Chefs and researchers: Culinary practitioners' views on interaction between gastronomy and sciences

Author’s Accepted Manuscript Chefs and researchers: Culinary practitioners’ views on interaction between gastronomy and sciences Erik Fooladi, Anu Hopia, Daniel Lasa, Carlos Arboleya www.elsevier.com

PII: DOI: Reference:

S1878-450X(18)30147-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2018.11.003 IJGFS124

To appear in: International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science Received date: 6 October 2018 Revised date: 12 November 2018 Accepted date: 15 November 2018 Cite this article as: Erik Fooladi, Anu Hopia, Daniel Lasa and Carlos Arboleya, Chefs and researchers: Culinary practitioners’ views on interaction between gastronomy and sciences, International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2018.11.003 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Research paper

Chefs and researchers: Culinary practitioners’ views on interaction between gastronomy and sciences

Erik Fooladi*, Department of Science and Mathematics, Volda University College, Norway Anu Hopia, Faculty of Medicine, Functional Foods Forum, University of Turku, Finland Daniel Lasa, Imago, food driven group, Donostia San Sebastián, Spain Carlos Arboleya, BCC Innovation, Technological Center in Gastronomy, Donostia San Sebastián & Basque Culinary Center, Mondragon Unibertsitatea, Donostia San Sebastián

*Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract Recent years has seen an increase in collaboration between academics and artisans in the field of gastronomy. Accounts have been given both in research reports and elsewhere, often as recurring stories framed as best-practice examples or stories of success and innovation. In the work herein, we have sought to study the conditions, possibilities, and limitations of such collaborations in depth. Theoretically, the work is framed in various forms of disciplinarity (inter-, multi- and transdisciplinarity), seeking to shed light on collaboration between, or across, disciplines and professions. The empirical material consists of answers received from 43 food professionals from Finland (9), Norway (8), Spain (15), USA (11), to an online survey concerning their views of interaction/collaboration between chefs and researchers, i.e., gastronomy and sciences. The study follows a mixed-methods design in data collection and analysis, featuring both quantitative survey data and written accounts. The results indicate that the chefs, most of which already have experience with such collaboration, are knowledge-oriented, innovation-oriented, and expressly positive to crossdiscipline/cross-profession collaboration. Furthermore, they believe that both chefs and researchers may benefit from such collaboration, and the majority believe they would personally be able to contribute to the work of researchers. Lack of time and resources are stated as main obstacles, but not unanimously. Other barriers to collaboration are getting in touch with researchers, disruption in a hectic and high-paced workday, and domain-specific language/discourse. The results are discussed in relation to modes of collaboration across and between disciplines as well as existing research on science and gastronomy.

Keywords: Collaboration, culinary science, dialogue, science and gastronomy, survey, transdisciplinary

Introduction

Preparation and enjoyment of food are by nature multi- or transdisciplinary phenomena. From the rearing of animals and sowing of seeds, via harvest to be considered as food, to cooking and until the last mouthful has been swallowed, several academic disciplines, crafts, and possibly arts will have had their say.1 Hence, if we wish to shed light on the complex phenomena of cooking and eating, the possibility is present for cooperation across disciplines. And if we have the desire to develop the phenomena further, such cooperation might be a fruitful path to take. Based on our experience in this type of collaboration we are intuitively convinced about the productiveness of such inter-domain dialogue. We believe that we need more examples from a variety of culinary contexts, as well as structured discussions to fully explore the various possibilities. Such dialogue can occur between professionals from different domains, but conceptually it is also possible to envisage an “epistemic inter-domain dialogue” between knowledge domains within one individual or within a single profession, e.g., as described by Borkenhagen (2017) when chefs in high-level modernist-oriented environments acquire scientific knowledge and seek to integrate it with tradition-derived culinary knowledge and practices. When two or more such enterprises search for ways to work together, at the same time seeking desired benefit for their own mission, they would ideally search for a mutual language to allow for productive dialogue. Consequently, challenges may arise, or even stand in the way for dialogue to occur in the first hand. In the work reported in the present paper, we describe an attempt to shed light on such dialogue via an online survey distributed to chefs in four different countries asking them about their views on interaction and collaboration between chefs and researchers. The overarching aim is to describe understandings, experiences, and views among food professionals related to such collaborations, and inherent possibilities and challenges therein. To our knowledge, this is the first in-depth, structured survey on attitudes, opinions, and views of chefs from several countries about the role of science and inter-domain collaboration in their work. It includes views from a diverse group of respondents from various culinary contexts and professions, e.g., including culinary educators, and not solely molecular cooking-/modernist cookingoriented practitioners. Even though it is intuitively to be expected that dialogue is a desirable thing when asking or observing practitioners in the field, this remains to be studied and discussed in relation to relevant theory. A deeper understanding of these issues might thus support productive practices and reveal pitfalls and obstacles for dialogue. The survey was distributed in January 2017, reaching 86 respondents and receiving 43 answers from respondents in Finland (9), Norway (8), Spain (15), and the United States (11). 1

Herein we use “discipline” not only for academic subject domains, but also to include arts, crafts, and professions.

The 43-item survey was designed to give access to quantitative as well as qualitative indepth data. The present paper mainly describes the quantitative results together with part of the qualitative, focussing on descriptive accounts as well as the respondents’ stated views on dialogue and collaboration. The results are framed in a theoretical perspective of forms of disciplinarities (Ramadier, 2004).

Interdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity When dealing with phenomena that transcends disciplinary boundaries it may be beneficial to take a meta perspective of that studied. From the perspective of urban studies, Ramadier (2004) describes distinctions between various notions of disciplinarities as displayed in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Disciplinarities as illustrated by Ramadier (2004, p. 433). Boxes indicate disciplinary boundaries; shaded area represents the issue/phenomenon under study. Reprinted with permission.

