Food Networks in Canada: Mixed Methods in Community- Based Participatory Research

SAGE Research Methods Cases

Food Networks in Canada:Mixed Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research

Contributors: Charles Z LevkoeBook Title: SAGE Research Methods CasesChapter Title: "Food Networks in Canada: Mixed Methods in Community-BasedParticipatory Research"Pub. Date: 20151120Access Date: March 21, 2015Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Ltd.City: LondonPrint ISBN:Online ISBN: 9781446273050

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/978144627305014557466©2015 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

This PDF has been generated from SAGE Research Methods. Please note that thepagination of the online version will vary from the pagination of the print book.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/978144627305014557466

SAGE AUTHORS

©2015 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. SAGE Research Methods

of 20 SAGE Research Methods Cases: Food Networksin Canada: Mixed Methods in Community-Based

Participatory Research

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/978144627305014557466

Food Networks in Canada: Mixed Methodsin Community-Based ParticipatoryResearch

Link to the Research Output

• Levkoe, C. (2014). The food movement in Canada: A socialmovement network perspective. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41, 385–403. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.910766 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.910766

• Levkoe, C., & Wakefield, S. (2014). Understanding contemporarynetworks of environmental and social change: Complex assemblageswithin Canada's ‘Food Movement’. Environmental Politics, 23, 302–320. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.818302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.818302

• Levkoe, C., Bebee, M., Castel, E., & Wakefield, S. (2012). Propagating thefood movement: Provincial networks and social mobilization in Canada.Retrieved from http://nourishingontario.ca/reports/transformative-food-politics

• Levkoe, C., & Devila, C. (2012). Canadian food networks map. In D. Jensen,ed. & M. Roy (Eds.), Food: An Atlas (pp. 83–84). The Cartography and GISEducation Lab, Geography Department, University of California at Berkeley.Retrieved from http://guerrillacartography.net/home.htm

This research project case describes my investigation of the increasing collaborationsamong alternative food initiatives in Canada. Using a community-based participatoryapproach, I explored the efforts to foster and maintain alternative food initiativesnetworks by exploring the networks' history, structure, and processes of collaboration.I describe the research process and my role as an engaged researcher working incollaboration with the networks. Integrating my academic and community-basedexperiences as part of different and often overlapping networks was an integral part of

http://srmo.sagepub.com


http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/978144627305014557466

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.910766

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.910766

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.910766

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.818302

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.818302

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.818302

http://nourishingontario.ca/reports/transformative-food-politics

http://guerrillacartography.net/home.htm

SAGE AUTHORS




this research process. I designed the research to triangulate data using a number ofprimary methods: a network survey, semi-structured in-depth interviews, backgroundmaterials, site visits, and popular education workshops. I detail the way partnershipswere developed and collaboration was maintained, and how the data were collectedand used. This approach to the research produced a unique set of findings that mightnot have been possible using more traditional or singular methods. I maintain that,when done well, community-based research can increase the quality and validity of theresearch results as well as contribute to progressive social change efforts.

Learning Outcomes

At the end of this case study, you should

• Have a better understanding of the methodological advantages andchallenges involved in using community-based participatory research

• Understand the role of relationship-building in community-based research• Be able to consider the multiple roles a researcher might play such as

simultaneously objective/subjective and insider/outsider to the communitiesof study

• Appreciate the value of using multiple methods to explore a researchquestion using various approaches

Project Overview

The study of food systems provides a lens for understanding some of the most pressingissues within human cultures and the natural environment around the globe. Food helpsus understand the ways that people are connected to place and to the world morebroadly (Steel, 2009). Current research demonstrates that the dominant food systemfails to equitably meet peoples' needs (Davis & Tarasuk, 1994; Food and AgricultureOrganization, 2012), contributes significantly to climate change (GRAIN, 2011; Weis,2007), and plays a major part in an increased prevalence of diet-related diseases (Langand Rayner, 2002; World Health Organization, 2000). In response to these concerns,alternative food initiatives (AFIs) have been building momentum by developing viable,



SAGE AUTHORS




place-based solutions (see, for example, Allen et al., 2003; Elton, 2010; Winne, 2010;Wittman, Desmarais, & Wiebe, 2011). Coordinated by individuals and organizations,these AFIs cover a wide range of food-related activities, from educating about andgrowing food to developing formal policy and infrastructure. Some popular examplesinclude the establishment of direct producer–eater relationships (such as farmers'markets), agroecological training opportunities and supports for new farmers, food hubs,urban agriculture projects, and food policy councils.

