British Food Journal

Consumers, Norwegian food and belonging: a qualitative study

Gun Mikaela Roos, Kai Victor Hansen, Aase Vorre Skuland,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Gun Mikaela Roos, Kai Victor Hansen, Aase Vorre Skuland, (2016) "Consumers, Norwegian food
and belonging: a qualitative study", British Food Journal, Vol. 118 Issue: 10, pp.2359-2371, https://
doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2016-0041
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2016-0041
Downloaded by Universitas Brawijaya At 22:42 24 February 2018 (PT)

Downloaded on: 24 February 2018, At: 22:42 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 35 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 513 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"Purchase intentions for domestic food: a moderated TPB-explanation", British Food
Journal, Vol. 118 Iss 10 pp. 2372-2387 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2016-0044">https://
doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2016-0044</a>
(2016),"Cooperation and information sharing in institutional food chains", British Food Journal,
Vol. 118 Iss 10 pp. 2388-2403 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2016-0011">https://
doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2016-0011</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:600462 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

Consumers, Norwegian food and Norwegian

food and
belonging: a qualitative study belonging
Gun Mikaela Roos
Hogskolen i Oslo og Akershus, Consumption Research Norway – SIFO, 2359
Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo, Norway
Kai Victor Hansen Received 27 January 2016
Norwegian School of Hotel Management, Revised 28 June 2016
Accepted 6 July 2016
Universitetet i Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway, and
Aase Vorre Skuland
Nofima AS, Stavanger, Norway
Downloaded by Universitas Brawijaya At 22:42 24 February 2018 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide an insight into considerations underlying
consumers’ perceptions of Norwegian food and to examine what the concept of belonging can add to
the understanding of national food.
Design/methodology/approach – Two-stage qualitative research design, where data were first
collected by in-store interviews with 100 customers in 30 different food retail stores (supermarkets, low
discount and specialty stores) in three areas in Norway (East, West and Mid). This was followed by
four focus groups with consumers (n ¼ 34) in two areas (East and West).
Findings – The consumers perceived Norwegian food as having two main dimensions: foods
grown and produced in Norway and dishes belonging to traditional cuisine. These two dimensions
could coexist and foods that embodied both aspects were higher on a scale of national identity.
Perceptions of Norwegian food reflected context, food category and consumer group. The findings
support the use of the concept of belonging. Emotional belonging was mainly expressed by the
consumers when talking about traditional dishes and Norwegian cuisine, whereas politics of
belonging had to do with supporting domestic agriculture and especially produce that has been
traditionally grown in Norway.
Research limitations/implications – The findings may have implications for product
differentiation and marketing.
Originality/value – This study adds the concept of belonging to the existing literature on consumers,
food and place.
Keywords Norway, Consumer perceptions, Qualitative methods, Belonging, National food
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Food is related to place and time through traditions. Food purchase, use and
consumption connects people to the food systems, cultures and place, and food helps to
define us and in so doing contributes to both individual and collective identities
(Delind, 2006; Palmer, 1998). Previous studies have described food as a symbol of
national belonging; shared nutritional rituals, rules and regulations are a way of
expressing unity with members of the same group, culture and nation (Palmer, 1998).
Certain foods and styles of cooking have been identified with specific nationalities,
but because of trade, migration and diversity of cultures it has also been declared that
British Food Journal
Vol. 118 No. 10, 2016
The authors thank the consumers, retail stores and staff for their participation. This study is pp. 2359-2371
financed by the Research Programme on Sustainable Innovation in Food and Bio-based Industries, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070X
the Research Council of Norway. DOI 10.1108/BFJ-01-2016-0041
 BFJ there are no essential national foods (Bell and Valentine, 1997). Thus, national food is
118,10 not fixed but dependent on context. This paper explores how consumers today
perceive national food in Norway.
Origin of food has attracted increased interest in recent years and it has been
described as a result of globalization, internationalized market, agricultural policy,
food safety scandals, legislation, certification schemes, marketing strategies and added
2360 value for food companies (Aurier et al., 2005; Feagan, 2007; Morgan et al., 2006; Tregear,
2003; Sims, 2009). Consumers seem to have both a need to know and an impulse to
forget the origins of food (Cook et al., 1998). Earlier studies have found that the origin of
food influences consumers’ attitudes and food choice behaviors (Luomala, 2007;
Newman et al., 2014), and that consumers connect country-of-origin to status, identity,
national pride and past experiences (Verlegh and Steenkamp, 1999). However, others
have shown that country-of-origin information is relatively unimportant in everyday food
choices (Insch and Jackson, 2011). A recent review of the impact of country-of-origin
Downloaded by Universitas Brawijaya At 22:42 24 February 2018 (PT)

