Geographical Indication Building Process for Sharr Cheese (Kosovo): “Inside Insights” on Sustainability
, Jimmy Balouzat 3, Elise Chau 3, Alice Garnier 3, Stéphanie Lequin 4, François Lerin 3 and Ahmet Veliji 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear editor and authors,
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review the paper proposal entitled “Geographical indication building process for Sharr Cheese (Kosovo) ‘Inside insights on sustainability”, which tackles different topics and concepts (I’ll get back to this point) including sustainability, Geographical Indications (GI) definition processes, embedded research, international regimes. The paper is subdivided into five sections: a short introduction that defines GI; a second that, as far as I understand, sets the research question; a third that details the method used; a fourth that presents the results, a discussion and a conclusion. My main concern is what I would define as a lack of clear objective. In my opinion, the paper is too broad in terms of information presented, concepts used. I believe this article suffers from a lack of purpose, which, despite the interesting information and the original action research approach, entails the clarity of the paper.
Before jumping to more detailed comments, I would like to make explicit that despite my familiarity with the French language, my understanding of the paper may have been weakened by the frequent inclusion of French words (even if they are most often italicized) and straight translations of French sentences and wording. The most striking examples are the frequent utilization of acquis communautaire, or Table 1 which obviously contains French words, or even sentences here and there that sounds straight translations from French sentences. This wording obviously fosters confusion. Another striking example is the utilization of the word step in the subtitles of the results section, which suggests a chronological analysis of the different steps undertaken by the GI stakeholders to design their GI. However, the contents of these subsections sound more analytical with an attempt to define transversal themes such as learning and anchoring. I highly suggest to improve the English language of their paper to foster understanding.
I am also not convinced by the first two sections, the small introduction and the second section (which I understand as a section that aims to define the research section). After a brief presentation of GI (introduction), the authors develop a second section within which they state that ‘sustainability goals are during a GI building process arises as an essential point of analysis’ (l. 97/98) and also ‘how environmental sustainability of Sharr Cheese GI emerged from a strategic knowledge brokering process and intensive institutional work’ (l.115-116). In line with these statements, my expectation was to read an analysis centered on environmental sustainability, the emergence of institutional arrangements, tensions among stakeholders, and the implementation of conflict resolution processes. Although the paper provides some information about these points, it is diluted among other information which dims the purpose of the paper. I believe the authors need to better define the intent of their paper and eventually take time to distinguish several topics and write as many papers as identified topics.
My next comment follows up on the previous comment. The results section is disproportionately big compared to the size of the paper. While the paper comprises 22 pages (excluding appendices and references, 10 are devoted to the results. Several observations:
- At first sight, the utilization of the word step in the subtitles indicates the authors chose to use a chronological analysis (which is strengthened by the inclusion of years). However, the subsections seem to refer to different issues such as learning, durability of the collective action, which indicate a more transversal/meta-analysis of the results.
- The results are very descriptive and do not reflect much the necessary back stepping to generalize empirical observations. The authors indicate using embedded research without defining the concept precisely. To what extent is different/similar to action research? Grounded theory?
- A reference to Dewey’s pragmatism can be found early in the paper and also in the conclusion. Although this sounds consistent with the implementation of embedded research, strengthening connections between Dewey’s pragmatism and the authors’ consideration of place-based approaches would most likely help frame the paper.
- Although the content of the subsections of the results section tends to demonstrate an effort to generalize the empirical observations, the information is too descriptive, which lengthens the subsections and kind of confuses the readers. Many information are in my opinion contextual and deserve to be moved to either the introduction or the method and data section.
- In my experience, while action research/grounded theory implies a heavy data collection and the immersion of the researchers within their context, the research papers gain from maintaining a more structured/conventional format. The detailed understanding of the context gained during the immersion is not a result per se, but remains a contextual element to be mentioned as such in a scientific article.
Given that the results section is more focused on the design and implementation of the GI and, at the same time, tends to display an interest for a critical analysis of the impact of the experimental spaces utilized during the design/implementation process (perhaps there are already here two analyses that would benefit from being distinguished), I believe the authors should reframe the introduction and literature review sections in order to streamline the sections of their paper.
- If the focus is on the design/implementation process, the authors could focus on learning processes, anchoring mechanisms and mediating agents, which means the introduction could focus on the benefits of GI while the literature review could focus on the challenges encountered during the design/implementation of a GI.