In an effort to better understand the possibilities and limitations of food systemtransformation, my research, developed as part a PhD in geography, built on my ownexperience to explore the increasing collaborations among food-related organizationsoccurring through food networks in Canada. Through a review of the literature, I realizedthat much of the existing research tended to consider place-based AFIs as operatingindependently on particular projects, with specific claims, or in isolated sectors of thefood system. I found little documentation or analysis that situated AFIs within a broadercommunity of practice and considered the potential impact of these interconnections.Thus, unlike studies that explore AFIs working in isolation, I examined networks oforganizations working toward the broad vision of a healthy, ecological, and just foodsystem. I paid particular attention to efforts that foster and maintain these networksby exploring their history, structure, and processes of collaboration. By providing ananalysis of AFIs using a network perspective, my aim was to identify the kinds ofstrategies being mobilized to impact and improve the food system.

I used a community-based, participatory research methodology involving case studiesof four provincial food networks in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and NovaScotia. These four provinces were chosen to represent a range of settings acrossCanada and also varying degrees of food network maturity. (Figure 1 provides a visualrepresentation of the four case study provinces as well as a brief description of thenetworks that participated in the research.) At its most basic level, community-basedresearch (CBR) is a process of inquiry that aims to engage groups of people andengender a co-creation of knowledge. CBR has been used as a strategy to establishdemocratic relationships and to promote progressive social change around issuesthat are important to specific groups (Ansley & Gaventa, 1997; Savan & Sider, 2003).As a collaborative and reflexive endeavor, the application of CBR acknowledges theinseparable nature of the researcher and subjects of study (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). A



http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/methods-case-studies-2015/f1n21.xml

SAGE AUTHORS




central objective of this research was also to support and strengthen the activities of thefood networks by providing useful information about how they work and opportunities forcritical reflection on their practices.

Figure 1. Canadian Food Networks: case study map and description.

Research Design

The process of conceptualizing, designing, and conducting this research was aninteraction of ideas and activities between my academic supervisor, the researchpartners, the hundreds of participants, and countless others both internal and externalto the food networks. I came to this project having worked with a number of AFIs overthe previous decade as a researcher and practitioner. My entry into the field of foodstudies came in 2002 when I began working with The Stop Community Food Centre(The Stop), a non-profit organization in Toronto, Canada. Over the past 30 years, TheStop has evolved from a food bank offering emergency relief into a thriving communitycenter where people come together to grow, cook, and share food, and where peopleadvocate for measures to increase food security on a broader level. During my time with



SAGE AUTHORS




The Stop, I was inspired by the way the organization's interrelated programs had such astrong impact, personally on its members and at a broader political level. I also realizedthat The Stop was not acting alone, but was part of a groundswell of food-relatedactivities in Toronto. Furthermore, I recognized that the multitude of Toronto-basedorganizations were deeply connected and involved in (and influenced by) regional,national, and increasing global food networks.

From these experiences, I began to read the emerging body of literature that spoke tothe potential for food to be a catalyst for mobilization as well as a new transformativesocial movement (e.g. Allen, 2004; Desmarais, 2007; Patel, 2007; Pollan, 2006).Parallel to this, I observed that provincial networking organizations (PNOs) had evolvedin almost every Canadian province. Each one seemed different in its structure andconstitution but had a similar mandate to support local and regional initiatives andto facilitate network building within the province. The PNOs also aimed to serveas intermediaries between place-based AFIs and organizing at other scales. As Ireflected on the intersections between these experiences and emerging ideas aboutcollaboration, I began to formulate questions about the ways that AFIs in Canadawere mobilizing around food-related issues and negotiating traditional notions of placeand scale. These questions led to discussions with various network actors about thepossibilities for a broader research project. When I eventually began the project in 2008,I used these discussions as the basis for the research design.

I began the research design process by holding consultations with the representativesfrom the PNOs in each of the case study provinces to discuss the overall project andpropose a research plan. As the discussions developed, these representatives becamepartners in an ongoing dialogue about the research process, the methods, and theeventual findings. (Figure 1 provides a visual representation and brief description ofthe four PNOs.) As partners, the representatives committed to supporting the researchprocess, being involved in ongoing communication, facilitating contacts with provincialAFIs, participating in ongoing consultation, providing feedback, and being part of otherresearch-related activities.

