The Artefact Trap: Why Digital Agriculture Research Keeps Missing the Field
Abstract
Digital agriculture (sensors, Internet of Things, machine learning, robotics, digital twins) has for fifteen years been sustained by massive investment promising more productive, precise, and sustainable agriculture, yet adoption remains heterogeneous and systemic impact limited despite intense scientific output. The dominant explanation treats this as a diffusion deficit and calls for more farmer training, advisory support, and subsidy; this reading leaves the structure of research itself unexamined and does not, on its own, explain why the gap between announced and delivered performance persists across technology generations. We argue that, alongside diffusion-side and demand-side factors, the paradox has a further, under-recognised upstream component: research design oriented towards technological artefacts rather than guaranteed functions. We develop the case for this complementary reading using Stahel’s performance economy framework and the Product-Service Systems literature. Four contributions follow: a tripartite typology of function (service-, specification-, and process-function) articulated hierarchically explains why research centred on specification-function alone cannot guarantee a service-function; current research is characterised, on the reading developed here, by three cumulative biases and three blind spots, including data governance and the under-representation of the social sciences; a four-axis reorientation agenda is proposed; and the framework is distinguished from Agricultural Innovation Systems, Responsible Research and Innovation, and mission-oriented research by specifying the functional level these leave indeterminate.
Related
- What keeps gig workers motivated? A typology of the intrinsic-extrinsic motivation interplay in the digital gig economy
- Mediated influence of digital agriculture technologies on climate-smart agriculture decisions among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review
- Design and Uses of an Educational Guide on Digital Technology in Agriculture: The Case of an Inter-RMT Initiative
- Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technologies for Smart Farming and Precision Agriculture
- Smart Agriculture Research in Date Palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.) Production: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Study
BibTeX
@article{chanet2026artefact,
title = {{The Artefact Trap: Why Digital Agriculture Research Keeps Missing the Field}},
author = {Jean-Pierre Chanet},
journal = {Agriculture},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.3390/agriculture16171929},
url = {https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05742019v1},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - The Artefact Trap: Why Digital Agriculture Research Keeps Missing the Field
AU - Jean-Pierre Chanet
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/06
JO - Agriculture
DO - 10.3390/agriculture16171929
UR - https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05742019v1
AB - Digital agriculture (sensors, Internet of Things, machine learning, robotics, digital twins) has for fifteen years been sustained by massive investment promising more productive, precise, and sustainable agriculture, yet adoption remains heterogeneous and systemic impact limited despite intense scientific output. The dominant explanation treats this as a diffusion deficit and calls for more farmer training, advisory support, and subsidy; this reading leaves the structure of research itself unexamined and does not, on its own, explain why the gap between announced and delivered performance persists across technology generations. We argue that, alongside diffusion-side and demand-side factors, the paradox has a further, under-recognised upstream component: research design oriented towards technological artefacts rather than guaranteed functions. We develop the case for this complementary reading using Stahel’s performance economy framework and the Product-Service Systems literature. Four contributions follow: a tripartite typology of function (service-, specification-, and process-function) articulated hierarchically explains why research centred on specification-function alone cannot guarantee a service-function; current research is characterised, on the reading developed here, by three cumulative biases and three blind spots, including data governance and the under-representation of the social sciences; a four-axis reorientation agenda is proposed; and the framework is distinguished from Agricultural Innovation Systems, Responsible Research and Innovation, and mission-oriented research by specifying the functional level these leave indeterminate.
SN - 2077-0472
ER -