2a. Mall för bedömning av inkludering och exkludering av abstract
Ja Nej Empirisk studie
Berör gastronomi/culinary arts (förberedelse, produktion, innovation/laboration, tillagning, gestaltning, servering, ätande, inhandling, försäljning av mat) Berör livsmedelssektorn (primärproduktion, livsmedelsproduktion, dagligvaruhandeln, restaurangsektorn, storhushåll, måltidsturism (inhemsk turism))
2b. Mall för inkluderings- och exkluderingskriterier
Artikelnr. Författare _ _ År _
Ja Nej Oklart Språk: engelska
Empirisk studie: Studien bygger på empiriskt material som utgör huvudstommen/fokus av studien.
Gastronomisk forskning Syftet med studien måste vara kopplat till ätande, produktion eller tillagning av måltider. Kan inkludera värdskap (hospitality) som en dimension av måltiden/ätandet/drickande, dvs faktorer som påverkar helhetsupplevelsen av måltiden (FAMM*) Berör gastronomi/culinary arts (förberedelse, produktion, innovation/laboration, tillagning, gestaltning, servering, ätande, inhandling, försäljning av mat) Berör livsmedelssektorn (primärproduktion, livsmedelsproduktion, dagligvaruhandeln, restaurangsektorn, storhushåll, måltidsturism (inhemsk turism)) Originalartikel Vid sensorisk analys:
När sensoriska variabler som resultat från forskning relaterar till produkt samt kopplas till människan (individens härkomst, kulturell bakgrund, attityder, konsumentbeteenden, gillande, etc) och/eller måltidskontext så är det gastronomisk forskning.
Studiens metod:
Kommentarer:
31
2c. Mall för Kvalitetsgranskning
Baserad på SBU 2014, Joanna Briggs Institute (2017) & Nordic Council of Ministers (2011).
AUTHOR(S) TITLE
YEAR ARTICLE NO.
JOURNAL:
TYPE OF STUDY: £ QUALITATIVE (N/A: 2.5) £ QUANTITATIVE (N/A: 2.6, 2.7, 3.4, 4.3) £ MIXED METHODS ASSESSMENT OF STUDY QUALITY: £ HIGH (A) £ MODERATE (B) £ LOW (C)
THEME YES PARTLY NO UNCLEAR N/A
ESSENTIAL CRITERIA FOR
A B C
1. Aim 1.1 Does the study have a well-defined research problem/question? x x
2. Sample
selection 2.1 Is the sample relevant for the aim of the study? x x
2.2 Is the sample composition adequate? (Is it large enough and sufficiently spread out within the sample
population?) x
2.3 Are the sampling procedure and context adequate and described clearly? (“Yes” for A; “partly” ok for B) x (x) 2.4 Are the participants clearly described? (Depending on aim this may refer to the business.) x x 2.5 When the response rate (e.g. in questionnaires) is low (less than 60 %), is the drop-out rate discussed
and managed appropriately? (Quant) x
2.6 Has the researcher described their prior knowledge/cultural belonging in relation to the research topic/
sample? (Preferably in the text, secondly in the author presentation.) (Qual.) x
2.7 Are participants, and their voices, adequately represented? (E.g. when quotes are used, the quotes are
spread amongst the sample) (Qual.) x
2.8 Sensory analysis: When a trained panel is used, is the training procedure adequately described? (“Yes”
for A; “Partly” ok for B) x (x)
3. Data collection/
methodolo gical approach
3.1 Is the data collection clearly described? (“Yes” for A; Almost yes, a strong “partly” for B)
x (x)
3.2 Is the data collection relevant in relation to aim? x x
3.3 Does the author deal with ethical questions? (E.g. regarding ethical approval, informed consent,
relations, bias, vulnerable groups) For A: Preferably a detailed discussion, or mentioned. x
