A knowledge creation framework for academia toward agroecological transformations of food systems

Abstract

Industrialized agriculture, characterized by high inputs, large-scale monocultures, and confined livestock production, with a narrow focus on profit, is a major transgressor of societal and planetary boundaries. It fuels climate change, biodiversity loss, water and soil degradation, nutritional deficiencies, public health issues, cultural erosion, and socioeconomic inequalities. As early-career researchers in agricultural sciences, we are concerned about these systemic crises and recognize that participating in normative academic practices without reflection may reinforce the prevailing industrialized food system. Motivated by the dissonance between the potential impact of our work and our vision of a better future, in this paper we describe and challenge academic praxis in agricultural sciences to tackle the interconnected crises. We do this by developing a framework of two drivers of academic knowledge production, power and values, and two mechanisms, motives and relationality. We argue that in the current dominant food system, power is consolidated and hierarchical, driven by the values of growthism and reductionism, motivated by efficiency and productivism, and characterized by extractive and anthropocentric relationality. Furthermore, we highlight evidence of the negative outcomes associated with this system, including the challenges we face and may potentially contribute to as participants. We then envision transformed food systems through examples of counter-hegemonic knowledge production systems, grounded in agroecological principles, in which power is distributed and horizontal, the primary values are solidarity and holism, motives enhance sufficiency and sovereignty, and relationality is reciprocal and based on care. By examining the current system and offering examples of alternatives, we aim to help distinguish between research that upholds the statu-quo and research that fosters change. We aim to inspire ourselves and others to reconnect with our agency and contribute towards transformed knowledge systems where food systems, underpinned by the values of agroecology, are more capable of sustaining life on this planet in an equitable and just manner.

1 Introduction

“El mundo al revés nos enseña a padecer la realidad en lugar de cambiarla, a olvidar el pasado en lugar de escucharlo y a aceptar el futuro en lugar de imaginarlo: así practica el crimen, y así lo recomienda. En su escuela, la escuela del crimen, son obligatorias las clases de impotencia, amnesia y resignación. Pero está visto que no hay desgracia sin gracia, ni cara que no tenga su contracara, ni desaliento que no busque su aliento. Ni tampoco hay escuela que no encuentre su contraescuela.”

“The upside-down world teaches us to endure reality instead of changing it, to forget the past instead of listening to it, and to accept the future instead of imagining it: this is how it practices crime, and this is how it recommends it. In its school, the school of crime, the classes in impotence, amnesia, and resignation are mandatory. But it’s clear that there is no misfortune without some luck, no face without its other side, no despair that does not seek some air. Nor is there a school that does not find its counter-school.”

Eduardo Galeano, Patas arriba. La escuela del mundo al revés. 1998.

Industrialized agriculture is a major transgressor of societal and planetary boundaries (Rockström et al., 2009; Raworth, 2012; Campbell et al., 2017). This form of agriculture is typified by large-scale monocultures grown for confined animal production and biofuels, high external agrochemical inputs, and a focus on economic profit at the expense of social and environmental integrity (IPES-Food, 2016). Mounting evidence indicates that industrialized agricultural production erodes ecosystem health and reduces biodiversity (IPBES, 2018), contributes substantially to anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Crippa et al., 2021; IPCC, 2022), and degrades soils and water bodies (Foley et al., 2005). Agribusiness interests not only limit the health, autonomy, and agency of those who grow food (Altieri and Toledo, 2011), but also affect individuals’ and communities’ ability to consume a healthy diet (Neff et al., 2009; Ambikapathi et al., 2022).

The main proponents and benefactors of industrialized agriculture are multinational corporate agribusinesses (McMichael, 2009, 2012). They consolidate land and resources, and appropriate or decimate socio-cultural heritage in favor of mass capital accumulation (Cotula, 2012; Lawrence and Smith, 2020; MacDonald, 2020; Fanshel, 2021). These global agribusinesses operate within and reinforce a neoliberal capitalist paradigm which encourages market-driven privatization of food systems (Olssen and Peters, 2007; Lawrence and Smith, 2020). Corporations exert dominance over food systems by shaping the production, processing, distribution, and consumption of food, while also influencing policies that govern the food supply chain (Clapp, 2018). Through this multi-scale consolidation of power, global agribusinesses actively shape our food systems to serve their interests, with negative implications in food security, health, community sovereignty, cultures, the environment, and knowledge systems (Holt Giménez and Shattuck, 2011; Gámez-Virués et al., 2015).

Historically, academic institutions in the United States (US) reinforced the neoliberal paradigm through narrowly focused agricultural research agendas in which researchers generate knowledge that can further optimize the industrialized agricultural system (DeLonge et al., 2016). Norms that serve to maintain the dominance of the current industrialized system can be through a variety of mechanisms, such as unintended reinforcement (e.g., path dependency limiting agricultural diversification; Spangler et al., 2022), systemic pressures (e.g., funding; Frickel et al., 2010), and lack of awareness or systems-level training (e.g., effect of pesticides on bees; Kleinman and Suryanarayanan, 2013). Unfortunately, the extractive conditions of industrial agriculture are emulated by academic research culture. Research participants and early-career scientists find themselves working long hours and making difficult sacrifices which contributes to the widespread mental health crisis among graduate students and academic staff (Pretorius et al., 2019; Gallea et al., 2021). On top of that, we experience despair due to the impacts of systemic crises created and contributed to by the current food system such as climate change, injustice and inequities, food insecurity, and biodiversity loss, among others (Wallace et al., 2020).

The creation of an alternative vision for socially and environmentally just food systems is not easy or straightforward. Under dominant narratives that fail to address root causes or contribute to food systems transformation (McGreevy et al., 2022), it is challenging to discern which agricultural knowledge and research framing is fostering social-environmentally just food systems and which is reinforcing the degradation of socio-ecosystems. As agricultural researchers, we are not trained in methods for critical research praxis (i.e., the iterative combination of action and reflection in the process of research) (Freire, 1970; Nicklay et al., 2023) that can facilitate meaningful and urgently needed food systems transformations. As scientists who have worked within but want to challenge our position in this system, we work with each other to find our way in this new terrain. We feel that this is necessary if we are to ever achieve goals of sustainability and justice—goals that we feel are crucial to the ongoing thriving of human life on this planet. Continuing on traditional research trajectories does not address the urgencies of the moment for us or our communities, who suffer from climate grief, climate anxiety, as well as food insecurity and tenuous housing situations. So where do we go from here if we want to develop research programs that respond to the urgencies of this moment of vast social inequity and rapid climate change? Fortunately, alternative models challenging the dominant paradigm exist, and they are being propagated in local spaces of resistance (Archer, 2008; Anderson, 2020; Ong et al., 2024).

Feminist science studies scholars offer models that address social inequities and limitations in scholarly approaches, thus creating more equitable results that are also more accurate and impactful (Haraway, 1988; Harding, 2001; Roy, 2008; Intemann, 2010). Indigenous scholars point towards the strong stewardship legacy of tribal communities and nations, disrupted by colonial and capitalist regimes of dispossession and land management (Salmón, 2000; Roy, 2008; Smith et al., 2014; TallBear, 2014; Whyte, 2017; Lewis et al., 2018; Liboiron, 2021; McKay and Grenz, 2021; Hernandez, 2022). These and other scholars reveal how a reorientation towards a more just and equitable future requires considerable overhaul of academia including deliberate attendance to imaginative capacity (Pereira et al., 2019; Moore and Milkoreit, 2020), and different onto-epistemological approaches (ways of knowing and being) that acknowledge epistemic injustice (Cummings et al., 2023) and academics and their institutions as situated participants within broader food and knowledge systems (Haraway, 1988). The planetary challenges we face necessitate a shift beyond disciplinary expertise, and greater care given to the connections that sustain and give meaning to our existence. We believe that agroecology (Altieri, 1995; Holt-Giménez and Altieri, 2013), as a science, practice and a movement (Wezel et al., 2009), is one such framework gaining momentum that could facilitate needed food system transformations (Ong et al., 2024). Agroecological principles include embracing transdisciplinarity and other ways of knowing, which can contribute to critical, change-oriented research necessary to address escalating 21st-century challenges (Freire, 1970; Hooks, 1994b; Morin, 2001; McGreevy et al., 2022).

Thus, this paper builds upon the work of agroecologists, Indigenous practitioners, farmers, and many other peoples to offer a framework based on power, values, motives, and relationality. We use this framework to (1) challenge the current agricultural academic knowledge system, (2) envision a transformative agricultural science field oriented towards the principles of agroecology, and (3) provide a reflective process for researchers to engage with their own work.

