crd 20 2011 lab manual version 3 1 - human...

LAB MANUAL VERSION 3.1 FOR

CRD 20: FOOD SYSTEMS FALL 2011Instructor:

Ryan E. Galt, Assistant ProfessorCurriculum Developers:

Ryan E. Galt, Assistant ProfessorDamian Parr, Postdoctoral Fellow

Lecture time and place: T & R 3:10 to 4:30 p.m., 176 Chemistry

Lab times, all in 105 Bowley: W 9:00 a.m. to 11:50 a.m. CRN 57517

W 12:10 to 3:00 p.m. CRN 57518 W 3:10 to 6:00 p.m. CRN 57519

photo by Jennifer Heinlein

photo byDani Lee

photo by Katie Cooper photo by Jeremy Raff

photo by Jessica Beckett

photo byAudrey Gnesa

photo by Mercedes de la Riva

photo by Ryan Galtphoto by Ryan Galt

In loving memory of Dorothy Hulst — teacher, radical thinker, grandmother, inspiration

With deep gratitude to Angus Ogilvy and Ted Hamilton for having the courage to embody their educational philosophies and ethics

To new and old students – whose intrinsic motivations make emancipatory learning possible

Lab Manual Version 3.1 for CRD 20: Food Systems is written and developed byRyan E. GaltDamian Parr

withJulia Van Soelen KimLibby O’SullivanThea RittenhouseJessica BeckettKatie BradleyRasheed HislopMaggie LickterAubrey WhiteHeidi BallardMark Van Horn

Please see the acknowledgements to understand the roles of all the generous people who have helped in this endeavor.

The sections of this lab manual not already subject to copyright and created by the authors are placed under Creative Commons license Attribution Noncommercial Share Alike (cc by-nc-sa).

i

http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

I’m a little embarrassed to tell you that I used to want credit for having all the intelligent insights in my classroom. I worked hard to learn these facts ... . I secretly wanted my students to look at me with reverence. I now believe that the opposite effect should occur — that the oracle, the locale and ownership of knowledge, should reside in each student and our principle goal as teachers must be to help our students discover the most important and enduring answers to life’s problems within themselves. Only then can they truly possess the knowledge that we are paid to teach them.

— M. Flachmann, “Teaching in the twenty-first century” (1994: 2)

Admittedly, there has been a lot of interest in teaching of late, but at too many institutions, it remains a second-class, intellectually inferior, unrewarded, devalued activity. It does need to be improved. We know why and how, but all that has been proposed and in some places partially implemented requires more work, institutional commitment, and a faith that many faculty have lost.

— Maryellen Weimer, Engaging ideas (1996: xviii)

The way we diagnose our students’ condition will determine the kind of remedy we offer. But we teachers spend little time thinking with each other about the condition of our students, about the maladies for which our teaching is supposed to be the cure ... . The dominant diagnosis, to put it bluntly, is that our “patients” are brain-dead. Small wonder, then, that the dominant treatment is to drip data bits into our students’ veins, wheeling their comatose forms from one information source to the next until the prescribed course of treatment is complete, hoping they will absorb enough intellectual nutrients to maintain their vital signs until they have graduated—and paid their tuition in full. That caricature highlights a certain truth: our assumption that students are brain-dead leads to pedagogies that deaden their brains. When we teach by dripping information into their passive forms, students who arrive in the classroom alive and well become passive consumers of knowledge and are dead on departure as they graduate. But the power of this self-fulfilling prophecy seems to elude us: we rarely consider that our students may die in the classroom because we use methods that assume they are dead.

— Parker Palmer, The courage to teach (2007: 42)

The academy is not paradise. But learning is a place where paradise can be created. The classroom, with all its limitations, remains a location of possibility. In that field of possibility we have the opportunity to labor for freedom, to demand of ourselves and our comrades, an openness of mind and heart that allows us to face reality even as we collectively imagine ways to move beyond boundaries, to transgress. This is education as the practice of freedom.

— bell hooks, Teaching to transgress (1994: 207)

ii

Contents.......................................................................................................................................................................Acknowledgements v

..........................................................................................................................................................List of Tables and Figures vii

__________________________________________________________________I. Lab Syllabus 1

_____________________________II. Overview: Justification, Expectations, & Core Concepts 4..........................................................................................................................................Why a lab in a social science course? 4

.............................................................................................................................................................Expectations of students 5..............................................................................The course in the new Sustainable Agriculture & Food Systems major 5

....................................................................................................................................................................The agri-food system 6......................................................................................................................Sustainability as a useful but contested concept 7

___________________________________________III. Competencies for Students to Develop 8....................................................................................................................................................A model of skill development 8

................................................................................Becoming a self-directed learner: the importance of self-assessment 11..........................................................................................................................................Competency self-assessment rubric 12

______________________________IV. Lab Readings: The Theory and Practice of Learning 14......................................................................................................................................................1. The Life Cycle of Groups 15

...........................................................................................................................2. Common Misconceptions of Knowledge 17.............................3. The Building Blocks of Research: Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology, Methods, & Sources 19

.............................................................................................................................................4. Paradigms in Agri-food Studies 21....................................................................................5. Object-Subject Relationships in the Natural and Social Sciences 23

......................................................................6. Beyond the Culture of Fear: Reconsidering Objectivity and Subjectivity 25..............................................................................................................................................................7. Kinds of Knowledge 29

..............................................................8. Critical Thinking for Baccalaureate Curriculum in the Liberal Arts Tradition 31....................................................................9. Undergraduate Students’ Views of Education, Learning, and Knowledge 32

............................................................................................................................................10. Toward Critical Consciousness 33

___________________________________________________V. Lab Assignment Instructions 34..........................................................................................................................................................On-Campus Team Project 34

.........................................................................................................Off-Campus Team Project: Yolo County Food System 36

_______________________________________________________________VI. Lab Activities 45......................................................................................................................................A note about this lab manual as a tool 45

...................................................................................................Lab 1 — Introduce Lab & Start Rapid Campus Appraisal 46--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PREPARATION 46

Bring your field trip equipment 46Complete the Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic (VAK) Learning Style Assessment below 46Review Lecture 2 readings and read pp. 4-13 of lab manual 48

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------IN-LAB ACTIVITIES 491. Activity: Learning styles group-activity 492. Assignment: Learning styles reflection & sharing with class 493. TA mini-lecture: Introduce learning goals for lab & Reflective Essay 514. TA mini-lecture: Introduce On-Campus Team Project 515. Discussion: Field trip logistics for off-campus fieldwork 516. Rapid Campus Appraisal (Student Farm) 52

..................................................Lab 2 — Complete Rapid Campus Appraisal & Introduce On-Campus Team Project 54--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PREPARATION 54

Bring your field trip equipment and your bicycle 54--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------IN-LAB ACTIVITIES 54

1. Rapid Campus Appraisal, continued 542. On-Campus Team Project, Part 1: Team creation, location selection, and research question creation 58

...............................................Lab 3 — Complete On-Campus Team Project & Introduce Off-Campus Team Project 62--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PREPARATION 62

Read Lab Readings 1 through 5 and be prepared for discussion 62--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------IN-LAB ACTIVITIES 63

1. On-Campus Team Project, Part 2: Discuss & rehearse fieldwork protocol 632. On-Campus Team Project, Part 3: Collect data through fieldwork 633. On-Campus Team Project, Part 4: Work on and give brief report-out on fieldwork (5 minutes) 644. TA mini-lecture: Introduce Off-Campus Team Project 685. TA + Team 1 mini-lecture: Introduce Farm Field Trip 686. Create questions for Farm Field Trip 687. Discussion: Lab Readings 1-5 71

iii

...........................................................................................................................................................Lab 4 — Farm Field Trip 72--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PREPARATION 72

Bring your field trip equipment 72--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------IN-LAB ACTIVITIES 72

1. Farm Field Trip 72.............................................................Lab 5 — Debrief from Farm Field Trip & Introduce Food Industry Field Trip 74

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PREPARATION 74Prepare Report Out on Farm Field Trip 74Upload your presentation and handout to SmartSite before lab 74

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------IN-LAB ACTIVITIES 741. Report-out from each team on Farm Field Trip 742. TA + Team 2 mini-lecture: Introduce Food Industry Field Trip 763. Create questions for Food Industry Field Trip 764. Activity: mid-quarter competency self-assessment 795. Activity: free write for Reflective Essay 796. Discussion: Lab Readings 6-7 79

............................................................................Lab 6 — Food Industry Field Trip (Processing, Distribution, & Retail) 80--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PREPARATION 80


1. Food Industry Field Trip (Processing, Distribution, & Retail) 80.........................Lab 7 — Debrief from Food Industry Field Trip & Introduce Consumption & Disposal Field Trip 82

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PREPARATION 82Prepare Report Out on Food Industry Field Trip 82Upload your presentation and handout to SmartSite before lab 82

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------IN-LAB ACTIVITIES 821. Report-out from each team on Food Industry Field Trip 822. TA + Team 3 mini-lecture: Introduce Consumption & Disposal Field Trip 843. Create questions for Consumption & Disposal Field Trip 844. Discussion: Reflective Essay examples and expectations 875. Discussion: Lab Readings 8-10 87

.......................................................................................................................Lab 8 — Consumption & Disposal Field Trip 88--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PREPARATION 88


1. Consumption & Disposal Field Trip 88.................................Lab 9 — Debrief from Consumption & Disposal Field Trip, plus Food Governance Field Trip 90

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PREPARATION 90Bring your field trip equipment 90Prepare Report Out on Consumption & Disposal Field Trip 90Upload your presentation and handout to SmartSite before lab 90

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------IN-LAB ACTIVITIES 901. Report-out from each team on Consumption & Disposal Field Trip 902. TA + Team 4 mini-lecture: Introduce Food Governance Field Trip 923. Create questions for Food Governance Field Trip 924. Food Governance Field Trip 94

.............................................Lab 10 — Debrief from Food Governance Field Trip, plus Theorizing the Food System 96--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PREPARATION 96

Prepare Report Out on Food Governance Field Trip 96Upload your presentation and handout to SmartSite before lab 96

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------IN-LAB ACTIVITIES 961. Report-out from each team on Governance Field Trip 962. Theorizing the Food System 98

________________________________VII. A Brief Guide to Academic Practices and Norms 99......................................................................................The writing process: learning from experienced academic writers 99

........................................................................................................................Citation: the foundation of good scholarship 100.............................................................................................................................Interviewing: some barebones suggestions 103

...................................................................................Presentation: one perspective on the principles of public speaking 104

_________________________________________________________________VIII. Glossary 106

________________________________________________________________IX. References 112

____________________________________________X. Quick Reference Page for Fieldwork 117...........................................................................................................................................Guiding Objectives for Field Trips 117

.......................................................................................................................................................................Theoretical Lenses 117................................................................................................................................................................................Inquiry Styles 117

iv

AcknowledgementsThis lab manual — Version 3.1 — builds on previous versions, all of which have taken a

great deal of time, effort, and work with many other people to create. Our sustained, rich interactions over the course of 2008 developing the first version of the course and the lab activities to accompany it would not have been possible without an Undergraduate Instructional Improvement Program (UIIP) grant from UC Davis’s Teaching Resources Center nor without Ryan’s startup funds given by the Dean’s Office of the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. The UIIP grant paid Damian’s salary as we worked together to create Version 1.0 of the lab. Ryan was also awarded summer salary in 2008 as a TRC for the 2008 Chancellor’s Fellow Course Development Award to allow him to devote extra time to the class development effort, so we are very thankful to the TRC for this support, which is still paying dividends. With this financial support, this manual should be viewed largely as the outcome of that 2008 UIIP grant and fellowship together with the dedicated work by many people to improve it from year to year.

Significant time and effort came not only from us, but also a large number of colleagues. The course and manual are powerful manifestations of the strong commitments of a large number of people, who fill social roles commonly known as teachers and students. The teaching teams of 2008 and 2009 — Ryan, Damian, and the amazingly dedicated teaching assistants Julia Van Soelen Kim, Aubrey White, Jessy Beckett, and Libby O’Sullivan — learned a lot while teaching the course, and used this learning to improve the course experiences. We are especially grateful to Maggie Lickter, an outstanding undergraduate student in the 2008 course, for offering consistently helpful comments on the class as it progressed. Heidi Ballard and Mark Van Horn helped move the course, together with the teaching team, from Version 1.0 to 2.0 (a major leap) during summer 2009, and Ryan’s reading of pedagogy, starting in 2009, led to the creation of the lab readings section in 2009. The teaching team of fall 2009 — Ryan, Jessy Beckett, Julia Van Soelen Kim, and Libby O’Sullivan — helped modify the class with the help of Damian and Joanna Normoyle in summer 2010, moving it from Version 2.0 to 3.0. Version 3.1 results from discussions with Julia Van Soelen Kim, Thea Rittenhouse, Libby O’Sullivan, Katie Bradley, Deborah Schrimmer, and Rasheed Hislop on how to improve the course and accommodate more students in each lab section while maintaining the integrity of the experience.

In our revisions of the class, we have used a large number of data sources — reflections from all teaching team members, independent evaluations in the form of mid-quarter and end-of-quarter reviews, standard UC Davis student evaluations, and students’ reflective essays. As such, this lab manual results from a process of adaptive management. Everyone involved in the rigorous revision process have helped this endeavor beyond measure, and we have found that collaborative course design and renovation makes for much better, and more rewarding, teaching experiences since it incorporates divergent viewpoints on what works well. We have tried our best to respond to the numerous suggestions for improvement that came from students and all members of the various renovations teams. Together we came up with some of the most innovative activities in this manual, a testament to the power of these individual’s dedication to education and to teamwork.

The Heller Foundation and the Columbia Foundation provided important support for much of this work. Damian’s position as a postdoctoral scholar with the Agricultural Sustainability Institute was funded by grants from these foundations. The Heller Foundation grant, called “Integrating Experiential Education into an Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Major” with Tom Tomich as principle investigator, supported Heidi Ballard’s work with Ryan and others in renovating the class and funded two Teaching Assistant positions for the class in fall 2009 and one in 2010. Without this support, students’ experiences in and outside of the classroom would be much more limited. The Community Studies and Development unit at UC Davis has also been generous with Teaching Assistant support that has helped keep the lab sections as they were designed. We are also thankful to our many colleagues who have reviewed this manual and provided critique and

v

suggestions. Julia Van Soelen Kim helped immensely with her careful reading and ever-thoughtful suggestions on Version 2.0. Jennifer Gardner, Chuck Francis, Jonathan London, Navina Khanna, and Frank Hirtz also helped the manual with their constructive criticism.

This manual remains a work in progress. We strongly encourage students and colleagues to provide us with feedback on the manual itself and the learning experiences it and its components facilitate.

Ryan E. Galt, Davis Damian Parr, Santa Cruz September 2011

vi

List of Tables and Figures...............................................................................................Table 1: An outline of our activities in the lab 3

..Table 2: List of suggestions that were consistent across the four Delphi survey stakeholder groups 5.....Table 3: Innovative features of the Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems major at UC Davis 5

.....................................................Table 4: Some definitions of sustainability and sustainable agriculture 7........................................................Table 5: Theoretical lenses for understanding agri-food systems 21-22

..........Table 6: Examples of values and how they can translate into measurable criteria for research 59

.....................................................Figure 1: An outline of the contemporary, industrial agri-food system 6...........................................Figure 3.1: The interrelationships between the building blocks of research 20

.....................................................................................................................Figure 5.1: Subject and object: 1 23




vii

I. Lab Syllabus

Teaching AssistantsThea RittenhouseFirst Lab Section: W 9:00 a.m. to 11:50 a.m.office hours: W 1:30-3:30 p.m., 2326 Hart Hallemail: [email protected]

Katie BradleySecond Lab Section: W 12:10 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.office hours: M 1:00-3:00 p.m., 2326 Hart Hallemail: [email protected]

Rasheed HislopThird Lab Section: W 3:10 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.office hours: M 11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m., 2326 Hart Hallemail: [email protected]

InstructorRyan E. Galt, Assistant Professor of Agricultural Sustainability & Societyoffice hours: T & R 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., or by appointment, 2429 Hart Hallphone: (530) 754-8776email: [email protected]

Lab Time and PlaceFirst Lab Section: W 9:00 to 11:50 a.m., 105 BowleySecond Lab Section: W 12:10 to 3:00 p.m., 105 BowleyThird Lab Section: W 3:10 to 6:00 p.m., 105 Bowley

Lab Grade Lab work (30% of course grade): Percentage Due dateOn-campus Team Project 5% Oct. 12 (in lab)Off-campus Team Project 25% Oct. 26, Nov. 9, Nov. 23, & Nov. 30 (in lab)

Attendance PolicyNOTE: Lab attendance is important. For every lab you miss, you lose 5% of your total course grade (up to 30%, since that is the total of the lab grade). The reason for this rule and its enforcement is that many people have invested substantial effort in creating the lab experiences for you. Acceptable additional absences are medical and family emergencies, which must be explained by a note from the appropriate person.

1

mailto:[email protected]








Brief Outline of Activities and AssignmentsFor more detail, see the Table of Contents and Table 1 on the next page.

PART I: On-Campus Food SystemLab 1 Introduction to Lab Rapid Campus AppraisalLab 2 Rapid Campus Appraisal, Continued Lab 3 On-Campus Team Project Introduction to Off-Campus Team Project & Farm Field Trip

PART II: Off-Campus Food SystemLab 4 Farm Field TripLab 5 Debrief from Farm Field Trip Introduction to Food Industry Field TripLab 6 Food Industry Field Trip (Processing, Distribution, & Retail)Lab 7 Debrief from Food Industry Field Trip Introduction to Food Consumption & Disposal Field TripLab 8 Food Consumption & Disposal Field TripLab 9 Debrief from Food Consumption & Disposal Field Trip Food Governance Field TripLab 10 Theorizing the Food System

Field Trip EquipmentFor every field trip, please arrive to the meeting location prepared with the following items.

• Lab Manual• Clipboard (available at the UC Davis Bookstore)• Pen/pencil• Appropriate dress to be comfortable outside and standing for long periods: closed-toed

walking shoes, coat/raincoat, hat, sun glasses, sunscreen, etc. (long pants strongly recommended)

• Water & snack• Extra paper or journal for field notes (optional)• Camera (optional most times, recommended for the critical reflection inquiry style)• Tape/digital audio recorder (optional — if you use it, you always need to get the

interviewee’s permission before you start recording)

Equipment for Labs with Significant Time in the Classroom• Lab Manual• Pen/pencil• Sticky notes• Laptop (important for Labs 5, 7, 9, & 10 — please coordinate with your team members

since each team only needs one or two)• Camera (optional)

Lab Syllabus

2

Lab

1L

ab 2

Lab

3L

ab 4

Lab

5L

ab 6

Lab

7L

ab 8

Lab

9L

ab 1

0D

ate

Sept

. 28

Oct

. 5O

ct. 1

2O

ct. 1

9O

ct. 2

6N

ov. 2

Nov

. 9N

ov. 1

6N

ov. 2

3N

ov. 3

0

Pre

para

tion

(p

leas

e do

be

fore

lab)

•Com

plet

e Le

arni

ng S

tyle

A

sses

smen

t•R

ead

lab

man

ual

over

view

•Rea

d La

b R

eadi

ngs

1-5

•Rev

iew

team

re

sear

ch

ques

tions

&

field

wor

k pr

otoc

ol fo

r ne

xt F

ield

Trip

•Pre

pare

team

pr

esen

tatio

ns•R

ead

Lab

Rea

ding

s 6-

7

•Rev

iew

team

re

sear

ch

ques

tions

&

field

wor

k pr

otoc

ol fo

r ne

xt F

ield

Trip

•Pre

pare

team

pr

esen

tatio

ns•R

ead

Lab

Rea

ding

s 8-

10

•Rev

iew

team

re

sear

ch

ques

tions

&

field

wor

k pr

otoc

ol fo

r ne

xt F

ield

Trip

•Pre

pare

team

pr

esen

tatio

ns•P

repa

re te

am

pres

enta

tions

Tim

e in

lab

Gro

ups:

Lear

ning

Sty

les

Ass

essm

ent

activ

ity

Rap

id C

ampu

s A

ppra

isal

, co

ntin

ued

(NO

TE

: Bri

ng

bike

s an

d m

eet

at fi

rst f

ield

trip

lo

cati

on)

Team

s: D

iscu

ss

& re

hear

se

field

wor

k pr

otoc

ol

Farm

Fie

ld

Tri

pTe

ams:

Pres

enta

tions

fr

om F

arm

Fie

ld

Trip

Foo

d In

dust

ry

Fie

ld T

rip

(Pro

cess

ing,

D

istr

ibut

ion,

&

Ret

ail)

Team

s: Pr

esen

tatio

ns

from

Foo

d In

dust

ry F

ield

Tr

ip

Con

sum

ptio

n &

Dis

posa

l F

ield

Tri

p

Team

s: Pr

esen

tatio

ns

from

C

onsu

mpt

ion

&

Dis

posa

l Fie

ld

Trip

Team

s: Pr

esen

tatio

ns

from

Foo

d G

over

nanc

e Fi

eld

Trip

Tim

e in

lab

Gro

ups:

Lear

ning

sty

les

refle

ctio

n &

sh

arin

g w

ith

clas

s

Rap

id C

ampu

s A

ppra

isal

, co

ntin

ued

(NO

TE

: Bri

ng

bike

s an

d m

eet

at fi

rst f

ield

trip

lo

cati

on)

Tea

ms:

Col

lect

da

ta th

roug

h fi

eldw

ork

&

brie

f re

port

-ou

t on

fiel

d w

ork

Farm

Fie

ld

Tri

pTe

ams:

Pres

enta

tions

fr

om F

arm

Fie

ld

Trip

Foo

d In

dust

ry

Fie

ld T

rip

(Pro

cess

ing,

D

istr

ibut

ion,

&

Ret

ail)

Team

s: Pr

esen

tatio

ns

from

Foo

d In

dust

ry F

ield

Tr

ip

Con

sum

ptio

n &

Dis

posa

l F

ield

Tri

p

Team

s: Pr

esen

tatio

ns

from

C

onsu

mpt

ion

&

Dis

posa

l Fie

ld

Trip

Team

s: Pr

esen

tatio

ns

from

Foo

d G

over

nanc

e Fi

eld

Trip

Tim

e in

lab

TA

: In

trod

uctio

n to

la

b go

als

&

Ref

lect

ive

Ess

ay

Rap

id C

ampu

s A

ppra

isal

, co

ntin

ued

(NO

TE

: Bri

ng

bike

s an

d m

eet

at fi

rst f

ield

trip

lo

cati

on)

TA

: In

trod

uctio

n to

O

ff-C

ampu

s Te

am P

roje

ct

Farm

Fie

ld

Tri

p

TA

+ T

eam

2:

Intr

oduc

tion

to

Food

Ind

ustr

y Fi

eld

Trip

Foo

d In

dust

ry

Fie

ld T

rip

(Pro

cess

ing,

D

istr

ibut

ion,

&

Ret

ail)

TA

+ T

eam

3:

Intr

oduc

tion

to

Con

sum

ptio

n &

D

ispo

sal F

ield

Tr

ip

Con

sum

ptio

n &

Dis

posa

l F

ield

Tri

p

TA

+ T

eam

4:

Intr

oduc

tion

to

Food

G

over

nanc

e Fi

eld

Trip

Team

s: A

nsw

er

The

oriz

ing

the

Food

Sys

tem

qu

estio

ns a

s fin

al

part

of

Off

-C

ampu

s Te

am

Proj

ect

Tim

e in

lab

TA

: Exp

lana

tion

of O

n-C

ampu

s Te

am P

roje

ct &

Fa

rm F

ield

Trip

Rap

id C

ampu

s A

ppra

isal

, co

ntin

ued

(NO

TE

: Bri

ng

bike

s an

d m

eet

at fi

rst f

ield

trip

lo

cati

on)

TA

+ T

eam

1:

Intr

oduc

tion

to

Farm

Fie

ld T

rip

Farm

Fie

ld

Tri

p

Team

s: C

reat

e re

sear

ch

ques

tions

&

field

wor

k pr

otoc

ol fo

r Fo

od I

ndus

try

Fiel

d Tr

ip

Foo

d In

dust

ry

Fie

ld T

rip

(Pro

cess

ing,

D

istr

ibut

ion,

&

Ret

ail)

Team

s: C

reat

e re

sear

ch

ques

tions

&

field

wor

k pr

otoc

ol fo

r C

onsu

mpt

ion

&

Dis

posa

l Fie

ld

Trip

Con

sum

ptio

n &

Dis

posa

l F

ield

Tri

p

Team

s: C

reat

e re

sear

ch

ques

tions

&

field

wor

k pr

otoc

ol fo

r Fo

od

Gov

erna

nce

Fiel

d Tr

ip

Team

s: A

nsw

er

The

oriz

ing

the

Food

Sys

tem

qu

estio

ns a

s fin

al

part

of

Off

-C

ampu

s Te

am

Proj

ect

Tim

e in

lab

TA

: Off

-C

ampu

s Fi

eld

Trip

logi

stic

s

On-

Cam

pus

Team

Pro

ject

: Te

am c

reat

ion,

lo

catio

n se

lect

ion,

&

rese

arch

&

inte

rvie

w

ques

tion

crea

tion

Team

s: C

reat

e re

sear

ch

ques

tions

&

field

wor

k pr

otoc

ol fo

r Fa

rm F

ield

Trip

Farm

Fie

ld

Tri

p

Act

ivity

: fre

e w

rite

for f

irst

draf

t of

Ref

lect

ive

Ess

ay

Foo

d In

dust

ry

Fie

ld T

rip

(Pro

cess

ing,

D

istr

ibut

ion,

&

Ret

ail)

Dis

cuss

ion:

R

efle

ctiv

e E

ssay

ex

ampl

es a

nd

expe

ctat

ions

Con

sum

ptio

n &

Dis

posa

l F

ield

Tri

p

Foo

d G

over

nanc

e F

ield

Tri

p

Gro

ups:

food

sy

stem

s bo

ard

gam

es

Tim

e in

lab

Rap

id C

ampu

s A

ppra

isal

(S

tude

nt F

arm

)

On-

Cam

pus

Team

Pro

ject

: Te

am c

reat

ion,

lo

catio

n se

lect

ion,

&

rese

arch

&

inte

rvie

w

ques

tion

crea

tion

Lab

disc

ussi

on:

Lab

Rea

ding

s 1-

5

Farm

Fie

ld

Tri

p

Lab

disc

ussi

on:

Lab

Rea

ding

s 6-

7

Foo

d In

dust

ry

Fie

ld T

rip

(Pro

cess

ing,

D

istr

ibut

ion,

&

Ret

ail)

Lab

disc

ussi

on:

Lab

Rea

ding

s 8-

10

Con

sum

ptio

n &

Dis

posa

l F

ield

Tri

p

Foo

d G

over

nanc

e F

ield

Tri

p

Gro

ups:

food

sy

stem

s bo

ard

gam

es

3

Tab

le 1

: An

outli

ne o

f ou

r la

b ac

tivit

ies

II. Overview: Justification, Expectations, & Core Concepts

Why a lab in a social science course?Social science classes rarely have laboratory components. We associate laboratory sections

with chemistry, agroecology, soil science, botany, and other biophysical sciences. Social science classes often involve discussions that focus on readings, and the learning activity is understanding the meanings and implications of the readings. We maintain that the social science/discussion and the biophysical science/laboratory dichotomy is a cultural norm, not a reflection on the inherent differences between learning in these branches of academia. Although there are differences in their objects of study, we firmly believe that learning in both can be enhanced through a hands-on, experiential approach, and through open dialogue about their subject matter.

