Introduction
It is acknowledged that more holistic solutions are required in the face of Grand Societal Challenges and United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) relating to climate change, food security and health and nutrition. In this context, transdisciplinary and systems-based approaches are increasingly being promoted by international research and innovation (R&I) policies. Ireland’s (draft) AgriFood 2030 Strategy, reflecting the UN’s current emphasis on food systems, describes its systems-based approach as itself “an innovation” (by comparison to previous strategies) (AgriFood Strategy Committee, 2021) through its acknowledgement of “the link between policies for food, climate and the environment, and health, and [focuses on] the role each part of the food chain has in delivering the 2030 vision. Sustainability in its three forms – economic, environmental and social – are at the heart of the Strategy” (AgriFood Strategy Committee, 2021). Developing this definition, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN defines a sustainable food system as
“a food system that delivers food security and nutrition for all, in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised. This means that: it is profitable throughout (economic sustainability); it has broad-based benefits for society (social sustainability); and it has a positive or neutral impact on the natural environment (environmental sustainability)” (United Nations Food and Agriculture Association 2018).
AgriFood 2030 references the UN Food Systems approach, which relies on systems thinking. Systems thinking is explained as “a way of looking at the world, [inviting] us to think about a broader set of factors that can influence these outcomes; and to think about synergies and trade-offs between all of these”. Systems thinking is essentially a tool for broadening perspectives on food systems, and it is the basis for understanding and applying a food systems approach to R&I. Critically, systems thinking offers three main benefits: it provides a list of interdisciplinary topics that must be considered in designing a food systems approach; it identifies vulnerabilities in food systems, and root problems, in order to improve resilience; and it identifies limiting factors so that the most crucial interventions may be targeted (van Berkum et al., 2018). Aside from these three benefits, a further critical and distinctive benefit of taking a food systems approach is that it examines the interchanges and interdependencies between aspects of the system, but only in so far as the range of disciplinary perspectives brought to bear on the problem allows. Achieving the benefits of a systems-based approach depends on reaching insights in relation to all human, physical, social, economic and environmental components of systems and their interdependencies; and in this context, the systems-based approach is described as inherently “interdisciplinary” and “non-linear” (van Berkum et al., 2018). Allied concepts, which are called upon to more holistically address wicked problems at the nexus between various aspects of sustainability are: One Health – a concept that recognises that the health of humans, animals and their shared environment are interconnected; OneWelfare – a concept that highlights the interconnections between animal welfare, human well-being and the environment; and OnePlanet – a concept that recognises the connection and reliance that exists between different habitats on a global basis (Lueddeke, 2019).
For meeting the challenges of conceptualising, theorising, understanding and designing interventions for food systems, knowledge of transdisciplinary approaches is both relevant and useful. Transdisciplinary is defined as “transcendence of disciplinary perspectives … into a broader framework in ‘true systemic fashion’ that involves practical engagement with ‘local and regional issues of concern’” (Stock & Burton, 2011). Transdisciplinarity, consistent with the needs of systems-based approaches, involves collaborations between non-scientific (professional communities, civil society, etc.) and diverse scientific actors, but also the activation and facilitation of participatory processes with actors on the ground (Stock & Burton, 2011). Importantly, transdisciplinary theory and practice is informed by social science, which is capable of understanding social networks; the power structures that frame them; and the ways in which networks and structures may be transformed (for greater collaboration, etc.). Transdisciplinarity is at the heart of the “multi-actor approach” (MAA), currently pioneered by the European Union (EU)’s Horizon 2020 programme and its successor, Horizon Europe. Growing state of the art in practically supporting the MAA on the ground stands to be crucially supportive of those designing and implementing systems-based approaches to agri-food development and innovation. Practical tools to engage diverse actors and incentivise collaboration, and to mobilise and facilitate co-creative innovation, are crucial requirements for the delivery of a systems-based approach. Social science directly informs many of these practical tools.
This paper presents existing frameworks informed by social science, that can inform how food systems approaches may be theorised and practically supported. In the following section, we describe new policies that have been introduced to science governance, including research impact and responsible research and innovation (RRI). These policy frameworks have become cornerstones of publicly funded R&I programmes at both national (e.g. Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine [DAFM], Science Foundation Ireland [SFI], Irish Research Council [IRC], Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) and European (e.g. H2020) levels. We describe how these changes intersect with, and demonstrate the need for, systems-based approaches and transdisciplinary approaches. We present how these frameworks link to and support food systems approaches in the “Systems-based approaches: practical uses of transdisciplinarity and the MAA” section. In the “Applying social science to projects across food systems: a profile of cases and some caveats for agri-food research” section, we present a profile of agri-food R&I projects that occur across the food system and show perspectives both on how social science has been used as a support and on the caveats and provisos in applying social science. Finally, the conclusion section presents insights of interest to researchers and professionals seeking to incorporate social science into food systems-based R&I projects on the ground.
