Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Pre-print examines exclusion in food systems research collaborations, suggesting multifaceted mechanisms create barriers to diversity.
This deliverable examines how exclusion operates in food systems research and innovation collaborations. It conceptualises and empirically analyses the mechanisms that support or hinder epistemic and social diversity within a Food-oriented Knowledge and Innovation System (FOKIS). The findings are based on a literature review of epistemic exclusion and diversity in academic and research collaborations, as well as in-depth empirical studies, including case studies of four European food systems collaborations and focus group discussions (FGDs). The central argument is that exclusion in collaborative research is rarely the result of individual bias or overt gatekeeping alone. Rather, it emerges as a patterned outcome of interacting mechanisms embedded in funding structures, governance arrangements, epistemic norms and everyday interaction practices. These mechanisms shape who can participate, whose knowledge counts, and whose contributions become durable. The literature review organises exclusion mechanisms into three analytically distinct but interconnected areas: (1) valuation infrastructures, which determine what counts as credible knowledge; (2) integration regimes, which allocate participation and decision-making rights; and (3) interaction orders, which shape how voice, authority and confidence are negotiated in practice. Across these areas, exclusion is produced through processes such as filtering, tokenistic inclusion, uneven translation burdens and the internalisation of hierarchical norms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hasnain et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: