Q2. What future works have the authors mentioned in the paper "Progressing knowledge in alternative and local food networks: critical reflections and a research agenda" ?
The paper now concludes with future research recommendations aimed at addressing the problematic features identified. The first recommendation is for future studies to incorporate a greater crossfertilisation of ideas from different theoretical perspectives. Second, in light of the fact that AFN research is conducted from different theoretical perspectives, this paper calls for future studies to pay greater attention to how conceptual and ontological positions are presented and explained: specifically, that these should be as transparent and well-defined as possible. In terms of setting out ontological positions, the specific call here is for studies which are more explicit and reflexive not only in what is considered important to research in food systems and why, but also in the value judgements attached to phenomena in those systems.
Q3. What is the main argument that AFNs can exhibit inward-looking dynamics?
Rather than pioneering change in trading relations across food systems therefore, AFNs can exhibit inward-looking dynamics, a feature political economists such as DuPuis et al. (2006) attribute, in part, to localisation initiatives fitting as well into conservative, protectionist agendas as into left-leaning, participatory agendas.
Q4. What is the first recommendation for future studies?
The first recommendation is for future studies to incorporate a greater crossfertilisation of ideas from different theoretical perspectives.
Q5. What is the fourth recommendation in the essay?
Many arguments in this paper have been based on emphasising the value of questioning, critical approaches to scholarship, hence the fourth recommendation is a specific encouragement of research which does this more.
Q6. What are the reasons why some AFNs pursue apparently unjust goals?
The reasons why some AFNs, in reality, pursue apparently unjust goals may therefore go unexplained beyond initial judgements, whilst equally, instances of altruism or justice in conventional systems go unscrutinised, e.g. the convenience store franchisee who operates informal credit arrangements for disadvantaged suppliers and customers, or the intensive dairy farmer who is a pillar of the local community.
Q7. How can the authors get a better understanding of the operations, dynamics and socioeconomic impacts of food?
Greater understanding of the operations, dynamics and socioeconomic impacts of food systems will be achieved, therefore, by research which examines protagonists’ goals and strategies free of prior assumptions about how spatial scale and outcomes are interwoven.
Q8. What is the problem with a conceptualisation of AFNs based on a bi?
a conceptualisation of AFNs based on such a bifurcation represents a rather limited means of abstracting real world activity.
Q9. Why are these statements of hope not contended?
it is contended, because they are statements of hope about the spin-off benefits to consumers of food systems whose primary purpose is to address the needs of producer actors.
Q10. What is the tendency of the AFN to focus on the upstream actors?
This tendency is also discernable in scholars’ reflections on the value or worth of AFN initiatives, for example in terms of how they might enhance the well-being of a community, as the reference point tends to be the same upstream actors, thus perpetuating a continued production orientation in both research agendas and policy prescriptions.
Q11. What is the main argument for staged authenticity?
The concept of staged authenticity has long existed in sociology (MacCannell, 1973) and has been applied readily in agro-food studies to offer critical insights into commercial fora like gastronomic tours and wine routes (e.g. Bessière, 1998; Brunori and Rossi, 2000).