Emerging challenges and opportunities in innovating food science technology and engineering education | npj Science … – Nature.com

Respondents

The total number of respondents that started the questionnaire was 1022. Of these, 703 (68.8%) respondents (the panel) completed the survey. Data from respondents who failed to address all questions and had several missing values were omitted, as they ignored or preferred not to answer some of the questions. The relatively high number of excluded respondents was probably due to the language barrier. Although not explicitly asked, based on respondents’ IP addresses, 88 countries participated in the survey. The overall time for completing the survey was approximately 10–12 min.

Demographics and geographic distribution

Demographic data are presented in Table 1. The panel was evenly distributed: gender (female/male 1.15:1.00), age (excluding the 18–25 years group, 7.5%). Age distribution indicates good participation of the various groups and experiences.

The geographical location of the respondents indicates a global representation, although some regions were more prevalent by the panel. Respondents from China, the Far East (excluding China), and Oceania also participated, but their overall percentage was relatively low (combined value of 4.4%). However, combining Asia and the Middle East respondents resulted in a significant representation (16.5%). The surprising outcome was the high number of African respondents (14.8), probably due to the good network of IUFoST contacts in Africa. Although participation was quite impressive in terms of global feedback (88 countries), the number of respondents in a specific region was quite low in some cases, and consolidation was necessary for further analysis. Nevertheless, the widespread number of respondents from a wide spectrum of countries demonstrated that the survey had a global distribution, offering a significant improvement compared with a previous study¹⁵.

Main professional activities and education

The panel (703 respondents) professions consisted of food scientists and technologists (FSTs) 398 (56.6%), food engineers (FEs) 120 (17.1%), microbiologists (HMs) 25 (3.6%), nutritionists (HNs) 35 (5.0%), chemical engineers (CEs) 19 (2.7%), bioengineering/biotechnology (BBs) 7 (1.0%), business/marketing (BMs) 14 (2.0%), consultants (COs) 41 (5.8%), and others (food trade company, regulators, etc.) 41 (5.8%). As 73.7% of the respondents were FSTs and FEs, students, and graduates, the data reflect professional positions within FST&E disciplines, as was also previously shown¹⁵.

The respondents were also asked to fill in all their degrees in the various education categories using up to 4 options (student, BSc/1st Degree, MSc/equivalent, and Ph.D./DSc). Fig. 1 highlights the panel degrees distribution. The relatively high number of doctoral (Ph.D./DSc, 464, 29.9%) is not surprising considering the academic affiliation of most of the respondents (see Section “Affiliation”). It should be noted that many of the respondents hold more than one degree, explaining the high number of overall degrees of the panel (1550), as also depicted in Fig. 1.

Overall degrees distribution (small insert).

Affiliation

The combined high majority of the respondents affiliated with educational and private research institutes (71.7%) provides a possible explanation for the extra number of doctoral degrees in the panel. Conversely, based on the respondents in the age group 41–55 and above 55 (37.8 and 28.7%, respectively) and the fact that a high percentage of the majority of the respondents hold a doctoral degree, the data are likely to reflect professional middle to high management levels and leadership positions within educational, institutions and possibly in the food industry. It should be noted that the number of respondents from industrial affiliation (food industry, food service, startups/FoodTech, and consultants, excluding government) was quite high (18.2%), probably projecting that although academia and industry are not equally represented, industrial affiliations are well represented (i.e., 128 responders).

Topics affecting the future of the professional domain curricula

The importance of 10 topics to be included in developing future curricula using the Likert-type scale²⁶ was evaluated. The topics listed included post-COVID-2019 considerations and several other new concepts. Table 2 shows that 7 topics were evaluated above 4.0 (‘High’) based on the calculated Likert-type scores average. The highest average scores were: ‘Critical thinking’ (4.50), followed by ‘Problem-solving projects’ (4.44), ‘Teamwork/collaboration’ (4.31), ´Innovation/Open innovation’ (4.29), and ‘Multidisciplinary’ (4.24). These data highlight possible changes that the FST&E domains anticipate in the post-COVID-19 and remote or hybrid education/learning, as well as the further proliferation of innovation and OI.

