Agri-food in search of sustainability: cognitive, interactional and material framing
In: Journal on Chain and Network ScienceSearch for other papers by Joyce V. Zwartkruis in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Ellen H.M. Moors in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Jacco C.M. Farla in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Harro van Lente in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
The agri-food sector is under pressure to move towards sustainability and broad socio-technical changes are needed. In such encompassing innovation processes that concern the whole agri-food chain, actors with different institutional backgrounds are confronted with each others interests, ideas and perspectives. Framing, then, may both support and hinder the alignment of actors and interests. In this paper we investigate how framing occurs in multi-actor innovation projects and how it facilitates or hinders the continuity of these projects. We first review the broad literature on framing, which leads to a typology of three levels of framing: face-to-face interaction (between individuals), global discourse (within society) and localised collective (in projects). In addition, we add a third category to the traditional distinction between ‘cognitive’ and ‘interactional’ framing. We argue that in socio-technical innovations also ‘material’ framing occurs. In an empirical case study, based on in-depth interviews and document analysis of the Roundel project (2004-2010), a Dutch innovation project aimed at sustainable egg production and marketing, we trace and analyse these different forms of framing. The project survived several critical episodes, due to changes in framing. Our study yields general lessons about framing in complex innovation projects, both conceptual and practical.
-
Aarts, M.N.C. and C.M.J. Van Woerkum, 2006. Frame construction in interaction. In: Gould, N. (ed.), Engagement. Proceedings of the 12th MOPAN International Conference. pp. 229-237.
-
Akrich, M., 1992. The de-scription of technical objects. In: Bijker, W.E. and J. Law (eds.) Shaping technology/building society. studies in sociotechnical change. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 205-224.
-
Bartlett, F.C., 1932. Remembering: a study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 317 pp.
-
Bateson, G., 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. Ballantine Books, New York, NY, USA, 517 pp.
-
Beers, P.J., A. Veldkamp, F. Hermans, D. van Apeldoorn, J.M. Vervoort and K. Kok, 2010. Future sustainability and images. Futures, 42(7): 723-732.
-
Bekke, H. and J. De Vries, 2001. De ontpoldering van de Nederlandse landbouw. Het Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij 1994-2000. Garant-Uitgevers n.v., Leuven-Apeldoorn, Belgium-the Netherlands. 202 pp.
-
Benford, R.D. and D.A. Snow, 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 611-639.
-
Berger, P.L. and T. Luckmann, 1966. The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, New York, USA. 203 pp.
-
Bos, B. and P. Groot Koerkamp, 2009. Synthesising needs in system innovation through structured design: a methodical outline of the role of needs in reflexive interaction design (RIO). In: Poppe, K.J., C. Termeer and M. Slingerland (eds.) Transitions towards sustainable agriculture and food chains in peri-urban areas. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands, pp. 219-237.
-
Bos, A.P., 2008. Instrumentalization theory and reflexive design in animal husbandry. Social Epistemology, 22(1): 29-50.
-
Bos, B., P.W.G. Groot Koerkamp and K. Groenestein, 2003. A novel design approach for livestock housing based on recursive control – With examples to reduce environmental pollution. Livestock Production Science, 84(2): 157-170.
-
Bryant, J. and D. Miron, 2004. Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of Communication, 54(4): 662-704.
-
Creed, W.E.D., J.A. Langstraat and M.A. Scully, 2002. A picture of the frame: Frame analysis as technique and as politics. Organizational Research Methods, 5(1): 34-55.
-
Davidson, D., 1985. On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. In: J. Rajchman and C. West (eds.). Post-analytic philosophy. Columbia U.P, New York, NY, USA, pp. 129-144.
-
De Groot, S.A., 2003. Van OVO naar VOVI. Nieuwe institutionele arrangementen voor kennisverwerving en -ontwikkeling van agrarische ondernemers. Rapport 7.03.06. LEI, Den Haag, the Netherlands, Rapport 7.03.06.
