Public sensemaking of active packaging technologies: A feature-based perspective

Abstract

Taking a point of departure in the idea that technology features can act as cues for sensemaking, we explore how the public makes sense of new active packaging technologies; technologies that absorb or release substances from or into the packaging atmosphere, preserving the freshness and safety of food products. Based on data from ten focus groups across five countries (Ireland, Denmark, Italy, Spain and China), we show that sensemaking occurs at two feature-proximity levels. At the first level, we observe the production of proximal representations, where salient technology features drive the sensemaking process and how the individuals come to understand the essence of the technology. At the second level, we observe the production of distal representations, where distinct technology features become less salient, and the holistic understanding of the technology takes over in how individuals come to understand the locus of the technology in broader contexts. Our insights contribute to theory regarding public sensemaking of novel technologies and have practical implications for stakeholders who aim to increase their adoption prospects.

Keywords

active packaging technologies focus groups sensemaking technology features

1. Introduction

The application of new technologies in the food domain has historically been susceptible to adverse reactions from the public. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, since food products come in close contact with individuals, prompting a sense of self-preservation and concerns about possible unwanted health outcomes (Bäckström et al., 2003). Albeit not incorporated in the food products, food packaging often interacts with its content and in this way, it becomes a part of the food product. This is especially evident in the case of active packaging technologies, which operate beyond the inert, passive protection of the food product (Kruijf et al., 2002).

Active packaging technologies can have significant impact in tackling various societal problems (Kruijf et al., 2002). However, they often consist of an assembly of various features (i.e. formed of many different components, processes and functions), which tend to have an abstract character, open to multiple interpretations. Given that the success of new food technologies is reliant on public acceptance (Frewer et al., 2011), there is a need to understand how the public makes sense of such technologies and how their features are likely to contribute to such a sensemaking process. In the early stages of new technological developments, the various stakeholders (i.e. scientists, industrial actors) tend to overlook the potential for a technology to be rejected by the public, in a form of scientific myopia (Campbell, 2003). Specifically, the people behind a technology tend to have a more scientific and technical perspective on the technology, while the general public creates its own, lay narratives about the technology. Such discrepancies in understanding between the two parties can lead to the eventual low acceptance of the technology. Therefore, attempts should be made at mitigating such discrepancies in the early stages of technology development, by gaining a deeper understanding of public narratives around the technology. To date, only few studies investigate public response to active packaging technologies, and those that do mainly address consumer acceptance and thus fail to explore a more conceptualized in-depth sensemaking process people undergo in the advent of such technologies (e.g. Aday and Yener, 2015; O’Callaghan and Kerry, 2016; Van Wezemael and Ueland Verbeke, 2011; Wilson et al., 2018). The aim of the present research is therefore to inquire into which strategies the public employs to make sense of active packaging technologies.

Following an inductive approach and based the notion that technology features can act as cues in the sensemaking process (Griffith, 1999), our results show that, on one hand, individuals engage in an in-depth analysis of the distinct features of the new active packaging technology using certain metaphors, analogies and symbols to represent the technology. On the other hand, they also engage in mapping the broader contexts in which the active packaging technology is situated, building on existing practices, trends and scenarios about the future. Based on these findings, we propose a framework where the sensemaking process takes place at two feature-proximity levels: proximal representations, describing interpretations rooted in specific features of the technology and distal representations, describing interpretations rooted in prominent discourses in society. Through this framework, we show how individuals bring together various and sometimes opposing views on the different features of an active packaging technology and how they integrate these views with existing discourses to create a holistic understanding of the technology.

2. Public sense making of active packaging technologies

The development of novel technologies is reliant on the evolution of public opinion, which is often polarized, if not outright adverse (Wagner and Kronberger, 2001). Positively framed novel technologies are likely to enjoy a wider public acceptance. For example, emerging food technologies, such as 3D printed foods or nanotechnology are generally positively covered in terms of current issues regarding sustainability, healthiness, creativity and progress (Handy and Shaw, 2007; Lupton, 2017). On the other hand, technologies such as genetically modified foods or food irradiation have been historically framed in terms of unnaturalness, health hazards or lack of morality (Dragojlovic and Einsiedel, 2013). The discourse around genetically modified foods has spill-over effects on the acceptance of other emerging food technologies, especially those involving biotechnological processes such as cultured meat (Marcu et al., 2015; O’Riordan et al., 2017). Similar displays have also been observed in the public mistrust of cloning or food irradiations (Henson, 1995; Kahan et al., 2009). For example, food irradiation technology triggers negative associations with nuclear power or radioactivity (Bearth and Siegrist, 2019). Factors promoting such mistrust often relate to the perceived natural versus chemical character of the technology, a generalized lack of trust in science, uncertainty regarding the long-term effects of the technology and public appraisal regarding potential risks and benefits (Marcu et al., 2015). The public has a difficult time accepting those technologies that do not provide easily perceived personal benefits, as is the case with genetically modified foods and food irradiation. Rejection is escalated if the food technology is perceived to be hazardous to various aspects of their lives (Frewer et al., 2011).