The research was designed to triangulate data using a number of primary methods toexamine the provincial food networks. Each method was chosen to explore the networkfrom a different perspective and was intended to work in relationship to the others.




SAGE AUTHORS




In the following subsections, I outline the different interrelated methods employedthroughout this study and describe how the data were used.

Network Survey

After an initial conversation with the partners and a scan of the scholarly and popularliterature, I found many different (and often conflicting) ideas about which groups wereincluded as part of food networks, the kinds of work they were doing, and what broughtthe actors together. There was also little consensus about the frames used to describethe networks and even how to bound them for the purposes of study. Thus, I decidedto conduct a network survey to collect some basic information about each provincialnetwork and the participating AFIs. Representatives from all organizations and groupsworking on food-related issues in the case study provinces were invited to participate.The objective of the survey was to gain a general overview of the kinds of workhappening among AFIs, to gather information about the relationships between actors,and to understand some the general structures and relations within the networks.

The research partners all played an important role in designing the survey and tookresponsibility for promoting it through their provincial network LISTSERVS. A draft of thesurvey was sent to the research partners for feedback on the particular language andfocus of the questions. The survey collected a range of information, and the differenttypes of data were analyzed in three ways. First, quantitative survey responses weresynthesized to produce a series of summary statistics, graphs, and tables to illustratetrends. Second, qualitative survey responses were organized into categories basedon commonalities between the responses. Third, the survey asked respondents tolist the organizations or groups they had been involved with most frequently and thatthey believed were most valuable to their organization for addressing food-relatedissues. The responses were recorded in three categories (local/provincial, national, andglobal) and were used to analyze levels of centrality within each network and to identifywhich actors held more power through their ability to control information flow. This thirdtechnique is often referred to as social network analysis (SNA).



SAGE AUTHORS




Selecting AFIs for Further Study

In addition to the network survey, I engaged approximately five organizations fromeach case study province along with the PNOs in a more in-depth study. The purposewas to conduct a deeper analysis of the networks and the different relationshipsbetween AFIs, as well as to explore the perceptions of the PNOs among its members.To select which AFIs would be chosen for further study, I used the centrality findingsderived from the survey and SNA to identify organizations with strong and weakties to the PNOs. I also met with each of the research partners to discuss whichAFIs should be included in the study. Factors that were part of the selection criteriaincluded a range of geographic locations, organizational foci, and size (Figure 1provides a visual representation and description of selected AFIs that participated inthe research). The sample study population was not intended to be representative of allindividuals involved in food-related efforts, but an attempt was made to capture a widerepresentation of collaborative initiatives (i.e. groups of people working together throughorganizational structures).

Collecting Background Information

Before beginning the interviews and site visits, I collected key documents fromthe PNOs and the selected AFIs to understand the local contexts, the historyof each organization, and the kinds of work occurring in each province. Thedocuments I reviewed included websites, annual reports, publicity materials (e.g.brochures, newsletters), and published documents (e.g. reports, position papers, andevaluations). Using this information, I developed profiles for each AFI that included theirorganizational structure and history, a list of the kinds of initiatives being implemented,and additional information provided in the survey.




SAGE AUTHORS




Site Visits and Interviews

Next, I organized site visits to each of the four provinces. During the site visits, Iconducted a series of semi-structured, in-depth interviews with representativesfrom the PNOs and the selected AFIs. I also visited some of the AFIs' projects andattended provincial network gatherings. Beyond simply observing how AFIs workedand interacted with each other, I was able to be a part of the interactions throughdiscussions and information sharing. Having the opportunity to visit the organizationsand build relationships across different places enabled a mutual exchange where Icould ask probing questions and share my knowledge and experiences acquired fromother AFIs around the country. In each interview, we discussed personal motivationsand perspectives about food system challenges and solutions, specific approaches ofthe organization and the broader network, and the relationships within each provincialnetwork. The interviews were also used to ask follow-up questions that arose fromthe survey data. In some cases, I showed the initial survey data to participants as partof the conversation. The interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim.Reading through the transcripts, I coded them using key themes that emerged fromthe literature and directly from the content of the interviews. During the site visits, Idocumented the discussions and observations primarily through photography and fieldnotes.

