Towards a Politics of Recognition: Exploring the Symbolic Contexts of Material Agroecological Transitions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very interesting material.

Qualitative research methods combined with quantitative methods highlight the differences in perception regarding the agroecological transition.

Congratulations to the authors for creating this material, which represents an important starting point for future scientific, interdisciplinary approaches.

Author Response

We really appreciate the reviewer’s comment. Many thanks for your recognition and support.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The paper proposes a study verifying whether the reaction to 3 different films presenting attitudes towards agriculture in different forms depends on the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. The article is located in the debate on the search for effective means of persuasion that can be used to reach farmers of different types and with different demographic characteristics with a message related to the benefits that greener farming can bring them.

 

Both the subject of the article and the problem posed by the authors are important, require research and raise social discussions. Their study may be the first step towards expanding the scope and diversity of social communication tools in connection with the need to support the transition of agriculture in northern countries towards more ecological solutions. It should be clearly emphasized that their idea - both for the study and for the entire approach - is highly exploratory in nature, so drawing any conclusions based on the data obtained by them is very difficult and burdened with a number of strong reservations.

Due to budget constraints, the stimulus in the quasi-experiment that was conducted is hardly comparable, hence drawing conclusions which of the many elements that differentiate the 3 capsules (films to which comments constituted the data compared by the authors) is important for the reactions that were subject to further analysis is impossible. The idea that the overall narrative „profile” was important here - called by the authors "audiovisual language and discursive elements" - is not justified by the collected data, because the films also differed in the level of fictionalization, the degree of use of testimonials, the types of images and objects shown in the transmission and many other elements . Hence, it can be concluded that the intention of the authors, if treated seriously - as an attempt to verify the reaction to the three comprehensive languages ​​of communication, could not be implemented in the given methodological model.

Nevertheless, collecting the reactions of particular types of respondents to specific elements of the watched film, which the authors obtained by trying to analyze the answers to very open questions, can be used to formulate initial suppositions (“hypothesis”) about what elements of the message are conducive to a positive reception by specific audience segments.

In this sense, if we treat their intention as an attempt to provide the first - preliminary and weak - argument for the adopted hypothesis, namely that "with the aim to develop symbolic contexts favorable to agroecological transition with differentiated food system profiles, the devices, messages and languages deployed must take into account the cultural environment present in the daily life of target groups, and also take into account specificities within this profile category, such as those represented along the axes male/female, urban/rural farmer/non-farmer or organic/ conventional farmers" (lines 597-602)”, their article is important and worth to be published.

Such a limited value of the obtained result has its source in the methodological weakness of the procedure adopted for the study, which did not even guarantee that the reactions were collected from people who had seen all three films. The adopted quasi-experimental scheme in natural form did not allow to recognize the similarity of even the profiles of people who watched different films, hence it could be expected that watching even the first scenes of the film was conducive to the pre-selection of people who had a chance to complete the questionnaire. At the same time, since the strength of the reaction contained in the statement being the answer to the open question contained in the questionnaire was not analyzed in any way, one could expect a rather accidental linking of the content of the presented statements with specific elements contained in the films, rather than with the overall narrative pattern, the reaction to which the authors wanted to study.

According to the reviewer, it can therefore be concluded that the results of their study did not allow to FALSIFY the initially assumed hypothesis and in this sense they are a good starting point for designing a methodologically correct study that can provide quantitative information to verify the established - reasonable - hypothesis.

However, it should be clearly noted that, according to the reviewer, the attempt made by the authors is valuable - not so much as an actual quasi-experiment, but as an attempt to formulate a research intention and stating the problem. The possibility of transferring the findings from the widely studied languages ​​of feminist discourses to discussions around agriculture is a smart and desirable idea that can lead to interesting results. The reviewer, however, would try to achieve similar results by studying focus groups that would have the opportunity to actually watch 3 films, or at least supplement the arguments contained in the article with such a study. The value of the collected data is not their quantitative nature - and according to the reviewer, any quantitative references to the voices that were collected from the text of the article should be eliminated - but the nature of the reaction to selected elements of the message. It seems to the reviewer that focus groups would also be able to provide - at least as strong as those collected by the authors - an argument for their (hypo)thesis, and - at the current stage of the research - supplement it with additional arguments why certain types of viewers find certain narrative elements more appealed to the arguments formulated by the authors of the article.