Active packaging technologies are a relatively new approach to food protection and preservation. Active packaging is commonly defined as packaging that not only passively protects the food, but is also purposefully designed to either absorb or release substances from or into the packaging atmosphere to maintain food quality and prevent its deterioration. Among the core benefits of active packaging technologies are the extension of the shelf-life of food products and improved food safety and overall quality (Ozdemir and Floros, 2004). Active packaging is, nevertheless, an umbrella term for assemblies of various base technologies and mechanisms, depicting a diverse group of solutions (e.g. moisture regulators, CO2 scavengers, antioxidant and antimicrobial controlled-release packages; Ghaani et al., 2016). The few studies dealing with acceptance of active packaging technologies report overall positive responses to shelf-life extension, as long as the mechanism behind this function is integrated in a manner not apparent to consumers (e.g. Aday and Yener, 2015; Wilson et al., 2018). Given the positive responses to some aspects of active packaging technologies (e.g. shelf-life extensions) but not others (e.g. the mechanism behind) we argue that individuals’ holistic interpretation of such technologies will, to a large extent, depend on the technologies’ features and the schemata of knowledge they trigger.

3. The process of sensemaking

When presented with novel technologies, individuals often have to navigate through a high level of scientific and technological complexity, lack of familiarity with the technology and uncertainty concerning future outcomes (Doble, 1995). The complex and equivocal nature of the technology tends to foster a sense of uneasiness and individuals can become circumspect towards and often even frightened of the technology (Frewer et al., 2011). Such adverse reactions often stem from pervasive associations used to represent novel technologies, and, importantly, from a heightened sense of threat when the novel technologies are used to ‘upgrade’ food products. To overcome the unfamiliarity effect of novel technologies, individuals often seek to bring them into the realms of ‘what is known’ by engaging in certain compensatory cognitive strategies (Kardes et al., 2004). Such strategies involve ‘filling in the blanks’ with information that is already available or familiar, in a process known as sensemaking (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014).

Sensemaking has been conceptualized as an individual, cognitive process, whereby individuals try to ascribe meaning to what is new by placing it in their existing schemata of knowledge (Elsbach et al., 2005), as well as a social process, whereby the meaning is negotiated and socially constructed between individuals (Maitlis, 2005). The narratives surrounding novel technologies are largely framed by collective, established and often dominant visions of desirable futures underpinned by a shared understanding of how social and technological progress should unfold (Jasanoff and Kim, 2015). Such visions can be crucial in formulating collective ideas about a novel technology and in defining its place in the broader picture. As Jasanoff and Kim (2015: 21) put it, ‘the past is prologue, but it is also a site of memory excavated and reinterpreted in the light of a society’s understanding of the present and its hopes for what lies ahead’. However, the process of meaning creation will also depend on the schemata of knowledge and existing beliefs idiosyncratic to each person (Kahan et al., 2009) and on the available cues acting as triggers for sensemaking (Berente et al., 2011). In the early phases of a novel technology, when information concerning the technology is scarce, technology features are likely to act as triggering cues for sensemaking, with certain features becoming more salient in this process and serving as a base for how people come to interpret the technology holistically (Griffith, 1999). In the marketing discipline, a feature-based perspective has been used extensively to investigate consumer response to and acceptance of new products and innovations (Du et al., 2015; Thompson et al., 2005 e.g. Meyer et al., 2008) or their aesthetic responses to product design (e.g. Holbrook, 1986; Schnurr and Scholl Grissemann, 2015). When it comes to sensemaking of new technologies, a feature-based perspective has, for the most part, caught the interest of studies dealing with organization-wide implementations of information technologies (e.g. Faraj et al., 2004; Griffith, 1999) and their users, and less of those dealing with technology applications in other domains such as foods and food packaging.

Technology features have various meanings, depending on the context in which they are utilized (Kim et al., 2009). While there is no focal theory proposing a typology of features, current literature discusses features as the building blocks or components of a technology (e.g. hardware), the functions a technology performs (e.g. writing e-mails) or an aggregate of components and functions (Griffith, 1999; Kim et al., 2009). Furthermore, Griffith (1999) proposed two feature dimensions that are linked to the sensemaking process of a novel technology. One such dimension refers to whether the technology features are core or tangential to a technology. Core features are considered essential for the nature and role of the technology and if they are removed or changed, they alter the overall nature of the technology. On the other hand, tangential features are often optional and do not define the technology. A second dimension is the degree to which the technology features are concrete, being more easily observed and verified by any user, or abstract, being verifiable only through expert knowledge or tools. The place of a technology feature along these continuums might influence individuals’ sensemaking process.

Tangential and abstract features are generally complex, presenting difficulties in the sensemaking process and tend to produce a wider palette of interpretations, attuned to individuals’ diverse backgrounds and schemata of knowledge. On the other hand, concrete and core features are likely to be interpreted more uniformly, as they are often easier to understand and more established in the public domain (Annapoornima and Soh, 2004; Kim et al., 2009). Therefore, a feature-based perspective enables us to discern how technology features and the respective schemata of knowledge they trigger contribute to a holistic understanding of the technology.

4. Methodology

The case

Our study is based on the case of an active packaging technology which is currently under development for large-scale production. This active packaging technology ‘is based on nanotechnology as an enabling technology’ and ‘aims to preserve food products’ freshness and to extend their shelf-life up to 25% through the release of natural essential oils, while maintaining the food products’ taste, nutrition and color’ (Description of active packaging technology provided to study participants.).