food labeling on consumer attitudes reported that country-of-origin might for some food
categories have less impact than quality, price and brand (Newman et al., 2014).
In the literature on food and place several related concepts, such as local food
(Amilien, 2013; Tregear, 2003), terroir food (Aurier et al., 2005), traditional food (Amilien
and Hegnes, 2013; Guerrero et al., 2009) and authentic food (Groves, 2001), have been
defined and studied. Many of these concepts have been identified to be ambiguous and
fluid and to have several dimensions (Amilien and Hegnes, 2013; Groves, 2001).
The concept of local food can be understood in terms of a geographical area within
which products are produced and sold, or in terms of localized food products, which
refers to products from a special geographical place to which they are
culturally anchored (Amilien, 2013). Local food has been linked to sustainability
(Hingley et al., 2011), attempts to support the socio-economic development of rural
areas and agriculture (Tregear, 2003), resistance to conventional globalizing food
systems (Feagan, 2007) and tourism (Sims, 2009; Bildtgård, 2013; Björk and
Kauppinen-Räisänen, 2014). Critical views on local food have brought up
conventionalization, patriotism and elitism (Hingley et al., 2011). For consumers, local
foods have been suggested to instill a sense of comfort and belonging (Bildtgård, 2013).
Research on food retail marketing have shown that in some countries national identity
has been emphasized for reasons of scale and consistency, and as a consequence local
food has in the retail setting been the same as national food (Hingley et al., 2011).
A study of terroir from a consumer point of view showed that of the three dimensions,
know-how, history and origin, history played the most important role (Aurier et al. 2005).
Traditional food products have also been connected with four related dimensions: time,
meaning, knowledge and place (Amilien and Hegnes, 2013). Guerrero et al. (2009, p. 348)
has defined traditional food products from the consumers’ perspective: “a product
frequently consumed and associated with specific celebrations and/or seasons, normally
transmitted from one generation to another, made accurately in a specific way according
to gastronomic heritage, with little or no processing/manipulation, distinguished and
known because of its sensory properties and associated with a certain local area, region
or country.” Traditional food products are clearly linked to a defined place and a set of
habits and traditions. A study of consumer perceptions of authentic British food
identified five dimensions: uniqueness to Britain (originally grown, reared and
manufactured in Britain, recipe or fresh produce traditionally grown in Britain,
genuinely British brand), cultural and traditional associations with Britain,
characteristics of the production process (natural and handmade), the presence of
 an authority (assurance from a trusted body) and desired extrinsic product attributes Norwegian
(Groves, 2001). Of the various concepts linking food and place, domestic and national food food and
seem less studied than local and traditional food. One intention of the present study is to
elaborate consumer perceptions of national food.
belonging
Belonging is a central concept for this research (Antonsich, 2010, 2011; Wright, 2015;
Yval-Davis, 2011). Place and time are important elements of the concept of belonging
(Wright, 2015). Belonging is a dynamic process that relates people with their social and 2361
material worlds and people can belong in many different ways to several groups and
places (Wright, 2015; Yval-Davis, 2011). A distinction has been made between
emotional belonging (personal attachment) and the politics of belonging (societal).
Emotional belonging is related to the feeling of being at home (familiarity, comfort,
security), which is vital for people’s identity and wellbeing. This feeling can be real or
imagined and related to specific places, identities, traditions or memories (Antonsich,
2010, 2011; Wright, 2015; Yval-Davis, 2011). Certain food or dishes may remind people
Downloaded by Universitas Brawijaya At 22:42 24 February 2018 (PT)

of home and connect inhabitants. A study of remembered eating experiences described

how memories of childhood eating were perceived as emotional and linked to eating
together with the extended family (Kauppinen-Räisänen et al., 2016). The politics of
belonging has to do with boundary maintenance, power relations and it defines
inclusion and exclusion. Membership, resistance and ownership are important factors
in politics of belonging (Antonsich, 2010, 2011; Wright, 2015; Yval-Davis, 2011).
Food can create belonging and culinary traditions can be invented to mark and defend
boundaries (Craw, 2008; Geyzen, 2013). The concept gastronationalism developed by
DeSoucey (2010) focusses on the institutionalized protection and promotion of certain
food products as representatives of national cultural traditions.
In Norway, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food invited consumers to nominate a
national dish as part of the celebration of the Constitutional Bicentenary celebration
in 2014. Mutton stew (fårikål) got most votes (45 percent) followed by meatballs
(36 percent) (www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/Farikal-er-Norges-nasjonalrett-/id763153/).
The same dishes were already in 1972 elected as national dishes in a public radio poll.
In addition, the fårikål day has since 1997 been celebrated annually in September.
The Norwegian Government has also promoted tourism, local food and direct sale at
farms (Vittersø and Amilien, 2011). A recent study of food souvenirs in Norway included
fish products (cod liver, dried cod, arctic char), brown cheese, cloudberries and reindeer
meat as typical Norwegian food souvenirs (Altintzoglou et al., 2016). To build up the
market position of Norwegian agricultural products the first national quality labeling
scheme was established in 1994 and the current NYT Norge scheme was introduced in
2009. In 2002, the European labeling scheme for protected designations was introduced in
Norway. A recent consumer survey showed that about 50 percent reported that they
choose Norwegian food products if it is possible (www.matmerk.no). However, previous
studies of local food in Norway have suggested that Norwegian consumers are
not that interested in the origin of food products and geographical indications
certification schemes (Amilien, 2013; Vanhonacker et al., 2011). This may be related to
that Norway is not self-sufficient in food production. About 47 percent of the food
was produced in Norway in 2014, but the levels of self-sufficiency varied among
food product groups. Norway is close to self-sufficient in meat, fish, dairy and egg
whereas cereals, vegetables and especially fruits are often imported (Norwegian
Directorate of Health, 2015).
The growing interest in promoting and protecting domestic food in Norway seems
to primarily have to do with institutionalized protection and politics of belonging.
 BFJ Past research findings imply that country-of-origin may not be important to
118,10 consumers. Therefore, the aim is to explore what Norwegian food means to consumers
in Norway today in an increasingly globalized food system. The aims are to provide an
insight into considerations underlying consumers’ perceptions of Norwegian food,
and examine what the concept of belonging – emotional belonging and politics of
belonging – can add to the understanding of national food.
2362
Method
In order to explore consumer perceptions of Norwegian food, a qualitative approach
based on semi-structured interviews, observations and focus groups was chosen
(Krueger and Casey, 2009; Miles and Huberman, 1994). The present paper relies on
qualitative data from a larger mixed method study on Norwegian food produce as
drivers for added value. Qualitative data were collected in two phases. First, short
in-store interviews with customers and observations of how Norwegian food products
Downloaded by Universitas Brawijaya At 22:42 24 February 2018 (PT)

