digital technology, the environ­
ment, and the government supported the primary and secondary data
collection process, as it aimed to uncover specific perceptions and atti­
tudes toward digitization and the use of digital technology in Brazilian
agriculture (see Table 1). All interviews conducted were semi-structured
to ensure flexibility in discussing specific topics and allow the subjects'
reasoning, meaning attribution, and perceptions to be revealed (Brink­
mann and Kvale, 2015).
In addition, secondary data from organizations' websites and pub­
licly available presentations were collected based on the themes
emerging from the interviews. Utilizing such active data enabled the
researchers to gain a more comprehensive picture of the issues studied.
As the secondary data were primarily in Brazilian Portuguese, reading
them in the country's native language provided valuable insights into the
phrasing and framing of the individual actors. Overall, however, most of
the data were collected in English, meaning that only some conversa­
tions and talks required additional translations from the lead researcher,
who is advanced in Brazilian Portuguese.
3.2. Data analysis
Throughout the research process, we continuously moved between
theory and data, best described as adopting an abductive approach
(Dubois and Gadde, 2002; Ketokivi and Mantere, 2017; van Maanen
et al., 2007). This allowed us to consider emergent themes in light of the
theoretical perspectives (Corbin and Strauss, 2015), and to extend in­
sights gleaned and understanding of the different actors' attitudes to­
ward digital technologies and the digital divide. In our analysis, we
placed particular emphasis on the meaning of respondents' words and
phrases. Comparatively speaking, an examination of the data coded
from participants in the group interview from the native community
revealed a rather negative perception of respondents toward technology.
K.G. Engås et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 190 (2023) 122405

Table 1
Overview of actors, data sources, and interview questions.
Actors Description Data sources Sample interview questions

Medium- ▪ Located in the Cerrados biome
sized farm in the state of Bahia
▪ Comprises around 100,000
hectares of dry farmland
▪ Agricultural production is
highly mechanized
▪ New data management software
is the latest digital technology
implemented
Technology ▪ Provides a drone-based imaging
start-up technology for agriculture in
Brazil
▪ Developed an AI technology to
detect abnormalities
▪ Founder participated in MIT
Bootcamp
Native ▪ Located in the state of Rio
community Grande do Sul
▪ Consists of 100 people
▪ Sale of bananas is the main
source of income
▪ Agricultural production is
shaped by the community's
heritage and traditions
Embrapa ▪ Government-led research and
development institution for
agricultural technology
▪ Known for success in genetically
modified organism (GMO)
technology
▪ Developed digital technologies
are sold off for
commercialization
Semi-structured interviews; informal interviews/
conversations
Semi-structured interviews; company documentation,
including reports (e.g., reports on crop development
and optimization, harvest forecasts with use of
multispectral images to assess and increase quality of
harvest, etc.); website (e.g., mission, background
information, programs and services, etc.) and brochures
(e.g., algorithm for high-precision geo-referenced image
capture technique, AI capabilities to correlate historical
data with harvest projections, effects of climate change)
Group interviews; site visits; observations; discussion
sessions with community representatives; observational
field notes
Publicly available documentation on website (e.g.,
mission, values; online library and publications,
including: institutional documents—vision of the future
of Brazilian agriculture, social balance, and science-
powered agriculture; policy documents (e.g., dividend
distribution policy, risk management, integrity,
compliance and internal controls policy, data,
information and knowledge governance policy,
innovation policy, equity interest policy, etc.); and
management reports
▪ Can you describe the different stakeholders that
you are engaged with?
▪ Can you describe the technology you use? What
does technology mean to you and your business?
▪ How does digital technology influence your
farming processes? What barriers do you see for
farmers in accessing digital technologies for
agriculture?
▪ How does digital technology make agriculture in
Brazil more sustainable? What government
support is available for the effective use and
engagement of such technologies?
▪ How has the agriculture field in Brazil changed
over recent years?
▪ How would you describe the potential you see in
digital technology use in agriculture?
▪ How could more small- and medium-sized farms
invest in digital technology for agriculture? What
government support is available for the effective
use and engagement of such technologies?
▪ What barriers do you see for farmers in accessing
digital technologies for agriculture?
▪ How would you describe the government's role in
Brazilian agriculture? What government support
is available for the effective use and engagement
of such technologies?
▪ Can you describe what sustainability means for
your community?
▪ How will technology influence your farming
processes in the future? What barriers do you see
for farmers in accessing digital technologies for
agriculture?
▪ What role do traditions and culture have for
agriculture in your community?
N/A

Note: Additional data were collected through the attendance of conferences and talks by social activists, journalists, academics, and lawyers, which provided contextual
reference.

We employed the concept of framing to gain a more in-depth under­
standing of the different actors' perception of digital technology. Further
interviews and observations highlighted the importance of establishing
actors' varying positions within society and regarding access to and use
of technology. We also studied and coded the available documents
collated from some of the actors' websites (i.e., the technology start-up
and Embrapa), which enabled us to triangulate our understanding
across multiple sources of data (see Table 1 for a detailed overview).
We adopted the twin slate approach for coding purposes, which
enabled us to utilize specific categories that emerged both within the
literature and the data (Kreiner, 2015). Based on the purpose of our
study, digital agriculture served as the overarching lens through which
the data were analyzed. Fig. 1(A) presents the data structure for the
digital divide in Brazilian agriculture regarding specific categories (e.g.,
large farms have more access to technology) and themes (e.g., societal
openness to technology, etc.), which led to us to identify four aggregated
dimensions. Fig. 1(B) presents the data structure for the respective
frames and framing tactics. Similarly, we identified categories (e.g.,
preservation of heritage) and themes (e.g., ideal outcome) based on our
data analysis.
3.3. Case overviews
This study draws on four main actors of particular relevance within
the Brazilian agricultural ecosystem: a medium-sized farm, a technology
start-up, the native community, and Embrapa. These actors have been
selected because of their involvement in the agricultural field and their
varying viewpoints on (digital) technology in agriculture. First, we will
provide a brief overview of each actor.
The medium-sized farm is located in the Cerrados biome in the state of
Bahia and comprises around 100,000 hectares of dry farmland.
Although the farm runs a large-scale cotton, soybean, and corn pro­
duction operation, it is categorized as a medium-sized farm. The farm is
split into several smaller farms of 8000–10,000 hectares managed by a
qualified agronomist. Utilizing their own equipment, the farms can
operate simultaneously to increase their efficiency. Following a crop
rotation plan whereby the farm plants different crops every 2–3 years, its
agricultural production is highly mechanized. A new data management
software system is the latest digital technology implemented to support
the farm.