2 Positionality statement and creation process

The core team of authors began working on this paper as graduate students and postdoctoral scholars within the Gaudin Agroecology Lab in the Department of Plant Sciences at University of California, Davis. We represent multiple nationalities (United States, Chile, Spain), two native languages (Spanish and English), multiple genders, multiple generations (from Gen X to millennial), multiple racial and ethnic identities (White, read as White by most people, Hispanic, Latina), and multiple socio-economic classes.

Writing this paper built on years of conversations among lab and department members in an agroecology journal club. We began convening the agroecology journal club online in 2020 to create community during the COVID-19 pandemic and to co-learn about agroecological theory. Most of us also engaged with the UC Davis Feminist Research Institute through a course called Asking Different Questions, led by SR. This program gave us a call to action through training in critical reflection and research praxis grounded in feminist Science and Technology Studies and ethnic studies. At the same time, many of us grew more connected to and intertwined within the communities where our research was situated. We grew in our belief that research outcomes need to benefit local communities. Some of us also began growing skeptical of the concept of the academic as “the expert.” This skepticism is supported by research that demonstrates how “expertise” has historically served to invalidate people of color, women, and others excluded from academia and influential professions (Faulkner, 2007; Hofstra et al., 2020; Grindstaff, 2022; Kozlowski et al., 2022; Weissman, 2023). The culmination of these experiences inspired us to work on an agroecological project collaboratively, and we began writing this paper in 2022. Later, the call for papers for this issue resonated with us, not as experts in academic knowledge generation, but as early-career scientists who struggle with the dissonances of normative research goals and our own personal values and perspectives as described in the introduction.

The actual writing of this paper took place through weekly writing meetings and a collaborative, iterative editing process. In an attempt to achieve equity, we followed the Civic Laboratory for Environmental Action Research (CLEAR) guidelines to discuss author order (Liboiron et al., 2017). All authors have made significant intellectual contributions to the framework we have developed, as have many people who were not directly part of the paper-writing process. We hope that we have adequately expressed our gratitude to them through the acknowledgements. The process of writing this manuscript has been an instructive and generative opportunity and we look forward to continuing to learn and grow with this work.

It is important to note that our social imaginary is limited by our western frame of reference (Vásquez-Fernández, 2020) and, as such, we welcome critiques and further transformation of the vision we present in this article. Recognizing the limited perspective that we hold as early career Western scientists, we commit to learning from the wisdom of multiple movements who are working towards and living under other paradigms, such as Indigenous peoples, on whose land we live, and who continue to steward their homelands despite continued land theft and colonization, the descendants of those who were forcibly brought to this continent and enslaved, and immigrants who have come to the US because of the international imperialist projects that the US government and agribusiness have inflicted on communities around the world (Hopkins, 2018).

3 Framework development

To inform the basis of our academic knowledge creation framework, we initially explored a series of questions to develop our own understandings of agroecology: how do socio-political factors shape the scientific question being asked and what are the implications for our work? Who benefits from the scientific question being answered? How do research methods shape the narrative of the scientific question? Our goal was not to definitively answer these questions, but to train ourselves to reflect iteratively on them throughout our research processes. We came to believe that researchers have an ethical obligation to recognize their relationality as participants in the production of knowledge and the ways in which knowledge practices shape their world (Haraway, 1988; Salmón, 2000; McKittrick, 2021; Hernandez, 2022). As Wendell Berry wrote in The One Straw Revolution by Masanobu Fukuoka: [we must pay] “attention to relationships, to causes and effects,” and that we must be “responsible for what one knows,” in this way “We cannot isolate one aspect of life from another. When we change the way we grow our food, we change our food, we change society, we change our values” (Berry, 1978).

To understand the current academic knowledge production system, we drew from our experiences and the literature to develop a framework with two drivers, power and values, and two mechanisms, motives and relationality (Figure 1). These determine a praxis of academic knowledge generation, in our case applied to the agricultural sciences. We understand power as the ability to influence the course of events (Foucault, 1980), and values as an individual’s and community’s principles and worldviews (Kenter et al., 2015). We chose power and values as drivers drawing from literature that finds these forces fundamental in shaping broad societal phenomena (Foucault, 1980; Hooks, 1994b). We understand motives as the reasons that guide decisions and actions, and relationality as the state of being connected (Tynan, 2021). Motives and relationality shape our perceptions of the world—situated within specific social, cultural, and political contexts—and, as such, are entangled throughout the processes of scientific knowledge production (Haraway, 1988). We believe that our framework can relate in different manners depending on the system’s structure and we present two different arrangements of the drivers and mechanisms in this paper, represented by Figures 1A,B.

Figure 1

Foucault, 1977; Haraway, 1988; Harding, 1994). (B) The Heart of Knowledge that depicts a re-imagined knowledge creation system. Motives and relationality are in the center of the diagram, shaping power, values, and knowledge. In this alternative system, knowledge is not influenced directly by power. Therefore, we envision a knowledge creation that still informs power structures, but has space to both reinforce and subvert them along with challenging or supporting the predominant values (Tynan, 2021; McGreevy et al., 2022).

In the current system (Figure 1A), power is at the top of the framework and is fundamental in shaping the downstream knowledge production. We describe how power structures dictate the rest of the knowledge system in Section IV. In our re-imagined system, the framework is rearranged such that motives and relationality are at the center of the academic knowledge creation (Figure 1B), which we describe in Section V. In both systems, knowledge can inform societal structures, through either reinforcing or challenging them.

4 Critique of the current agricultural academic knowledge creation system

4.1 Drivers of knowledge generation

4.1.1 Power

Power, defined as who is able to influence or control behavior and resources, is inextricably linked with knowledge (Foucault, 1980). In the past several centuries, Western scientific thought, and how knowledge is generated, valued and shared, has been influenced and reinforced by racism, colonialism, settler colonialism, imperialism and patriarchy, all systems of oppressive hierarchical power structures (Foucault, 1977; Haraway, 1988; Harding, 1994). We acknowledge the strengths of Western science and emphasize that criticism should be directed not at science itself but at the institutional norms and pressures that lead to its misapplication, especially in serving hierarchical power dynamics. Current agricultural research in academia operates under consolidated and hierarchical power structures that confine research agendas to focus on specific knowledge generation and synthesis (Vanloqueren and Baret, 2009; DeLonge et al., 2016; Jin and Huffman, 2016; Miles et al., 2017), as shown in the Ivory Tower in Figure 1A. Power in this system has two main consequences: (1) a limited set of knowledge and people (experts) are legitimized (Montenegro de Wit and Iles, 2016); (2) only certain groups of people benefit from the knowledge that is produced.

The narrowly defined and legitimized way of knowing – the epistemology – of Western positivist scientific thought dominates agricultural research. This epistemology stems from Enlightenment principles and is enforced by the consolidation of power among academics and the institutions in which they do research (Banerjee and Arjaliès, 2021). For example, the Land Grant University (LGU) system in the US, which was founded in the tradition of Western scientific thought, was funded by the theft and sale of Indigenous land through settler colonialism (Lee and Ahtone, 2020; Fanshel, 2021) (Box 1). Concurrently, agricultural and land stewardship knowledge of Indigenous people has been repeatedly delegitimized, stolen, and co-opted within Western academic institutions (Smith, 2012; Kimmerer, 2013; Whyte, 2017; Wilson, 2020; Hernandez, 2022). This knowledge extraction is consistent with the extractivist practices of settler colonialism, in which the university legitimizes this knowledge as their own and serves to reinforce dominant power structures (Jordan, 1997). This has contributed to the widespread loss of Indigenous knowledge and has implications for agricultural practices in the US and in the Global South where agribusiness paradigms are imposed on farmers (Magdoff and Tokar, 2010; McMichael, 2012) (Boxes 2, 3).

In the current academic agricultural knowledge system, profit is power because it is the main driver of research priorities (Ellis and Bowden, 2014), which in turn determines who the main beneficiaries of knowledge production are. For example, decades of research focused on increasing yields of crops used primarily for animal feed and/or biofuels has been well-funded, while there has been comparatively little funding for research in diversified, ecologically sound agricultural systems (DeLonge et al., 2016; Miles et al., 2017). Furthermore, public funding for agricultural research has declined since the 1980s with the neoliberalization of public institutions, while private funding has increased (Nelson and Fuglie, 2022). This has led to a trend in research that is undertaken for the benefit of moneyed stakeholders (see Box 1). For instance, there is evidence that the livestock industry invests in shaping research and climate policies, minimizing its environmental impact while advocating for strategies that serve its interests, rather than transformative solutions (Morris and Jacquet, 2024). Agricultural research at LGUs is thus a key component of public-private investment that directs the creation and extraction of knowledge generated by LGUs towards the advancement of privileged agribusiness agendas (Frickel et al., 2010; Heisey and Fuglie, 2018).

