Humanizing Agricultural Robotics: A Constructivist Grounded Theory of Farmers’ Perspectives on Adopting Chili Harvesting Robot in Fertigation Farming

The integration of robotics into agriculture offers opportunities to increase efficiency and address labour shortages, yet its adoption is strongly shaped by farmers’ perceptions and lived realities. This study explores how smallholder chili farmers perceive the adoption of a chili harvesting robot within fertigation farming, with a particular focus on humanising agricultural robotics to ensure alignment with farmers’ social and economic needs. Guided by a Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) approach, semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted with five smallholder farmers from Kulai, Johor, Malaysia. The analysis generated five interrelated domains that influence technology acceptance: (i) socio-needs of chili farmers, (ii) harvesting practices, (iii) labour and human resource issues, (iv) farming economics, and (v) robotic handling. Together, these domains capture the complex realities of farming and the conditions under which robotics may be accepted. The study contributes by extending grounded insights into how agricultural robotics can be humanised through the integration of farmer perspectives across these five domains, offering practical implications for innovators, policymakers, and agritech developers aiming to design sustainable and farmer-centred smart farming systems.

Human-Centred Robotics, Smart Farming

1. Bac, C. W., Hemming, J., & Van Henten, E. J. (2014). Harvesting robots for high-value crops: State-of-the-art review and challenges ahead. Journal of Field Robotics, 31(6), 888–911. https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.21525 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bechar, A., & Vigneault, C. (2016). Agricultural robots for field operations: Concepts and components. Biosystems Engineering, 149, 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2016.06.014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2019). The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Charmaz, K. (2020). The genesis, grounds, and growth of constructivist grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory (pp. 153–177). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2021). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Eastwood, C., Klerkx, L., Ayre, M., & Dela Rue, B. (2019). Managing socio-ethical challenges in the development of smart farming: From a fragmented to a comprehensive approach for responsible research and innovation. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 32(5–6), 741–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-017-9704-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. FAO. (2022). The state of food and agriculture 2022: Leveraging automation in agriculture for transforming agrifood systems. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc2210en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage. sssssssGeoJohor. Johor State Government — Geoportal. Retrieved from https://geoportal.johor.gov.my [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Given, L. M. (Ed.). (2016). 100 questions (and answers) about qualitative research. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hafeez, M., Ahmad, T., & Anwar, A. (2022). Adoption of smart farming technologies in Asia: Challenges and policy directions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 176, 121444. shttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121444 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v9i1.a.4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kementerian Pertanian dan Keterjaminan Makanan. (2023). Perangkaan agro-makanan Malaysia 2023 [Malaysia agro-food statistics 2023]. Putrajaya: Author. Retrieved from https://www.kpkm.gov.my/images/08-petak-informasi/penerbitan/perangkaan-agromakanan/Perangkaan-Agromakanan-Malaysia-2023.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Khazanah Research Institute. (2024). Understanding the landscape of agrifood smallholders in Malaysia: Climate risks, sustainable standards, and gender gap. Kuala Lumpur: Khazanah Research Institute. Retrieved from https://www.krinstitute.org/assets/contentMS/img/template/editor/KRI%20Report_Understanding%20the%20Landscape%20of%20Smallholders%20in%20Malaysia.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Klerkx, L., & Rose, D. (2020). Dealing with the game-changing technologies of agriculture 4.0: How do we manage diversity and responsibility in food system transition pathways? Global Food Security, 24, 100347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100347 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Klerkx, L., Jakku, E., & Labarthe, P. (2019). A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: New contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS—Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 90–91, 100315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.100315 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Lajoie-O’Malley, A., Bronson, K., van der Burg, S., & Klerkx, L. (2020). The future(s) of digital agriculture and sustainable food systems: An analysis of high-level policy documents. Ecosystem Services, 45, 101183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101183 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Liakos, K. G., et al. (2018). Machine learning in agriculture: A review. Sensors, 18(8), 2674. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18082674 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2010). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. O’Leary, Z. (2021). The essential guide to doing your research project (4th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Rahman, M. S. (2020). The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language “testing and assessment” research: A literature review. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1), 102–112. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n1p102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Rose, D. C., Wheeler, R., Winter, M., Lobley, M., & Chivers, C.-A. (2021). Responsible innovation in agricultural robotics: Aligning technological development with the needs of farmers. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 34(2), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-020-09836-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Shaharuddin, A., & Hashim, H. S. (2018). Agriculture in Johor: What’s left? Trends in Southeast Asia, 12. Singapore: ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327549005_Agriculture_in_Johor_What%27s_Left_Trends_in_Southeast_Asia_192018_2018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Shamshiri, R. R., Weltzien, C., Hameed, I. A., et al. (2018). Research and development in agricultural robotics: A perspective of digital farming. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 11(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.25165/j.ijabe.20181104.4278 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Temple, B., Edwards, R., & Alexander, C. (2006). Grasping at context: Cross language qualitative research as secondary qualitative data analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(4), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-7.4.145 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Tracy, S. J. (2020). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Turnbull, D. (2002). Performance and appraisal: Research methods in context. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Tzounis, A., Katsoulas, N., Bartzanas, T., & Kittas, C. (2017). Internet of Things in agriculture, recent advances and future challenges. Biosystems Engineering, 164, 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2017.09.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• LeafQuest: A Mobile-Based Augmented Reality for Plant Placement, Discovery, and Growth
• Participatory Ergonomic Intervention Approach on Musculoskeletal Disorder (MSD) in Construction Sectors: A Systematic Review
• Integrating GIS into Traffic Incident Management: A Web-Based System
• RideSmart: A Personalized Motorcycle Product Recommendation System Using TF-IDF and Descriptive Analytics for Javidson Motorshop
• Educational Technology Course Design in Pre-Service Teachers Education: A Bibliometric Review of the Research Landscape