5
 K.G. Engås et al.
6

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 190 (2023) 122405

Fig. 1. (A) Data structure for the analysis of the digital divide in Brazilian agriculture. (B) Data structure for the analysis of frames and framing tactics.
K.G. Engås et al.
Founded in 2014, the technology start-up provides drone-based im­
aging technology for crop optimization, big data analysis, crop predic­
tion, and row finding.2 The start-up works closely with farmers across
Latin America to identify new technology applications. Besides a beta
version of an algorithm to optimize harvesting processes, the start-up
has developed an AI technology to detect abnormalities in the field
harvest over time. In addition, the founder of the start-up participated in
and now leads the MIT Bootcamp program in Brazil, in order to develop
the business idea further.
There are around 2000 native communities existing in Brazil today
who are descended from previously enslaved peoples. The native com­
munity described in this study is located in the state of Rio Grande do Sul
and consists of 100 people. Their main source of income is the sale of
bananas produced at family-run farms, which actually provide most of
the country's domestic supply of agricultural produce. A strong
connection to their heritage and culture shapes their agrarian produc­
tion and way of working. While positively impacted by previous gov­
ernments, which established a food acquisition program (PAA) that
supported smallholder family farms, Jair Bolsonaro's government not
only abolished the PAA, but also restricted the native community's way
of life in an attempt to conserve the Atlantic Forest and preserve
biodiversity.
Embrapa is a government-led research and development institution
for agricultural technology, primarily known in Brazil for its success in
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetics. Their network of
researchers consists of predominately male researchers and assistants
with a master's degree or PhD. Working closely with family-run farms
across Brazil, Embrapa focuses mainly on precision agriculture. Digital
technologies developed in-house or with (inter)national partners are
sold off for further development and commercialization.
4. Findings
This section details how the four actors studied gain different types of
access to technology, and how this influences the actors' technological
frame. First, we explain how access to and use of technology appears
within the digital divide, in order to unpack actors' awareness, moti­
vation, and willingness to engage with (digital) technology. Second, we
discuss how each actor is motivated to address the diagnosed problem
they face, in order to illustrate similarities and differences in their
technological frames.
4.1. Digital divide: awareness, motivation, and skills to engage in
technology use
Given the diversity of actors studied, their awareness, motivation,
and skills to engage in technology use differs. First, we will address the
challenges medium-sized farms encounter when considering the
implementation of digital technologies in their operations. Second, we
detail the influence of a technology start-up in attempting to shape the
future digital standards for Brazilian agriculture. Third, we will portray
the native community's struggles for survival under the emerging
“threat” of technology that is perceived to deracinate them from their
heritage. Fourth, we will explain the importance of external partners
and agreements for Embrapa.
Medium-sized farm. As part of the agricultural production field, the
medium-sized farm still relies strongly on mechanization instead of
digital technologies. This results, among other things, from uncertainties
about technologies that are as yet unvalidated in the market: “Like any
other technology (…) the market needs to accept it, and it needs to be
tested by the market in a way.” The farm's low motivational access
2
This describes an automated service for harvest optimization offered by the
technology start-up. It uses a unique imaging technology and algorithm for
precision agriculture.
7
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 190 (2023) 122405
manifests in a reluctance to invest before others, which links to the
farm's inferior position in the agricultural production field. Large and
mega farms already utilize more technologies, and are thus perceived to
have the capacity to be early adopters. Such persistent social inequalities
in Brazil suggest that openness to technology is irrelevant as long as
access to technology is contingent on financial spending, as reflected in
the following comment: “rich people will have access to technology and
the poor people won't, but the poor people are the majority of the
population.”
Since income from farming is unpredictable and operations are
expensive, a lack of financial resources is a significant obstacle for the
farm to invest in technology. Further, this requires specific digital
training and education of the older workforce, which figures in the
medium-sized farm's low material and skills access. Centralized decision-
making grants the farm manager little opportunity to engage further
with, and advance in, digitalization. Besides this, an unstable and poorly
developed infrastructure provides another barrier to connectivity.
Located in the poorest area of Brazil, where the land is arid, the farm's
effective access to technology remains limited as long as the lack of
natural resources is not adequately addressed. One respondent com­
mented: “You don't have like internet access to everybody, and when
you do it's like really bad signal and … It's not all the farms here that they
have like electricity. You have like better infrastructure in the South
East, like in São Paulo. But here in the North East, it's quite poor, it's the
poorest part of Brazil.” Despite this, past experiences of mechanizing
seeding and harvesting processes have been positive, and receiving
electricity as well as internet connection was considered “life changing.”
Yet the farm's management software limits employees' interaction with
and exposure to digital technologies due to it being outsourced. This
reflects in low usage access. Although the farm owners acknowledge the
many opportunities that technology offers, they have difficulties un­
derstanding the ways in which it applies to their farm. The complexity of
this new software prohibits the medium-sized farm from further trans­
lation of the technology's application purposes. Additional difficulties in
implementing the new management software show a low level of
meaningful engagement with technology.
Technology start-up. The technology start-up in the agriculture field
has a high awareness of digitalization and sees great potential for
technology-based sustainable farming to become an industry standard,
as reflected in the following comment: “This kind of thing that we
started in 2014 to look—to think about—in 2024 will be something that
is not ‘oh maybe I'll use that,’ it will be something they will buy off the
shelf.” However, farmers' reluctance to adopt and utilize technology
hinders the start-up from developing its business further by testing and
advancing the technology. Nonetheless, the technology start-up's moti­
vational access to digital technology is high, as the innovative nature of
their field demands knowledge- and skills-intensive work. In order to see
customers in their natural surroundings, the start-up team regularly
travels to meet with farmers from their personal and professional
network across Latin America. Due to the unstable infrastructure in rural
areas, this is time-consuming and costly. Nonetheless, a flexible orga­
nizational structure, a mature workforce that is advanced in utilizing
digital technologies, and highly educated founders ensure the start-up's
high material and skills access. In turn, this makes them an important
player in building international relationships, which helps to put Brazil
“on the map.” Therefore, networks such as the MIT network are very
important for the start-up to ensure that innovations and investments
happen.
The start-up has a high external dependence on customers when it
comes to testing and applying their technology. The limited capacity for
farmers to invest in technologies and take entrepreneurial risks impedes
the start-up's further development. Nonetheless, the start-up's experi­
mental and entrepreneurial mindset supports their willingness to take
risks in order to expand, as reflected in the following comment: “Digital
farming is something that is a global movement. The digital farming is
pretty important, but you need time to prove to farmers and people that
K.G. Engås et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 190 (2023) 122405

operate in this industry.” This results from positive previous experiences
of applying their technology in other industries (e.g., biotech), and
creates a medium level of usage access to technology. Further, the start-
up perceives limited government knowledge and intervention in the
agricultural industry as an opportunity, as it simplifies otherwise
bureaucratic processes. Extensive field research and close collaboration
with farmers over an extended period facilitate capabilities for embed­
ding and integrating technology in business processes. Through this, the
start-up is able to communicate the reliability of their technology in
benefiting the agricultural industry. Focusing on the aim of imple­
menting a new software illustrates the means of the start-up to translate
technology application to other actors. Based on this, the start-up is the
actor with the highest meaningful engagement with digital technologies.
Native community. Situated in the same field as the medium-sized
farm, the native community has a different perception of technology
than the other actors involved. Since the nature of their work is based on
traditions and experiences, their production has a very low reliance on
technology. The community's resulting uncertainty about technology's

Table 2
Summary of actors' access to and use of technology.
Access to and Actors
use of
Medium-sized farm Technology start-up Native community Embrapa
technology