It is important to note that business-related topics were evaluated as less important, with Likert-type scores averaging below 4.0. These included: ‘Soft skills’ (3.90), followed by ‘Entrepreneurship’ (3.77), and ‘Business creation/networking’ (3.70). ‘Entrepreneurship’ and ‘Business creation/network’ could bring many benefits, such as fostering innovation, productivity, competitiveness, new business, OI, and socioeconomic development. Yet, these topics were considered among those of less importance, probably indicating that the panel was less oriented to business-related topics.

The search for professionals with different skills to overcome the current and foreseen challenges relevant to the agri-food sector was previously studied²⁵. It was shown that problem-based learning (PBL), described as an instructional approach, promotes interdisciplinary and critical thinking with the potential to meet current challenges. PBL, aligned with an innovation program and contest, integrated into a master’s degree in FE to promote academic entrepreneurship, allowed the development of innovative products intending to solve problems faced by the agri-food sector²⁷. The latter information supports the current survey data that show that the highest perceived topics were ‘Critical thinking’ (4.50) and ‘Problem-solving projects’ (4.44). On the other hand, the relatively low perceived importance of entrepreneurship (3.77 ranked #9) could indicate that FSs, FTs, or FEs are currently considering business-related topics as a lower priority. Nevertheless, their Likert average scores were approaching ‘High’. It is important to note that promoting project-based learning by students on developing eco-designed business models and eco-innovated food products seems to be an essential lever for the sustainability transition¹⁰. Although this is just one example, it highlights the importance of project-based learning^27,28,29.

Project-based learning is an integrated part of the flipped classroom (FC) model, based on active learning, and consequently attracts much interest. The FC is a form of blended learning (BL) that reorganizes the workload in and outside the classroom and requires the active participation of students in learning activities before and during face-to-face lessons with teachers^10,30. The FC model has been applied since the 1990s to encourage student preparation before classes: team-based learning, peer or mentor instruction, and just-in-time education, where the teaching information is communicated via electronic means. This allows more class time to be devoted to active learning and formative assessment³¹. A recent study highlighted a case study where an elective FC course on engineering, science, and gastronomy was implemented for undergraduate students that included in-class demonstrations by chefs. New education methodologies call for expanded computational abilities, ample access to online content, active learning, and student-centered approaches¹⁰.

A comparison between traditional project-based learning and hybrid project-based learning indicated a significant increase in fundamental formative knowledge, enhanced problem-solving abilities, and production of better-performing artifacts regarding the set of design skills for students undergoing hybrid project-based learning²⁸.

In light of the feedback by the panel indicating that ‘Critical thinking development’ and ‘Problem-solving projects’ were the highest outcome (#1 and #2, respectively), combined with recent reports on the FC importance, it could be concluded that seeking new directions in learning/facilitating strategies that complement existing methods in order to enrich the learning experience of students is recommended.

Academic partnership/collaboration

The respondents were instructed to rank (from 1 to 5, corresponding to high to low; each rank could appear only once) the importance of partnership(s) and/or collaboration(s) with: ‘Food Industry´, ‘Nutrition sciences’, ‘Government, policymakers and/or local authorities’, ‘Private sector’, and ‘Other academic disciplines’. The ranking distribution is depicted in Fig. 2.

Ranking importance (‘Very high’, ‘High’, ‘Medium’, ‘Low’, ‘Very low’) distribution of ‘Academic partnerships/collaborations’.

Collaboration with the ‘Food industry’ was ranked the highest, while the collaboration with ‘Other academic programs’ was ranked lower. Furthermore, the top two rankings (‘Very high’ and ‘High’) were ‘Food industry’ (53%), ‘Nutrition’ (38%), ‘Government’ (36%), ‘Private institutes (35%) and ‘Other academic programs’ (33%).

Collaboration with the nutrition sector was highly ranked. This demonstrates that the panel considered collaboration between FST&E and nutrition highly important and is a direction that these domains should consider closely. The need to enhance and probably integrate or converge nutrition sciences and FST&E is underscored due to the lack of present collaboration and the growing consumers’ awareness of H&W and food processing.

The role of the food industry as a key player in academic partnership and collaboration should be considered, particularly due to the negative aspects suggested by the NOVA ultra-food processes food classification. For instance, “By design, these products are highly palatable, cheap, ubiquitous, and contain preservatives that offer a long shelf life. These features, combined with aggressive industry marketing strategies, contribute to excessive consumption and make these products highly profitable for the food, beverage, and restaurant industry sectors that are dominant actors in the global food system”³². This study demonstrates that the food industry plays significant positive roles in both collaboration and partnerships. It also plays a key part in internships described below (Section “Internships”).

Topics importance to FST&E

The importance of 11 topics for FST&E was assessed as listed in Table 3.

The data exposed 5 top important topics to FST&E. The topic of highest interest was ‘Sustainability, circular economy, and food waste management,’ followed by ‘Innovation/open innovation’ and ‘New product development’ (no statistically significant difference between these topics), ‘Consumer perception & trust’ and ‘Nutrition sciences’ that were statistically different from the first two topics (one-way ANOVA with post-hoc LSD test, p <0.05), respectively. Worth noting the significant differences between FSTs and FEs in ‘Sustainability, circular economy, and food waste management’, ‘New product development’, ‘Consumer perception & trust’, and ‘Nutrition Sciences’, where FSTs significantly assigned higher importance to these topics in comparison with FEs. However, no significant difference was found for ‘Innovation/open innovation’.

‘Artificial Intelligence, machine learning’ was only ordered as #9 based on the Likert-type scores averages, and FEs considered it significantly higher than FSTs. It is safe to predict that the importance of AI will increase in the coming years once more and more applications and utilizations will emerge. Suffice to consider recent applications and the global AI market size growth from $65.48 billion in 2020, projected to reach $1581.70 billion by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 38.0% from 2021 to 2030 (https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/artificial-intelligence-market).

Importance to FST&E curricula to meet future challenges and learning opportunities

The importance of the curricula in meeting FST&E future challenges and learning opportunities (in descending order) is highlighted in Table 4.

Table 4 shows five topics were considered to be of ‘Very high’ to ‘High’ importance: ‘Research project(s)’ (4.34), ‘Apprenticeships (e.g., industrial training)’ (4.28), ‘Adaptability (e.g., adjusting to change in real-time, managing biases, overcome challenges)’ (4.22), ‘Revision current programs’ (4.16), and ‘Employability’ (4.13). The other topics received lower scores.

The significant difference between FSTs and FEs on ‘Research project(s)’, ‘Enhanced integration with nutrition’, and ‘Soft (life) skills’ is worth noting. On these topics, except for ‘Enhanced integration with nutrition’, FSTs scores were significantly higher when compared with FEs. The ´Enhanced integration with nutrition´ by both FSTs and FEs was ‘High’ (4.00) and above, projecting the absolute need for FST&E to enhance its collaboration with nutrition, mainly due to the high importance of H&W and its significant role.

Adaptability is the potential to adjust and learn new skills in response to changing factors, conditions, cultures, and environments. It is a soft skill that both colleagues and superiors highly value. In the ever-changing needs and progress, businesses and employees must adapt quickly to unforeseen dynamic circumstances, innovation, and disruption. Adaptability means being flexible, innovative, open, and resilient, particularly under unforeseen conditions. Some key elements of being adaptable are confident but open to criticism, focusing on solutions rather than problems, collaborating with others, and learning from them (https://www.walkme.com/glossary/adaptability/). For instance, the adaptability of FST developments implies a capacity to continuously change and improve its operations and food quality output in time and space³³. This explains the #3 place the panel considered adaptability.

The panel perceived both ‘Revision of current programs’ and ‘Employability’ as high priority (#4 and #5, average of 4.16 and 4.13, respectively). These assessments should be considered carefully by academic programs in order to adapt to the fast changes driven by innovation, disruption, and digital progress.