As educators, our reflections on our own educational experiences made us realize the importance of hands-on experiences. As a student at Modesto Junior College, Ryan had labs in botany and geology, and attended many geology field classes, including amazing two-week trips roaming the American West. As an undergraduate at UC Berkeley, Ryan had labs in soil science and as a graduate student at UW–Madison he took a Field Study of Soils class and learned a huge amount about Wisconsin soils and how they were affected by glaciation (and won first place in the 1999 Wisconsin Soil Judging Competition — no joke!). All of these experiences were unparalleled learning opportunities. Using his hands, being outside of the classroom, seeing wide-open landscapes and their various components — landforms, vegetation, soils, human settlements, agricultural patterns — and trying to explain how the landscape came into being through reference to what he had learned in class seemed to anchor things in his mind. He can still recall many of the things he learned, while much of what he learned during lectures is now beyond immediate recall. These lab and field trip experiences were powerful ways to connect the concrete and the theoretical, and also provided a memorable context for seeing things in a new way, making new connections, and coming up with new questions for which to construct answers.

Ryan recruited Damian to collaborate on developing the course, with special emphasis on the lab design. Damian’s previous student experiences at the UC Santa Cruz Apprenticeship in Ecological Horticulture, the undergraduate Environmental Studies –Agroecology program, Permaculture Design courses, and the NOVA Agroecology Masters Program in Aas, Norway all provided fertile ground for learning activity development. The common thread throughout these progressive education programs is experiential learning, active engagement with the topics and issues of study and the opportunity to make our everyday lived experience the subject of scrutiny and empowerment.

Prominent educators such as John Dewey (1938) have long understood that some of the most powerful learning happens through learners’ direct experience with the object of study. David Kolb (1984) argues that learning is a cycle involving four steps: concrete experience (experiencing), reflective observation (reflecting), abstract conceptualization (thinking), and active experimentation (doing). To both of these educators, interaction with the object of study — a direct experience with it — is an essential part of the learning cycle. These insights, reflected in so many practitioners’ views of how they learn in their work settings, informed the creation of this lab manual.

As Ryan conceptualized the class, he realized that because of his moral commitments, and despite the higher costs and greater workload required, he had to have a lab section. Although we are going through the complete learning cycle in lab and lecture (thinking, doing, experiencing, and reflecting), reflecting and thinking are emphasized in lecture, and doing and experiencing are emphasized in lab. Lecture and lab, including the work you do outside of class for both, are two halves of the whole that is CRD 20: Food Systems at UC Davis.

4

Expectations of studentsIn return for the opportunities provided in this course, we expect that you will come to

every class session prepared and ready to engage. We expect you to pursue rigorous intellectual processes including evaluating your own and others’ thinking, and citing the information you use for assignments and exams. We will be going on many field trips to conduct our fieldwork. For this to work logistically, each team will be involved in field trip planning, a process that your TA will facilitate. The rewards of the class will be large for students who attempt to meet these challenges.

The course in the new Sustainable Agriculture & Food Systems majorA great deal of research has informed the creation of the major in Sustainable Agriculture

and Food Systems. CRD 20: Food Systems is the introductory social science course in that major. Researchers performed a survey of agri-food system practitioners, academics, current students, and alumni. Table 2 shows the common themes that emerged from that research, which includes the need to build students’ content knowledge, experiences, and skills. These suggestions have informed the major as a whole, and we have also taken them seriously in designing this class.

Table 2: List of suggestions that were consistent across the four Delphi survey stakeholder groups

Content knowledge - Disciplinary and interdisciplinary course work in the social and natural sciences, with emphasis on integrating and applying knowledge across fields.

Experiences - A range of on- and off-campus experiences focused on linking real-world practice with theory via practical fieldwork, fieldtrips, and internships throughout the agri-food system (e.g., production, processing, distribution, and retail), as well as through civic engagement and work with nongovernmental organizations.

Skills - A focus on reading, analytic, and interpersonal communication skills for working effectively with a range of agricultural stakeholders coming from diverse backgrounds and settings. In addition, skills specific to professional fieldwork in the agri-food system related to farming, business, and research.

Source: Parr and Van Horn (2006: 429).

The findings of this research informed the creation of the guiding principles of the major, shown in Table 3. These features have been the scaffolding around which this class has been built. In doing so, I have thought about how each of these can and should inform the assignments and activities that we do in this class. While each activity and assignment cannot and should not incorporate all of these features, many do capture a number of them, making them multifunctional learning tools. These sets of features also greatly informed the structure we use to assess much of your learning in the class, which we call competency development.

Table 3: Innovative features of the Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems major at UC Davis

Interdisciplinary Breadth: Integrating natural and social science knowledge and skills.Systems Thinking: Understanding connections among diverse components of farming and food systems, social institutions, and the environment.Skill Development: Gaining practical skills including communication, analysis, problem solving, critical thinking, teamwork and leadership.Experiential Learning: Engaging in wide range of practical experiences in agricultural and food systems through laboratories, field exercises, internships and other means.Linking the Real World with Classroom: Bringing practitioners into the classroom, sending students into the field, and discussing and analyzing these experiences.Community Building: Being part of community that includes students, faculty, internship sponsors, and others enhances learning and reflects the reality of life after school.Source: Agricultural Sustainability Institute (2009).

Overview

5

The agri-food systemThe agri-food system is enormously

complex and is composed of many sections (Figure 1). “Section” refers to the parts and processes through which most of our food now passes: production (on the farm), processing, distribution, retail, consumption, and disposal. One of the main goals of the lab is to introduce you first hand to many sections of the agri-food system. A simple definition of the food system is the structure that facilitates the passage of food from farm to fork, although we will be adding to that definition.

Sarah Whatmore divides the contemporary agri-food system into four major sections: (A) the agri-technologies industry, which provides the inputs for industrial agriculture; (B) the farming industry, which makes food and agricultural commodities from land, labor, and capital; (C) the food industry, which involves food processing, packaging, catering, and retailing; and (D) food consumption, which often involves household labor to prepare the food for consumption.

Figure 1 makes it evident that there is more to the food system than these production and consumption processes and locations. The agri-food system is also strongly influenced by a number of non-material inputs including information, such as that from extension agencies, and credit, which allows farming operations to capitalize the growing season. Figure 1 also shows how the various processes and locations are embedded in state regulation. This involves the various state agencies that monitor food quality, intervene in markets through marketing boards, provide production subsidies to producers, attempt to insure food safety, enforce environmental standards, set health and nutritional policy (such as dietary guidelines), and run food security programs.

Not shown is the increased segmentation of the food system, which is coming about through certification. For example, we can understand organic, fair trade, and local as different “segments” of the food system which sometimes overlap. Also, the figure lacks an ecological view on disposal and/or recycling of consumed nutrients back to farming.

Overview

6

Fig

ure

1: A

n ou

tline

of

the

cont

empo

rary

, ind

ustr

ial a

gri-

food

sys

tem

(fr

om W

hatm

ore

1996

: 40)

.

Sustainability as a useful but contested concept“Sustainability” is a guiding concept that we will continually grapple with in the class. For

the major, sustainability as a goal is an agreed upon starting point. That the class is geared toward this is not an accidental or unintentional bias.

As a word, “sustainable” is not new. It has a long history, as the dictionary definition implies: “able to be maintained at a certain rate or level” (New Oxford American Dictionary 2009). However, as a concept in widespread use, it dates back to The Brundtland Report, Our Common Future (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). The report defines sustainable development as meeting the needs of the current generation without undermining the ability to meet the needs of future generations. In the 1980s, sustainability as a concept was picked up by the alternative agriculture movement, and was formally given recognition by a branch of the US government in 1989 (National Research Council 1989).

Jules Pretty argues that “sustainability” is a contested concept. There are likely more than 100 definitions that exist in academic literature, and these cannot all agree. Table 4 shows some of the definitions of the concept as it applies to agri-food systems, or particular sections of the agri-food system. Patricia Allen and Jules Pretty’s work has been fundamental in expanding the focus of sustainability from the farm as the unit of analysis (e.g., in Reganold’s definition) to society as the unit of analysis. Thus, we must critically examine sustainability throughout the whole agri-food system, including in our studies the many social relationships that allow food to travel from “farm to fork.” We must also recognize social differentiation to examine which kind of food travels to whose fork.

Table 4: Some definitions of sustainability and sustainable agriculture

“Sustainable agriculture embraces several variants of nonconventional agriculture that are often called organic, alternative, regenerative, ecological or low-input. Just because a farm is organic or alternative does not mean that it is sustainable, however. For a farm to be sustainable, it must produce adequate amounts of high-quality food, protect its resources and be both environmentally safe and profitable. Instead of depending on purchased materials such as fertilizers, a sustainable farm relies as much as possible on beneficial natural processes and renewable resources drawn from the farm itself ” (Reganold et al. 1990: 112).

“Sustainable agriculture is ... not so much a specific farming strategy as it is a systems-oriented approach to understanding complex ecological, social, and environmental interactions in rural areas” (Pretty 1994: 39).

“A sustainable agriculture is one that equitably balances concerns of environmental soundness, economic viability, and social justice among all sectors of society” (Allen et al. 1991: 37).

Sustainability should be a concept “that proscribes the exploitation of people as well as that of nature, one that combines the approaches of the social and natural sciences as well as alternative epistemologies. This concept would create a framework for working toward emancipatory social strategies while at the same time building on the work already done to learn about nature-constrained boundaries on social possibilities. Such changes are necessary to redirect sustainable agriculture from a set of narrowly defined practices that will benefit some to a transformation that can improve the life possibilities of all of us, especially those traditionally condemned to suffer the most” (Allen 1993: 14).

Neoclassical models “assume substitutability between natural and produced capitals as (i) inputs for economic capital accumulation and/or (ii) elements of consumption. These models characterize sustainability as nondecreasing social welfare over time, the social welfare being defined by an aggregate utility function or consumption level” (Faucheux et al. 1997: 529).

Sustainable agriculture “meets the needs of present and future generations. However, this goal has not been reached yet due to, among other reasons, the multiple dimensions of sustainability (productive, ecological, cultural, temporal, social and economic) and to the disciplinary approach that still prevails in many scientific-academic institutions” (Flores and Sarandon 2004: 78).

Overview

7

III. Competencies for Students to Develop

In CRD 20 you will practice many skills and experience many situations that will help you develop competencies that we have identified as important. We also want you to identify competencies important to you so that you can start developing them. A competency is “a combination of skills, abilities, and knowledge needed to perform a specific task” (U.S. Department of Education 2001: 1, cited in Voorhees 2001). Read over the first column in the table on pp. 12-13, and notice that each involves a particular skill used together with content knowledge in a specific task. In CRD 20 you will assess yourself three times on these competencies and those that you identify for yourself and write in. These assessments will inform your Reflective Essay assignment, and serve to tell us instructors how the class experience has been for you and your fellow students.

A model of skill developmentA genius! For 37 years I’ve practiced fourteen hours a day, and now they call me a genius! — Pablo Sarasate, Spanish violinist (Campbell 2008)

How should you assess yourself on these competencies? One can imagine many models that describe how we progress from novices to experts. For our purposes we use one of the most influential: the Dreyfus model (Flyvbjerg 2001: 9-24; Passuelloon 2009). Over many years of research on the ways through which people go about learning skills and how people progress between qualitatively different stages in performing skills, Hubert and Stuart Dreyfus propose a five-stage learning model for peoples’ skill acquisition.

1. Novice - People are novices when they experience, for the first time, a specific problem and a specific situation in a specific task area. From instructions, a novice learns the facts and situational characteristics that are relevant for performing a skill. At this level, facts, characteristics, and rules are context-independent, and novices rigidly conform to them because they are usually insecure (from lack of experience) and want to accomplish their first success. Novices usually require unambiguous instructions. For example, when learning to drive a manual (stick shift) car, novices learn to shift from first to second gear at a given speed. Both the fact (speed) and rule (shift at speed x) are independent of the situation. Novices can only judge their skills by seeing how well they followed specific rules that they have learned, so there is no discretionary judgment. One problem for advancing is that while rules are very important for the beginning of acquiring skills, “the rules quickly become a barrier to the learning process and must be put aside in order for the novice to advance” (Flyvbjerg 2001: 11).

2. Advanced beginner - Novices advance by gaining real-life experience, through which they begin to learn to identify relevant elements in new situations. By gaining experience, they start to see similarities and differences between various situations, and context starts to play a more decisive role. The basis for action becomes both context-independent (following the rules) and situational. Thus, the rules become more like guidelines. For example, someone learning to drive learns to shift based on the sound of the engine, in addition to speed. “[S]ituational behavior involves knowing when to bend or ignore the rules ... Personal experience by trial-and-error is more important than context-independent, explicit, verbally formulated facts and rules” (Flyvbjerg 2001: 12). The comparative and situational perspective for advanced beginners is very limited due to the lack of experience. All aspects of a situation are treated separately and with equal importance, meaning that advanced beginners have a hard time prioritizing and seeing the most relevant aspects of a situation. They are still focused on completing tasks, with less interest in theorizing or gaining a big picture perspective on the skill or competency they are developing.

8

3. Competent performer - With more experience, learners start to become overwhelmed by the large number of different recognizable elements in a specific situation. Learners are at first unable to prioritize between these. To deal with this complexity, people learn from others or start to make their own conceptual models of situations, and hierarchical, prioritizing procedures to make decisions in these situations. In this way, learners formulate an understanding, a goal, and a plan in a situation, and deal with only those factors they deem relevant to achieve the goal. Competent performers start to recognize the smaller set of key factors rather than relying on a total, unprioritized view of a situation and in doing so they engage in deliberate planning and formulating routines. Competent performers “are personally involved in their actions ... after having struggled with the problem of selecting a plan, [they feel] responsible for the consequences of the choice precisely because selecting a plan cannot be done objectively, but must nevertheless be carried out in order to be able to act competently” (Flyvbjerg 2001: 13). “To improve, competent practitioners need exposure to a wide variety of typical, real-world, ‘whole’ situations. By dealing with those, they better grasp the connections between the isolated conceptual models they already use” (Passuelloon 2009). In this way, competent performers enter into interpretation, judgment and engagement, which become absolutely key at the higher levels of development.

4. Proficient performer - In the first three levels, people either follow rules (novices) or make a conscious and deliberate choice about goals and decisions after considering many alternatives. The largest break between levels occurs as learners become “deeply involved in their actions and have evolved their perspective on the basis of prior actions and experiences” (Flyvbjerg 2001: 16). It is this more holistic perspective that allows learners to see certain key features of a situation, while less relevant features fade into the background. Conceptual models turn into conceptual frameworks around their entire skill (Passuelloon 2009). The proficient performer does not use objective choice or conscious evaluation; the “choice is simply made ... [a]nd this seems to happen because the proficient performer has experienced similar situations earlier” (Flyvbjerg 2001: 16). Spontaneous intuitive judgment are generated about similarities and differences from normal patterns, identified through the conceptual framework. Although intuition shapes the performance of a proficient performer, they do analytically reflect on what will happen with a course of action. They often will still employ maxims, but these are fluid.

5. Expert - As the proficient performer starts to intuitively understand situations, they also begin to make relevant decisions, strategies and action plans intuitively, thereby transcending rules, guidelines, and maxims. Expertise is characterized by effortless performance, it is “virtuosity ... . Intuitive, holistic, and synchronous action is now at the center” (Flyvbjerg 2001: 17). In normal situations, experts do not technically solve problems or make decisions; they merely do what works. Rather than deep deliberation, they critically reflect on their intuition they are applying. This intuitive understanding “comes primarily from experiences [in] one’s own body and is in this way at one with the performer. Experts do not see problems as one thing and solutions as something else; they do not get anxious about the future while they act; they do not make plans. Their skills have become so much a part of themselves that they are no more aware of them than they are of their own bodies” (Flyvbjerg 2001: 18-19). Think of riding a bike. When we ride well, we do not mentally access formal rules that we can directly teach someone else; we just do it. How can we “teach” the difference between almost falling off and leaning into a turn? How can we verbally communicate how to respond to being off balance? We know how to do these things because we have accumulated practical experience, usually with bruises and scrapes. Although you might think this kind of expertise is limited to situations like riding a bike, the Dreyfus model suggests that this kind of expertise exists in all skill domains, from practical to intellectual, and can only be developed by direct, embodied experiences.

Competencies for students to develop

9

To illustrate the importance of experience and intuition at the last two levels, consider the following study. Nalini Ambady, an experimental psychologist at Harvard University, and Robert Rosenthal wanted to understand non-verbal aspects of good teaching. They had outside observers watch 10-second video clips of the teacher in the classroom with the sound off, and then rate the teachers on a fifteen-item list of personality traits (they wanted minute-long clips, but were unable to get clips that long that did not include students). Even though it was only a ten-second clip, the observers easily filling out the list to judge the teachers. The researchers then cut the clip to five seconds, and they found the ratings were the same. Then they tried two-second clips, with the same results. Malcolm Gladwell, who writes about human intuition and decision-making in Blink: the power of thinking without thinking (2005), also watched the clips and realized “that the eight seconds that distinguish the longest clips from the shortest are superfluous: anything beyond the first flash of insight is unnecessary. When we make a snap judgment, it is made in a snap. It’s also, very clearly, a judgment: we get a feeling that we have no difficulty articulating” (Gladwell 2000). In the next step of the research, Ambady compared the observers’ snap-second judgments with students’ evaluations from the teachers’ semester-long classes. The correlation between them was amazingly high. In short, the comparison showed that someone watching a silent, two-second clip makes remarkably similar conclusions about teaching quality as the students with the teacher for 15 weeks or more.

What is going on with this case? Think for a little while in relation to the Dreyfus model. It suggests that most of us are probably experts at determining whether our time investment in a class will be worthwhile because we have so many cases to draw on: our dozens of teachers, and our relationships with people we’ve met before. We have a vast number of cases to draw upon, and we do not use simple, pre-set rules to decide whether we will like someone’s teaching; it is intuition, often called a “gut feeling.” This does not, however, mean that we get it right all of the time (a theme which Gladwell also explores, as first-impressions can become self-fulfilling prophecies), but it does mean that we access our intuition to make judgments on a regular basis, and, according to the Dreyfus model, must develop this intuition and properties of the higher levels of the learning process — “context, judgment, practice, trial and error, experience, common sense, intuition, and bodily sensation” (Flyvbjerg 2001: 23) — to become an expert in a specific skill.

The model reveals that epistemic knowledge and technical rationality (see Lab Reading 7) are insufficient for someone to become proficient performer or expert. This conclusion has been reinforced by efforts to create artificial intelligence, which is only able to become a competent performer (the third level), since intuition appears to be a uniquely human trait. For example, the best human chess players consistently beat the world’s most sophisticated computers. As such, the Dreyfus model undercuts a view of human learning — behaviorism — that tries to turn us only into obedient bureaucrats and workers, and shows a way out, which is to use both rationality and intuition side by side, and in their proper context (see Lab Reading 2) — “the position of intuition is not beyond rationality but alongside it, complementary to it, and insofar as we speak of experts, above rationality” (Flyvbjerg 2001: 23). We must claim our full humanity, then, to truly excel.

The model also suggests that experts can make the worst teachers and mentors because they cannot necessarily understand what it really means to be a novice. Experts might also have a very hard time explaining why they did what they did using language and rules (since it is intuitive for them), let alone using a vocabulary a novice might understand (something that Ryan struggles with, and might fail at, with this very lab manual). Thus, it is important that those wanting to pursue skill and competency development have mentors that are at most two levels ahead of them, or for experts to be extremely sensitive to what it was like to be a novice, and work to understand where their students are. For our purposes, these challenges have implications for how we teach, and mean that Teaching Assistants and Tutors can serve an essential role in skill and competency development,


10

since, in the case of many academic skills, they are closer to the students than is the professor. In education theory, this is called the “zone of proximal” development, which means that we can learn more easily from people who are just slightly ahead of us.

Becoming a self-directed learner: the importance of self-assessmentSophisticated learners know when they do or do not understand something. They can review a performance and identify what needs improvement. They know when their lack of objectivity necessitates their soliciting external feedback. They have mechanisms for its collections and methods for evaluating it and acting on it. Do today’s college students have these skills? More incriminatingly, do we teach them? — Maryellen Weimer (2002: 17)

Many universities, including our own, have stated goals of helping students become life-long learners. These kinds of learners are self-directed — they are empowered, confident, and self-motivated learners who can tackle the challenges they face in novel situations by creating and implementing effective learning strategies for themselves. A core skill for self-directed learners is self-assessment, or the act of looking deeply at oneself, one’s motivations and values, and one’s performances, and then identifying strengths and weaknesses and acting in ways to improve oneself, one’s abilities, and, ultimately, what one is able to do.

Facilitating the development of self-directed learners is not easy for third main reasons. First, most students enter college with the view that education is something done to them, and the experience of formal education has often involved anxiety and negative emotions. The sad part about this situation is that learning, when self-directed, is incredibly empowering, yet formal education has made many students associate learning with boredom, discipline, and many negative emotions that arise when students’ priorities, values, and interests are ignored and subjected to the will of the instructor without justification. The second major difficulty in facilitating the development of self-directed learners is the way classes and curriculum are currently structured. Most involved in higher education, professors and students alike, expect an environment in which lectures take precedent and students passively absorb the information presented, even though a vast amount of educational research shows that there are much better ways to learn, and that this kind of educational environment actually inhibits the development of self-directed learners (Weimer 2002). Third, most professors receive little to no formal training in pedagogy, the science of learning and instruction, and there are few institutional rewards for teaching that helps students become self-directed learners (National Research Council 2009).

How, then, do we try to facilitate your development as self-directed learners in CRD 20? We use a number of different strategies. One of the most important is through building the inquiry process into almost all elements of the class (Galt et al. in review). Inquiries are situations in which the instructors, you, and your teams will pose authentic and interesting questions to answer, and it will be your task to answer them in consultation with your classmates and the instructors. The inquiry process guides labs, exams (and, by extension, lectures), and your assignments. It puts you in charge of creating the answers, and, in many cases, of posing the questions worth asking.

The other major strategy is to encourage self-assessment. Your final assignment, the Reflective Essay, asks you to reflect on your learning process throughout the class, which is one form of self-assessment. Additionally, over the last few years we have developed a form to help students self-assess their competency development in the class. This form appears on the next page two pages. Self-assessment is both an act and a philosophy stemming from critical pedagogy (Fernández-Balboa 2007). Each of us has the most unmitigated access to the data needed for the assessment because we can reflect on how well we do these things. This does not mean that there would be agreement between ourselves and an external evaluation nor that we are free of self-deceptive perceptions. Yet, one needs to start somewhere with self-assessment, which is a competency in itself that can only be developed through practice.


