Purpose – This study explores how stakeholders perceive and evaluate Artificial Intelligence (AI) in sustainable agriculture. While AI is often promoted as a solution to food security and climate challenges, its adoption raises ethical, social, and institutional concerns that remain underexplored. Design/methodology/approach – Using Q methodology, the study captures subjective viewpoints from 20 stakeholders, including farmers, nutritionists, journalists, and health professionals. A Q sample of 30 statements was ranked and analysed through inverted factor analysis, revealing four distinct perspectives: “The Concerned Skeptic”, “The Critical Adopter”, “The Responsible Environmentalist”, and “The Technological Optimist”. Despite differences, all groups expressed concern over the digital divide and access inequalities. Findings – The findings challenge linear models of technology adoption and highlight the value of context-sensitive, inclusive governance. Originality/value – By integrating the Social Construction of Technology framework and extended Technology Acceptance Models, the study contributes a structured and interpretive understanding of how artificial intelligence is socially constructed in agriculture, offering practical insights for more equitable and responsible innovation.

Artificial Intelligence in agriculture: capturing stakeholders’ perspectives with a Q methodological approach / Mandolesi, S., Zanoli, R., Esposito, G.. - In: BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL. - ISSN 0007-070X. - ELETTRONICO. - (2026). [Epub ahead of print] [10.1108/bfj-07-2025-0933]

Artificial Intelligence in agriculture: capturing stakeholders’ perspectives with a Q methodological approach

Mandolesi, Serena
Primo
;
Zanoli, Raffaele;
2026-01-01

Abstract

Purpose – This study explores how stakeholders perceive and evaluate Artificial Intelligence (AI) in sustainable agriculture. While AI is often promoted as a solution to food security and climate challenges, its adoption raises ethical, social, and institutional concerns that remain underexplored. Design/methodology/approach – Using Q methodology, the study captures subjective viewpoints from 20 stakeholders, including farmers, nutritionists, journalists, and health professionals. A Q sample of 30 statements was ranked and analysed through inverted factor analysis, revealing four distinct perspectives: “The Concerned Skeptic”, “The Critical Adopter”, “The Responsible Environmentalist”, and “The Technological Optimist”. Despite differences, all groups expressed concern over the digital divide and access inequalities. Findings – The findings challenge linear models of technology adoption and highlight the value of context-sensitive, inclusive governance. Originality/value – By integrating the Social Construction of Technology framework and extended Technology Acceptance Models, the study contributes a structured and interpretive understanding of how artificial intelligence is socially constructed in agriculture, offering practical insights for more equitable and responsible innovation.
2026
Agritech; Artificial intelligence; Innovation; Q methodology; Stakeholder perspectives; Subjectivity
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
BFJ-07-2025-0933_accepted.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in post-print (versione successiva alla peer review e accettata per la pubblicazione)
Licenza d'uso: Creative commons
Dimensione 776.32 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
776.32 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Mandolesi_Artificial-Intelligence-agriculture-capturing_2026.pdf

Solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza d'uso: Tutti i diritti riservati
Dimensione 1.41 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.41 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11566/358512
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact