2021 | |
Technical Reports | |
1. | Loconto, Allison; Garrido-Garza, Francisco: Formal and informal European quality assurance initiatives offering a connection between local gastronomy and small-scale farmers. 2021. (Type: Technical Report | Abstract | BibTeX | Links: ) @techreport{Loconto2021, title = {Formal and informal European quality assurance initiatives offering a connection between local gastronomy and small-scale farmers}, author = {Allison Loconto and Francisco Garrido-Garza}, url = {https://www.cortext.net/wp-content/uploads/agrikulti_final-report_25-01-2021.pdf}, year = {2021}, date = {2021-01-25}, abstract = {Since the turn of the 21st century, short food supply chains (SFSC) (Renting et al., 2003; Marsden et al., 2000) and values-based food chains (Ostrom et al., 2017) have emerged across Europe as an increasingly popular means to create closer linkages between producers and consumers. While the European Union (EU) average for farms selling more than half of their production direction to consumers is near 15 %, this is distributed unevenly among member nations and is largely restricted to small farms (Augére-Granier, 2016). This report argues that direct sales had minor importance in Malta, Austria and Spain, where supermarkets dominate food retail with more than 90% market share. However, direct sales, traditional specialty shops and food markets are very important in other countries. Direct sales account for 25% in Greece, 21% in France, 19% in Slovakia and around 18% in Hungary, Romania and Estonia (Augére-Granier, 2016). In addition, a nationally representative survey in France found that 42% of consumers had purchased food through a SFSC during the month prior to the study (Loisel et al., 2016). SFSCs are considered to be short based on criteria of social and geographic proximity. Kneafsey et al. (2013) put forward the following definition – based on French ministerial and the European Commission (EC) definitions – in order to separate these initiatives from conventional food chains. “The foods involved are identified by, and traceable to a farmer. The number of intermediaries between farmer and consumer should be ‘minimal’ or ideally nil.” (p. 42). Recent consumer research demonstrates that trust-worthiness of food chain actors and the openness of food manufacturers are strongly related to consumer confidence in food (Macready et al., 2020). Thus, the assumption of SFSC promoters is that this greater transparency translates into greater consumer confidence in producers and as a result more social, equitable and fairer trading practices between producers and consumers. Quality assurance and certification are the most common means used to communicate transparency and openness in both conventional and sustainable supply chains (UN environment, 2017). Prior research demonstrates that there are a variety of ways in which assurance and certification can be organized in order to credibly guarantee quality (Loconto, 2017a). Within this context, the Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture has commissioned AGRI KULTI to develop an information and quality assurance system, that identifies management patterns across the connection of local production and gastronomy, both in Hungary and in the European Union (Food Track project). For this reason, a comprehensive and comparative data analysis is required. Thus, this study consisted of exploring and analysing initiatives, businesses or organizations in the EU that can be classified as SFSCs and that communicate their sustainability quality attributions (e.g., organic, local, healthy, agro-ecological, traditional, etc.) through a variety of forms of certification.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } Since the turn of the 21st century, short food supply chains (SFSC) (Renting et al., 2003; Marsden et al., 2000) and values-based food chains (Ostrom et al., 2017) have emerged across Europe as an increasingly popular means to create closer linkages between producers and consumers. While the European Union (EU) average for farms selling more than half of their production direction to consumers is near 15 %, this is distributed unevenly among member nations and is largely restricted to small farms (Augére-Granier, 2016). This report argues that direct sales had minor importance in Malta, Austria and Spain, where supermarkets dominate food retail with more than 90% market share. However, direct sales, traditional specialty shops and food markets are very important in other countries. Direct sales account for 25% in Greece, 21% in France, 19% in Slovakia and around 18% in Hungary, Romania and Estonia (Augére-Granier, 2016). In addition, a nationally representative survey in France found that 42% of consumers had purchased food through a SFSC during the month prior to the study (Loisel et al., 2016). SFSCs are considered to be short based on criteria of social and geographic proximity. Kneafsey et al. (2013) put forward the following definition – based on French ministerial and the European Commission (EC) definitions – in order to separate these initiatives from conventional food chains. “The foods involved are identified by, and traceable to a farmer. The number of intermediaries between farmer and consumer should be ‘minimal’ or ideally nil.” (p. 42). Recent consumer research demonstrates that trust-worthiness of food chain actors and the openness of food manufacturers are strongly related to consumer confidence in food (Macready et al., 2020). Thus, the assumption of SFSC promoters is that this greater transparency translates into greater consumer confidence in producers and as a result more social, equitable and fairer trading practices between producers and consumers. Quality assurance and certification