11

Competency self-assessment rubricYou will fill out this form three times during class, at the beginning, middle, and end. For the beginning self-assessment, focus on Level of Development, and place a “B” in the box where you feel that you fit currently (descriptions of the levels are found in the Lab Manual). For the middle self-assessment, use an “M” to (1) note your Level of Development, (2) mark those Assignments and Activities that you feel have developed this competency, and (3) identify whether your understanding of the competency itself has changed (in the ∆ column). Repeat these for the end self-assessment, but using an “E.”

Assignments & Activities1Assignments & Activities1Assignments & Activities1Assignments & Activities1Assignments & Activities1Assignments & Activities1Assignments & Activities1Assignments & Activities1Assignments & Activities1Level of

Development2Level of




Development2 ∆3

LS L RR FD On-C E1 Off-C E2 RE N AP CP PP E

Ways of Knowing and LearningWays of Knowing and LearningWays of Knowing and LearningWays of Knowing and LearningWays of Knowing and LearningWays of Knowing and LearningWays of Knowing and LearningWays of Knowing and LearningWays of Knowing and LearningWays of Knowing and LearningWays of Knowing and LearningWays of Knowing and LearningWays of Knowing and LearningWays of Knowing and LearningWays of Knowing and LearningWays of Knowing and LearningUnderstand your preferred learning styles.

Develop ideas for improving your individual and collaborative learning.

Reflect on experiences learning as an individual and as a group, in the classroom and in the field.

Identify differences between various perspectives and theoretical lenses.

Understanding ValuesUnderstanding ValuesUnderstanding ValuesUnderstanding ValuesUnderstanding ValuesUnderstanding ValuesUnderstanding ValuesUnderstanding ValuesUnderstanding ValuesUnderstanding ValuesUnderstanding ValuesUnderstanding ValuesUnderstanding ValuesUnderstanding ValuesUnderstanding ValuesUnderstanding ValuesExamine personal values as they relate to food and the food system.

Identify values underlying peer and popular conceptions of sustainable food and food systems.

Explain the differences between one’s own values and the values of others concerning the sustainability of food and food systems.

The Inquiry ProcessThe Inquiry ProcessThe Inquiry ProcessThe Inquiry ProcessThe Inquiry ProcessThe Inquiry ProcessThe Inquiry ProcessThe Inquiry ProcessThe Inquiry ProcessThe Inquiry ProcessThe Inquiry ProcessThe Inquiry ProcessThe Inquiry ProcessThe Inquiry ProcessThe Inquiry ProcessThe Inquiry ProcessPose research questions that address your interests.

Create fieldwork protocols to answer research questions.

Use field-based research methods (interviews and observation) to understand food system actors and locations.

Perform collaborative learning in teams through field research and analysis.

Identify gaps in current knowledge and perspective.

AnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysisIdentify sections of the food system (production, processing, distribution, retail, consumption, disposal, governance).

Compare and contrast segments of the food system (conventional, organic, etc.).


12

Assignments & Activities1Assignments & Activities1Assignments & Activities1Assignments & Activities1Assignments & Activities1Assignments & Activities1Assignments & Activities1Assignments & Activities1Assignments & Activities1Level of





Development2 ∆3

LS L RR FD On-C E1 Off-C E2 RE N AP CP PP E

Assess multiple locations within the food system using questions related to social, economic, and environmental criteria.

Demonstrate systems thinking, including identifying components and relationships, and setting boundaries.

Interpret food choices based on different cultural identities and positions in society.

Operationalize theoretical lenses used in agri-food studies.

Interpersonal SkillsInterpersonal SkillsInterpersonal SkillsInterpersonal SkillsInterpersonal SkillsInterpersonal SkillsInterpersonal SkillsInterpersonal SkillsInterpersonal SkillsInterpersonal SkillsInterpersonal SkillsInterpersonal SkillsInterpersonal SkillsInterpersonal SkillsInterpersonal SkillsInterpersonal SkillsUnderstand small group processes.

Practice group decision-making through dialogue and consensus.

Co-manage fieldwork project logistics.

WritingWritingWritingWritingWritingWritingWritingWritingWritingWritingWritingWritingWritingWritingWritingWritingOrganize and express ideas clearly in outline and/or draft form.

Connect concepts and ideas from class, labs, readings/videos, and your own ideas.

Engage in the revision process as a necessary part of good writing.

PresentingPresentingPresentingPresentingPresentingPresentingPresentingPresentingPresentingPresentingPresentingPresentingPresentingPresentingPresentingPresentingDemonstrate understanding of principles of public speaking.

Present research findings using visual, oral, and textual communication.

Add Your OwnAdd Your OwnAdd Your OwnAdd Your OwnAdd Your OwnAdd Your OwnAdd Your OwnAdd Your OwnAdd Your OwnAdd Your OwnAdd Your OwnAdd Your OwnAdd Your OwnAdd Your OwnAdd Your OwnAdd Your Own1

2

3

4

5

1 LS=VAK Learning Style Activity, L=lecture, RR=Reading Responses, FD=Food Diary, On-C=On-Campus Team Project, E1=Midterm Exam, Off-C=Off-Campus Team Project, E2=Final Exam, RE=Reflective Essay. NOTE: other activities that we do in lecture and lab can help you develop these competencies, but they are not included for the sake of simplicity.















1 LS=VAK Learning Style Activity, L=lecture, RR=Reading Responses, FD=Food Diary, On-C=On-Campus Team Project, E1=Midterm Exam, Off-C=Off-Campus Team Project, E2=Final Exam, RE=Reflective Essay. NOTE: other activities that we do in lecture and lab can help you develop these competencies, but they are not included for the sake of simplicity.2 N=novice, AP=advanced performer, CP=competent performer, PP=proficient performer, E=expert2 N=novice, AP=advanced performer, CP=competent performer, PP=proficient performer, E=expert2 N=novice, AP=advanced performer, CP=competent performer, PP=proficient performer, E=expert2 N=novice, AP=advanced performer, CP=competent performer, PP=proficient performer, E=expert2 N=novice, AP=advanced performer, CP=competent performer, PP=proficient performer, E=expert2 N=novice, AP=advanced performer, CP=competent performer, PP=proficient performer, E=expert2 N=novice, AP=advanced performer, CP=competent performer, PP=proficient performer, E=expert2 N=novice, AP=advanced performer, CP=competent performer, PP=proficient performer, E=expert2 N=novice, AP=advanced performer, CP=competent performer, PP=proficient performer, E=expert2 N=novice, AP=advanced performer, CP=competent performer, PP=proficient performer, E=expert2 N=novice, AP=advanced performer, CP=competent performer, PP=proficient performer, E=expert2 N=novice, AP=advanced performer, CP=competent performer, PP=proficient performer, E=expert2 N=novice, AP=advanced performer, CP=competent performer, PP=proficient performer, E=expert2 N=novice, AP=advanced performer, CP=competent performer, PP=proficient performer, E=expert2 N=novice, AP=advanced performer, CP=competent performer, PP=proficient performer, E=expert2 N=novice, AP=advanced performer, CP=competent performer, PP=proficient performer, E=expert3 This column represents whether your understanding of the competency itself has changed.3 This column represents whether your understanding of the competency itself has changed.3 This column represents whether your understanding of the competency itself has changed.3 This column represents whether your understanding of the competency itself has changed.3 This column represents whether your understanding of the competency itself has changed.3 This column represents whether your understanding of the competency itself has changed.3 This column represents whether your understanding of the competency itself has changed.3 This column represents whether your understanding of the competency itself has changed.3 This column represents whether your understanding of the competency itself has changed.3 This column represents whether your understanding of the competency itself has changed.3 This column represents whether your understanding of the competency itself has changed.3 This column represents whether your understanding of the competency itself has changed.3 This column represents whether your understanding of the competency itself has changed.3 This column represents whether your understanding of the competency itself has changed.3 This column represents whether your understanding of the competency itself has changed.3 This column represents whether your understanding of the competency itself has changed.


13

IV. Lab Readings: The Theory and Practice of Learning

This section contains ten brief readings on topics that are going to be foundational for your lab work (and hopefully for your lifelong learning!). They form important building blocks with which you will begin to understand the general learning process, including the research process, as well as your individual and team learning processes. You can also see them as some of the foundation on which I base my educational philosophy, as described briefly in the course syllabus.

Some of these readings will seem very philosophical or theoretical, which might initially seem like a strange contrast with the practicality of actually doing laboratory work. I ask that you try to move beyond the false dichotomy our culture poses between theory and practice. Practice needs to be informed by theory, and in turn, practice then should be used to modify theory. This necessary linkage is a conceptualization commonly referred to as praxis: action based on sound theory.

Each of the readings is meant as a stand-alone introduction to a small piece of the philosophy of knowledge, research, and education, all of which are central to learning, our main goal in this class. Some are fairly dense, and most will use concepts that are new to you. As such, these readings are meant to be starting points for discussion and dialogue about the ideas contained within them. I do not expect you to fully understand them at first read — I do, however, expect you to give a wholehearted effort to understand them, and to identify the parts that you do not understand. I also expect that deeper understanding of these readings will be generated out of dialogue with your lab sections, your lab teams, and in lecture, as well as by going through the research process yourself and in your teams.

14

1. The Life Cycle of GroupsAlmost all the work we do in lab will be based on team projects. The following reading is

meant to help us understand group processes and the stages through which groups pass. It is adapted from Pretty et al. (2002: 39-40).

Groups can be powerful and productive when they function well. The performance and output of the team is likely to be greater than the sum of its individual members. As two proverbs from Africa say: “Cross a river in a crowd and the crocodile won’t eat you” and “A single blade of grass won’t sweep the whole yard.”

When several people come together to work on a single initiative or project, they are not necessarily a productive team. Before a group of people can function well together, they must pass through a series of stages. These have been characterized by Charles Handy (1985, cited in Pretty el al. 2002) as: (1) Forming, (2) Storming, (3) Norming, and (4) Performing (see list below).

Initially various individuals come together, sometimes as strangers, sometimes as colleagues, to create a new group for some stated purpose. In this early forming stage they are still a collection of individuals, each with her/his own agenda and expertise and little or no shared experience. As these individuals become more familiar with one another, they will almost certainly enter a storming phase where personal values and principles are challenged, roles and responsibilities are taken on and/or rejected, and the group’s objectives and way of working together are defined. If there is too much conflict and discord within the group, it will collapse. If, however, some common ground can be found, then the group will gain greater cohesion and a sense of purpose.

As the members begin to understand their roles in relation to one another and establish a shared vision or goal, they will develop a clear identity and group-specific norms of behavior. At the norming stage, the group has settled down. People know each other better, they have accepted the rules and probably developed little sub-groups. Once these norms have been established, the group will be ready to focus on output and will enter the performing stage. It is in this phase that they will work most effectively as a team. The confidence level of the team members will have reached the point where they are willing to take significant risks and try out new ideas on their own.

Groups generally produce fewer ideas than individuals working separately. However, they do produce better ideas as they are discussed more carefully and thought through more deeply. Therefore, groups are also more likely to identify errors of judgment before action is taken. Rather surprisingly, groups take riskier decisions than the individual members would have done if acting independently. A group therefore also tends to act more adventurously as members take courage from one another.

But, groups that are too cohesive also have drawbacks. Religious sects, military groups, sports teams, and political groups all show a tendency toward a dominant group identity. They tend to believe in their own propaganda. This is commonly called “group think.” In extreme cases, the individual’s principles are sacrificed for group loyalty, harmony, and morale. Seeking a consensus at all costs can make the group highly selective in the facts it sees, sorts, and accepts. Maintaining an open agenda, creating a sense of self-critical awareness (see Lab Reading 10) and preventing secrecy is essential if group “delusions” are to be prevented. As a team member, you will need to balance tensions between group and individual identity.

The four stages of group developmentForming1. Group is not yet a group, but a set of individuals2. Individuals want to establish personal identity within the group and make an impression3. Participation is limited as individuals get familiar with the setting, the teacher, and each other4. Individuals begin to focus on task at hand and discuss its purpose5. The group is essentially evolving ground rules on which future decisions and actions will be based

Lab Readings

15

Storming1. Characterized by intra-group conflict and lack of unity2. Preliminary ground rules on purpose, leadership, and behavior are damaged3. Individuals can become hostile toward each other, and express their individuality by pursuing or

revealing personal agendas4. Friction increases, rules are broken, and arguments can happen5. But, if successfully handled, this stage leads to new and more realistic setting of objectives,

procedures, and norms

Norming1. Characterized by overcoming tensions and developing group cohesion in which norms and

practices are established2. Group members accept the group and accept each other’s idiosyncrasies3. Group allegiance develops and group strives to maintain it4. Development of group spirit, harmony becomes important

Performing1. Characterized by full maturity and maximum productivity2. Can only be reached by successfully completing previous three stages3. Members take on roles to fulfill the group activities since they have now learnt to relate to one

another4. Rules become flexible and functional5. Group energy channeled into identified tasks6. New insights and solutions begin to emerge

Lab Readings

16

2. Common Misconceptions of Knowledge

Andrew Sayer, a geographer and sociologist, has done a great deal of thinking and writing on method and philosophy of social science, including knowledge and its relationship to society. He develops a critical realist approach to the social sciences, and claims that most people in Anglo-American societies hold the following conceptions of knowledge. He argues that these conceptions are actually misconceptions (they are false) and that they stand in the way of a better understanding of knowledge and society. This suggests that we as knowers have to examine our understandings of what knowledge is. The reading below is paraphrased and developed from Sayer (1992: 13-17).

Misconceptions of knowledge1. Knowledge is gained purely through

contemplation or observation of the world.

2. What we know can be reduced to what we can say.

3. Knowledge can be safely regarded as a thing or product, which can be evaluated independently of any consideration of its production and use in social activity.

4. Science can simply be assumed as the highest form of knowledge, and other types of knowledge are dispensable or displaceable by science.

Arguments against these four misconceptions of knowledge1. Knowledge is gained mostly through activity. This includes our attempts to change our

environment, and our interactions with other people using shared resources, including a common language. Individuals cannot create knowledge independently of the society in which they have learned to think and act (an unsocialized human would be like a child raised by wolves, barely able to walk or perform simple tasks of reason). Since people and their ideas are objects of our knowledge (we create and hold knowledge about them), the relationship between knowledge and activity is often interactive, instead of just passive (as the result of contemplation or observation). It is clear that through self reflection, we can change the object of our knowledge (ourselves). This relationship — transforming the object of knowledge by further reflecting on it — often exists between social science knowledge and society. In other words, societies can be, and often are, transformed because of arguments advanced by social scientists. Additionally, seeing knowledge as gained through contemplation or observation ignores knowledge of how to do something, be it physical behavior (like riding a bike) or social behavior (like communicating with others).

2. The problem of putting spoken or written knowledge on a pedestal is that practical skills, which often cannot be communicated through language, are very important. Much of our everyday knowledge involves practical skills. Children learn a great deal before they learn to speak, and to survive all of us depend on knowledge of how to eat, and how to do many other things (even if we cannot easily communicate this knowledge verbally). The prejudice toward intellectual knowledge in the university likely arises because academics occupy a position in society in which they traditionally have a largely contemplative relationship to the world. In this context, speaking and writing are elevated above making and doing, even though all are essential parts of being human and should be emphasized in education.

3. When we emphasize knowledge as a product or thing that exists outside of us, we tend to overlook the active side of knowing, which includes the considerable work involved in

Lab Readings

17

developing and sharing knowledge. To adequately conceptualize knowledge, we must consider the production of knowledge, which is a social activity. To make knowledge, we need raw materials and tools. These tools are linguistic, conceptual, cultural, and material. Making knowledge requires using these tools, which are drawn from available cultural resources, to act upon raw materials. These raw materials include data, pre-existing arguments, information, etc. Only through this activity is knowledge produced, reproduced, and transformed. It is not, and cannot, be made out of nothing. Thus, science is not a thing, but a social activity.

4. The belief that scientific knowledge is the highest form of knowledge is called “scientism” (this is also a central tenet of positivism). There is a strong tendency in Anglo-American natural science, social science, and philosophy of science to assume that science is the highest form of knowledge to which everyone should aspire. Instead, Sayer argues that different kinds of knowledge are needed for different functions and contexts (see also Lab Reading 5). For example, knowledge of ethics is necessary to create more harmonious interactions of people in society, while knowledge of how to make terraces is needed for a viable, intensive, crop-based agriculture in very steep, mountainous regions. Importantly, these contexts are overlapping, so they are not mutually exclusive. Thus, we need scientific knowledge, knowledge of how to do something (skills), and ethical knowledge and wisdom for studying agriculture and food systems. Another problem with putting scientific knowledge above other types of knowledge is that science as an activity rests on other kinds of knowledge that scientism labels as “non-science” or “anti-science.” Many philosophers who subscribe to scientism view ethical decisions as a-rational, based on emotion, and not based on science (in other words, they commonly conflate ethics with emotion). The problem with this view is that science is a specialized social activity that requires rules covering what is proper and improper conduct; it is based on ethical principles of honesty and refusing illogical arguments. Put another way, “scientific knowledge presupposes among its very foundations a kind of knowledge which ‘scientism’ has sought to deny, exclude or derogate” (Sayer 1992: 17).

Lab Readings

18

3. The Building Blocks of Research: Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology, Methods, & Sources

All knowledge claims are based on ontology and epistemology (defined below). Research is based on these, and then adopts methodology and specific methods, and then attempts to get information from sources. Below I introduce each of these terms and the relationships between them.

Ontology is a branch of philosophy that deals with what exists and how entities are to be grouped and divided by similarities and differences. In other words, it is the answer to the question: “what kinds of things are there in the world?” (Benton and Craib 2001: 4). For social sciences, ontological claims are “claims and assumptions that are made about the nature of social reality, claims about what exists, what it looks like, what units make it up and how these units interact with each other. In short, ontological assumptions are concerned with what we believe constitutes social reality” (Blaikie, 2000: 8, cited in Grix 2002: 177). The different social sciences commonly begin with different ontological assumptions about the nature of social reality. “With this in mind, it is not difficult to understand how different scholarly traditions embedded in fundamentally different cultural contexts can have diverging views of the world and differing assumptions underpinning their particular approaches to social inquiry” (Grix 2002: 177). Natural sciences — indeed, all forms of knowledge — are equally based entirely on ontological claims of the same kind (Inkpen 2005).

Different cultures identify different ontological entities and domains — there is no one universal way that we humans divide up the world. Some of the fundamental divisions of western culture — most notably the ontological divide between nature and society — do not exist in many non-western ways of knowing and being. Within the modern academy, there are regional, or specific, ontologies that form the subject matter of different disciplines; each has “its own way of listing, describing and classifying the range of things, relations or processes it deals with; this is the range of things which it claims to give us knowledge of ” (Benton and Craib 2001: 5). Chemists, for example, ask about the number of elements, their properties, their interactions, etc. Sociologists are interested in social relations, social classes and other divisions, oppression and exploitation, social structures, etc. Other disciplines, such as geography, range widely between specific ontologies and are aimed at synthetic understandings by showing the relationships between these specific ontologies.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of knowledge, or tackles the question, “how we know what we know?” Our epistemology should logically flow from our ontology. The perspectives of “positivism” and “interpretivism” contain two contrasting epistemologies. Positivism maintains an epistemology that advocates applying natural science methods to the study of social reality, while interpretivism is based on the epistemological view that a strategy is needed that respects the differences between people (as objects of the social sciences) and the objects of the natural sciences, and thereby requires the social scientist to understand the subjective meaning (that held by the subject) of social actions (Grix 2002: 178).

Ontology and epistemology have an iterative relationship with one another: as our knowledge production efforts identify or theorize new entities, these can become part of the ontological assumptions that inform further efforts of understanding. For example, the very existence of microbes had to be theorized before efforts of categorization and establishment of strong causal links between disease and certain microorganisms could begin. Similarly, the existence of “capitalism” as a complete political economic system had to be posited before one could try to understand it as a whole. Once researchers have settled on their ontology and epistemology (no easy task), they then proceed to methodology.

Methodology answers the question: “how can we go about acquiring the knowledge we want?” It is the branch of philosophy concerned with the logic of scientific inquiry, i.e., “the science and study of methods and the assumptions about the ways in which knowledge is produced” (Grix 2002:

Lab Readings

19

179). Methodology is concerned with the logics, potential, and limitations of particular research methods. For this reason it is often confused with the research methods used in a project.

Methods are the “techniques or procedures used to collate and analyse data” (Blaikie 2000: 8, cited in Grix 2002: 179). While most researchers connect certain methods to particular ontological and epistemological assumptions (e.g., surveys and statistics used by positivist researchers), Jonathan Grix (2002: 180, original emphasis) argues that we should see them “as free from ontological and epistemological assumptions, and the choice of which to use should be guided by research questions.” He notes that it is the researcher who uses a specific method in a particular way, and it is this process that associates methods with particular ontological and epistemological assumptions. Instead of evaluating research based on the specific methods it uses, we should judge it based on how its parts logically fit together.

Sources refer to the sources of information from which data will be collected. There are a huge range of sources available for social science inquiry. We typically group these into primary sources — information sources from which we ourselves collect the information, such as with interviews, focus groups, and surveys — and secondary sources — information sources that have been gathered by others, including historical documents, texts, and survey data from surveys conducted by other researchers (including censuses).

How do these components fit together? Figure 3.1 simplifies the research process by showing a linear progression between the parts discussed above. While this is a simplification, and there are often iterative relationships that involve learning and revision, the figure is meant to make it fairly clear that a particular view of the world — what I’ve called ontological assumptions — affects the entire research process. Crucially, “all research necessarily starts from a person’s view of the world, which itself is shaped by the experience one brings to the research process. A researcher’s methodological approach, underpinned by and reflecting specific ontological and epistemological assumptions, represents a choice of approach and research methods adopted in a given study” (Grix 2002: 179).

It is also very important to remember that even though Figure 3.1 shows a linear relationship (i.e., ontological viewpoints need to be made explicit before adopting epistemology, and so forth), it should not be assumed that one determines the other. In other words, there are a number of epistemologies that can be chosen from a given ontology, there are a large number of methodologies that can be used from a given epistemology, there are a large number of methods that can work toward a given methodology, and any specific method can gather information from a variety of sources.

Figure 3.1: The interrelationships between the building blocks of research (from Grix 2002: 180)

Lab Readings

20

4. Paradigms in Agri-food StudiesThere is no single discipline, or single interdisciplinary perspective, from which to

understand agri-food systems (Pretty 1995). The same is true of science as a knowledge-generating activity: “The practice of science has always been pluralistic, with rival and subversive visions persisting despite their marginalization by the dominant approaches” (Benton and Craib 2001: 66).

To operationalize this reality, each student team in lab will adopt a different paradigm based on a prominent philosophy of social science (political economy and feminism) or a modern integrative discipline (ecology and geography). Think of each different paradigm as a theoretical lens — like all lenses, it brings certain things into focus, while leaving other things out of focus. These lenses are theoretical in that they attempt to create explanation, to provide an account of why things are the way they are, and why certain events happen in certain ways. Paradigms can also be thought of as theoretical problematics or “networks of concepts” that allow for their users to ask a certain set of questions; the flip side is, “each problematic also excludes the posing of other questions. The problematic can thus be compared to the beam of a torch [flashlight]: it casts a clear light on those objects within its frame, but leaves all else in darkness” (Benton and Craib 2001: 56).

A more detailed definition of a paradigm, according to Thomas Kuhn (1970), “is a source of guidance for conducting and evaluating research which is consensual within a particular scientific discipline. It may take the form of a set of shared theoretical assumptions, a commonly accepted view of the subject matter (ontology), an accepted set of standards for evaluating explanations, a metaphysical view of the world, or merely a generally acknowledged past scientific achievement (an ‘exemplar’) which provides rules for subsequent practice. Of course, it can be, and often is, all of these things” (Benton and Craib 2001: 59).

Rather than knowledge progressing in a linear fashion, in biophysical sciences there have commonly been scientific revolutions that lead to the overturning of paradigms (Kuhn 1970). A recent paradigm shift involved the creation of the discipline of ecology, which rejects a reductionist and atomistic view of the world. In the social sciences there are a large number of paradigms that exist concurrently. These include positivism, political economy, feminism, and poststructuralism. In addition to these existing concurrently, there is also a history of revolutions in social science thinking, especially within disciplines.

We will not be attempting to understand all paradigms. Instead, you will be expected to understand the basic components of a handful of them at an introductory level. Understanding these lenses is one of the most challenging aspects of the class, but you will have plenty of opportunity to practice them in your fieldwork. Your team will use your assigned theoretical lens (see Table 5) to analyze and assess the locations of the field trips, and as a perspective through which to understand the food system as a whole. Once assigned, you will use them throughout your lab experience. While Table 5 shows the four theoretical lenses we will use, it is a simplification of a complex reality, in that it problematically denies combinations of perspectives, hides diversity within each, and does not include a number of other important theoretical lenses (e.g., post-structuralism).

Table 5: Theoretical lenses for understanding agri-food systemsPolitical economy Feminism Ecology Geography

Brief definition Analyzes the social structures within which individuals exist. Emphasizes class differences and ways in which power is exercised in society and the intersection of economic and political power. Often historically oriented.