▪ Inferior position in
society and perceived
uncertainties outweigh
the potentials of adopting
technology
▪ Uncertainty about
technologies that are not
validated in the market,
and potential long-term
effects
▪ Low awareness of digital
technologies
Motivational Low
access
▪ Unstable infrastructure in
rural areas is a barrier to
connectivity
▪ Lack of financial support
is a significant obstacle
for investing in
technology
▪ Farm managers are
agronomists and lack
digital training/
education
▪ Older workforce and
centralized decision-
making
Material access Low
Skills access Low
▪ Mechanization from
seeding to harvest has
been positive
▪ Outsourcing of
technology limits
learning, understanding,
and skills
▪ Location of the farm is
not ideal (poorest and
driest land in Brazil) for
improving access to
technology
Usage access Low
▪ Technology offers many
opportunities, but
difficult to understand
how it applies to the farm
▪ Difficulties in
implementing new
management software
Meaningful None
engagement
▪ See the potential for tech-
based sustainable farming to
become an industry
standard
▪ High reliance on technology
to develop the business
▪ High awareness of
digitalization, knowledge-
intensive work
▪ Perceived by society as an
experimental and risky
investment
High
▪ Traveling to visit customers
on their farms is time-
consuming and costly
▪ Highly educated founders
and mature workforce,
advanced in digital
technologies
▪ Strong social networks in
South America and
internationally
High
High
▪ Experimental and
entrepreneurial mindset,
willing to take risks to
expand
▪ Positive associations from
technology applications in
other industries (e.g.,
biotech)
▪ Limited government
knowledge and intervention
in the agricultural sector
simplify bureaucratic
processes
Medium
▪ Developing technology
involves meaningful
engagement with it
▪ Extensive field research and
close collaboration with
farmers ensures innovative
approaches to apply and
embed technology
Medium
▪ High uncertainty about ▪ High reliance on technology for
the necessity of research purposes
technology ▪ Experimental nature of their work,
▪ Nature of work is based no automation possible
on traditions and ▪ Uncertainty about the
experiences due to small- commercialization of digital
scale operations technologies in Brazil, lack of
▪ Inferior position to connection to the market
Brazilian farming
communities, considered
non-essential
▪ Low awareness and
openness toward
digitization and digital
technologies
Low High
▪ Native communities ▪ Government-funded project,
secure domestic supply highly political, the government
of agricultural products has high interest in continuity of
▪ Unstable infrastructure research projects for additional
in rural areas, lacking international investments
connectivity ▪ Highly educated workforce
▪ An aging population, ▪ Decentralized and disconnected
younger generations organizational structures,
leave for education or decision-making located in
work purposes Brasília
▪ Limited access to
external knowledge
Low Medium
None Medium
▪ Reluctant to perceive ▪ Government policies and
benefits of digitization knowledge about agriculture is
and digital technologies perceived as good, in contrast with
▪ Lack of future other actors
orientation and strategic ▪ Digital technology development is
planning dependent on external partners
▪ Goal is to preserve their and agreements
culture, geographically
disconnected from
modern society
▪ Negative interactions
with the government,
fighting for preservation
of land, traditions, and
heritage
None Medium
▪ Unclear about the ▪ Applications of technology are not
number of technologies clear, lack of connection from
and their application researchers
▪ Fear of being forced to ▪ Face difficulties in introducing
alter farming operations new technologies across their
to connect externally structures
▪ Potential of no further
social mobility due to
continuous resistance to
change
None Medium