-
Dewulf, A., B. Gray, L. Putnam, R. Lewicki, N. Aarts, R. Bouwen and C. Van Woerkum, 2009. Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: a meta-paradigmatic perspective. Human Relations, 62(2): 155-193.
-
Entman, R.M., 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4): 51-58.
-
Feindt, P.H. and D. Kleinschmit, 2011. The BSE crisis in German newspapers: Reframing responsibility. Science as Culture, 20(2): 183-208.
-
Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), 2011. FAOSTAT Database. Available at: http://faostat.fao.org/.
-
Francis, C.A. and P.F. Hildebrand, 1989. Farming systems research/Extension and the concepts of sustainability. Agronomy – Faculty Publications, paper 558: 1-10.
-
Goffman, E., 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, NY, USA, 586 pp.
-
Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G. and A.P. Bos, 2008. Designing complex and sustainable agricultural production systems: An integrated and reflexive approach for the case of table egg production in the Netherlands. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 55(2): 113-138.
-
Hajer, M.A., 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 344 pp.
-
Hajer, M. and W. Versteeg, 2005. A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 7(3): 175-184.
-
Klerkx, L., N. Aarts and C. Leeuwis, 2010. Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment. Agricultural Systems, 103(6): 390-400.
-
Klerkx, L. and C. Leeuwis, 2009. Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6): 849-860.
-
Kloppenburg Jr., J., S. Lezberg, K. De Master, G.W. Stevenson and J. Hendrickson, 2000. Tasting food, tasting sustainability: Defining the attributes of an alternative food system with competent, ordinary people. Human Organization, 59(2): 177-186.
-
Levin, I.P., S.L. Schneider and G.J. Gaeth, 1998. All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2): 149-188.
-
Lewicki, R. J., B. Gray and M. Elliott, 2003. Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases. Island Press, Washington DC, USA, 470 pp.
-
Minsky, M., 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In: P.H. Winston (eds.). The psychology of computer vision. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, pp. 211-277.
-
Norman, D.A., 1988. The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books, New York, NY, USA, 272 pp.
-
Nousiainen, M., P. Pylkkänen, F. Saunders, L. Seppänen and K.M. Vesala, 2009. Are alternative food systems socially sustainable? A case study from Finland. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 33(5): 566-594.
-
Pretty, J., W.J. Sutherland, J. Ashby, J. Auburn, D. Baulcombe, M. Bell, J. Bentley, S. Bickersteth, K. Brown, J. Burke, H. Campbell, K. Chen, E. Crowley, I. Crute, D. Dobbelaere, G. Edwards-Jones, F. Funes-Monzote, H.C.J. Godfray, M. Griffon, P. Gypmantisiri, L. Haddad, S. Halavatau, H. Herren, M. Holderness, A.-. Izac, M. Jones, P. Koohafkan, R. Lal, T. Lang, J. McNeely, A. Mueller, N. Nisbett, A. Noble, P. Pingali, Y. Pinto, R. Rabbinge, N.H. Ravindranath, A. Rola, N. Roling, C. Sage, W. Settle, J.M. Sha, L. Shiming, T. Simons, P. Smith, K. Strzepeck, H. Swaine, E. Terry, T.P. Tomich, C. Toulmin, E. Trigo, S. Twomlow, J.K. Vis, J. Wilson and S. Pilgrim, 2010. The top 100 questions of importance to the future of global agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 8(4): 219-236.
-
Pretty, J., 2008. Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363: 447-465.
-
Project Team Houden van Hennen, 2005. Programme of Demands: Based on the Needs of Poultry Farmer, Laying Hen and Citizen. ASG/05/I00677. Wageningen UR, Lelystad, the Netherlands, ASG/05/I00677.
-
Rein, M. and D. Schon, 1996. Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. Knowledge and Policy, 9(1): 85-104.