By breaking down the description of the technology provided to study participants, we identified three primary features of active packaging technologies: components, mechanism and functions. Two of these categories (i.e. components and functions) are mentioned in previous studies (e.g. Kim et al., 2009). The components represent the distinctive building blocks of any technology. By components, we hereby refer to all the base technologies and substances that were mentioned in the description of the technology (i.e. ‘nanotechnology as an enabling technology’, ‘natural essential oils’). Functions represent the task accomplished by the technology, in our case that of improving the properties of food products (i.e. ‘to preserve food products’ freshness and to extend their shelf-life’). We added the third category – mechanisms (i.e. ‘through the release of . . .’) – to account for the way in which technology components ‘work together’ to perform the technology’s function. This is a key aspect of active packaging technologies, since it is their mechanisms that convey their ‘active’ nature. These categories guided our subsequent data analysis (see Table 1 for an overview).

Table 1.

Technology features.

Features provided in the case	Emerging categories	Definitions
Nanotechnology; essential oils	Components	The distinctive building blocks of a technology
Release of active component in the packaging atmosphere	Mechanisms	The way in which a task is accomplished by a technology
Freshness; extended shelf-life	Functions	The task accomplished by a technology

Study method

Given the novelty of the investigated technology, exploratory study techniques are suitable to investigate the phenomenon. Of the exploratory tools available, focus groups are a qualitative technique that allows for group interaction, which renders specific insights and shared ideas more accessible than individual interviews. This method is most beneficial for unexplored or new topics where information is still scarce, as it enables a rich investigation of the content, with data emerging from both the individual and the individual’s interaction with the group (Krueger and Casey, 2014). We chose to carry out the focus group discussions using projective techniques. Compared to straightforward questioning techniques, projective techniques allow participants to express restrained thoughts and feelings, as they ‘project’ these thoughts and feelings onto someone else (Chrysochou, 2017). This interviewing technique frees participants from social pressure and enables them to express their own thoughts and feelings in an indirect manner.

Participants

Ten focus groups interviews were conducted with a total of 96 participants across five countries (Ireland, Denmark, Italy, Spain and China). The choice of countries aimed to increase diversity by representing the north and south of Europe as well as an East Asian country with a different cultural background (i.e. China). Two focus group discussions were carried out in each country with nine to ten participants in each group, and lasted approximately 1 hour. The participants were selected using maximum variation sampling, with the aim of obtaining heterogeneity and variety within each focus group, as this allows for the identification of common emergent topics (Palinkas et al., 2015). The sample varied in relation to gender, age, education level, employment status, marital status and presence of children in the household (please refer to the supplemental material). All participants were recruited by selected market research agencies.

Design and procedure

Each focus group interview was based on a semi-structured interview guide, which followed several stages of discussion: general perception of the use of technology in food products, perceptions of active packaging technologies, perceptions of the new technology, opinions on communication of the new technology and relevant contexts for its application. Finally, a socio-demographics questionnaire was filled out at the end of the session.

In each country, the two focus groups were provided with slightly different information. In the first focus group (coded as 1), participants were presented with an active packaging technology that can extend the shelf-life of food products and were informed that the technology is based on nanotechnology. In the second focus group (coded as 2), participants were presented with an active packaging technology (generic) that can extend the shelf-life of food products, without being informed about the nanotechnology feature. We altered these two scenarios to avoid the focus groups discussion being dominated by nanotechnology. However, since we did not observe any systematic differences between the two ways of introducing the topic (with or without referring to nanotechnology), the data from the focus groups were aggregated and used as such in further analyses, presentation of results and discussion.

Experienced researchers from each country were selected and briefed to moderate the focus group interviews. The discussions were carried out in the official language of each country. All focus groups were video and/or audio recorded. The focus group interviews were conducted throughout June–November 2017, were transcribed verbatim and translated to English where necessary. Anonymized data complying with GDPR and research protocol can be accessed through Open Science Framework.

Data analysis

Data analysis was supported by the NVivo software, and involved two coding cycles: an initial, descriptive coding cycle and a cycle of pattern coding (Miles et al., 2014). The first cycle of coding followed an open, inductive approach, with the purpose of summarizing the data into topics relevant to our study purpose. Examples of descriptive codes emerging at this stage are technology attitudes, beliefs, prior knowledge or expectations. The second cycle of coding followed a pattern approach, where recurring themes were identified. At this stage, the coding process was highly iterative, as we repeatedly revisited identified themes and compared these against the whole dataset, to check for accuracy and descriptive power. We observed that parts of the discussions were highly related to the features of the technology, whereas others were mainly drawing on prevailing discourses in the society that were only loosely related to the technology and its specific features. Two grounded categories emerged as a result of this analytical process: proximal representations and distal representations. Together, these categories describe the sensemaking strategies employed by our participants when presented with the active packaging technology. The category proximal representations emerged as participants engaged in discussions directly related to the distinct features of the technology. The category distal representations emerged as participants engaged in discussions related to the technology as a whole, and to its potential place in existing discourses and practices. Table 2 below provides an overview of the two categories, and the inclusion criteria that guided subsequent coding iterations. For each category, subthemes have been identified and presented.

Table 2.

Grounded categories.

Grounded categories	Description	Guiding questions
Proximal representations	Representations (i.e. beliefs, ideas, images, symbols and other explanations) directly linked to distinct technology features and used to construct a narrowly oriented, isolated understanding, revealing the essence of the new technology	Is the focus primarily oriented towards: ✓ Specific features of the technology? ✓ Realizing an isolated understanding of the technology?
Distal representations	Representations (i.e. beliefs, ideas, images, symbols and other explanations) indirectly linked to distinct technology features and used to construct a broadly oriented, integrated understanding, revealing the locus of the new technology in the social context	Is the focus primarily oriented towards: ✓ The technology as a whole? ✓ Realizing an integrated understanding of the technology?