8
K.G. Engås et al.
necessity shapes their skeptical perception of its potential. Thus,
adopting technologies other than electricity or television seems impos­
sible for the native community to imagine, due to their low awareness of,
and openness to, technology. The native community's low motivational
access to technology is amplified through an inferior position within
Brazilian society, in which their agricultural production is considered as
non-essential. However, when considering the total and widespread
community's impact on Brazilian society, it becomes evident that they
secure a large part of the domestic agricultural produce supply. Unaware
of their national impact, the small community is primarily focused on
preserving their culture and traditions. Younger generations often leave
the community for educational or work-related purposes, since a good
education is often only available in larger cities. However, upon their
return, there is limited information or knowledge transfer to teach the
community about the technologies or new ways of working they have
experienced. In particular, the aging population keeps to themselves and
has little contact with the outside, resulting in low material and skills
access.
The reluctance to acknowledge technology's benefits and the strong
resistance to change lead to a lack of future orientation and strategic
planning by the native community. Being geographically disconnected
from modern society, the native community's sole focus is on preserving
their culture and surviving the fight against modernization. Together
with the negative interactions the community experienced with Bolso­
naro's government, this results in no usage access to digital technologies.
Having no usage access leads to the absence of any meaningful engage­
ment with digital technologies in the case of the native community.
Although they are unclear about the number of different technologies
available and their application for agricultural production, the com­
munity fears being forced to alter their farming operations in order to
continue interacting externally. Due to the fact that technologies more
generally, and specifically the internet, are unknown and foreign, the
native community's response to technology and digital advancements is
reserved and limited.
Embrapa. As a research and development institution, Embrapa
operates in the field of international agricultural research. Although the
field is characterized by high reliance on technology, primarily for
research purposes, Embrapa's awareness of digitalization appears rela­
tively low. Instead of engaging with AI or big data analytics in agricul­
ture, the research and development institution focuses primarily on
technologies that already have a proven success record in past appli­
cations. This perceived uncertainty about the commercialization of such
digital technologies in Brazilian agriculture may lead to a lack of
connection to the market. Thus, Embrapa has high motivational access
solely for research-related technology. Since the institution is
government-funded, a number of political processes shape Embrapa's
operations. For instance, the government has vested interests in the
continuity of research projects led by Embrapa, in order to secure na­
tional income and maintain international relationships and connections.
The team consists of highly educated researchers and assistants; how­
ever, no further training is offered to advance digital skills. The orga­
nization's operations are characterized by decentralized and
disconnected organizational structures, whereby decision-making lies
with the overarching functional units in Brasília. This suggests that
Embrapa has medium level material and skills access to technology.
Due to resources being prioritized for well-known and tested tech­
nology, developments of digital technologies are dependent on external
partnerships and agreements. This shows a reluctance to develop digital
technologies also in-house. By outsourcing the commercialization of the
technology, Embrapa restricts the use of the technologies for researchers
and employees, which creates medium usage access. This lack of
connection between researchers and technologies leads to unclear usage
and application of the different technologies at Embrapa. Consequently,
this presents difficulties in introducing new digital technologies across
the organization and results in a medium level of meaningful engagement.
Further, the institution perceives government knowledge of agriculture
9
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 190 (2023) 122405
and policies as good and fair. This stands in stark contrast to how the
other actors perceive Bolsonaro's government and could affect Embra­
pa's credibility in the field.
Table 2 summarizes the key points for each actor, describing the
degree of access to or engagement with technology. In the next section,
we will analyze activities concerning actors' perceptions and usage of
digital technologies.
4.2. Framing: actors' technological frames for digital agriculture in Brazil
Below, we unpack the similarities and differences in the actors' ideas
and knowledge about digitization and digitalization, as well as existing
qualifications for the use of digital technology. To comprehend the ac­
tors' understanding of digitization and digital technology (i.e., their
technological frame), we discuss the diagnostic, prognostic, and moti­
vation frames in detail for each of the four actors. Further, we will
provide a detailed account of the different framing tactics that the actors
utilize to address variations in their frames.
4.2.1. Diagnostic frame
As the four actors have existed for different numbers of years within
various fields and report diverse levels of education, they draw upon
different cultural resources when diagnosing the problematic aspect
concerning the use of (digital) technology in agriculture.
The medium-sized farm particularly stresses their experiential
knowledge of farming and their qualifications as trained agronomists.
Although they realize the potential of digitalization and the use of digital
technologies for data management, implementing cloud technology or
IoT still seems impossible, considering the unstable infrastructure in
rural areas. Rather than investing in modern digital technologies
themselves, the medium-sized farm considers renewing infrastructure
and providing optimal conditions to be the government's responsibility.
Hence, the medium-sized farm's underlying problem refers to the mar­
ket, which does not facilitate the use of digital technologies due to a lack
of infrastructure in rural areas.
Product experience, academic knowledge, and deep insights from the
agricultural field shape the technology start-up's position in their field.
As a developer and supplier of technology, the start-up has acquired the
necessary knowledge and experience with digital technologies. Relating
to their customers in the agricultural production field, the start-up sees
word of mouth as an important and powerful tool among farmers. For
example: “If name of person using that, then I will use because name of
person is the best and he knows all the best stuff.” The power of word of
mouth can accelerate or impede the start-up's attempt to gain more
market penetration. Hence, farmers' reluctance to invest in digitalization
and digital products that do not show immediate benefits describes the
problem which the start-up designates as farmers' investment inertia.
Overall, the technology start-up attributes digitalization to the function
of making agricultural production more sustainable.
Similar to the medium-sized farm, the native community refers to
their experiential knowledge of farming. As rightful owners of their
land, they possess the necessary knowledge and qualifications to operate
agricultural production on it. Passed down from their ancestors, these
farming qualifications reflect certain traditions for farming in fruitful
areas with crop rotation. Thus, heritage plays a significant role in the
ways in which the native community lives and works today. Digitization
and the use of digital technologies do not solely propose the need for
education and new knowledge, but also for investment. Consequently,
the native community perceives these external pressures to engage in
technology as a “threat” to their traditional way of living and farming,
which describes their underlying problem.
Although Embrapa interacts with technology in different research
projects, secondary data show that only a few digital technologies are
being developed, which are later sold or outsourced to external partners
for commercialization. Within the research institution, the primary
focus is on projects involving GMO technologies, as this is the area
K.G. Engås et al.
where most of Embrapa's experience and knowledge resides. Despite
their highly educated workforce (e.g., most of the employees have a
master's or PhD degree), the above suggests that the research institution
struggles with the complexity of the technology itself, particularly when
it comes to market launch and penetration. Nonetheless, Embrapa
considers digitalization useful for improving production yield as well as
environmental sustainability in Brazil.
When considering the individual actors' diagnostic frame, it becomes
clear that they differ in their perceived function of technology and their
constructed underlying problem with digitization and digitalization.
Whereas the first three actors consider the other actors in their field as
the problematic aspect, Embrapa sees technology as something they are
struggling with due to its complexity. It is interesting to see that both
Embrapa and the technology start-up consider digitalization as a func­
tional tool for sustainability in agricultural production. However, their
underlying problems differ, suggesting that alternative cultural re­
sources come into play. In terms of the native community and the
medium-sized farm, they both see the function of technology as
impacting operations, and agree that the underlying problems are
attributable to external actors.
4.2.2. Prognostic frame
The actors' ideal outcomes (i.e., their target) regarding (digital)
technology and the ideal strategy (i.e., proposed solutions to the prob­
lematic aspects which should be applied to reach the desired outcome)
describe the prognostic frame.
Strong relationships are considered essential for the medium-sized
farm when considering the power of word of mouth in achieving their
ideal outcome. In order to address one of their main concerns, the
medium-sized farm's ideal outcome regarding digitalization is sustain­
able intensification—increasing production without increasing the area
of cropland. However, despite the affordances of digitalization and the
high education levels of their workforce, the farm lacks knowledge of
digital technology. Therefore, an ideal strategy implies establishing re­
lationships between the market and the farms, especially since the
medium-sized farm is highly reliant on market validation for investment
decisions.
Similar to the medium-sized farm, the technology start-up values
relationships highly as a means of moving forward. They consider re­
lationships to other actors as sources of inspiration and information for
their activities, as the following comment shows: “Then I think you can
use standards, you can use ISO. When you don't understand exactly
where you are, you can go and look for standards that people are
working on.” As the start-up's long-term goal is to standardize the
technology they have developed, the ideal outcome would be the stan­
dardization of digitalization for sustainable agriculture in Brazil. Hence,
the establishment of numerous close relationships with a variety of
farmers depicts their ideal strategy for reaching their goal.
In contrast to the previous two actors, the native community takes a
more critical stance toward digitization and the adoption of digital
technologies. Their ideal outcome would be for the technology to
essentially disappear, in order to preserve their traditions for living and
agricultural production. Nonetheless, the native community attributes
certain potentials to technologies such as telephones or cars. Therefore,
an ideal strategy for them is to engage in digitization initiatives solely
when it secures the community's survival.
Lastly, Embrapa is aligned with the medium-sized farm and the
technology start-up, in that their primary focus is also on building re­
lationships. However, the rationale for doing so differs. The research
institution's ideal outcome of digitalization is gaining legitimacy in the
international field of agricultural research. Hence, their interactions
primarily focus on building relationships that span across national
borders. Achieving this goal is based on a strategy of outsourcing,
whereby external partners take care of the commercialization of digital
technologies, and Embrapa focuses on GMO technology, which is their
area of expertise.
10
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 190 (2023) 122405
Our analysis of the prognostic frame shows similarities across most of
the actors in terms of adopting a relationship-focused strategy. In
contrast to this, the native community adopted an internal prognostic
frame that could be attributed to their peripheral position in Brazilian
society. Although the medium-sized farm, the technology start-up, and
Embrapa consider themselves part of agribusiness, pursuing a business
logic for farming does not apply to the native community.
4.2.3. Motivation frame
The motivation frame combines the actors' rationale for action and
the discursive tools applied. In particular, the types of vocabulary used
to describe technology's potentials are of interest. These reveal how
actors attempt to solve the problematic aspect previously diagnosed.
In the case of the medium-sized farm, the vocabulary used in relation
to digital technologies centers on comparing their farm to others in the
field. Hence, the primary discursive tool of the medium-sized farm is
comparison, as the following statement shows: “There are types of
technology that might work here in Brazil that might not work in
Australia or the USA.” Drawing this comparison on an international
scale provides a discourse of opportunity, as it reflects the farm's am­
bitions for their development and for that of Brazil. It demonstrates a
desire that Brazil should not be left behind but able to compete on an
international level. If digital technology fails to support their current
farming methods and increase sustainability, the medium-sized farm
sees no rationale for implementing such technology.
Pragmatic and scientific words characterize the technology start-up's
discourse. The aim is to verbalize the potential outcomes of their im­
aging technology through future-oriented communication. In order to
address different stakeholders accordingly, the technology start-up of­
fers different discourses on their English and Portuguese websites.
Phrases such as “cutting-edge technology” and “empowering Brazilian
farmers” on the English website address an international audience. The
focus here is on communicating the benefits of applying their technology
to agricultural production. In contrast, the Portuguese website high­
lights the specific technologies and their applications. For example, they
“[p]rovide the agricultural producer, with agility and at competitive
prices, the best images, and geo-referenced information.” This signals a
more inclusive approach.
The analysis of the native community suggests that their vocabulary
significantly emphasizes the community's survival and portrays digiti­
zation and the adoption of technologies as “a necessary evil.” Powerful
images depicting bloodshed and loss are discursive tools that support the
community's resistance to technological change, representing their pride
in their culture and heritage. For instance, the community still uses the
moon cycle for determining harvest time. However, this kind of agri­
cultural operation often does not suffice for younger generations eager
to explore innovation, digitization, and digitalization, as their technol­
ogy orientation is guided by external influences. Reluctantly, the native
community acknowledges this change and the need for creativity to
preserve their community and survive.
Lastly, Embrapa's discourse about digitalization reflects optimism
and pragmatism, for example, through particularly focusing on soil
nutrition measurement. The research institution communicates a sense
of responsibility through their discourse: “The world is counting on
Brazil.” This statement does not solely describe their focus on sustain­
ability, but also on comparisons drawn with international partners.
Hence, the institution's international networks are consistently high­
lighted in their external communication.
As with the diagnostic and the prognostic frame, the motivation
frame also illustrates two distinct foci: the past and the future. Thus,
while the medium-sized farm and the native community concentrate on
current methods and tools for agricultural production in an attempt to
preserve their operations in different ways, the technology start-up and
Embrapa are more future-oriented. The future development of Brazil as
a global actor as well as the advancements of the technology itself guide
the foci of the latter group.
 K.G. Engås et al.
Table 3
Summary of the framing process across the four actors.
Actor Technological frame Knowledge Qualifications Problematic Diagnostic frame Prognostic frame Motivation frame Framing
aspect tactics
Focus Description Focus Description Focus Description

