Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Why (Interdisciplinary) Risk Is Good for Eating Right

Why (Interdisciplinary) Risk Is Good for Eating Right This article is a response to Sobal, Bisogni, & Jastran's commentary (this issue) on Doucerain & Fellows (2012). We thank Sobal, Bisogni, & Jastran (this issue) for their detailed and constructive commentary and we welcome their willingness to engage in a dialogue on terms and concepts, one of the most important obstacles to interdisciplinary research (Bailey, ; Brewer, ). In their article, the commentators argue for reliance on the term food choice but note that “no one term is broad or open enough to capture the full range and scope of factors involved in eating” (Sobal, Bisogni, & Jastran, this issue, p. xx). We aspired to this broader meaning in introducing the term food‐related decision‐making instead of relying on one of the various existing narrower labels (Doucerain & Fellows, ). To us, the term food choice seemed to put too much of an emphasis on the eating episode (rather than the many other relevant preceding decision complexes), and in particular the aspect of what to eat (rather than the many other decision types). Food‐related decision‐making, in contrast, clearly extends beyond what to eat and implicitly acknowledges the importance of multiple decision complexes through its terminological connection with the http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Mind, Brain, and Education Wiley

Why (Interdisciplinary) Risk Is Good for Eating Right

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/why-interdisciplinary-risk-is-good-for-eating-right-5nFK0pzCjv

References (26)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Journal Compilation © 2014 International Mind, Brain, and Education Society and Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
ISSN
1751-2271
eISSN
1751-228X
DOI
10.1111/mbe.12039
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This article is a response to Sobal, Bisogni, & Jastran's commentary (this issue) on Doucerain & Fellows (2012). We thank Sobal, Bisogni, & Jastran (this issue) for their detailed and constructive commentary and we welcome their willingness to engage in a dialogue on terms and concepts, one of the most important obstacles to interdisciplinary research (Bailey, ; Brewer, ). In their article, the commentators argue for reliance on the term food choice but note that “no one term is broad or open enough to capture the full range and scope of factors involved in eating” (Sobal, Bisogni, & Jastran, this issue, p. xx). We aspired to this broader meaning in introducing the term food‐related decision‐making instead of relying on one of the various existing narrower labels (Doucerain & Fellows, ). To us, the term food choice seemed to put too much of an emphasis on the eating episode (rather than the many other relevant preceding decision complexes), and in particular the aspect of what to eat (rather than the many other decision types). Food‐related decision‐making, in contrast, clearly extends beyond what to eat and implicitly acknowledges the importance of multiple decision complexes through its terminological connection with the

Journal

Mind, Brain, and EducationWiley

Published: Mar 1, 2014

There are no references for this article.