Author Response

Answer to Reviewer 2: We really appreciate the reviewer’s comment, which we recognise in general terms as correct, and which help us to sensitively improving the paper. Additionally, we appreciate the reviewer’s efforts to highlight and refine the value of the of the paper. Accordingly, we have introduced changes in order to adapt and clarify the papers’ orientation to the actual possibilities of the results obtained. This has been done all along the text, and we offer here extracts of the most relevant changes made. It read as follow:

Section 1 (introduction), last two paragraphs:

“Our initial assumption here is that it is possible to identify and activate communicative devices that help generate symbolic contexts helpful for engendering critical reflection processes among current conventional farmers’ profiles. Through this very generic approach we want to generate new hypotheses based on empirical data, as an exercise of ‘grounded theory’ [8]. Such critical reflection could open possibilities for agroecological transitions at the food system scale. Connecting with such profiles subjectivities may re-quire different grammars and forms of communication, through an integrative, progressive approach informed by the ideas such as 'translated food sovereignty', 'populist agroecology' and ‘reparation ecologies’ [10,11].

With this aim, we launched an experimental, exploratory research project on communication strategies, called “Green Capsule”, aimed at generating novel, empirically-based hypotheses on the symbolic mechanisms underlying material, agroecological transitions. Three different audiovisual pieces (“capsules”, or short videos) were produced and disseminated through social media, with the support of rural grassroots networks, together with an online survey designed to collect reactions (n = 541) to the different capsules. These three “green capsules” made use of different audiovisual languages and discursive elements, from a perspective of "repair populisms" [11]. The research had the following objectives: (1) to reveal links between different types of messages and communicative styles and their reception by different socio-demographic profiles within the agro-food system; and (2) to obtain some insights on how to improve the effectiveness of communication and cultural efforts to promote critical reflections on food systems sustainability among conventional farmers by more accurately reflecting the symbolic worlds relevant to these socio-economic profiles.

The second section unfolds the theoretical framework developed for the research design –including audiovisuals’ design- and the analysis of the results obtained. Inspired by ‘grounded theory’ [9], the third section (methods) includes a description of the audiovisuals related to the theories used in their design process, and of the methods used for both collecting and analyzing responses to the audiovisuals. After codification and analysis of the qualitative data collected along an online survey (section 4-results), in section five (discussion) we have constructed emergent hypotheses through an inductive revision of data, and offer some suggestions to generate critical reflection on agricultural systems sustainability between conventional, family farmers and other food systems profiles. Finally, section six (conclusions) states the main findings of the exercise performed, and points out some directions for further research.”

Section 3. (Methods, first paragraph)

“The ‘Green Capsule’ project aims to assess responses to different messages that could en-able symbolic contexts favorable to agroecological transitions among different social pro-files within food systems. The project has followed the two steps of ‘grounded theory’, as a research method that can enable the researcher to generate systematically a substantive theory grounded in empirical data [9]. First, coding and analyzing data to prove a given proposition; and second, inspecting data obtained to develop new theoretical ideas. For this purpose three small audiovisuals (the ‘green capsules’) were designed, produced and disseminated through selected (social media) channels, and feedback was collected from different sources. The three video clips tried to deploy and thus contrast different communicative strategies, briefly synthesized in the twofold axis emotional (populist)/professional (Campesino a Campesino, documentary) and confrontative/integrative (see Table 2).”

Section 5 (Discussion, first paragraph)

“The results obtained to draw four main hypotheses that could be useful as a framework for further research on the symbolic contexts underlying material transitions to sustainability in agricultural systems in the Global north. These hypotheses emerge from an inductive revision of data, aimed at generating a basis for further research, as a second step of the ‘grounded theory’ method. First, on the need of family, conventional farmers for recognition of their subaltern position, in both the food system and the society as a whole. Second, on the axes of socio-professional differentiation that could define positions regarding the messages received. Third, on the possibility to translate agroecology and food sovereignty through symbols embodied in everyday life of the recipients of the messages. Fourth, the lack of recognition of the (self-perceived) condition of subalternity of rural communities can make messages coming from urban food movements to be received as alien –and even impositions- to rural communities. After the description of these hypotheses, the present section ends by opening some insights on how collective reflection pro-cesses on current agri-food systems can unfold symbolic spaces to support material, agroecological transitions.”