were labeled and marketed in food retail stores were administered between February
and April 2014. To generate in-depth understanding of how consumers view
Norwegian food the in-store data collection phase was followed by focus groups carried
out with consumers between September and November 2014. Data privacy
requirements were fulfilled by obtaining approval from the Norwegian Data
Protection Official for Research.
Six cities in three areas in Norway (East – Oslo/Ski, West – Stavanger/Haugesund
and Mid – Trondheim/Steinkjer) were selected as locations for the in-store interviews
and observations. In-store interviews allowed the researchers to access customers from
a wide range of backgrounds when they were engaged in actual food shopping
activities. The cities were selected to represent both large urban cities and smaller cities
in rural areas. Totally, 30 food retail stores representing three types (supermarkets,
low discount and specialty stores/food markets) and the main Norwegian retail
chains were picked out and contacted by the researchers. After permission was
obtained from the store managers the researchers paid a visit to the food retail stores.
In each store information about how food was marketed as Norwegian (label, text and
picture/photo) was documented on a template. Using convenience sampling three to six
customers were in each store approached by an interviewer at the checkout point after
they had paid for their shopping. The only recruitment criterion was to get a mix of
both genders and different age groups from each city. The main focus of the in-store
interviews was on how consumers define Norwegian food. A semi-structured interview
guide, which included three main themes (today’s shopping, Norwegian food,
marketing of Norwegian food), was followed in each interview. Written consent was
obtained from all the participants. The interviews were done in the store by the exit
and they lasted approximately 5-15 minutes. The participants received a small
compensation for their participation after the interview. In total, 100 customers
(58 women and 42 men) from a range of age groups (15-85 years) and food retail stores
(supermarkets 44, discount stores 30 and specialty shops/food markets 26 customers)
participated in the in-store interviews.
Selection of focus group participants was purposive. The participants were recruited
through existing consumer panels in two of the regions that had been selected for the
in-store interviews: East (Ski) and West (Stavanger). The participants were selected
based on the criterion that they were adult women and men aged 18-60 years old.
Two focus groups (one with women and men aged 18-35 years and one with women
and men aged 36-60 years) were conducted in each of the two locations in groups of
 seven to ten members. A total of 34 consumers (21 women and 13 men) participated in Norwegian
the focus groups. The focus groups were led by a moderator, who ensured that all the food and
themes and tasks were covered. A co-moderator participated in conducting the focus
groups, tasks and recording. A semi-structured interview guide was followed in each
belonging
focus group. The interview guide included three main themes (food shopping,
Norwegian food and marketing/information of Norwegian food) and a task assisted by
the use of 11 food product prompts. The food product prompts were selected to 2363
represent local/regional/national food products, domestic/imported produce and
information and labels of origin. The products included Norwegian fresh produce
(vegetables, dairy), Norwegian processed food products (dairy, fish) and local
food products (dairy, meat). The products were introduced in sets of two to four
products. The task was to first individually write down keywords and impressions of
the products, and this was followed up with a group discussion. The focus groups
lasted about one and a half hours to two hours. Written consent was obtained from all
Downloaded by Universitas Brawijaya At 22:42 24 February 2018 (PT)

the participants. The participants received a small compensation for their participation
after the focus group.
The short in-store and focus group interviews were audio recorded and transcribed
verbatim for the analysis. Two researchers using the qualitative data analysis software
Nvivo 10 coded the data and conducted a thematic analysis of dominating themes
inspired by Miles and Huberman (1994).