- If the focus is on the implementation of experimental spaces as a tool to foster the durability of GI, the authors could present the theoretical bottom-up approach that characterizes the design/implementation of GI and then focus on the benefits of action research/grounded theory to foster such a bottom-up approach
- If the focus is on environmental sustainability, then the authors could detail in the literature review the environmental challenges/benefits of GI and analyze specifically the environmental challenges/benefits encountered during the design/implementation of the Sharr cheese GI.
In conclusion, I would really suggest the authors to sort out the information they present in the results section since an effort of generalization is needed. For instance, I do not understand the role and interest of the long list of funding secured by the authors. The geographical descriptions are also a bit baffling and convoluted. The information describing the EU inclusion of Kosovo are also a contextual element that can be mobilized to discuss the results if deemed relevant but not a result per se. A potential solution could be to add more appendices. Finally some sentences sound like subtitles and I wonder whether this is due to the submission platform or intentional.
Author Response
|
Before jumping to more detailed comments, I would like to make explicit that despite my familiarity with the French language, my understanding of the paper may have been weakened by the frequent inclusion of French words (even if they are most often italicized) and straight translations of French sentences and wording. The most striking examples are the frequent utilization of acquis communautaire, or Table 1 which obviously contains French words, or even sentences here and there that sounds straight translations from French sentences. This wording obviously fosters confusion. Another striking example is the utilization of the word step in the subtitles of the results section, which suggests a chronological analysis of the different steps undertaken by the GI stakeholders to design their GI. However, the contents of these subsections sound more analytical with an attempt to define transversal themes such as learning and anchoring. I highly suggest to improve the English language of their paper to foster understanding. |
The ^paper has been fully reviewed by an English native speaker. |
|
I am also not convinced by the first two sections, the small introduction and the second section (which I understand as a section that aims to define the research section). After a brief presentation of GI (introduction), the authors develop a second section within which they state that ‘sustainability goals are during a GI building process arises as an essential point of analysis’ (l. 97/98) and also ‘how environmental sustainability of Sharr Cheese GI emerged from a strategic knowledge brokering process and intensive institutional work’ (l.115-116). In line with these statements, my expectation was to read an analysis centered on environmental sustainability, the emergence of institutional arrangements, tensions among stakeholders, and the implementation of conflict resolution processes. Although the paper provides some information about these points, it is diluted among other information which dims the purpose of the paper. I believe the authors need to better define the intent of their paper and eventually take time to distinguish several topics and write as many papers as identified topics. My next comment follows up on the previous comment. |
Section 1 and 2 have been merged and simplified. Problematization has been specified.
|
|
The results section is disproportionately big compared to the size of the paper. While the paper comprises 22 pages (excluding appendices and references, 10 are devoted to the results. Several observations: |
The result section has been considerably reworked, as to provide greater clarity. We maintain to keep it long, as an illustration of a Deweyan Inquiry, in which knowledge and action are two face of the same coin. |
|
· At first sight, the utilization of the word step in the subtitles indicates the authors chose to use a chronological analysis (which is strengthened by the inclusion of years). However, the subsections seem to refer to different issues such as learning, durability of the collective action, which indicate a more transversal/meta-analysis of the results. The results are very descriptive and do not reflect much the necessary back stepping to generalize empirical observations. ·
|
Indeed, our situated narrative breaks up into different “phases” which are both chronological and conceptual. This provides a reflective account of the boundary work we performed as embedded researchers in this GI-building process. We show how its “design” has progressively evolved through time – and what has been produced in term of collective action arrangements.
|
|
· The authors indicate using embedded research without defining the concept precisely. To what extent is different/similar to action research? Grounded theory? |
Embedded research is defined in section 2 – from line 133 to 162. Indeed, embedded research is closed to action research, but differs from the dual accountability of the researcher (l. 145) |
|
· A reference to Dewey’s pragmatism can be found early in the paper and also in the conclusion. Although this sounds consistent with the implementation of embedded research, strengthening connections between Dewey’s pragmatism and the authors’ consideration of place-based approaches would most likely help frame the paper. |
Our conceptual apparatus could be clarified as such : - Dewey’s pragmatism – epistemological level - Organizational studies (device, boundary work, experimental space, regimes) – analytical level - Embedded research: narrative + descrpition– method level
|
|
· Although the content of the subsections of the results section tends to demonstrate an effort to generalize the empirical observations, the information is too descriptive, which lengthens the subsections and kind of confuses the readers. Many information are in my opinion contextual and deserve to be moved to either the introduction or the method and data section.