Science in transition: new paradigms in science governance
“Science today is in transition – from a relatively closed, disciplinary and profession-based system, toward an open and interdisciplinary structure where knowledge creation is more directly accessible to stakeholders across society”. (Wilsdon et al., 2017)
This citation from Wilsdon et al. (2017) explains the transition that is underway in agriculture and food research, providing an important focus for this special issue. The food systems approach is outcome-oriented but it is also values-aware. In this respect, it intersects with changes happening in the area of science governance over the last number of decades where outcomes (the turn to research impact) and values (the turn to RRI) are concerned. Looking back over the past six decades since the establishment of the Irish Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, a very significant arena for change has been science governance. New paradigms in science governance have brought about a change in the manner in which science is funded and conducted. As the European Commission has noted, there is an “on-going evolution in the modus operandi of doing research and organising science” (European Union, 2015). Global challenges such as climate change, sustainability, food security and health and well-being increasingly dominate headlines and societal discussion (United Nations, 2015; International Food Policy Research Institute, 2016). The need to find solutions and develop new technologies and approaches to combat these challenges in an integrated manner has led, in part, to the emergence of a research agenda within Europe which increasingly prioritises the need for “research impact” (Stilgoe et al., 2013). At the same time, science governance policies such as RRI argue that any techno-scientific progress needs to be tempered by a consideration of the moral, social and ethical expectations and requirements of society as a whole (von Schomberg, 2013). In combination, these policies have ushered in a new era of science governance that aims to encourage greater multi-actor participation in science and to ensure that science is acceptable to, valued and used by society. This new era of science governance is important to signal in this anniversary issue of the Irish Journal of Agriculture and Food Research.
The overarching common thread of these policies is that as a result of their integration to and increased dominance within European research policies, research practices are in transition. Through institutionalised mechanisms (e.g. regional research policies, funding stipulations, university policies and so on), scientists are increasingly encouraged and even expected to do research in a different way. The nature of the change required is wide-ranging and varied but includes changes to the manner in which actors develop and design R&I projects (e.g. user-led research/MAAs), the manner in which data are stored (e.g. collaborative and open repositories), how research is published (e.g. open access) and how research is evaluated (e.g. demonstrating impact and socially responsibility). There is considerable literature dedicated to the terminology and defining of science governance-related concepts, as well as exploring and mapping their ontological beginnings and growth (Stilgoe et al., 2013; Mayer, 2016). In this section, with respect to two primary policy concepts – research impact and RRI – we provide a brief introduction on key changes to science governance and the implications this has for contemporary research practice. We elucidate how these key changes are clearly aligned with and supportive of the food systems approach to R&I.
The turn to research impact
The food systems approach places a particular emphasis on outcomes, which is consistent with the “turn” in science governance towards an emphasis on research impact, where policy has attempted to lessen the gap between research and practice. The “European Paradox” suggests that although Europe has been a leading global player in producing high-quality scientific output, there has been a failure to translate these scientific advances into tangible economic and industry-relevant impacts (Acosta et al., 2011), with a perception amongst policymakers that the occurrence of impacts are “too few, and poorly targeted with respect to their needs” (Midmore, 2017). Although some commentators question whether this paradox is actually supported by empirical evidence (Dosi et al., 2006), over the last two decades, the need to generate and demonstrate “research impact” has been increasingly emphasised in the European research agenda (Wouters et al., 2015) and in national research agendas (e.g. Innovation 2020 – Ireland’s Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, 2019). Publicly funded research streams are dominated by problem-oriented R&I (Henkel, 2005; Stilgoe et al., 2013). With high expectations of accountability for public funding, research funders and society more broadly are requiring researchers to provide evidence of the social, cultural, environmental and economic returns from science (Gibbons, 1999; Bornmann, 2013; Dinsmore et al., 2014). Notwithstanding Midmore’s conclusion, following a content analysis of the UK’s 2014 REF Impact Case Studies, that researchers have “a nascent conservatism that focuses on research that can be shown to have impact, rather than research impact itself” (Midmore, 2017), providing such evidence is particularly important where food-related research is concerned.
Food is at the heart of the SDGs (United Nations, 2015), with more than half of the 17 goals emphasising the need for a safe, nutritious and sustainable food supply (International Food Policy Research Institute [IFPRI], 2016). Researchers who work in publicly funded food-related research projects are thus increasingly aware of the growing pressure to demonstrate that their research supports the development of sustainable global food systems. Scientists are now working within a “policy framework geared towards the exploitability of science” (Henkel, 2005). There are increasing demands on publicly funded researchers to provide evidence of the impact of their research beyond traditional scientific key performance indicators (KPIs), such as scientific publications. Research funding is no longer awarded on the basis of research excellence alone – funders are demanding that researchers demonstrate the social, cultural, environmental and economic returns from research (Bornmann, 2013). Furthermore, research impact is a highly gendered topic. Horizon 2020 funding rules stipulate not only that a minimum threshold of females should be involved in R&I consortia, but that R&I programme design should consider both female and male populations to enhance wider societal applicability of outcomes. The same logic applies to promoting diversity in innovation and research processes, such as youth, new entrants and LGBTI+ (AgriFood Strategy Committee, 2021).
While the value of achieving and demonstrating research impact to society is clear, effective mechanisms and metrics to provide evidence of such research impact are less clear (Midmore, 2017). How to operationalise, capture and/or measure impact has been a topic of much discussion. Research impact is a complex, multi-dimensional and value-laden construct; the term conveys multiple understandings and meanings within different scientific and policy circles. In this regard, it can be viewed as an “essentially contested concept” (Ferretti et al., 2018; Regan & Henchion, 2019); therefore, evaluating and evidencing research impact is a challenge. To support this challenge, research impact frameworks have been developed by research funding bodies to assess whether R&I is technology-ready, policy-ready and/or socially-ready (Harland & O’Connor, 2015; DAFM, 2021). For such assessments and to achieve impact readiness, social science is needed to understand end-user contexts and to engage a variety of actors (including end users) in the (co)design and testing of outcomes. Systems-based approaches need to be impactful; they need to go beyond systems-based theory (research) to systems-based thinking, which is oriented to action and impact.