Results
Defining Norwegian food: consumer perceptions
Most of the participating consumers did not find it difficult to respond to the question
what Norwegian food is for them, and in the focus groups participants seemed to
agree that Norwegian foods can be both food products and dishes. What often
emerged, as the first association across the geographic areas covered in the study,
was examples of food products and produce that the consumers thought were grown
or produced in Norway. It was a wide variety of foods including fish (salmon, trout,
cod, shellfish), meat (mutton, moose, chicken, deer), dairy products (milk, brown
cheese, cheese), vegetables (carrots, onion, cauliflower), potatoes, fruit and berries
(apples and strawberries in season, jam), bread and flour and eggs. In addition to
generic foods, some of the consumers mentioned Norwegian brands and producers.
Among the consumers who talked about the place of origin, the importance and
preferences for local food was also sometimes expressed. To choose local products
was perceived to be safe and to support domestic production. As a 75-year old male
customer in a supermarket in West responded to the question “what is Norwegian
food to you?”:
I think, well, that it is locally produced and that they have a relatively good control
over that. We eat a lot of fish and lamb and those are primarily the flagship in
Norwegian production.
Another significant group of the consumers approached in retail settings associated
Norwegian food with dishes belonging to traditional cuisine. Typically, these dishes
were either everyday home fare or dishes served at special occasions, like Christmas
dinner. Everyday home fare included meatballs and potatoes and gravy, vegetable
soup, fish soup, fish cakes, fish balls in white gravy, boiled cod and potatoes with
butter, pasta and porridge. Especially meatballs were mentioned in all the geographic
areas covered in the study. As one young man in a focus group interview in East used
 BFJ meatballs as the most typical Norwegian dish when he analyzed what Norwegian food
118,10 was all about:
I think you have to differentiate the recipe and where it comes from. It is possible to make a
delicious pizza exclusively based on Norwegian produce, although pizza is not Norwegian
food, you use only Norwegian produce – you support Norwegian agriculture. You do not have
to make meatballs to make Norwegian food. You can use foreign recipes and possibly some
2364 foreign spices when you use only Norwegian produce – it is still Norwegian food. One can
certainly make meatballs in gravy with raw materials coming from the other side of the globe
and they taste almost the same.
He expresses how different combinations of raw materials and recipes can make up
Norwegian food, and how this may generate different considerations. For example, in
dishes such as meatballs some of the ingredients or the recipe are allowed to be foreign
as long as they taste familiar. Others also brought up both traditional dishes and more
Downloaded by Universitas Brawijaya At 22:42 24 February 2018 (PT)

recent dishes such as pizza, sushi and taco. Another type of Norwegian dishes were
those traditionally served at special occasions and feasts. These included cabbage and
mutton stew (fårikål), stew (lapskaus, sodd), cured lamb ribs (pinnekjøtt), cured meats,
cured leg of lamb (fenalår), sheep’s head (smalahove), sour cream porridge (rømmegrøt),
lutefisk (dried codfish prepared in a potash lye), cod, salmon, potato dumplings (komler,
raspeballer), clip fish and bacalao.
Both products and dishes were also perceived as authentic Norwegian food. A 38-year
old man in a supermarket in West responded to the question “what is authentic
Norwegian food” with referring to his extended family and home cooking:
Authentic Norwegian food is what my mother in law makes, it is potato dumplings (komle)
[…] She makes some food from scratch, she can make gravy with flour, broth and browns it
and stuff. That is what I feel when she makes meatballs from scratch with brown gravy and
the typical old home cooking. That’s what I associate with Norwegian food.
Potato dumplings were only mentioned by the consumers from the West area. There were
also some other dishes that were typical for a specific region (e.g. sodd in the Mid area).
As part of the in-store interviews customers were asked which of the items they had
bought were Norwegian foods. Responses to this question illustrated how retail context
plays a role, and implied that country-of-origin was not that important in selecting foods.
When asked to name the Norwegian food products they had bought there was some
hesitation, assumptions and some said that they do not think about it. For example,
a 53-year old woman in a supermarket in East said: “I think the carrots and apples are
Norwegian […] the other, I assume the broccoli is Norwegian (laughter) fruit and
vegetables maybe were Norwegian I assume.” There were also other consumers that
presumed that meat, dairy, vegetables and bread were Norwegian. The range of products
was somewhat different from the responses to the more general question what Norwegian
food is. The consumers also included ready-made foods (fish balls, fish gratin and baby
food), Norwegian brands and producers of coffee, tea, soft drinks and brown cheese.
The focus group setting gave the participants the opportunity to reflect more on the
complexity of Norwegian food and scale of authenticity. A section from a focus
group with young consumers in East illustrates the scale of Norwegianness and
underlying considerations:
Woman 1: Fish and vegetables like cabbage and cauliflower and what comes locally […].
Man 1: I think that if it comes from Norway and is processed in Norway and everything is
done in Norway then it is a proper Norwegian product […] Even Mac advertise that the
 hamburger is from Norway. Generally, if it says either on the package that it is local or from Norwegian
Norway and the farmers and stuff like that. I think that it is more tempting […].
food and
Man 2: I think the potato is very Norwegian. It is the first thing I think of and a lot of belonging
vegetables that are in the store. The freshest in the store. Although I know that it is not
standard in many cases, but especially in the fall. Now they advertise for what is Norwegian.
And apples, Norwegian apples that taste like Norwegian apples in relation to foreign apples
and strawberries. Norwegian strawberries and potatoes. I feel that potatoes are very 2365
Norwegian even though they do not come from Norway throughout the year. So I think it is
something we use very much in Norway. Also Jarlsberg cheese. I feel that everything that is
canned, dry products and stuff, I do not feel that it is so Norwegian really because it’s not
fresh. I think most of the vegetables and stuff […].
Man 3: The first thing I thought of was potatoes. All Norwegian dishes contain potatoes.
But I’d rather not say that if it is Norwegian it is a sign of quality because as we talked earlier
Downloaded by Universitas Brawijaya At 22:42 24 February 2018 (PT)