Works for the liberation of all socially subjugated groups by exposing dominant ideologies and practices. Denies the existence of simple objectivity. Focuses on equal rights and opportunities, especially along gender lines.

Examines the interrelationships between different organisms and between organisms and their environment. Agroecology as a subfield applies ecological thought to agriculture and now seeks to understand the entire food system.

Studies landscapes, inhabitants, and other phenomena of Earth. Includes physical, human, and environmental geography. The latter investigates human-environment interactions by bridging social and biophysical science.

Lab Readings

21

Political economy Feminism Ecology Geography

Founding or prominent scholars

Prominent agri-food scholars

Examples and explanations in course reader

Other examples of agro-food scholarship

Goal

Ontology (see

Lab Reading 3)

Epistemology (see Lab Reading 3

& Benton and

Craib 2001)

Favored objects of study (see Lab

Reading 5)

Reasoning strategies (see

Lab Reading 8)

Favored methodologies (see Burgess 1996)

Favored methods

Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci, Karl Polanyi

Carol Hanisch, Donna Haraway, bell hooks

Ernst Haeckel, Charles Darwin, Frederic Clements, Henry Gleason

Alexander von Humboldt, Carl Ritter, Carl O. Sauer, David Harvey, Doreen Massey

Harriet Friedmann, Julie Guthman, Philip McMichael, Michael Watts

Deborah Barndt, Laura DeLind, Penny Van Esterik, Betty Wells

Miguel Altieri, Steve Gliessman, Ivette Perfecto, John Van Der Meer, Laurie Drinkwater

Suzanne Freidberg, Julie Guthman, Brian Ilbery, Terry Marsden, Michael Watts

(Barnes 2000; Friedmann 1999; Galt 2009a; Hendrickson and Heffernan 2007; Poppendieck 2000)

(McIntosh 1988; Stanley 1996; Wells and Gradwell 2001)

(Francis et al. 2003; Pfeiffer 2006)

(Galt 2009a; Johnston 1996; Massad 2009)

(Friedmann 1978; Friedmann and McMichael 1989; Goodman and Watts 1997; Guthman 2004; Wells 1996)

(Barndt 2008; DeLind 1999; Trauger 2004; Van Esterik 1999; Wells and Gradwell 2001)

(Gardner and Drinkwater 2009; Gliessman 1998; Méndez 2008; Tomich et al. 2011)

(Barrett et al. 1999; Freidberg 2004; Galt 2010; Grossman 1998; Ilbery et al. 2006)

illuminate and critique existing power structures; create more economic equity

produce rigorous, emancipatory theory; end all forms of domination and discrimination

produce objective information; inform environmental policy

transcend divisions between sciences, social sciences and humanities to solve human problems

critical realism: reality is differentiated and stratified; entities analyzed are merely abstractions from an ontological whole; structuralism: social structures strongly shape individuals’ behaviors and thoughts

anti-essentialism: post-binary (most or all dichotomies are false); interpretivism: perceptions are the ultimate basis for reality

empiricism: science describes the world as it really is, independent of human bias and limitations

extremely heterogeneous, ranging from empiricism to anti-essentialism; most environmental geography is critical realist (see political economy)

critical realist: knowledge is always partial, but there are better and worse understandings shown through practical adequacy

interpretivist: meanings held by different actors are taken seriously as the basis of reality

empiricist: knowledge produced about the world is in complete correspondence with how the world really is

extremely heterogeneous, ranging from empiricist to interpretivist; most environmental geography is critical realist

structures (food regimes, commodity chains), power relations, labor

meaning (e.g., of consumption), forms of domination and resistance (often ideological), agents and agency

organisms, energy and nutrient flows, environmental contexts and limitations

spatial distribution of phenomena, processes and features and interaction of humans and their environment

induction and deduction values induction most values deduction most, especially hypothetico-deductive reasoning

mostly induction but some deduction

case study (intensive research looking at relations between social groups); survey (extensive research); historical (existing texts and data)

case study (intensive research looking at relations between social groups)

observation; experimentation; and modeling

environmental geographers commonly combine methodologies from social science and biophysical science

historical materialist analysis of existing data, interviews

ethnography (including detailed observation made in context), in-depth interviews

fieldwork for biophysical measurement; establishing replicated trials; programing for modeling

fieldwork (including observation and interviews) and some modeling

Lab Readings

22

5. Object-Subject Relationships in the Natural and Social Sciences

What is the relationship between an object of study and the observer/knower/researcher (also called the subject or the knowing-subject)? The following is an exploration of this question, which has important implications for the natural sciences and the social sciences and allows us to understand their differences and similarities. It is paraphrased and developed from Sayer (1992: 22-29).

Model 1In this model, the subject (S) observes and

records information about the object (O). Arguably, this is lacking both an active view of knowledge (action by the subject) and the fact that the subject must have a language in order to think about the object. Language presupposes the existence of social relations, or what we can call subject-subject relations. In societies there are often specialist subgroups, often with their own linguistic and conceptual resources (such as farmers, physicists, and the learning community we are building in this class). These subject-subject relations are not incidental to the subject-object relationship, they are a necessary condition of it. Thus, these must be included in the model.

Model 2This revised model shows that subjects have

two relationships: that with the object, and that with other subjects. Subjects cannot obtain or create knowledge of objects, or of how to work with them, without using the resources of their community. In common sense understandings, which allow for us to think with our beliefs but not about them, we generally do not notice this social context. Also, rather than the relationship between subject and object being just contemplative, knowledge and action upon an object (practice) are tied from the start. Even the most “pure” science is a set of practices. Thus, the line between subject and object should be seen as formed by action, not just contemplation.

Now we need to consider the nature of the object in question. For knowledge about objects that are non-social in origin (such as rocks, soils, etc.), the relationship between subject and object is not in itself social. Even though we think with the concepts we learn from our social upbringing, the object itself does not include concepts and meanings on its own. Instead, humans give it meaning, but non-social phenomena are impervious to the meanings we attach to them. Although we can accurately say that the object is socially defined, we cannot say it is socially produced. For this reason, we can say that even when we abandoned the theory of a flat earth for one of a spherical earth, the earth itself did not change shape. Now, what happens if we consider objects that are social in origin? We need a new model.

Lab Readings

23

Model 3If society becomes our object of study, it

and all social objects must include other subjects, and their interactions. Because these social objects have relationships that are the same as the subject, the diagram is symmetrical. For clarity, the diagram maintains a separation between the subject and object of study, even though these are often bound by the same language community (the diagram would be accurate for historical studies, and those of other cultures). Because there is symmetry in the diagram, subjects can characterize objects’ understandings as partial or incorrect, and vice versa. In this way, social knowledge stands in a dialogic relationship with its object (put another way, it is a subject-subject relationship, rather than a subject-object one).

Model 4Understanding society is not just about

concepts in society, or the meanings of social practices, although these are important parts. In addition to having meaning, social phenomena have an important material dimension (relating to physical objects composed of matter). Societies, whether they realize it or not, have a necessary relationship with nature, from its unmodified form to its states transformed by human action. Knowledge of society, then, must always make reference to this material side.

This allows for some understanding of the difference between natural science and social science. Natural sciences can manipulate non-social objects. But the situation is more complex in social science because (1) experiments that manipulate non-social objects are not particularly useful for understanding society, and (2) social phenomena can change, often in unpredictable ways, because people learn (e.g., they can learn about the researcher’s/subject’s understanding, they can learn from the results of a social experiment by reflecting on their own understandings and changing them, etc.). As Sayer notes, “It is not just that social experiments may be deemed undesirable, it is also that social phenomena are likely to be irreversibly changed by them in a way which does not happen with non-social phenomena, which learn nothing from being manipulated” (Sayer 1992: 29).

Lab Readings

24

6. Beyond the Culture of Fear: Reconsidering Objectivity and Subjectivity

Parker Palmer, an influential educator, argues that there are numerous fears that underly our current educational system. The most prominent — deep at the heart of being human — is “the fear of having a lice encounter with alien ‘otherness,’ whether the other is a student, a colleague, a subject, or a self-dissenting voice within” (Palmer 2007: 37). Palmer’s (2007: 38-40) argument and prose are so clear that he deserves to be quoted at length:

We fear encounters in which the other is free to be itself, to speak its own truth, to tell us what we may not wish to hear. We want those encounters on our own terms, so that we can control their outcomes, so that they will not threaten our view of world and self. ... To avoid a live encounter with teachers, students can hide behind their notebooks and their silence. To avoid a live encounter with students, teachers can hide behind their podiums, their credentials, their power. ... To avoid a live encounter with subjects of study, teachers and students alike can hide behind the pretense of objectivity: students can say, “Don’t ask me to think about this stuff—just give me the facts,” and faculty can say, “Here are the facts—don’t think about them, just get them straight.” To avoid a live encounter with ourselves, we can learn the art of self-alienation, of living a divided life.This fear of the live encounter is actually a sequence of fears that begin in the fear of diversity. As long as we inhabit a universe made homogeneous by our refusal to admit otherness, we can maintain the illusion that we possess the truth about ourselves and the world—after all, there is no “other” to challenge us! But as soon as we admit pluralism, we are forced to admit that ours is not the only standpoint, the only experience, the only way, and the truths we have built our lives on begin to feel fragile. If we embrace diversity, we find ourselves on the doorstep of our next fear: fear of the conflict that will ensue when divergent truths meet. ... To evade public engagement over hour dangerous differences, we privatize them, only to find them growing larger and more divisive. If we peel back our fear of conflict, we find a third layer of fear, the fear of losing identify. Many of us are so deeply identified with our ideas that when we have a competitive encounter, we risk losing more than the debate: we risk losing our sense of self.Of course, there are forms of conflict more creative than the win-lose form called competition, forms that are vital if the self is to grow. But academic culture knows little of these alternative forms—such as consensual decision making—in which all can win and none need lose, in which “winning” means emerging from the encounter with a larger sense of self than one brought into it, in which we learn that the self is not a scrap of turf to be defended but a capacity to be enlarged.If we embrace the promise of diversity, of creative conflict, and of “losing” in order to “win,” we still face one final fear—the fear that a live encounter with otherness will challenge or even compel us to change our lives. ... Otherness, taken seriously, always invites transformation, calling us not only to new facts and theories and values but also to new ways of living our lives—and that is the most daunting threat of all. ... We will be freed from these pathologies neither by technique nor by structural reforms by rather by insight into how and why fear dominates our lives.Our dominant way of knowing, called “objectivism” by Palmer and “positivism” by others,

is grounded in these fears, but is arrogantly promoted (which is often a mask for fear). Ways of knowing, or epistemologies (see Lab Readings 2-5), answer the questions of “how do we know what we know, and by what means can we call what we call our knowledge true?” Objectivism “portrays

Lab Readings

25

truth as something we can achieve only by disconnecting ourselves, physically and emotionally, from the thing we want to know” (Palmer 2007: 52). If we get too close, says objectivism, our subjective lives will contaminate the thing and our understanding of it. Quoting Palmer (2007: 52-8) again:

For objectivism, the subjective self is the enemy most to be feared—a Pandora’s box of opinion, bias, and ignorance that will distort our knowledge once the lid flies open. We keep the lid shut by relying exclusively on reason and facts, logic and data that cannot be swayed by subjective desire (or so the theory goes). The role of the mind and senses in this scheme is not to connect us to the world but to hold the world at bay, lest our knowledge of it be tainted.In objectivism, subjectivity is feared not only because it contaminates things but because it creates relationships between those things and us—and relationships are contaminating as well. When a thing ceases to be an object and becomes a vital, interactive part of our lives—whether it is a work of art, an indigenous people, or an ecosystem—it might get a grip on us, biasing us toward it, thus threatening the purity of our knowledge once again.So objectivism, driven by fear, keeps us from forging relationships with the things of the world. Its modus operandi is simple: when we distance ourselves from something, it becomes an object; when it becomes an object, it no longer has life; when it is lifeless, it cannot touch or transform us, so our knowledge of the thing remains pure.For objectivism, any way of knowing that requires subjective involvement between the knower and the known is regarded as primitive, unreliable, and even dangerous. The intuitive is derided as irrational, true feeling is dismissed as sentimental, the imagination is seen as chaotic and unruly, and storytelling is labeled as personal and pointless. ...I have not forgotten that objectivism originated, in part, to save us from the evils of reckless subjectivity. The victims of the Black Death would have benefited from the objective knowledge that their suffering was caused by fleas from infected rats, not by offenses against God. ... Objectivism set out to put truth on firmer ground than the whims of princes and priests, and for that we can be grateful. But history is full of ironies, and one of them is the way objectivism has bred two versions of the same evils it tried to correct ... modern dictatorships and the character of contemporary warfare. ... Why does objectivism conspire with totalitarianism and violence? From the outset, the objectivist impulse was more than a quest for truth: it was a fear-driven overkill of subjectivity that made the premodern world dangerous. Objectivism was never content to quarantine subjectivity in order to stop its spread. It aimed at killing the germ of “self ” to secure objective truth—just as dictators kill dissenters to secure the “public order,” and warriors kill the enemy to secure the “peace.” ...But an even more telling case can be made against this mode of knowing: it fails to give a faithful account of how knowing actually happens, even at the heart of science itself.No scientist knows the world merely by holding it at arm’s length: if we ever managed to build the objectivist wall between the knower and the known, we could know nothing except the wall itself. Science requires an engagement with the world, a live encounter between the knower and the known. That encounter has moments of distance, but it would not be an encounter without moments of intimacy as well.Knowing of any sort is relational, animated by a desire to come into deeper

Lab Readings

26

community with what we know. ... Knowing is how we make community with the unavailable other, with realities that would elude us without the connective tissue of knowledge. Knowing is a human way to seek relationship and, in the process, to have encounters and exchanges that will inevitably alter us. At its deepest reaches, knowing is always communal.The now-famous story of biologist Barbara McClintock illumines the fact that we know by connecting with the world, not by disconnecting from it. McClintock, who died in 1992 at age ninety, became fascinated early in her career with the mysteries of genetic transposition. Though her research was often dismissed as wildly unorthodox, she pursued it into discoveries that changed the map of modern genetics, and she was honored in 1983 with a Nobel Prize.McClintock did not objectify her subject, did not approach it with the textbook notion that her task was to analyze it into data bits. Instead, she approached genetic material on the assumption that it could best be understood as a communal phenomenon. ... “Over and over again she tells us one must have the time to look, the patience to ‘let it come to you.’ Above all, one must have ‘a feeling for the organism.’” ... Keller [her autobiographer and a distinguished female scientist herself] sums up McClintock’s genius, and the genius of all great knowing, in a single, luminous sentence: McClintock, in her relation to ears of corn, achieved “the highest form of love, love that allows for intimacy without the annihilation of difference.”These remarkable words describe not only the heart of Barbara McClintock’s science but also the heart of every authentic relationship that a human being might have—with history, with nature, with other people, with things of the spirit. They describe a way of knowing and of living that has moved beyond fear of the other into respect for, even a need for, its otherness.The real agenda driving objectivism is not to tell the truth about knowing but to shore up our self-aggrandizing myth that knowledge is power and that with it we can run the world. People often lie in an effort to deny their fears—and objectivism lies about both our knowledge and our power in hopes to avoid the distressing evidence before our eyes: we are ruining, not running, the world.Modern knowledge has allowed us to manipulate the world but not to control its fate (to say nothing of our own), a fact that becomes more clear each day as the ecosystem dies and our human systems fail. Indeed, by disconnecting us from the world, objectivism has led us into actions so inharmonious with reality that catastrophe seems inevitable if we stay the course. Objectivism, far from telling the truth about how we know, is a myth meant to feed our fading fantasy of science, technology, power, and control.If we dare to move through our fear, to practice knowing as a form of love, we might abandon our illusion of control and enter a partnership with the otherness of the world. By finding our place in the ecosystem of reality, we might see more clearly which actions are life-giving and which are not—and in the process participate more fully in our own destinies, and the destiny of the world, than we do now in our drive for control. This relational way of knowing—in which love takes away fear and co-creation replaces control—is a way of knowing that can help us reclaim the capacity for connectedness on which good teaching depends.Rather than truth arising out of an objectivist stance like this, Palmer argues that truth, in all

modes, comes out of a complex process of shared inquiry — you might notice that this is how we

Lab Readings

27

approach knowledge in class. And producing knowledge requires not just “thinking things apart” (as in the atomism of reductionist science), but also “thinking things together.” Palmer asks us to go beyond either-or thinking, and embrace the paradoxical nature of being human. Education as we know it is filled with broken paradoxes, reduced to either-or boxes, but either-or thinking fails us in these circumstances:

• We separate head from heart. Result: minds that do not know how to feel and hearts that do not know how to think.• We separate facts from feelings. Result: bloodless facts that make the world distant and remote and ignorant emotions that reduce truth to how one feels today.• We separate theory from practice. Result: theories that have little to do with life and practice that is uninformed by understanding.• We separate teaching from learning. Result: teachers who talk but do not listen and students who listen but do not talk.Paradoxical thinking requires that we embrace a view of the world in which opposites are joined, so that we can see the world clearly and see it whole. Such a view is characterized by neither flinty-eyed realism nor dewy-eyed romanticism but rather by a creative synthesis of the two.The result is a world more complex and confusing than one made by simple either-or thinking—but that simplicity is merely the dullness of death. When we think things together, we reclaim the life force in the world, in our students, in ourselves (Palmer 2007: 68-9).

Lab Readings

28

7. Kinds of Knowledge

Intuitively, many of us understand that their are different kinds of knowledge, each relevant to different situations (e.g., knowing how to ride a bike versus knowing why the sky is blue). Below I briefly outline two influential typologies of knowledge, one from thousands of years ago (Aristotle) and one from the 1970s (Habermas). Both have been very influential in social science thinking.

Aristotle’s typologyIn Nicomachean Ethics, the Greek philosopher Aristotle developed a typology of different kinds of knowledge, which are developed by the three “intellectual virtues.” To him, these virtues were episteme, techne, and phronesis (defined below). In the book Making Social Science Matter, Bent Flyvbjerg (2001), a critical planner, extends Aristotle’s concept of phronesis with conceptualizations of power drawn from Michel Foucault, a post-structuralist philosopher and historian.

1. episteme – scientific knowledge that is universal, invariable, and context-independent; also called propositional knowledge.

2. techne – knowledge of craft/art that is pragmatic, variable, and context-dependent; also called skill or technical knowledge.

3. phronesis – knowledge regarding action on things that are good or bad for humankind. This kind of knowledge is ethical, involves “deliberation about values with reference to praxis,” and is based on practical value-rationality (Flyvbjerg 2001: 57). The point of departure of Aristotlean phronesis is based on three

key questions: Where are we going? Is this desirable? What should be done? Flyvbjerg, drawing on Foucault, has added a fourth key question, one that is especially relevant in unequal societies: Who gains and who loses, and by which mechanisms of power? The point of social science is not for social scientists to develop the ultimate answers to these four questions and then attempt to implement them through social engineering, but rather that we should develop our own answers to them, which will be used as input “to the ongoing social dialogue about the problems and risks we face and how things may be done differently” (Flyvbjerg 2001: 61).

Aristotle’s first two types are commonly identified and discussed, with the implication that these are the only kinds of knowledge that exist (see, for example, Agrawal 1995). Tellingly, in modern English we have words derived from the first two virtues — epistemic and epistemology from episteme, and technology and technical from techne — but phronesis has no modern counterpart. Knowledge from both episteme and techne are needed to pursue instrumental rationality, which has come to dominate modern society (see discussion of Habermas’s ideas below). Our educational systems generally devalue everything but epistemic knowledge (or know-what), because, according to assumptions embedded in empiricism and positivism, it is the highest form of knowledge. Aristotle and others maintain that for informed action to be taken, we must combine these three types of knowledge. This is, fortunately, expressed in a formal manner in UC Davis’s “Educational objectives for students” which states that students will “develop leadership skills” (techne) and “cultivate the virtues” (phronesis) (Undergraduate Studies 2010). Importantly, Aristotle argued that phronesis was the highest intellectual virtue, “for the possession of the single virtue of [phronesis] will carry with it the possession of ... all [the intellectual virtues]” (Aristotle 1976, cited in Flyvbjerg 1993). We as individuals and societies are impoverished if we treat these types of knowledge in a hierarchical manner; all are essential, so we should approach them non-hierarchically.

Lab Readings

29

Habermas’s typologyJürgen Habermas, one of the leading modern scholars of the Frankfurt School of critical theory, also developed a three-part typology of knowledge, but one that differs from Aristotle’s. Habermas (1987) views knowledge as always arising out of human interests. He proposes that there are three types of knowledge based on three types of interests: technical, communicative, and emancipatory:

1. technical – based on objectivism (see Lab Reading 6) empiricism (see Benton and Craib 2001: 13-22), it serves the interest of instrumental action necessary to adapt to the world and to predict and control events and objects. Forecasting and prediction are the main task. Values are considered irrelevant, unscientific, or obvious. This type of knowledge is that most highly valued in the natural sciences and in the positivist tradition of the social sciences. It relates to material objects.

2. communicative – serves the interests of communication needed for self-understanding, mutual understanding between people, and social decisions and action. Its objects of knowledge (see Lab Reading 2) are subjective meaning — understandings, interpretations, and explanations that differ between individuals — and involves standards for evaluating and validating interpretations. As a social practice, natural sciences require this kind of knowledge, but most practitioners do not value it in and of itself.

3. emancipatory – includes both technical and communicative knowledge and action, but

aims to reconcile possible contradictions between them. The end goal is to achieve greater individual autonomy (including self-actualization), material and symbolic freedom, and self-determination. Its objects are systematic distortions in learning and communication which generally are perpetuated by groups with very limited interests (e.g., the social elite). Those who have gained critical consciousness can generate emancipatory knowledge by challenging their oppression and supplanting it with a new understanding (see Lab Reading 10 that draws on Paulo Freire). Critical social scientists and critical humanists generally are the scholars most concerned with emancipatory knowledge and action, as their theorizations of the world have shown hierarchies and inequalities that arise out of ideologies and practices of domination, including but not limited to white supremacy, sexism and male chauvinism, neocolonialism, neoliberalism, and homophobia. “For Habermas, the most fundamental value that should define social rationality is the reduction of domination through undistorted communication” (Morrow and Torres 2002: 72).

Social theorists as different as Habermas, Max Weber, and Michel Foucault argue that for the last 200 years technical rationality has dominated the emancipatory interest in human knowledge creation. The result is “the civilization of means without ends” (Flyvbjerg 1993: 12). Habermas’s crucial thesis about these kinds of rationality is that “increases in technical rationality do not necessarily enhance social rationality” (Morrow and Torres 2002: 72).

The development of the productive forces can be a potential for liberation if and only if it does not replace rationalization at another level. Rationalization at the level of the institutional framework can occur only in the medium of symbolic [communicative] interaction itself, that is, through removing restrictions on communication ... . The growth of productive forces is not the same as the intention of the “good life.” It can at best serve it (Habermas 1970: 118-119, cited in Morrow and Torres 2002: 72-73).

Lab Readings

30

8. Critical Thinking for Baccalaureate Curriculum in the Liberal Arts Tradition

One of my goals is to make students aware that problems exist all around us. John Dewey argued that critical thinking originates when learner engage with problems. Problems evoke learners’ curiosity and stimulate learning and critical thought. “Only by wrestling with the conditions of the problem at first hand, seeking and finding his [sic] way out, does [the student] think” (Dewey 1916: 188, cited in Bean 1996: 2). Far from being “critical” in a negative sense as it is commonly understood, critical thinking is a “positive and productive” activity since “[c]ritical thinkers are actively engaged with life” (Brookfield 1987: 5, cited in Bean 1996: 2). At a minimum, critical thinking requires identifying and challenging assumptions, and exploring alternative ways of acting, feeling, and thinking. Arnold Arons, a physicist at the University of Washington, considers critical thinking to include the following habits of thought and reasoning abilities. The list below is quoted with slight additions and modifications from Bain (2004: 85-6, citing Arons 1985). A deeper understanding of critical thinking requires that we become aware of systematic differences in power within society and their effects (see Lab Reading 10).

1. Consciously raising the questions “What do we know …? How do we know …? Why do we accept or believe …? What is the evidence for …?” when studying material and approaching problems.

2. Being clearly and explicitly aware of gaps in available information. Recognizing when a conclusion is reached or a decision made in absence of complete information and being able to tolerate the ambiguity and uncertainty. Recognizing when one is taking something on faith without having examined the questions “How do we know … ? Why do we believe … ?”

3. Discriminating between observation and inference, between established fact and subsequent conjecture.

4. Recognizing that words are symbols for ideas and not the ideas themselves. Recognizing the necessity of using only words of prior definition, rooted in shared experience, in forming a new definition and in avoiding being misled by technical jargon.

5. Probing for assumptions (particularly the implicit, unarticulated assumptions) behind a line of reasoning.

6. Drawing inferences from data and recognizing when firm inferences cannot be drawn. This subsumes a number of processes such as elementary syllogistic reasoning (e.g., dealing with basic propositional “if … then” statements), correlational reasoning, recognizing when relevant variables have or have not been controlled.