A disciplinary (unidisciplinary) perspective would reduce the issue at hand to something understood solely from the perspectives and knowledge of a single discipline. Cooking, eating, and related culinary practices are such complex phenomena that we do not consider this to be a productive perspective, as initiatives such as the Gastro-Science-Chef symposium, or the existence of the present journal, would be redundant. Hence, we assume that there is consensus that crossing or fusing disciplinary boundaries is seen as both desired and necessary and that a unidisciplinary perspective is not sufficient. The second possibility, multidisciplinarity, is described as the juxtaposition of perspectives/models from the different disciplines. E.g., each discipline elucidates one part of the issue, and as complimentary to each other the disciplines together seek to paint a composite picture, or perhaps mosaic without mixing. Disciplinary thinking is in essence maintained, rather than challenged, and “thus it is no surprise that multidisciplinarity encourages the creation of new sub-disciplines […]” (Ramadier, 2004, p. 434). Also, as indicated by the shaded areas in Fig. 1 representing the phenomenon/issue under study, this is limited or reduced to something to be described within the confines of the disciplines.

Interdisciplinarity is described as two or more disciplines together “seeking to construct a common model for the disciplines involved, based on a process of dialogue between disciplines” (p. 433). In practice, this is achieved by transfer, or borrowing, of models, understandings and tools from one discipline to others. The result is either some participating disciplines being forced to submit under models/thinking of others, or that some disciplines appropriates/borrows perspectives from others. Some must sacrifice their perspectives to take a subservient role in the dialogue, resulting in an uneven basis for

dialogue. In both inter- and multidisciplinarity, paradoxes are avoided since perspectives, models and tools are either used side by side, or borrowed and applied in new domains.

A transdisciplinary perspective seeks to preserve various perspectives on the issue and rather confront them with each other. Paradoxes may, or will, arise but rather than several perspectives working side-by-side without much intermingling (multidisciplinary), or one perspective taking control (interdisciplinary), they are confronted in dialogue. Thus, consensus is not necessarily a main goal, but rather the search for articulations. The aim will be to “avoid reproducing fragmentary models typical of disciplinary thinking” (p. 434), but still acknowledging the “different realities” (ways of thinking) whilst at the same time challenge the parties to readjust their perspectives. In our view, a transdisciplinary thinking should therefore, as far as attainable, seek to avoid reducing a complex issue to something that can be described within the confines of certain disciplines, as indicated by the shaded area transcending the box boundaries in Fig. 1. Also, the door is held open for disciplines not yet included, or even envisaged, to shed light on the issue at hand.

Several new concepts, fields, or disciplines, have appeared as result of collaboration between chefs, researchers, artists, and artisans. Molecular gastronomy is an obvious, and somewhat contested, term (e.g., Barham et al., 2010; Blanck, 2003; Pedersen, 2007; van der Linden et al., 2007). This (2002) has explicitly stated that molecular gastronomy is a discipline within food science. In Ramadier’s (2004) terms, this would be considered as either interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary. Still, elsewhere, the joint works of researcher This and chef Gagnaire (e.g., This and Gagnaire, 2008) displays clear patterns of transdisciplinarity, as the work of the researcher appears to be influenced and perhaps modified by the chef, as well as the other way around. In the wake of debates around molecular gastronomy, and the need to expand perspectives, terms such as “neurogastronomy” (Sheperd, 2012) and “gastrophysics” have been introduced. The latter “places itself as an emerging new scientific and molecular-based (sub)discipline at borderlines between soft-matter physics and chemistry, culinary sciences, and food chemistry” (Risbo et al., 2013). Like neurogastronomy, it includes perspectives from sensory science and experimental psychology, such as (multi)sensory experiences, and crossmodal correspondences (e.g,. Møller, 2013; Spence & Blumenthal, 2017). Also here, there appears to be a wide variety of modes of collaboration and disciplinarities in the adjoining and newly coined fields, which is quite natural as modes of collaboration will depend on the issue at hand, the people involved in the collaboration, funding models, and so forth. The main body of research publications on these issues hitherto have been from the perspective of the researcher. In the present paper, we have sought to bring forth the voices of the practitioners, although the borderline between chef and researcher occasionally appears blurred when chefs take the role as researcher and vice versa. The topics we have sought to elucidate were: 

Which attitudes, opinions, and views do chefs state with respect to possible collaboration with researchers?

  

From the chefs’ perspective, which conditions may stimulate collaboration between disciplines? Which key challenges and obstacles do the chefs see for such collaboration to occur? Where are the promising potentials to be found?

Methods and materials The term “chef” has been used here to broadly cover a professional either in the active role of professional cook at some level, but still including those with culinary education working with food and cooking albeit not necessarily in a restaurant (see Fig. 2). Thus, we do not use the term in its specific sense “head of kitchen”, but we use the term in the sense that it may cover a person educated in the field as well as a person having a specific professional role. The latter may include persons with or without formal culinary education, as one avenue into professional cooking is by working one’s way up through the system.

Fig. 2. Respondents’ workplaces (more than one choice possible for each respondent).

Data collection Research data were collected early 2017 by an online survey sent as link in an e-mail message, allowing respondents to answer using computer or handheld device (QuestBack online survey solution, www.questback.com). The respondents were given various questions types, including multiple choice (more than one answer possible), rating questions (one answer possible), dichotomous, and text-box questions (Cohen et al., 2007). The complete survey is included in the supplementary material. The survey consisted of a maximum of 43 items, some of which were branching questions depending on the respondent’s answer to a prior question. Piloting the survey indicated a maximum of ca. 30 minutes answering time.

The sample Respondents were recruited via convenience sampling within the professional networks of the researchers, and to a minor extent snowball sampling within the immediate respondent group (Bryman, 2008). Out of 86 distributed invitations, including one reminder to those not responding after the first distribution round, 43 respondents (50%) completed the survey. The sample represented a broad spread in age, spanning from less than 25 to above 65 years of age, with almost 80% being between 25 and 44 years old. Around two thirds of the sample were male. Work experience as cook/chef spanned between less than five years (7%) and more than 31 years (9.3%), with just above 80% covering 6-30 years. Geographically, the respondents spread rather evenly across the four countries, with 9 respondents based in Finland, 8 in Norway, 15 in Spain, and 11 based in the United States.

