In the research project, Medialog, a mixed participatory method, was applied to improve mutual understanding between consumers and chain actors in the French beef supply chain. This article presents a mixed methods evaluation of this participatory method using a SWOT analysis. The evaluation reveals several strengths of the participatory method such as dialogue and flexibility, as well as opportunities for wider application, for example, growing interest in multidisciplinary research and public involvement. However, identified weaknesses, such as quality of participants and time-consuming nature, and threats, such as lack of interest among policymakers and competing methods, should be monitored. The participatory method is found to be suitable to study various subjects and objects, particularly related to food consumption and supply chains.
AbelsonJ.ForestP.-G.EylesJ.SmithP.MartinE.GauvinF.-P. (2001). Deliberations about deliberation: Issues in the design and evaluation of public consultation processes: A review of public participation and consultation methods (Research Working Paper, 01(04)). Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis.
2.
BeierleT. C.KoniskyD. M. (1999). Public participating in environmental planning in the Great Lakes region (Discussion Paper 99-50). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
3.
Bergeaud-BlacklerF.Paola FerrettiM. (2006). More politics, stronger consumers? A new division of responsibility for food in the European Union. Appetite, 47, 134-142.
4.
BrugesM.SmithW. (2008). Participatory approaches for sustainable agriculture: A contradiction in terms?Agriculture and Human Values, 25(1), 13-23.
5.
CameronR. (2009). A sequential mixed model research design: Design, analytical and display issues. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3, 140-152.
ChessC.PurcellK. (1999). Public participation and the environment: Do we know what works?Environmental Science & Technology, 33, 2685-2692.
8.
ChilversJ. (2007). Deliberation competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33, 155-185.
9.
ChristT. (2010). Teaching mixed methods and action research: Pedagogical, practical and evaluative considerations. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 643-676). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
CollinsK. M. T.O’CathainA. (2009). Ten points about mixed methods research to be considered by the novice researcher. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3(1), 2-7.
11.
CornwallA.JewkesR. (1995). What is participatory research?Social Science & Medicine, 41, 1667-1676.
12.
CreswellJ. W.GarrettA. L. (2008). The “movement” of mixed methods research and the role of educators. South African Journal of Education, 28, 321-333.
13.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conduction mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
DanielsS. E.WalkerG. B. (1996). Collaborative learning: Improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16(2), 71-102.
15.
de BarcellosM. D.KüglerJ. O.GrunertK. G.Van WezemaelL.Perez-CuetoF. J. A.UelandO.VerbekeW. (2010). European consumers’ acceptance of beef processing technologies: A focus group study. Innovative Food Science and emerging Technologies, 11, 721-732.
16.
DengC.-Y.WuC.-L. (2010). An innovative participatory method for newly democratic societies: The “civic groups forum” on national health insurance reform in Taiwan. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 896-903.
GauvinF.-P.AbelsonJ. (2006). Primer on public involvement. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Health Council of Canada.
19.
JanuszewskaR.ViaeneJ.GheysenC.De SteurD. (2009). Strategic options for regional products as a tool for regional development. Bulletin UASVM Horticulture, 66, 260-267.
20.
LangerJ.AlfirevicN.PavicicJ. (2005). Organizational change in transition societies. Hampshire, England: Ashgate.
21.
LeechN. L.DellingerA. B.BrannaganK. B.TanakaH. (2010). Evaluating mixed research studies: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 17-31.
22.
LeusieM.AlessandrinA. (2005, October). Les technologies agro-alimentaires face aux conceptions des consommateurs: le bien-être animal [The agro-food technologies meet consumer conceptions: The animal welfare]. Paper presented at the Colloque SFER Au nom de la qualité, ENITA, Clermont-ferrand, France.
23.
MacKenzieN.KnipeS. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16, 193-205.
O’CathainA. (2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Towards a comprehensive framework. In TashakkorieA.TeddlieC. B. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 531-555). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
PettsJ.LeachB. (2000). Evaluating methods for public participation: Literature review. Bristol, England: Environment Agency.
27.
PidgeonN. F.PoortingaW.RoweG.JonesT. H.WallsJ.O’RiordanT. (2005). Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision making: The case of the 2003 British GM nation? Public debate. Risk Analysis, 25, 467-479.
28.
ReasonP.BradburyH. (2004). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In ReasonP.BradburyH. (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 1-12). London, England: Sage.
29.
RoweG.FrewerL. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 3-29.
30.
RoweG.FrewerL. J. (2004). Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology & Human Values, 29, 512-557.
31.
RoweG.FrewerL. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30, 251-290.
32.
RoweG.Horlick-JonesT.WallsJ.PidgeonN. (2005). Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: Reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? Public debate about transgenic crops. Public Understanding of Science, 14, 331-352.
33.
SabbeS.VerbekeW.Van DammeP. (2009). Analysing the market environment for acai (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) juices in Europe. Fruits, 64, 273-284.
34.
ShmueliD. F.PlautP. O. (2004). Translating public participation into planning policy: The Israeli experience. In Levi-FaurD.Vigoda-GadotE. (Eds.), International public policy and management. Policy learning beyond regional, cultural and political boundaries (pp. 395-422). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
35.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 12-28.
36.
Van WezemaelL.VerbekeW.KuglerJ. O.de BarcellosM. D.GrunertK. G. (2010). European consumers and beef safety: Perceptions, expectations and uncertainty reduction strategies. Food Control, 21, 835-844.
37.
VerbekeW. (2001). Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat revisited after the Belgian dioxin crisis. Food Quality and Preference, 12, 489-498.
38.
VerbekeW.FrewerL. J.ScholdererJ.De BrabanderH. F. (2007). Why consumers behave as they do with respect to food safety and risk information. Analytica Chimica Acta, 586(1-2), 2-7.
39.
VitaleD. C.ArmenakisA. A.FeildH. S. (2008). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods for organizational diagnosis: Possible priming effects?Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 87-105.