so it could be that the tomatoes may be more ripe elsewhere than in Norway […].

Man 4: I immediately think of brown goat cheese and meatballs and potatoes in gravy.
It’s Norwegian food for me. But if they say it with locally produced food and the organic milk
that they sell at Coop. It looks very Swedish, looks like it comes straight across the border.
Then I think that stew and mårpølse (sausage) that have traveled farther in distance, but still
come from Norway, it is more Norwegian than the milk that looks Swedish […] But as you
said you do not get oranges and clementines to taste as sweet as they get in warm and sunny
countries. So it is not necessarily quality that it is Norwegian.

This exchange between consumers suggests that taste, freshness, commonality, distance
and quality are some of the varied motivations that consumer emphasize in relation to
why they choose to buy or not buy Norwegian food. Crossing the national border seems
to be more crucial than distance especially for fresh foods traditionally produced by
Norwegian farmers, such as milk and meat. However, for some types of typical import
products (citrus fruits, tomatoes) the ones originating from warm and sunny countries
were perceived to taste better. On one side, the consumers said that they buy domestic
food because they believe it to be fresher, better tasting, having less additives or
pesticides than imported alternatives. Others argued that by choosing domestic foods
they avoid long haul transports, animal ill-treatment and environmental pollution, and
support self-sufficiency, domestic farming and industry. Domestic origin seems more
important for fresh products than for processed. Finally, some also saw these motives in
combination, as choosing the fresh, tasty domestic options enables them to consume
products they find superior, thereby also giving the domestic food producers an
opportunity to uphold their business. In addition to these motivations, there was also lack
of awareness or interest of product origin among the consumers. Some consumers
expressed ambivalence toward the focus on domestic origin, and for them the origins of
the food that they buy was of little concern. Among these, we found both price conscious
consumers who tend to go for the cheapest options, and a group that focus on quality,
taste or health regardless of product origin and price. For example, a woman in a focus
group with consumers in East said: “I’m perhaps more concerned about […] when you go
to the supermarket and shop everyday products I am perhaps more concerned with salt
content rather than if it is Norwegian or not.” The same woman continued later and called
attention to that for some types of food produce there is not much difference in taste
based on origin: “I think much like tomatoes and peppers […] if they are Norwegian or
not. I think there is not very much difference in taste.” Referring to quality, taste, health
and price were typical justifications for not buying Norwegian food.
 BFJ Emotional belonging and Norwegian food
118,10 A few consumers expressed emotional belonging, personal attachment and feelings
when they talked about Norwegian food. For example, a 67-year-old woman in East
expressed fond memories of fishing cod as a child, a 28-year old woman in West said
that authentic Norwegian food is the dumplings and meatballs that she get at her
mother’s home, and a 38-year old man mentioned the same dishes but that they are
2366 made by his mother in law.
The following exchange in one focus group in East suggests feelings of pride and
personal attachment to especially traditional dishes that they grew up with and that
they wish to share and transfer to future generations:
Woman 1: I think dairy products […] cheese and milk and stuff, yes, yellow cheese and brown
cheese and milk. They are something I grew up with since I was little. Cows and dairies and
are part of Norway how we make our food and what we have on most breakfast tables […].
Downloaded by Universitas Brawijaya At 22:42 24 February 2018 (PT)

Woman 2: For my part, tradition is what I’m used to. My grandmother and great-grandmother
and mom have always done it like that and we bring it with us, and then it goes down to mine […].
Woman 3: […] it is funny that a lot of those traditional dinner dishes have got some sort of a
renaissance now […]. we have become more proud of the Norwegian food again, not just that
it’s always the foreign cuisine like French cuisine […] I think that Norwegians really have
become a little proud of our traditional food again. So I think that’s very good […].
Man 1: I think it’s fantastic that the kids like mutton stew (fårikål). They think oh it’s so good
and I am very proud that I have managed to transfer it […].
Emotional belonging was mainly expressed for dishes that connected consumers to
memories, extended family and culture.