During the site visits, I realized that I was unable to meet with as many AFIs as I hadoriginally intended. For example, I visited Manitoba in February, which made it difficultto travel beyond Winnipeg due to accessibility and the safety of snow-covered roads.Some Northern communities were inaccessible in the winter due to weather conditions,while many agricultural projects were not in operation while I was there. I visited BritishColumbia in the summer and had hoped to travel to a number of communities. I quicklyrealized that a kilometer through mountainous west coast terrain was much differentthan a kilometer along flat highway in southern Ontario where I lived. This forced me tochange plans and reduce the number of visits I could make. The research participantsalso faced a number of barriers to participation such as availability and scheduling.This was especially difficult in cases where AFI representatives were volunteers andhad limited time to meet. In some cases, my pre-existing relationships helped when



SAGE AUTHORS




scheduling meetings. For example, participants often commented on their limited timeto meet face-to-face, but agreed to meet due to my involvement in food work and/or mysupport from the PNOs.

Because of my pre-existing connections to the participants (direct and indirect), mostof the interviews functioned as a space for data collection and reflection, but alsoinformation exchange, problem-solving around specific challenges, and in somecases, strategic planning. During most of the interviews, it took very little effort to elicitinformation from the participants. Most AFI representatives were extremely forthcomingand honest, which was evident in the high number of confidential comments that weremade throughout the discussions. On most occasions, after the interviews had finished,participants commented that they rarely had time for these types of conversations anddeeply appreciated the reflection process and sharing of information.

Popular Education Workshops

To engage a broader group of people in discussion around the network activities, Ideveloped a popular education workshop that was held in conjunction with provincialgatherings. The concept of popular education was developed in Latin America in the1960s and was translated through the work of Brazilian educator Paulo Freire (2001[1970]). According to Deborah Barndt (2002), popular education ‘promotes democraticpractice through teaching/learning, processes that are collective, critical, systematic,participatory, and creative. Motivated by principles of equity and justice, it integratesresearch, learning and organizing for social change’ (p. 68). Using popular educationentails beginning from an individual's personal experiences and sharing narrativeswith others to create space for reflection and move toward a critical decoding of theworld. As a research method, popular education is a process of co-creating knowledgebased on the experiences of participants in relation to the socio-political context.Through a series of collaborative and reflexive activities, ideas are recorded as data foranalysis. Further, the process becomes a part of the group's collective experience and acontribution toward future strategic action.

I conducted the popular workshops in all of the four case study provinces in the formof participant-driven, interactive, activity-based workshops. The workshops were



SAGE AUTHORS




designed to explore the different perspectives around challenges and opportunities forfood system transformation within each provincial network. Participants represented abroad sample of individuals involved in each provincial network and were open to allparticipants who attended the provincial gathering. During the workshops, participants

worked in small groups to create a picture of how community food security (CFS) 1 affected their communities: first, participants discussed things that make it more difficultto establish CFS in their communities, and second, participants discussed the waysthey are working to increase CFS. Ideas were posted on chart paper in five areas:social justice, ecological sustainability, community health, democracy, and ‘other’,and three different scales were looked at: local/provincial, national, and global. Thecharts were an integral part of understanding the general issues and activities in eachprovince. Using colored pieces of paper to post ideas on the chart, the group produceda multi-layered, textual document that was used for analysis. The workshop concludedwith a discussion of the overall observations and by asking participants to point outone action or next step that they felt was a priority—either something they would dothemselves or that they would recommend to the PNO. The charts presented a visualrepresentation of the discussions. Following the workshop, the information from thechart was transferred to a word-processing document for further analysis.

Findings

Through the research process, I was able to empirically document the way that thedifferent AFIs were embedded in a particular experience in place and developedgrounded knowledge about specific issues in their local communities. My findingshighlighted the ways that participation in networks provided an opportunity for AFIs toshare their experiences with others from different places and with different perspectives.For example, a community garden may seem like a relatively localized initiative but,connected to a broader network of gardens and other AFIs, it can be a powerful spacefor reclaiming the commons, putting food in community control, and building engaged,informed, and knowledgeable citizens with the power to reclaim control of the foodsystem. Increased interaction and relationship-building provided new opportunities fordeveloping food system solutions. Collaborations across sectors, scales, and placesoffered the potential to work toward longer-term, structural changes necessary for



http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/methods-case-studies-2015/fn1n21.xml

SAGE AUTHORS




transforming the food system. However, with these opportunities come new challengesbecause networks bring together people and ideas with contradictory perspectives,creating tensions that must be negotiated. Understanding the structure, role, andstrategic use of networks by AFIs produces a more complete picture of the strugglessurrounding the food system.

