4.7 Article

Method triangulation to assess different aspects of food safety culture in food service operations

期刊

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 116, 期 -, 页码 1103-1112

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.09.053

关键词

Food safety culture; Food safety climate; Method triangulation; Food service operation; Food safety management system; Complacency; Optimistic bias

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The advantages and added value of applying method triangulation to gain a more comprehensive evaluation of the prevailing food safety culture in catering establishments is illustrated by means of a case study. Three methods are applied assessing the food safety culture in food service operations of a Flemish University spread over different locations in the city of Ghent, but centrally managed. Each method sheds light on one of the aspects of 'food safety culture' as defined in the food safety culture conceptual model, in which food safety culture is considered as the interplay between a techno-managerial route/aspect and a human route/aspect Two system and product related methods, being internal audits and verification of monitoring data of Critical Control Points (CCPs) as part of the HACCP system, both assessing the performance of the food safety management system and as such belonging to the techno-managerial route, are compared with a people related method using the food safety climate self-assessment tool, which is belonging to the human route. By triangulation of these three methods different aspects of the food safety culture at the different locations could be investigated, illustrating how single-method derived results could lead to wrong conclusions. Moreover, by combining the assessment methods case by case, locations in which the hazard of optimistic bias and complacency might exist, can be identified. As such, more tailored and location specific strategies for improvement of food safety management and/or food safety culture can be put in place.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据