This paper makes a contribution to understanding the impact of relational trust, as embodied within bonding, bridging and linking social capital, on rural innovation. Using cases of multi-stakeholder groups who work together on shared problems it explores how social capital and different forms of trust (companion, competence and commitment) influence rural innovation processes. Looking at both the ‘bright’ and ‘dark’ side of social capital, our focus is on how social capital and trust constrain and enable the process of innovation.

This paper makes a contribution to understanding the impact of relational trust, as embodied within bonding, bridging and linking social capital, on rural innovation. Using cases of multi-stakeholder groups who work together on shared problems it explores how social capital and different forms of trust (companion, competence and commitment) influence rural innovation processes. Looking at both the ‘bright’ and ‘dark’ side of social capital, our focus is on how social capital and trust constrain and enable the process of innovation.

This paper addresses this gap by examining the nature of disruption to farm advisors from data-driven smart farming and identifies the challenges and opportunities. The authors aim to better theorize smart farming innovation by examining the advisory role to provide insights for technology developers, and policy directions for governments in relation to supporting uptake of farming innovations.

This paper details the analytical framework used for developing a nested understanding of systemic innovation capacity in an AIS. The paper then introduces the two case studies, along with the data and methods of analysis, followed by a presentation of the results as timelines of configurations of capabilities at different levels of the AIS.

Digital agriculture is likely to transform productive processes both on- and off- farm, as well as the broader social and institutional context using digital technologies. It is largely unknown how agricultural knowledge providing organisations, such as advisors and science organisations, understand and respond to digital agriculture. The concept of ‘organisational identity’ is used to describe both initial understandings of, and emerging responses, to digital agriculture, which together show how organisations ‘digi-grasp’, i.e.

This paper highlights important lessons for co-innovation drawn from three ex-post case study innovation projects implemented within three sub-sectors of the primary industry sector in New Zealand. Design/methodology/approach: The characteristics that fostered co-innovation in each innovation project case study were identified from semi-structured interviews conducted with key stakeholders in each project, iterative discussions to confirm the findings and secondary document analysis.

The implementation and ongoing adoption of agricultural sustainability tools are challenging and not well addressed in the literature on sustainability assessment. Co-production of sustainability assessment and reporting systems between researchers and stakeholders has been promoted to increase the successful adoption of sustainability tools. Scientific attention has focused primarily on the development of sustainability assessment tools and has given less attention to the factors that encourage or discourage adoption and implementation.

This study identifies systemic problems in the New Zealand Agricultural Innovation System (AIS) in relation to the AIS capacity to enact a co-innovation approach, in which all relevant actors in the agricultural sector contribute to combined technological, social and institutional change. Systemic problems are factors that negatively influence the direction and speed of co-innovation and impede the development and functioning of innovation systems. The contribution in the paper is twofold.

The nature of interactions between farmers and advisors is the focus of a growing body of research. While many studies explore the potential role of advisors in facilitating farmers' practice change in practices related to agricultural production such as soil, water, pest and animal health management, studies that specifically investigate how advisors support farmers with financial management (FM) are limited. The contribution this paper makes is to identify who farmers' FM advisors are and to shed light on how farmer-advisor interactions about FM are shaped.

Social media (SM) such as Twitter and Facebook are new communication tools for rural communities, and SM has enabled the creation of rural social networks. Increased use by farmers of 'mobile digital devices' and better rural access to broadband services have enhanced so that SM is being used to support farming decisions. However, in depth studies on how SM is used for knowledge sharing amongst farmers and the role of rural professionals (e.g. advisors) in this space is an emergent field with limited literature.