The turn to responsible research and innovation
Providing evidence of the value and impact of science demonstrates accountability for public spending and acts as a means for continued investment in future funding, as well as building trust in science more broadly amongst general society (Gibbons, 1999; Bornmann, 2013; Dinsmore et al., 2014). Assessing societal impact in particular acts as a reflexivity exercise throughout R&I processes – it encourages those involved to periodically stop, reflect upon and critique how and where research is generated and used, the value society places on research and guides the formulation of future research questions and research plans (von Schomberg, 2013). Approaches fostering societal impact feed into the growing trend for governance approaches such as RRI. Responsible research and innovation encourages a multi-actor co-creation approach in tackling global challenges and to ensure that R&I meets the values, needs and expectations of society (von Schomberg, 2013). Responsible research and innovation, thus, is in keeping with the key principle of the food systems approach, which is that food systems must be sustainable – economically, socially and environmentally – and that any interventions must be “proofed” for responsiveness to public values, and according to multi-dimensional sustainability criteria.
In this respect, established approaches for RRI intersect with the pillars of (economic, social, environmental) sustainability that serve as the foundations of the systems-based approach. Responsible research and innovation encourages agenda-setting based on societal needs (Fitzgerald et al., 2016), highlighting the need to reflect on the motivations and purpose of research before embarking on it and considering how these motivations and purposes align to societal thinking. Responsible research and innovation encourages upstream engagement and responsiveness during the R&I process (Khan et al., 2014). This type of thinking is reflected in “just transition” approaches that have been prioritised in environmental policy decision-making in particular (Harrahill & Douglas, 2019). Just transition approaches are dependent on innovative ideas for rural economic activity that are opportunistic for and acceptable to diverse societal cohorts.
Responsible research and innovation is linked to the “science in society” programme where Public Engagement (PE) and Education and Public Engagement (EPE) initiatives encourage researchers to move from communication to dialogue with the public. However, the importance of PE and EPE and its integration to research practice is often lost. As argued by Stilgoe et al. (2014), “reflexivity”, at the level of researchers and research institutions, is needed in order to instil esteem in and commitment to PE and EPE practices.
“Social science explains reflexivity as a way of reflecting or thinking, ‘In a way that turns back upon, and takes account of, itself’ (Hardy et al., 2001). In supporting RRI (European Commission, 2021), reflexivity is a fundamental success factor: ‘Einstein (…) was successful partly because he doggedly and constantly asked questions with seemingly obvious answers. Childlike, he asked Why? How? What? Rather than accepting givens.’ (Bolton & Delderfield, 2018)” (Macken-Walsh, 2020)
Responsible research and innovation is aimed at linking “social and ethical desirability to the ‘responsibility’ of those involved in innovation and research processes (scientists, innovators, policymakers, interest groups, end users, etc.)” (Pelle & Reber, 2015). It requires researchers to consider, negotiate and potentially redefine their responsibilities and duties beyond those associated with the traditional role of their profession (Stilgoe et al., 2013). For some, this may manifest in the form of reflecting on societal concerns to reconsider their notions of research integrity (Stilgoe et al., 2013). What does all of the above mean for researchers? It means their role is changing – they are increasingly expected to engage with diverse disciplinary and professional actors in order to ensure their research agendas meet with societal needs; that they will not cause public outrage; that they can anticipate public reaction and interest; and to ensure that their research makes a valuable addition to society. Contemporary researchers are challenged with contributing to meaningful and valuable innovation, and with producing tangible products, policies or processes from their research output.
It has been suggested that RRI should not be viewed as a goal, but rather as a way of organising social interactions (Asveld et al., 2015). Such social interactions do not just imply engagement with the “general public” but also with actors who play a direct role in supporting and implementing innovation, for example, industry, regulators and policymakers. Innovation requires more than the mere dissemination of research to target audiences; it requires collaborative efforts of different actors in combining new and/or existing tacit knowledge (Hansen et al., 2014). All of this draws attention to the importance of the transdisciplinary approach and the MAA where knowledge exchange and a bottom-up approach to research are prioritised. Research communities can help shape how science transitions in this period of fluidity rather than waiting for top-down approaches (Mayer, 2016). Social science has a role to play by providing ethical and methodological frameworks and tools to enhance the responsiveness of R&I to its clients and public.
Systems-based approaches: practical uses of transdisciplinarity and the MAA
Food systems approaches are characteristically “non-linear” and “interdisciplinary” (van Berkum et al., 2018). Because they rely on taking a holistic view of food system activities, socio-economic factors and environmental factors, a wide range of disciplinary perspectives is required to understand the whole system. Furthermore, however, because food systems approaches are also characterised as being highly outcome-oriented, engaging with non-scientific actors on the ground in putting an architecture on the process and populating it through the interactive design processes of co-innovation is also critical. Achieving successful collaboration between all the required actors in the food systems is hugely challenging, a challenge that is itself a caveat for systems-based approaches. While its application is not without challenges, social science is a necessary partner in systems-based initiatives (van Berkum et al., 2018) and it also provides valuable knowledge on how collaboration between the scientific and non-scientific actors required for a systems-based approach may be conceptualised, theorised and practically supported.
Social science assists in providing frameworks for understanding different forms of disciplinary collaborations. Where the different forms of collaborative multi-inter-transdisciplinarity (MIT) are concerned, Stock & Burton (2011) explain,
“While the basic principle across all these approaches is similar (i.e. focusing on integrated complex problem solving by crossing disciplinary boundaries) there are often subtle, but significant differences between the terms [multi-, inter- and transdisciplinarity] which mean they cannot (or should not) be used interchangeably”.