4.1.2 Values

Values refer to guiding and normative principles shared by communities that influence individual and group behavior and provide a common understanding of what is worthy (Kenter et al., 2015). Values work in tandem with power structures to shape societal motivations and our relationality (Koltko-Rivera, 2004; Buchholz, 2012). Value systems are unavoidably expressed within research narratives – whether implicit or explicit, intentional or unintentional (Dahlberg, 1988). Thus, like power, the application of personal values can reinforce or subvert the system in which they operate. The dominant values across agricultural research are founded in growthism [continuous agricultural growth and increasing affluence (Lara et al., 2023)] which is reinforced by reductionism [studying components of a system in isolation (Fuenmayor, 1991)] and individualism [prioritizing individuals without accountability to a collective (Hooks, 1994a)]. It is therefore necessary to describe and discuss these values—thereby making them explicit—so we can challenge and reconfigure current dominant value paradigms (Kenter et al., 2019).

Reductionism is a research norm in which researchers prioritize knowledge that is simple, atomized, and examinable outside of context (Fuenmayor, 1991; Schiere et al., 2004; Jordan, 2013). Reductionism is often justified as a way to identify direct causes through the isolation of factors, but this approach does not recognize that in reality those separated factors are inextricably intertwined (Gilson, 2015). As such, knowledge creation within this value system perpetuates the simplification of processes and homogenization of socio-ecologically complex systems in agricultural sciences. This reinforces repeated patterns of oppression and the delegitimization of Indigenous and traditional ecological knowledge built upon generations and, in some cases, thousands of years of observation (Kloppenburg, 1991; Kimmerer, 2002). Reductionism contributes to growthism and hinders our collective capacity for systemic adaptation and transformation because complex processes are reduced to purely biophysical aspects with no consideration of socioecological and political dimensions (Bawden, 1991; Schiere et al., 1999; International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture, 2009; Stetsenko, 2018).

Within a growthist value system, research focuses on unending growth of agricultural land, yields and livestock units without consideration of planetary boundaries (McGreevy et al., 2022). The growth and intensification of agriculture have led to the homogenization of natural and cultural environments (Foley et al., 2005; Altieri et al., 2015), resulting in the depletion of biodiversity (Estrada-Carmona et al., 2022), soil carbon (Sanderman et al., 2017), and local, traditional knowledge (FAO, Alliance of Biodiversity International, and CIAT, 2021). During the Green Revolution, researchers from the US and other parts of the Global North promoted homogeneous agricultural systems through the global manufacturing, distribution, and widespread utilization of hybrid seeds and chemical inputs under the justification of feeding the world (Box 2). The benefits of the Green Revolution did not necessarily improve food accessibility for vulnerable groups around the world (Kiers et al., 2008; FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, 2023), yet the accompanying loss of ecosystem function has profoundly impacted their livelihoods (López, 1998; Rasmussen et al., 2018). The resultant agro-industrial intensification can consolidate land tenure (reducing the number of farmers, particularly smallholders), destabilize local markets and processing infrastructure, and lead to widespread environmental degradation (López, 1998; MacDonald, 2020). These consequences diminish the adaptive capacity and viability of rural communities which leaves the entire human population vulnerable (Shiva, 2000; Gámez-Virués et al., 2015).

4.2 Mechanisms of knowledge generation

4.2.1 Motives

Motives are the primary reasons guiding decisions and actions towards an objective. In our framework, motives are the “why” that underlies academic knowledge creation processes, or “why we do what we do” (Vickers, 2007). Linked with power and values, motives encompass a range of strategic socioeconomic and political considerations that contribute to specific outcomes in our current food system. Critically, the values of those with power in the current system have significant influence over which motives are considered valid (Figure 1A). Researchers and academics within the current knowledge system of agricultural sciences often include efficiency for the sake of profit and productivity as primary motives for their work. One example of these motives in action is the subfield of sustainable intensification in agriculture (Box 3).

In the positivist view of Western science, researchers consider high-yielding monocultures a tool to realize the motive of efficiency because they are highly productive under high input paradigms which rely on substitutive chemical applications that replace ecological function (Hoffman et al., 1995). This narrow framing disregards long-term impacts and socio-ecological dimensions of food systems, which might be necessary to achieve a more just and equitable society, and fails to address current system failures like high rates of global food waste (approximately one third of global food production) (Stuart, 2009; Mokrane et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2023). Some examples of alternative framings include food sovereignty (Holt-Giménez and Altieri, 2013), agroecology (James et al., 2023; Ong et al., 2024), indigenous food systems (FAO, 2021), and taking a feminist approach to food systems (Gilson, 2015; Zaremba et al., 2021). While a narrow framing may increase the profits of multinational agribusinesses (and their shareholders) in industrialized agriculture (Lawrence and Smith, 2020; Ashwood et al., 2022), persistent failures to accomplish equitable and reliable food access around the world (recent examples include the food shortages during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in the Ukraine) call into question the “efficiency” of the current food system, the continual focus of agribusiness-funded research on increasing yields, and how wisely we are using resources.

A framework of efficiency may also consider the broader societal or ecological harms of industrial agriculture as externalities, without recognizing and addressing the causative motive of profit maximization. One current estimate of the “hidden” cost of the industrialized food system is $12.7 trillion, primarily due to negative public health outcomes from unhealthy food (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, 2023; Ong et al., 2024). On the ecological front, recent capitalist frameworks for climate change offsets, such as carbon farming, have resulted in fewer benefits than claimed (West et al., 2023). Academics have shown concern about the lack of transformative motives backing regenerative agriculture (Bless et al., 2023), soil health (Lehmann et al., 2020), and sustainable intensification of agricultural production (Loos et al., 2014) (Box 3). Without serious examination, questioning, and critique the underlying power structures and associated values of these narratives may continue to support business-as-usual (McGreevy et al., 2022).

4.2.2 Relationality

Relationality is a state of connection that creates attachment and responsibility; relationality can be within the self, with other humans, and with the more-than-human world (Nicklay et al., 2023). We acknowledge that the concept of relationality stems largely from Indigenous communities, and that “relationality is not a new metaphor to be reaped for academic gain, but a practice bound with responsibilities with kin and [land]” (Tynan, 2021). In the dominant food system (Figure 1A), relationality is not treated as a central component, but rather stems from power structures and value systems and is a mechanism through which knowledge is created and reinforced. Within the current system, relationality is anthropocentric (structured hierarchically to prioritize humans) and perpetuates relations of domination, extractivism, and simplification of nature.

Anthropocentric relationality stems from Western societal norms for various aspects of the human experience, and specifically from Enlightenment concepts such as the mastery of nature and rationalization being valued over experiential knowledge, which underpin much of academia (Figure 1A) (Banerjee and Arjaliès, 2021; Cubillos et al., 2022). The mechanistic worldview of Descartes and Newton, which fosters an anthropocentric perspective, perceives the Earth as a machine to be controlled and exploited by humans (Capra, 1996). This perspective isolates humans from the natural world, neglecting our origin and the intrinsic value of all life, non-life, and the interconnectedness of all ecological phenomena (Capra, 1996). Consequently, global issues are often approached in isolation, overlooking their systemic nature and interdependence, which hinders our ability to fully comprehend and address the complexities of environmental challenges (Capra, 1996).

Anthropocentric relationality in academia, particularly within the current food system, often results in the dismissal of Indigenous science and knowledge as mere folklore because of their explicit reciprocal relationship with nature. For example, if we consider the narrative discussed earlier of feeding the world, the expression more accurately means feed people in a paternalistic relationship of domination over communities whose food sovereignty has been denied through (neo-)colonialism and imperialism. This relationality of the current food system is informed by power structures, as discussed above, in which academics legitimize only a limited set of knowledges. One example of how relationality interacts with power is in the land-sparing vs. land-sharing debate (Fischer et al., 2014; Kremen, 2015; Grass et al., 2019). The dominant relationality that artificially separates humans from the rest of the world and conceives of land as “better” when it is untouched and pristine (i.e., land that is untouched by humans), despite the co-evolution of human habitation with numerous ecotypes globally (Ellis et al., 2021). Current biodiversity loss is primarily a result of appropriation, colonization, and intensification of land use in areas previously inhabited and utilized by earlier societies, rather than the disturbance of pristine ecosystems (Ellis et al., 2021). Lands in what we now call the US were managed by Indigenous peoples for millennia until settler colonists, and later the US government, occupied these territories and, often by extreme violence, dispossessed Indigenous peoples from their land. Settler colonists and the government then proposed to conserve these same lands (Mazel, 2000). And, while intensifying agriculture for commodity crops does not necessarily spare land as advertised, Indigenous land stewardships, based on relationality between humans and nature, does (Pratzer et al., 2023). The history of global land use demonstrates that supporting Indigenous peoples and local communities in their role as environmental stewards is essential for both biodiversity and agrobiodiversity conservation worldwide (Ellis et al., 2021).