Medium- Although modern digital Farming in dry areas Traditions and The lack of Actors Technology can be Relational Stronger relationships Past Stay competitive, None
sized farm technologies would improve with crop rotation education in infrastructure to good for farm will help increase the but do so by doing identified
decision-making on the agricultural implement management, but position of medium-sized the things that you
farm, they are disconnected production technology cannot be adopted farms in the market, know best
from current operations until someone fixes thereby putting pressure
the infrastructure in on someone to address the
Brazil infrastructure issues
Technology First mover mentality Business strategies for Academics within The capacity for Actors Farmers' investment Relational Start-ups should establish Future Sharing knowledge Frame
start-up allows them to understand commercialization of the area of business farmers to invest inertia hinders closer relationships with a is the only way to bridging
that modern digital innovations strategy, with in technologies technology adoption large variety of farmers to create sustainable
technologies would improve internationally ensure standardization farming in Brazil
the environmental recognized across the agricultural
11

sustainability of agriculture connections supply chain

Native Modern digital technologies
community would undermine the
heritage of their people and
drive younger generations
away from their way of life
Embrapa Focusing prominently on
the potential of GMO
technology, modern digital
technology is granted
limited attention, although
Farming in fruitful areas Tradition for living The ways of living Actors Technology promotes Internal Technology should be Past Preserve the Frame
with crop rotation and and producing on that technology a way of living that is preservation resisted, except when community by trans-
reliance on traditions the same land; promotes a departure from the necessary for continued resisting technology formation
heritage traditions of the survival
community
Research and High levels of There is more Technology Digital technology is Relational GMO technology should Future Developing digital Frame
development of education, such as need for GMO difficult to be developed in-house, technology with shifting
agricultural master's and PhD technologies than commercialize and digital technology external partners
technologies such as degrees digital because it is too should be developed prepares Brazil for
GMOs, genetics, and technologies advanced through partnerships the future of