Put simply, multi-disciplinarity involves different scientific disciplines (life, social sciences, etc.) working alongside each other and interdisciplinarity involves layering results and conclusions from different disciplines, with little cross pollination of knowledge arising. Transdisciplinarity is vastly more challenging, because, by definition, it,
“is the highest form of integrated project, involving not only multiple disciplines, but also multiple non-academic participants (e.g. land managers, user groups, the general public) in a manner that combines interdisciplinarity with participatory approaches” (Stock & Burton, 2011).
While transdisciplinarity is challenging to achieve authentically (Stock & Burton, 2011), systems-based approaches rely on achieving transdisciplinarity to achieve an accurate understanding of the whole food system, based on integrated understandings of sub-system components. Even in contexts where diverse disciplinary scientists (and professionals) have willingly engaged in cooperative arrangements to work together, significant challenges can arise from their differing epistemological and empirical world-views. Even within branches of science, there can be significant differences between disciplines and fields of study. This is true also of social sciences, where it has been noted that quantitative positivist economics, for example, can face difficulty integrating with sciences dominated by interpretivism, such as sociology and anthropology (Harvey, 2004). Unless deliberate strategies are employed to coalesce their views around mutual topics of interest, the transcendence of disciplinary boundaries (described by Stock & Burton [2011]) is jeopardised. We profile some of these deliberate strategies, in the following section.
In a context where transdisciplinarity is increasingly called for, it remains rare by comparison to multi- and interdisciplinarity approaches, which fall short where the required level of integration for a thorough food systems approach is concerned. In order to move beyond them, social science is a helpful enabler. For example, social network analysis provides an evidence base for understanding who is/not involved in social networks; the extent to which actors are/not connected; the extent to which they knowledge/resource share, etc. (see Figure 1). One of the main cited benefits of taking a systems-based approach is to identify weaknesses and opportunities in the whole system. Social network analysis can identify opportunities and weaknesses in system networks to ensure that all the necessary actors are involved. Figure 1 profiles the range of transdisciplinary actors involved in Ireland’s developing bioeconomy. The inner ring refers to the number of connections each actor holds. The outer ring demonstrates the ability of actors to fulfil the role of broker, connecting other actors to the bioeconomy social network. By illustrating differing proportions of the rings and how the outer ring connects with the inner, Figure 1 identifies the actors who are dominant and the extent of cooperation and contact between different actors.
Social network analysis: Ireland’s bioeconomy. Source: Harrahill et al., unpublished analysis.
Furthermore, at the more micro relational level, social science-based understandings of human value systems are critical for food systems approaches. “People’s values matter for how food systems thinking is shaped” (UN Food Systems Summit, 2021) and social science can not only uncover the values that different actors hold but inform tools to mediate value systems in engendering collaboration. Effective approaches to mediate relationships in networks and human value systems – including in group or collaborative contexts – are informed by theories of power, inequality and social positioning more generally. Gender and diversity are identified as critical for effective systems-based approaches (UN Food Systems Summit, 2021; AgriFood Strategy Committee, 2021) and require strategic advocacy. Tools to continuously evaluate the inclusiveness of networks involved in making systems-based interventions are critical for increasing the rigour of interventions, their impact and the extent to which they adhere to principles of RRI. A toolbox recently produced by the LIAISON Horizon 2020 project is of direct use in enhancing actors’ reflexivity in assessing the inclusiveness of their networks (Figure 2). The toolbox draws from five main methodologies – social network analysis, participatory impact pathway analysis, positive social change, developmental evaluation and social impact management planning. These methodologies are attentive to the network-oriented, relational and reflexive dimensions of transdisciplinary approaches and how processes of innovation within them must employ strategies to be socially responsible. Figure 2 lists the array of individual tools within the toolboxes, which can be used (by wide-ranging scientific and professional actors) to practically enhance the innovation process with respect to improving the rigour of interactivity and transdisciplinarity.
Social science has informed a range of state-of-the-art practical tools to support transdisciplinary work. While participatory modes of working emerged over half a century ago and were practiced originally in developing world contexts, the “multi-actor approach” has been mainstreamed throughout much of Europe’s Horizon 2020 programme and the forthcoming Horizon Europe programme. The MAA, consistent with transdisciplinarity, emphasises the need for non-scientific actors to contribute to development and innovation in order for the development and innovation process to benefit from their knowledges and to ensure the process is relevant to the “real world”. The principles underpinning the approach are supportive of transdisciplinarity and also systems-based approaches. Practical toolboxes to support different actors to work together are available from the range of Horizon 2020 projects that have been operational for over 10 yr. As illustrated in Figure 3, a key challenge is to first engage and incentive actors to become involved (according to their cultural, social and economic values). Scientific and non-scientific actors must be also facilitated to interrogate knowledge sources outside of their own fields, as a necessary step before combining their knowledges. Furthermore, actors must be facilitated to create new innovations, to address problems and troubleshoot and to apply new innovations in new contexts.
