
doi: 10.2307/1239709
The three papers we have heard are most challenging and interesting. Since they are quite different in their perspectives, they do not lend themselves to an integrated discussion. Hence, I will discuss each of them separately. Shaffer's paper, although focused on an important topic, is both frustrating and disappointing. The title of his paper suggests that he will take initial steps toward a conceptual framework that presumably will do a better job of describing the food system than we have had in the past, and which will give us a sounder and more comprehensive basis for evaluating the performance of the food system. In point of fact, however, there is little theory in the paper, or little which in my judgment takes us very far in terms of having a more realistic or more general description of the food system.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