In the following section, we elaborate upon these two main themes as well as a number of subthemes. We further present in the text the most representative quotations for each topic while a detailed list of quotations for each theme can be found in the supplemental material.

5. Findings

Proximal representations

We define proximal representations as the schemata of knowledge triggered by the features of a new technology during individuals’ sensemaking process. In our data, the proximal representation processes involved an in-depth close-up look at the various features of the new technology, to reveal the essence (i.e. what the technology is) of the technology and map it onto a known domain.

When trying to make sense of the active packaging technology, people referred to specific components (i.e. the enabling technology and its various components) and functions of the technology (i.e. extended shelf-life, freshness), as well as to the way the technology works holistically (i.e. its mechanism). By engaging in certain analogies, they tried to relate these aspects to familiar and established concepts or objects. For example, participants made sense of the nanotechnology feature by anchoring it into the larger category of space age, or advanced technology, by insinuating that nanotechnology is only a buzz word or a marketing stunt aimed at promoting products or by making analogies with existing technologies, such as genetic manipulation:

[Nano technology sounds like] space age. (SP1)

Again me being skeptical, it’s just a long word, I think it’s designed, it’s a buzz word designed to make us go wow. (IR1)

It doesn’t report anything negative, that word. It seems to be a description that has the aim of being innovative, selling a product that’s innovative, without explaining what it consists of, obviously, it’s sort of a slogan. (SP1)

I would oppose it just because I don’t know what nano science actually is. If it is genetically altered, I would not buy it either, because I have a negative view of it. (DK1)

Other features of the technology might bring out different interpretations. In this case, essential oils do not represent a novelty in themselves, as they have been on the market for quite some time, yet for other uses (e.g. cosmetics). The novelty rests, however, in their current use as active components released into the packaging atmosphere. Therefore, individuals had to redefine their notion of essential oils to correspond to the new context. Their analogies were rooted in their knowledge of existing technologies that seem to have a similar functionality – that of preserving the food. Using this as a starting point, they, for example, drew a contrast between the perceived naturalness of essential oils on one hand and the perceived synthetic character of preservatives on the other.

There are no additives, because these essential oils are released. (IT1)

I take a positive view. If they are natural and essential oils, it does not sound very synthetic to me –so that would actually be fine. (DK1)

While from the above excerpts it appears as if the naturalness of essential oils is an asset, this quality can also backfire. Essential oils are natural, yet, they cannot be separated from the integrating technology, which involves certain ‘chemical’ processes. Here we can observe an assimilation effect, where essential oils become part of the preservatives and additives category, lending them a ‘chemical’ or ‘unnatural’ quality.

Isn’t there also something about the chemicals? Your mind starts thinking about chemicals when you say ‘natural essential oils’, and if it comes from the packaging, well then there is some kind of chemical process to it. That is what people would think, at first. It might be okay from some health-related aspect, but it would not be additive-free. (DK2)

Furthermore, by making analogies with previous practices of the food industry where certain buzzwords are used to mislead the public, participants did not trust the product to be natural, precisely because it claims to be natural.

I think it is a bit funny, that it relates directly to the fact that it has to be natural. Natural essential oils, which takes us straight back to the argument of the natural part, where these oils probably have been processed in a lab into this new technology. (DK2)

In addition to making analogies to similar technologies or practices, participants also made references to certain symbols or metaphors from unrelated domains, to define what essential oils mean in this context. For example, participants associated essential oils with non-edible product categories (i.e. body care, household cleaning products), or even drew parallels with ancient funeral rituals.

The ones used for massages. . . for instance? Just to understand. That’s what I link essential oils, the natural ones, to [. . .] I would like to know what kind of essential oils, which essential oils are we talking about. . . because, since I like essential oils a lot, I link them to the house, clothes, skin fragrances. (IT2)

It seems that the product got embalmed, like mummies. (IT1)

Participants also tried to make sense of the technology holistically, by reflecting on the process by which the technology works (i.e. the mechanism feature). One common theme surfacing is the way in which the technology influences the product inside the package through the migration of the active component (i.e. the essential oils). Here, we can distinguish two subthemes in which this mechanism is anchored: mutation and contamination. The mutation theme reflects the fear that the technology might stop a natural process that results in an utterly different product:

There’s one thing that really makes me wonder. These essential oils, this nanotechnology, they stop a natural process, the degradation of a food product. And, to stop this degradation, anyway, it has to create something chemical. Natural or not, anyway it’s a chemical natural process. That’s the only thing that makes me wonder. (IT1)

This feeling seems to be amplified by the fact that the technology will be used at the industrial level:

Yes, but considering it on a large scale, at an industrial scale, salt, we are already talking about a food product that is processed so much that . . . what I want to say is that it is one thing if my mum does it, if she adds the essential oil, it is another thing if Conad [Italian supermarket chain] or someone else does it. (IT1)

The contamination theme reflects, on the other hand, the concern that the product might become tainted when it comes in contact with the essential oils or with the packaging:

The plastic packaging is already touching the food product, and this is already something that we should try to remove. And, in addition, you add something more. (IT1)

I think that there’s a worsening, for sure there’s a worsening in the quality, a bigger contamination. (IT1)

We could also observe participants entering an unfamiliar territory, where, instead of drawing on similarities with what is known to them, they started wondering about the mechanics behind the technology by asking rhetorical questions and expressing confusion:

I wonder how it can free those essential oils to the product, I can’t picture it. (SP2)

I would like to know when it is going to free the essential oils. Two days from the date of expiry? (SP2)

Similar to making sense of the technology itself, participants also engaged in making sense of the functions of the technology, by endowing them with tangible properties. This also implies that, at times, two promised benefits might come in contradiction to each other. Freshness, for example, is a rather vague quality. Many of the participants expressed it in terms of the time passed from production, where a shorter time equates a fresher food product. This means that they do not see a product with an extended shelf-life as being fresh, since a longer time has passed since production. In this view, a technology could not possibly both extend the shelf-life of the product and maintain the freshness of the product.

