Smart farming (also referred to as digital farming, digital agriculture and precision agriculture) has largely been driven by productivity and efficiency aims, but there is an increasing awareness of potential socio-ethical challenges. The responsible research and innovation (RRI) approach aims to address such challenges but has had limited application in smart farming contexts. Using smart dairying research and development (R&D) in New Zealand (NZ) as a case study, we examine the extent to which principles of RRI have been applied in NZ smart dairying development and assess the broader lessons for RRI application in smart farming. We draw on insights from: a review of research on dairy technology use in NZ; interviews with smart dairying stakeholders; and the application of an analytical framework based on RRI dimensions. We conclude that smart dairying R&D and innovation activities have focused on technology development and on-farm use without considering socio-ethical implications and have excluded certain actors such as citizens and consumers. This indicates that readiness to enact RRI in this context is not yet optimal, and future RRI efforts require leadership by government or dairy sector organisations to fully embed RRI principles in the guidelines for large R&D project design (what has also been referred to as ‘RRI maturity’). More broadly, enacting RRI in smart farming requires initial identification of RRI readiness in a given sector or country and devising a roadmap and coherent project portfolio to support capacity building for enacting RRI. Additionally, methods (such as RRI indicators) for operationalising RRI must be adapted to the context of the national or sectoral innovation system in which smart farming is being developed.

Water planning processes in Australia have struggled to account for Indigenous interests and rights in water, including the use of Indigenous knowledge in water management. In exploring the role of Indigenous knowledge in government-led water planning processes, how might tensions between Western scientific and Indigenous knowledges be lessened? Drawing on two case studies from northern Australia we examine how Indigenous knowledge is represented and managed as a different social knowledge to that of Western science in a management context where legal and planning conventions assume priority. The role of Indigenous (social) knowledges in developing options and strategies for sustainable water management is contingent upon the participation of Indigenous people in water planning. We suggest that water planning processes must contain the possibility of an explicit approach to mutual recognition and consequent translation of the conceptual and pragmatic bases of water management and planning in both Western scientific and Indigenous domains.

The promise of integrated research for addressing complex problems of sustainability such as catchment management has been widely recognised. However, the mechanisms for achieving integration in research have been the subject of few empirical studies. A major challenge of doing integrated research is how to combine and effectively manage diverse disciplinary perspectives and other knowledge/s in the generation of new knowledge for practice and policy change. We examined this challenge within a large catchment management research project in Australia's Murray Darling Basin and asked, ‘What supports or enables integration in research?’ Addressing this question requires an attention to integration as a dynamic process of knowledge production. We propose a model of this dynamic process which is characterised by a changing demand for integration in five different phases: (1) establishing the imperative for integration; (2) coordinating different disciplinary and other knowledge commitments; (3) consolidating arrangements for integration; (4) prioritising outputs from integration; and, (5) representing outputs of integration. For researchers and research managers this model can help identify the mechanisms required to support effective integration within research projects. We identify these mechanisms as sites and devices for integration that must be both planned (as part of the original integrated research design) and emergent (iteratively created and supported) in research projects