7. Performing inductive reasoning (drawing inferences from particular cases to larger contexts) and hypothetico-deductive reasoning (given a particular situation, applying relevant knowledge of principles and constraints and visualizing, in the abstract, the plausible outcomes that might result from various changes one can imagine to be imposed on the system).

8. Discriminating between inductive and deductive reasoning; that is, being aware when an argument is being made from the particular to the general or from the general to the particular.

9. Testing one’s own line of reasoning and conclusions for internal consistency and thus developing intellectual self-reliance.

10. Developing self-consciousness concerning one’s own thinking and reasoning process (i.e., metacognition).

Lab Readings

31

9. Undergraduate Students’ Views of Education, Learning, and Knowledge

Psychologists and educators — especially William Perry and Blythe McVicker Clinchy — have examined undergraduate students’ views of knowledge, education, and what it means to learn. This has led to the creation of a typology of knowers with four categories: “received knowers,” “subjective knowers,” “procedural knowers,” and “committed knowers.” Below I explain these in some detail to provide you an understanding of how students’ understandings often progress during undergraduate education. My goal is for you to think about where you are currently, and to prompt your reflection on knowledge, learning, and education so that you can consider what it means to move toward the end of the typology. As with all typologies, it simplifies the real world by reducing a complex whole into categories, but nevertheless I believe it is useful as a heuristic tool (one that enhances understanding) because it captures qualitatively different stages of thinking. The typology is paraphrased from Bain (2004: 42-43), who is summarizing the work of Perry, Clinchy, and others.

1. Received knowers – Individuals at this level believe that learning is about checking with the experts to make sure they get the “right answers.” They then set about to memorize these correct answers. Truth for these knowers is external: she can ingest it, but cannot evaluate it or create it for herself. Students in this category expect education to operate according to what Paulo Freire termed the “banking system of education” in which teachers directly deposit correct answers into students’ heads.

2. Subjective knowers – Most students begin to see that experts disagree, often very strongly. Consequently, they come to believe that all knowledge is a matter of opinion. Subjective knowers use only emotion to make judgments. As a result, knowledge is seen to be correct if it feels right. Thus, knowledge is all a matter of opinion. If a student receives a low grade, she will sometimes assert that the teacher did not like her opinion.

3. Procedural knowers – Individuals in this category learn how to play the game of a discipline by the rules. They see that

disciplines create criteria for making judgments about knowledge and arguments, and learn to use these in their papers and assignments. Teachers often consider these students to be the brightest in the class. However, this kind of understanding does not affect how the student thinks outside of class. The student provides the teacher what she wants, but there is little to no sustained or substantial influence of education on how the student thinks, acts, or feels.

4. Committed knowers – Individuals in this category become creative, independent, critical thinkers. They value the ideas and ways of thinking they are exposed to, and seek to use them. They become aware of their own thinking and seek to correct it as they proceed. Within this category of committed knowers, some people are separate knowers. They detach themselves from an idea and remain skeptical and committed to arguing about it. Others are connected knowers, who look at the quality of ideas and arguments instead of trying to discredit them.

It is important to add caveats to this typology. First, people do not just march upward toward category 4. Instead they move back and forth between levels, and often operate at more than one stage at the same time. Second, in their undergraduate majors, students often advance to being procedural knowers, but in other areas of knowledge they may be received or subjective knowers.

Lab Readings

32

10. Toward Critical ConsciousnessLearning is limited and inhibited when power structures protect and preserve the powerful. — Maryellen Weimer (2002: 10)

Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator and one of the world’s most influential pedagogues, developed the idea of conscientização — the development of critical awareness of social realities — that can occur through progressive education. Below is a very short list of important elements of critical consciousness (paraphrased from Freire 1973).

1. A critical perception of the concrete conditions of reality. Instead of being seen as “natural,” society now reveals itself as something unfinished, as something not inexorably given; it has become a challenge rather than a hopeless limitation. This new, critical optimism requires a strong sense of social responsibility and of engagement in the task of transforming society; it cannot mean simply letting things run on.

2. Reflection upon oneself, one’s responsibilities, and one’s role in the ever-developing cultural climate; to reflect on the very power of reflection.

3. Authentic reflection occurs through action, ideally action to transform the concrete reality which has made people into passive objects, rather than active subjects — agents — in society’s creation and recreation.

4. A critically transitive consciousness, characterized by depth in the explanation of problems; by the substitution of causal principles for magical explanations; by the testing of one’s “findings” and by openness to revision; by the attempt to avoid distortion when perceiving problems and to avoid preconceived notions when analyzing them; by refusing to transfer responsibility; by rejecting passive positions; by soundness of argumentation; by the practice of dialogue rather than polemics; by receptivity to the new for reasons beyond mere novelty and by the good sense not to reject the old just because it is old—by accepting what is

valid in both old and new. Critical transitivity is characteristic of authentically democratic regimes and corresponds to highly permeable, interrogative, restless and dialogical forms of life.

5. Critical transitivity allows people to reevaluate constantly, to perceive the challenges of their time, to courageously discuss the problems of their context, to resist being governed completely by the emotional power of transitional times, and to intervene in the present context.

6. Critical transitivity can occur when people are launched into debate, examining common problems.

7. Understanding that alienation results from the current organization of human labor in specialization and mass production.

8. A new stance toward problems, oriented toward research and away from repeating irrelevant principles, or the transmission of inert ideas, which are merely received into the mind without being utilized, tested, or thrown into fresh combinations.

9. Seeing education as an act of love, and thus an act of courage. Education cannot fear the analysis of reality or avoid creative discussion.

10. Create your own: ___________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________

Lab Readings

33

V. Lab Assignment Instructions

Labs are geared to helping students complete the two major lab assignments. The details for each of these assignments are found in this section of the lab manual, while each assignment’s specific in-lab activities are described in the instructions for each lab. The two lab assignments are:

• On-Campus Team Project• Off-Campus Team Project: Yolo County Food System

On-Campus Team Project

Assignment overview We chose our UC Davis campus as the location of the first team project because of its immediate relevance to students and because it presents a powerful opportunity to experience and reflect upon a diverse arrangement of food system actors and locations operating at different scales. Team membership will be determined by learning style and experience with the food system and assigned by the TA in Lab 2 after the completion of the Rapid Campus Appraisal.

The On-Campus Team Project is designed to develop the knowledge, skills, and confidence that are necessary for conducting the Off-Campus Team Project. The learning goals of both Team Projects are to develop students’ knowledge and skills related to the inquiry/research process. As a whole, the Team Project fieldwork supports the practice of observation, analysis, and oral and written communication.

You will be introduced to the on-campus food system through the Rapid Campus Appraisal, which takes place during Lab 1 and Lab 2. This quick appraisal serves to introduce you to locations on campus. At the end of Lab 2, you will be given time as a team to select a location on campus that you want to return to for your research. Once you have selected your location, you will go through a process to create your research questions and interview questions.

In Lab 3, you will visit the campus location you selected and interview your location host. You will take detailed notes on the answers to your research question, as well as notes on your observations of the location. Your team will then return to lab and organize a very brief 5-minute presentation to report your experience and findings to your lab section. By going through the research process — creation of research questions, creation of interview questions, data collection through interviews and fieldwork, data analysis, and presentation — you will gain important foundations for the Off-Campus Team Project, and for your future involvement in experiential learning.

Important dates• Team creation, location selection, and creation of research and interview questions will take

place in Lab 2.• Fieldwork and report out will take place in Lab 3.

Course gradeThis assignment is worth 5% of your total course grade. See the detailed rubric on the next page to see how your work will be evaluated.

34

Rubric: On-Campus Team Project

Team _____________________________

Criteria 1 = excellent, 0 = no credit1 = excellent, 0 = no credit Score

Team’s research questions and fieldwork protocol strongly reflect the Guiding Objectives for Field Trips, or the team’s theoretical lens, or the team’s values and interests.

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

_____

Comments:

Team explains research experience, including what worked and what didn’t work in looking for answers to questions, and what happened and what did not happen when interviewee was asked questions.

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

_____

Comments:

Team summarizes all findings and conclusions, or why there are not findings.

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————> _____

Comments:

Teamwork is evident through all team members engaging in all parts, including research question and protocol creation, fieldwork, and development or delivery of the presentation (even if everyone do not speak during the presentation).

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

_____

Comments:

Team excels at social science research skills, including arriving at research location on time, successfully conducting an interview or other fieldwork, and following up with a “thank you” note to the interviewee(s).

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

_____

Comments:

Overall comments: Total (of 5): _____

On-Campus Team Project

35

Off-Campus Team Project: Yolo County Food System

The Off-Campus Team Project will serve as our guiding project for Labs 4 through 10. You will be going through the research cycle four times for four off-campus field trip that contribute to this project. The instructions in this portion of the lab manual give you an overview and detail on each major part of the assignment. You can find step-by-step instructions for each lab session within the lab activities section of the lab manual. Please refer back to this assignment description for a detailed explanation if you have questions about the activities specific activities in each lab.

Assignment overviewLabs 4-10 are dedicated to the Off-Campus Team Project. As teams you will collaboratively create and execute a small research projects (inquiries) arising from your theoretical lens, the guiding objectives of the field trips related to sustainability (see inside back cover), and your own values and interests. This research will be done in four main phases, corresponding with each off-campus field trip (Farm Field Trip, Food Industry Field Trip, Consumption & Disposal Field Trip, and Food Governance Field Trip). In the lab session following each off-campus field trip your team will make a presentation about your research questions and findings. Only three of the four teams will present during these labs; your TA will let you know which teams will present when. In the last lab, you will create conclusions about the food system as a whole system based on Labs 4-10. Instructions for each portion of the assignment are below.

The seven food system sections for the Off-Campus Team ProjectThe Off-Campus Team Project will span the entire food system, from production to consumption, and back again, including the larger social arrangements that shape it. Below are the various sections of the food systems we will be visiting, along with examples of social units and specific locations where they are found. Section Examples of social units Examples of locations Production Farm, dairy, feedlot, garden Pacific Star GardensProcessing Food manufacturing facility Blue Diamond, HuntsDistribution Distributor, institutional food facility DJUSD warehouseRetail Grocery store, restaurant Nugget, Davis Food Co-OpConsumption Household, individual, housing co-op Pacifico Student Cooperative Disposal Waste collection firm, household (compost) Davis Waste Removal Co.Governance Regulatory agency, food think tank California EPA, Food First

Important dates• Research questions and fieldwork protocol are due to your TA in hard copy at the end of each

lab before off-campus field trips (Labs 3, 5, 7, & 8).• Data collection through fieldwork will occur during Labs 4, 6, 8, & 9.• You will present your findings to your lab section for 15 minutes the lab after each off-campus

field trip. A presentation is due via SmartSite at the beginning of labs in which you present.• Your team’s 3-page essay on Theorizing the Food System will be written in Lab 10 and will

serve to conclude the assignment.

Course gradeThis assignment is worth 25% of your total course grade.

Part 1: Organize one field trip, in coordination with your TAOne of the most important parts of the social science research process is contacting people who will provide primary data for you as a researcher. Your team is responsible for organizing one

Off-Campus Team Project

36

field trip on behalf of your lab section, in coordination with your TA. Seek your TA’s guidance during office hours and/or by email if you need help with any of the following:

• Work with your team to discuss possible field trip locations from the provided choices, in addition to any other locations you may be familiar with personally. Work together to choose a field trip location that you all agree will be the most interesting and beneficial for your lab section’s learning experience.

• Briefly research your chosen field trip locations on the internet by visiting the location’s website, looking at the location via Google Earth or Google Maps in Satellite mode, and conducting any other on-line research that you feel is appropriate. You don’t need to spend more than ~15 to 20 minutes familiarizing yourself with the location.

• Nominate one person from your team to contact the location(s) to arrange the field trip, at least 3 weeks in advance. Use the provided telephone script and/or email template. CC your TA on all email communication, or update your TA by email if you have a telephone conversation.

• Make yourself available to answer any questions the field trip host(s) may have, or direct questions to your TA.

• Confirm the field trip date, time, meeting location, and driving directions with the host 1 week before the field trip.

• Provide the host with suggested themes to talk about on the field trip tour.· On the day of the field trip, assist the TA with picking up and dropping off the field trip

vans from Fleet Services and driving vans to the field trip location.· Send a “Thank You” card or email to your field trip host on behalf of the whole lab

section, within one week after the field trip.

Part 2: Guidelines for your research projectGuideline 1: recognizing the role of theoretical lenses and valuesThe questions researchers ask, the specific topics on which researchers focus, the ways that researchers analyze data all are strongly influenced by the perspective they bring to their research, be it positivist, feminist, political economic, etc. For more background about theoretical lenses, see Lab Reading 4. For the Off-Campus Team Project we are providing some guidance on topics and perspective to simplify your decision-making process.

Additionally, we want you to recognize that ethical and moral values are held by each member of society, with both overlap conflict between people. While all research is informed by values at some level, researchers do not always explicitly state their, though this varies strongly by field and discipline, with the humanities and social sciences most likely to address issues of values. For many researchers, pursuit of new knowledge is a value that they hold deeply, and is often implicitly seen as sufficient justification for any research effort. Since the effects of changes in agriculture and food systems have important consequences for society and all of its members, and changes always benefit some while potentially harming others, it is important to reflect on, discuss, and make explicit values that influence research on food and agriculture.

Guideline 2: gathering primary dataResearchers distinguish between different types of information depending on how it is collected. Primary data refers to new information that is directly collected by the researcher — you! In social science, an example of a type of primary data collection is an interview with an individual in a position to provide information relevant to the research question. We will collect primary data mostly through interviewing the hosts of our off-campus field trip locations, but also through observing the location and the research process of the other teams. Secondary data refers to published data that has been gathered by another individual or research organization. An example of secondary data often used in agri-food studies is the information available from the Census of Agriculture, created by the United States Department of Agriculture. For this assignment we require you to be engaged in interviews with people who host us at our field trip


37

locations and to make observations about the location and experience. You are also encouraged to use secondary data to add to your primary data.

Guideline 3: explanationSocial science differs from natural science in that the objects of research (other people and their cultures, societies, etc.) are also “knowing subjects,” just like the researcher (see Lab Reading 5). In other words, humans hold internal meanings about their own behaviors, and these often differ from the meanings that others attribute to their actions (e.g., think of your interpretation of your actions when you leave dishes in the sink — “I’m in a hurry!”, versus the possible interpretation of a roommate — “That person is lazy”). Because of this difference in interpretation, the process of a social scientist studying human behavior and societies differs from a natural scientist studying the natural world in that the natural world does not create internally meaningful explanations for its workings, nor can it interpret the researchers’ actions and communicate them back to the researcher. Humans that we research, however, certainly do all of these things. Thus, social scientists interested in meanings held by individuals and cultures must distinguish between these internally created meanings and externally created meanings. Anthropologists call these emic and etic understandings. Emic descriptions are those that explain behaviors, beliefs, or phenomena in terms that are meaningful to the actor (in our case, the interviewee). Etic descriptions are those that explain behaviors, beliefs, or phenomena in terms that are meaningful to the researcher, usually with reference to a larger body of academic knowledge, concepts, and theory. In this research project you must ask for people’s own explanations of their behaviors and situations, while also making your own interpretations. Thus, you are responsible for considering both emic and etic explanations.

Part 3: Creating research questions (Labs 3, 5, 7, & 8)During lab, we will allow time for team deliberation on research questions and fieldwork protocols. Research questions are overarching questions that you want to answer with your inquiry. An example of a research question within the context of the Coffee House (CoHo) could be: “What are the environmental impacts of the production processes for the foods purchased at the CoHo? More specifically, what percentage of their food is produced under organic or other ecological certification?” The research questions that you create for each field trip should be created in the context of each specific section of the food system (production, processing, distribution, retail, consumption, disposal, and governance, see Figure 1). The research questions that you create should focus on the social unit(s) that we are examining at each location of our field trips. These social units can be farm businesses; farming and non-farming households; cooperatives; food processing, distributing, and retailing firms; nongovernmental organizations; government agencies; etc. and the individuals that comprise them.

The vital role of inquiry stylesThe way you conduct your research should follow the inquiry style that you are assigned for the particular field trip. You will have the opportunity as a team to implement three inquiry styles for your fieldwork experience. Each team will use each style as specified in the table below, which is also found in the Quick Reference Page on the Lab Manual’s inside back cover.

Theoretical LensFarm Field Trip

(Lab 4)Food Industry

Field Trip (Lab 6)

Consumption & Disposal Field Trip

(Lab 8)

Food Governance Field Trip (Lab 9)

Political economy team

Feminist team

Ecologist team

Geographer team

Style 1: Scientific Style 3: Critical reflection Style 2: Evaluation Style 1: Scientific

Style 1: Scientific Style 1: Scientific Style 3: Critical reflection Style 2: Evaluation

Style 2: Evaluation Style 1: Scientific Style 1: Scientific Style 3: Critical reflection

Style 3: Critical reflection Style 2: Evaluation Style 1: Scientific Style 1: Scientific


38

Style 1. ScientificThe goal of the scientific style of inquiry is for your team to presents your research questions, methods, results, and a discussion of conclusions and implications. The scientific style of inquiry heavily emphasizes the empirical findings (your data) that answer your research question. As such, this style should most heavily feature your theoretical lens. Your lens should inform the questions you ask, and how you go about collecting, interpreting, and presenting your data. This will be challenging, so refer to Lab Reading 4 and the class readings that pertain to the lenses.

Style 2. Evaluation: a (hypothetical) report back to the location(s) on how they might improveYour hypothetical audience for the evaluation style of inquiry are the people at the location(s) that we visit (although you will only present it to your lab section, rather than back to the location). Your role is to gather data on the environmental, social, and economic performance of the social unit and/or location. Your research questions, fieldwork protocol, and analysis should focus on practices and commitments that are going well and practices and commitments that could be improved from your perspective from what you have learned about sustainability. Your theoretical lens should inform your research, but not as strongly as in the scientific style of inquiry.

A good starting place for thinking about questions of evaluation are the general objectives of the field trips, also found in the Quick Reference Page on the Lab Manual’s inside back cover. The ones below are especially relevant:

• Explore the philosophy, goals, and values of the social unit, and its members

• Observe and describe the production, processing, distribution, consumption, and/or disposing practices of the social unit

• Assess the economic results of the activity of these social units, including whether they meet the economic objectives of its constituent members

• Evaluate the potential environmental impacts of current production, distribution, and/or consumption practices of the social unit

• Examine the social relationships that exist within the unit, and the interactions of the social unit with other social groups (such as workers, families, etc.)

Style 3. Critical reflection using photo-voice presentationThe critical reflection inquiry style uses observation. including photographs, as the main method of data collection. This means paying attention to the setting, the actors within it (including the researchers, which are your fellow lab members, yourselves, and your TA), and the interactions between them. In short, you are observers of the other teams’ research process and will offer reflections on it.

The lens used by the researchers, and the values held they hold, are especially important in informing the research questions for the critical reflection. Consider the following questions as examples of initial starting points for your critical reflection style of inquiry:

• What are the values you hold, and how do the practices and arrangements of the location fit these values? How might you assess the correspondence between the values you hold and the location?

• To what extent was the data collected reliable? How did the interviewers likely affect the interviewers’ responses?

• What forms of unspoken social arrangements or assumptions might be structuring or distorting the answers given by the interviewees (e.g., what kind of social class and/or racial dynamics might be at play in our interactions as


39

researchers and participants in the research)?

For this style of inquiry you will use a photo-voice presentation. This means that you will use only photos from your research experience for the visual element, and your notes for the oral portion of the presentation.

Part 4: From research questions to a fieldwork protocol (Labs 3, 5, 7, & 8)Research questions must be answered by gathering data. This can take many forms (see Lab Reading 3), but almost always involves the creation of a fieldwork protocol, which is a document that informs the kinds of data researchers will be looking for while in the field. Since we only have a limited time at each location, our methods of data collection that we can identify in our fieldwork protocols are quite restricted. This means that we will be using two primary methodologies — interviews and observation — and that your protocols should involve one or both of these methodologies.

In most research projects involving interviews, the research questions must inform the creation of specific interview questions. The reason behind this is that interviewees rarely have the data available in a format that is required to answer the research questions directly. Instead, interview questions will need to generate small pieces of the data that can then be assembled by the researcher to answer the larger research question. The examples below from Ryan’s work are meant to help you think through the process of creating research questions and fieldwork protocol. We will also do activities to facilitate the process in lab.

An examples from my own researchMy fieldwork in Costa Rica in 2003-2004 was aimed at answering a number of questions that I found interesting and that could produce information that would confirm, refute, or modify existing theories. One research question I pursued in Costa Rica was, “How are Costa Rican export farmers affected by US food regulations?” In this case, I was able to gather qualitative data by asking direct interview questions, including “What are the requirements for exporting your produce to the US?”, “Did your farming practices change when you began growing for export?”, and, if they answered yes to the last question, “Tell me about how your growing practices changed.” The first question elicited their understandings of US market regulations, so that I could see if they considered them to be important. If they answered yes to the second question, my third question could allow me to find out how US regulations mattered to the farmer. The last two questions allowed me to see if farmers attributed changes in their production practices, including pesticide use, to growing for the US market. This data has also been used in my published research papers (Galt 2007, 2009a).

A step-by-step guide to creating and executing social scientific research questionsStep 1: Exploration of interestsThink as a team about your interests relative to the locations we will be visiting on the next field trip. Think about specific characteristics of the location (urban farm, largest tomato processing plant in the world, a grocery cooperative, etc.) and social relationships (such as between farmer and worker, between processor and distributor, etc.) and environmental relationships (pesticide and fertilizer use, soil erosion, etc.) that might exist there . What about these things do you find interesting? What more might you want to know about them? Record your interests and ideas as you brainstorm.

Step 2: Using your theoretical lensDiscuss your understandings of your theoretical lens, what it will mean to bring that lens to that location, and how you will try to use it to create information about the team’s interests. Answer the following questions, and record your ideas as you brainstorm.

• What are the research objects that are most important in this perspective?


40

• What are the important concepts used by the perspective?• How might this perspective go about gathering information?

For example, as a researcher who adopted a political economy perspective for my work in Costa Rica, I prioritized understanding the way in which international markets were impacting farmers (see example above). As someone who also works in political ecology, I was also keenly interested in seeing how the climate of the area and farmer’s agroecosystem management affected their pesticide use. I have also adopted a feminist perspective in other work, where I was interested in personal experience and emotions as they relate to values (Galt 2009b).

Step 3: Using interests and theoretical lens to create the research questionsCreate a research question that encompasses your team’s interests and is informed by your team’s theoretical lens. For example: “From where does household X purchase their food? More specifically, approximately what percentage of all of household X’s food purchases comes directly from farmers?” In this example, the team’s interest in “direct from farm produce,” and their theoretical lens is “political economy” since they are interested in household economic decisions that support alternatives to the concentrated conventional food system. Both their personal interests and their assigned theoretical lens informed their choice of research questions.

Step 4: Writing a fieldwork protocolAfter discussing how your team will collect data that answer your research question, and keeping in mind that interviews and/or observation must be used for some part of data collection, you will make a fieldwork protocol. This will involve specifying the ways in which you will observe, including the things you will be looking for, and/or more specific interview questions in order to gather the information that will answer your larger research question.

Using the example from above, the team realizes that household members generally do not have accurate information in the format that the team wants. Thus, they come up with the following interview questions:

1. What are all of the places where your household buys food?2. Do you purchase any food directly from farmers?3. Approximately what percentage of your food expenditures go to food directly purchased

from farmers per week?4. Do you want to buy more food directly from farmers?

a. [if yes:] What obstacles do you face in doing this? b. [if no:] Why not?

For the team that is not permitted to ask questions, assuming that they have a similar research question as developed above, they decide on the following protocol:

1. Observe foods in plain sight during the visita. document food labels, including both types and amountsb. document foods without labels, including both types and amounts

2. Observe interactions of other research teams and the intervieweea. pay special attention to questions related to food originsb. pay special attention to mannerisms to determine level of comfort with questions

Part 5: Fieldwork (Labs 4, 6, 8, & 9)Each team will collect data during our field trips in each location by using the fieldwork protocol they developed, through interview questions and/or by making careful observations. Be sure to take very good notes during the interview process so that you have a written record of the data that you can use for analysis.


41

Part 6: Data analysis and presentation (analysis to be completed before Labs 5, 7, 9, & 10 since presentations will occur in these labs)Once the fieldwork is completed, each team must then analyze the data that they have collected. Specific types of data analysis should be conducted with the suggestions and guidance of the TA or professor. Data analysis will be a large part of your team’s presentation to your lab section. Presentations will occur the week following the main off-campus field trips (at the start of Labs 5, 7, 9, & 10). Your team’s presentation and any accompanying materials should be turned in via SmartSite before the start of these labs. Your team will do a total of three presentations for this project.

All presentations should last no more than 15 minutes. For the scientific and evaluation style of inquiry, your presentation should be annotated, meaning that it should not only include the standard bullet points and pictures, but should also include more detailed explanatory notes that you will bring up orally but which do not appear on the visual presentation. It should also be visually rich, not too text heavy, and logically organized (note that the photo-voice style prohibits text from existing on the slides). For the critical reflection style of inquiry, your presentation should have no text (you can use note cards during the presentation, however). Instead of using text on the screen, focus on your oral presentation that will be prompted by the photos you choose to show. Edward Tufte’s (2003: 68-71) guidelines on how to give effective presentations appear on pp. 104-5 of this lab manual.

