{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01653944020356234, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.609243697478991, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Framing Agri‐Digital Governance: Industry Stakeholders, Technological Frames and Smart Farming Implementation

Meso-scale actors – such as farm advisors and other extension agents – are increasingly 
recognised as playing a critical role in managing farmer uncertainty associated with 
smart farming implementation. However, there has been limited research to date on 
how these actors navigate smart farming implementation within specific industries or 
commodity sectors. This article applies theoretical insights from the technological frames 
literature to investigate how meso-scale actors in the Australian rice industry frame 
smart farming technology implementation, and the ways in which relationships between 
frames variously afford and/or constrain industry sovereignty over implementation of 
technological change. Through analysis of our data, we reveal a complex relationship 
between participants’ technological frames involving frame incongruence, frame 
ambivalence and frame switching. We argue that while development of a more integrated 
approach to enhancing the digital capacities of meso-scale actors advocated in the 
literature provides a way of addressing frame incongruence, more flexible strategies may 
be needed to address frame ambivalence and switching. Furthermore, we contend that 
those frame relationships supporting industry sovereignty – namely frame ambivalence 
and switching – may not always be conducive to the promotion of digital agency among 
meso-scale actors, and could in fact impose limits on smart farming implementation.