Nevertheless, anthropogenic relationality to land allows agricultural researchers to view nature through an instrumentalist and extractive lens in which culture is stripped from agriculture (Flora, 2014). The same dynamic encourages early-career researchers to extract information from the communities they engage with, without reciprocity. At the same time, researchers are subjected to hierarchical structures that exploit them in many ways (Box 4).

5 Discussion of a re-imagined agricultural academic knowledge creation system

As early-career researchers, we advocate for continuous and iterative societal transformations to address the global systemic crises and achieve just and equitable food systems (Kinzig et al., 2013; IPBES, 2022; IPCC, 2022). However, as Galeano (1998) describes in our preface, the upside-down world give us the impression that we must endure this reality and limit the potential impact of our work. In this section, we acknowledge his counter-school of thought, that challenges or subverts dominant paradigms. We define counter-hegemony as movements and actions aimed at disrupting the dominant food system ruled by capital accumulation (Carroll, 2010). Figure 1B illustrates the revised structure of knowledge production for agroecological transformation of food systems that we envision.

Here, motives and relationality govern academic knowledge production side by side, in a non-hierarchical structure. They shape power and values explicitly, and then both produce knowledge through a conscious praxis. Finally, we envision that the knowledge produced can challenge and provide checks on power and values systems. For comparison, we provide a summary of the drivers and mechanisms in both the current dominant academic knowledge creation system and our proposed system in Table 1. We summarize these key aspects of a re-imagined system in a set of vignettes (Boxes 5–7). These vignettes describe creative and holistic methods of alternative knowledge creation systems through stories from people working in the counter-hegemonic food movement. Stories and storytelling are widely acknowledged as culturally nuanced ways of knowing, produced within networks of relational meaning-making (Tynan, 2021).

Table 1

		Power	Values	Motives	Relationality
	Current academic agricultural knowledge creation system	Consolidation Hierarchy	Growthism Reductionism	Efficiency Productivism	Extractivism Anthropocentrism
	Re-imagined academic agricultural knowledge creation system	Distribution Horizontalism	Solidarity Holism	Sufficiency Sovereignty	Reciprocity Care

Characteristics of how the current and re-imagined academic agricultural knowledge creation systems operate using the drivers and mechanisms from our knowledge creation framework.

The transformation of power, values, and motives requires that researchers recognize and build new patterns and priorities of relationality in a transformed system. Instead of anthropocentric extractivism, we recognize a different relationality that connects people and non-people from a place of care and responsibility, also known as reciprocity (Tynan, 2021). Reciprocal relationships are defined by interaction with and responsibility to humans, non-humans, landscapes and any part of the natural world. Reciprocity creates an increased commitment and desire to take care of our world rather than viewing the natural world through an instrumental lens in the dominant normative manner (Chan et al., 2016; Klain et al., 2017; Allen et al., 2018; Díaz et al., 2018).

As Chan et al. (2016) point out, a collective understanding of connectedness and care is the basis for several worldviews that operate with relational values at their core: back to land movements in North America, Ubuntu in South Africa, care in the ethics of feminisms, and Buen Vivir in Latin America (Box 5). Importantly, relationality based on reciprocity is a concept that we understand mainly due to the intellectual labor of Indigenous writers and activists. Our intellectual debt to them highlights the complementary need for relationality and solidarity as a core value, to support sovereignty of communities whose knowledge and power is unacknowledged within the current system. Finally, rather than prioritizing efficiency solely for profit, change-oriented food system scholars advocate for sufficiency (McGreevy et al., 2022). This viewpoint brings the importance of agroecology and producing foods that align with nutritional needs and sociocultural preferences (Van Zutphen et al., 2022). It aims not just to boost production but also to ensure fair food distribution, targeting issues like malnutrition, excessive consumption, and wastage, as well as affluent diets and lifestyles.

A transformed system of knowledge production requires broadening who has authority to determine what is legitimate and who the primary beneficiaries of knowledge production are. For example, academic knowledge creation must aim to meaningfully benefit a plurality of people; this is particularly true for public institutions which have a mandate to serve the public good. This can be accomplished by research decisions being made through participatory and democratic processes, which would increase accountability of those inside institutions to the greater public. Current attempts to achieve this include biocultural approaches to understanding food and land that deliberately legitimate multiple types of knowledge (Hanspach et al., 2020). Another example is knowledge co-creation within agroecological projects, which recognizes and expands whose knowledge is valued as well as who benefits from the outcomes of research (Utter et al., 2021). Community-based participatory research (CBPR), in which researchers make explicit consideration of the normative values, politics, and possibilities their work supports, can be useful for guiding research praxis (Box 6). This method is most effective when researchers are embedded within communities where they are doing research “with” instead of “on” community members and agricultural systems.

A participatory knowledge creation system with deep relationality and distributed power requires that researchers acknowledge positionality and the inherent partial perspectives that we inhabit. The model of partial perspectives, from Feminist scholar Donna Haraway, describes a “limited location and situated knowledge, not about transcendence and splitting of subject and object.” (Haraway, 1988). In Barad (2007) words, we cannot separate the experiences of being and knowing. When we recognize partial perspective, we also recognize that scientific knowledge is not objective, but rather, situated within a context of normative power relations, values, motives, and relationality. The acknowledgement of partial perspectives can help researchers shift from siloed, hierarchical knowledge production towards egalitarian approaches, fostering transdisciplinary collaboration, and recognizing and celebrating complexity and multiple ways of knowing. This complex, horizontal transformation of knowledge production could contribute towards a world in which knowledge production is in solidarity with social movement goals. Recognition of the complexity of the reality we study may also allow us to embrace the complexity of our own nature as researchers. As a tool for addressing complexity, we have developed a set of questions for researchers to reflect on how the drivers and mechanisms we have described interact in their own work and how they can contribute to systemic transformation (Table 2).

A transformed system of knowledge production could be accompanied by concomitant shifts in how academic training is undertaken (Box 7). For example, a non-hierarchical classroom structure would encourage instructors to value relationship creation and knowledge production with and between students. Additionally, valuing students’ lived experiences creates a more horizontal knowledge creation approach, rather than a top down, teacher-centered didactic approach (Freire, 1970; Hooks, 1994b). Action-oriented classrooms also allow for students to connect their coursework holistically to the broader, local context, providing real life complexity. This allows for relationship building in the community and can encourage students to commit to sociopolitical action that aligns with their values (Hodson, 2020).

6 Conclusion

Examining the relative centrality and relationships among relationality, motives, values and power in the knowledge creation process is an effective tool for agricultural scientists to critically engage with their work. In this paper, we demonstrate how a framework that concentrates power in limited knowledge legitimacy and money, with values, motives and relationality following that concentration of power, has led to research supporting an ecologically and socially unsustainable food system that contributes to climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and socioeconomic inequalities. In contrast, we offer a vision of relationality-based knowledge creation that can effectively address the urgent ecological and food access crises we see in our world by operating within ecological limits and benefitting society. Our ultimate goal is to act consciously through the praxis of our own version of a counter-hegemonic food system transformation. We want to build on and continue to co-create transdisciplinary academic spaces centered in critical reflection, where we are encouraged to value the complexity of our own identities and of the systems we live in. We envision power within the public institutions we work in to be distributed so that we can better serve public interests and to be spaces where we can imagine and contribute to more just food systems.