Part 7: Theorizing the Food System (Lab 10)Your final task of the project is to create a 3-page team paper that uses a systems perspective on the food system, from farm to fork and back again. Systems thinking requires you to examine all of a systems’ parts, how they fit together, its emergent properties, the boundaries of the system (where it ends and begins), and the perspectives from which it is viewed. With that in mind, write a response to the following questions:

1) What have you learned about your specific theoretical lens? What have you learned about theoretical lenses generally? Do you think it is possible to approach research without a starting place like a theoretical lens? Why or why not?

2) What have you learned about inquiry styles (scientific, evaluation, and critical reflection)? Which were easiest and hardest? Why? In what situations might they prove useful?

3) What have you learned about the food system as a whole? How do the parts relate to the whole? Are there emergent properties of the whole system? If so, what are they?

4) Where should we draw boundaries around the food system? What considerations might influence the decision on where boundaries are drawn? What influence does the drawing of boundaries have on our understanding of the system?

5) To what extent can the knowledge produced by the different teams with different theoretical lenses and styles of inquiry be synthesized (combined to form a single explanation) for a coherent view of the food system? To what extent are the understandings incommensurable (impossible to compare because they have no common standard of measurement or understanding)?

Your team’s 3-page answer is due on SmartSite at the end of Lab 10.


42

Rubric: Off-Campus Team Project PresentationPresentation number (circle one): 1 2 3

Date ______________________________

Team _____________________________

Speakers — Note: to be eligible for full credit for the Off-Campus Team Project, each team member must participate in at least two presentations

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________


Team’s research questions reflect the theoretical lens and inquiry style

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————> _____

Comments:

Team explains fieldwork protocol 1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————> _____

Comments:

Team explains experience while researching, including what worked and what did not work

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————> _____

Comments:

Team explains findings and conclusions, if any, from perspective of assigned lens, or why there are no findings

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————> _____

Comments:

Team’s presentation style reflects good presentation techniques and the type required by the inquiry style

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————> _____

Comments:

Teamwork is evident through all members engaging in all parts, including research question and protocol creation, fieldwork, and development or delivery of the presentation.

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

_____

Comments:



43

Rubric: Off-Campus Team Project PaperTeam _____________________________


Demonstrates sophisticated understanding of the team’s assigned theoretical lens by connecting it to specific lab experiences and concepts specific to the lens.

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

_____

Comments:

Interprets theoretical lenses generally, including an assessment of their importance in research and connecting it to more generic concepts such as epistemology, methodology, etc.

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

_____

Comments:

Identifies prominent issues encountered by using the different inquiry styles and where they would be most useful.

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————> _____

Comments:

Demonstrates systems thinking by conceptualizing the food system as a system, including the relationship between the parts and the whole, and emergent properties.

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

_____

Comments:

Defines the boundaries of the food system, and the effects of drawing them in those locations.

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————> _____

Comments:

Identifies and critically assesses many conditions under which synthesis can and cannot occur.

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————> _____

Comments:

Considers situations in which incommensurability will occur and makes recommendations for solutions.

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————>

1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0<———————————————> _____

Comments:


Summary of Off-Campus Team Project Grade

Presentation 1Presentation 1Presentation 1Presentation 1 _____ (of 6)



Theorizing the Food System (paper)Theorizing the Food System (paper)Theorizing the Food System (paper)Theorizing the Food System (paper) _____ (of 7)

Total for Off-Campus Team Project (of 25): _____ Total for Off-Campus Team Project (of 25): _____


44

VI. Lab Activities

Our time in lab will revolve around Team Projects and inquiries at field trip locations. Labs 1 through 3 deal mostly with preparation for, and execution of, the On-Campus Team Project, which focuses on our campus food system. Labs 4 through 10 involve the Off-Campus Team Project, which focuses on the various sections of the larger food system found in Davis, Yolo County, and their immediate surroundings. Both Team Projects use the same inquiry process: each team creates research questions and then gathers primary data — from interviews with the hosts of our location visits and observations made there — to answer their research questions. Each team is assigned a theoretical lens for the quarter, although different styles of inquiry will be used to guide your fieldwork.

A note about this lab manual as a toolThis manual asks you to hand write responses to questions, take notes, and complete

assignments directly in the manual. These writings are meant to facilitate your learning process in lab. You will not be graded on penmanship, spelling, grammar, or punctuation. Instead, view it as your tool for learning and as a source of ideas for your Reflective Essay.

45

Lab 1 — Introduce Lab & Start Rapid Campus Appraisal

PREPARATION

Bring your field trip equipment

Complete the Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic (VAK) Learning Style Assessment belowRead each statement below carefully. To the left of each statement, write the number that best describes how each statement applies to you by using the following guide:

1 2 3 4 5Almost Never

AppliesApplies Once in a

While Sometimes Applies Often Applies Almost Always Applies

Answer honestly, as there are no correct or incorrect answers. It is best if you do not think about each question too long, as this could lead you to the wrong conclusion. Once you have completed all 36 statements (12 statements in three sections), total your score in the spaces provided. This activity is from Donald Clark (1998).

Section One - Visual

_____ 1. I take lots of notes and I like to doodle.

_____ 2. When talking to someone else I have the hardest time handling those who do not maintain good

eye contact with me.

_____ 3. I make lists and notes because I remember things better if I write them down.

_____ 4. When reading a novel I pay a lot of attention to passages picturing the clothing, description,

scenery, setting, etc.

_____ 5. I need to write down directions so that I may remember them.

_____ 6. I need to see the person I am taking to in order in order to keep my attention focused on the

subject.

_____ 7. When meeting a person for the first time I notice the style of dress, visual characteristics, and

neatness first.

_____ 8. When I am at a party, one of the things I love to do is stand back and "people-watch."

_____ 9. When recalling information I can see it in my mind and remember where I saw it.

_____ 10. If I had to explain a new procedure or technique, I would prefer to write it out.

_____ 11. With free time I am most likely to watch television or read.

_____ 12. If my boss has a message for me, I am most comfortable when she sends a memo.

Total For Visual _______ (note: the minimum is 12 and maximum is 60)

Section Two - Auditory

_____ 1. When I read, I read out loud or move my lips to hear the words in my head.

_____ 2. When talking to someone else I have the hardest time handling those who do not talk back with

me.

_____ 3. I do not take a lot of notes but I still remember what was said. Taking notes distracts me from

the speaker.

Lab 1

46

_____ 4. When reading a novel I pay a lot of attention to passages involving conversations, talking,

speaking, dialogues, etc.

_____ 5. I like to talk to myself when solving a problem or writing.

_____ 6. I can understand what a speaker says, even if I am not focused on the speaker.

_____ 7. I remember things easier by repeating them again and again.

_____ 8. When I am at a party, one of the things I love to do is talk in-depth about a subject that is

important to me with a good conversationalist.

_____ 9. I would rather receive information from the radio, rather than a newspaper.

_____ 10. If I had to explain a new procedure or technique, I would prefer telling about it.

_____ 11. With free time I am most likely to listen to music.

_____ 12. If my boss has a message for me, I am most comfortable when she calls on the phone.

Total For Auditory _______ (note: the minimum is 12 and maximum is 60)

Section Three - Kinesthetic

_____ 1. I am not good at reading or listening to directions. I would rather just start working on the task

or project at hand.

_____ 2. When talking to someone else I have the hardest time handling those who do not show any kind

of emotional support.

_____ 3. I take notes and doodle but I rarely go back a look at them.

_____ 4. When reading a novel I pay a lot of attention to passages revealing feelings, moods, action,

drama, etc.

_____ 5. When I am reading, I move my lips.

_____ 6. I will exchange words and places and use my hands a lot when I can't remember the right thing

to say.

_____ 7. My desk appears disorganized.

_____ 8. When I am at a party, one of the things I love to do is enjoy the activities such as dancing,

games, and totally losing myself in the action.

_____ 9. I like to move around. I feel trapped when seated at a meeting or a desk.

_____ 10. If I had to explain a new procedure or technique, I would prefer actually demonstrating it.

_____ 11. With free time I am most likely to exercise.

_____ 12. If my boss has a message for me, I am most comfortable when she talks to me in person.

Total For Kinesthetic _______ (note: the minimum is 12 and maximum is 60)

Tallying ProceduresTotal each section and place the sum in the blocks below:

VISUAL AUDITORY KINESTHETIC

number of points: ________



NOTE: you will likely learn best by using ALL three styles, rather than just your preferred learning style.

Lab 1

47

Review Lecture 2 readings and read pp. 4-13 of lab manualUse the space below for any questions and thoughts that arise from reading the lab manual.

Lab 1

48

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • IN-LAB ACTIVITIES Agenda1. Activity: Learning styles group-activity2. Assignment: Learning styles reflection & sharing with class3. TA mini-lecture: Introduce learning goals for lab & Reflective Essay4. TA mini-lecture: Introduce On-Campus Team Project5. Discussion: Field trip logistics for off-campus fieldwork6. Rapid Campus Appraisal, Part 1 (Student Farm)

Details1. Activity: Learning styles group-activityThe floor has a spatially organized diagram with tape marking different areas that represent the Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic learning styles. Follow your TA’s instructions regarding where to stand based on your preferred learning style. This enables the lab as a whole to demonstrate the relative distribution of students’ differing learning styles.

2. Assignment: Learning styles reflection & sharing with classSTEP 1: Personal reflectionReflect and write for 5 minutes on experiences in school or elsewhere that illustrate a learning style preference of yours and someone you know, and the implications of having a diversity of learning styles within your class and lab section. Write 1-2 sentences per question below.

What patterns do you see when looking at the history of your learning experiences? Have you tended to favor one learning style over another? Describe your experiences, patterns, and learning style preference.

Can you recall an example of a learning style preference demonstrated by someone in your family or a friend? If so, describe their learning style.

Lab 1

49

How might this diversity be a challenge to learning in the class?

How might this diversity be an opportunity for learning in the class?

STEP 2: Sharing reflectionsWhen prompted by your TA, share your thoughts on learning styles and about the opportunities and challenges different learning styles pose. Take notes on what other students say.

Lab 1

50

3. TA mini-lecture: Introduce learning goals for lab & Reflective Essay

4. TA mini-lecture: Introduce On-Campus Team Project

5. Discussion: Field trip logistics for off-campus fieldwork

Lab 1

51

6. Rapid Campus Appraisal (Student Farm)We will enter the field and begin observing the current situation on campus. For the remainder of Lab 1 we will go to the Student Farm. We will continue this Rapid Campus Appraisal in Lab 2, where we will meet directly at the first field trip location. We will travel by bike or golf cart and visit many of the following locations: Segundo Dining Commons, ASUCD Coffee House, the Meat Lab, the Silo, and the on-campus Farmers Market.

Staff at each of these locations will give a tour of their operation, and, if time allows, may address some questions that they have been provided ahead of time. The TA’s will model the interview process, but you should feel free to ask questions as well.

Use the following space to take notes on each location we visit. Notes can include questions, responses, observations, new terms, points of confusion, hand sketches, etc. Feel free to take photos, but be sure to do so in a respectful manner.FIELD NOTES

Date:

Location 1:

Interviewee:

Lab 1

52

Notes on Location 1, continued

Lab 1

53

Lab 2 — Complete Rapid Campus Appraisal & Introduce On-Campus Team Project

PREPARATION

Bring your field trip equipment and your bicycleMeet at the first field trip location.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • IN-LAB ACTIVITIESAgenda1. Rapid Campus Appraisal, continued2. On-Campus Team Project, Part 1: Team creation, location selection, and research questions

Details1. Rapid Campus Appraisal, continuedLocations for today include many of the following locations: Segundo Dining Commons, ASUCD Coffee House, the Meat Lab, the Silo, and the on-campus Farmers Market. Your TA will let you know the exact locations of the trip.

Use the following space to take notes on each location we visit. Notes can include questions, responses, observations, new terms, points of confusion, hand sketches, etc. Feel free to take photos, but be sure to do so in a respectful manner.FIELD NOTES

Date:

Location 2:

Interviewee:

Lab 2

54

Location 3:

Interviewee:

Lab 2

55

Location 4:

Interviewee:

Lab 2

56

Location 5:

Interviewee:

Lab 2

57

2. On-Campus Team Project, Part 1: Team creation, location selection, and research question creationAt the conclusion of Lab 2’s on-campus field trip, teams will be announced by your TA. Immediately after the trip, each team meets and is required to identify one location and create one to three research questions about that food system location that they want to answer. The teams are responsible for reporting their research question and location to your TA before the end of the lab session. This will allow your TA to provide feedback.

Just as chemists prepare for laboratory time by understanding the processes and theories that they want to use and test, social scientists need to prepare for our fieldwork by creating answerable research questions. Once we enter the field, everything we see, hear, and experience can become data. Because interviews are a real-time social situation, social scientists need to be prepared by at least (1) being ready with thoughtful interview questions that can help answer the research question(s), (2) anticipating potential responses and ways of asking follow-up questions once interviewees respond, and (3) being prepared to record the experience (either with a digital audio recorder, and/or by notes, photos, etc.) as data to be analyzed later.

STEP 1: Choose your locationThink back to the locations we have visited so far. As a team, choose one to which you would like to return to find out more information.

STEP 2: Consider and discuss one system of sustainability metricsSetting metrics (or criteria) by which to measure or judge food and/or a food related process or policy enables us to discover and assess the character and qualities of specific foods and parts of the food system. Many such sets of metrics can exist. For example, the Real Food Challenge is a student movement seeking to increase the sustainability of food procurement on U.S. college and university campuses. Their goal is for our colleges and universities to procure 20% real food by 2020 (Real Food Challenge 2010). Their “Real Food Calculator” (see handout) contains a set of metrics that can be used to assess the campus food system. It is one possible instrument with a set of criteria that can be used in the inquiry process about the campus food system.

Examine the RFC Calculator’s criteria for real food: local, fair, ecologically sound, and humane. Now think about the values that underly these various metrics. Ask yourselves:

• What values — standards of personal and social behavior, and judgment of what is important — underly these metrics as defined by the RFC? One way to approach this is to ask, why do we care if our food is _____ (locally grown, directly purchased from a farmer, produced by workers who earn a decent wage, produced organically, etc.)? Maybe you don’t care, in which case there is likely another value underlying that sentiment as well.

• To what extent do these criteria (local, fair, etc.) fit your values and interests?

With your team, explore any new or different criteria of interest that might better match your values and interests with measurable criteria for sustainable food and food systems.

STEP 3: Discuss values underlying other sustainability metricsAs a team, discuss the following questions:

• What makes food or a food system sustainable?

• What should a sustainable food system look like?

• What is allowed, what is not, and why?

• Where are the thresholds and boundaries around what we consider sustainable?

Now discuss how to link these values to measurable criteria. Table 6 shows some examples.

Lab 2

58

Table 6: Examples of values and how they can translate into measurable criteria for researchTable 6: Examples of values and how they can translate into measurable criteria for researchTable 6: Examples of values and how they can translate into measurable criteria for research

Values: One’s standards of personal and social behavior, and the judgment of what is important.

Metrics: Criteria by which something may be judged. Once defined, metrics can inform data gathering on practices of social units (farms, food services, restaurants, consumer households, universities, neighborhoods, cities, etc.). By analyzing the gathered data, metrics can be used to assess these practices.

1 Animals should be treated with kindness and not cruelty.

Livestock producers and slaughterhouses treat animals humanly.

2 People should get paid the least free-market value for their labor.

Minimum wage is paid in food and agriculture work when there is a surplus of workers.

3 People should be compensated fairly for their labor.

Grocery stores stock fair trade and/or union made items.

4 Agriculture should enhance, not contaminate, the environment.

Farms produce food under organic or other ecological certification.

5 Food should be nourishing, not hazardous to peoples' health.

Food processors minimally process foods and ensure that they are free from preservatives, antibiotics, and hormones.

6 Food should be convenient and cheap.

Fast food restaurants, discount grocery stores, and other retail food outlets are located near residential areas.

7 Nourishing, culturally appropriate food should be affordable and accessible to everyone.

Cities have nutritious and culturally appropriate food located within 5 miles of all residents, and citizens can purchase food on less than 10% of annual income.

8 Government regulation is bad. Food is produced with few or no labor and environmental laws (e.g., no pesticide regulation, no minimum wage laws).

STEP 4: Brainstorm about questions through the perspective of your values and interests (10 minutes)This step has two parts. First, brainstorm individually and write down ideas for about 2 minutes using sticky notes. Write each idea on a separate sticky note. You are encouraged to think adventurously. There are no stupid questions. Think about what aspects of the location piqued your interest. Also start with reflection on your values as they relate to the food system, and how different aspects of the food system might be in line, or not be in line, with your values. These interests and values should inform the questions you are asking.

For the second part, share your ideas as a team, one by one, by reading them aloud. At this point, avoid making judgments or comments about the ideas generated. Next, discuss and refine the existing questions with your teammates and add new ones to new sticky notes based on discussion. This should take about 8 minutes.

Step 5: As a team, process and organize your large stack of sticky notes into research and interview question (10 minutes)Combine all of your team’s sticky notes and organize them by groupings. In organizing, address these questions:

• Are there any questions that overlap and/or that can be combined?• How might your questions be organized in terms of an outline or hierarchy? Think about

which questions fit under other questions (i.e., are any questions a subset of a larger question?).

• Can they be grouped into three or fewer larger, overarching research questions or categories? Think about which questions are more general, and which are more specific.

• Which, if any, remain at the overarching values level, and which present the opportunity to discover a yes or no answer? Consider focusing on ones that enable you to retrieve an

Lab 2

59

idea of the intensity, frequency at which something may or may not be happening (e.g., what percentage of your coffee is fair trade certified?).

Now think about how these research questions can be answered through data to be gathered at the location. For this project, we advise you to create questions that are asked in a way that they have a good chance of being answered. For example, if students want to ask whether the meat they purchase at the Coffee House was raised hormone free (see Glossary), the team might only have enough time to examine the details of one kind of meat product offered (say, chicken salad). If students want to find out about fair trade products (see Glossary) at Segundo Dinning Commons, then it might be possible to only examine one or two food types, like bananas or coffee. For this project, we are focusing on practicing the entire cycle of inquiry, rather than going deep into a particular topic or location or across multiple locations.

Once you are done, you should have one to three overarching research questions, and a number of possible interview questions. Use the space provided to write down your final research questions and the interview questions that you will use during your fieldwork for this project in Lab 3. Write one additional copy of your research and interview questions to hand into your TA at the end of lab. (Optional: take a photo of your finished product for your own records.)

On-Campus Team Project research question(s):

On-Campus Team Project interview questions. Be sure to leave plenty of space between them so that you can takes note of the interviewee’s response. You will use this in Lab 3.

Lab 2

60

On-Campus Team Project interview questions, continued. Be sure to leave plenty of space between them so that you can takes note of the interviewee’s response. You will use this in Lab 3.

Turn in a copy of your questions to your TA before you leave lab.

Lab 2

61

Lab 3 — Complete On-Campus Team Project & Introduce Off-Campus Team Project

PREPARATION

Read Lab Readings 1 through 5 and be prepared for discussionUse the space below for your questions and thoughts on the readings.

Lab 3

62

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • IN-LAB ACTIVITIES Agenda1. On-Campus Team Project, Part 2: Discuss & rehearse fieldwork protocol2. On-Campus Team Project, Part 3: Collect data through fieldwork3. On-Campus Team Project, Part 4: Work on and give brief report-out on fieldwork4. TA mini-lecture: Introduce Off-Campus Team Project5. TA + Team 1 mini-lecture: Introduce Farm Field Trip6. Off-Campus Team Project: Create research questions and fieldwork protocol for Farm Field Trip7. Discussion: Lab Readings 1-5

Details1. On-Campus Team Project, Part 2: Discuss & rehearse fieldwork protocolSTEP 1: Review your questionsAs a team, you have about 15 minutes to review your research questions and fieldwork protocol (formulated in the previous lab).

STEP 2: Prepare for fieldwork methodAs a team you need to familiarize yourselves with the fieldwork method of interviewing. We want you to visit with the host(s), ask them a few questions, and take careful notes about what they say and your experience generally. To help you prepare ahead of time, the TA will present a basic outline of how to approach an interviewee and what steps to take to get the most out of it.

2. On-Campus Team Project, Part 3: Collect data through fieldworkSTEP 1: FieldworkYou have 10 minutes to get to your selected on-campus fieldwork locations. Once on location, you have about 30 minutes to find the host and answer your questions, and conduct any additional data collection. Do not panic if your questions are unanswerable within the time allowed. You only need to give your best effort to do an excellent job in this activity. Your grade does not depend on the correctness of your answers, but on the effort of your questioning.

Take notes on the last pages of Lab 2 activities to capture the interviewee’s responses to each of your interview questions. Your notes only need to be readable to you. This is your record of your meeting with the host and is for your personal use in discussions with your team and reporting to your lab section.FIELD NOTES

Date:

Location:

Interviewee:

Lab 3

63

FIELD NOTES, continued

3. On-Campus Team Project, Part 4: Work on and give brief report-out on fieldwork (5 minutes)STEP 1: Make notes for report-outTeams will return to the lab room to work on a report-out on the experience. Describe below your experience of what worked and what didn’t work in looking for answers to your questions. What happened when you asked your interviewee your questions? Use the rubric for the presentation to guide your work here (p. 35). These notes will help you with your report-out.

STEP 2: Decide on presentationAs a team, decide how you will present the experience and findings of your fieldwork. You can choose to have everyone speak, only some, or just one person. Your team presentation must be very brief, about 5 minutes in length. See the rubric on p. 35 to see how you will be evaluated.

In your team presentation spend one-third of the time speaking about the research question and location you selected, and why you selected them; one-third of the time describing the team’s research experience, especially asking the interviewee the questions; and one-third of the time discussing your findings, as well as what you were unable to answer.

Use the space below to record the outline for your presentation.

Lab 3

64

1. Location and research question(s):

2. Experience while researching:

3. Findings, if any:

Lab 3

65

Use the space below to take notes on the presentation of the other teams. What did you learn from their experiences?1. Location and research question(s):



————————————————————————————————————————————1. Location and research question(s):



Lab 3

66

————————————————————————————————————————————1. Location and research question(s):



Lab 3

67

4. TA mini-lecture: Introduce Off-Campus Team Project

5. TA + Team 1 mini-lecture: Introduce Farm Field Trip

6. Create questions for Farm Field Trip

Theoretical Lens Farm Field Trip (Lab 4)

Food Industry Field Trip (Lab 6)


(Lab 8)



Feminist team

Ecologist team

Geographer team

Choice of style Style 3: Critical reflection Style 2: Evaluation Style 1: Scientific

Style 1: Scientific Choice of style Style 3: Critical reflection Style 2: Evaluation

Style 2: Evaluation Style 1: Scientific Choice of style Style 3: Critical reflection

Style 3: Critical reflection Style 2: Evaluation Style 1: Scientific Choice of style

STEP 1: Review the style of inquiry your team will be using (pp. 38-40)Make sure you understand the style of inquiry you will be using. Check with your TA and/or tutor if you have questions about your particular style.

STEP 2: Brainstorm about research questions (3-5 minutes)This step has two parts. First, brainstorm individually and write down ideas for 1-2 minutes using sticky notes. Write each idea on a separate sticky note. You are encouraged to think adventurously. There are no stupid questions. If you are doing the scientific style of inquiry, use your theoretical lens. If you are using the evaluation style of inquiry, use the Guiding Objectives for Field Trips (in the Quick Reference Page) as the basis for your questions. If you are using the critical reflection style of inquiry, use your own values and what you might be able to observe as the basis for your questions.

Lab 3

68

For the second part, as a team share your ideas, one by one, by reading them aloud. At this point, avoid making judgments or comments about the ideas generated. Next, discuss and refine the existing questions with your teammates and add new ones to new sticky notes based on discussion.

Step 3: As a team, process and organize your large stack of sticky notes into research questions and fieldwork protocol (10 minutes)Combine all of your team’s sticky notes and organizes them by groupings. In organizing, address all of these questions: Are there any questions that overlap and/or that can be combined? Can any exact duplicates be removed? Which questions fit under other questions, i.e., are any questions a subset of a larger questions? How might they be organized in terms of an outline or hierarchy? Can they be grouped into three or fewer larger, overarching research questions or categories?

Once you are done, you should have one to three overarching research questions, and a fieldwork protocol that includes a number of possible interview questions and/or observations you are prepared to make. Use the space provided to write down your final research questions and fieldwork protocol that you will use during your fieldwork for the Farm Field Trip. Write one additional copy of your research questions and fieldwork protocol to hand into your TA at the end of lab. (Optional: take a photo of your finished product for your own records.)

Research question(s) for Farm Field Trip:

Fieldwork protocol for Farm Field Trip. Be sure to leave plenty of space between them so that you can takes note of the interviewee’s response. You will use this in Lab 4.

Lab 3

69

Fieldwork protocol for Farm Field Trip, continued. Be sure to leave plenty of space between them so that you can takes note of the interviewee’s response. You will use this in Lab 4.