‘Enhanced integration with nutrition’ came in #6. However, FSTs and FEs indicated this topic is highly important (average of 4.00 and 4.21, respectively). Hence, FST&E education programs should seek avenues to enhance integration with nutrition science. Possible collaborations should consider joint research programs and other partnerships and alliances.

‘Business-related activities (e.g., creation, network, partnerships, collaboration)’ and ‘Soft (life) skills’ were #7–8. Nevertheless, their Likert-type average values were close to ‘High’. Hybrid teaching was perceived as the last (3.78). Apparently, this type of education is not very appealing. Yet, this should be reassessed after the Covid-19 pandemic has passed.

Engineering education is also experiencing dramatic changes. The traditional teaching model, where students are passive in the lecture room, gives way to more active, student-centered, and participatory approaches. Different modern education and learning techniques, such as blended and flip-classroom, active learning, use of technology in teaching, universal design, and student-centered education approach, among others, were previously reported⁹. Hence, it is expected that Hybrid teaching and other advanced methods, including AI, will flourish soon and will become the norm.

Internships

The importance of internship to FST&E students was evaluated considering 5 possibilities: ‘Academic internship,’ ‘Food industry internship,’ ‘Start-up/FoodTech company internship,’ ‘Other domains/industries,’ and ‘Internship in other countries.’ The data are depicted in Fig. 3.

Likert-type averages (1–5 scale) and one side (-) SD of internships importance for FST&E (values with different small letters indicate significant differences between groups; one-way ANOVA with post-hoc LSD test, p < 0.05).

The internship was categorized into three statistically different groups (one-way ANOVA with post-hoc LSD test, p < 0.05). The first group was internships in ‘Food Industry’ (4.60), followed by the second group: ‘Start-ups/Food Tech’ (4.04), ‘Other countries’ (3.98), and ‘Academia’ (3.96), and the third group ‘Others domains/industries’ (3.46). Comparing the difference between FSTs and FEs, respondents showed a significant difference (one-way ANOVA with post-hoc LSD test, p < 0.05) for internships in ‘Food Industry’ (4.65 and 4.52), ‘Start-ups/Food Tech’ (4.11 and 3.89) and ‘Other domains/industries’ (3.46 and 3.26), respectively. It is not surprising that FSTs have consistently assigned higher values to internships, probably due to the possibility that they are more complimentary to hands-on experiences.

Bridging the academia-industry gap in the food sector through collaborative courses and internships was recently studied. More than fifteen years of university extension diplomas in food technology Diplomas demonstrated how collaborative courses strengthen academia-industry bonds, and employability was boosted thanks to internships and the network created³⁴. Internships could support students in developing their identity, which is achieved by close contact with their future working tasks³⁵, enhancing familiarity with and nearness to their future profession³⁶ and industry-based projects and governance³⁷. Also, student projects in collaboration with the industry make the students face a reality²². In light of these benefits, it is clear why the internship in the food industry received such a high Likert-type average. This very high importance given by the panel to industry internships coincides with their ranking, as aforementioned in the previous section, highlighting the core role of the food industry in students’ education.

Professional organization impact on FST&E education

The impact of professional organizations on food science/food technology/food engineering education, as well as strategy and vision data, are depicted in Fig. 4.

Likert-type averages (1–5 scale) and one side (-) SD of organization/vision impact on FST&E education (values with different letters indicated significant differences between groups; one-way ANOVA with post-hoc LSD test, p < 0.05).

Data analysis (t-test) of the impact of the various organizations or vision and strategy on education revealed that the statistically highest Likert-type average scores (one-way ANOVA with post-hoc LSD test, p < 0.05) were given to the ‘Food industry’ (3.86). ‘IFT (Institute of Food Technologists)’ was in the 2nd statistical group (3.70), followed by the 3rd statistical group that included ‘IUFoST (International Union of Food Science & Technology)’ (3.49), ‘Vision, strategy & leadership of the university’ (3.49), ‘IFST (Institute of Food Science+Technology)’ (3.44), and ‘Government, public interest & support’ (3.42). ‘EFFoST (The European Federation of Food Science and Technology)’ (3.40) was between the 3rd and the 4th group that included ‘ISEKI-Food (European Association for Integrating Food Science and Engineering Into the Food Chain),’(3.27). ‘SoFE (Society of Food Engineering)’ (2.96) was the next statistical group, and the last 6th group was ‘Others’ (2.65).