Applying social science to projects across food systems: a profile of cases and some caveats for agri-food research
A profile of research and innovation projects: examples of systems-based approaches
In Figure 4, we present a profile of cases that either apply an explicit systems-based approach (e.g. Ploutos and AgroBRIDGES) and those that are transdisciplinary/employ the MAA (e.g. Surveillance, Welfare and Biosecurity (SWAB), safefood AMU, CERERE, BovINE, BioÉire and NIVA). The figure highlights the complexity of the systems approach and the levels of diverse interactions that are required. While the complexity or “messiness” of cross-cutting relationships in transdisciplinary, systems-based approaches may be confounding to many scientists and other actors seeking to engage in such approaches, it is important to note that tools informed by social science are capable of addressing many of the associated challenges. Similar to other systems approaches used to tackle societal challenges (e.g. the Obesity Systems Map), such maps serve to communicate the complexity involved in a systems approach, while at the same time helping to make sense of such complexity and supporting the development of strategies to intervene within complex systems (Vandenbroeck et al., 2007). In line with the food systems approach, all projects profiled make a strategic effort to enhance R&I impact and/or RRI.
The projects applying a systems-based approach focus not only on diverse parts of the food systems discretely, but, critically, on the ways in which these parts inter-relate and are possibly mutually reinforcing where the design and implementation of new initiatives are concerned. Ploutos, for instance, takes “a systems-based approach, looking at the overall impact of changes at any point in the value chain… [It takes an] explicit focus on identifying and creating opportunities for changes that can rebalance the value chain in the agri-food system towards a more environmentally, socially and economically sustainable system” (Ploutos, 2020). In taking a systems-based approach, it includes diverse scientific and professional actors that comprehensively represent many aspects of the food system (Figure 4). This has the ultimate aim of approaching the design of sustainability-oriented changes in the food chain in such a way that accounts for system-wide effects of interventions and trade-offs between parts of the system, etc. Ploutos utilises an EU-wide network of Sustainable Innovation Pilots (SIPs) to co-design/adapt, trial and test new innovations in realistic settings and involving multi-actor participation in a ‘living lab’ approach. While the project is in its first year, the Ploutos SIPs are already producing technologies (such as sensors at farm level) that have been adapted through a process involving farmers, scientists, farm advisors, etc. Incorporating a social science “behavioural innovation“ work package, Ploutos ensures that the innovation process evolves in such a way that is responsive to the needs and value systems of actors involved across the chain, which is necessary for innovation outcomes to be wanted and used by actors and, thus, impactful and socially responsible. That innovations are proofed according to environmental, social and economic sustainability indicators enhances the RRI of the project’s R&I activities.
AgroBRIDGES is another example of a project that employs a systems-based approach. It aims to build bridges between producers and consumers, rebalancing farmers’ market position within the system by empowering them with knowledge about new business and marketing models. It will develop “a holistic, systemic agroBRIDGES Toolbox”, to connect producers and consumers in new business and marketing models for short food supply chains (SFSCs). In doing so, it considers the role of markets (with a particular focus on public procurement), science and technology [particularly information and communications technology (ICT) and digitisation], policies (e.g. relating to agriculture, rural development, food quality, public procurement, labelling), social organisations (networks, communities) and individual practices (including the needs and challenges of primary producers and consumers) as key drivers of the system. Engaging all food system actors, it has built a multi-actor platform in each of 12 diverse regions across Europe. These platforms are connected through one central stakeholder reference group (SRG), comprising one representative per regional multi-actor platform (MAP). The resulting structure and associated activities (including workshops and training sessions) will ensure that a minimum of 400 diverse actors from the agri-food sector across Europe will directly participate in knowledge exchange, co-creating and co-developing project outputs together with project partners. This will ensure potential for pan-European roll-out of solutions that are appropriate to regional contexts. Social science-based approaches are deployed throughout the project with a specific work package dedicated to the development of the multi-actor framework that guides the operation of the project, and analysing the key drivers of the system that will impact the feasibility of the proposed models. The RRI aspect of the project is enhanced through assessing the proposed models according to their environmental, economic and social impact. This will lead to the co-creation of a Multicriteria Decision Assessment (MDA) dashboard to enable users to calculate the “SFSC sustainability” potential of the different models.
Where transdisciplinary/MAA projects are concerned, while they focus on discrete aspects of a number of food systems components, they make explicit and methodical efforts to integrate disciplines and professions. The SWAB of farmed animals project, for instance, is an Irish project targeting a subset of food system components, which are inter-related and mutually dependent when it comes to designing and implementing impactful results. The project incorporates a “TransActions” (transdisciplinarity for action) platform, led by social scientists, where different disciplinary scientists and professions identify “hot topics” of mutual interest, and cross-pollinate their different perspectives, experiences and knowledges in relation to these topics. Following the various multi-actor scenarios of Figure 3, the transdisciplinary team has taken concerted action in co-designing innovative approaches for extension, veterinary practice and for communicating new ideas, knowledge and values to the general farming population. As well as generating impactful, practice-ready outcomes, it is also notable that the diverse pool of collective knowledge of the TransActions platform was holistic, rounded and the discursive process within it kept “silo” thinking in check. In such a way, in addition to SWAB being led by international state of the art where topics such as animal welfare is concerned, the process within the TransActions platform was also supportive of RRI (itself dependent on holistic, comprehensive solutions for society).