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 190 (2023) 122405

it would improve biotechnology international
production yield and agriculture
thereby Brazil's
environmental
sustainability
K.G. Engås et al.
4.2.4. Framing tactics for addressing differences in technological frames
In this section, we discuss framing tactics based on an analysis of the
different frames that the individual actors have developed. Our data
analysis identified that three of the four actors actively engaged in
framing tactics.
Perceiving the technology as disconnected from their current oper­
ations and relying strongly on market validation for new investments,
the medium-sized farm was found to lack a strategic framing tactic.
Rather than taking the initiative themselves, the farm waits for others to
take the initial step and for the technology to mature before engaging in
any framing tactic. One respondent commented, “[e]very type of tech­
nology needs to be tested” and “it needs to be endorsed by the market.”
Since mechanization technology had positive effects on the farm's op­
erations, the owner sees potential in using modern digital technologies
for improving decision-making on the farm. However, the actor's tech­
nological frame illustrates the assumption that is still too early to
determine future success of digital technologies in Brazilian agriculture.
Thus, there is no discernible framing on the part of the medium-sized
farm that was studied.
One of the first to recognize the potential of digital technologies in
agricultural production is the technology start-up. Our data analysis
suggests that the start-up believes digital farming, agritech, and preci­
sion agriculture are here to stay. Their technological frame depicts the
perception of modern digital technologies as improving the environ­
mental sustainability of agriculture. Although different understandings
of digital technology and its potentials for Brazilian agriculture exist
among structurally separated farmers, they share the same ideology.
Building on this, the technology start-up draws on the power of
discourse in their external communication about the application and
results of using their imaging technology. Words such as “sustainability”
and “increased yields” form part of the start-up's external communica­
tion, in order to build a bridge between the different perceptions on
technology. Thus, the technology start-up engages in frame bridging
practices to realign the frame of digitalization with the technological
frame that prevails among structurally separated farmers.
Utilizing the success of GMOs in Brazilian agriculture, Embrapa
frames this as the right technology for the future by granting digitali­
zation limited attention. Their technological frame is further charac­
terized by the perception of modern digital technology's potential for
improving yield production and thereby contributing to Brazil's envi­
ronmental sustainability. In contrast, the international agricultural
research field considers precision agriculture as the technology of the
future, which suggests Embrapa is lagging behind in the market. By
taking advantage of the success of GMO application in Brazilian agri­
culture, the research institution adopts frame shifting tactics in their
external communication, as they highlight the success of GMOs in Bra­
zilian agriculture and neglect the potentials of digitalization in their
discourse. The institution's efforts are focused on legitimatizing and
building on its established position in society. By choosing frame shifting
as its tactic, Embrapa aims to appeal to all of its stakeholders and
respond to the different pressures it experiences.
Whereas the dominant perception of digital technology use in Bra­
zilian agriculture is positive among the aforementioned actors, the
native community takes an alternative view on technology use in agri­
culture. The community's technological frame is characterized by the
belief that modern digital technologies would undermine the heritage of
their people and drive younger generations away from their way of life.
In the attempt to replace positive with more skeptical and negative at­
titudes toward technology, the native community actively engages in the
process of frame transformation. Furthermore, in an attempt to cajole
younger generations and appeal to the government, the native com­
munity engages in local politics to turn around existing or newly arising
positive perceptions of technology. For these purposes, the native
community mobilizes a discourse that emphasizes discrimination and
social inequality. This radically different communication is aimed at
creating a new frame and reflects their “fight” to preserve their strong
12
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 190 (2023) 122405
historical connection with their land, traditions, and heritage.
In summary, two notable factors influence the differences and sim­
ilarities in technological frames. First, cultural resources mobilized by
actors in the form of knowledge and qualifications influence the devel­
opment from the perceived function of technology to the underlying
problem (i.e., the diagnostic frame). Second, the actors' position in so­
ciety affects their perceived agency in relation to (digital) technology,
which influences their ideal strategies (i.e., the prognostic frame). The
motivation frame is influenced by the actors' position in society and their
knowledge and qualifications regarding technology use. Table 3 sum­
marizes the key points discussed by referring to actors' technological
frames, the identified problematic aspect, as well as the diagnostic,
prognostic, and motivation frames of the four actors, including each
actor's framing tactic.
5. A model of technological frames' influence on actors' access to
and meaningful engagement with technology
In the previous section, we analyzed each actor's type of access
(motivational, material, skills, usage) to and level of meaningful
engagement with digital technologies. We also discussed actors' diag­
nostic, prognostic, and motivation frames and framing tactics. Based on
this, we propose a model of how actors' technological frames and
framing tactics influence access to and use of digital technologies for
advancement (see Fig. 2).
Our model shows how cognitive schemata influence actors' experi­
ences in the digital divide. We find that differences exist among actors in
terms of how they make sense of technological change. Moreover, the
socio-relational context (i.e., knowledge, qualifications, and relations)
impacts actors' perceptions of technology and how they experience the
digital divide. Previous experiences with technology use are also very
influential in understanding actors' current processes of meaning attri­
bution and reasoning. For instance, the technology start-up draws on
insights of Brazilian farms gained through past experiences when
considering opportunities for addressing farmers' investment inertia. In
contrast, the medium-sized farm sees the benefits from technology, but
believes these cannot be realized until infrastructure issues are
addressed, leading them to focus on doing what they are accustomed to,
in order to remain competitive.
Within the broader socio-relational context, existing relationships
with other actors, as well as the level of dependency on external support,
shape actors' openness to technology more widely. For example, the
prevailing considerations and beliefs regarding tradition, history, and
known practices mean that the native community functions largely in­
dependent of external influences (see Table 3). This past-oriented time
perception results in native communities not understanding the
accepted benefits of, and necessity for, new technology in their agri­
cultural practices. In the case of the medium-sized farm, financial re­
sources and structural considerations influence actors' material and
skills access, which determines their familiarity with—and use
of—digital technologies. This illustrates that different actors are likely to
react to technologies depending on their past experiences and future
expectations. This leads to different framing tactics being mobilized to
respond to the changes that digital agriculture presents. In our study,
actors tended to identify with either a past (i.e., medium-sized farm,
native community) or future (i.e., technology start-up, Embrapa) moti­
vation frame, leading them to utilize different framing tactics (e.g.,
frame bridging, frame transformation, or frame shifting), in order to
either preserve or advance their interpretation of technology. Further­
more, the findings suggest that motivational access is strongly influ­
enced by potential uncertainties around new technologies. Here, past
experiences and trust in relationships and networks are guiding factors
for societal openness toward technologies (Crenshaw and Robison,
2006; Ritchie and Brindley, 2005). Thus, actors' ability to engage with
technology in a meaningful way contributes to their ability to partici­
pate in society (Selwyn, 2004).
K.G. Engås et al.
Fig. 2. A model of technological frames' influence on actors' access to digitalization.
Previous literature (Leonardi, 2011) argues that the constructed
underlying problem influences an individual's or a group's technological
frame. In addition, we find that the underlying problem is closely linked
to the time perception (i.e., past- or future-oriented), as well as to the
relational structures within which actors operate. This leads us to argue
that while cognitive schemata are highly relevant to understanding
technological advancement, the contextual situation in which actors
function has an influence on hindering or affording meaningful
engagement with new technology. The perception of technology
together with the relationships at hand serves as a means to better un­
derstand the development of digital farming and agritech. Consequently,
it is important to focus on the time perception as well as the relational
structures of actors when choosing whom to influence and how
(Schniederjans et al., 2020) as there are likely to be significant differ­
ences among actors.
6. Discussion and implications
6.1. Theoretical contributions
The present study contributes to the literature on technological
frames (Kaplan and Tripsas, 2008; Orlikowski and Gash, 1994) and the
digital divide (Selwyn, 2004; van Dijk, 2005, 2006). Specifically, it ex­
tends the literature by explaining how a plethora of frames and different
framing processes influence access to and use of digital technologies. It
does so by examining how innovations in digital agriculture in one
particular setting, Brazil, are propagated among a set of heterogenous
actors. Similarities and differences in actors' technological frames are
clearly evident and impact technological advancement. Our analysis has
13
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 190 (2023) 122405
therefore led us to make a number of contributions to current
knowledge.
Our first contribution builds on existing assumptions, knowledge,
and expectations of technology and the influence of a collective agree­
ment about technology on other actors. In their research on the imple­
mentation of information technology, Orlikowski and Gash (1994)
propose the concept of technological frames “to track both expectations
of technological change and the experience of technological change” (p.
200) within an organization. Our research extends this work by
contributing an understanding of technological frames and framing
processes through examining expectations, experiences, and un­
derstandings of technological change across organizations. By studying
different actors within an agricultural ecosystem, we consider the fac­
tors that account for actors' similarities or differences regarding tech­
nological frames. In so doing, we identify technology access as a key
aspect in the formation of individuals' and groups' perceptions of tech­
nology that is shaped by past and present experiences.
Our second contribution concerns the framing process and implica­