|
Descriptive elements within section 3 has been extensively reworked as to provide greater generalization. |
|
In my experience, while action research/grounded theory implies a heavy data collection and the immersion of the researchers within their context, the research papers gain from maintaining a more structured/conventional format. The detailed understanding of the context gained during the immersion is not a result per se, but remains a contextual element to be mentioned as such in a scientific article.
|
L. 207 and 208 exemplify our epistemological stance, from a methodological perspective : there is no “context” per se, but context is a “construct”, resulting from an “Inquiry” : an intentional knowledge brokering activity. “Therefore, we construct a situated and processual description of what is usually considered a context or an empirical setting.”
|
|
Section 4 – Discussion explain the added value of this article: - on the debate about sustainability dimension of GIs - on the methodolgocial debate on how assessing environmental devices (l. 645 è 740) |
|
In conclusion, I would really suggest the authors to sort out the information they present in the results section since an effort of generalization is needed. For instance, I do not understand the role and interest of the long list of funding secured by the authors. The geographical descriptions are also a bit baffling and convoluted. The information describing the EU inclusion of Kosovo are also a contextual element that can be mobilized to discuss the results if deemed relevant but not a result per se. A potential solution could be to add more appendices. Finally some sentences sound like subtitles and I wonder whether this is due to the submission platform or intentional. · |
Section 3 – results has been thoroughly reworked in that sense. Geographical descriptions shortened or presented in a more problematized way. List of projects/fundings make explicit the ‘embedded context” of the research teams, as it usual to do it in such papers. |
Reviewer 2 Report
line
11 France ; ⇒ France;
12 Kosovo ; Kosovo;
13 France ; France;
15 @cirad.fr ; Tel: @cirad.fr; Tel.:
39 marketplaces” 1 . marketplaces” [1].
51 markets 2 . markets [2].
52 linked 3, 4 . linked [3,4].
Please, correct your reference numbers of the manuscript according to the Instructions for Authors: In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3].
100 This this This
115 prsent present
119 3. Materials and Methods 3. Materials and Methods
156-157 four-year period, from 2015 to 2019. it is five-year period
179 Méthod Method
215 4. Results: 4. Results:
320 km2 km2
343 28,000ha 28,000 ha
351 documented [ 43-46 . documented [43-46].
403 Source : authors, from 35 . have to be below the table
Table 1.
- French words (Mixed - pas de traite estivale bovin * Lait, Viande, Mixte) have to be translated on English language
- what means * (suckler cattle *sheep milk or Mixte traite estivale bovin *Lait)
- meaning of the SRC abbreviation have to be written below the table
- words in the table write on a same way, for example by lowercase except Sharr
- values of the Economic output (A-K) have to be written on a same way, for example 11 750 €/year
529 Sources : (a) 29 (b) 47 . have to be in the next row, below the title of Figure 3.
568 2nd 2nd
602 5. . Discussion 5. Discussion
610 ex ante ex ante
611 ex-post ex post
616 aspects ; aspects;
621 researches details researches details
629 endogeneous endogenous
641 ex ante ex ante
684 7. Conclusion 6. Conclusion
716-721 use initials instead of full first and last names
730-731 Source : AIDA, 2019. have to be below the table
29 Jan. 2016 (in the first column of the table) align left
734-897 Please, correct your list of references according to the Instructions for Authors
734 Gangjee, D. S., Gangjee, D. S.
2015 2015
735 Cleary, J., Cleary, J.
737 Tregear, A., Tregear, A. etc.
Author Response
The manuscript has been fully reviewed in order to address all typo errors, as well as to substancially review the english language. MDPI style has been download. List of references has been update and corrected.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear editor and authors,
I would like to thank the authors for their revisions. I agree with the authors that the embedded approach is original and deserves special attention. In that case, the research object becomes more of an opportunity to highlight the interests of Dewey’s approach, which is original and fills a gap in the literature.
Consequently, I would advise the authors to strengthen their description of Dewey’s approach. Section 2.1 and 2.2 deserve more theoretical back up and articulation. I believe the authors can greatly contribute to the literature by making more explicit the interests of Dewey’s approach (especially at the light of similar approaches such as (participatory) action research, research co-design and co-construction, community-based research, for instance).
