Study context and design

The focus of this research is to critically examine the discourse of responsibility in the food system and in doing so, to deconstruct how different actors allocate responsibility within that discourse. There is an emphasis, in UK government policy, on individuals’ responsibility for healthy dietary behaviour and

corporations’ responsibilities in food production and promotion (DoH 2011b).

This research, therefore, looks at the way each of these parties – government, consumer advocacy groups and experts – are themselves constructed and how they represent responsibility for healthy eating, and the limitations on it.

As explained in Chapter 2, a complex systems framework has informed this research; it provided a framework for what to look at; an important aspect of this is looking at relationships between actors or parts of a given system. Diez Roux is emphatic that it is a “requirement” of public health researchers to make explicit the relationships within a complex system, whereby “biology interacts with environments and individuals interact with each other and with

environments over time” (Diez Roux 2011, p.1627). It is a goal of this thesis to untangle an aspect of these issues in the food system, with regard to its contribution to dietary behaviour: that of the perceived responsibility of different stakeholders. Indeed, the ‘messy’ connectivity between stakeholders, the unpredictable nature of different actors’ behaviours, the seemingly

inconsistent choices, and who is responsible for what, have not been investigated previously.

Relational inquiries do not offer easy answers; if anything, they may further deepen the ‘complexity’. But to simplify the associations between dietary choice by members of the public, the food system and health outcomes would be to do them an injustice. Qualitative methods can help reveal details and people’s subjective experiences with their environments, not captured by surveys, questionnaires or other quantitative methods (Diez Roux 2002). The potential value of this research is highlighted by the paucity of qualitative information on contextual determinants of health behaviour (Oakes, Masse et al. 2009). Much research on responsibility and health has so far been from a more philosophical or legal perspective (e.g. Wikler 2002; Schmidt 2009); or relevant research has been on more detailed minutiae within the food system such as the merits of different food labels (e.g. Roberto et al. 2012).

The construction of responsibility is, de facto, a qualitative, subjective matter and therefore calls for appropriate methods that can elucidate details and subjective experiences that would not be found using questionnaires or other quantitative methods (Denzin & Lincoln 2005, p.3). Thus, methods were required to help ‘make sense’ of the concept of responsibility, to deconstruct the discursive formations that underpin it, and to question its seemingly axiomatic use in relation to dietary practices. Qualitative methods – within a complex systems framework – using Foucauldian discourse theory, are ideal for doing so (see the next section for more on this). This is because such methods of enquiry provide a route into exploring “human environments, individual experiences and social processes” (Hay 2010, p.4). Discourse research into responsibility for healthy eating in the food system can offer insights not previously tapped in public health, policy or food sociology research. The way responsibility is represented is significant in the generation and practice of public health policy. So it is important to understand the way it is discursively produced as a type of ‘knowledge’ (Hall 2001a; see section 3.2) and how such a discourse in turn influences the ascendancy of particular political, corporate or individual conduct.

The discourse of responsibility for healthy eating was explored qualitatively using various data, in three stages, shown in Figure 3.1. Firstly, publicly available representation of the concept of responsibility in government and corporate discourse was examined through the analysis of selected documents published by members of those two sectors. Drawing on this work, the second phase comprised eight focus groups conducted with members of the public.

Subsequently, stage three involved one-on-one interviews, used to discuss responsibility with representatives from the food industry and government – architects of the food system (as described in the Chapter 2) – as well as with consumer advocacy representatives and food-health experts. This process meant that each stage helped to inform subsequent discussions and the iterative process means that “there is a repetitive interplay between the collection and analysis of data” (Bryman 2004; p399).

Figure 3.1: Stages of data collection and analysis Stage 1 Document selection

Stage 1a Document analysis

Stage 2 Focus groups with members of the public

Stage 3 Interviews with government, industry and experts Stage 3a Analysis of focus group and interview dataset

Foucauldian discourse analysis was carried out on the documents and the data generated in the focus groups and interviews. While the documents

represented a formal, carefully considered depiction of responsibility, the interviews were more spontaneous (although many contributors were probably providing relatively well ‘rehearsed’ arguments), and focus group contributors provided views from the general public. The three elements come together to create an overall impression of the discourse of responsibility in the food system, indeed, “the use of multiple methods, or triangulation, reflects an attempt to secure an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question”

(Denzin & Lincoln 2005, p.5). Details on the choice of the methods, the sampling and analysis will be given in the relevant sections, throughout the rest of this chapter.