Similar to SWAB, BovINE identifies hot topics. In this instance, they reflect European beef farmers’ most urgent needs in addressing economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainability affecting their sector, as identified by themselves. It then uses participatory multi-actor processes to identify solutions from research and practice, blending knowledge from different sources and different levels in terms of readiness for application in practice. Solutions from research are challenged in terms of their potential for application in practice, as well as their potential impact on each dimension of sustainability (economic, environmental and social), through transdisciplinary thematic working groups, national and international multi-actor workshops and evaluation of results from commercial on-farm demonstration. In this way, technologies are progressed along the technology readiness level scale to practice-ready solutions with involvement not only of end users but also of the wide range of actors that may influence its operation and feasibility in practice. Gender aspects are considered throughout, from a pre-proposal participatory workshop where the focus of the project was defined based on personas that included male and female farmers, to evaluation of gender representation within the project consortium and participation in project activities, to the communication and dissemination activities organised within the project and consideration of the relationship between gender and potential uptake of the proposed solutions. It is equally important to take into account other diversity factors such as ethnicity, class and sexuality. The LIAISON evaluation and impact assessment toolbox provides approaches to address these important factors, which if unmitigated can hamper the richness of transdisciplinary, systems-based approaches.
Exploring OneHealth issues in the food system is the aim of the all-island AMU project. This multi-actor project draws together scientists, vets, farm advisors, farmers and supporting actors (e.g. Animal Health Ireland) to develop and progress ideas for improving herd health and reducing the need for antimicrobials on farms. Behaviour change theory and animal health science have been combined with practical and local knowledge through the use of participatory research methods to develop a behaviour change intervention to tackle the issue of antimicrobial resistance on farms. The resultant AMU-FARM intervention will train key practitioners such as farm advisors and vets in specialised communication techniques (motivational interviewing, behaviour change techniques) and empower them to work collaboratively with farmers to make positive farmer-led changes to animal health practices. Using social science methods in this manner allows for the development of bottom-up interventions, which are particularly important where top-down interventions already exist (i.e. the incoming 2022 veterinary medicines regulations). Bottom-up approaches, which bring together multiple expertise and knowledge types, can better prepare the farming community to navigate the changes that will be brought about by legislation, support them through this major transition and empower them to positively engage with change on their terms.
The CERERE project, like SWAB, focused on a subset of the food system, related to the renaissance of heritage and organic cereals. It included diverse actors – ranging from primary producers to end consumers to public artists (Figure 5). The EU-wide project strategically approached its research agenda by not only understanding, through social science research, the various challenges and opportunities from the perspectives of all the various actors, but also incorporated participatory methods to actively stimulate the development of collaborative alliances within the value chain. For instance, a Mind Meitheal approach (Figure 5) was taken, which brought together different actors and presented visually how they may collaborate together to achieve successful results (e.g. a scientist collaborating with a grower; and a grower collaborating with a processor or restaurateur). A “match making” event at a public arts festival (Tulca) involved actors placing colour-coded stickers on their name badges and networking to identify potential partners to combine different resources for achieving their goals. That the event took place at a mainstream festival, with no proprietary link with the agri-food industry, diversified the range of participants involved and increased public attention to the topic of heritage and organic cereals. In such a way, partnering with an arts festival addressed the challenge of bringing more and new knowledge to and augmenting the impact of activities, echoing the call of Harvey (2004) to focus less on “agri” and more on “culture” when aspiring towards more integrated approaches.
An impressionistic diagram of the heritage cereals value chain, Tulca Arts Festival, Ireland.
A sister Horizon 2020 project, SKIN, took another approach in responding to the same challenge of coalescing different actors around common interests for collaborative action. It engaged different disciplinary scientists and professionals in participatory exercises to identify “hot topics” of current and common interest, and once a comprehensive list of topics was identified, different professional and scientific perspectives and ideas were combined to address them.
Impactful results were generated by these projects, including new cultivation of produce that was utilised by influential chefs and restaurants, generating public attention to and new demand creation for the cereals. Environmental integrity and biodiversity were key principles of the project, as was scientific knowledge in efficient crop production and processing. As an example of RRI, CERERE adhered to these principles and good scientific practice, while also relating to the “real world” scenarios of farmers, processors, consumers, etc., generating highly valued, publicised and celebrated outcomes.
Also focusing on specific food systems components is the NIVA project, which is tasked with embedding e-governance in agriculture. This EU project is developing nine interconnected digital innovations to improve the system used to administer and control payments made to farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy. With a strong emphasis on both impact and RRI, the project incorporates an MAA to ensure the development of these technologies in a way that will provide ultimate value to both the agricultural sector and society more broadly. Given the centrality of data to these systems, a work package incorporating social science aligns with RRI principles to explore data governance issues from multiple perspectives and values and to resolve issues of possible contention and inequity. Social science also plays an activating role in the NIVA project with the Irish-led use case embedding a design thinking methodology to develop a geotagged photo app that will more efficiently resolve claim queries by empowering farmers to send digital photos of land parcels in lieu of on-farm inspections. The design thinking methodology has facilitated a co-designing of the app between the NIVA scientists, farmers, farm advisors and DAFM staff, ensuring that the technology itself and the processes surrounding the technology meet the needs of end users and generate a sense of co-ownership amongst the involved actors.
The Irish project BioÉire moved beyond food production, processing, marketing and consumption to address the waste and non-food bio-mass that is produced within the food system. Similar to the projects outlined above, it focused on using social science-based knowledge to design participatory methods to enable multiple actors to co-design a shared vision for the Irish bioeconomy. Working with diverse disciplinary perspectives and multiple actors, it provided clear direction for the Irish national bioeconomy policy statement. Given the evolving nature of the bioeconomy in Ireland and elsewhere, a reflexive exercise was undertaken to reflect on the actors that had been involved in the process (Devaney & Henchion, 2018), and thus to consider which actors would require greater attention in the future. This thinking has informed policy developments at European level, feeding into the Horizon 2020 Commission Expert Group to support the implementation of Bioeconomy Policy Support Facility organised by DG Research and Innovation in 2020. It has also contributed to related public consultations at European level (e.g. the Teagasc submission to the Bio-Based Industries Joint Undertaking [BBI-JU] public consultation on their Strategic Innovation and Research Agenda in 2020). In such instances, the need for greater involvement of innovation intermediaries and primary producers in particular has been emphasised. Current research undertaken within BiOrbic (the Irish bioeconomy research centre) builds upon this work by mapping the social networks, identifying actors who are not currently involved, entry points for such actors, etc. (Figure 1).