Politics of belonging
The politics of belonging has to do with boundary maintenance. Some of the consumers
talked about the importance of supporting domestic agriculture and farmers in general,
but it was not may be as important in everyday retail context, as a young woman said:
“Not what I think about when I’m in the shop buying food, but it happens that I think
about it.” A distinction was made based on uniqueness for Norway, if they perceived
that the product had been originally and traditionally grown in Norway. For example,
domestic production of dairy, meat, fish, grain and root vegetables were supported
more than, for example, tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers that have been grown in
greenhouses and were said to not “properly” belong to Norway and Norwegian climate.
Young consumers in a focus group in East generally agreed that it is important to
support Norwegian agriculture but price, self-sufficiency and ethical issues engaged
discussion in this age group:
Q: Did anyone think that the Norwegian was not always important?
Man 1: I think it’s important especially when it comes to grain, then – that it is important – to
support Norwegian farmers.
Q: Will you support Norwegian farmers?
Woman 1: I think it must pay off generally for Norwegian food industry, but right now I think
of what is cheapest […].
Woman 2: I think it is important to support the type of Norwegian food that we can produce
and that we have the climate to produce here in Norway. Such other things that we simply
 adapt and use lots of stuff and chemical substances that grow more naturally elsewhere. Norwegian
I think it’s a waste to think that it should be Norwegian and stuff. Some products and what we
are good at in Norway, I think it is important.
food and
belonging
Q: What is an example of that kind of products?
Woman 2: I think of meat production – that we have many good areas for cows and sheep, and
on the flat areas there is more grain, and eggs can we mange fine making in Norway. But, for
example, tomatoes when we must have lots of greenhouses and sun and – oh heck, maybe 2367
everything doesn’t have to be so Norwegian.
Q: Do you agree or?
Man 2: I agree – absolutely. Globally, there are certainly many who are starving, so we should
perhaps make more food ourselves rather than import too much […] we can import of food out
of the mouths of others in a way. We’ve got lots of money. Absolutely agree.
Downloaded by Universitas Brawijaya At 22:42 24 February 2018 (PT)

This discussion brought up some contesting views. However, most of the consumers
expressed a general support for domestic production. Only a few skeptical remarks were
voiced. These were questioning whether Norwegian agriculture is better or not, if imported
produce may taste better, what the effects are on environment, and the use of hormones is
in farming Norwegian salmon. Patriotism was only brought up once in a focus group in
the West; one man made the connection between Norwegian self-righteousness and the
Norwegian flag when talking about information on Norwegian products.

Discussion
This study combines qualitative data from both in-store interviews and observations
and focus groups in order to explore considerations underlying consumers’ perceptions
of Norwegian food. The results highlight the fluidity and complexities of the concept of
Norwegian food and some interesting patterns emerge. The consumers drew on a main
binary of food products grown and produced in Norway and traditional Norwegian
dishes, recipes and cuisine. The Norwegian produce and food products that were
typically mentioned (meat, fish, dairy products, grain, potatoes and root vegetables)
largely reflected traditionally grown produce, climate and Norwegian food self-
sufficiency (Norwegian Directorate of Health, 2015). Vegetables grown in greenhouses
in Norway were not viewed as Norwegian as seasonal vegetables grown open field.
The effect of climate on taste also seemed to play a role for these consumers. Although
meatballs were the dish that seemed to often symbolize Norwegian food, there was no
essential Norwegian food for the consumers in this study. If foods fulfilled both criteria,
produced/processed in Norway and a traditional recipe, they were likely to be
positioned higher on a scale of national identity.
Similar to authentic food in Britain (Groves, 2001) authentic food in Norway has
been originally grown in Norway, is a brand that has been available for long period of
time or is a dish that has a cultural and traditional association. The role of history for
consumers was also shown in an earlier study on terroir food (Aurier et al., 2005).
Norwegian consumers linked Norwegian food to dimensions of space, time, tradition
and history. Similar dimensions have been previously proposed in studies of national
food (Groves, 2001) and traditional foods (Amilien and Hegnes, 2013). Previous studies
suggest that the food and place related concepts (local, traditional, national) overlap
(Amilien and Hegnes, 2013; Guerrero et al., 2009; Hingley et al., 2011; Tregear, 2003), and
this study shows that consumers’ understandings of Norwegian food are fluid and
context dependent.
 BFJ Our study suggests that affinity and belonging are relevant when studying national
118,10 food. Some foods and dishes can be said to belong more to Norway based on place and
time than others. Our findings support the use of the concept of belonging (Antonsich,
2010, 2011; Wright, 2015; Yval-Davis, 2011) in exploring consumers’ perceptions of
national food. People develop a sense of belonging to community as well as place
through food. Emotional belonging acknowledges the role of feelings and the sensual,
2368 which have been marginalized in earlier studies on food and place (Delind, 2006).
Reasons why consumers in this study identified with and supported Norwegian food
were different and driven by both feelings of emotional belonging and politics of
belonging. Emotional belonging, personal attachment, feelings, memories and links to
extended family were expressed when talking about traditional dishes, Norwegian
cuisine and culture. Whereas politics of belonging had mainly to do with supporting
Norwegian agriculture and food production. Many said that they generally wish to
support Norwegian production but when they were in the store purchasing food it
Downloaded by Universitas Brawijaya At 22:42 24 February 2018 (PT)