THEME YES PARTLY NO R UNCLEA N/A
A B C
3. Data collection/
methodolo gical approach
3.4 Does the author discuss the level of data saturation? (Qual.)
3.5 A critical reflection about the methodology/data collection is present in the method or the discussion.
(“Yes” for A; “partly” ok for B) x (x)
3.6 Sensory analysis: Sample sequence is clearly described (e.g. randomization). x x
4. Data
analysis 4.1 Is the analysis clearly described? (“Yes” for A; Almost yes, a strong “partly” for B) x (x)
4.2 Is the data analysis relevant in relation to the data collected? x
4.3 A critical reflection about the analysis is present in the method or the discussion. (E.g. how the process
of thematical analysis was derived.) (“Yes” for A; “partly” ok for B) (Qual.) x (x)
5. Results/
discussion 5.1 Are the results logical, coherent and based on the material? (“Yes” for A; Almost yes, a strong “partly” for
B) x (x)
5.2 Are the results clearly described? x
5.3 Do the conclusions drawn in the research report flow from the analysis, or interpretation, of the data? x x 5.4 Are the results presented/critically discussed in relation to previous research/theoretical framework?
(“Yes” for A; “partly” ok for B) x (x)
Yes – Clearly/relevant/sufficient.
Partly – To some extent/elaboration would be preferred.
No – Lacking.
Unclear – When the information is not clearly stated in the article.
N/A - Not applicable, when the question is not relevant for the particular study
COMMENTS
33
2d. Mall för data extrahering
Author, journal etc.
1. Article number 1b Keywords
2. Quality assessment
3. Main author (Surname, First name) 4. Year
5. Number of authors 6. Journal
7. Countries of authors (based on university affiliation) 8. Number of countries represented by authors
9. Number of universities/institutions/companies represented by authors 10. University (or equivalent) of main author
Sampling
11. Quantitative or qualitative?
Quantitative Qualiative Mixed methods Unclear
12. Methods applied (for data collection)
Questionnarie/survey (paper or digital) Interviews
Observations
Participant observations Sensory analysis
Content analysis of texts
“Scraping”/collecting information from online platforms/webpages Experimental research design
Other
13. Country/ies were the research is conducted (e.g. sample population) 14. Sample size
15. Sensory analysis: Which type of test(s)
16. Does the researcher use culinary arts professionals in the investigation? (e.g. chefs) Yes – involved in the experiment/study design
Yes – as participants
Yes – both in design and as participants No
17. If yes, what type of professionals?
Aim and contents
18. The aim is related to gastronomic research by addressing eating/production/cooking of meals.
May include hospitality as a dimension of the meal/eating/drinking, e.g. factors influencing the overall experience of the meal (FAMM - room, meeting, product, atmosphere, management control system)
The eating of meals
The production of meals (e.g. farming, food industry) Cooking of meals
Hospitality N/A
19. Involves gastronomy/culinary arts through:
Preparation/planning of meals Production of foods
Production of meals
Innovation/laboratory experiments Cooking food (including the craftmanship)
The design/illustration/staging of the food/meals (e.g. setting the room, table layout, dish design)
Serving the meal
Eating (including drinking) Purchasing food/meals Selling food/meals
20. Which parts of the food sector is represented in the sample The primary production
The food industry Food stores/wholesale
Restaurants/food services (including cafes, catering, large scale kitchens) Meal tourism (primarily domestic tourism)
The consumer Other
21. Main focus area of the article
Culinary arts – cooking, development of techniques Sensory analysis (e.g. product development) Tourism
Hospitality/FAMM (service, serving, meal experience, menus…) Eating/drinking in restaurants or similar)
Food sourcing/purchasing (e.g. restaurant or producer perspective) Local food
National cuisine/identity Other
22. Whose perspective is in the focus of the article?
The primary production The food industry Food stores/wholesale
Restaurants/food services (including cafes, catering, large scale kitchens) Actors within the tourism sector
The consumer Research/academia
23. Does the article explicitly address sustainability? (using "sustainability"/"sustainable development" or similar)
24. If yes: How is sustainability addressed?
25. Is gender raised as a question (e.g. in aim or conclusion)?
26. Does the article address digital/online issues?
27. The empirical material is based on:
Contemporary material (contemporary with the study) Historical material (e.g. archive material, older data sets) Both contemporary and historical material
Analysis/results/conclusions
28. Qualitative studies: Theoretical framework (e.g. discourse analysis, Bourdieu, FAMM)
35
29. Main conclusions
30. Reflections - what does this article contribute with for the understanding/contribution of gastronomic research in the food sector