arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Food Fights in the Classroom: A Case Study Exploring the Connections Between Economic Reasoning, Critical Thinking, Engagement, and Dialogue in Polarized Contexts

Marco Costanigro & Hayley H. Chouinard

Q Open: A Journal of Agricultural, Climate, Environmental, Food, Resource, and Rural Development Economics2026https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoag010article
ABDC C
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Abstract Motivated by rising polarization in academic and public discourse, this paper presents a pedagogical case study of ‘The Economics of Food Systems,’ an undergraduate course designed to foster critical thinking and a roadmap to productive discussion. Structurally, the course combines lectures on microeconomic theory with a series of controversial ‘food fight’ case studies, utilizing guest speakers to represent opposing viewpoints on issues of production, technology, and ethics. We argue that this pedagogical design helps depersonalize conflict by framing disagreement through the lens of economic constraints, incentives, and trade-offs rather than moral absolutes. This framework offers a valuable strategy for navigating polarized environments across different types of issues and bridging cultural divides in higher education.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoag010

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{marco2026,
  title        = {{Food Fights in the Classroom: A Case Study Exploring the Connections Between Economic Reasoning, Critical Thinking, Engagement, and Dialogue in Polarized Contexts}},
  author       = {Marco Costanigro & Hayley H. Chouinard},
  journal      = {Q Open: A Journal of Agricultural, Climate, Environmental, Food, Resource, and Rural Development Economics},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoag010},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Food Fights in the Classroom: A Case Study Exploring the Connections Between Economic Reasoning, Critical Thinking, Engagement, and Dialogue in Polarized Contexts

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.