At the time of the survey, the respondents reported to work in a broad range of places (more than one response possible), including a variety of restaurant styles, culinary education at secondary and tertiary level, and “other” (Fig. 2). The category “other” (16%) included, food writers/journalists (1), entrepreneurs (4), consultancy and R&D (1), and food styling (1). All were, however, known to either work as, or have education as cooks.

Respondents’ reported culinary education is spread across basic (secondary) culinary education (12), post-secondary/tertiary culinary education (22), and self-educated cooks combined with restaurant work experience (5). Around a quarter (11) have non-culinary education in addition to their formal training or work experience as cooks, including business school (marketing, economy and management/administration), waiting or sommelier, engineering, design, R&D, psychology, chemistry, music, language, health/nutrition, food safety, food culture, humanities, and one with medical degree. Seven respondents report education as vocational/culinary teachers, whilst three respondents did not answer the question about additional education (Q39).

Validity, reliability, limitations and ethical considerations The working language in the project was English and the survey was initially created in English. Translations were subsequently produced by members of the research team, being native speakers of Finnish, Norwegian, and Spanish/Castellano, respectively. A pilot of the survey was distributed to three evaluators within the segment of the respondent group in the three translated languages to test the questions and response alternatives for clarity and possible ambiguities. No major or severe ambiguities were revealed, and the survey was revised (including the English language version) according to the feedback without further piloting.

The limited number of respondents combined with the fact that convenience sampling was used as recruitment method places strong limitations on generalizability of the results. This procedure, being a non-probabilistic sampling method (Bryman, 2008), does not ensure a representative sample of chefs, be it geographically, across or within professional or restaurant styles/segments, or otherwise. Results that, in the case of a representative/probabilistic sampling method, might have been used to map views and opinions amongst chefs (e.g., by work place, geography, and so forth) are instead used as descriptive of the sample. Hence, questions such as the respondents’ use of theoretical/scientific information, their use of non-conventional technologies, ingredients etc., serve as a backdrop to which the respondents’ opinion-oriented answers can be viewed. The spread in age and workplace is considered a certain strength as the survey might be seen to cover more than one style and culture of workplace. However, this spread also results in low reliability when filtering data to look for age-dependent or workplacedependent correlations. Thus, correlations and filters are kept to a minimum. Finally, it should be born in mind that convenience- and snowball sampling among one’s own network might promote a bias among the respondents to please the authors behind the survey, so-

called demand characteristics bias (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 410). Hence, care should be taken e.g. when interpreting positive responses.

The project has been approved by the Norwegian Data Protection Official for Research (NSD), the Ethics Committee at University of Turku, and The Ethics Committee of Clinical Research of the Basque Country (CEIC-E). Respondents’ consent was ensured as the survey was voluntary, where the invitation letter clearly stated that the results were to be used in scientific publication, but that anonymity is secured as no information to identify individuals or individual workplaces would be included in publication of the results.

Data analysis QuestBack online software was used for generation and distribution of survey, whilst Microsoft Excel and integrated QuestBack tools were used for data analysis and display. Due to the limitations for generalization mentioned above, statistical calculations of quantitative data are kept to a minimum and mostly stated as percentages, number counts, or proportions. Thus, the design may be considered as a semi-quantitative mixed methods design with a concurrent quantitative and qualitative data collection where the two have equal status. This is followed by a sequential quantitative and qualitative analysis (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The data analysis step can be considered explanatory in which the qualitative results are used to shed light on the quantitative findings (as opposed to exploratory, where the qualitative is the starting point to inductively generate codes and categories followed by quantitative analysis). In a final exploratory data reduction step, seeking for patterns in the respondents’ many written statements, the qualitative data are coded, counted and grouped into inductively generated categories, resembling a grounded approach where the categories are drawn from the data rather than being pre-defined (Cohen et al., 2007).

Results

We will present descriptive results of the respondent group as a backdrop, subsequently presenting results that allow for a discussion against this backdrop. A selection of diagrams not included in the paper is given in the supplementary material.

The chefs’ use of non-traditional technologies and ingredients The respondents were asked about their use of non-traditional technologies and tools; frequency of use, whether they find it useful in their work, and if they could give as many examples as they could (Q8-Q10). A majority report that they use this frequently, almost 70% report daily use and nearly 85% at least once a week. A great majority (90%) finds such

tools and technologies useful (response 5 or 6 on a 1-6 rating scale), whereas four respondents find it moderately useful (response 3 or 4). We expected that respondents’ exemplifications would give a picture of the breadth of technologies used, as well as their views of which technologies are considered non-traditional (a tool considered nontraditional or avant-garde in one period or context may be seen as standard equipment in another time or context). Thirty-six (84%) respondents exemplified such technologies in their use, listing at least 50 different technologies and tools in total. Among the most frequently mentioned were immersion circulators/sous vide (27), siphon (16), Paco Jet (14), precision scale (14) and vacuum or low-pressure cooking (13). Some respondents mentioned methods synonymously with “technology”, such as the use of enzymes and fermentation. Also, tools and methods that might be considered (historically) “traditional” whilst not “conventional” in restaurant kitchens, in a certain segment or gastronomic culture, were mentioned, such as brining, fermentation, smoking (smoke gun), use of coal and live fire.

Seventy percent of the respondents reported that they use daily “ingredients or raw materials that you consider ‘non-traditional ingredients’ (Examples: lecithin, alginate, xanthan gum, citric acid, liquid nitrogen, insects, moulds, fermented ingredients etc.)”, and almost 80% report using such once a week or more frequently (Q13). This resembles the answers to the question about use of technologies and tools. More than two thirds (68%) find such ingredients useful (response 5 or 6 on a 1-6 rating scale), but the spread across the scale is flatter compared with the corresponding question related to technologies and tools (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Responses to Q9 and Q14: “To what degree you find such [non-traditional] technology [blue, left] / ingredients [green, right] ingredients useful in your work as chef?"