Caveats, qualifications and provisos in applying social science-based approaches to implement a food systems approach
At its most fundamental level, implementing a food systems approach within R&I requires supply chain actors’ understanding of, and active engagement in developing, a holistic conceptualisation of sustainability in terms of economic, environmental and social sustainability, and consideration of concepts such as OneHealth, OnePlanet and OneWelfare. The case studies profiled above show how social science-based approaches can assist in this process. However, if implementation of a food systems approach is to be transformative, allocation of time and resources to a social science-based task needs to be sufficient; tokenistic or shallow involvement of actors is not sufficient. While this is so, it should also be acknowledged that social science research typically does not require capital investments in, for example, laboratory equipment, which can make investment relatively low cost and good value for money. Furthermore, social science approaches can activate and enable knowledge exchange, social learning and mutual respect within and across the elements of the system, which adds value to the work of diverse disciplinary scientists. Without these elements, knowledge will not be unleashed and brought together to develop impactful, socially responsible solutions that take account of the different elements of the system. Applications of social science-based approaches in several of the cases profiled in this paper indicate tools that can practically support the MAA, which is conducive to the required intensity of knowledge exchange. Yet for transformation to occur, significant change is likely to be required starting from the definition of a sustainable food system. This is where social science-based approaches have potential to have even more significant impacts. This thinking is implicit within the participatory processes encompassed by the national and independent dialogues in the lead up to the UN Food Systems Summit.
Because the nature and operation of a food system is determined by many factors, not only biophysical characteristics, what constitutes a sustainable food system is likely to vary from place to place. It is important to note also that it is not a purely scientific or theoretical construct. In the context of a discussion on planetary boundaries, which is implicit in conceptualising a sustainable food system, Pickering & Personn (2020) acknowledge the role of science in informing the establishment of a boundary but argue that the establishment of a boundary is a normative judgement. They state that “what is considered tolerable, acceptable or safe will depend on a range of normative or value judgements such as: the intrinsic or instrumental value that society places on the system compared to other social goals; how society values the well-being of the current generation compared to that of future generations; and social preferences about risk aversion”. Following these arguments, it is clear that defining a sustainable food system can be informed by science but it should be conceptualised along the lines of a boundary object or, “a set of arrangements that allow different actors to cooperate on a basic common understanding while keeping the diversity of their views”. To account for such diverse perspectives, it follows that R&I projects that seek to implement a food systems approach need to undertake early and continuous actor and stakeholder engagement. Pre-proposal participatory workshops (such as undertaken in BovINE) and tools that enable participatory impact assessment on an ongoing basis are likely to be relevant.
Implementation of a food systems approach can be considered an innovation in its own right and like any innovation, how transformation towards a more sustainable food system can be achieved will vary. This is because transformations are “inevitably normative endeavours that explicitly (or not) carry with them ideas of desired futures” (Holmgren et al., 2020). Thus, who is/should be involved in defining desirable futures, the values of diverse actors, the instruments that they use to implement the change as well as the nature and extent of change required are key factors to be considered (Devaney & Henchion, 2018). Furthermore, as cautioned by Macken-Walsh (2019), those who will advocate for the co-designed vision within their communities may not be the same as those who were directly involved in the co-design process that created the vision. Consideration of such factors will have a significant impact on how the risks and costs, as well as the benefits, of such a transformation are socially and economically distributed. Pickering & Persson (2020) argue that developing appropriate processes, involving a division of labour amongst experts, citizens and policymakers, to open up space for deliberative contestation about value judgements, enable negotiations about various targets, while safeguarding the ability of experts to issue warnings about issues that they believe reflect unacceptable risks, can enable effective democratic decision-making in such contexts. The NIVA project mentioned above, which integrates considerations of ethical implications of data governance with design thinking methodology used during development of digital technologies, provides some inspiration for such processes.
Elaborating on who is involved in such decision-making requires consideration of not only who should be involved but also who is willing and able to be involved. Democratic legitimacy requires that those who are affected by a decision have the opportunity to participate in deliberations that substantially influence the decision. Supports, from, for example, innovation support services and farm advisory services, may be required to assist actors to occupy the decision-making space. In addition to responding to normative arguments relating to democratic legitimacy, involvement of citizens and other “non-experts” has a vital role in providing practical, local and other forms of knowledge that may not be available to experts and helping to ensure that developed solutions are responsive to their values and preferences, ultimately leading to higher likelihood of acceptance of co-designed solutions. While great care can be taken in identifying and selecting participants to achieve co-creation, there are significant pitfalls where participation and meaningful representation is concerned (Javornicky & Macken-Walsh, 2021). Although the MAA approach has been part of H2020 projects for several years and many tools are available to help with its implementation, its implementation can depend on a “coalition of the willing and able”, that is, actors who are willing and able to contribute and are involved in co-planning, co-creation, co-design and co-decision-making.
