Abstract
The reaction to conventional agriculture and food systems has generated a host of alternative social movements in the past several decades. Many progressive agrifood researchers have researched these movements, exploring their strengths, weaknesses, and failures. Most such research is abstracted from the movements themselves. This paper proposes a new way of self-organization that, while fulfilling traditional university demands on researchers, will provide research support for progressive agrifood movements by transcending the boundaries of disciplines and individual universities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The dominant paradigm within which most social science academics function is substantially limited by disciplines and the individual campuses where we conduct our academic lives. Although there are organizational forms that transcend both, discipline and campus remain major obstacles to researching interdisciplinary problem areas within the agrifood—and many other—arenas. And most of us set self-restrictions by not seeking more active collaboration with colleagues in our informal networks. “Subverting the dominant paradigm” suggests a more deliberate attempt to transcend these boundaries.
References
Allen, P. 2004. Together at the table: Sustainability and sustenance in the American Agrifood System. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Allen P., M. FitzSimmons, M. Goodman, and K. Warner. 2003. Shifting plates in the agrifood landscape: The tectonics of alternative agrifood initiatives in California. Journal of Rural Studies 19 (1): 61–75.
Allen P., and J. Guthman. 2006. From ‘old school’ to ‘farm-to-school’: Neoliberalization from the ground up. Agriculture and Human Values 23 (4): 401–415.
Born B., and M. Purcell. 2006. Avoiding the local trap: Scale and food systems in planning research. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26: 195–207.
Bevington D., and C. Dixon. 2005. Movement-relevant theory: Rethinking social movement scholarship and activism. Social Movement Studies 4 (3): 185–208.
Crane D. 1972. Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gaytan M.S. 2004. Globalizing resistance: Slow food and new local imaginaries. Food, Culture, and Society 7 (1): 97–116.
Getz C., and A. Shreck. 2006. What organic and fair trade labels do not tell us: Towards a place- based understanding of certification. International Journal of Consumer Studies 30 (5): 490–501.
Guthman J. 2004. Agrarian dreams: The paradox of organic farming in California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hendrickson M.K., and W.D. Heffernan. 2002. Opening spaces through relocalization: Locating potential resistance in the weaknesses of the global food system. Sociologia Ruralis 42 (4): 347–369.
Hinrichs C.C. 2003. The practice and politics of food system localization. Journal of Rural Studies 19 (1): 33–45.
Kloppenburg J., J. Hendrickson, and G.W. Stevenson. 1996. Coming into the foodshed. Agriculture and Human Values 13 (3): 33–42.
Morgan K., T. Marsden, and J. Murdoch. 2006. Worlds of food: Place, power, and provenance in the food chain. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Raynolds L., D. Murray, and J. Wilkinson. 2007. Fair trade: The challenges of transforming globalization. London, UK: Routledge.
Shreck A. 2002. “Just bananas? Fair trade banana production in the Dominican Republic. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 10 (2): 11–21.
Taylor P.L., D.L. Murray, and L.T. Raynolds. 2005. Keeping trae fair: Governance challenges in the fair trade initiative. Sustainable Development 13 (3): 199–208.
Acknowledgements
I appreciate helpful comments from Lou Swanson, Ray Jussaume, Larry Busch, and two anonymous reviewers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Friedland, W.H. “Chasms” in agrifood systems: rethinking how we can contribute. Agric Hum Values 25, 197–201 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9116-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9116-2