In this research, I found that AFIs were indeed using networks strategically to contestthe rules and institutions of the dominant food system and to develop participatoryand democratic practices. These experiments demonstrate how a different kind of(food) system could function and thereby push the logics of system transformation.I concluded that besides developing viable alternatives to the dominant food systemin the here and now, AFIs are involved in prefigurative ways of being—establishingdemocratic governance structures, building new institutions, and engaging in differentkinds of social relations—in the belly of the existing (food) system.

Research Dissemination and Outputs

Besides using the research as the basis for my PhD dissertation, the findings havebeen disseminated through my teaching, peer-reviewed academic journals, bookchapters, magazines, conference presentations, and directly to the AFIs and provincialnetworks. The dissemination of the research began during the interviews with PNOsand AFIs. The interviews, which functioned as interactive discussions, included sharingthe initial survey results in order to elicit participants' reflections. I created summariesfor each of the PNOs that included specific data from the survey and the interviewsthat contained targeted feedback. After each of the provincial site visits, I publishedan 8-page newsletter that contained summaries of the popular education workshops,project updates, photos, and data from the survey relevant to the particular province(the newsletters are available at http://nourishingontario.ca/reports/transformative-food-politics/). Newsletters were also printed in full color and shared with the researchpartners and within the networks.

Once the survey and interviews had been completed, I published a major researchreport that contained a summary of the data and a historical narrative of theprovincial food networks (the report is available at http://nourishingontario.ca/reports/



http://nourishingontario.ca/reports/transformative-food-politics/

http://nourishingontario.ca/reports/transformative-food-politics/


SAGE AUTHORS




transformative-food-politics). A draft of the report was circulated to the four primaryresearch partners in preparation for a roundtable discussion held at the 2012 CanadianAssociation for Food Studies National Assembly. In the session, each of the partnerswas given a series of guiding questions and had an opportunity to reflect on the dataand discuss the implications for further study. The session was also an importantspace for collective reflection, knowledge generation, and sharing the informationwith a broader audience. The final report was launched at the Seventh National FoodAssembly in Edmonton, Alberta, in 2012, and subsequently distributed (in print and onthe websites of the PNOs in the case study provinces) as a resource for the networks.

Lessons Learned and Discussion

The research process was deeply influenced by my previous relationships with theAFIs and the PNOs as well as by my personal experiences, which all had to benegotiated on a daily basis. The realities of my time and resources forced me to maketrade-offs between academic priorities, volunteer commitments, and professionalresponsibilities. For example, as a PhD student, I was required to develop areas ofacademic competency, identify a time-limited research project, design a proposal,apply for ethics approval prior to actively engaging in the partnerships, and submit athesis as the basis for completing my graduate degree. I also needed to balance mytime between work and family, which made travel and prolonged fieldwork difficult. Ihave two young children (one born during the process of the research), which madeit challenging to be away for extended periods of time. I needed to work during thegraduate program taking jobs as a course instructor, teaching assistant, and researchassistant, along with additional contracts outside the university. When possible, Imade efforts to connect these opportunities to my research. For example, I taught twograduate service learning courses and had students work with research participants ascommunity partners to produce high-level research reports. I also offered my labor tothe networks in support of their work. For example, I facilitated key organizing sessionsat the provincial gatherings, gave talks at public events during my fieldwork, andassisted with organizational and network strategic planning efforts.

I also engaged in the research process through an ongoing navigation between beingan insider and outsider in collaboration with the provincial food networks. Having




SAGE AUTHORS




worked with various AFIs over the previous decade, I drew on my personal connectionsand built new relationships with the partners and participants. This put me in a uniqueposition that allowed for the collection of a depth and scope of data with the AFIsthat would not have been possible using traditional or singular methods. I was alsoable to support the networks throughout the research process by providing a broaderunderstanding of the ideas and activities of the diverse AFIs in different places. Throughthe various opportunities I created to share information and resources (e.g. in thediscussions, popular education workshops, and newsletters), network actors were ableto learn from the research and use the findings to strategically develop their practices.Reflecting on the benefits of this research, I have been reminded of the valuable rolethat academics can play in social movement networks. Furthermore, my use of a CBRframework increased the quality and validity of the research results and contributed toprogressive social change efforts.