The authors of the current paper have experience of research projects, not just those profiled here, that overcome many of the common pitfalls. Where actors were unwilling to share knowledge for reasons relating to commercial sensitivity, lack of trust and conflicting objectives, and where important actors were be unable to participate due to a lack of various forms of capital, these issues were identified, addressed and mediated using social science knowledge. An absence of enabling structures can also be a barrier to knowledge flows and, in this regard, reflexive processes within BovINE resulted in a review of management structures within the project and the establishment of an additional working group. While structures had been put in place to facilitate knowledge exchange between diverse actors, the creation of an additional structure that enabled practitioners to exchange knowledge within their own community resulted in improved knowledge flow. Moreover, it should be recognised that implementing a food systems approach might not be a comfortable process. As highlighted by Macken-Walsh (2019), co-creating interventions that are challenging to society rather than popular are required for RRI in addressing Grand Societal Challenges such as climate change. These are significant barriers to be overcome.
Unexpectedly, in many ways, considering traditional emphases on in-person interaction in participatory innovation processes, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in the adoption of digital tools that can enable greater participation by some actors Gutierrez and Macken-Walsh (2021). For example, several BovINE multi-actor workshops were held through online digital platforms with the transnational meeting in December 2020 held online with simultaneous translation from Polish to English. Ploutos, following the example of EIP-Agri Focus Groups, held multiple online participatory workshops to establish value systems that drive actors throughout sustainable innovation value chains. Online participation allowed many actors who otherwise would be unable to participate (because of time constraints, caring duties and other factors) to engage in interactive innovation; and the low cost of participating online was also identified as a factor conducive to participation (Gutierrez & Macken-Walsh, 2021) While online participation functioned extremely well, availability of internet and computer infrastructure was a pre-cursor for participation. Thus, while one of the arguments in favour of a food systems approach is that it is more likely to result in workable solutions, a consistent argument is that implementation of the approach will require capacity development – in many different ways – to enable stakeholders to become active participants. It also requires consideration of issues such as insufficient time, insufficient competences or participation fatigue (Schneider et al., 2019) as well as trust and confidence-building so as to enable collaboration.
Implementation of a food systems approach has to be able to accept that it is not possible to know all possible outcomes. Hence, implementation will require decisions to be made in the absence of a complete evidence base, thus some failure is inevitable. This needs to be accepted, provided that it is built upon reflexivity and thus feeds into an ongoing process of continuous improvement. Indeed, following the argument of Schneider et al. (2019) that transdisciplinary approaches “seek to accommodate the complexity, uncertainty, and contested nature of current societal challenges as well as to contribute to their transformation”, it is also clear that accepting and communicating about uncertainty is required in implementing a food systems approach. The RRI approach encourages a values-based questioning of the future we collectively desire to see and so, uncertainties about what will unfold as a result of specific R&I trajectories are deliberately anticipated, teased apart and reflected upon before further action is taken. This has been exemplified in the participatory approaches of the SWAB and AMU projects where diverse actors have been facilitated to consider the impacts and practicalities (economic, social and environmental) of changing animal health practices – changes which are increasingly expected from food consumers and citizens, or demanded from policy and regulation. This allows for the development of more targeted supports which explicitly communicate and address these uncertainties and thus, navigate transitions in animal health practices in a more effective, empathetic and equitable way.
Conclusions
There is no doubt that the agri-food sector faces many challenges in providing sustainable diets for the growing global population. These challenges are embodied in targets to address many sustainability challenges set out in the Green Deal, Farm to Fork and other strategies at European level, as well as in policy ambitions and goals associated with the UN Food Systems Summit, the Paris Agreement, etc. at global level. While science and technology can contribute to providing solutions, no single discipline can develop holistic, implementable solutions of the nature and scale required. Social science has a significant role to play in facilitating different disciplinary researchers to work together and to exchange knowledge effectively. This will not only enable synergies to be achieved, it will also enable the identification of trade-offs and unintended consequences that may not come to light readily otherwise. However, more critically in terms of systems thinking and issues relating to just transitions, social science is needed to co-create solutions in a transdisciplinary way to result in solutions that will be deployed in an integrated manner by a diverse range of actors all across the system. This will require a shift in the positioning of social science in many R&I projects, moving it beyond investigative studies/basic research to enabling and activating research impact. This will need to be accompanied by a growing awareness of the contributions of social science by other disciplinary communities and of their own very valuable potential roles in implementing facilitation tools to support multi-actor work (as evidenced in the AMU-FARM project above). In parallel, it will require an appreciation by social scientists that facilitation tools to support multi-actor work, although informed by social science, are not only implementable by social scientists. Thus, while social science/participatory sciences can facilitate implementation of a food systems approach as a basic level, deployment of a food systems approach will only succeed if there is co-ownership of all plans, decisions and actions. Familiarity with principles and tools of multi-actor work will thus be part of the skillset of all impactful agri-food researchers. However, as argued in Schneider et al. (2019) in the context of transdisciplinary research, “far-reaching structural and institutional changes are needed in the way academic organizations are managed, organized, and funded”, in the way research is evaluated (Roux et al., 2010) and the way researchers are rewarded (Regan & Henchion, 2019) to achieve this as current science policy does not favour transdisciplinary modes of knowledge production.
While this paper has largely focused on the publicly funded R&I system, reflecting discussions in relation to research policy, it is recognised that R&I activities receive substantial funds from private and philanthropic sources. Given that the food system approach needs to be applied beyond the publicly funded research domain, it is important to consider the role of social science in such contexts. These authors believe that the frameworks, principles and tools discussed above are relevant for the governance and operation of R&I in such situations also.