did not seem to be something they considered much. These findings accord with
earlier studies of country-of-origin, memories and food (Insch and Jackson, 2011;
Kauppinen-Räisänen et al., 2016). Criticism of focussing on national food was limited,
but particularly the younger consumers questioned some of the national boundary
maintenance. They were interested in supporting production of foods that are suitable
for the Norwegian climate and to increase self-sufficiency and ethics. The distinction
between emotional belonging and the politics of belonging is useful for considering
both individual-level motivations and broader societal interests.
This study has some limitations. This area of research may be prone to social
desirability biases. However, by starting the in-store interviews with asking the
participants which of the food products that they had bought were Norwegian, we
anticipated to get responses closer to what they do. Another effort to avoid general
responses was that the main parts of both individual and focus groups were open-
ended questions related to what the participants themselves think and do. The in-store
interviews (n ¼ 100) covered different regions of the country, types of retail stores and
consumers, but the number of focus groups was limited to four because of budgetary
limitations. The participants were Norwegian consumers, which means that the
findings may not apply for other countries. However, the present study does contribute
to the literature on food and place by using the concept of belonging. A strength of the
study was that we used two data collection methods, in-store interviews and focus
groups. The in-store interviews allowed us to get closer to an actual purchase context,
and the focus groups gave us more in-depth understandings of consumer perceptions.

Conclusions
The aim of this paper was to gain an understanding of what consumers perceive to be
Norwegian food in the current globalized world. The consumers drew on a binary of
food products origination from Norway and traditional Norwegian cuisine. Foods that
embodied both dimensions were higher on a scale of national identity. The study
findings suggest that understandings of Norwegian food depend on context, food
category and consumer group, and that different understandings of Norwegian food
can coexist. In everyday retail context Norwegianness did not seem to be much
reflected upon among consumers. For fresh foodstuffs that Norwegian farmers have
produced by tradition, such as milk, it was often assumed and wished that it is
Norwegian. Whereas for some food categories, for example tomatoes, the consumers
tended to prefer those imported from warmer climates because of taste. Thus, various
 considerations including supporting national production and culture, taste and Norwegian
tradition, underlie the current perceptions of Norwegian food. food and
This study provides a useful perspective on national food and belonging and
support the use of the concept of belonging when studying national food.
belonging
The Norwegian consumers voiced emotional belonging mainly when talking about
national cuisine, extended family and culture and politics of belonging especially when
talking about produce conventionally grown in Norway and domestic production. 2369
However, boundary maintenance and patriotism were also criticized especially among
younger consumers. Future research in other contexts and focussing on certain foods
are needed to further develop understandings of national food.
The findings may have implications for product differentiation and communication.
Appealing to politics of belonging and patriotic instincts may not be appropriate for all
categories of products and all groups of consumers and it may uphold exclusion.
From the marketing viewpoint, emotional belonging could be mobilized in the
Downloaded by Universitas Brawijaya At 22:42 24 February 2018 (PT)

marketing of national food products based on traditional recipes.