But if it lasts longer, it’s not fresh. (SP1)

The longer the time, the less nutrition and freshness, I think. (CN1)

You need to know that this technology is to extend the shelf-life. It does not mean this is the fresher one. One fruit is picked 20 days ago, and the other one 5 days ago, which one would you choose? (CN1)

Another way to interpret freshness of food products is for participants to look at the level of processing or technology intervention up to the final food product, where products that are less processed are perceived to be fresher.

There’s some things I’d have to buy but I really prefer to buy my chicken fillets from the butcher; [. . .] It’s processed when you buy it in the supermarket I think, do you know like, I just feel it’s fresher. (IR1)

In general, I actually just want my food as fresh as possible. I don’t like the thought of adding some chemicals to food to make it last longer. (DK1)

When presented with the active packaging technology, our participants engaged in sensemaking processes by unwrapping its unique features, and anchoring each of these into existing frames of reference. However, such processes alone proved insufficient to enable a complete understanding of the technology as a social object. This may be the case because, taken in isolation, the unwrapped features were not necessarily represented through images or societal symbols that are compatible with each other. A representative example is the timeframe incompatibility between essential oils symbolized through mummy embalming rituals (i.e. past-oriented), and nanotubes referenced as space-age technology (i.e. future-oriented). To resolve such incompatibilities, our participants shifted their focus from isolated technology features to the congruencies between them. This involved attempts at placing the presented technology as a whole into broader individual or societal discourses – a process we call distal representations. We elaborate on this below.

Distal representations

We define distal representations as the larger context and schemata of knowledge in which the new technology is placed, usually, but not necessarily generated after individuals have achieved an initial understanding of the technology based on its various features. In our data, participants negotiated the locus of the technology in current public discourses, as well as in scenarios about the future, based on the experiences already available to them. It is important to note that such strategies are not about making sense of the technology in-depth but about establishing the place of the technology in a wider picture.

In processes of distal representations, people engaged in sensemaking both at an individual level, reflecting on their own daily practices, as well as at a societal level, reflecting on existing public discourses and broader frames of reference. In the following, we expose both these angles.

On one hand, people reflected on how the new technology is positioned relative to their daily practices and routines. In certain cases, such practices reduced the perceived value of the new technology, yet in other cases the technology was perceived as potentially improving aspects of participants’ lives. An example of the former is when the promised benefits of shelf-life extension is seen as unnecessary, since products could be either frozen or shopping could be carried out more frequently:

[If I have a fridge] I can go and buy products more frequently; I won’t need such a long shelf-life. (CN1)

If I buy two kilos of meat for instance, I automatically put the amount that I am not going to use into cold storage. For me it would not grant me any extra advantages. (DK1)

A larger context of the new technology is drawn when participants ventured beyond individual practices and envisage situations or places where such a technology could be more beneficial. References to individual circumstances (e.g. type of household, lifestyle) and also geographical location as a possible criterion for the suitability of the technology are commonly mentioned. However, opinions often diverged and we could see certain contradictions appearing. Such contradictions might be rooted in individual and local knowledge and experiences. For example, some participants proposed that the technology is more suitable for warmer climates, due to a higher risk of product spoilage:

In general I think that countries with a warm climate where foods go bad pretty fast it would make more sense. In these countries, they have a shorter durability than in Denmark because of the heat. How many people leave their potatoes outside to make them last longer and better? (DK1)

Yet, others believed that it is in cold climates that this technology would prove more valuable, either because of a lack of fresh produce or because of shopping convenience:

[More suitable] where there’s also a deficiency of fresh products, because they also have an issue with fresh products. (IT1)

[More suitable] in really cold countries where they can’t get to supermarkets and things like that. (IR1)

The sensemaking process also involved establishing the locus of the new technology in people’s imagined desirable futures. Imagined futures are not scenarios that are detached from current and past realities, but scenarios that people project in retrospect of past events, current societal challenges and emerging trends. A recurrent theme is how the new technology needs to make sense in terms of sustainability. In line with current discourses on sustainability, participants envisioned less food packaging, and questioned the place of yet another packaging technology in future food consumption practices:

If you’re going to be buying food all the time in the shops and there’s fruit and veg there without this packaging, and then you have to get rid of extra packaging, that there’s already too much packaging that you have to recycle already, you just buy the stuff that doesn’t have it on it. (IR1)

Reducing the packaging as well, maybe it should be a zero impact one. (IT1)

However, if packaging is necessary, it should be biodegradable, recyclable or, at the very least, multi- purpose:

This kind of packaging should be disposed of in a different way than plastic, for instance, it should be biodegradable. (IT1)

Then the good thing would be that it is recyclable. (SP1)

Another recurrent theme is related to scientific uncertainty, where participants emphasized how little is currently known about the long-term effects of such packaging technologies. This is based on participants’ beliefs that science is not immutable and that supplementary information about new technologies usually emerge in time. Therefore, by reflecting on past evens, they imagined that, further down the road, they might find out that this new technology is actually harmful:

Ages ago we were told butter is bad for you, now we’re told butter is actually good fat for you and this would be great for you and we find out 15 years down the road actually these oils we’re using are not good, these are not good for you. (IR1)

I think that this technology is ‘in diapers’ [i.e., in its beginnings]. (SP1)

By taking a feature-based approach to sensemaking, we unveiled how our participants construct complex social images around active packaging technologies. In doing so, we exposed two feature-proximity levels of the sensemaking process, which we refer to as proximal and distal representations. Important to note is that sensemaking at one level does not necessarily precede sensemaking at the other level. However, the interplay between sensemaking at each level allowed participants to construct coherent narratives around the presented technology, and endow it with social characteristics. In the following section, we provide an integrated overview of our findings and discuss both their theoretical and practical implications.

6. General discussion

Based on our findings, we propose a framework of public sensemaking of active packaging technologies, visually depicted using a bull’s eye diagram (Figure 1). The diagram represents the social object, that is, the technology as it is interpreted and socially constructed by the public. The core of the diagram represents the technology’s features, as proposed by those involved in its development, where the sensemaking process is initiated. Based on proximity to technology features, we propose that people construct the social object across two feature-proximity levels: proximal and distal representations.

Figure 1.

The Sensemaking Framework: New Active Packaging Technology as a Social Object at Different Levels of Representation.

The space of proximal representations is the configuration of representations generated when people engage in an exploration of salient technology features to come to a narrowly oriented, isolated understanding of the new active packaging technology. The technology features trigger a sensemaking process whereby people draw on available metaphors, images, and analogies related to other familiar practices (e.g. relating the use of essential oils to body care), broader categories (e.g. space age, high-end), abstract notions (e.g. marketing stunt, buzz word) and existing technologies (e.g. gene technology, additives, and preservatives), which, together, reveal the essence of the technology (i.e. what the technology is). As such, in the absence of concrete experiences with the technology and given its intangible and abstract character, participants rely on loose knowledge to create an understanding of what the technology is.

The two main components of the active packaging technology presented to our participants activated knowledge from seemingly unrelated and perhaps even incompatible domains. Similar to previous research, participants associate the nanotechnology component with images of space exploration and high-tech applications, hinting at notions of progress and the future of mankind (Feindt and Poortvliet, 2019). On the other hand, the understanding of essential oils comes from a different domain. Relatively unknown in food applications, participants seem to mostly associate essential oils with cosmetic and therapeutic uses, as well as images of ancient practices (i.e. mummy embalming). Drawing on analogies with more familiar technologies or applications is a strategy often used to bridge a gap in knowledge (Marcu et al., 2015).

Dominant and collective ideas, narratives, and visions not immediately linked to specific features of the active packaging technology are also crucial in formulating a shared understanding of the technology and in defining its place (i.e. locus) in the broader picture. Via the space of distal representations, we therefore show how individuals produce a broadly oriented, integrated understanding of the technology by drawing on prevailing societal discourses and trends. These can be related to, for example, competing practices (e.g. freezing the products, shopping more frequently), broader contexts in which the technology might prove useful (e.g. the climate of the country), and imagined future scenarios indicating a thorough consideration of how the world should unfold (e.g. less packaging, more sustainable materials, prevention of health hazards). Our findings are analogous to those in previous literature. People are commonly willing to trade most product attributes in favour of environmentally friendly packaging (Van Birgelen et al., 2009), and novel technologies that align with such discourses are usually perceived to be more valuable (Lupton, 2017). Concerns about the sustainability of ‘more packaging’ were also raised by our participants, which seems to be a key aspect of any new technology. Together, such representations reveal the locus of the technology (i.e. where the technology is) in the current discourse. This tells us whether there is room for any new technology to be embraced by the public, given the current discourses.

Our framework demonstrates how individuals bring together various and sometimes opposing views on the various features of an active packaging technology. We further highlight that these views are integrated with existing discourse to create a holistic understanding of the technology which we highlight in the framework as distal and proximal representations. Overall, our proposed framework provides the potential to contextualize novel technologies, such as active packaging technologies, and helps to understand how such technologies are perceived by the public and how they could be further communicated.

Another important issue highlighted in our framework is the disparity between how the technology is understood by the stakeholders involved in its development and implementation and how it is ‘made sense of’ and understood by the general public. Indeed, previous research has repeatedly illustrated that these two groups tend to have a different understanding of technologies (Griffith, 1999). Specifically, developers and implementers tend to have a more scientific and technical perspective on the technology, a perspective usually not shared by the general public, which can create its own narratives about a technology, as illustrated above. Applied to our framework, this means that developers’ and implementers’ understanding of a technology tends to be in the realm of objective technology properties (i.e. the inner circle in our framework, technology features), overlooking how these features translate into the public discourse (i.e. the outer rings in our framework, Proximal and Distal Representations). Such understanding incongruency can have serious consequences (e.g. costs incurred due to public rejection of a technology) and, therefore, attempts should be made at mitigating it in the early stages of technology development.

Contribution to research and practice

Drawing on data from ten focus group discussions across five countries, our study provides insights on public sensemaking of active packaging technologies. Inspired by studies dealing with sensemaking of technologies implemented on larger scales (e.g. Faraj et al., 2004; Griffith, 1999), we highlight how various technology features influence the sensemaking process applied for a food packaging technology. Hereby, we emphasize the importance of a technology’s features in generating the initial public sensemaking process, but we also show that part of the sensemaking process is likely to be developed through broader ideas and trends dominant at the moment, which are independent of the technology features. We contribute to theory regarding public sensemaking of new technologies by proposing a framework that distinguishes between two levels of representations generated in the sensemaking process (i.e. proximal and distal), based on their proximity to technology features.

In practice, and especially in the early stages of new technological developments, stakeholders such as scientists and industrial actors do not anticipate rejection of a technology by the public (Campbell, 2003). By narrowly focussing on more technical aspects (e.g. technology testing, development and upscaling), they often fail to notice what presents itself on the other side of the fence – how the public actually understands, and consequently, accepts the new technology. This was also apparent in our various project meetings, where we observed that the scientific and industrial partners in the project tended to mostly emphasize the technical aspects of the technology’s success (e.g. how to mix the various features, the results of the experiments in various settings, etc.), while often neglecting another critical aspect of a technology’s success: does the public understand the technology and its features after all? This issue should be high on the stakeholders’ agenda in the early stages of technology development. Therefore, efforts should be made to close the gap between how stakeholders (e.g. developers, implementers) understand and how the public understands the technology and its various features. For this, two avenues are possible: educating the public on the new technology or readjusting stakeholders’ understanding of the technology according to how the public represents it. The latter is likely to be more effective and cost-efficient, since stakeholders can integrate such representations of the technology in how they communicate and position the technology.

Therefore, to those involved in the development of novel packaging technologies, this framework can also be regarded as a tool to acquire richer insights into how such technologies may be interpreted by the public, avoid scientific myopia, and eventually increase their adoption prospects. Public interpretations of the technology can be better responded to through the appropriate communication strategies when they are anticipated rather than merely disseminated in public debate. For example, anticipating that essential oils (as a technology feature) can elicit both positive (e.g. natural) and negative (e.g. chemical) associations through processes of proximal representations can help with developing more suitable communication messages that explain the mechanism of essential oils, their origin and their effect on the food product. Similarly, anticipating the type of distal representations likely to be generated could allow stakeholders to more effectively disseminate the new technology in contexts with competing or incompatible practices and trends (e.g. introducing a new plastic packaging technology in light of environmental concerns should, at the very least, be questioned).

Limitations

Our study is limited to a specific case study of an active packaging technology and based solely on a verbal description of the respective technology. Furthermore, we did not account for cultural differences but rather focussed on common themes emerging across countries. While these conditions limit our contributions contextually, we believe that our central finding usefully informs future research inquiring about public acceptance of novel food packaging technologies. Yet, it is possible that exposure to a real technology (instead of a mere description of a technology) will produce different responses in individuals. It is well-documented that sensory input (e.g. visual, olfactory) is essential in the process of sensemaking (e.g. de Rond et al., 2019; Meziani and Cabantous, 2020), so future studies might consider a more realistic scenario. Furthermore, for a more nuanced understanding of the sensemaking process future inquiries might want to account for cultural differences (e.g. based on country or local communities). Although the mass culture promoted by globalization has become prominent, local knowledge is still likely to play a considerable role in the acceptance of novel technologies.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-pus-10.1177_09636625211015830 – Supplemental material for Public sensemaking of active packaging technologies: A feature-based perspective

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-pus-10.1177_09636625211015830 for Public sensemaking of active packaging technologies: A feature-based perspective by Alexandra Festila, Polymeros Chrysochou, Sophie Hieke and Camila Massri in Public Understanding of Science

Footnotes

Author note

Sophie Hieke is also affiliated to Munich Business School, Germany.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 720815. Any dissemination of results must indicate that it reflects only the authors’ views and that the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

ORCID iDs

Alexandra Festila

Polymeros Chrysochou

Sophie Hieke

Camila Massri

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author biographies

Alexandra Festila is a PhD in Marketing and Consumer Behaviour from Aarhus University. Her research interests stand at the intersections of human judgement and decision-making, effective designs and risk and health communication.

Polymeros Chrysochou is a Professor of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour at the Department of Management, Aarhus University. His research interests focus on areas of marketing communications and branding, with emphasis on food marketing, sustainability and packaging design, among others.

Sophie Hieke is Head of Consumer Science at the European Food Information Council (EUFIC) and a professor for Marketing and Communication at Munich Business School. Her main area of research is behavioural science and decision-making, with a focus on consumer behaviour in the food and health context.

Camila Massri is a Consumer Science manager at the European Food Information Council (EUFIC). She is involved in a wide variety of research projects examining consumer insights and behaviour on topics related to food, nutrition, food technology and sustainability.

References

Aday

Yener

(2015) Assessing consumers’ adoption of active and intelligent packaging. British Food Journal 117: 157–177.

Annapoornima

Soh

(2004) October) Determinants of technological frames: A study of E-learning technology. In: 2004 IEEE international engineering management conference, Vol. 2, Singapore, 18–21 October, pp. 834–838. New York: IEEE.

Bäckström

Pirttilä-Backman

A-M

Tuorila

(2003) Dimensions of novelty: A social representation approach to new foods. Appetite 40: 299–307.

Bearth

Siegrist

(2019) As long as it is not irradiated: Influencing factors of US consumers’ acceptance of food irradiation. Food Quality and Preference 71: 141–148.

Berente

Hansen

Pike

Bateman

(2011) Arguing the value of virtual worlds: Patterns of discursive sensemaking of an innovative technology. MIS Quarterly: 685–709.

Campbell

(2003) Biotechnology and the fear of frankenstein. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 12: 342–352.

Chrysochou

(2017) Consumer behavior research methods. In: Emilien

Weitkunat

Lüdicke

(eds) Consumer Perception of Product Risks and Benefits. Cham: Springer, pp. 409–428.

de Rond

Holeman

Howard-Grenville

(2019) Sensemaking from the body: An enactive ethnography of rowing the Amazon. Academy of Management Journal 62(6): 1961–1988.

Doble

(1995) Public opinion about issues characterized by technological complexity and scientific uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science 4: 95–118.

10.

Dragojlovic

Einsiedel

(2013) Playing god or just unnatural? Religious beliefs and approval of synthetic biology. Public Understanding of Science 22: 869–885.

11.

Damangir

(2015) Leveraging trends in online searches for product features in market response modeling. Journal of Marketing 79: 29–43.

12.

Elsbach

Barr

Hargadon

(2005) Identifying situated cognition in organizations. Organization Science 16: 422–433.

13.

Faraj

Kwon

Watts

(2004) Contested artifact: Technology sensemaking, actor networks, and the shaping of the Web browser. Information Technology & People 17: 186–209.

14.

Feindt

Poortvliet

(2019) Consumer reactions to unfamiliar technologies: Mental and social formation of perceptions and attitudes toward nano and GM products. Journal of Risk Research 23: 475–489.

15.

Frewer

Bergmann

Brennan

Lion

Meertens

Rowe

, et al. (2011) Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends in Food Science & Technology 22: 442–456.

16.

Ghaani

Cozzolino

Castelli

Farris

(2016) An overview of the intelligent packaging technologies in the food sector. Trends in Food Science & Technology 51: 1–11.

17.

Griffith

(1999) Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management Review 24: 472–488.

18.

Handy

Shaw

(2007) Toxic effects of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: Implications for public health, risk assessment and the public perception of nanotechnology. Health, Risk & Society 9: 125–144.

19.

Henson

(1995) Demand-side constraints on the introduction of new food technologies: The case of food irradiation. Food Policy 20: 111–127.

20.

Holbrook

(1986) Aims, concepts, and methods for the representation of individual differences in esthetic responses to design features. Journal of Consumer Research 13: 337–347.

21.

Jasanoff

Kim

(2015) Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

22.

Kahan

Braman

Slovic

, et al (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology 4: 87.

23.

Kardes

Posavac

Cronley

(2004) Consumer inference: A review of processes, bases, and judgment contexts. Journal of Consumer Psychology 14: 230–256.

24.

Kim

Mannino

Nieschwietz

(2009) Information technology acceptance in the internal audit profession: Impact of technology features and complexity. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 10(4): 214–228.

25.

Krueger

Casey

(2014) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

26.

Kruijf

Beest

Rijk

Sipiläinen-Malm

Paseiro

De Meulenaer

(2002) Active and intelligent packaging: Applications and regulatory aspects. Food Additives and Contaminants 19: 144–162.

27.

Lupton

(2017) Download to delicious’: Promissory themes and sociotechnical imaginaries in coverage of 3D printed food in online news sources. Futures 93: 44–53.

28.

Maitlis

(2005) The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal 48: 21–49.

29.

Maitlis

Christianson

(2014) Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. The Academy of Management Annals 8: 57–125.

30.

Marcu

Gaspar

Rutsaert

, et al (2015) Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat. Public Understanding of Science 24: 547–562.

31.

Meyer

Zhao

Han

(2008) Biases in valuation vs. usage of innovative product features. Marketing Science 27: 1083–1096.

32.

Meziani

Cabantous

(2020) Acting intuition into sense: How film crews make sense with embodied ways of knowing. Journal of Management Studies 57(7): 1384–1419.

33.

Miles

Huberman

Saldana

(2014) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

34.

O’Callaghan

Kerry

(2016) Consumer attitudes towards the application of smart packaging technologies to cheese products. Food Packaging and Shelf Life 9: 1–9.

35.

O’Riordan

Fotopoulou

Stephens

(2017) The first bite: Imaginaries, promotional publics and the laboratory grown burger. Public Understanding of Science 26: 148–163.

36.

Ozdemir

Floros

(2004) Active food packaging technologies. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 44: 185–193.

37.

Palinkas

Horwitz

Green

Wisdom

Duan

Hoagwood

(2015) Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 42: 533–544.

38.

Schnurr

Scholl Grissemann

(2015) Beauty or function? How different mass customization toolkits affect customers’ process enjoyment. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 14: 335–343.

39.

Thompson

Hamilton

Rust

(2005) Feature fatigue: When product capabilities become too much of a good thing. Journal of Marketing Research 42: 431–442.

40.

van Birgelen

Semeijn

Keicher

(2009) Packaging and proenvironmental consumption behavior: Investigating purchase and disposal decisions for beverages. Environment and Behavior 41: 125–146.

41.

van Wezemael

Ueland Verbeke

ØW

(2011) European consumer response to packaging technologies for improved beef safety. Meat Science 89: 45–51.

42.

Wagner

Kronberger

(2001) Killer tomatoes! Collective symbolic coping with biotechnology. In: Deaux

Philogene

(eds) Representations of the Social: Bridging Theoretical Traditions. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 147–164.

43.

Wilson

Harte

Almenar

(2018) Effects of sachet presence on consumer product perception and active packaging acceptability: A study of fresh-cut cantaloupe. LWT 92: 531–539.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.21 MB