are the most common means used to communicate transparency and openness in both conventional and sustainable supply chains (UN environment, 2017). Prior research demonstrates that there are a variety of ways in which assurance and certification can be organized in order to credibly guarantee quality (Loconto, 2017a). Within this context, the Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture has commissioned AGRI KULTI to develop an information and quality assurance system, that identifies management patterns across the connection of local production and gastronomy, both in Hungary and in the European Union (Food Track project). For this reason, a comprehensive and comparative data analysis is required. Thus, this study consisted of exploring and analysing initiatives, businesses or organizations in the EU that can be classified as SFSCs and that communicate their sustainability quality attributions (e.g., organic, local, healthy, agro-ecological, traditional, etc.) through a variety of forms of certification. |
2019 | |
Journal Articles | |
2. | Loconto, Allison; Desquilbet, Marion; Moreau, Théo; Couvet, Denis; Dorin, Bruno: The land sparing – land sharing controversy: Tracing the politics of knowledge. In: Land Use Policy, 96 , 2019. (Type: Journal Article | Abstract | BibTeX | Links: ) @article{Loconto2018, title = {The land sparing – land sharing controversy: Tracing the politics of knowledge}, author = {Allison Loconto and Marion Desquilbet and Théo Moreau and Denis Couvet and Bruno Dorin}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.014}, doi = {10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.014}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-01-01}, journal = {Land Use Policy}, volume = {96}, abstract = {Feeding 9 billion people by 2050 on one hand, and preserving biodiversity on the other hand, are two shared policy goals at the global level. Yet while these goals are clear, they are to some extent in conflict, because agriculture is a major cause of biodiversity loss, and the path to achieve both of them is at the heart of a public controversy around ‘productive’ land use and biodiversity conservation. Over the years, the scientific, policy, civil society and agri-business communities have been engaged in producing evidence that can support a land sparing policy (separating intensive agricultural production from biodiversity conservation) or a land sharing policy (integrating the two in larger and more extensive landscapes). This paper contributes to this debate by analyzing land sparing and land sharing (LSS) as a socio-technical controversy. Through the analysis of large and small corpora of scientific, policy, corporate social responsibility and sustainability standards documents we explore the ethical underpinnings and social networks that support the opposing sides of this controversy. We explore these linkages in order to explain how the concept of land sparing achieved dominance in the scientific literature and how the concept has been taken up in international policy, business and civil society circles. We examine the convergences and divergences in alliances between actors in this controversy in order to map how specific actors have promoted the concept of land sparing as the best way to used land for biodiversity and food production.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Feeding 9 billion people by 2050 on one hand, and preserving biodiversity on the other hand, are two shared policy goals at the global level. Yet while these goals are clear, they are to some extent in conflict, because agriculture is a major cause of biodiversity loss, and the path to achieve both of them is at the heart of a public controversy around ‘productive’ land use and biodiversity conservation. Over the years, the scientific, policy, civil society and agri-business communities have been engaged in producing evidence that can support a land sparing policy (separating intensive agricultural production from biodiversity conservation) or a land sharing policy (integrating the two in larger and more extensive landscapes). This paper contributes to this debate by analyzing land sparing and land sharing (LSS) as a socio-technical controversy. Through the analysis of large and small corpora of scientific, policy, corporate social responsibility and sustainability standards documents we explore the ethical underpinnings and social networks that support the opposing sides of this controversy. We explore these linkages in order to explain how the concept of land sparing achieved dominance in the scientific literature and how the concept has been taken up in international policy, business and civil society circles. We examine the convergences and divergences in alliances between actors in this controversy in order to map how specific actors have promoted the concept of land sparing as the best way to used land for biodiversity and food production. |
Technical Reports | |