-
Ruben, R., M. Slingerland and H. Nijhoff, 2006. Chapter 1. Agro-food chains and networks for development. Issues, approaches and strategies. In: R. Ruben, M. Slingerland and H. Nijhoff, Agro-food chains and networks for development. 6-7 september 2004, Wageningen, the Netherlands, pp. 1-25.
-
Schön, D.A. and M. Rein, 1994. Frame reflection: toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books, New York, NY, USA, 247 pp.
-
Smits, R., 2002. Innovation studies in the 21st century: Questions from a user’s perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69(9): 861-883.
-
Steinberg, M.W., 1999. The talk and back talk of collective action: A dialogic analysis of repertoires of discourse among nineteenth-century English cotton spinners. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3): 736-780.
-
Tannen, D., 1993. Framing in discourse. Oxford U.P, New York, NY, USA, 263 pp.
-
Tannen, D. and C. Wallat, 1987. Interactive Frames and Knowledge Schemas in Interaction: Examples from a Medical Examination/Interview. Social psychology quarterly, 50(2, Special Issue: Language and Social Interaction): pp. 205-216.
-
Van den Brink, M., 2010. Rijkswaterstaat on the horns of a dilemma. Eburon, Delft, the Netherlands, 335 pp.
-
Van Lente, H. and J.I. van Til, 2008. Articulation of sustainability in the emerging field of nanocoatings. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(8-9): 967-976.
-
Van Lieshout, M., A. Dewulf, N. Aarts and C. Termeer, 2011. Do scale frames matter? Scale frame mismatches in the decision making process of a ‘mega farm’ in a small Dutch village. Ecology and Society, 16(1): 38.
-
Veldkamp, A., A.C. Van Altvorst, R. Eweg, E. Jacobsen, A. Van Kleef, H. Van Latesteijn, S. Mager, H. Mommaas, P.J.A.M. Smeets, L. Spaans and J.C.M. Van Trijp, 2008. Triggering transitions towards sustainable development of the Dutch agricultural sector: TransForum’s approach. Agronomy for Sustainable development, 29(1): 87-96.
-
Wageningen UR project team Houden van hennen, 2004. Laying hen husbandry. Towards a happy hen life, proud farmers and a satisfied society. Wageningen UR, Wageningen-Lelystad, the Netherlands,
-
Weick, K.E., 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Foundations for organizational science. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
-
Werrij, F., 2007. The changing role of agriculture in Europe and how it affects poultry education and technology transfer. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 63(2): 205-211.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Full Text Views | 298 | 188 | 22 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 65 | 44 | 3 |
Agri-food in search of sustainability: cognitive, interactional and material framing
In: Journal on Chain and Network ScienceSearch for other papers by Joyce V. Zwartkruis in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ellen H.M. Moors in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jacco C.M. Farla in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Harro van Lente in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
The agri-food sector is under pressure to move towards sustainability and broad socio-technical changes are needed. In such encompassing innovation processes that concern the whole agri-food chain, actors with different institutional backgrounds are confronted with each others interests, ideas and perspectives. Framing, then, may both support and hinder the alignment of actors and interests. In this paper we investigate how framing occurs in multi-actor innovation projects and how it facilitates or hinders the continuity of these projects. We first review the broad literature on framing, which leads to a typology of three levels of framing: face-to-face interaction (between individuals), global discourse (within society) and localised collective (in projects). In addition, we add a third category to the traditional distinction between ‘cognitive’ and ‘interactional’ framing. We argue that in socio-technical innovations also ‘material’ framing occurs. In an empirical case study, based on in-depth interviews and document analysis of the Roundel project (2004-2010), a Dutch innovation project aimed at sustainable egg production and marketing, we trace and analyse these different forms of framing. The project survived several critical episodes, due to changes in framing. Our study yields general lessons about framing in complex innovation projects, both conceptual and practical.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Full Text Views | 298 | 188 | 22 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 65 | 44 | 3 |