Section 6 (Conclusions)

The messages transmitted within the Green Capsule project show that all three combinations of language, message and symbols work on affecting the subjectivities of different actors within the food system. However, we have found both qualitative and quantitative differences on their reach, according to the variables analyzed. What we have called the ‘populist-integrative’ capsule seems to connect especially with rural and female profiles, and with professional farmers (both conventional and organic, male and female); while what we have called a ‘Campesino-a-Campesino’ capsule seems to connect especially with organic farmers and urban women –while also to conventional farmers-; and perhaps, to activist networks for rural social-ecological sustainability.

Nevertheless, the experimental design deployed has been useful to explore responses to certain communicative devices, but cannot deliver definite conclusions. Audiovisual languages combine a great number of variables in their design and their reach, and it is thus difficult to establish single, clear and direct causal relations between their features and their impacts and responses from the public. In any case, our research offer emerging hypotheses useful for further research on the symbolic mechanisms underlying material, agroecological transitions at food system scale. With the aim to develop symbolic contexts favorable to agroecological transition with differentiated food system profiles, the devices, messages and languages deployed must take into account the cultural environment present in the daily life of target groups, and also take into account specificities within this profile category, such as those represented along the axes male/female, urban/rural, farmer/non-farmer or organic/conventional farmers. In developing such efforts, an exercise of food sovereignty ‘translation’ [10], based on the so-called ‘silent food sovereignty’ [33] can help to set up symbolic spaces in which to construct alliances between conventional farmers, agroecological organizations and urban food movements. In order to set up such spaces for alliances it is possible to combine mimetic communication elements of translation with reparation messages, both in social and ecological terms, to open shared transition paths to agroecology.

In order to construct such shared symbolic spaces, a ‘politics of recognition’ can be a preliminary condition when dealing with conventional farmers’ profiles, not previously used to agroecology. Rurality has not been widely recognised by urban food movements as a condition of subalternity, beyond rural poverty. Only once conventional farmers feel recognised (and not blamed) within the contradictions of their living and working conditions within the corporate food regime is it possible to construct common reflections beyond an adherence to corporate farming discourses. Only when collective self-esteem is restored will it be possible for some vulnerable farmers’ profiles to step up the transition, and recognition is a powerful move towards the restoration of both individual and collective self-esteem.

The present project must be understood as an initial, exploratory exercise to open a field of research on the symbolic dimensions of agroecological transition, oriented to single individuals and local communities perceptions. To delve deeper into it, systematic research based on empirical data must be done, in different rural contexts and with complementary methodologies to deepen and triangulate on the analysis of the different variables that have emerged as relevant in the present study.

Reviewer 3 Report

This is very interesting research and is consistent with the aims of the Sustainability Journal. However, I have some minor observations that should be addressed:

1.       The number of the experimental design and methodology section is 2. But it should be 3.

2.       The authors propose the following hypothesis (see Page 4, Line 163):

“Our hypothesis with the present paper is based on the idea that a progressive approach to populism -not based on authoritarianism, nation, nor race [30] - could eventually be used to understand the conditions in which symbolic contexts favorable to agroecological transitions can impact conventional, middle and small scale farmers' subjectivities”.

Then, the authors explain the following (Page 6, Line 223):

“The discursive elements and visual symbols used were oriented to test the main hypotheses expressed in section 1”.

I don’t really understand this. Only one generic hypothesis was proposed in Section 1. And it is proposed in a way that cannot be tested. If the authors want to test hypotheses, they have to split the generic one intro testable hypothesis. However, if the authors want to develop qualitative research, the generic hypothesis should be enough. But in this case, there is not statistical tests. In any case, the authors should clarify the contradiction.

3.       Section 3.3, data processing: According to the authors, the data was processed by means of a mixed method approach. Authors should explain this in more detail. Is this an exploratory sequential design (i.e. qualitative phase followed by a quantitative one), or an explanatory sequential design (i.e. quantitative phase followed by a qualitative one)? What is it the justification for adopting this mix method approach? What is it the purpose of the qualitative phase? What is it the purpose of the quantitative phase? What hypotheses will be tested in the quantitative phase? What analytical technique was employed for the qualitative (e.g. grounded theory) and quantitative (e.g. regression analysis) phases? All these considerations should be addressed.

