4.4 Article

Shallow fixes and deep reasonings: framing sustainability at the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa)

期刊

AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10460-023-10520-9

关键词

Politics of knowledge; Food systems transformation; Framing; Science and technology; Agricultural research; Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper examines the framing of sustainable agriculture by Embrapa, a major contributor to Brazil's agricultural development, and highlights the underlying assumptions of dominant industrial food systems. The study reveals the exclusion of divergent perspectives within the organization.
The need for urgent, structural transformations to dominant food systems is increasingly recognized in research and policy. The direction these transformations take is in great part influenced by how the problem is framed and what future pathways become seen as plausible and desirable. Scientific knowledge and the organizations producing it hold considerable authority in suggesting what alternatives are or are not worth pursuing, ultimately shaping frames and in turn being shaped by them. This paper examines Brazil's federal Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa), a major contributor to technological advances that made Brazil into an agricultural powerhouse. We examine the ways in which Embrapa's leadership has framed sustainable agriculture in its public communication and the wider implications for food systems transformation. Drawing from Embrapa news articles in the period 2015-2020, we identify four interrelated frames forming Embrapa's prevalent position on sustainability. Our results show that while Embrapa promotes practices based on alternative approaches such as agroecology, its deeper framing often reflects the core assumptions driving dominant industrial food systems. This framing reinforces underlying logics of control, efficiency, and competition aligned with the productivist paradigm and excludes divergent perspectives that exist within the organization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据