Abstract

In the last four decades, the food industry in the United Kingdom has been subject to a considerable number of so-called “food-fraud scandals.” In order to better understand how to investigate and theorise these ‘scandal’ incidents in context (comprising signals-modus operandi-multiple emergent narratives), the original research recognised and critiqued how scandal incidents were framed. Eight food related incidents were scrutinised using a case study approach from published, open access evidence. A framework of incidents was developed across the stages, within and of, the modus operandi, and also to visualise how the incident itself was framed by being termed a scandal. This methodological case study addresses some of the strengths, but also the constraints and practical challenges, of the methodological approach and the methods employed within the research. The advantages and disadvantages of iterative case study research are critiqued. This case study is of value to researchers undertaking iterative, interpretivist, pragmatic studies and to help them to understand the influence and potential bias associated with their positionality.