Lab 3

70

7. Discussion: Lab Readings 1-5

Lab 3

71

Lab 4 — Farm Field Trip

PREPARATION


• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • IN-LAB ACTIVITIES Agenda1. Farm Field Trip

Details1. Farm Field TripYou will use the fieldwork protocol you developed in Lab 3. In addition to taking notes about the interviewee’s response to your team’s questions, use this page and the next to take additional notes, including the other team’s questions, the interviewee’s response, and your observations of the locations. Feel free to take photos, but be sure to do so in a respectful manner.FIELD NOTES

Date:

Location 1:

Interviewee:

Lab 4

72

Date:

Location 2:

Interviewee:

Lab 4

73

Lab 5 — Debrief from Farm Field Trip & Introduce Food Industry Field Trip

PREPARATION

Prepare Report Out on Farm Field TripSee Off-Campus Team Project assignment.

Upload your presentation and handout to SmartSite before lab

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • IN-LAB ACTIVITIES Agenda1. Report-out from each team on Farm Field Trip2. TA + Team 2 mini-lecture: Introduce Food Industry Field Trip3. Create questions for Food Industry 3Field Trip4. Activity: mid-quarter competency self-assessment5. Activity: free write for Reflective Essay 6. Discussion: Lab Readings 6-7

Details1. Report-out from each team on Farm Field TripNotes on Team _______________’s presentation

Lab 5

74

Notes on Team _______________’s presentation

Lab 5

75

2. TA + Team 2 mini-lecture: Introduce Food Industry Field Trip

3. Create questions for Food Industry Field Trip



Field Trip (Lab 6)


(Lab 8)



Feminist team

Ecologist team

Geographer team






STEP 2: Brainstorm about research questions (3-5 minutes)This step has two parts. First, brainstorm individually and write down ideas for 1-2 minutes using sticky notes. Write each idea on a separate sticky note. You are encouraged to think adventurously. There are no stupid questions. If you are doing the scientific style of inquiry, use your theoretical lens. If you are using the evaluation style of inquiry, use the set of sustainability criteria as the basis for your questions. If you are using the critical reflection style of inquiry, use your own values and what you might be able to observe as the basis for your questions.


Step 3: As a team, process and organize your large stack of sticky notes into research questions and fieldwork protocol (10 minutes)Combine all of your team’s sticky notes and organizes them by groupings. In organizing, address all of these questions: Are there any questions that overlap and/or that can be combined? Can any exact duplicates be removed? Which questions fit under other questions, i.e., are any questions a subset of a larger questions? How might they be organized in terms of

Lab 5

76

an outline or hierarchy? Can they be grouped into three or fewer larger, overarching research questions or categories?

Once you are done, you should have one to three overarching research questions, and a number of possible interview questions and/or observations you are prepared to make. Use the space provided to write down your final research questions and the fieldwork protocol that you will use during your fieldwork for the Food Industry Field Trip. Write one additional copy of your research questions and fieldwork protocol to hand into your TA at the end of lab. (Optional: take a photo of your finished product for your own records.)

Research question(s) for Food Industry Field Trip:

Fieldwork protocol for Food Industry Field Trip. Be sure to leave plenty of space between them so that you can takes note of the interviewee’s response. You will use this in Lab 6.

Lab 5

77

Fieldwork protocol for Food Industry Field Trip, continued. Be sure to leave plenty of space between them so that you can takes note of the interviewee’s response. You will use this in Lab 6.

Lab 5

78

4. Activity: mid-quarter competency self-assessmentComplete the mid-quarter competency self-assessment on pp. 12-13, being sure to use an “M” for this assessment and to fill in data regarding assignments we have completed up to this point.

5. Activity: free write for Reflective EssayOne suggested technique for a first draft is to create a "Mad Draft" free write using the writing prompts below. Hand write (or type) continuously for 10 minutes without stopping. For homework, you should then type and revise their “mad draft” to create a rough draft that will be used in a peer editing process in Lab 7. The point is to get them jump-started on thinking about, writing, and revising their Reflective Essay.

Free Write Prompts: (many of these are from the Reflective Essay instructions)• How would you define a “food system”? How has this changed since the start of

class?• Why have we studied the food system?• What is one key issue that has emerged during your study of the food system

from fieldwork, lecture, or lab?• What have been your personal experiences from your food system inquiry

process?• What are some theories and concepts that you have learned? How do they relate

to your fieldwork? How do they relate to you as a consumer/citizen?• What are the implications of your learning experiences?• In what ways have you learned to communicate better? To learn better? To

cooperate better?• How has this process of food systems inquiry clarified or challenged your own

values? (as a learner, consumer, member of the Davis community?)• Think back to your experience researching and writing your Food Diary. What

did you learn about the food system that you participate in? What did you learn about yourself?

• What are you left wondering?


Lab 5

79

Lab 6 — Food Industry Field Trip (Processing, Distribution, & Retail)

PREPARATION


• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • IN-LAB ACTIVITIES Agenda1. Food Industry Field Trip (Processing, Distribution, & Retail)

Details1. Food Industry Field Trip (Processing, Distribution, & Retail)You will use the fieldwork protocol you developed in Lab 5. In addition to taking notes about the interviewee’s response to your team’s questions, use this page and the next to take additional notes, including the other team’s questions, the interviewee’s response, and your observations of the locations. Feel free to take photos, but be sure to do so in a respectful manner.FIELD NOTES

Date:

Location 1:

Interviewee:

Lab 6

80

Date:

Location 2:

Interviewee:

Lab 6

81

Lab 7 — Debrief from Food Industry Field Trip & Introduce Consumption & Disposal Field Trip

PREPARATIONPrepare Report Out on Food Industry Field TripSee Off-Campus Team Project assignment.


• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • IN-LAB ACTIVITIES Agenda1. Report-out from each team on Food Industry Field Trip2. TA + Team 3 mini-lecture: Introduce Consumption & Disposal Field Trip3. Create questions for Consumption & Disposal Field Trip4. Discussion: Reflective Essay expectations5. Discussion: Lab Readings 8-10 + lecture readings

Details1. Report-out from each team on Food Industry Field TripNotes on Team _______________’s presentation

Lab 7

82


Lab 7

83

2. TA + Team 3 mini-lecture: Introduce Consumption & Disposal Field Trip

3. Create questions for Consumption & Disposal Field Trip



Field Trip (Lab 6)


(Lab 8)



Feminist team

Ecologist team

Geographer team









Lab 7

84


Once you are done, you should have one to three overarching research questions, and a number of possible interview questions and/or observations you are prepared to make. Use the space provided to write down your final research questions and the fieldwork protocol that you will use during your fieldwork for the Consumption & Disposal Field Trip. Write one additional copy of your research questions and fieldwork protocol to hand into your TA at the end of lab. (Optional: take a photo of your finished product for your own records.)

Research question(s) for Consumption & Disposal Field Trip:

Fieldwork protocol for Consumption & Disposal Field Trip. Be sure to leave plenty of space between them so that you can takes note of the interviewee’s response. You will use this in Lab 8.

Lab 7

85

Fieldwork protocol for Consumption & Disposal Field Trip, continued. Be sure to leave plenty of space between them so that you can takes note of the interviewee’s response. You will use this in Lab 8.

Lab 7

86

4. Discussion: Reflective Essay examples and expectationsYour TA will lead a discussion of expectations for your Reflective Essays and will read examples from previous students’ essays.


Lab 7

87

Lab 8 — Consumption & Disposal Field Trip

PREPARATION


• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • IN-LAB ACTIVITIES Agenda1. Consumption & Disposal Field Trip

Details1. Consumption & Disposal Field TripYou will use the fieldwork protocol you developed in Lab 7. In addition to taking notes about the interviewee’s response to your team’s questions, use this page and the next to take additional notes, including the other team’s questions, the interviewee’s response, and your observations of the locations. Feel free to take photos, but be sure to do so in a respectful manner.FIELD NOTES

Date:

Location 1:

Interviewee:

Lab 8

88

Date:

Location 2:

Interviewee:

Lab 8

89

Lab 9 — Debrief from Consumption & Disposal Field Trip, plus Food Governance Field Trip

PREPARATION


Prepare Report Out on Consumption & Disposal Field TripSee Off-Campus Team Project assignment.


• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • IN-LAB ACTIVITIES Agenda1. Report-out from each team on Consumption & Disposal Field Trip2. TA + Team 4 mini-lecture: Introduce Food Governance Field Trip3. Create questions for Food Governance Field Trip4. Food Governance Field Trip

Details1. Report-out from each team on Consumption & Disposal Field TripNotes on Team _______________’s presentation

Lab 9

90


Lab 9

91

2. TA + Team 4 mini-lecture: Introduce Food Governance Field Trip

3. Create questions for Food Governance Field Trip



Field Trip (Lab 6)


(Lab 8)



Feminist team

Ecologist team

Geographer team









Lab 9

92


Once you are done, you should have one to three overarching research questions, and a number of possible interview questions and/or observations you are prepared to make. Use the space provided to write down your final research questions and the fieldwork protocol that you will use during your fieldwork for the Food Governance Field Trip.

Research question(s) for Food Governance Field Trip:

Fieldwork protocol for Food Governance Field Trip. Be sure to leave plenty of space between them so that you can takes note of the interviewee’s response. Unlike in the last few field trips, you will use these questions immediately.

Lab 9

93

4. Food Governance Field TripYou will use the fieldwork protocol you just developed. In addition to taking notes about the interviewee’s response to your team’s questions, use this page and the next to take additional notes, including the other team’s questions, the interviewee’s response, and your observations of the locations. Feel free to take photos, but be sure to do so in a respectful manner.FIELD NOTES

Date:

Location:

Interviewee:

Lab 9

94

FIELD NOTES, continued

Lab 9

95

Lab 10 — Debrief from Food Governance Field Trip, plus Theorizing the Food System

PREPARATION

Prepare Report Out on Food Governance Field TripSee Off-Campus Team Project assignment.


• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • IN-LAB ACTIVITIES Agenda1. Report-out from each team on Food Governance Field Trip2. Theorizing the Food System

Details

1. Report-out from each team on Governance Field TripNotes on Team _______________’s presentation

Lab 10

96


Lab 10

97

2. Theorizing the Food SystemTo conclude the Off-Campus Team Project, your task is to create a 3-page team paper that uses a systems perspective on the food system, from farm to fork and back again, drawing specifically on concepts and theories you have learned and all of the off-campus field trips. Systems thinking requires you to examine all of a systems’ parts, how they fit together, its emergent properties, and the boundaries of the system (where it ends and begins). With that in mind, write a response to the following questions:

1) What have you learned about your specific theoretical lens? What have you learned about theoretical lenses generally? Do you think it is possible to approach research without a starting place like a theoretical lens? Why or why not?

2) What have you learned about inquiry styles (scientific, evaluation, and critical reflection)? Which were easiest and hardest? Why? In what situations might they prove useful?

3) What have you learned about the food system as a whole? How do the parts relate to the whole? Are there emergent properties of the whole system? If so, what are they?

4) Where should we draw boundaries around the food system? What considerations might influence the decision on where boundaries are drawn? What influence does the drawing of boundaries have on our understanding of the system?

5) To what extent can the knowledge produced by the different teams with different theoretical lenses and styles of inquiry be synthesized (combined to form a single explanation) for a coherent view of the food system? To what extent are the understandings incommensurable (impossible to compare because they have no common standard of measurement or understanding)?

Your team’s 3-page answer is due on SmartSite at the end of Lab 10.

Lab 10

98

VII. A Brief Guide to Academic Practices and Norms

The writing process: learning from experienced academic writersWhy write? Writing in response to well-designed assignments on subject matter problems

(e.g., problems in agri-food studies) is one of the best tools for getting learners to engage in sustained critical thinking (see Lab Reading 8). The underlying premise of the writing you will do in this class is that presenting learners with significant problems about which to write will promote cognitive and intellectual growth (Bean 1996: xiii). A crucial but often neglected part of the writing process is what Bean (1996: xiii) calls “the intellectual struggle of revision.” It is in revision that the true craft of good writing is learned. Thus, we provide opportunities for you to receive feedback on your work before it is due (for example, by requiring exam outlines be approved prior to exams).

Many believe that great writers easily produce excellent writing in their first attempt. Another misconception is that we should think, and then write, as if thinking and writing are separate activities. This view of writing, fortunately, is far from how the best writing actually proceeds. Experienced writers constantly revise and rethink their work. They follow a writing process similar to that described by Bean (1996: 30-31) and noted below:

1. Starting point: perception of a problem. Expert writers feel an uncertainty, doubt a theory, note a piece of unexplained data, puzzle over an observation, confront a view that seems mistaken, or otherwise articulate a question or a problem.

2. Exploration. The expert writer gathers data through library or laboratory and field research and through probing of memory; explores ideas in a journal or research log, in the margins of texts, or on note cards or the backs of envelopes; analyzes, compares, puzzles, talks with others, writes to self; focuses intensely on the problem. The expert writer often explores ideas by rapid drafting of potential pieces of the essay or by making notes, doodles, or tentative outlines.

3. Incubation. The writer takes time off from the problem, does other things, and lets ideas cook in the subconscious. These first three stages are all recursive (characterized by recurrence, repetition, or moving circularly as one moves between the tasks) — as writers alternate between exploration and incubation, their perception of the problem may change.

4. Writing the first draft. Expert writers try to get ideas down on paper in preliminary form. Some writers make an informal outline prior to writing; others discover direction as they write, often pursuing different branches of ideas without worrying about order or coherence. To avoid writer’s block, expert writers lower expectations. They do no try to make first drafts perfect as they go.

5. Reformulation or revision. Having gone once through the territory, expert writers take another look at the problem and think it through again. Many writers report dismantling their first drafts and starting afresh, often discovering their true thesis at the conclusion of their first draft. At this point, writers often make new outlines; they begin considering audience; they clarify their rhetorical purpose (what they are trying to persuade others to believe); they try to make the essay work for readers. Several drafts are often necessary as writer-based prose is gradually converted to reader-based prose.

6. Editing. At this point, craftsmanship takes over from initial creativity. Writers worry about unity, coherence, paragraphing, sentence structure. Finally, writers begin to polish by correcting spelling and punctuation. Often, the recursive nature of the process is again felt as a writer, working on sentence structure, discovers new meanings or new intentions that require the rethinking of minor or even major parts of the essay.

99

Citation: the foundation of good scholarshipAn absolutely essential part of academic practice is citation, which means correctly identifying

the source of information you use in your writing and presentations. There are a variety of citation styles used in the academy, but in my class I ask that you use parenthetical citations: who and when, written within parentheses, with page numbers for direct quotes. This style is used throughout this manual, including the next sentence. As on eminent scientist wrote, “I believe that this system of referencing is one of the few potential contributions that scientists, normally not a very literate lot, might supply to other fields of written scholarship” (Gould 1996: 16).

Primary SourcesDuring our field trips you will meet and interview many people who work in some part of

the food system. For research purposes, we call these people primary sources. They provide us with primary data, which is information that is unfiltered and not yet analyzed by another researcher, although as people they themselves already have filtered and analyzed this information. That people are our research objects — but also knowing subjects — makes the social sciences different from the natural sciences (see Lab Reading 5), but it is also possible to collect information of use to the biophysical sciences through interviews with people (e.g., resource use).

Secondary SourcesSecondary sources refer to sources that provide secondary data, or information that has been

created and/or analyzed by other researchers. This can include data sets from publicly available databases, published scholarly articles, newspaper and magazine articles, documentary films, etc. To locate secondary data, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar are powerful, general search engines with different capabilities.

WoS is available through the UC Davis library system: http://isiknowledge.com/wos. Scopus is available through the UC Davis library system: http://www.scopus.com/. Google Scholar is available to the public: http://scholar.google.com/.

The Next-Generation Melvyl Pilot is an impressive system with many articles as part of its database. It also is available through the UC Davis library: http://ucdavis.worldcat.org/.

The UC Davis library subject guides are also extremely useful. You can use them to find databases specific to various fields of knowledge, including geography, sociology, agriculture, food and nutrition, etc. Each subject has a subject librarian at UC Davis, whose contact information is at the bottom of the subject guide page: http://www.lib.ucdavis.edu/ul/research/subjects/index.php.

Agri-food studies is not confined to one discipline, so there is no one core journal. However, below I’ve listed some important scholarly journals that contain important articles:

Agriculture and Human ValuesAgriculture, Ecosystems, and EnvironmentAmerican Journal of Agricultural EconomicsAnnals of the Association of American GeographersCommunity Development JournalCulture and AgricultureEconomic GeographyEnvironment and Planning A, and DFood PolicyGeoforumHuman EcologyHuman OrganizationJournal of Peasant StudiesJournal of Political Ecology

A Brief Guide to Academic Practices and Norms

100

http://isiknowledge.com/wos

http://isiknowledge.com/wos

http://www.scopus.com

http://www.scopus.com

http://scholar.google.com/

http://scholar.google.com/

http://ucdavis.worldcat.org/

http://ucdavis.worldcat.org/

http://www.lib.ucdavis.edu/ul/research/subjects/index.php

http://www.lib.ucdavis.edu/ul/research/subjects/index.php

Journal of Renewable Agriculture and Food SystemsJournal of Rural StudiesRural SociologySociologia RuralisTransactions of the Institute of British Geographers

Here is a list of all journals available electronically at UC Davis: http://www.lib.ucdavis.edu/ul/research/ejournals/.

Citing SourcesFor all of your work in this class we ask that you use in-text, parenthetical citations as done

in this lab manual, and as described in the course syllabus. Below are two further examples of correctly cited ideas that you can use as models for you papers and essays:

• Agriculture based on agroecological principles is a viable alternative to industrial agriculture (Altieri 1995).

• Altieri (1995) writes that agriculture based on agroecological principles is a viable alternative to industrial agriculture.

When you cite a very specific idea, a number, or you use a quotation, include the page number in the in-text citation. Below are two correct examples using the same quote:

• Castree (2005: 8) notes, “One common definition of nature is that it is the non-human world.”

• “One common definition of nature is that it is the non-human world” (Castree 2005: 8).See also the class syllabus on citing, paraphrasing, and quoting.

The Works Cited PageYour works cited page (also called References) should be in alphabetical order with all

sources listed together (i.e., not separated by type of source or any other kind of divisions). You can use the References section of this lab manual and the syllabus as models. Additionally, the following list provides the format for specific examples by the type of source to help you put together your works cited page(s).

BooksAltieri, Miguel A. 1995. Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. Boulder: Westview Press.

Book ChaptersAllen, Tim F.H. 1998. “The landscape ‘level’ is dead: persuading the family to take it off the

respirator.” In Ecological scale: theory and applications, edited by D. L. Peterson, and V. T. Parker, pp. 35-54. New York: Columbia University Press.

Citing Citations in Secondary SourcesOften authors will cite information, including quotations, numbers, dates, figures, etc., from another source. If you want to use that material, it is best to search for the original source (this is one of the reasons that we cite!). If it is not available to you, use an in-text parenthetical citation such as the following: (Smith 2000: 18, cited in Jones 2003: 209). In this case, you only need to put the source you are directly citing (Jones) in your References page, using the formatting detailed in this section depending on the type of source it is.

Documentary Films


101

http://www.lib.ucdavis.edu/ul/research/ejournals/




Garcia, Deborah Koons. 2004. The future of food. Mill Valley, California: Lily Films. Videorecording.

InterviewsRamming, Robert. 2008. Interview during Lab Field Trip, 12 October. Woodland, California.

LectureGalt, Ryan E. 2009. CRD 20 Lecture “How have globalization and concentration affected the food

system?” 15 October. UC Davis.

Journal ArticlesAhenkorah, Yaw, G.S. Akrofi, and A.K. Adri. 1974. The end of the first cocoa shade and manurial

experiment at the Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana. Journal of Horticultural Science 49 (1):43-51.

Newspaper ArticlesCabrera, Luis. 2001. Some social activists decry groups’ success with seals of approval. Chicago

Tribune, 28 January 2001, 10.

Internet SourcesLutz, Karen. 1997. Pesticides applied to potatoes, Wisconsin, 1995. Accessed 4 May 2001. Available

from: http://www.pmac.net/wwfwpvga/wisc95.htm.


102

http://www.pmac.net/wwfwpvga/wisc95.htm

http://www.pmac.net/wwfwpvga/wisc95.htm

Interviewing: some barebones suggestions• Be professional, courteous, and respectful at all times while at the research location and to all

people at the research site.• Represent this course well; your actions can help or hinder the course’s relationship with locations

and hosts in future years.• Arrive on time, and be mindful of the clock throughout the interview process. Keep your

interview within the agreed upon time frame.• Introduce each member of the research team by name, make eye contact, and shake the

interviewee’s hand.• Ask permission to use a digital recorder and/or camera if you wish to do so. California law

prohibits audio and video recordings of people without their permission.• Ask permission to use the interviewee’s name in your class presentation.• Take detailed notes and show that you are really listening to what the interviewee has to say.• During the interview, skip questions on your fieldwork protocol that your interviewee has already

answered while talking. In most social science research (but not all) it is acceptable to deviate from the fieldwork protocol, skip questions, and/or ask follow-up questions and clarification questions that come to mind on the spot. This is called “semi-structured interviewing.”

• Towards the end of the interview, ask if there is anything else the interviewee would like to add that they have not already had the opportunity to say.

• After the last interview question, thank the interviewee for her/his time and for sharing her/his thoughts and knowledge with the team.

• Within a couple of days, follow-up with an email or hand written note thanking them again.


103

Presentation: one perspective on the principles of public speakingEffectively communicating your research process and findings, and its ramifications, to

diverse audiences is a core competency required of academics and most other professionals. The very brief guide below is meant to give you guidelines, rather than absolute rules, for formal presentations to an audience.

There are different schools of thought regarding presentation. One of the most prominent is advocated by Edward Tufte (2003: 68-70), who has worked for decades on the presentation of visual information. His approach advocates six basic principles:

1. Near the beginning of your presentation tell the audience: What the problem is Why the problem is important What the solution to the problem is.

“If a clear statement of the problem cannot be formulated, then that is a sure sign that the content o f the presentation is deficient ... . [R]epitition helps people learn, remember, understand ... you should give your audience a second chance to get the point. And a third. Repeated variations on the same theme will often clarify and develop an idea” (Tufte 2003: 68).

2. To explain complex ideas or data, use the method of PGP: Particular General Particular

“For example, to help your audience understand a multivariate table of data, briefly introduce the table and point to a particular number and say what it means; then step back and describe the general architecture of the table; finally reinforce it all with a second particular, explaining what another number means. These two particulars can be selected to make a substantive point as well as to explain the data arrangement. With PGP, your argument is more credible, for you have more than a single anecdote (y;u have two) to accompany the general theory” (Tufte 2003: 68, original emphasis).

3. No matter what, give everybody in the audience one or more pieces of paper packed with material related to your presentation.

“Handouts can show pictures, diagrams, data tables, research methods, references, names of people at the meeting, or the complete text of the paper outlined in your talk.. Unlike evanescent projected images, permanent and portable paper has credibility. Paper serves as a testimonial record documenting your talk., letting your audience know that you take responsibility for what you say” (Tufte 2003: 69).

4. Analyze the details of your presentation; then master those details by practice, practice, practice.

“Frederick Mosteller, a superb statistics teacher and one-time magician, writes ‘rehearsals are extremely helpful, and rehearsals with timing very instructive. Rehearsals are, I think, the single best way of improving one's lecture work.’ Magicians practice in front of a mirror, friend, or video camera; when you practice, work on what your audience sees and also hears. To detect mannerisms of speech, turn off the video and listen to the audio only” (Tufte 2003: 69-70).


104

5. Show up early. Something good is bound to happen.

“By arriving early, you can look the place over, have time enough to recover from a problem (for example, the room is already occupied; or the projector is missing), check the lights, and greet people as they gradually arrive to await your performance” (Tufte 2003: 70).

6. Finish early.


105

VIII. GlossaryCarbon footprint - a measure of environmental impact, measured in units of carbon dioxide emitted. A person’s carbon footprint would include the amount of CO2 emissions that result from home energy consumption and transportation, as well as emissions generated by the production, distribution, and eventual waste breakdown of the products a person uses. In the food industry, many businesses are using the carbon footprint measure as a tool for understanding and maximizing the potential for supply chain efficiency. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and similar agencies internationally offer ‘emissions calculators’ for quantifying carbon footprints (Karp et al. 2008: 22).

Certification - a verification of a claim made by a food producer (farmer, processor, or manufacturer). A certifying agency sets and enforces standards on food and production processes to ensure that claims and labels are legitimate and meaningful. Certifications focus on social, environmental or economic sustainability objectives; some certifications set standards that combine these categories, while others focus on one category. Certifications may be second party, in which a company verifies a producer’s claim, or third party, in which an independent organization sets standards for certification. Third party certifiers are considered the most objective and thus credible certifiers. The London-based International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labeling Alliance (ISEAL) is an international association of leading standard-setting and conformity assessment organizations that focus on social and environmental issues, and works as a clearinghouse of sorts for global certification programs (Karp et al. 2008: 23).