Sections 2.1 and 2.2 are currently lacking theoretical references and, more concerning, readers who are not familiar with Dewey’s approach may have difficulties to grasp the interests of such a method. I believe the authors would greatly contribute to the literature if they adopted a pedagogic stance that would highlight the interests of Dewey’s approach.
Then the Sharr cheese label design and implementation would be used as an opportunity to exemplify, and empirically validate, the conclusions made in the method/literature section. Streamlining the method description with the results presentation would then strengthen the analytical stance, which in my opinion is still too descriptive. The results describe the phases the stakeholders went through but there is no strong critical analysis of the benefits of the adoption of Dewey’s approach.
As far as I remember, the journal of mixed methods research has published studies that intend to demonstrate the interests and limitations of methodological approaches. Perhaps the authors could refer to these articles to rework their own manuscript.
Minor comments
- I found several definitions of boundary work, is it possible to state a definition of boundary work in your work?
- The utilization of the concept of “indigenous (l.120) cheese” sounds a bit exaggerated given the historical context of Kosovo. It may hinder its utilization by colonized people in other parts of the world. Perhaps coining a term including local or origin or tradition (which is done on line 121) would be more reasonable.
Author Response
Once again, we would like to thank you for your comments and usefull guidelines. We tried our best to answer them.
|
I would like to thank the authors for their revisions. I agree with the authors that the embedded approach is original and deserves special attention. In that case, the research object becomes more of an opportunity to highlight the interests of Dewey’s approach, which is original and fills a gap in the literature. Consequently, I would advise the authors to strengthen their description of Dewey’s approach.
Section 2.1 and 2.2 deserve more theoretical back up and articulation. I believe the authors can greatly contribute to the literature by making more explicit the interests of Dewey’s approach (especially at the light of similar approaches such as (participatory) action research, research co-design and co-construction, community-based research, for instance). Sections 2.1 and 2.2 are currently lacking theoretical references and, more concerning, readers who are not familiar with Dewey’s approach may have difficulties to grasp the interests of such a method. I believe the authors would greatly contribute to the literature if they adopted a pedagogic stance that would highlight the interests of Dewey’s approach.
|
To better frame the demonstration, the last part of introduction have been slightly reworked (lines112 – 155) – in order to be more specific while announcing the plan.
Section 2.1 and 2.2 have been reworked – cf. track mode, to be more didactic on the use of a Deweyan epistemological perspective. Going back to “Logic: The Theory of Inquir”y, we detailed the main step/features of a pragmatic inquiry (l.187 – l. 200)
– and their consequences in terms of method (embedded research) and type of boundary work performed (li. 2014 -231) As well as in terms of results production (narration and description) – 2.3 l; 234 -240).
|
|
Then the Sharr cheese label design and implementation would be used as an opportunity to exemplify, and empirically validate, the conclusions made in the method/literature section. Streamlining the method description with the results presentation would then strengthen the analytical stance, which in my opinion is still too descriptive. The results describe the phases the stakeholders went through but there is no strong critical analysis of the benefits of the adoption of Dewey’s approach.
|
Our main point is to show that description and narration are part of the results themselves – produced by and in a specific experience (brokerage activities of embedded researchers ) -> the account itself of how the design of “experimental space” was able to produce and validate “agro ecological descriptive elements” to be included in the specifications, is in itself a demonstration of how the inquiry performed, both on the “social/collective” strategic stance as well on the “agro-écological” accountability of the product. |
|
As far as I remember, the journal of mixed methods research has published studies that intend to demonstrate the interests and limitations of methodological approaches. Perhaps the authors could refer to these articles to rework their own manuscript. · I found several definitions of boundary work, is it possible to state a definition of boundary work in your work?
|
Definition of boundary work is included l. 112 to l. 123 – brokerage activity is part of boundary work – and a way to perform the inquiry on GI sustainability “from inside”. |
|
· The utilization of the concept of “indigenous (l.120) cheese” sounds a bit exaggerated given the historical context of Kosovo. It may hinder its utilization by colonized people in other parts of the world. Perhaps coining a term including local or origin or tradition (which is done on line 121) would be more reasonable.
|
You are perfectly right. Indigenous has been deleted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors and editors,
Thank you for your edits.
Best regards,
Mikaël
