IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v36y2011i4p490-498.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Engagement, representativeness and legitimacy in the development of food and nutrition policy

Author

Listed:
  • Timotijevic, L.
  • Barnett, J.
  • Raats, M.M.

Abstract

In a policy environment that contains structures to enable public engagement, the validity of expressions of public opinion and concern are in part legitimated through constructions of their representativeness. The current paper examined the ways in which various organisations involved in food and nutrition policy development negotiated the legitimacy of their inclusion in policy processes through claims about who they represented and how, with a specific focus upon older people (aged 60+) as an example of the "hard to reach". This study is set in the context of theoretical considerations around the forms of representativeness that have been identified in the literature. A thematic analysis of 52 interviews with organisations and stakeholders active in the area of food and nutrition policy in England, UK explores these competing modalities of representation and how they are used both to claim legitimacy for self and to discount the claims of others. Different scripts of representation are deployed by various stakeholders and there is evidence of the strategic and the simultaneous deployment of different representativeness claims. The notions of expert representativeness permeate other modalities of representativeness, suggesting that the dominant framework for food and nutrition policy development is based upon technocratic models of decision-making. This highlights the way in which public views can be distanced from the framing of policy questions.

Suggested Citation

  • Timotijevic, L. & Barnett, J. & Raats, M.M., 2011. "Engagement, representativeness and legitimacy in the development of food and nutrition policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 490-498, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:36:y:2011:i:4:p:490-498
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919211000649
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Sheila Jasanoff, 2003. "(No?) Accounting for expertise," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 157-162, June.
    2. Tim Lang & Michael Heasman, 2004. "Diet and Nutrition Policy: A clash of ideas or investment?," Development, Palgrave Macmillan;Society for International Deveopment, vol. 47(2), pages 64-74, June.
    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. Fleming, Aysha & Stitzlein, Cara & Jakku, Emma & Fielke, Simon, 2019. "Missed opportunity? Framing actions around co-benefits for carbon mitigation in Australian agriculture," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 230-238.
    2. Kraak, Vivica I. & Swinburn, Boyd & Lawrence, Mark & Harrison, Paul, 2014. "A Q methodology study of stakeholders’ views about accountability for promoting healthy food environments in England through the Responsibility Deal Food Network," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 207-218.

    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. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Gupta, Aarti, 2011. "An evolving science-society contract in India: The search for legitimacy in anticipatory risk governance," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 736-741.
    3. Fábio Grigoletto & Fernanda Antunes de Oliveira & Caio Caradi Momesso & Ibrahim Kamel Rodrigues Nehemy & João Emílio de Almeida Junior & Vinícius de Avelar São Pedro & Roberto Greco & Mário Aquino Alv, 2023. "Technological Affordance and the Realities of Citizen Science Projects Developed in Challenging Territories," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-15, April.
    4. Himick, Darlene & Brivot, Marion & Henri, Jean-François, 2016. "An ethical perspective on accounting standard setting: Professional and lay-experts’ contribution to GASB’s Pension Project," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 22-38.
    5. Warren Pearce & Sujatha Raman, 2014. "The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 387-402, December.
    6. Abelson, Julia & Giacomini, Mita & Lehoux, Pascale & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2007. "Bringing `the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 37-50, June.
    7. Peter D. Gluckman & Anne Bardsley & Matthias Kaiser, 2021. "Brokerage at the science–policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    8. Warren Pearce, 2020. "Trouble in the trough: how uncertainties were downplayed in the UK’s science advice on Covid-19," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-6, December.
    9. Luis Pérez-González, 2020. "‘Is climate science taking over the science?’: A corpus-based study of competing stances on bias, dogma and expertise in the blogosphere," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, December.
    10. Joseph F. Brazel & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2007. "An Examination of Auditor Planning Judgements in a Complex Accounting Information System Environment," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 1059-1083, December.
    11. Lowe, Philip & Phillipson, Jeremy & Proctor, Amy & Gkartzios, Menelaos, 2019. "Expertise in rural development: A conceptual and empirical analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 28-37.

    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:36:y:2011:i:4:p:490-498. 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.