4.       The authors state the following (see Page 8, Line 314):

“Finally, both the qualitative and quantitative analysis performed relies on a random and small sample of the universe (respondents who voluntarily agreed to provide extra time and information), and thus responses could be biased toward those who are already ideologically closer to agroecological messages”.

I don’t understand how this sample with potential biases could be random. In relation to this point, it is important to highlight that several academic works use non-random sampling strategies such as the snowball technique. The reason is because it is normally difficult to get random samples. In these cases, an acknowledgment of this limitation is enough. This is what the authors are doing, but assuming a random sample which is a contradiction.

5.       Results and conclusions: The researchers obtained very interesting results, and the discussion is appropriate. However, I don’t see that the authors have tested any hypothesis. There are tables with some statistics, but they were not employed to make statistical inference. In fact, all the implications of the results are based on the qualitative phase. In considering this fact, I suggest the authors to simplify the methodology and to explain that this is a qualitative research. I suggest using the grounded theory to give more formality to this research. Numerical data ca also be reported when is used for descriptions, but because this data was not processed quantitatively using statistical analysis, I would not agree that this is a formal quantitative phase.

Author Response

Comments to the author:

This is very interesting research and is consistent with the aims of the Sustainability Journal. However, I have some minor observations that should be addressed:

General answer to Reviewer 3: We really appreciate the reviewer’s comments in general terms, which have helped us to sensitively improving the paper.

 

Comment 3.1: The number of the experimental design and methodology section is 2. But it should be 3.

Answer to Reviewer 3.1: The number of the methodology section has been changed.

 

Comment 3.2: The authors propose the following hypothesis (see Page 4, Line 163):

“Our hypothesis with the present paper is based on the idea that a progressive approach to populism -not based on authoritarianism, nation, nor race [30] - could eventually be used to understand the conditions in which symbolic contexts favorable to agroecological transitions can impact conventional, middle and small scale farmers' subjectivities”.

Then, the authors explain the following (Page 6, Line 223):

“The discursive elements and visual symbols used were oriented to test the main hypotheses expressed in section 1”.

I don’t really understand this. Only one generic hypothesis was proposed in Section 1. And it is proposed in a way that cannot be tested. If the authors want to test hypotheses, they have to split the generic one intro testable hypothesis. However, if the authors want to develop qualitative research, the generic hypothesis should be enough. But in this case, there is not statistical tests. In any case, the authors should clarify the contradiction.

Answer to Comment 3.2: We really appreciate the reviewer’s comment, which have helped us to sensitively improving the paper. We have kept the initial, generic hypothesis, and we have removed mentions to other hypotheses and nuanced the analytical orientation of the paper to overcoming the mentioned contradiction. For this purpose, we have introduced in several sections mentions to grounded theory (as suggested by the reviewer on its comments #3 and #5), and subsequently reframed both the methodological and the discussion sections. It read as follow:

Section 2.3 (Rural populisms and food systems change, 2^nd paragraph)

“Our intuition with the present paper is based on the idea that a progressive approach to populism -not based on authoritarianism, nation, nor race [310] - could eventually be used to understand the conditions in which symbolic contexts favorable to agroecological transitions can impact conventional, middle and small scale farmers' sub-jectivities. In Table 1 we identify populist messages which could be understood as favorable to agroecological transitions, and others that are bound exclusively to regressive uses of populism.

Section 3 (Methods, 1^st and 2^nd paragraphs)

The ‘Green Capsule’ project aims to assess responses to different messages that could enable symbolic contexts favorable to agroecological transitions among different social profiles within food systems. The project has followed the two steps of ‘grounded theory’, as a research method that can enable the researcher to generate systematically a substantive theory grounded in empirical data [9]. First, coding and analyzing data to prove a given proposition; and second, inspecting data obtained to develop new theoretical ideas. For this purpose three small audiovisuals (the ‘green capsules’) were designed, produced and disseminated through selected (social media) channels, and feedback was collected from different sources. The three video clips tried to deploy and thus contrast different communicative strategies, briefly synthesized in the twofold axis emotional (populist)/professional (Campesino a Campesino, documentary) and confrontative/integrative (see Table 2).