It is quite surprising that the food industry obtained such a high perceived impact on education, especially because the number of respondents in the panel affiliated with academic and educational institutes was high (69.6%). This could be explained by the fact that most curricula are designed to align with the industrial requirement and/or the need to provide students with the essential tools for the food industry. As no in-depth interviews were conducted, these findings warrant additional consideration.

IFT was in second place, significantly affecting FST&E education. In light of the quite low number of respondents from North America and Canada (13.1%), this finding clearly projects the significant role IFT has in impacting global education and proliferation. The 3rd group included IUFoST, IFST (international and mainly UK organizations, respectively), ‘Vision, strategy & leadership of the university’ and ‘Government, public interest & support´. These different groups and elements were perceived as very important and apparently have a significant role in contributing to the education program. EFFoST was categorized between the 3rd and 4th groups, including ISEKI-Food (3.27). These organizations were perceived as lower compared with the previous organizations. SoFE was classified only in the 5th significantly different group. As SoFE appeals mainly to FEs, many panelists were probably unfamiliar with its activities.

Education impact on professional expectations

The impact of the respondents’ education curricula on their professional success, satisfaction, and meeting expectations data is depicted in Fig. 5.

Likert-type averages (1–5 scale) and one side (-) SD of ‘Success’, ‘Satisfaction’, and ‘Meeting expectations’ (values with different letters indicated significant differences between groups; one-way ANOVA with post-hoc LSD test, p < 0.05).

Education curricula showed two different statistical (one-way ANOVA with post-hoc LSD test, p < 0.05) groups. The first group included ‘Success’ (4.03) and ‘Satisfaction’ (3.95). The second statistical group that was quite lower evaluated was ‘Meeting expectations’ (3.76). This finding could open new avenues for education institutes to conduct in-depth assessments of their alumni and graduates, focusing on improving their performances in order to better meet their graduates’ future expectations. This study also provides insights into new education and learning opportunities and new topics to be included in future curricula.

When comparing FSTs with FEs, it was quite surprising that FSTs consistently rated all three attributes lower than FEs. In two cases, these differences were even significant: ‘Success’ (4.07 vs. 4.15, one-way ANOVA with post-hoc LSD test, p < 0.05), ‘Satisfaction’ (3.96 vs. 4.06), and ‘Meeting expectation’ (3.78 vs. 3.83, one-way ANOVA with post-hoc LSD test, p < 0.05). This lower assessment by FSTs highlights that the potential for curriculum improvements is high, and an in-depth evaluation should open new avenues for significant improvements.

In conclusion, these main points are highlighted:

• Seven topics affecting the future of the profession domain curricula were evaluated between ‘High’ to ‘Very high’. The highest scores were found for: ‘Critical thinking’, followed by ‘Problem-solving projects,’ ‘Teamwork/collaboration’, ‘Innovation/Open innovation’, and ‘Multidisciplinary’.

• The importance of Academic partnership/collaboration showed that ‘Food industry’, and ‘Nutrition’ were ranked the highest.

• Significant positive roles of the food industry in collaboration and partnerships with the FST&E domain were demonstrated. Significant findings were also related to internships, education, strategy, and vision effects of the food industry.

• Collaboration between FST&E and nutrition sciences indicated its high importance. Integrating or converging nutrition science and FST&E is emphasized based on the lack of actual present collaborations.

• Assessing the education curricula contribution showed two statistical groups. The first group included ‘Success’ and ‘Satisfaction’. ‘Meeting expectations’ was the second. New avenues to better meet future graduates’ and students’ expectations were identified.

• Insights into novel education and learning opportunities and new topics to be included in future curricula have been identified.