References

• 1

  AllenK. E.QuinnC. E.EnglishC.QuinnJ. E. (2018). Relational values in agroecosystem governance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.35, 108–115. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.026

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  AltieriM. A. (1995). Agroecology: the science of sustainable agriculture. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  AltieriM. A.NichollsC. I.HenaoA.LanaM. A. (2015). Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev.35, 869–890. doi: 10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  AltieriM. A.ToledoV. M. (2011). The agroecological revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. J. Peasant Stud.38, 587–612. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2011.582947

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  AmbikapathiR.SchneiderK. R.DavisB.HerreroM.WintersP.FanzoJ. C. (2022). Global food systems transitions have enabled affordable diets but had less favourable outcomes for nutrition, environmental health, inclusion and equity. Nat. Food3, 764–779. doi: 10.1038/s43016-022-00588-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  AndersonC. R. (2020). Confronting the institutional, interpersonal and internalized challenges of performing critical public scholarship. ACME Int. J. Critic. Geographies19, 270–302. doi: 10.14288/acme.v19i1.1786

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  ArcherL. (2008). The new neoliberal subjects? Young/Er academics’ constructions of professional identity. J. Educ. Policy23, 265–285. doi: 10.1080/02680930701754047

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  AshwoodL.PilnyA.CanfieldJ.JamilaM.ThomsonR. (2022). From big Ag to big finance: a market network approach to power in agriculture. Agric. Hum. Values39, 1421–1434. doi: 10.1007/s10460-022-10332-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  BanerjeeS. B.ArjalièsD.-L. (2021). Celebrating the end of enlightenment: organization theory in the age of the Anthropocene and Gaia (and why neither is the solution to our ecological crisis). Org. Theor.2, 263178772110367–263178772110324. doi: 10.1177/26317877211036714

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  BannisterS. J. (2005). Low wages, Long hours, bad working conditions: science and engineering graduate students should be considered employees under the National Labor Relations act. The George Law Rev.74:123.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  BaradK. (2007). Meeting the universe Halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  BawdenR. J. (1991). Systems thinking and practice in agriculture. J. Dairy Sci.74, 2362–2373. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78410-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  BerryW. (1978). “Preface” in The one-straw revolution, Vol. 65. ed. FukuokaM. (Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press).

  • Google Scholar

• 14

  BlessA.DavilaF.PlantR. (2023). A genealogy of sustainable agriculture narratives: implications for the transformative potential of regenerative agriculture. Agric. Hum. Values40, 1379–1397. doi: 10.1007/s10460-023-10444-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  BuchholzR. (2012). Reforming capitalism: the scientific worldview and business. London: Taylor & Francis Group.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  BurchardtJ. (2002). Paradise lost: rural idyll and social change since 1800. London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  BurianA.KremenC.James Shyan-TauW.BeckmannM.BullingM.GaribaldiL. A.et al. (2024). Biodiversity–production feedback effects lead to intensification traps in agricultural landscapes. Nat. Ecol. Evol.8, 752–760. doi: 10.1038/s41559-024-02349-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  ButtelF. H.BelskyJ. (1987). Biotechnology, plant breeding, and intellectual property: social and ethical dimensions. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values12, 31–49. doi: 10.1177/016224398701200104

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  CampbellB. M.BeareD. J.BennettE. M.Hall-SpencerJ. M.IngramJ. S. I.JaramilloF.et al. (2017). Agriculture production as a major driver of the earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc.22, 1–27. doi: 10.5751/ES-09595-220408

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  CapraF. (1996). The web of life: a new scientific understanding of living systems. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  CarrollW. K. (2010). Crisis, movements, counter-hegemony: in search of the new. Interface2, 168–198.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  CassidyE. S.WestP. C.GerberJ. S.FoleyJ. A. (2013). Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environ. Res. Lett.8, 1–8. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  CeddiaM. G.BardsleyN. O.Gomez-Y-PalomaS.SedlacekS. (2014). Governance, agricultural intensification, and land sparing in tropical South America. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA111, 7242–7247. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1317967111

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  ChagnonC. W.DuranteF.GillsB. K.Hagolani-AlbovS. E.HokkanenS.KangasluomaS. M. J.et al. (2022). From extractivism to global extractivism: the evolution of an organizing concept. J. Peasant Stud.49, 760–792. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2022.2069015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  ChanK. M. A.BalvaneraP.BenessaiahK.ChapmanM.DíazS.Gómez-BaggethunE.et al. (2016). Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA113, 1462–1465. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1525002113

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  ClappJ. (2018). Mega-Mergers on the Corporate concentration and the politics of sustainability in the global food system. GEP18, 12–33. doi: 10.1162/glep_a_00454

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  ClausetA.ArbesmanS.LarremoreD. B. (2015). Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks. Sci. Adv.1, e1400005–e1400007. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1400005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  ConwayG. (1997). The doubly green revolution: Food for all in the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  CotulaL. (2012). The international political economy of the global land rush: a critical appraisal of trends. Scale Geogr. Drivers39, 649–680. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2012.674940

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  CrippaM.SolazzoE.GuizzardiD.Monforti-FerrarioF.TubielloF. N.LeipA. (2021). Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food2, 198–209. doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  CubillosJ. J.LosadaH. F.QuinteroT.PereaL. J. L. (2022). Extractive logic of the coloniality of nature: feeling-thinking through agroecology as a decolonial project. Capital. Nat. Social.34, 88–106. doi: 10.1080/10455752.2022.2127416

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  CummingsS.DhewaC.KemboiG.YoungS. (2023). Doing epistemic justice in sustainable development: applying the philosophical concept of epistemic injustice to the real world. Sustain. Dev.31, 1965–1977. doi: 10.1002/sd.2497

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  DahlbergK. A. (1988). Ethical and value issues in international agricultural research. Agric. Hum. Values5, 101–111. doi: 10.1007/BF02217181

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  DanbomD. B. (1986). The agricultural experiment station and professionalization: scientists’ goals for agriculture. Agric. Hist.60, 246–255.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  DeLongeM. S.MilesA.CarlisleL. (2016). Investing in the transition to sustainable agriculture. Environ. Sci. Pol.55, 266–273. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.09.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  DíazS.PascualU.StensekeM.Martín-LópezB.WatsonR. T.MolnárZ.et al. (2018). Assessing Nature’s contributions to people. Science359, 270–272. doi: 10.1126/science.aap8826

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  DringC. C.ČajkováT.MendesW.SteinS.ValleyW.CleggD. J. (2022). Ontological awareness in food systems education. Front. Sust. Food Syst.6:750776. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.750776

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  EllisR.BowdenR. (2014). Performance based funding: changing the paradigm for higher education. J. Educ. Soc. Behav. Sci.4, 942–952. doi: 10.9734/BJESBS/2014/9236

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 39

  EllisE. C.GauthierN.GoldewijkK. K.BirdR. B.BoivinN.DíazS.et al. (2021). People have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.118, 1–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2023483118

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40

  Estrada-CarmonaN.SánchezA. C.RemansR.JonesS. K. (2022). Complex agricultural landscapes host more biodiversity than simple ones: a global meta-analysis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.119, e2203385119–e2203385110. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2203385119

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41

  FanshelR. Z. (2021). The land in land-grant: unearthing indigenous dispossession in the founding of the University of California. Berkeley, CA: Center for Research on Native American Issues.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42

  FAO (2021). The White/Wiphala paper on indigenous peoples’ food systems. Rome: FAO.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 43

  FAO, Alliance of Biodiversity International, and CIAT (2021). Indigenous peoples’ food systems. FAO, Alliance of Bioversity International, and CIAT. Rome: FAO.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 44

  FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO (2023). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2023. Urbanization, Agrifood systems transformation and healthy diets across the rural–urban continuum. The state of food security and nutrition in the world (SOFI). Rome: FAO; IFAD; UNICEF; WFP; WHO.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 45

  FaulknerW. (2007). ‘nuts and bolts and people’: gender-troubled engineering identities. Soc. Stud. Sci.37, 331–356. doi: 10.1177/0306312706072175

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 46

  FischerJ.AbsonD. J.Van ButsicM.ChappellJ.EkroosJ.HanspachJ.et al. (2014). Land sparing versus land sharing: moving forward. Conserv. Lett.7, 149–157. doi: 10.1111/conl.12084

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 47

  FloraC. B. (2014). “Social justice: preservation of cultures in traditional agriculture” in Encyclopedia of agriculture and food systems. ed. Van AlfenN. K. (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 133–139.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 48

  FoleyJ. A.DeFriesR.AsnerG. P.BarfordC.BonanG.CarpenterS. R.et al. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science309, 570–574. doi: 10.1126/science.1111772

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 49

  FoucaultM. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 50

  FoucaultM. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–79. New York, NY: Pantheon.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 51

  FreireP. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. 30th anniversary. New York, NY: Continuum.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 52

  FrickelS.GibbonS.HowardJ.KempnerJ.OttingerG.HessD. J. (2010). Undone science: charting social movement and civil society challenges to research agenda setting. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values35, 444–473. doi: 10.1177/0162243909345836