When asking the respondents to give examples we are most likely appealing to respondents’ first thoughts rather than carefully going through all their shelves and drawers for ingredients and technologies. Thirty-two written responses were received (74%), giving more than 40 different examples (including statements such as “plus many others” or “all kinds of texturizers”). The mentioned ingredients can roughly be divided into five main categories, albeit with blurry and overlapping boundaries: texture- and stabilising agents, flavour/taste/aroma ingredients, “fermenteds”, unconventional ingredients harvested from nature, and “other”. Two respondents replied that they try to avoid or restrict the use of unconventional ingredients due to the nature of the occupation (e.g., teaching in lower secondary school), whereas three answered that they use “all/most of them”. Among the examples given, texture- and stabilising ingredients constitute the dominating group accounting for more than half of the examples, mentioned around 80 times. The most prominent are xanthan (mentioned 16 times), lecithin (10), alginate (9), agar (7), carrageenans (4), methyl cellulose (4), maltodextrin (4), foaming agents, transglutaminase, edible films etc. The second largest group is the, broadly speaking, fermented ingredients with at least 16 mentions. This includes general statements about “fermenteds/ferments”

(8), milk ferments (3), spores/bacteria/fungi (3), vinegar mother, scoby, koji and fermented grains, miso, kimchi, garum, and soy sauce. Several of these are specified to be produced or developed in-house (e.g., soy sauce and koji). The third largest group is unconventional ingredients or foods harvested from nature (12): unconventional or forgotten herbs, shoots, leaves and sprouts, seaweed and (phyto)plankton, seafood outside or on the fringes of the traditional value chain (snails, ocean quahog/clam, by-catch), and more general statements about exotic plant materials/thickeners (e.g., “difficult to remember [them] all in a short time”). The fourth group includes flavourings (10 in total, acids being most prominent): various acids, sugars (can also belong to the texturiser category), concentrated aromas, vinegar powder. Finally, liquid nitrogen (5), dry ice (4), and dyes and colourings (2) make up the last group. As for tools and technologies, notions of what falls within or outside “nontraditional” is a matter of perspective, and what is considered a standard ingredient by one person or in one place, might be considered unconventional or exotic by/in another.

Respondents’ use of theoretical/scientific and “other types of” knowledge The respondents were asked how often they use theoretical or scientific information (Q5). The answers span evenly between monthly (28%) to daily (37%), with more than 70% using such information at least once a week. The follow-up question asking for which types of information sources are used (cf. Fig. 4) indicates a broad range including digital, analogue, and dialogic approaches. All respondents report using books, and internet is prominently present. The category “Other” includes other chefs, and online articles. Almost half (48%) state that they use collaboration with researcher as source for information, which clearly gives indications towards the respondent group not being foreign to such dialogue.

Fig. 4. Responses to Q6: “Which sources to theoretical/scientific information do you use? (more than one choice is possible)".

When asked to specify which sources they use (Q7, not mandatory, 22 responses), molecular gastronomy literature is prominently present among the books, examples including authors as This (general reference to the author), McGee (e.g., 2004, but also general reference to the author), Katz (2013), Pedersen (2002) and Myhrvold et al. (2011). Culinary textbooks, encyclopaedia and books by celebrity chefs/restaurants are also clearly present. Web-based resources are described both in general terms, such as “Instagram”, “YouTube”, and “videos about science and food”, and some are specified, such as ChefSteps, named blogs and web sites/articles (Ideas in Food, Khymos, Nordic Food Lab, Serious Eats, HarvardX Science & Cooking web resources, Cooking Issues, Grythyttan at Örebro University, Norwegian Centre for Science Education, Modernist Cuisine etc.). Specific references to research journals are not prominent but mentioned by four respondents as “novelties from journals” (ambiguous response), Gaceta Dental, “scientific papers”, and “publications of experts from the topic”.

The survey also included two questions aimed to elicit thinking that concerns the use of knowledge from other scientific domains than just natural- and life sciences (Q11-Q12). The question was formulated “Use of other kinds of knowledge/science: in your work, do you use or do you consider to use research from other fields of science, like social sciences, humanities and arts? (focus on either the product or the dining environment). Examples: art and sound, element of surprise, language/stories, playing with the senses, etc.”. Compared with the question relating to natural- and life sciences the response distribution is somewhat flatter across the alternatives from “Never” to “Daily”. Almost 40% of the respondents stated monthly or less, whilst around 55% respond once per week or more. Although examples were given in the question formulation, this question might appear somewhat more ambiguous than those about natural-/life sciences and technology. It is also possible to envisage that such perspectives, albeit not novel per se, have received less attention in the explicit multi-/transdisciplinary perspectives on culinary practices. Thirty-one respondents answered when asked to give examples (Q12, not mandatory). Inductive analysis of this resulted in 18 groups as displayed in Table 1.

Table 1. Chefs’ exemplifications of how they use “other” (non-natural science) types of knowledge/science in their work (Q12). Crossmodality, multisensory correspondences (13) Soundscapes, music (11) Image, visual arts, photography (10) Emotions; nostalgia, memories, surprise (8) Illumination and visuals (6) Literature, narratives, poetry (6) Environmental sciences, agriculture, food origins (5) Anthropology, sociology (4) Design (4) The world around, geography, landscape (4)

History, tradition (3) Olfaction, the use of scents (3) Architecture (2) Educational interdisciplinarity (2) Wine and food (1) New or foreign cultures (1) Fashion (1) Politics (1)

Specific collaborations were mentioned six times, including collaboration with performing artists, actors, music bands, cultural institutions, academic institutions, and companies. This question evoked different types of responses as compared with natural science-oriented sources; few referred to specific persons or books, and the examples given were on a more general level than those related to natural-/life science sources.