The different aspects of my positionality within this research (i.e. a blurred insider–outsider status) as well as other factors over which I have little control (e.g. my class,gender, race, and culture) all played a role in the points of connection and disconnectionwith the research participants. For example, they may have impacted the kinds ofinformation people shared in unintentional ways. As an active member of the networks,people may have divulged certain information to me due to higher levels of trust. Onthe other hand, they may have been more hesitant to give critical responses due tomy connections with others in the network. While confidentiality agreements mayhave provided another level of assurance, the way that people react in an interviewsetting may not have always been a conscious choice. These different ways thatthe participants might have perceived me, or ways that I may have acted in my roleas researcher, further emphasize my own positionality. The varied personal andprofessional experiences that constitute my character became a starting place for therelationships I developed with the research participants, and the places that were part ofthe study.

In this research, I was explicit about my solidarity with the groups under study, but Ialso attempted to offer constructive critique as part of a reflexive practice. This wasnot always an easy process, as some critiques caused disagreements and resultedin difficult discussions. Because some of the research participants were also friends,at times, it was difficult to give and/or receive critical feedback. Despite my expressed



SAGE AUTHORS




solidarity, I also recognized that some degree of detachment was necessary to maintaina critical edge and provide research that was useful. Presenting myself as a researcher,that is part of the food networks, yet not directly accountable to any one organization, Iwas often perceived as a colleague and a somewhat objective researcher removed fromthe day-to-day activities. For example, the summary data I prepared for the PNOs wasoften quite critical and, at times, difficult to receive. Nevertheless, the participants weregenerally very appreciative of the feedback.

CBR takes a significant investment of time and energy to prepare and negotiate.Despite my attempts, the research was not entirely community-driven because it wasbounded by the requirement of my graduate program. Being upfront with the researchpartners about these realities from the beginning was an important part of invitingorganizations to participate. Working within the constraints of the graduate program,personal limitations, and the realities of the community partners, I made efforts to beas collaborative as possible under the circumstances. Constant communication andself-reflection were important parts of the building relationships. Furthermore, solicitingfeedback for decisions and outcomes along the way (e.g. about the research process,who to interview, the survey drafts, and feedback on the initial results) was also a keypart of the process.

Conclusion

The dual objectives of my research were to investigate how AFIs in Canada aremobilizing around food-related issues and to support the provincial food networksthrough a collaborative dialogue about food system transformation. I have presentedthe research process as a community-based approach and discussed my experiencesof blurring the boundaries of being either ‘inside’ or ‘outside’ the communities of study.The ways that the research was designed, the kinds of relationships I created withthe research participants, and the way the data were collected and expressed weredeeply influenced by my positionality. In many cases, my pre-existing relationshipswith the participants and my previous experiences were important contributions tothe success of this research. Instead of attempting to perform the role of an objectiveresearcher detached from the participants, I drew heavily on my varied experiences tobuild relationships with the communities of study.



SAGE AUTHORS




In my research, I used multiple methods within a CBR framework to interrogate theresearch questions. Triangulating these different methods enhanced the validity andusefulness of the data by providing different perspectives on the research questionsand allowing multiple opportunities for feedback from community partners, colleagues,and the general public—all of which have been integral to the reflections, analysis, andarguments. Beyond the formal data collected (e.g. from the survey, interviews, fieldnotes, and popular education workshops), my personal experience has been an integralpart of the evidence that constitutes the findings and subsequent conclusions. Myparticipation in the provincial gatherings, facilitating the workshops, visiting the projects,and participating in conversations provided insight into the work of AFIs, PNOs, andthe networks more generally. Beyond the production of a dissertation, publications inscholarly journals and presentations at academic conferences, the research resultshave provided input into long-term strategies for network builders.

Exercises and Discussion Questions

• 1. This case articulates some of the advantages and challenges of CBR.What are some additional advantages of being so closely connected withthe communities of study? What are some of the additional challenges andlimitations?

• 2. In this study, Levkoe identifies himself as part of the communities beingresearched by articulating his role as part of overlapping academic andcommunity-based networks. What networks are you connected with thatcould be valuable to identify in advance of conducting your research?

• 3. What are some of the ethical implications of a researcher studyingcommunities with which they have pre-existing relationships?

• 4. Levkoe identifies his research as contributing to progressive social changeefforts. What are the limitations on academic researchers to be part of, andcontribute to, social change?

