A Front Porch for Critical Agrifood Studies Engagement Across the “Food System” Boundaries
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2691-0454
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4144-9117
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3933-2788
Abstract
In this editorial, the outgoing Executive Committee of the Research Committee on the Sociology of Agriculture and Food of the International Sociological Association (RC40) reflects on a high-level, unifying characteristic that animates the intellectual puzzles and socio-ecological challenges that constitute critical agrifood scholarship. The reflection is introduced as a means to characterise the field, almost 40 years after its first plantlings began to sprout in the fields of agricultural economics, rural sociology, human geography and environmental studies. At the same time, this editorial is a means to (re)introduce RC40 to readers. RC40 is a dynamic, international, welcoming network of agrifood scholars. The heart of RC40’s dynamism is found in its journal: the International Journal of the Sociology of Agriculture and food (IJSAF). These platforms offer the type of inclusive spaces needed to drive intellectual exchange, while expanding critically oriented communities of practice in the pursuit of equitable, sustainable, transformative change within parts of and across different sites in the food system.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
critical agrifood studies, food systems, regulation theory, boundary object
Allaire G and Daviron B (eds.) (2018) Ecology, Capitalism and the New Agricultural Economy. London: Routledge.
Betzold A, Carew AL, Lewis GK, and Lovell H (2018) The emergence, articulation and negotiation of a new food industry initiative in rural Australia: Boundary object, organisation or Triple Helix model? Sociologia ruralis, 58(4), pp.867-885.
Carolan MS (2013) The wild side of agro‐food studies: on co‐experimentation, politics, change, and hope. Sociologia Ruralis, 53(4), pp.413-431.
Chiles R and Lougheed S (2022) Legitimating Visions, Mitigating Risks: Industrial and Agrarian Strategies to Resolve the Enigma of Animal Welfare, The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 28(2): 59-74.
Fan D, Zhu CJ, Huang X, and Kumar V (2021) Mapping the terrain of international human resource management research over the past fifty years: A bibliographic analysis. Journal of World Business, 56(2), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2020.101185.
Friedland W, Ransom E, and Wolf S (2010) Agrifood alternatives and reflexivity in academic practice. Rural Sociology 75 (4): 532–537.
Harding SG (1991) Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kingsbury A, Son H, Ha H, and Kieu H (2022) African swine fever and the adaptive capacity of ethnic minority smaller-scale producers of pork in the Northern Mountainous Region of Vietnam The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 28(2): 23-39.
Konefal J and Hatanaka M (2011) Enacting third-party certification: A case study of science and politics in organic shrimp certification. Journal of Rural Studies, 27(2), pp.125-133.
Rodriguez-Lizano V, Montero-Vega M, and Sibelet, N (2022) Drivers and actions that determine the choice of young farmers in Costa Rica to stay on the family farm, The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 28(2), 41-58.
Shawki N, and Hunter G (2023) Building Solidarity in the Slow Food Movement. The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 28(2), 75-93.
Soper R (2022). Comparative Food Insecurities: Farmworker Perception of How the Quality and Quantity of Food Changes with Migration, The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 28(2), 7-21.
Søraa RA, and Vik J (20210 Boundaryless boundary-objects: Digital fencing of the CyborGoat in rural Norway. Journal of Rural Studies, 87, pp.23-31.
Star SL (2010) This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), pp.601-617.
Star SL (1989) The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In Distributed artificial intelligence, Gasser L and Huhns MN (eds.), pp. 37-54, Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
van Eck N and Waltman L (2021) VOSviewer Manual, July 22, University of Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands, https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.17.pdf
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.