3.1. The construction of the ‘green capsules’ as target-oriented communicative devices

We wanted to compare how different audiovisual languages and discursive elements affect the subjectivities of certain majority profiles in the Spanish agricultural sector (males, extensive, professional farmers of conventional, rain-fed cereals in inner Spain), in comparison with other socio-professional profiles involved in food systems. Three different capsules (short videos)  were produced and released, whose main features are described in table 2. As an exercise based on ‘grounded theory’, some discursive elements and visual symbols showed in Table 1 as related to progressive visions of food populisms were used to generate and gather responses from different socio-professional profiles. Data collected has been coded and analysed in a second step, as empirical basis to develop new theories and, i.e., new hypotheses.

 

Comment 3.3.       Section 3.3, data processing: According to the authors, the data was processed by means of a mixed method approach. Authors should explain this in more detail. Is this an exploratory sequential design (i.e. qualitative phase followed by a quantitative one), or an explanatory sequential design (i.e. quantitative phase followed by a qualitative one)? What is it the justification for adopting this mix method approach? What is it the purpose of the qualitative phase? What is it the purpose of the quantitative phase? What hypotheses will be tested in the quantitative phase? What analytical technique was employed for the qualitative (e.g. grounded theory) and quantitative (e.g. regression analysis) phases? All these considerations should be addressed.

Answer to Comment 3.3: We really appreciate the reviewer’s comment, which have helped us to sensitively improving the paper. As the quantitative analysis of data could not be implemented in depth in the present paper, we have removed mentions to both quantitative analysis and mixed methods. It read as follow (Section 3.3., first paragraph):

“Data obtained through the online questionnaire were used to perform a qualitative analysis of reactions to the capsules, related to socio-professional features of respondents (gender, age, territorial context, professional identity). The online survey included an open-response question asking for opinions about “the perceived usefulness” of the videos, in order not to influence responses regarding political profiles of respondents. A total of 541 answers were collected, 524 of them including valid responses to the question about the utility of the video (see Table 3). Among them, 18 direct valid responses (all of them to Praise capsule) were collected via WhatsApp, including specific personal data on main professional activity and eventually linkages to agroecology movement. The length of these comments ranged from 1 to 88 words. We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis [42] of these comments (n=497) to observe which types of people (by gender, work activity and place of residence) expressed the different types of arguments and positions detected, in order to detect some relational pattern between them. Data on the size of the residence places of respondents were reduced to two categories in order to simplify the analysis and clarify the discussion in sections 4 and 5: mainly rural contexts (municipalities <20.000 inhabitants) and mainly urban contexts (>20.000 inhabitants). “

 

Comment 3.4.       The authors state the following (see Page 8, Line 314):

“Finally, both the qualitative and quantitative analysis performed relies on a random and small sample of the universe (respondents who voluntarily agreed to provide extra time and information), and thus responses could be biased toward those who are already ideologically closer to agroecological messages”.

I don’t understand how this sample with potential biases could be random. In relation to this point, it is important to highlight that several academic works use non-random sampling strategies such as the snowball technique. The reason is because it is normally difficult to get random samples. In these cases, an acknowledgment of this limitation is enough. This is what the authors are doing, but assuming a random sample which is a contradiction.

Answer to Comment 3.4: We agree with the reviewer, and recognise the mistake. We have removed mentions to quantitative analysis and ‘random sample’, and introduce a mention to ‘snowball sampling’. It read as follow (Section 3.4):

“Finally, the qualitative analysis performed relies on a small, snowball sampling [46] of the universe (respondents who voluntarily agreed to provide extra time and information), and thus responses could be biased toward those who are already ideologically closer to agroecological messages. The way in which data were collected introduces an additional coverage bias related to the ability or predisposition of respondents to participate in online, web surveys [47]”.

 

Comment 3.5.       Results and conclusions: The researchers obtained very interesting results, and the discussion is appropriate. However, I don’t see that the authors have tested any hypothesis. There are tables with some statistics, but they were not employed to make statistical inference. In fact, all the implications of the results are based on the qualitative phase. In considering this fact, I suggest the authors to simplify the methodology and to explain that this is a qualitative research. I suggest using the grounded theory to give more formality to this research. Numerical data ca also be reported when is used for descriptions, but because this data was not processed quantitatively using statistical analysis, I would not agree that this is a formal quantitative phase.