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 53

  FuenmayorR. (1991). The roots of reductionism: a counter-ontoepistemology for a systems approach. Syst. Prac.4, 419–448. doi: 10.1007/BF01104460

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 54

  GaleanoE. (1998). Patas arriba, la escuela del mundo al revés. México City: Siglo Veintiuno Editores.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 55

  GalleaJ. I.MedranoL. A.MoreraL. P. (2021). Work-related mental health issues in graduate student population. Front. Neurosci.15:593562. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.593562

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 56

  GaltR. E.ParrD.Van SoelenJ.KimJ. B.LickterM.BallardH. (2012). Transformative food systems education in a land-grant college of agriculture: the importance of learner-centered inquiries. Agric. Hum. Values30, 129–142. doi: 10.1007/s10460-012-9384-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 57

  Gámez-ViruésS.PerovićD. J.GossnerM. M.BörschigC.BlüthgenN.De JongH.et al. (2015). Landscape simplification filters species traits and drives biotic homogenization. Nat. Commun.6:8568. doi: 10.1038/ncomms9568

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 58

  GardnerS. (2014). Bridging the divide: tensions between the biophysical and social sciences in an interdisciplinary sustainability science project. Environ. Nat. Resour. Res.4:70. doi: 10.5539/enrr.v4n2p70

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 59

  GertenD.HeckV.JägermeyrJ.BodirskyB.FetzerI.JalavaM.et al. (2020). Feeding ten billion people is possible within four terrestrial planetary boundaries. Nat. Sust.3, 1–9. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0465-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  GillR. (2016). post-postfeminism?: New feminist visibilities in postfeminist times. Fem. Media Stud.16, 610–630. doi: 10.1080/14680777.2016.1193293

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 61

  GilsonE. C. (2015). Vulnerability, relationality, and dependency: feminist conceptual resources for food justice. IJFAB8, 10–46. doi: 10.3138/ijfab.8.2.10

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 62

  GlennaL. L.LacyW. B.WelshR.BiscottiD. (2007). University administrators, agricultural biotechnology, and academic capitalism: defining the public good to promote university–industry relationships. Sociol. Q.48, 141–163. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2007.00074.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 63

  GodfrayH. C. (2015). The debate over sustainable intensification. Food Secur.7, 199–208. doi: 10.1007/s12571-015-0424-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 64

  GoulartF.Jahi Johnson-ChappellM.MertensF.FilhoB. (2023). Sparing or expanding? The effects of agricultural yields on farm expansion and deforestation in the tropics. Biodivers. Conserv.32, 1089–1104. doi: 10.1007/s10531-022-02540-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 65

  GrassI.LoosJ.BaenschS.BatáryP.Librán-EmbidF.FiciciyanA.et al. (2019). Land-sharing/−sparing connectivity landscapes for ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation. People Nat.1, 262–272. doi: 10.1002/pan3.21

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 66

  GrindstaffL. (2022). “Barriers to inclusion: social roots and current concerns” in Uprooting bias in the academy: lessons from the field. eds. BissonL. F.Brazil-CruzL.BarbuS. J. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 19–44.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 67

  HallS. (2023). A mental-health crisis is gripping science — toxic research culture is to blame. Nature617, 666–668. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-01708-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 68

  HamantO. (2020). Plant scientists can’t ignore Jevons paradox anymore. Nat. Plants6, 720–722. doi: 10.1038/s41477-020-0722-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 69

  HandyJ. (2009). ‘Almost idiotic wretchedness’: a long history of blaming peasants. J. Peasant Stud.36, 325–344. doi: 10.1080/03066150902928306

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 70

  HanspachJ.HaiderL. J.Oteros-RozasE.OlafssonA. S.GulsrudN. M.RaymondC. M.et al. (2020). Biocultural approaches to sustainability: a systematic review of the scientific literature. People Nat.2, 643–659. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10120

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 71

  HarawayD. (1988). Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fem. Stud.14, 575–599. doi: 10.4324/9780203427415-40

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 72

  HardingS. G. (1994). Is science multicultural?: Challenges, resources, opportunities, uncertainties. Configurations2, 301–330. doi: 10.1353/con.1994.0019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 73

  HardingS. G. (2001). “Feminist standpoint epistemology” in The gender and science reader. eds. BartschI.LedermanM. (London: Routledge), 145–168.

  • Google Scholar

• 74

  HeiseyP. W.FuglieK. O. (2018). Agricultural research investment and policy reform in high-income countries. US Department Agric. Econ.249, 1–101.

  • Google Scholar

• 75

  HendricksonM. K. (2015). Resilience in a concentrated and consolidated food system. J. Environ. Stud. Sci.5, 418–431. doi: 10.1007/s13412-015-0292-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  HernandezJ. (2022). Fresh Banana leaves: healing indigenous landscapes through indigenous science. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books.

  • Google Scholar

• 77

  HerrenR. V.Craig EdwardsM. (2003). Whence we came: the land-grant institution-origin, evolution, and implications for the 21st century. J. Agric. Educ.43, 88–98. doi: 10.5032/jae.2002.04088

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  HickelJ.DorningerC.WielandH.SuwandiI. (2022). Imperialist appropriation in the world economy: drain from the global south through unequal exchange, 1990–2015. Glob. Environ. Chang.73:102467. doi: 10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2022.102467

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  HodsonD. (2020). Going beyond STS education: building a curriculum for sociopolitical activism. Can. J. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ.20, 592–622. doi: 10.1007/s42330-020-00114-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  HoffmanW.BeyeaJ.CookJ. H. (1995). Ecology of agricultural monocultures: some consequences for biodiversity in biomass energy farms. Report number: NREL/CP-200-8098; CONF-9508104. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL).

  • Google Scholar

• 81

  HofstraB.KulkarniV. V.GalvezS. M.-N.HeB.JurafskyD.McFarlandD. A. (2020). The diversity-innovation paradox in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.117, 9284–9291. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1915378117

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  Holt GiménezE.ShattuckA. (2011). Food crises, food regimes and food movements: rumblings of reform or tides of transformation?J. Peasant Stud.38, 109–144. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2010.538578

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  Holt-GiménezE. (2019). Capitalism, food, and social movements: the political economy of food system transformation. J. Agric. Food Syst. Commun. Dev.9, 1–13. doi: 10.5304/jafscd.2019.091.043

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  Holt-GiménezE.AltieriM. A. (2013). Agroecology, food sovereignty, and the new green revolution. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst.37, 120904081412003–120904081412102. doi: 10.1080/10440046.2012.716388

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  HooksB. (1994a). Outlaw culture: resisting representations. London: Routledge.

  • Google Scholar

• 86

  HooksB. (1994b). Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom. Choice Rev.32:316. doi: 10.5860/choice.32-4628

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  HopkinsA. G. (2018). American empire: a global history, Vol. 25. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 88

  IntemannK. (2010). 25 years of feminist empiricism and standpoint theory: where are we now?Hypatia25, 778–796. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01138.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture. (2009). Manifesto on the future of knowledge systems: Knowledge sovereignty for a healthy planet. Italy: ARSIA.

  • Google Scholar

• 90

  IPBES (2018). Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for the Americas of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bonn: IPBES, 1–44.

  • Google Scholar

• 91

  IPBES (2022). Methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bonn: IPBES Secretariat.

  • Google Scholar

• 92

  IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.

  • Google Scholar

• 93

  IPES-Food. (2016). From uniformity to diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversifed agroecological systems. Available at:https://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/UniformityToDiversity_FULL.pdf (Accessed July 9, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 94

  IsraelB. A.CoombeC. M.CheezumR. R.SchulzA. J.McGranaghanR. J.LichtensteinR.et al. (2010). Community-based participatory research: a capacity-building approach for policy advocacy aimed at eliminating health disparities. Am. J. Public Health100, 2094–2102. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.170506

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  JamesD.WolffR.WittmanH. (2023). Agroecology as a philosophy of life. Agric. Hum. Values40, 1437–1450. doi: 10.1007/s10460-023-10455-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  JinY.HuffmanW. E. (2016). Measuring public agricultural research and extension and estimating their impacts on agricultural productivity: new insights from U.S. evidence. Agric. Econ.47, 15–31. doi: 10.1111/agec.12206

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  JordanB. (1997). “Childbirth and authoritative knowledge” in Cross-cultural perspectives. eds. Davis-FloydR. E.SargentC. F. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press), 55–79.

  • Google Scholar

• 98

  JordanC. F. (2013). “Holism vs. reductionism in environmental science” in An ecosystem approach to sustainable agriculture: energy use efficiency in the American south (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 217–244.