Respondents’ statements about collaboration with researchers In a dichotomous question all respondents answered positively to whether they saw benefits for chefs and researchers working together on food and cooking (Q18, “don’t know” allowed). Hence, the potentially interesting follow-up question of why the respondent thinks there are not such benefits (Q22) was not activated for any of the respondents. On the

question whether they had own experience in collaboration with a researcher or researchbased organisation (Q26, “don’t know” allowed), 34 respondents (79%) confirmed this whilst the remaining nine stated that they did not have such experience. We find no clear pattern or correlation between workplace and stated experience with such collaboration (cf. Fig. 5).

Fig. 5. Crosstabulation of respondents’ workplace with stated experience with collaboration with researchers (Q18).

The respondents replying “yes” were given a follow-up question about whether such collaboration had been useful to their work as chef, of which all replied positively except for one replying “don’t know/not sure” (Q27). The follow-up question “Could you explain why such collaboration with researcher(s) was not useful?” was hence not activated (Q29).

The nine respondents stating that they did not have experience with such collaboration were allowed to give reasons for this (Q31). None answered that they were not interested, and the responses spread evenly across not knowing how to establish contact (10 responses) and the lack of time and/or resources (4+4 responses).

In a text-box question all respondents of the survey were asked which benefits chefs might have from collaborating with researchers (Q19). Thirty-nine written responses were given with 20-25 different types of suggestions. These can broadly be divided into the categories “understanding/knowledge”, “improved…”, “new…” and “other”, with relation to topics such as raw materials, final dishes, processes, methods, and general knowledge. This is displayed in a contingency table (Table 2). Collaboration with farmers (breeding and farming), artisans (novel tableware by potters/ceramicists), and artists (musicians producing tailored music/soundscapes, artists in general helping to expand one’s perspectives) was also mentioned by one respondent. Another stated that studies of materials and processes at the molecular level are detached from the chef’s everyday work and thus a challenge for collaboration (further discussed below).

Table 2. Chefs’ exemplifications of the benefits in collaborating with researchers (Q19). Categories

Processes and methods in preparation and treatment of food (physical, chemical, etc.)

Understandi ng and knowledge

Improved, enriched, increased

20

2

New, novel

Other

Sum

22

Food quality, shelf life, health, nutrition, nutritional value Raw materials, ingredients and food products General knowledge and understanding Scientific methods, procedures and thinking Textures and structure in food and dishes Techniques, work processes and tools

Dishes, ideas, applications Knowledge forms, exchange of epistemic perspectives Creativity Senses, multisensory perception Flavour in foods/dishes Fermentation, aging Fun

2

8

7

1 (better use of)

10

1

9

6

6

6

6 6

6

4

2

1 (access to special equipment)

5

4

4

1

3

2

2

2

2 1

1 1

1 1 1

Since collaboration is a two-way endeavour, we wanted to allow the chefs to give their views on which benefits they think researchers might have from collaboration with chefs (Q20). Thirty-five answers were received, broadly categorised into 13 different groups (Table 3).

Table 3. Chefs’ exemplifications of the benefits for researchers in collaborating with chefs (Q20). No. Possible benefit for researcher Count Reality orientation of day to day work of practitioners, link science to practice, 1 understanding needs and demands, things not working in theory may work in 13 practice 2 Cultural enrichment, expansion of worldview, procedural and tacit knowledge 7 Popularisation, communication, media attention, social recognition for science 3 7 and research 4 Practical solutions to problems, contextualising research in real life, expanded 7

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

possibilities, finding a purpose for one’s research Sensory assistance, focussing on taste and flavour Commercialisation of ideas and research New foods and products New ideas and answers New research questions and topics, develop new fields of experimentation New tools and applications of existing tools To test and experiment together Fun Health benefits for consumers

4 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

Related to the previous question, the respondents were asked whether they thought they could themselves contribute to the work of researchers (Q23). A great majority (39 respondents, 91%) replied positively. One respondent answered negatively whereas three were undecided (“I don’t know/I’m not sure”). Thirty respondents (70%) gave written comments to which ways they believe they could contribute (Q24, Table 4), giving rise to 16 categories of which 11 are also found among the statements of how researchers may benefit from collaborating with chefs (Table 3).2

Table 4. Chefs’ exemplifications of how they could themselves contribute to the work of researchers (Q24). Statements in common with those about how researchers may benefit from collaboration with chefs (Q20) are referenced to items numbers in Table 3. Chef’s contribution to research(er) Testing/application of scientific knowledge and tools in culinary context Practical and method skills, experience from kitchen and food context Provide visions, perspectives (culinary, philosophical etc.), dreams Sensory assistance and feedback focussing on taste and flavour Provide (real) aims, common challenges, research questions Provide arena/field for experiment and research (with real-life customers) Commercialisation and commercial product development Partner for conversation/dialogue, learning together The respondent does, or plans to do, own research Insight into consumers and consumer habits Passion, persistence and goal achievement focus Popularisation of science and research Career opportunities Insight into aesthetics and design 2

Count 12

Cf. Table 3 1, 4, 10

11

1

7 6 5 4

2 5 4, 9 1, 4

3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1

6, 7 2, 11

3

Yet another question seeking to probe deeper into this did not give any relevant answers (Q25, “We would like to understand this better. Could you help us by commenting this?”). We thus assume that the matter was exhausted by questions Q20 and Q24.

Making the work of researchers more enjoyable “Shake the small circles where the scientist may have [become] stuck”

1 1

12 2

Turning now to the 33 respondents who reported useful experience in collaborating with researchers, 27 used the opportunity to give written comments to the question “Could you give examples of one or more such useful collaborations?” (Q28, Table 5). This indicates a wide variety of topics, modes of collaboration and perspectives on collaboration. Some clearly result in specific products or procedures, others represent sharing or joint development of knowledge. It is apparent that the examples include collaborations where the benefit goes both ways.

