Features of the Atlantic diet and its healthiness: Theory and evidence from social science

In order to understand diets, why and how they change and can be influenced, it is important to understand how food choices are made. The has been the subject of, considerable study within many of the social science disciplines and the humanities. The paper draws on the theoretical and empirical work of psychologists, sociologists, economists, market researchers, anthropologists, geographers and historians to understand better the forces behind food choice, derive some general empirical messages from the literature, to shed light on food choice in a European context and to address the question of whether there is, or has been, a recognisably Atlantic diet. The paper proceeds to analyse the characteristics of the food consumption patterns in the Atlantic diet countries, examines whether their food consumption patterns are homogenous (i.e. similar across the countries of this group), whether they are specific (i.e. different from the ones in other country groups) and finally evaluates the nutritional composition of the Atlantic diet against the WHO/FAO recommendations for a healthy and wholesome diet.

Effective communication to improve udder health: can social science help?

Improved udder health requires consistent application of appropriate management practices by those involved in managing dairy herds and the milking process. Designing effective communication requires that we understand why dairy herd managers behave in the way they do and also how the means of communication can be used both to inform and to influence. Social sciences- ranging from economics to anthropology - have been used to shed light on the behaviour of those who manage farm animals. Communication science tells us that influencing behaviour is not simply a question of „getting the message across‟ but of addressing the complex of factors that influence an individual‟s behavioural decisions. A review of recent studies in the animal health literature shows that different social science frameworks and methodologies offer complementary insights into livestock managers‟ behaviour but that the diversity of conceptual and methodological frameworks presents a challenge for animal health practitioners and policy makers who seek to make sense of the findings – and for researchers looking for helpful starting points. Data from a recent study in England illustrate the potential of „home-made‟ conceptual frameworks to help unravel the complexity of farmer behaviour. At the same time, though, the data indicate the difficulties facing those designing communication strategies in a context where farmers believe strongly that they are already doing all they can reasonably be expected to do to minimise animal health risks.

Embodied social capital and geographic perspectives: performing the habitus

This paper reopens debates of geographic theorizations and conceptualizations of social capital. I argue that human geographers have tended to underplay the analytic value of social capital, by equating the concept with dominant policy interpretations. It is contended that geographers could more explicitly contribute to pervasive critical social science accounts. With this in mind, an embodied perspective of social capital is constructed. This synthesizes Bourdieu's capitals and performative theorizations of identity, to progress the concept of social capital in four key ways. First, this theorization more fully reconnects embodied differences to broader socioeconomic processes. Second, an exploration of how embodied social differences can emerge directly from the political-economy and/or via broader operations of power is facilitated. Third, a path is charted through the endurance of embodied inequalities and the potential for social transformation. Finally, embodied social capital can advance social science conceptualizations of the spatiality of social capital, by illuminating the importance of broader sociospatial contexts and relations to the embodiment of social capital within individuals.

Receptivity to social research by the CGIAR

This paper analyses the way the CGIAR system has incorporated social research in its agenda. Since 1995, the social science staff capacity in the CGIAR has decreased by 24%, and the overall balance of social science research is still significantly tilted away from the core germplasm enhancement, production systems/natural resources management, and technology adoption work - the 'bread and butter' of technology generation and development effort - toward ex-ante and ex-post activities, Further, the bulk of the social science research has low social research content despite the significant expansion of the CGIAR initial goal of increasing the proverbial pile of rice' to poverty alleviation and sustainable food security. The paper concludes that a concerted effort is now required to mainstream social research in the CGIAR system, and this cannot occur without the full support of the CGIAR donors, the CGIAR senior managers, and the centre boards and executive staff.

Models of human behaviour in social-ecological systems

Environmental change research often relies on simplistic, static models of human behaviour in social-ecological systems. This limits understanding of how social-ecological change occurs. Integrative, process-based behavioural models, which include feedbacks between action, and social and ecological system structures and dynamics, can inform dynamic policy assessment in which decision making is internalised in the model. These models focus on dynamics rather than states. They stimulate new questions and foster interdisciplinarity between and within the natural and social sciences.

Rerum cognoscere causas: part II - opportunities generated by the agency/structure debate and suggestions for clarifying the social theoretic position of system dynamics

This is the second half of a two-part paper dealing with the social theoretic assumptions underlying system dynamics. In the first half it was concluded that analysing system dynamics using traditional, paradigm-based social theories is highly problematic. An innovative and potentially fruitful resolution is now proposed to these problems. In the first section it is argued that in order to find an appropriate social theoretic home for system dynamics it is necessary to look to a key exchange in contemporary social science: the agency/structure debate. This debate aims to move beyond both the theories based only on the actions of individual human agents, and those theories that emphasise only structural influences. Emerging from this debate are various theories that instead aim to unite the human agent view of the social realm with views that concentrate solely on system structure. It is argued that system dynamics is best viewed as being implicitly grounded in such theories. The main conclusion is therefore that system dynamics can contribute to an important part of social thinking by providing a formal approach for explicating social mechanisms. This conclusion is of general significance for system dynamics. However, the over-arching aim of the two-part paper is to increase the understanding of system dynamics in related disciplines. Four suggestions are therefore offered for how the system dynamics method might be extended further into the social sciences. It is argued that, presented in the right way, the formal yet contingent feedback causality thinking of system dynamics should diffuse widely in the social sciences and make a distinctive and important contribution to them. Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas Happy is he who comes to know the causes of things Virgil - Georgics, Book II, line 490. 29 BCE

Social theory and system dynamics practice

This paper explores the social theories implicit in system dynamics (SD) practice. Groupings of SD practice are observed in different parts of a framework for studying social theories. Most are seen to be located within `functionalist sociology'. To account for the remainder, two new forms of practice are discussed, each related to a different paradigm. Three competing conclusions are then offered: 1. The implicit assumption that SD is grounded in functionalist sociology is correct and should be made explicit. 2. Forrester's ideas operate at the level of method not social theory so SD, though not wedded to a particular social theoretic paradigm, can be re-crafted for use within different paradigms. 3. SD is consistent with social theories which dissolve the individual/society divide by taking a dialectical, or feedback, stance. It can therefore bring a formal modelling approach to the `agency/structure' debate within social theory and so bring SD into the heart of social science. The last conclusion is strongly recommended.