tions for the actors' interactions. Previous literature (Benford and Snow,
2000; Leonardi, 2011; Snow and Benford, 1988) investigated framing
tactics in the context of social movement and within firms. We build on
these studies by showing how different actors mobilize different framing
tactics. In this respect, we examined the influence of other actors in the
same agricultural ecosystem on the choice of framing tactics. The
technology start-up focuses, for example, on other actors when diag­
nosing their underlying problems. They found that technology's adop­
tion is hindered by farmers' investment inertia, which leads the
technology start-up to utilize frame bridging as a tactic to create a space
where small- and medium-sized farm owners are brought together with
K.G. Engås et al.
the start-up's technology. Thus, we show how engaging in framing tac­
tics has effects across different actors. Moreover, our study finds that
frame transformation tactics do not necessarily always evoke a future-
oriented view, but one that may look to the past in order to reinstate
and preserve existing frames. This is illustrated by the case of the native
community, which seeks to transform an emerging digital technology
frame by resisting and replacing it with a frame that privileges traditions
and heritage over gaining access to technology. This suggests that frame
shifting and blending, as discussed in the literature (Cornelissen and
Werner, 2014), are not always possible, and this in turn influences ac­
cess to and use of technology (van Dijk, 2006).
Our third contribution highlights the collective nature of frames
(Benford and Snow, 2000), in order to illustrate how for some actors
their limited access to technology constrains the prevailing diagnostic,
prognostic, and motivation frames of other actors. Previous literature
has shown how different groups of people diagnose alternative under­
lying problems based on the same occurrence, resulting in different
technological frames (Leonardi, 2011). In this study, we find one actor's
diagnostic and prognostic frame has spillover effects for the identifica­
tion of another actor's underlying problem. Our analysis shows that the
medium-sized farm is unable to implement modern agricultural tech­
nology at a larger scale due to infrastructure considerations in rural
areas. This causes, among other things, a reluctance on the part of the
medium-sized farm to invest in digital technology, which affects the
technology start-up's vision of rolling out modern technologies to
improve agriculture's environmental sustainability. The farmers' in­
vestment inertia further hinders the implementation of the start-up's
imaging technology. Building on Tripsas and Gavetti's (2000) study,
which argues that cognitive inertia is an important reason for firms not
adopting new digital technology, we show that this can be extended to
other actors who are reluctant to adopt new technologies due to infra­
structure considerations (e.g., the medium-sized farm), or in order to
preserve their traditions and heritage (e.g., the native community).
Moreover, building on Raffaelli et al.'s (2019) work, we find that
inflexible framing is not limited to firms that refrain from innovating
their business model, but that other actors' (e.g., the native community)
cognitive framing may also impede the adoption and use of new
technologies.
Lastly, and building on the previous point, although digitalization is
being propagated as a solution to most developmental issues, it fails to
adequately account for how this is experienced in the global south (Jack
et al., 2022). There is, in many quarters, an assumption that solutions
developed in the global north are applicable in other parts of the globe.
In doing so, research has tended to ignore issues of access to and usage of
technology, neglecting to explain what constitutes meaningful engage­
ment in more locally situated contexts. Our findings highlight the need
to account for local considerations.
6.2. Implications for practice and policy
A number of implications for practitioners and policymakers
emanate from this study. First, as the findings illustrate, meaningful
engagement with technology is achieved when individuals have both
skills and usage access. Therefore, for practitioners, it is important to
provide adequate training and education and ensure continued access to
technology. Such an approach is likely to positively impact actors' ability
to participate in society (Selwyn, 2004; van Dijk, 2005), which is of
particular importance for those located in areas with a significant digital
divide. This will also help to address the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) of building resilient infrastructure and pro­
moting inclusive and sustainable industrialization by 2030.
Second, and relatedly, since policies have the power to impact actors'
frames (Bitektine and Haack, 2015; Kaplan, 2008), it is crucial that
policies acknowledge unequal access to resources and opportunities to
explain the digital divide. Hence, we propose that practitioners and
policymakers should utilize framing techniques which allow them to
14
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 190 (2023) 122405
address past and present experiences more thoroughly, in order to better
connect with their stakeholders. In so doing, the needs of smaller actors
will be better understood, rather than assuming digital technological
solutions apply universally. Specifically, attention to the framing tactics
mobilized by actors will help to explain how they attempt to advance or
preserve their current schemata.
Third, we point toward the impact of policy changes on the per­
ceptions, adherence, and trust of individuals and groups. This could lead
to more serious consequences, such as a lack of confidence in authorities
and policymakers, and potentially impact governmental legitimacy.
Policymakers need to be cognizant of the history of certain communities,
giving due consideration to those communities that aim to preserve their
traditions. Simply presenting digital agriculture as a technological so­
lution for their development needs neglects other considerations likely
to be at play. As such, policymakers need to be able to decode and un­
derstand actors' different technological frames before proposing digital
technological solutions for their development.
6.3. Limitations and further research
Certain limitations of this study also suggest potential avenues for
further research. First, this was an exploratory study conducted over
several months that provided initial insights into an agricultural
ecosystem in one setting. For an additional in-depth understanding of
how actors' different technological frames are influenced, a longitudinal
approach over an extended period in other settings would be beneficial.
Second, although reasonable to question the extent to which the
findings from case studies are transferable, it is possible that similar
frames may exist in other settings. Researchers may wish to examine
other contexts and industries, in order to build on the “thick description”
and insights provided. The findings from the current study are thus
analytically generalizable, and it is for other researchers to examine how
they apply to their case studies, in order to assess how similar or
different the characteristics identified are to their settings (see Erland­
son et al., 1993).
Third, the chosen theoretical framework centered predominantly on
framing and digital divide literature. Previous studies have highlighted
relationships as an influential factor in the digital divide (Ritchie and
Brindley, 2005; van Dijk, 2006). Future research may consider applying
other theories—such as network theory and knowledge management
literature (Schniederjans et al., 2020)—and place a stronger focus on
ecosystems. Specifically, understanding how digital technologies evolve
to become part of agricultural ecosystems could be developed further.
Examining the changing relationships among actors in an ecosystem and
those who may resist or are unable to partake in the digital “revolution”
needs to be accounted for. This has the potential to provide important
insights into how relationships and connectivity facilitate or impede the
closing of the digital divide gap.
Finally, our research focuses strongly on technological advance­
ments in the agricultural industry. A valuable addition would be to study
social innovations among agricultural actors and build on existing
literature in other industries (George et al., 2012; Rahman et al., 2017;
van Wijk et al., 2019). Importantly, future research needs to account for
actors' technological frames in the global south, rather than assuming
access is largely universal, and to explain contextual factors by decoding
the frames of different actors.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
References
Alcadipani, R., Khan, F.R., Gantman, E., Nkomo, S., 2012. Southern voices in
management and organization knowledge. Organization 19, 131–143. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1350508411431910.
K.G. Engås et al.
Azad, B., Faraj, S., 2008. Making e-government systems workable: exploring the
evolution of frames. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 17, 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsis.2007.12.001.
Bach, M.P., Zoroja, J., Vukšić, V.B., 2013. Review of corporate digital divide research: a
decadal analysis (2003–2012). Int. J. Inf. Syst. Proj. Manag. 1, 41–55. https://doi.
org/10.12821/ijispm010403.
Benford, R.D., Snow, D.A., 2000. Framing processes and social movements: an overview
and assessment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26, 611–639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
soc.26.1.611.
Bitektine, A., Haack, P., 2015. The “Macro” and the “Micro” of legitimacy: toward a
multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Acad. Manag. Rev. 40, 49–75.
Brennen, J.S., Kreiss, D., 2016. Digitalization. In: The International Encyclopedia of
Communication Theory And Philosophy, pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781118766804.WBIECT111.
Brinkmann, Svend, Kvale, Steinar, 2015. InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative
Research Interviewing, Third ed. Sage Publications, Los Angeles.
Bronson, K., Knezevic, I., 2016. Big Data in food and agriculture. Big Data Soc. 3, 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716648174.
Cavalli, O., Jimenez, M., 2015. Explaining the Digital Divide in Brazil [WWW
Document]. URL. Internet Society (accessed 9.10.21). https://www.internetsociety.
org/blog/2015/09/explaining-the-digital-divide-in-brazil/.
Clark, B., Jones, G., Kendall, H., Taylor, J., Cao, Y., Li, W., Zhao, C., Chen, J., Yang, G.,
Chen, L., Li, Z., Gaulton, R., Frewer, L., 2018. A proposed framework for accelerating
technology trajectories in agriculture: a case study in China. Front. Agric. Sci. Eng.
https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2018244.
Corbin, J., Strauss, A., 2015. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques And Procedures
for Developing Grounded Theory, 4th ed. Sage Publications, Ltd.,, London, UK.
Cornelissen, J.P., Werner, M.D., 2014. Putting framing in perspective: a review of
framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature.
Acad. Manag. Ann. 8, 181–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.875669.
Corrocher, N., Ordanini, A., 2002. Measuring the digital divide: a framework for the
analysis of cross-country differences. J. Inf. Technol. 17, 9–19. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02683960210132061.
Crenshaw, E., Robison, K., 2006. Jump-starting the internet revolution: how structural
conduciveness and global connections help diffuse the internet. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 7,
4–18. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00078.
Dainty, A., Leiringer, R., Fernie, S., Harty, C., 2017. BIM and the small construction firm:
a critical perspective. Build. Res. Inf. 45, 696–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09613218.2017.1293940.
Dubois, A., Gadde, L.E., 2002. Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case
research. J. Bus. Res. 55, 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-
8.
Eggers, J.P., Kaplan, S., 2013. Cognition and capabilities: a multi-level perspective. Acad.
Manag. Ann. 7, 295–340. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2013.769318.
Erlandson, D., Harris, E., Skipper, B., Allan, S., 1993. Doing Naturalistic Inquiry: A Guide
to Methods. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Fairbarn, M., Kish, Z., 2022. A poverty of data? Exporting the digital revolution to
farmers in the Global South. In: Goldstein, J., Nost, E. (Eds.), The Nature of Data:
Infrastructures, Environments, Politics. University of Nebraska Press, pp. 211–229.
Feront, C., Bertels, S., 2021. The impact of frame ambiguity on field-level change. Organ.
Stud. 42, 1135–1165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619878467.
George, G., Mcgahan, A.M., Prabhu, J., 2012. Innovation for inclusive growth: towards a
theoretical framework and a research agenda. J. Manag. Stud. 49, 661–683. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01048.x.
Goffman, E., 1974. In: Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Hardy, C., Maguire, S., 2017. Discourse, field-configuring events, and change in
organizations and institutional fields: narratives of DDT and the Stockholm
Convention. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 1365–1392. https://doi.org/10.5465/
AMJ.2010.57318384.
Hidalgo, A., Gabaly, S., Morales-Alonso, G., Urueña, A., 2020. The digital divide in light
of sustainable development: an approach through advanced machine learning
techniques. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 150, 119754 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2019.119754.
Jack, G., Plahe, J., Wright, S., 2022. Development as freedom? Insights from a farmer-led
sustainable agriculture non-governmental organisation in the Philippines. Hum.
Relat. 75, 1875–1902. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267221090779.
Johnson, J., 2021. Internet users in the world 2021 | Statista [WWW Document]. URL.
Statista (accessed 9.1.21). https://www.statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-po
pulation-worldwide/.
Kabbiri, R., Dora, M., Kumar, V., Elepu, G., Gellynck, X., 2018. Mobile phone adoption in
agri-food sector: are farmers in sub-Saharan Africa connected? Technol. Forecast.
Soc. Chang. 131, 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.010.
Kaplan, S., 2008. Framing contests: strategy making under uncertainty. Organ. Sci. 19,
729–752. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0340.
Kaplan, S., Orlikowski, W.J., 2013. Temporal work in strategy making. Organ. Sci. 24,
965–995. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0792.
Kaplan, S., Tripsas, M., 2008. Thinking about technology: applying a cognitive lens to
technical change. Res. Policy 37, 790–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
respol.2008.02.002.
Ketokivi, M., Mantere, S., 2017. Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational
research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35, 315–333. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.35.2.
ZOK315.
Kreiner, G., 2015. Tabula geminus: a “both/and” approach to coding and theorizing. In:
Handbook of Qualitative Organizational Research: Innovative Pathways and
15
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 190 (2023) 122405
Methods. Routledge, London, UK, pp. 350–361. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781315849072-46.
Langley, A., 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24,
691–710. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.2553248.
Leonardi, P.M., 2011. Innovation blindness: culture, frames, and cross-boundary problem
construction in the development of new technology concepts. Organ. Sci. 22,
347–369. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0529.
Marsh, J., 2016. The relationship between online and offline play: friendship and
exclusion. In: Burn, A., Richards, C. (Eds.), Children’s Games in the New Media Age:
Childlore. Media And the Playground. Ashgate Publsihing Ltd, Farnham, Surrey, UK,
pp. 109–131.
Miles, Huberman, 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed.
SAGE Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Moon, J., Park, J., Jung, G.H., Choe, Y.C., 2010. The impact of IT use on migration
intentions in rural communities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 77, 1401–1411.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.04.018.
Nadkarni, S., Barr, P.S., 2008. Environmental context, managerial cognition, and
strategic action: an integrated view. Strateg. Manag. J. 29, 1395–1427. https://doi.
org/10.1002/smj.717.
Oesterreich, T.D., Teuteberg, F., 2019. Behind the scenes: understanding the socio-
technical barriers to BIM adoption through the theoretical lens of information
systems research. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 146, 413–431. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techfore.2019.01.003.
Orlikowski, W.J., Gash, D.C., 1994. Technological frames: making sense of information
technology in organizations. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 12, 174–207. https://doi.org/
10.1145/196734.196745.
Patton, M., 2015. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory And
Practice, 4th ed. SAGE Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Pick, J.B., Nishida, T., 2015. Digital divides in the world and its regions: a spatial and
multivariate analysis of technological utilization. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 91,
1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.12.026.
Raffaelli, R., Glynn, M.A., Tushman, M., 2019. Frame flexibility: the role of cognitive and
emotional framing in innovation adoption by incumbent firms. Strateg. Manag. J.
40, 1013–1039. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3011.
Rahman, S.A., Taghizadeh, S.K., Ramayah, T., Alam, M.M.D., 2017. Technology
acceptance among micro-entrepreneurs in marginalized social strata: the case of
social innovation in Bangladesh. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 118, 236–245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2017.01.027.
Riggins, F., Dewan, S., 2005. The digital divide: current and future research directions.
J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 6, 298–337. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00074.
Ritchie, B., Brindley, C., 2005. ICT adoption by SMEs 205 ICT adoption by SMEs:
implications for relationships and management. N. Technol. Work. 20, 205–217.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2005.00154.x.
Ritter, T., Pedersen, C.L., 2020. Digitization capability and the digitalization of business
models in business-to-business firms: past, present, and future. Ind. Mark. Manag.
86, 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.11.019.
Ryder, B., 2014. Digital disruption on the farm: managers in the most traditional of
industries distrust a promising new technology [WWW Document]. URL. The
Economist. accessed 11.26.22. https://www.economist.com/business/2014/05/
24/digital-disruption-on-the-farm.
Sætre, A.S., Van de Ven, A.H., 2021. Generating theory by abduction. Acad. Manag. Rev.
46, 684–701. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0233.
Schniederjans, D.G., Curado, C., Khalajhedayati, M., 2020. Supply chain digitisation
trends: an integration of knowledge management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 220 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.07.012.
Selwyn, N., 2004. Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital
divide. New Media Soc. 6, 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804042519.
Senyo, P.K., Effah, J., Osabutey, E.L.C., 2021. Digital platformisation as public sector
transformation strategy: a case of Ghana's paperless port. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Chang. 162, 120387 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2020.120387.
Snow, Benford, R., 1988. Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. Int.
Soc. Mov. Res. 1, 197–217.
Snow, Rochford, E., Worden, S., Benford, R., 1986. Frame alignment processes,
micromobilization, and movement participation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 51, 464–481.
Sonka, S., Cheng, Y.-T., 2015. A big data revolution: what would drive it? [WWW
Document]. URL. farmdoc daily. accessed 11.26.22. https://farmdocdaily.illinois.
edu/2015/12/a-big-data-revolution-what-would-drive-it.html.
Tripsas, M., Gavetti, G., 2000. Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital
imaging. Strateg. Manag. J. 21, 1147–1161.
van Dijk, J., 2005. The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. Sage
Publications, Ltd., London, UK.
van Dijk, J.A.G.M., 2006. Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings.
Poetics 34, 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004.
van Maanen, J., Sørensen, J., Mitchell, T., 2007. The interplay between theory and
method. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32, 1145–1154. https://doi.org/10.5465/
AMR.2007.26586080.
van Wijk, J., Zietsma, C., Dorado, S., de Bakker, F.G.A., Martí, I., 2019. Social innovation:
integrating micro, meso, and macro level insights from institutional theory. Bus. Soc.
58, 887–918. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318789104.
Vedechkina, M., Borgonovi, F., 2021. A review of evidence on the role of digital
technology in shaping attention and cognitive control in children. Front. Psychol. 12,
611155 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.611155.
Verma, P., Sinha, N., 2018. Integrating perceived economic wellbeing to technology
acceptance model: the case of mobile based agricultural extension service. Technol.
K.G. Engås et al.
Forecast. Soc. Chang. 126, 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2017.08.013.
Wholey, 2018. Agtech And The Connected Farm [WWW Document]. URL. CB Insights.
https://www.cbinsights.com/research/briefing/ag-tech-trends-connected-farming/.
Yin, R., 2018. Case Study Research And Applications: Design And Methods, 6th ed. Sage
Publications Ltd., London, UK.
Karen G. Engås works as an Internal consultant specializing in Human Resources at
Equinor. Her research is centered around change, framing, and digitalization. Karen holds
a bachelor’s degree from the University of Manchester, a Master’s degree in Diversity and
Change Management from Copenhagen Business School (CBS), and a Master’s in Inter­
national Management (MIM) from the CEMS program at CBS and FGV São Paulo.
Jawwad Z. Raja is associate professor at the Department of Operations Management,
Copenhagen Business School, Denmark. His current research interests are in the areas of
16
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 190 (2023) 122405
digitalization, service operations, servitization, network configurations, customer value
and human resource management. He has published research in journals such as Human
Resource Management Journal, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Industrial Mar­
keting Management, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Interna­
tional Journal of Production Economics, Construction Management and Economics, amongst
others.
Isabelle Fabienne Neufang is a PhD fellow at the Department of Operations Manage­
ment, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark. Her current research interests are related to
organizational communication, digital transformation, framing, communication as
constitutive of organizations and servitization. She has published research in the journal of
Industrial Marketing Management. She holds a bachelor's degree in Culture and Economy
from the University of Mannheim and a master's degree in International Business
Communication from Copenhagen Business School.