Table 5. Chefs’ exemplifications of own collaboration experiences with researchers (Q28). Examples of collaborations Count Collaborations with named researchers or academic institutions >15 (computing/software, literature, music, natural- and life sciences, philosophy) Development and testing of novel raw materials and ingredients 11 Development and design of food products and dishes 9 Knowledge exchange, getting answers to one’s questions, expand one’s imagination and horizons (chef learning from researcher: 6, researcher learning 8 from chef: 2) Development and optimisation of process and food treatment procedures 6 Developing textures and shapes in products and dishes 4 Sensory evaluation by chef of research outcomes, research on sensory evaluation 4 Collaboration with industry and commercial/culinary R&D centres 3 Crossmodal correspondences, multisensory perception 2 Marketing and distribution of products 2 Traceability, product quality, shelf life 2 Workshops 2 Co-authoring 1 Cooking competitions/contests 1 Equipment/machinery design 1 History 1 Networking/contacts 1 Teaching 1 Cost versus benefit in collaboration between chefs and researchers Since collaboration across disciplines and professional circles may be considered to involve challenges and obstacles, we found it relevant to include the respondents’ cost-benefit considerations. In the case that respondents replied positively to Q18, “Do you see any benefits for chefs and researchers working together on food and cooking?”, a follow-up text-

box question was given asking which costs there might be in such collaboration (Q21). Thirty-five responses (81%) were received, grouped in 12 categories as displayed in Table 6.

Table 6. Answers to “Which costs might there be for chefs collaborating with researchers?” (Q21). No. Costs related to collaborating with researchers Count 1 Time 19 2 Stepping out of everyday work 12 Costs negligible or rather seen as investments, costs outweighed by the 3 7 benefits, so fun/rewarding that it is done in one’s spare time Costs of tools, equipment, kitchen/office facilities, studio time, land, 4 7 livestock 5 Raw material costs and increased food waste 7 6 Travel costs 4 7 Breaking the initial barriers of collaboration 4 Loss of natural cooking skills, intuition and creativity. Disconnect between 8 3 chef and product 9 Effort, stress, strain, exertion 2 10 Ingredient costs unproblematic, covered by suppliers/sponsors 2 11 Salary for collaborator (researcher, artist/musician, farmer etc.) 2 12 Lack of financial aid 1 The comments behind some of the items in Table 6 ask for elaboration. Item 2, stepping out of everyday work, is connected not only to the extra cost of labour, or complementary loss of income, but also to distraction in “getting the reality of a restaurant day to day to meld seamlessly” with the collaboration with someone on the outside, timewise and otherwise. Two respondents regret the absence of a dedicated research department connected to, or within, the restaurant. Item 7, breaking initial barriers to collaboration, is connected to language barriers from discipline-specific styles of discourse, differing work routines, different pace of the two working cultures (science moves at a slow pace, gastronomy if often a high-paced endeavour), and getting to know each other. One respondent, however, states that R&D projects in time and through experience develops to proceed more smoothly, indicating that item 2 obstacles might be alleviated by experience. Interestingly, seven respondents stated that the costs were either negligible, were outweighed by the benefits, or should be more appropriately seen as investments (item 3). Cross-tabulating with other questions reveals that all seven report experience in collaboration with researchers. Six report their workplace being in various combinations of fine dining, casual, Michelin-starred and experimental cuisine restaurants, whilst the seventh reported workplace category “other” (thereafter specifying entrepreneur, consultancy, R&D). It is thus not unlikely that those who in lesser degree associate collaboration with strain also work in resource-rich environments, timewise and/or economically.

Later in the survey, the same 34 respondents previously stating experience with collaboration with researchers, were asked about their view on the balance between investment/benefit and cost in such collaboration (Q30). On a ranking scale from 1 (a very bad/poor investment) to 6 (a very good investment), almost three quarter replied either 5 or 6. One respondent reported that collaboration was a poor investment (2 on the scale of 1-6), whilst two were undecided (“don’t know/not sure”). Recalling question 27, that all except for one had found such collaboration useful, the only respondent replying “don’t know/not sure” in Q27 still gave a rating of 4 on value for investment.

The respondents’ outlook for the future Finally, we invited the respondents to give their views of what they believe may happen in the future: “How do you expect the future to be for collaboration between chefs and researchers?” (Q37). Four options were given: They will collaborate more than now, they will collaborate as much as now, they will collaborate less than now, and don’t know. A great majority (81%) responded that they believe chefs and researchers will collaborate more in the future, none answered that they will collaborate less. The remaining respondents divided between “as much as now” (12%) and “don’t know” (7%).

Discussion

To summarise the results, from the 43 respondents’ answers about where they seek information and knowledge, it seems clear that the majority can be characterised as knowledge-oriented, many towards a science-and-gastronomy (molecular gastronomy) perspective. The information sources they use are mainly second-hand accounts rather than first-hand research reports. From their statements about use of technology and ingredients, they appear as highly innovation-oriented but still not uncritical to the use of novel technologies and ingredients. They are expressly positive towards cross-discipline/crossprofession collaboration with a clear self-confidence about their own ability to contribute in such collaboration. Many are experienced with collaboration with researchers, and these are almost unanimous about these experiences being positive and worthwhile. It should be kept in mind, however, that the latter finding may, at least in part, be a result of the sampling/recruitment method or demand characteristics bias (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 410). The response rate of 50% and low total number of responses should also be kept in mind, and we advise against generalisations based on these results.