3. | Loconto, Allison; Silva-Castañeda, Laura; Arnold, Nadine; Jimenez, Alejandra: Participatory Analysis of the Use and Impact of the Fairtrade Premium. 2019. (Type: Technical Report | Abstract | BibTeX | Links: ) @techreport{Loconto2019, title = {Participatory Analysis of the Use and Impact of the Fairtrade Premium}, author = {Allison Loconto and Laura Silva-Castañeda and Nadine Arnold and Alejandra Jimenez}, url = {https://files.fairtrade.net/publications/2019_LISIS_UseImpactFairtradePremium.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-01-01}, abstract = {This study was commissioned by Fairtrade Germany and Fairtrade International. It was carried out by a team of researchers working with the Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée (UPEM) in the Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences Innovations et Sociétés (LISIS). LISIS is an interdisciplinary research laboratory devoted to the study of science and innovations in society and is specifically renowned for its expertise on agri-food systems. It brings together 35 researchers and professors and 30 PhD and postdoctoral fellows from three core research disciplines: science and technology studies (STS), organization studies and digital studies. The project team was led by Dr. Allison Marie Loconto and included Dr. Laura Silva-Castañeda, Dr. Nadine Arnold and Ms. Alejandra Jimenez. The field research for the five case studies was carried out directly by the team. The African cases were conducted by Drs. Loconto and Arnold while the South American cases were conducted by Dr. Silva and Ms. Jimenez. Dr. Marc Barbier provided technical support for the CorTexT and IRaMuTeQ analysis used in this study.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } This study was commissioned by Fairtrade Germany and Fairtrade International. It was carried out by a team of researchers working with the Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée (UPEM) in the Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences Innovations et Sociétés (LISIS). LISIS is an interdisciplinary research laboratory devoted to the study of science and innovations in society and is specifically renowned for its expertise on agri-food systems. It brings together 35 researchers and professors and 30 PhD and postdoctoral fellows from three core research disciplines: science and technology studies (STS), organization studies and digital studies. The project team was led by Dr. Allison Marie Loconto and included Dr. Laura Silva-Castañeda, Dr. Nadine Arnold and Ms. Alejandra Jimenez. The field research for the five case studies was carried out directly by the team. The African cases were conducted by Drs. Loconto and Arnold while the South American cases were conducted by Dr. Silva and Ms. Jimenez. Dr. Marc Barbier provided technical support for the CorTexT and IRaMuTeQ analysis used in this study. |
2018 | |
Journal Articles | |
4. | Nicot, Rose; Bellon, Stéphane; Loconto, Allison; Ollivier, Guillaume: The European networks of research, education and training stakeholders in agroecology. In: Open Agriculture, 3 (1), pp. 537–552, 2018. (Type: Journal Article | Abstract | BibTeX | Links: ) @article{Nicot2018, title = {The European networks of research, education and training stakeholders in agroecology}, author = {Rose Nicot and Stéphane Bellon and Allison Loconto and Guillaume Ollivier}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2018-0058}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-12-05}, journal = {Open Agriculture}, volume = {3}, number = {1}, pages = {537–552}, abstract = {In Europe, agroecology has become the center of many debates that animate political and professional arenas, particularly regarding the definition and scope of the concept itself. This paper attempts to understand the ways that the term agroecology is conceptualized by different participantsparticipants and how these concepts circulate so as to explore the interests at stake in the institutionalization of agroecology within the research and education institutions of Europe. We address the core research question of: what dynamics emerge in the networks of European stakeholders of agroecology? By combining different approaches of institutionalization based on network and discourse analysis, we study the dynamics of research, education and training organizations. We identify 10 different concepts of agroecology, distributed among 103 organizations. The significant difference that has been observed between the agroecological concepts in research and those in education/training emphasizes the gap between these two disciplines. The latter support a more political, transdisciplinary and holistic view of agroecology when compared to the former. Moreover, collaboration among European agroecology stakeholders is limited in both research and education/training. We also found that in most cases, collaboration between scholars does not guarantee a shared notion of agroecology, and conversely, sharing the same notion of agroecology does not assure collaboration. This led us to question the feasibility of institutionalizing agroecology and the missing link between a shared vision and the collective mobilization of stakeholders around a strong agroecology programme.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } In Europe, agroecology has become the center of many debates that animate political and professional arenas, particularly regarding the definition and scope of the concept itself. This paper attempts to understand the ways that the term agroecology is conceptualized by different participantsparticipants and how these concepts circulate so as to explore the interests at stake in the institutionalization of agroecology within the research and education institutions of Europe. We address the core research question of: what dynamics emerge in the networks of European stakeholders of agroecology? By combining different approaches of institutionalization based on network and discourse analysis, we study the dynamics of research, education and training organizations. We identify 10 different concepts of agroecology, distributed among 103 organizations. The significant difference that has been observed between the agroecological concepts in research and those in education/training emphasizes the gap between these two disciplines. The latter support a more political, transdisciplinary and holistic view of agroecology when compared to the former. Moreover, collaboration among European agroecology stakeholders is limited in both research and education/training. We also found that in most cases, collaboration between scholars does not guarantee a shared notion of agroecology, and conversely, sharing the same notion of agroecology does not assure collaboration. This led us to question the feasibility of institutionalizing agroecology and the missing link between a shared vision and the collective mobilization of stakeholders around a strong agroecology programme. |