• 5. This research took an organizational-level perspective of the networks.What are other ways that the networks could be studied?

• 6. This study used a variety of different research methods to answer aset of research questions. What other methods could have been used tounderstand the structure and activities of the networks?



SAGE AUTHORS




• 7. What kinds of obligations do we, as researchers, have to ensure ourfindings are made accessible to the communities being studied? Whatare some ways that results can be shared and made useful to the generalpublic?

Note

1. During the workshops, the term ‘community food security’ (CFS) was describedas ‘a situation in which all community residents obtain a safe, culturally acceptable,nutritionally adequate diet through a sustainable food system that maximizes communityself-reliance and social justice’.

Further Reading

Klandermans, B., ed. , & Staggenborg, S. (Eds.). (2002). Methods of social movementresearch. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Miller, J., & Deutsch, J. (2009). Food studies: An introduction to research methods. NewYork, NY: Berg.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

References

Allen, P. (2004). Together at the table. Pennsylvania, PA: Pennsylvania UniversityPress.

Allen, P., FitzSimmons, M., Goodman, M., & Warner, K. (2003). Shifting plates in theagrifood landscape: The tectonics of alternative agrifood initiatives in California. Journalof Rural Studies, 19, 61–75. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00047-5http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00047-5



http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00047-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00047-5

SAGE AUTHORS




Ansley, F., & Gaventa, J. (1997). Researching for democracy and democratizingresearch. Change, 29(1), 46–67.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091389709603114

Barndt, D. (2002). Tangled routes: Women, work and globalization on the tomato trail.Aurora, Ontario, Canada: Garamond Press.

Davis, B., & Tarasuk, V. (1994). Hunger in Canada. Agriculture and Human Values, 11,50–57.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01530416

Desmarais, A. (2007). La Via Campesina: Globalization and the power of peasants.Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood.

Elton, S. (2010). Locavore: From farmers' fields to rooftop gardens—How Canadiansare changing the way we eat. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: HarperCollins.

Food and Agriculture Organization. (2012). The state of food insecurity in the world.Author. Available from http://www.fao.org

Freire, P. (2001 [1970]). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary ed.). New York,NY: Continuum Publishing Co.

GRAIN. (2011). Food and climate change: The forgotten link. Author. Available fromhttp://www.grain.org

GubaE.G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin, ed. & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117).Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Lang, T., ed. , & Rayner, G. (Eds.). (2002). Why health is the key to the future offood and farming: A report on the future of farming and food. Policy Commissionon the Future of Farming and Food. Retrieved from http://www.iatp.org/files/Why_Health_is_the_Key_to_the_Future_of_Food_an.htm

Patel, R. (2007). Stuffed and starved: Markets, power and the hidden battle for theworld's food system. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: HarperCollins.



http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091389709603114

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01530416

http://www.fao.org

http://www.grain.org

http://www.iatp.org/files/Why_Health_is_the_Key_to_the_Future_of_Food_an.htm

http://www.iatp.org/files/Why_Health_is_the_Key_to_the_Future_of_Food_an.htm

SAGE AUTHORS




Pollan, M. (2006). The omnivore's dilemma: A natural history of four meals. New York,NY: Penguin Press.

Savan, B., & Sider, D. (2003). Contrasting approaches to community-basedresearch and a case study of community sustainability in Toronto, Canada. LocalEnvironment, 8, 303–316. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549830306657 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549830306657

Steel, C. (2009). Hungry city: How food shapes our lives. London, England: VintageBooks.

Weis, T. (2007). The global food economy: The battle for the future of farming. Halifax,Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood.

Winne, M. (2010). Food rebels, guerilla gardeners, and smart cookin' mamas: Fightingback in an age of industrial agriculture. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Wittman, H., ed. , Desmarais, A., ed. , & Wiebe, N. (Eds.). (2011). Food sovereignty inCanada: Creating just and sustainable food systems. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada:Fernwood.

World Health Organization. (2000). Obesity: Preventing and managing the globalepidemic, report of a WHO consultation (WHO Technical Report Series 894). Geneva,Switzerland: Author. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42330

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/978144627305014557466



http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549830306657

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549830306657

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549830306657

http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42330

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/978144627305014557466

Food Networks in Canada: Mixed Methods in Community- Based Participatory Research

Documents

Transcript of Food Networks in Canada: Mixed Methods in Community- Based Participatory Research