Answer to comment 3.5: As suggested by the reviewer, we have introduced in sections 1 (introduction) and 3 (Methods) mentions to the ‘grounded theory’ method, as a way to give more formality to our apoproach. Additionally, we have removed mentions to quantitative analysis in section 3, as described in our answers to comments 3.3 and 3.4. It read as follow.

Section 1

“Our initial assumption here is that it is possible to identify and activate communicative devices that help generate symbolic contexts helpful for engendering critical reflection processes among current conventional farmers’ profiles. Through this very generic approach we want to generate new hypotheses based on empirical data, as an exercise of ‘grounded theory’ [8]. Such critical reflection could open possibilities for agroecological transitions at the food system scale. Connecting with such profiles subjectivities may re-quire different grammars and forms of communication, through an integrative, progressive approach informed by the ideas such as 'translated food sovereignty', 'populist agroecology' and ‘reparation ecologies’ [10,11].

With this aim, we launched an experimental, exploratory research project on communication strategies, called “Green Capsule”, aimed at generating novel, empirically-based hypotheses on the symbolic mechanisms underlying material, agroecological transitions. Three different audiovisual pieces (“capsules”, or short videos) were produced and disseminated through social media, with the support of rural grassroots networks, together with an online survey designed to collect reactions (n = 541) to the different capsules. These three “green capsules” made use of different audiovisual languages and discursive elements, from a perspective of "repair populisms" [110]. The research had the following objectives: (1) to reveal links between different types of messages and communicative styles and their reception by different socio-demographic profiles within the agro-food system; and (2) to obtain some insights on how to improve the effectiveness of communi-cation and cultural efforts to promote critical reflections on food systems sustainability among conventional farmers by more accurately reflecting the symbolic worlds relevant to these socio-economic profiles.

The second section unfolds the theoretical framework developed for the research design –including audiovisuals’ design- and the analysis of the results obtained. Inspired by ‘grounded theory’ [9], the third section (methods) includes a description of the audiovisuals related to the theories used in their design process, and of the methods used for both collecting and analyzing responses to the audiovisuals. After codification and analysis of the qualitative data collected along an online survey (section 4-results), in section five (discussion) we have constructed emergent hypotheses through an inductive revision of data, and offer some suggestions to generate critical reflection on agricultural systems sustainability between conventional, family farmers and other food systems profiles. Finally, section six (conclusions) states the main findings of the exercise performed, and points out some directions for further research.”

Section 3. (Methods, first paragraph)

The ‘Green Capsule’ project aims to assess responses to different messages that could en-able symbolic contexts favorable to agroecological transitions among different social pro-files within food systems. The project has followed the two steps of ‘grounded theory’, as a research method that can enable the researcher to generate systematically a substantive theory grounded in empirical data [9]. First, coding and analyzing data to prove a given proposition; and second, inspecting data obtained to develop new theoretical ideas. For this purpose three small audiovisuals (the ‘green capsules’) were designed, produced and disseminated through selected (social media) channels, and feedback was collected from different sources. The three video clips tried to deploy and thus contrast different commu-nicative strategies, briefly synthesized in the twofold axis emotional (popu-list)/professional (Campesino a Campesino, documentary) and confrontative/integrative (see Table 2).

Additionally, in section 5 (discussion) it has been highlighted the hypotheses that emerged along the second step of the grounded theory. It read as follow:

The results obtained to draw four main hypotheses that could be useful as a frame-work for further research on the symbolic contexts underlying material transitions to sus-tainability in agricultural systems in the Global north. These hypotheses emerge from an inductive revision of data, aimed at generating a basis for further research, as a second step of the ‘grounded theory’ method. First, on the need of family, conventional farmers for recognition of their subaltern position, in both the food system and the society as a whole. Second, on the axes of socio-professional differentiation that could define positions re-garding the messages received. Third, on the possibility to translate agroecology and food sovereignty through symbols embodied in everyday life of the recipients of the messages. Fourth, the lack of recognition of the (self-perceived) condition of subalternity of rural communities can make messages coming from urban food movements to be received as alien –and even impositions- to rural communities. After the description of these hypotheses, the present section ends by opening some insights on how collective reflection pro-cesses on current agri-food systems can unfold symbolic spaces to support material, agroecological transitions.