When interviewing and observing 27 chefs in modernist-style environments in USA, Borkenhagen (2017) found the chefs “[…] cobbling together their scientific education from a variety of sources […]” and “[r]ather than use these sources to build the kind of broad foundation of scientific expertise that one might get with more formal training, these chefs typically pursue scientific knowledge on an ad hoc basis that depends on their specific

culinary goals” (p. 636). Our data do not allow us to make such judgments except noting that few respondents state that they go directly to research literature or textbooks for information but rather choose sources specially adapted towards culinary practices. After all, transfer of knowledge between domains such as application of formal-education-acquired knowledge in “everyday contexts” is notoriously difficult to achieve and has been one of the major challenges throughout history of education (e.g., Aikenhead, 2006; Illeris, 2009). Bearing this in mind, it is not entirely obvious that chefs would have great benefit from formal scientific (or even food science) schooling, unless this was carefully adapted to their work practice. Many situations where science is needed arise from very specific questions or creativity-driven ideas, and if the field truly is transdisciplinary (cf. Fig. 1), acquiring relevant knowledge on a need-to-know basis might be the most productive path for a chef. Our results do not give access to which exact information is sought by the chefs from the mentioned sources. As several of the sources mentioned by the respondents are complex publications where cooking is integrated with philosophical, technical and art-oriented aspects of gastronomy, it should not be interpreted so that the respondents seek information for purely instrumental purposes. On the contrary, qualitative data from other questions indicate deep and advanced levels of reflection on issues related to cooking, eating and the numerous other subjects pertaining to food in a broad societal and/or philosophical sense. Since many of the respondents herein reported that they collaborate with researchers, such collaboration might provide for the necessary interpretation and contextualisation of scientific knowledge. Thus, the researcher has not only a role of bringing her/his own research to the table but can also in dialogue with the chef take the role as doorway into, and interpreter of, existing scientific knowledge.

With regards to the use of “other kinds of knowledge/sciences”, few of the respondents’ referred to specific names, books etc., and the examples stated were often less specific than those related to natural-/life science sources. This could stem from the survey question being ambiguous, but it may also be due to these perspectives having entered the culinary stage fairly recently. Gastronomy has through history had clear links with various art-forms and perspectives on dining experiences, such as links between confectionery and architecture and mediaeval dining spectacles (e.g., Mennell, 1996; Petronius, 2004). Furthermore, dining as multisensory experience and crossmodal correspondences have been explicitly described and suggested at least as early as in Marinetti’s (1932/1989) futurist cookbook. However, such links treated from an academic perspective, be it psychology, arts, sociology or others, have perhaps been less prominent than molecular gastronomy in the contemporary gastronomic discourse, and with fewer highly profiled and visible academics. Research in multisensory experiences and crossmodal correspondences (e.g., Auvray & Spence, 2008; Korsmeyer & Sutton, 2011; Spence, 2011) are more recent voices to have reached the majority of practitioners, and the avant-garde and experimental culinary environments are probably the first to appropriate such research. Indeed, this may provide a possible arena for increased future collaboration and may pave the road for a broader collaboration with new groups of academics.

According to Caporaso and Formisano (2016), there have been “very few scientific publications that could be directly considered as molecular gastronomy”, most being “just opinions, reviews, or application of well-known phenomena already studied by food scientists” (p. 432). If this is correct, it appears to describe a situation of interdisciplinarity, where the culinary practitioners borrow insights from the sciences, be it by their own efforts in sourcing information (df. Fig. 4) or by collaboration with academics. Increased collaboration may, in time, stimulate to more research in the sense described by Caporaso and Formisano (2016).

As some of the chefs indicated, the question of relevance to what goes on in the kitchen is of prime importance for many when considering entering into collaboration. Furthermore, not only do the chefs think researchers may benefit from collaborating with some chef(s), but that they see themselves as capable of contributing productively back. For example, some of the respondents indicate that they may provide research questions and topics, as well as ensuring “reality check” and providing expertise in flavour/quality evaluation. Quality and aesthetic judgment competency is also highlighted by Borkenhagen (2017) as an expertise among chefs that may not have a true equivalent among those with formal scientific background. However, some respondents stated that they would not demand immediate tangible results from collaborations, thus communicating a more general interest and openness to the possibility that collaboration may, but cannot guarantee, tangible progress or innovation.

The main obstacles for many appear to be time and economy, but in the case where the chefs are more self-sufficient this is not emphasised as a problem but rather as an investment. Thus, it might be necessary to develop various modes of collaboration and contact allowing for different levels of commitment. Examples of this may be workshops, webinars and networks organised by those who are to a greater degree self-sufficient with less pressure on day-today revenue (often the researcher).3 The examples of collaborations given herein (Table 5) may serve as inspiration for others, researchers and artisans alike, but should by no means be considered exhaustive. Apparently, there are ample possibilities for researchers to engage in collaboration with chefs, if they wish to, as lack of interest in collaborating does not seem to be the obstacle. However, it is probably overly optimistic to believe that collaborations will automatically appear simply via open announcements, as productive collaboration is dependent on several factors, including personal chemistry. Thus, arenas should be sought for encounters to occur and people to meet, and modes of collaboration and arenas where professional can meet may be two promising areas of further research, development and interdisciplinary/international projects. A number of initiatives do already exist, and more should surely be welcomed. As such, it is important that initiatives are not only limited to high-prestige environments, but inclusive and attainable for a broad range of professionals, future professionals and non-professionals 3

Collaboration with artists is expected to meet similar challenges, and these might have even greater challenges in that time spent comes with a financial loss.

alike, including culinary- and food science educations. Our results indicate that there are ground for such collaboration across styles, and not only for high-level restaurants (which also distinguishes the present work from that of Borkenhagen (2017)). The use of digital platforms may also encourage participation by individuals and groups based outside metropolises and gastronomic hubs. These arenas could function as contexts for recruitment of young/future professionals, inclusion of individuals from unexpected fields that later appear be productive and so forth. Such arenas will, however, require active engagement by parties with the resources to keep the initiative running. From the perspective of the researcher, this is well in line with both policies and research on the role of science in society (Bucchi, 2008; Siune et al., 2009). Indeed, such collaborations might help the sciences to develop, at least if a transdisciplinary mode is sought where also academic communities are prepared to be affected, or even transformed, just as the culinary field is transformed through interaction with research.