  • Google Scholar

• 99

  KcK. B.DiasG. M.VeeramaniA.SwantonC. J.FraserD.SteinkeD.et al. (2018). When too much isn’t enough: does current food production meet global nutritional needs?PLoS One13:e0205683. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205683

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  KenneyM. (1986). Biotechnology: The university-industrial complex. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 101

  KenterJ. O.O’BrienL.HockleyN.RavenscroftN.FazeyI.IrvineK. N.et al. (2015). What are shared and social values of ecosystems?Ecol. Econ.111, 86–99. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  KenterJ. O.RaymondC. M.van RiperC. J.AzzopardiE.BrearM. R.CalcagniF.et al. (2019). Loving the mess: navigating diversity and conflict in social values for sustainability. Sustain. Sci.14, 1439–1461. doi: 10.1007/s11625-019-00726-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  KiersE. T.LeakeyR. R. B.IzacA.-M.HeinemannJ. A.RosenthalE.NathanD.et al. (2008). Agriculture at a Crossroads. Science320, 320–321. doi: 10.1126/science.1158390

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  KimmererR. W. (2002). Weaving traditional ecological knowledge into biological education: a call to action. Bioscience52, 432–438. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0432:WTEKIB]2.0.CO;2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  KimmererR. W. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions.

  • Google Scholar

• 106

  KinzigA. P.EhrlichP. R.AlstonL. J.ArrowK.BarrettS.BuchmanT. G.et al. (2013). Social norms and global environmental challenges: the complex interaction of behaviors, values, and policy. Bioscience63, 164–175. doi: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.3.5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  KlainS. C.OlmstedP.ChanK. M. A. A.SatterfieldT. (2017). Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the new ecological paradigm. PLoS One12:e0183962. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183962

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  KleinmanD. L.SuryanarayananS. (2013). Dying bees and the social production of ignorance. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values38, 492–517. doi: 10.1177/0162243912442575

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  KloppenburgJ. (1991). Social theory and the De/reconstruction of agricultural science: local knowledge for an alternative agriculture. Rural. Sociol.56, 519–548. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.1991.tb00445.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  Koltko-RiveraM. E. (2004). The psychology of worldviews. Rev. Gen. Psychol.8, 3–58. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.1.3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  KozlowskiD.LarivièreV.SugimotoC. R.Monroe-WhiteT. (2022). Intersectional inequalities in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.119:e2113067119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2113067119

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  KremenC. (2015). Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing debate for biodiversity conservation. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.1355, 52–76. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12845

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  LaraG.LeonieL.OersJ. S.SpanierJ.RajG.FeolaG. (2023). Degrowth and agri-food systems: a research agenda for the critical social sciences. Sustain. Sci.18, 1579–1594. doi: 10.1007/s11625-022-01276-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  LarkT.HendricksN.SmithA.PatesN.Spawn-LeeS.BougieM.et al. (2022). Environmental outcomes of the US renewable fuel standard. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.119:e2101084119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2101084119

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  LawrenceG.SmithK. (2020). “Neoliberal globalization and beyond: food, farming, and the environment” in The Cambridge handbook of environmental sociology. eds. LegunK.KellerJ. C.CarolanM.BellM. M. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 411–428.

  • Google Scholar

• 116

  LeeR.AhtoneT. (2020). Land grab universities: expropriated indigenous land is the Foundation of the Land-Grant University System. High Country News, 30, 2020. Available at:https://www.hcn.org/issues/52.4/indigenous-affairs-education-land-grab-universities (Accessed September.20, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 117

  LehmannJ.BossioD. A.Kögel-KnabnerI.RilligM. C. (2020). The concept and future prospects of soil health. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ.1, 544–553. doi: 10.1038/s43017-020-0080-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  LevecqueK.AnseelF.De BeuckelaerA.Van Der HeydenJ.GisleL. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Res. Policy46, 868–879. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  LewisJ. E.AristaN.PechawisA.KiteS. (2018). Making kin with the machines. J. Design Sci. doi: 10.21428/bfafd97b

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  LiboironM. (2021). Pollution is colonialism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 121

  LiboironM.AmmendoliaJ.WinsorK.ZaharaA.BradshawH.MelvinJ.et al. (2017). Equity in author order: a feminist laboratory’s approach. Catalyst Feminism Theor. Technosci.3, 1–17. doi: 10.28968/cftt.v3i2.28850

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  LichtfouseE. (2012). “Agroecology, a tool for the realization of the right to food” in Agroecology and strategies for climate change, sustainable agriculture reviews, Vol. 8 (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands).

  • Google Scholar

• 123

  LoosJ.AbsonD. J.Jahi ChappellM.HanspachJ.MikulcakF.TichitM.et al. (2014). Putting meaning Back into ‘sustainable intensification. Front. Ecol. Environ.12, 356–361. doi: 10.1890/130157

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  LópezR. (1998). Agricultural intensification, common property resources and the farm-household. Environ. Resour. Econ.11, 443–458. doi: 10.1023/A:1008283209675

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  MacDonaldJ. M. (2020). Tracking the consolidation of U.S. agriculture. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy42, 361–379. doi: 10.1002/aepp.13056

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  MagdoffF.TokarB. (2010). Agriculture and food in crisis: conflict, resistance, and renewal. New York, NY: Monthly Press Review.

  • Google Scholar

• 127

  MahonN.CruteI.SimmonsE.IslamM. M. (2017). Sustainable intensification – ‘oxymoron’ or ‘third-way’? A systematic review. Ecol. Indic.74, 73–97. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  MatiasJ. N.LewisN. A.HopeE. C. (2022). US universities are not succeeding in diversifying faculty. Nat. Hum. Behav.6, 1606–1608. doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01495-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  MazelD. (2000). American literary environmentalism. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 130

  McGreevyS. R.RupprechtC. D. D.NilesD.WiekA.CarolanM.KallisG.et al. (2022). Sustainable Agrifood systems for a post-growth world. Nat. Sust.5, 1011–1017. doi: 10.1038/s41893-022-00933-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  McKayA.GrenzJ. (2021). Healing the land and the academy. Nat. Ecol. Evol.5, 1190–1192. doi: 10.1038/s41559-021-01518-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  McKittrickK. (2021). Dear science and other stories. Errantries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 133

  McMichaelP. (2009). A food regime genealogy. J. Peasant Stud.36, 139–169. doi: 10.1080/03066150902820354

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  McMichaelP. (2012). The land grab and corporate food regime restructuring. J. Peasant Stud.39, 681–701. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2012.661369

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  MilesA.DeLongeM. S.CarlisleL. (2017). Triggering a positive research and policy feedback cycle to support a transition to agroecology and sustainable food systems. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst.41, 855–879. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2017.1331179

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  MokraneS.BuonocoreE.CaponeR.FranzeseP. P. (2023). Exploring the global scientific literature on food waste and loss. Sustainability15:4757. doi: 10.3390/su15064757

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  Montenegro de WitM.IlesA. (2016). Toward thick legitimacy: creating a web of legitimacy for agroecology. Elementa Sci. Anthropocene4:000115. doi: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000115

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  MooreM.-L.MilkoreitM. (2020). Imagination and transformations to sustainable and just futures. Elementa Sci. Anthropocene8:081. doi: 10.1525/elementa.2020.081

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  MorinE. (2001). Seven complex lessons in education for the future. Education on the move. Paris: UNESCO.

