IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v83y2019icp116-124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research priority setting in food and health domain: European stakeholder beliefs about legitimacy criteria and processes

Author

Listed:
  • Timotijevic, Lada
  • Khan, Shumaisa S.
  • Raats, Monique
  • Braun, Susanne

Abstract

Dietary factors are the most important risk factors affecting health and well-being of population in every Member State of the European Region. Finding sustainable solutions to the food and health challenges is one of the key issues that today’s society urgently needs to address. Research prioritisation thus has an essential role in directing public resources to addressing these challenges. However, the processes of prioritisation among the food and health funders are rarely subject to scrutiny and the calls for democratizing science continue, as a means of enhancing both input legitimacy (with its focus on the processes of decision-making) and output legitimacy (the utility and impact of such decisions). The current study examines what conceptualisations of legitimacy (input and output) are held by the European stakeholders of the food and health research and innovation (R&I) process such as business organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and public sector organisations. We analyse stakeholder views from a series of European Awareness Scenario Workshops across nine EU countries (N = 295). The content and thematic analysis of the outputs identified six criteria determining conceptualisations of legitimacy: Influence; Representation; Procedural issues; Epistemic focus; Strategic vision; and Impact. The statistical analysis of the coded data highlighted stakeholder differences with business sector organisations being significantly less concerned about influence and representation than either NGO or public sector organisations. The results indicate that input legitimacy is of major concern to civil society and public sector actors. They reflect the wider debate about the way in which food and health R&I should be funded and policy decisions conducted, suggesting a need for better delineation of stakeholder roles and power differentials in this process. The findings are discussed with reference to the current discussions about Responsible Research and Innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Timotijevic, Lada & Khan, Shumaisa S. & Raats, Monique & Braun, Susanne, 2019. "Research priority setting in food and health domain: European stakeholder beliefs about legitimacy criteria and processes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 116-124.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:83:y:2019:i:c:p:116-124
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.12.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919217306413
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.12.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    2. Simon Birnbaum & Örjan Bodin & Annica Sandström, 2015. "Tracing the sources of legitimacy: the impact of deliberation in participatory natural resource management," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(4), pages 443-461, December.
    3. Khan, Shumaisa S. & Timotijevic, Lada & Newton, Rachel & Coutinho, Daniela & Llerena, José Luis & Ortega, Santiago & Benighaus, Ludger & Hofmaier, Christian & Xhaferri, Zamira & de Boer, Alie & Urban,, 2016. "The framing of innovation among European research funding actors: Assessing the potential for ‘responsible research and innovation’ in the food and health domain," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 78-87.
    4. Julian M. Alston, 2010. "The Benefits from Agricultural Research and Development, Innovation, and Productivity Growth," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 31, OECD Publishing.
    5. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    6. Lenard I Lesser & Cara B Ebbeling & Merrill Goozner & David Wypij & David S Ludwig, 2007. "Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(1), pages 1-6, January.
    7. Scharpf, Fritz W., 1998. "Interdependence and democratic legitimation," MPIfG Working Paper 98/2, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Camille Bellet & Lindsay Hamilton & Jonathan Rushton, 2021. "Re-thinking public health: Towards a new scientific logic of routine animal health care in European industrial farming," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Walter Locatelli & Angela Testi & Filippo Ansaldi & Marta Giachello & Cinzia Panero & Valentino Tisa & Cecilia Trucchi, 2019. "Governance delle reti sanitarie: i Dipartimenti Inter-Aziendali Regionali (DIAR) nel nuovo sistema sanitario ligure," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2019(109), pages 57-81.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    2. Reichelt, Nicole & Nettle, Ruth, 2023. "Practice insights for the responsible adoption of smart farming technologies using a participatory technology assessment approach: The case of virtual herding technology in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    3. van Geenhuizen, Marina & Ye, Qing, 2014. "Responsible innovators: open networks on the way to sustainability transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 28-40.
    4. Glover, Dominic & Poole, Nigel, 2019. "Principles of innovation to build nutrition-sensitive food systems in South Asia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 63-73.
    5. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2018. "Renewable energy research and technologies through responsible research and innovation looking glass: Reflexions, theoretical approaches and contemporary discourses," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 792-808.
    6. Sophie Pellé & Bernard Reber, 2015. "Responsible Innovation in the Light of Moral Responsibility," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01418017, HAL.
    7. Buhmann, Alexander & Fieseler, Christian, 2021. "Towards a deliberative framework for responsible innovation in artificial intelligence," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    8. Fisher, Erik, 2019. "Governing with ambivalence: The tentative origins of socio-technical integration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1138-1149.
    9. Miklós Lukovics & Beáta Udvari & Nikoletta Nádas & Erik Fisher, 2019. "Raising Awareness of Researchers-in-the-Making Toward Responsible Research and Innovation," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(4), pages 1558-1577, December.
    10. Buzás, Norbert & Lukovics, Miklós, 2015. "A felelősségteljes innovációról [On responsible innovation]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(4), pages 438-456.
    11. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2021. "Researchers perception regarding socio-technical approaches implementation in their own research. Thermal energy storage researchers as example," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    12. Vesnic-Alujevic, Lucia & Nascimento, Susana & Pólvora, Alexandre, 2020. "Societal and ethical impacts of artificial intelligence: Critical notes on European policy frameworks," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6).
    13. Ibo Van de Poel & Lotte Asveld & Steven Flipse & Pim Klaassen & Victor Scholten & Emad Yaghmaei, 2017. "Company Strategies for Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): A Conceptual Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-18, November.
    14. Pellizzone, Anna & Allansdottir, Agnes & De Franco, Roberto & Muttoni, Giovanni & Manzella, Adele, 2017. "Geothermal energy and the public: A case study on deliberative citizens’ engagement in central Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 561-570.
    15. Paula Otero-Hermida & Mónica García-Melón, 2018. "Gender Equality Indicators for Research and Innovation from a Responsible Perspective: The Case of Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, August.
    16. Wiarda, Martijn & van de Kaa, Geerten & Yaghmaei, Emad & Doorn, Neelke, 2021. "A comprehensive appraisal of responsible research and innovation: From roots to leaves," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    17. Kerr, Anne & Hill, Rosemary L. & Till, Christopher, 2018. "The limits of responsible innovation: Exploring care, vulnerability and precision medicine," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 24-31.
    18. Wiarda, Martijn & Sobota, Vladimir C.M. & Janssen, Matthijs J. & van de Kaa, Geerten & Yaghmaei, Emad & Doorn, Neelke, 2023. "Public participation in mission-oriented innovation projects," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    19. Landoni, Matteo, 2020. "Knowledge creation in state-owned enterprises," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 77-85.
    20. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2022. "Researchers’ perspective within responsible implementation with socio-technical approaches. An example from solar energy research centre in Chile," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:83:y:2019:i:c:p:116-124. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.