Reviewer 4 Report

This is a well written and timely article looking at the role of influence of social media on agricultural communities and impact on the messages of agroecology.  Positioning this discussion in the current political discourse in Spain is very effective, especially looking at how the populist right works to influence cultural and political development in the region.  I think looking at the influence of social media as a tool of disseminating ideas is very relevant to modern social and political movements.  I found your methods very appropriate to your research question and your results to be well linked to the academic discourse on political and social movements as well as modern agricultural and agroecology.  I really enjoyed the paper.  I found it innovative, timely and very useful.  Best of luck in your future research.  

Author Response

We really appreciate the reviewer’s comment. Many thanks for your recognition and support.

Reviewer 5 Report

The paper, well-conceived, well-structured, and methodologically consistent, aims to assess answers to different communication strategies favorable to agro-ecological transition. Three brief audiovisuals are visualized by specific socio-professional profiles linked to food systems, together with an online survey. The paper's subject remains an open discussion and its contribution is welcomed.

Although the limitations recognized by the authors, the data collected are poorly explored, namely concerning the online survey. The Results section is only about the answers to open-question. The data obtained from closed questions also must be presented and discussed.

A statistical study concerning the relationship between different audiovisual languages and the profiles of all agricultural and food systems stakeholders is also welcomed in the paper.

Minor improvements:

A paragraph describing the paper structure is missing at the end of the Introduction section.

The online survey is missing and should be included as an annex.

 

Using data from Table 4, how were obtained the total visits of each audiovisual mentioned in lines 342-344?

Author Response

Comment 5.1.: The paper, well-conceived, well-structured, and methodologically consistent, aims to assess answers to different communication strategies favorable to agro-ecological transition. Three brief audiovisuals are visualized by specific socio-professional profiles linked to food systems, together with an online survey. The paper's subject remains an open discussion and its contribution is welcomed.

Although the limitations recognized by the authors, the data collected are poorly explored, namely concerning the online survey. The Results section is only about the answers to open-question. The data obtained from closed questions also must be presented and discussed.

A statistical study concerning the relationship between different audiovisual languages and the profiles of all agricultural and food systems stakeholders is also welcomed in the paper.

Answer to comment 5.1: We really appreciate the reviewer’s comments, which have helped us to sensitively improving the paper. As the paper is already quite long, and following the suggestions of pother blind reviewers, mentions to quantitative analysis have been removed from the text. Therefore, “the relationship between different audiovisual languages and the profiles of all agricultural and food systems stakeholders” remains addressed just from a qualitative approach. The statistical study suggested by reviewer 5, while convenient and adequate, will have to wait to further publications.

 

Minor improvements:

Comment 5.2.: A paragraph describing the paper structure is missing at the end of the Introduction section.

Answer to comment 5.2: The requested paragraph has been added at the end of section 1. It read as follow:

“The second section unfolds the theoretical framework developed for the research design –including audiovisuals’ design- and the analysis of the results obtained. Inspired by ‘grounded theory’ [9], the third section (methods) includes a description of the audiovisuals related to the theories used in their design process, and of the methods used for both collecting and analyzing responses to the audiovisuals. After codification and analysis of the qualitative data collected along an online survey (section 4-results), in section five (discussion) we have constructed emergent hypotheses through an inductive revision of data, and offer some suggestions to generate critical reflection on agricultural systems sustainability between conventional, family farmers and other food systems profiles. Finally, section six (conclusions) states the main findings of the exercise performed, and points out some directions for further research.”

 

Comment 5.3.: The online survey is missing and should be included as an annex.

Answer to comment 5.3: The questionnaire of the online survey has been introduced as annex.

 

Comment 5.4.: Using data from Table 4, how were obtained the total visits of each audiovisual mentioned in lines 342-344?

Answer to comment 5.4: It has been included a description on where the data on visualizations were obtained from. It read as follow:

“In tables 4 and 5 we offer the main numbers of views per social-media platform registered in 26/11/2021, obtained from the platforms stats services.”

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

The paper was improved in some features. The authors' cover letter justifies the options taken.

In fact, the questionnaire now included as a supplementary file is clearly very poor. However, a bivariate and multivariate analysis could be performed to establish relationships between different audiovisual languages and the profiles of all agricultural and food systems stakeholders.