  • Google Scholar

• 140

  MorrisV.JacquetJ. (2024). The animal agriculture industry, US universities, and the obstruction of climate understanding and policy. Clim. Chang.177:41. doi: 10.1007/s10584-024-03690-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  NeffR. A.PalmerA. M.McKenzieS. E.LawrenceR. S. (2009). Food systems and public health disparities. J. Hunger Environ. Nutr.4, 282–314. doi: 10.1080/19320240903337041

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  NelsonK. P.FuglieK. (2022). Investment in U.S. public agricultural research and development has fallen by a third over past two decades, lags major trade competitors. Available at:https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2022/june/investment-in-u-s-public-agricultural-research-and-development-has-fallen-by-a-third-over-past-two-decades-lags-major-trade-competitors/ (Accessed November 4, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 143

  NicklayJ. A.PerroneS. V.WautersV. M. (2023). Becoming agroecologists: a pedagogical model to support graduate student learning and practice. Front. Sust. Food Syst.7:770862. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2023.770862

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  OlssenM.PetersM. A. (2007). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: from the free market to knowledge capitalism. J. Educ. Policy20, 313–345. doi: 10.1080/02680930500108718

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  OngT. W.Roman-AlcaláA.Jiménez-SotoE.JacksonE.PerfectoI.DuffH. (2024). Momentum for agroecology in the USA. Nat. Food5, 1–3. doi: 10.1038/s43016-024-01006-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  OstromM.Jackson-SmithD. (2005). Defining a purpose: diverse farm constituencies and publicly funded agricultural research and extension. J. Sustain. Agric.27, 57–76. doi: 10.1300/J064v27n03_05

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  PatelR. (2013). The Long green revolution. J. Peasant Stud.40, 1–63. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2012.719224

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  PaulC.TechenA.-K.RobinsonJ. S.HelmingK. (2019). Rebound effects in agricultural land and soil management: review and analytical framework. J. Clean. Prod.227, 1054–1067. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.115

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  PereiraL.SitasN.RaveraF.Jimenez-AceitunoA.MerrieA. (2019). Building capacities for transformative change towards sustainability: imagination in intergovernmental science-policy scenario processes. Elem. Sci. Anth.7:35. doi: 10.1525/elementa.374

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  PratzerM.BaumannM.Fernández-llamazaresÁ.GarnettS. T. (2023). Agricultural intensification and land sparing in tropical dry forests. Roles Markets Indigenous Land Stewardship49, 1–42. doi: 10.1038/s41893-023-01073-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  PretoriusL.MacaulayL.De CauxB. C. (2019). Wellbeing in doctoral education: Insights and guidance from the student experience. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

  • Google Scholar

• 152

  PrettyJ. N. (1997). The sustainable intensification of agriculture. Nat. Res. Forum21, 247–256. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-8947.1997.tb00699.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  RasmussenL. V.CoolsaetB.MartinA.MertzO.PascualU.CorberaE.et al. (2018). Social-ecological outcomes of agricultural intensification. Nat. Sust.1, 275–282. doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0070-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  RaworthK. (2012). A safe and just space for humanity: can we live within the doughnut? Oxfam discussion paper. 9781849776257. State of the world 2003: Progress towards a sustainable society: 20th Edition. Available at:www.oxfam.org/grow%0Ahttps://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/dp-a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-130212-en_5.pdf (Accessed March 9, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 155

  RockströmJ.SteffenW.NooneK.PerssonÅ.ChapinF. S.IIILambinE. F.et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature461, 472–475. doi: 10.1038/461472a

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  RossE. D. (1941). The land-grant college: a democratic adaptation. Agric. Hist.15, 26–36.

  • Google Scholar

• 157

  RoyD. (2008). Asking different questions: feminist practices for the natural sciences. Hypatia23, 134–157. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2008.tb01437.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  SalmónE. (2000). Kincentric ecology: indigenous perceptions of the human–nature relationship. Ecol. Appl.10, 1327–1332. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1327:KEIPOT]2.0.CO;2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  SandermanJ.HenglT.FiskeG. J. (2017). Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.114, 9575–9580. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1706103114

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  SchiereJ. B.GroenlandR.VlugA.van KeulenH. (2004). “System thinking in agriculture: an overview” in Emerging challenges for farming systems: lessons from Australian and dutch agriculture. ed. RickertK. G. (Barton, ACT: RIRDC), 57–86.

  • Google Scholar

• 161

  SchiereJ. B.LyklemaJ.SchakelJ.RickertK. G. (1999). Evolution of farming systems and system philosophy. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci.16, 375–390. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199907/08)16:4<375::AID-SRES254>3.0.CO;2-Q

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  ShivaV. (2000). North-south conflicts in intellectual property rights. Peace Rev.12, 501–508. doi: 10.1080/10402650020014573

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  SlaughterS.LeslieL. (1998). Academic capitalism: politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Choice Rev.35:3451. doi: 10.5860/choice.35-3451

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  SlaughterS.RhoadesG. (2000). The neo-liberal university. New Labor Forum6, 73–79.

  • Google Scholar

• 165

  SmithL. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples.2nd Edn. London: Zed Books.

  • Google Scholar

• 166

  SmithJ. L.CechE.MetzA.HuntoonM.MoyerC. (2014). Giving back or giving up: native American student experiences in science and engineering. Cultur. Divers. Ethnic Minor. Psychol.20, 413–429. doi: 10.1037/a0036945

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  SpanglerK.SchumacherB. L.BeanB.BurchfieldE. K. (2022). Path dependencies in US agriculture: regional factors of diversification. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.333:107957. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2022.107957

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  StetsenkoA. (2018). Confronting biological reductionism from a social justice agenda: transformative agency and activist stance. Literacy Res. Theor. Method Prac.67, 44–63. doi: 10.1177/2381336918787531

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  StuartT. (2009). Uncovering the global food scandal. London: Penguin Books.

  • Google Scholar

• 170

  TallBearK. (2014). Standing with and speaking as faith: a feminist-indigenous approach to inquiry. J. Res. Prac.10:N17.

  • Google Scholar

• 171

  TynanL. (2021). What is relationality? Indigenous knowledges, practices and responsibilities with kin. Cult. Geogr.28, 597–610. doi: 10.1177/14744740211029287

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  UtterA.Alissa WhiteV.MéndezE.MorrisK. (2021). Co-creation of knowledge in agroecology. Elementa Sci. Anthropocene9:00026. doi: 10.1525/elementa.2021.00026

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  ValleyW.AndersonM.BlackstoneN. T.SterlingE.BetleyE.AkabasS.et al. (2020). Towards an equity competency model for sustainable food systems education programs. Elementa Sci. Anthropocene8:33. doi: 10.1525/elementa.428

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  Van ZutphenK. G.Van Den BergS.Gavin-SmithB.ImboE.KraemerK.Monroy-GomezJ.et al. (2022). Nutrition as a driver and outcome of agroecology. Nat. Food3, 990–996. doi: 10.1038/s43016-022-00631-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  VanloquerenG.BaretP. V. (2009). How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Res. Policy38, 971–983. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  Vásquez-FernándezA. M. (2020). Resurgence of relationality: reflections on decolonizing and indigenizing ‘sustainable development. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.43, 65–70. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2020.03.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  VickersM. H. (2007). Reflections from an action researcher: why we do what we do. Int. J. Action Res.3, 168–189.

  • Google Scholar

• 178

  WallaceR. L.GreenburgJ.ClarkS. G. (2020). Confronting anxiety and despair in environmental studies and sciences: an analysis and guide for students and faculty. J. Environ. Stud. Sci.10, 148–155. doi: 10.1007/s13412-020-00609-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  WalthallB.Vicente-VicenteJ. L.FriedrichJ.PiorrA.López-GarcíaD. (2024). Complementing or co-opting? Applying an integrative framework to assess the transformative capacity of approaches that make use of the term agroecology. Environ. Sci. Pol.156:103748. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103748

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  WangY.LongA.XiangL.DengX.ZhangP.HaiY.et al. (2020). The verification of Jevons’ paradox of agricultural water conservation in Tianshan District of China based on water footprint. Agric. Water Manag.239:106163. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106163

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  WeissmanS. (2023). Black scientists with STEM Ph.Ds face deep disparities. Inside Higher Ed. Available at:https://www.insidehighered.com/news/diversity/race-ethnicity/2023/11/27/new-report-finds-disparities-black-stem-phds (Accessed November 27, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 182

  WestT. A. P.WunderS.SillsE. O.BörnerJ.RifaiS. W.NeidermeierA. N.et al. (2023). Action needed to make carbon offsets from Forest conservation work for climate change mitigation. Science381, 873–877. doi: 10.1126/science.ade3535

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  WezelA.BellonS.DoréT.FrancisC.VallodD.DavidC. (2009). Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.29, 503–515. doi: 10.1051/agro/2009004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  WhyteK. (2017). Indigenous climate change studies: indigenizing futures, decolonizing the Anthropocene. Eng. Lang. Notes55, 153–162. doi: 10.1215/00138282-55.1-2.153

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  WilsonS. (2020). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.

  • Google Scholar

• 186

  WoolstonC. (2019). PhDs: the tortuous truth. Nature575, 403–406. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03459-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  YoungA. (1808). General report on enclosures. London: Board of Agriculture.

  • Google Scholar

• 188

  ZarembaH.EliasM.RietveldA.BergaminiN. (2021). Toward a feminist agroecology. Sustainability13:11244. doi: 10.3390/SU132011244

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  ZhuJ.LuoZ.SunT.LiW.ZhouW.WangX.et al. (2023). Cradle-to-grave emissions from food loss and waste represent half of total greenhouse gas emissions from food systems. Nat. Food4, 247–256. doi: 10.1038/s43016-023-00710-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar