Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 455

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Politics of Digital Agricultural Technologies: A Preliminary Review

Open access
Rotz, Sarah, Duncan, Emily, Small, Matthew, Botschner, Janos, Dara, Rozita, Mosby, Ian, Reed, Mark, Fraser, Evan D.G.·2019·Sociologia Ruralis

Abstract

Digital technologies are being developed and adopted across the agro‐food system, from farm to fork. Within decision‐making spaces, however, little attention is being paid to political factors arising from such technological developments. This review draws from critical social sciences to examine emerging technologies and big data systems in agriculture and assesses some key issues arising in the field. We begin with an introduction and review of the so‐called ‘digital revolution’ and then briefly outline how political economy is effective for understanding major challenges for governing technologies and data systems in agriculture. These challenges include: (1) data ownership and control, (2) the production of technologies and data development, and (3) data security. We then use literature and examples to consider the extent to which the political and economic landscape can be shifted to support greater equity in agriculture, while reflecting on structural challenges and limits. In doing so, we emphasise that while there are significant systemic tensions between digital ag‐tech development and agroecological approaches, we do not see them as mutually exclusive per se. This article intends to provide decision‐makers, practitioners and scholars from a wide range of disciplines with a timely assessment of agro‐food digitalisation that attends to political economic factors. In doing so, this article contributes to policy and decision‐making discussions, which, from our perspective, continue to be rather technocentric in nature while paying little attention to how digital technologies can support agroecological systems specifically.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/soru.12233

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 62 references

Cited by

See all 455

Metadata

Authors
Rotz, S., Duncan, E., Small, M., Botschner, J., Dara, R., Mosby, I., Reed, M., & Fraser, E. D. G.
Venue
Sociologia Ruralis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-04
Volume
59
Issue
2
Pages
203-229
ISSN
  • 0038-0199 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9523
OpenAlex
W2912281700
Cited by
455
References
62
FWCI
75.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Politics of Digital Agricultural Technologies: A Preliminary Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/soru.12233
The paper
Rotz, S., Duncan, E., Small, M., Botschner, J., Dara, R., Mosby, I., Reed, M., & Fraser, E. D. G. (2019). The Politics of Digital Agricultural Technologies: A Preliminary Review. Sociologia Ruralis. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12233

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.