Conclusion and outlook

Previous accounts of chef-scientist collaborations have often highlighted a few selected examples, and commonly the same stories are recurring. The results presented in the present paper indicate that the picture is much more diverse than the few highly prestigious chefs, restaurants and researchers reaching the limelight. Hence, possibilities for dialogue exist on various arenas, around various types of questions, at different levels in the culinary landscape. Despite being of a limited number, the 43 respondents in our survey showed almost unanimous interest in collaborating with researchers. Many state that collaboration is most relevant when tangible results can be seen within a relatively short time frame, whilst some are prepared to collaborate also on a general basis without expecting immediate results except for broadening one’s perspectives and sharing knowledge. Challenges are said, though not universally, to be time and resources. Also, disruption in everyday work, finding collaborators, and developing a common language as stated as possible barriers.

Our findings bear promise of further, or new, productive collaboration with mutual benefit for chefs and researchers. The culinary field seems ready for increased collaboration with researchers, and the science-gastronomy interface is clearly maturing and becoming increasingly diverse. This seems to be the case for perspectives from natural- and life sciences, whilst the field might benefit from more attention to a broader selection of academic domains, including also arts, social sciences, and humanities. Seeking a greater number and more diverse forms of dialogue and collaboration to produce innovative modes of collaboration and communication should expectedly benefit both gastronomy, academia and even society in general.

In a forthcoming and second part of the present study, we will look more closely at the chefs’ written statements about their experience with systematic experimenting, i.e., applying scientific thinking and strategies in the culinary field. We will also go further into their stated views of how chefs and researchers may think similarly or differently, if they believe chefs and researchers have similar or different approaches to food and cooking and discuss possibilities and challenges thereof. This way we hope to shed further light upon the more fine-grained workings of collaborations between science and gastronomy.

Funding & conflicts of interest

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Auvray, M., & Spence, C. (2008). The multisensory perception of flavor. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(3), 1016-1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2007.06.005. Barham, P., Skibsted, L. H., Bredie, W. L. P., Bom Frøst, M., Møller, P., Risbo, J., . . . Mortensen, L. M. (2010). Molecular Gastronomy: A New Emerging Scientific Discipline. Chemical Reviews, 110(4), 2313-2365. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr900105w. Blanck, J. F. (2003). Molecular Gastronomy: Overview of a Controversial Food Science Discipline. Journal of Agricultural and Food Information, 8(3), 77-85. https://doi.org/10.1300/J108v08n03_07. Borkenhagen, C. (2017). Evidence-based creativity: Working between art and science in the field of fine dining. Social Studies of Science, 47(5), 630-654. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717725204. Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues. Theories of public communication of science. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (pp. 57-76). London: Routledge. Caporaso, N., & Formisano, D. (2016). Developments, applications, and trends of molecular gastronomy among food scientists and innovative chefs. Food Reviews International, 32(4), 417-435. https://doi.org/10.1080/87559129.2015.1094818.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London: Routledge. Illeris, K. (2009). Transfer of learning in the learning society: How can the barriers between different learning spaces be surmounted, and how can the gap between learning inside and outside schools be bridged? International Journal of Lifelong Education, 28(2), 137-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370902756986. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x033007014. Katz, S. (2013). The Art of Fermentation: The University of British Columbia. Korsmeyer, C., & Sutton, D. (2011). The Sensory Experience of Food. Food, Culture & Society, 14(4), 461-475. https://doi.org/10.2752/175174411X13046092851316. Marinetti, F. T. (1932/1989). The futurist cookbook. San Francisco: Bedford Arts. McGee, H. (2004). On food and cooking: the science and lore of the kitchen. New York: Scribner. Mennell, S. (1996). All manners of food: eating and taste in England and France from the Middle Ages to the present. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. Myhrvold, N., Young, C., Bilet, M., & Smith, R. M. (2011). Modernist cuisine - the art and science of cooking. Bellevue, Washington: The Cooking Lab. Møller, P. (2013). Gastrophysics in https://doi.org/10.1186/2044-7248-2-8.

the

brain

and

body.

Flavour,

2(1),

8.

Pedersen, T. (2002). Kemien bag gastronomien. København: Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busck. Pedersen, T. (2007). A science in the making? EMBO reports, 8(1), 22. Petronius, A. (2004). The Satyricon — Volume 02: Dinner of Trimalchio. Ramadier, T. (2004). Transdisciplinarity and its challenges: the case of urban studies. Futures, 36(4), 423-439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.009. Risbo, J., Mouritsen, O. G., Frøst, M. B., Evans, J. D., & Reade, B. (2013). Culinary Science in Denmark: Molecular Gastronomy and Beyond. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, 11(2), 111-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/15428052.2013.778695. Sheperd, G. M. (2012). Neurogastronomy: how the brain creates flavor and why it matters. New York: Columbia University Press. Siune, K., Markus, E., Calloni, M., Felt, U., Gorski, A., Grunwald, A., . . . Wyatt, S. (2009). Challenging Futures of Science in Society. Emerging Trends and cutting-edge issues. Retrieved from Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union: http://www.masis.eu/english/home/.

Spence, C. (2011). Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(4), 971-995. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0073-7. Spence, C., & Blumenthal, H. (2017). Gastrophysics: the new science of eating. London: Viking. This, H. (2002). Molecular Gastronomy. Angewandte Chemie-International Edition, 41(1), 8388. https://doi.org/10.1002/1521-3773(20020104)41:1<83::AID-ANIE83>3.0.CO;2-F. This, H., & Gagnaire, P. (2008). Cooking: The quintessential art (Vol. 23). Berkeley, California: University of California Press. van der Linden, E., McClements, D. J., & Ubbink, J. (2007). Molecular Gastronomy: A Food Fad or an Interface for Science-Based Cooking? Food Biophysics, 3(2), 246-254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11483-008-9082-7.