References
Altintzoglou, T., Heide, M. and Borch, T. (2016), “Food souvenirs. Buying behavior of tourists in
Norway”, British Food Journal, Vol. 118 No. 1, pp. 119-131.
Amilien, V. (2013), “Typical food in Norway: a developer of history and tradition”, in Ceccarelli, G.,
Grandi, A. and Magagnoli, S. (Eds), European Food Issues “Typicality in History”, Vol. 4,
Peter Lang Publisher, Brussels, pp. 129-149.
Amilien, V. and Hegnes, A.W. (2013), “The dimensions of ‘traditional’ food in reflexive modernity:
Norway as a case study”, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, Vol. 93 No. 14,
pp. 3455-3463.
Antonsich, M. (2010), “In search of belonging: an analytical framework”, Geography Compass,
Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 644-659.
Antonsich, M. (2011), “Grounding theories of place and globalization”, Tijdschrift en Sociale
Geografie, Vol. 102 No. 3, pp. 331-345.
Aurier, P., Fort, F. and Sirieix, L. (2005), “Exploring terroir product meanings for the consumer”,
Anthropology of Food, May 4, available at: http://aof.reveus.org/187 (accessed
April 13, 2015).
Bell, D. and Valentine, G. (1997), Consuming Geographies: We are Where We Eat, Routledge,
London.
Bildtgård, T. (2013), “Where is the food ‘good to think’? Rationalities of food and place in Sweden
and France”, Social Science Information, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 159-178.
Björk, P. and Kauppinen-Räisänen, H. (2014), “Culinary-gastronomic tourism – a search for local
food experiences”, Nutrition & Food Science, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 294-309.
Cook, I., Crang, P. and Thorpe, M. (1998), “Biographies and geographies: consumer
understandings of the origins of food”, British Food Journal, Vol. 100 No. 3, pp. 162-167.
Craw, C. (2008), “The flavours of the indigenous: branding native food products in contemporary
Australia”, Sites: New Series, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 41-62.
Delind, L.B. (2006), “Of bodies, place, and culture: re-situating local food”, Journal of Agricultural
and Environmental Ethics, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 121-146.
DeSoucey, M. (2010), “Gastronationalism: food traditions and authenticity politics in the
European Union”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 432-455.
 BFJ Feagan, R. (2007), “The place of food: mapping out the ‘local’ in local food systems”, Progress in
Human Geography, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 23-42.
118,10
Geyzen, A. (2013), “Imagining identities: women’s magazines and the invention of culinary
traditions in Flanders (1945-1970)”, in Ceccarelli, G., Grandi, A. and Magagnoli, S. (Eds),
European Food Issues “Typicality in History”, Vol. 4, Peter Lang Publisher, Brussels,
pp. 109-128.
2370 Groves, A.M. (2001), “Authentic British food products: a review of consumer perceptions”,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 246-254.
Guerrero, L., Guardia, M.D., Xicola, J., Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Zakowska-Biemans, S.,
Sajdakowsak, M., Sulmont-Rosse, C., Issanchou, S., Contel, M., Scalveldi, M.L., Granli, B.S. and
Hersleth, M. (2009), “Consumer-driven definition of traditional food products and innovation
in traditional foods, a qualitative cross-cultural study”, Appetite, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 345-354.
Hingley, M., Mikkola, M., Canavari, M. and Asioli, D. (2011), “Local and sustainable food supply:
Downloaded by Universitas Brawijaya At 22:42 24 February 2018 (PT)

the role of European retail consumer co-operatives”, International Journal of Food System
Dynamics, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 340-356.
Insch, A. and Jackson, E. (2011), “Consumer understanding and use of country-of-origin in food
choice”, British Food Journal, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 62-79.
Kauppinen-Räisänen, H., Gummerus, J. and Lehtola, K. (2016), “Remembered eating experiences
described by the self, place, food, context and time”, British Food Journal, Vol. 115 No. 5,
pp. 666-685.
Krueger, R.A. and Casey, M.A. (2009), Focus Groups. A Practical Guide for Applied Research,
4th ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Luomala, H.T. (2007), “Exploring the role of food origin as a source of meanings for consumers
and as a determinant of consumers’ actual food choices”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 122-129.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook,
2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Morgan, K., Marsden, T. and Murdoch, J. (2006), Worlds of food, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Newman, C.L., Turri, A.M., Howlett, E. and Stokes, A. (2014), “Twenty years of country-of-origin
food labeling research: a review of the literature and implications for food marketing
systems”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 505-519.
Norwegian Directorate of Health (2015), Utviklingen i norsk kosthold 2015, Norwegian Directorate
of Health, Oslo.
Palmer, C. (1998), “From theory to practice: experiencing the nation in everyday life”, Journal of
Material Culture, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 175-199.
Sims, R. (2009), “Food, place and authenticity: local food and the sustainable tourism experience”,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 321-336.
Tregear, A. (2003), “From Stilton to Vimito: using food history to re-think typical products in
rural development”, Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 91-107.
Vanhonacker, F., Altintzoglou, T., Luten, J. and Verbeke, W. (2011), “Does fish origin matter to
consumers? Insights from a consumer survey in Belgium, Norway and Spain”, British Food
Journal, Vol. 113 No. 4, pp. 535-549.
Verlegh, P.W.J. and Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. (1999), “A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin
research”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 521-546.
Vittersø, G. and Amilien, V. (2011), “From tourist product to ordinary food? The rule of rural
tourism in development of local food and food heritage in Norway”, Anthropology of Food,
Vol. 8, available at: http://aof.revues.org/index6388.html
 Wright, S. (2015), “More-than-human, emergent belongings: a weak theory approach”, Progress in Norwegian
Human Geography, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 391-411.
food and
Yval-Davis, N. (2011), “Power, intersectionality and the politics of belonging”, FREIA Working
Paper Series No. 75, Aalborg University, Aalborg.
belonging
Further reading
Bellasco, W. and Scranton, P. (Eds) (2002), Food Nations: Selling Taste in Consumer Societies, 2371
Routledge, London.

Corresponding author
Gun Mikaela Roos can be contacted at: gun.roos@sifo.hioa.no
Downloaded by Universitas Brawijaya At 22:42 24 February 2018 (PT)

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
 This article has been cited by:

1. VabøMette Mette Vabø HansenHåvard Håvard Hansen UiS Business School, University of
Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway Tine R&D, Stavanger, Norway UiS Business School, University of
Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway . 2016. Purchase intentions for domestic food: a moderated TPB-
explanation. British Food Journal 118:10, 2372-2387. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Universitas Brawijaya At 22:42 24 February 2018 (PT)