2016 | |
Book Chapters | |
5. | Tancoigne, Elise; Randles, Sally; Joly, Pierre-Benoît: Evolution of a concept: a scientometric analysis of RRI. In: Lindner, Ralf; Kuhlmann, Stefan; Randles, Sally; Bedsted, Bjørn; Gorgoni, Guido; Griessler, Erich; Loconto, Allison; Mejlgaard, Niels (Ed.): Navigating Towards Shared Responsibility in Research and Innovation: Approach, Process and Results of the Res-AGorA Project, pp. 40-45, 2016. (Type: Book Chapter | Abstract | BibTeX | Links: ) @inbook{Tancoigne2016, title = {Evolution of a concept: a scientometric analysis of RRI}, author = {Elise Tancoigne and Sally Randles and Pierre-Benoît Joly}, editor = {Ralf Lindner and Stefan Kuhlmann and Sally Randles and Bjørn Bedsted and Guido Gorgoni and Erich Griessler and Allison Loconto and Niels Mejlgaard}, url = {http://irihs.ihs.ac.at/3909/1/urn_nbn_de_0011-n-3829371-3.pdf}, year = {2016}, date = {2016-01-01}, booktitle = {Navigating Towards Shared Responsibility in Research and Innovation: Approach, Process and Results of the Res-AGorA Project}, pages = {40-45}, abstract = {Political scientists have considered the complex interac-tions between words and power for a long time. The power of words lies not only in the performativity of language – a typical situation where saying something is doing some-thing – but covers a wide range of means related to sense making, issue framing, and the control of perception and the interpretation of reality. The importance of words of power (meaning powerful actors) may be identified in different mundane operations of political life (i.e. when spin doctors elaborate elements of language) and through well-known operations such as labelling or storytelling. These strong interactions between words and power have been taken into account in various streams of public policy analysis (Fischer 2003). They are also a central theme of policy fiction such as George Orwell’s 1984 which points out the role of “Newspeak” in totalitarian states. Hence, the appearance of new expressions in policy discourse ought to be considered as a symptom of crisis and / or of potential key changes. The case of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is interesting for its own sake but also since it illustrates the key role of the European Com-mission as a political entrepreneur which heavily draws on discourse framing (Schmidt and Radaelli 2004). In this chapter, we question the power of RRI words as well as the use of RRI by powerful institutions. What is the power of RRI, i.e. (to say it roughly) a tool for recasting governance of research and innovation or a tool for washing responsi-bility (Randles et al. 2014)? Who are the actors who define /discuss / promote RRI?}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } Political scientists have considered the complex interac-tions between words and power for a long time. The power of words lies not only in the performativity of language – a typical situation where saying something is doing some-thing – but covers a wide range of means related to sense making, issue framing, and the control of perception and the interpretation of reality. The importance of words of power (meaning powerful actors) may be identified in different mundane operations of political life (i.e. when spin doctors elaborate elements of language) and through well-known operations such as labelling or storytelling. These strong interactions between words and power have been taken into account in various streams of public policy analysis (Fischer 2003). They are also a central theme of policy fiction such as George Orwell’s 1984 which points out the role of “Newspeak” in totalitarian states. Hence, the appearance of new expressions in policy discourse ought to be considered as a symptom of crisis and / or of potential key changes. The case of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is interesting for its own sake but also since it illustrates the key role of the European Com-mission as a political entrepreneur which heavily draws on discourse framing (Schmidt and Radaelli 2004). In this chapter, we question the power of RRI words as well as the use of RRI by powerful institutions. What is the power of RRI, i.e. (to say it roughly) a tool for recasting governance of research and innovation or a tool for washing responsi-bility (Randles et al. 2014)? Who are the actors who define /discuss / promote RRI? |
LIST OF SCIENTIFIC WORKS THAT HAVE USED CORTEXT MANAGER
(Sources: Google Scholar, HAL, Scopus, WOS and search engines)
We are grateful that you have found CorText Manager useful. Over the years, you have been more than 360 authors to trust CorText for your publicly accessible analyzes. This represents a little less than 10% of CorText Manager user’s community. So, thank you!
Below are listed the most active authors with CorText Manager for the past four years.
Top authors |
---|
Top authors |
Jiming Hu |
Aristotle T. Ubando |
Allison Loconto |
Wei-Hsin Chen |
Alvin B. Culaba |
Hongxiu Li |
Pablo Ruiz |
Raphaël Stephens |
Shengli Deng |
Cecilia Rikap |
What types of documents? |
---|
What types of documents? |
76 journal articles |
31 conference proceedings |
12 Ph.D. thesis |
11 reports |
11 book chapters |
8 online articles |
6 masters thesis |
5 conference (not in proceedings) |
4 miscellaneous |
2 workshop |
1 book |