Commodity - an economic good: as a : a product of agriculture or mining b : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment <commodities futures> c : a mass-produced unspecialized product <commodity chemicals> (Miriam-Webster 2009).

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) - CSA consists of a community of individuals who pledge support to a farm operation so that the farmland becomes, either legally or spiritually, the community’s farm, with the growers and consumers providing mutual support and sharing the risks and benefits of food production. Members or shareholders of the farm or garden pledge in advance to cover the anticipated costs of the farm operation and farmer’s salary. In return, they receive shares in the farm’s bounty throughout the growing season, as well as satisfaction gained from reconnecting to the land. Members also share in risks, including poor harvest due to unfavorable weather or pests (USDA, cited in Adam 2006: 2).

Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) - a process that would require retailers to label where products come from, including beef, lamb, pork, fish and shellfish, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, and peanuts. Although signed into law several years ago, this has not yet been made mandatory in the U.S.. As the law is currently written, COOL would not require that value-added and processed foods be labeled. COOL is expected to increase food product traceability in the event of a food safety concern (Karp et al. 2008: 23).

Emic - of, relating to, or involving analysis of cultural phenomena from the perspective of one who participates in the culture being studied (Miriam-Webster 2009).

Epistemology - the branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of knowledge, or how we

106

know what we know (see Lab Reading 3).

Ethical sourcing - sometimes called ethical trade, an approach to food-chain management and generally refers to a company’s strategy for taking responsibility for social, environmental, and labor practices across its supply chain. Most often, the company setting the standards implements and audits adherence to these standards. In some cases, multiple stakeholders work together as stewards of a company’s ethical sourcing standards (Karp et al. 2008: 23-24).

Etic - of, relating to, or involving analysis of cultural phenomena from the perspective of one who does not participate in the culture being studied (Miriam-Webster 2009).

Fair trade - the concept of fair trade carries an implicit critique of the unfairness associated with the conventional North-South trade system and the proposition that an alternative fairer trade system is possible. The persistent poverty among small-scale agricultural commodity producers and artisans in global South demonstrates the need for a different type of trading system. Since the late 1940s, fair trade organizers have worked to create and expand an ‘alternative’ trade system that starts with a set of commonly held principles codified into standards intended to support empowerment, gender equity, long term partnerships, transparency, and sustainable community development. According to an alliance among the largest international fair trade associations, “Fair trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, which seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development. Fair trade organizations (backed by consumers) are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade” (established by FINE, an informal association of four international fair trade networks (Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International, World Fair Trade Organization, Network of European Worldshops and European Fair Trade Association). In practice, fair trade is an uneven global movement and an expanding market. The twin strategies for implementing fair trade principles are the creation of a market that offers better prices to small-scale producer organizations and support from international development NGOs for the business and social development. Fair trade organizations have established an international labeling system (Fair Trade Labeling Organizations International) and international associations of alternative trade organizations (IFAT) to implement these practices expand awareness among in Northern countries, and build demand (Bacon 2010).

Family farms - USDA defines family farms as farms that are not operated by a hired manager and not owned by an outside corporation, and small farms are those with less than $250,000 in annual gross receipts and on which management and labor are provided by the farm family. Mid-scale farms, sometimes called agriculture of the middle, are farms that are too small to compete in bulk commodity markets and too large to efficiently market products directly to consumers. None of these terms are currently certified (Karp et al. 2008: 24).

Farm raised - while the term farm raised does not specify the scale or production processes of the farm, it is meant to evoke a small farm, as opposed to a highly intensive industrial or factory farm. The term is not certified by any group or agency. Farmed raised also refers to the commercial raising of fish in tanks or enclosures, primarily for human consumption. Fish farming is a principal form of aquaculture and offers an alternative, if sometimes controversial, solution to the increasing market demand for fish and fish protein (Karp et al. 2008: 24).

Glossary

107

Food miles - refers to the distance food travels from farm to consumer. Food miles translate into carbon dioxide emissions, but the food miles measure does not take into account carbon emissions from food production (agricultural or processing) or the varying amounts of carbon emissions in air and ground transportation. There is currently no certifying or labeling agency for food miles claims (Karp et al. 2008: 24-25).

Food safety - refers to the steps taken by consumers, producers, processors, scientists, and government agencies to minimize food-borne pathogens or contaminants, whether accidental or intentional (e.g. agroterrorism or bioterrorism). A variety of federal agencies oversee different aspects of food safety, including the Food and Drug Administration, the USDA, and the Department of Homeland Security. Food safety also includes accuracy in labeling and packaging as well as product traceability in the event of a recall or food-related health concern (Karp et al. 2008: 25).

Food security - USDA defines food security as access by all people at all times to enough food for an active and healthy life. Food Stamps and School Lunches are both federal programs designed to support and ensure food security. Food security can also be thought of on a community level and with broader parameters. In a food secure community, all residents would have uninterrupted access to safe, affordable, culturally appropriate, nutrient-rich, sustainably produced and fairly traded foods (Karp et al. 2008: 25).

Food sovereignty - the right of nations and peoples to control their own food systems, including their own markets, production modes, food cultures and environments (Wittman et al. 2010: 2).

Free range - while the terms free range and free roaming imply that animals raised for meat or eggs are not caged (cage free) and are free to roam, the USDA defines free range poultry as that which has had access to the outdoors. The degree and quality of access are not specified. The term’s use on beef and eggs is undefined and unregulated. For poultry, meats and eggs, the terms pasture raised and grass fed suggest that animal was raised by grass grazing. More commonly, animals are fattened on grain in feedlots or confined animal feeding operations (CAFO). Many advocacy groups consider animals that are pasture raised, a term which is not certified, to be humanely raised. Humanely raised animals receive diets without antibiotics or hormones, and are raised with shelter, resting areas, and sufficient space to engage in natural animal behaviors. Humanely raised claims are certified by the Humane Farm Animal Care Program. None of these terms are currently certified (Karp et al. 2008: 25).

Freegan - a person who employs an alternative strategy for living based on limited participation in the conventional economy and minimal consumption of resources. It is a play on the words “free” and “vegan.” (Freegan.info 2009).

Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) - a plant or animal altered by genetic engineering, in which biologists transfer genetic traits across and between plant and animal species. While it is legal for farmers in many countries (including the U.S. and Argentina) to grow GMO crops for human and animal consumption, other countries (Japan and many European nations) have banned the growing and importing of GMOs until more is known about their safety and environmental impacts. Labeling products that include GMOs is not required in the U.S.. The terms GMO-free or no GMOs mean that the product contains no genetically modified ingredients. While no agency

Glossary

108

certifies this claim, food that is certified organic cannot contain GMOs (Karp et al. 2008: 26).

Heirloom - plant varieties or animal types distinguished by their unusual shapes, colors, tastes, and textures. Many common market varieties in the U.S. are hybrids, bred for consistency of appearance, extended shelf life, plant disease resistance, or extensive processing or transport. An heirloom plant variety or seed is one which has never been hybridized and can therefore be grown “true to type” for many generations, enabling growers to save seeds from a parent plant to sow the following year. Heirloom foods are sometimes also known as heritage foods, though this term is most often applied to purebred or rare animal breeds (Karp et al. 2008: 26).

Hormone free - the phrase, along with no hormones administered, or no synthetic hormones, implies that an animal was raised without the use of artificial growth hormones. The most commonly used hormones in production are Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rGBH) and Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST), which promote animal growth and increase milk production. As the USDA prohibits hormone administration for pigs or poultry, a hormone free label on those products is not particularly meaningful. While the USDA can hold companies accountable for making a hormone free claim on beef and dairy products, no independent agency certifies it (Karp et al. 2008: 26).

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) - an approach to pest control that minimizes synthetic pesticide applications by emphasizing natural pest control methods. Practices include strategic combinations of crop rotation, crop planning according to pest life cycles, strategic timing of pesticide applications, use of pest-resistant plants, and constant field monitoring and response. Pesticides are used in small quantities and as a last resort. While responsible pest management is part of the Fair Trade and Food Alliance labels, IPM is not currently certified by any agency (Karp et al. 2008: 27).

Knowing subject - observer/knower. Used in social science and philosophy to explain that the objects of social inquiry (other people) hold meanings, just as the researcher does, but that the meanings held by the researcher and the researched do not necessarily correspond to one another (also called the subject or the knowing-subject) (see Lab Reading 5).

Local - food produced and/or processed as close as possible to where it is consumed. There is no agreed upon standard distance that constitutes ‘local.’ Some define it in terms of a set number of miles, while others choose to think of local foods on a regional basis, prioritizing proximity rather than creating a definition that imposes mileage limits. Purchasing locally grown foods is valued as a means of supporting local farm businesses, farmland, and rural economies, and of providing consumers with fresh, flavorful foods harvested at peak ripeness (Karp et al. 2008: 27).

Locavore - one who eats foods grown locally whenever possible (Miriam-Webster 2009).

Methodology –the branch of philosophy concerned with the logic of scientific inquiry, i.e., “the science and study of methods and the assumptions about the ways in which knowledge is produced” (Grix 2002: 179). It asks, “how can we go about acquiring the knowledge we want?” (see Lab Reading 3).

Methods - techniques or procedures used to collate and analyse data (Blaikie 2000: 8, cited in Grix

Glossary

109

2002: 179, see Lab Reading 3).

Monoculture - refers to the modern agricultural practice of devoting large spans of land to growing a single crop. This practice arose with the mechanization of planting and harvesting and was designed to increase farm yields and production efficiencies. While it often succeeds in that in the short term, monoculture is considered by many to be unsustainable in the long term and has been blamed for reduced ecological diversity on farms, increased crop susceptibility to pests and disease, increased need for synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and soil depletion and erosion (Karp et al. 2008: 27).

Natural - USDA describes natural poultry and meat products as those that are minimally processed and do not contain artificial or synthetic colors, flavors, preservatives, or ingredients. No official definition or standards exist for this term, except in the categories of meat and poultry. No organization certifies this claim (Karp et al. 2008: 27).

Ontology - the branch of philosophy that deals with what exists and how entities are to be grouped and divided by similarities and differences. Ontology is the answer to the question: “what kinds of things are there in the world?” (Benton and Craib 2001: 4, see Lab Reading 3).

Organic - Food that is labeled organic in the United States must be certified by a USDA accredited agency, whether it was grown domestically or imported. USDA organic standards dictate that organic foods be grown without most synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, sewage sludge, genetically modified seeds, or irradiation. Feed for organic meat and poultry is grown organically and does not contain animal byproducts. Animals raised for organic food products must have access to the outdoors, including pasture for ruminants, and cannot be treated with hormones or antibiotics. The USDA offers different logos and claims for processed foods, depending on the percentage of organic ingredients included. Internationally, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)—a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization accredited organization— seeks to promote organic production and increase international uniformity in organic standards (Karp et al. 2008: 28).

Primary sources - information sources from which we ourselves collect the information, such as with interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires (see Lab Reading 3).

Seasonal - refers to the window of time when a given food is freshest, ripest, and most abundant. An agricultural growing season is the period of the year during which crops are grown. A growing season is generally measured by the number of days between the spring’s last frost and the winter’s first frost. Geographic location, climate, daylight hours, average temperatures, rainfall, and water resources also contribute to defining a region’s growing season and determining what can be grown. In culinary terms, seasonal refers to an approach to menu planning in which recipes are built around a geographic region’s harvest calendar. Seasonal eating does not require eating only what is available locally. For example, while figs cannot be grown in New England, a chef there might choose to build a recipe around figs in the summer, figs’ peak harvest time in California (Karp et al. 2008: 28-29).

Secondary sources - information sources that have been gathered by others, including historical documents, texts, and survey data from surveys conducted by other researchers (see Lab Reading 3).

Sources - refers to the sources of information from which data is collected (see Lab Reading 3).

Glossary

110

Sustainability - refers to the ability to meet the needs of the world’s current human population without compromising future generations’ ability to provide for themselves. A common, broadly-framed working definition of a sustainable food system is one which produces enough food to feed people affordably, nutritionally, and safely in a way that sustains the economic, environmental, and social systems in which the food system is embedded (Karp et al. 2008: 29). See also Table 4, p. 7.

Sustainable Agriculture - integrates productive agriculture, biodiversity conservation, animal welfare and human development. The USDA defines sustainable agriculture as “an integrated system of plant and animal production” that satisfies human food and fiber needs, enhances environmental quality and natural resources, sustains the economic viability of farm operations, and enhances farmers’ and society as a whole’s quality of life. Current systems of third party sustainable agriculture certification include Rainforest Alliance, which certifies sustainably produced products in South and Central America, Africa, and Asia, including coffee, tea, cocoa, bananas, ferns, and cut flowers; and the Oregon-based Food Alliance, which certifies United States-produced foods crops to a broad sustainability standard (Karp et al. 2008: 29).

Sustainable Seafood - sustainable seafood refers to fish or shellfish caught or farmed in a manner that does not risk the species’ future or harm the environment. Factors that influence seafood sustainability include overfishing; “by-catch” (species that are caught in the harvest process other than the targeted catch); and the environmentally destructive impacts of trawl nets, fish farming pollution, and the escape of genetically altered species from controlled farms into the wild. Currently, the most commonly used sustainable seafood criteria are those of the London-based Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) which oversees sustainable fishery certifications as well as a labeling system for over 850 seafood products. Other key resources in this field include the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood WATCH program and the World Wildlife Fund-initiated Aquaculture Dialogues (Karp et al. 2008: 29-30).

Trans Fat - the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that trans fats are created when manufacturers hydrogenate vegetable oil to transform it into a solid fat and to increase shelf life and flavor stability. Artificial trans fats have no health benefits and have been shown to contribute to heart disease by increasing LDL (“bad”) and decreasing HDL (“good”) cholesterol. A small amount of trans fat occurs naturally in some foods, but the majority of trans fat exposure comes through foods made with or fried in hydrogenated oils. Naturally occurring trans fats are not considered as hazardous as their artificial counterparts. Like saturated fats, they can be part of a balanced diet if eaten in moderation. Since January 1, 2006, the FDA has required that trans fats be listed on food nutrition labels (Karp et al. 2008: 30).

Vegan - a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal or dairy products; also : one who abstains from using animal products, such as leather (Miriam-Webster 2009).

Glossary

111

IX. ReferencesAdam, Katherine L. 2006. Community Supported Agriculture. Fayetteville, Arkansas: ATTRA-

National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service.Agrawal, Arun. 1995. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge.

Development and Change 26:413-39.Agricultural Sustainability Institute. 2009. New Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems Major being

developed. Available from: http://asi.ucdavis.edu/undergradcurriculum.htm. Access date: 8 September 2009. Davis: Agricultural Sustainability Institute, UC Davis.

Allen, Patricia. 1993. Connecting the social and the ecological in sustainable agriculture. In Food for the future: conditions and contradictions of sustainability, pp. 1-16, edited by P. Allen. New York: Wiley.

Allen, Patricia, Debra Van Dusen, Jackelyn Lundy, and Stephen Gleissman. 1991. Integrating social, environmental, and economic issues in sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 6 (1):34-9.

Bacon, Christopher. 2010. Fair trade. In Green food: an A to Z guide, pp., edited by D. Mulvaney. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Bain, Ken. 2004. What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Barndt, Deborah. 2008. Tangled routes: women, work, and globalization on the tomato trail. 2nd ed. Lanham:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Barnes, Trevor J. 2000. Political economy. In The dictionary of human geography, pp. 593-4, edited by R.J.

Johnston, D. Gregory, G. Pratt and M. Watts. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.Barrett, Hazel R., Brian W. Ilbery, Angela W. Browne, and Tony Binns. 1999. Globalization and the

changing networks of food supply. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 24:159-74.Bean, John C. 1996. Engaging ideas: the professor's guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active

learning in the classroom. 1st ed, The Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Benton, Ted, and Ian Craib. 2001. Philosophy of social science: the philosophical foundations of social thought, Traditions in social theory. New York: Palgrave.

Campbell, Don. 2008. How to be great: rising above the talent myth. Available from: http://litemind.com/talent-myth/. Access date: 2 August 2010.

Clark, Donald R. 1998. Visual, auditory, and kinesthetic survey. Available from: http://nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/styles/vak.html. Access date: 18 September 2008.

DeLind, Laura B. 1999. Close encounters with a CSA: the reflections of a bruised and somewhat wiser anthropologist. Agriculture and Human Values 16 (1):3-9.

Dewey, John. 1938. Experience and education. New York: The Macmillan company.Faucheux, Sylvie, Eliot Muir, and Martin O'Connor. 1997. Neoclassical natural capital theory and

"weak" indicators for sustainability. Land Economics 73 (4):528-52.Fernández-Balboa, Juan-Miguel. 2007. Dignity and democracy in the college classroom: the practice

of student self-examination. In Useful theory: making critical education practical, pp. 105-28, edited by R.A. Goldstein. New York: Peter Lang.

Flachmann, M. 1994. Teaching in the twenty-first century. Teaching Professor 8 (3):1-2.Flores, Claudia C., and Santiago J. Sarandon. 2004. Limitations of neoclassical economics for

evaluating sustainability of agricultural systems: comparing organic and conventional systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 24 (2):77-91.

Flyvbjerg, Bent. 1993. Aristotle, Foucault and progressive phronesis: outline of an applied ethics for sustainable development. In Applied ethics, pp. 11-27, edited by E. Winkler and J. Coombs. Cambridge: Blackwell.

112

———. 2001. Making social science matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Francis, C., G. Lieblein, S. Gliessman, T. A. Breland, N. Creamer, R. Harwood, L. Salomonsson, J. Helenius, D. Rickerl, R. Salvador, M. Wiedenhoeft, S. Simmons, P. Allen, M. Altieri, C. Flora, and R. Poincelot. 2003. Agroecology: the ecology of food systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22 (3):99 - 118.

Freegan.info. 2009. Strategies for sustainable living beyond capitalism. Available from: www.freegan.info. Access date: 23 September 2009.

Freidberg, Susanne E. 2004. French beans and food scares: culture and commerce in an anxious age. New York: Oxford University Press.

Freire, Paulo. 1973. Education for critical consciousness. 1st American ed. New York: Seabury Press.Friedmann, Harriet. 1978. World market, state, and family farm: social bases of household

production in the era of wage labor. Comparative Studies in Society and History 20 (4):545-86.———. 1999. Circles of growing and eating: the political ecology of food and agriculture. In Food in

global history, pp. 33-57, edited by R. Grew. Boulder: Westview Press.Friedmann, Harriet, and Philip McMichael. 1989. Agriculture and the state system: the rise and

decline of national agricultures, 1870 to the present. Sociologia Ruralis 29 (2):93-117.Galt, Ryan E. 2007. Regulatory risk and farmers’ caution with pesticides in Costa Rica. Transactions of

the Institute of British Geographers 32 (3):377-94.———. 2009a. “It just goes to kill Ticos”: national market regulation and the political ecology of

farmers’ pesticide use in Costa Rica. Journal of Political Ecology 16:1-33.———. 2009b. The personal is political (ecological): reflections on five days to, in, and from Las

Vegas, March, 2009. Human Geography 2 (2):91-5.———. 2010. Scaling up political ecology: the case of illegal pesticides on fresh vegetables

imported into the United States, 1996-2006. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100 (2):327-55.

Galt, Ryan E., Damian M. Parr, Julia Van Soelen Kim, Jessica Beckett, Maggie Lickter, and Heidi L. Ballard. in review. Transformative food systems education in a land-grant college of agriculture: the importance of learner-centered inquiries. Agriculture and Human Values.

Gardner, Jennifer B., and Laurie E. Drinkwater. 2009. The fate of nitrogen in grain cropping systems: a meta-analysis of 15N field experiments. Ecological Applications 19 (8):2167-84.

Gladwell, Malcolm. 2000. The new-boy network. Available from: http://www.gladwell.com/2000/2000_05_29_a_interview.html. Access date: 31 July 2010.

———. 2005. Blink: the power of thinking without thinking. 1st ed. New York: Little Brown and Co.Gliessman, Stephen R. 1998. Agroecology: ecological processes in sustainable agriculture. Chelsea, Michigan:

Ann Arbor Press.Goodman, David, and Michael Watts, eds. 1997. Globalising food: agrarian questions and global

restructuring. New York: Routledge.Gould, Stephen Jay. 1996. The mismeasure of man. Revised and expanded ed. New York: Norton.Grix, Jonathan. 2002. Introducing students to the generic terminology of social research. Politics 22

(3):175-86.Grossman, Lawrence S. 1998. The political ecology of bananas: contract farming, peasants, and agrarian change

in the Eastern Caribbean. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Guthman, Julie. 2004. Agrarian dreams: the paradox of organic farming in California. Berkeley: University

of California Press.Habermas, Jürgen. 1987. Knowledge and human interests. Cambridge: Polity Press.Hendrickson, Mary, and William D. Heffernan. 2007. Concentration of agricultural markets.

Columbia, Missouri: Department of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri hooks, bell. 1994. Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.

References

113

Ilbery, Brian W., David Watts, Sue Simpson, Andrew W. Gilg, and Jo Little. 2006. Mapping local foods: evidence from two English regions. British Food Journal 108 (3):213-25.

Inkpen, Robert. 2005. Science, philosophy and physical geography. New York: Routledge.Johnston, R. J. 1996. Geography. In The social science encyclopedia, pp. 336-43, edited by A. Kuper and J.

Kuper. New York: Routledge.Karp, Karen, John Turenne, Susan Sweitzer, and Shayna Cohen. 2008. The changing vocabulary of

food purchasing: a guide for foodservice professionals. White River Junction, Vermont: Sustainable Food Laboratory.

Kolb, David A. 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Massad, Susan J. 2009. Super-Sizing America: geography, income, fast food, and whole food. Human Geography 2 (2):52-69.

McIntosh, Peggy. 1988. White privilege and male privilege: a personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in women's studies. In Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. Wellesley.

Méndez, V. Ernesto. 2008. Farmers' livelihoods and biodiversity conservation in a coffee landscape of El Salvador. In Confronting the coffee crisis: sustaining livelihoods and ecosystems in Mexico and Central America, pp., edited by C. Bacon, V.E. Méndez, S.R. Gliessman, D. Goodman and J.A. Fox. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Miriam-Webster. 2009. Miriam-Webster’s online dictionary. Available from: www.merriam-webster.com. Access date: 23 September 2009.

Morrow, Raymond Allen, and Carlos Alberto Torres. 2002. Reading Freire and Habermas: critical pedagogy and transformative social change. New York: Teachers College Press.

National Research Council. 1989. Alternative agriculture. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.———. 2009. Transforming agricultural education for a changing world. Washington, D.C.: National

Academies Press.Palmer, Parker J. 2007. The courage to teach: exploring the inner landscape of a teacher's life. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.Parr, Damian M., and Mark Van Horn. 2006. Development of organic and sustainable agricultural

education at the University of California, Davis: a closer look at practice and theory. HortTechnology 16 (3):426-31.

Passuelloon, Luciano. 2009. How to become an expert: a roadmap. Available from: http://litemind.com/expert-roadmap/. Access date: 2 August 2010.

Pfeiffer, Dale Allen. 2006. Eating fossil fuels: oil, food and the coming crisis in agriculture. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers.

Poppendieck, Janet. 2000. Want amid plenty: from hunger to inequality. In Hungry for profit: the agribusiness threat to farmers, food, and the environment, pp. 189-202, edited by F. Magdoff, J.B. Foster and F.H. Buttel. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Pretty, Jules N. 1994. Alternative systems of inquiry for a sustainable agriculture. IDS bulletin 25 (2):37-48.

———. 1995. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development 23 (8):1247-63.Pretty, Jules N., Irene Guijt, John Thompson, and Ian Scoones. 2002. A trainer's guide to participatory

learning and action. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

Real Food Challenge. 2010. Real food challenge: uniting students for just and sustainable food. Available from: http://realfoodchallenge.org/. Access date: September 17 2010.

References

114

Reganold, John P., Robert I. Papendick, and James F. Parr. 1990. Sustainable agriculture. Scientific American, June, 112-20.

Sayer, Andrew. 1992. Method in social science: a realist approach. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Stanley, Liz. 1996. Feminist research. In The social science encyclopedia, pp. 294-6, edited by A. Kuper and

J. Kuper. New York: Routledge.Tomich, Thomas P., Sonja Brodt, Howard Ferris, Ryan Galt, William R. Horwath, Ermias Kebreab,

Johan H. J. Leveau, Daniel Liptzin, Mark Lubell, Pierre Merel, Richard Michelmore, Todd Rosenstock, Kate Scow, Johan Six, Neal Williams, and Louie Yang. 2011. Agroecology: a review from a global-change perspective. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 36 (1).

Trauger, Amy. 2004. "Because they can do the work": women farmers in sustainable agriculture in Pennsylvania, USA. Gender, Place & Culture 11 (2):289 - 307.

Tufte, Edward R. 2003. Visual explanations: images and quantities, evidence and narrative. 6th printing, with revisions, Nov. 2003. ed. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press.

Undergraduate Studies. 2010. Educational objectives for students. Available from: http://undergraduatestudies.ucdavis.edu/educational-objectives.html. Access date: 23 July 2010. Davis: University of California.

Van Esterik, Penny. 1999. Gender and sustainable food systems: a feminist critique. In For hunger-proof cities: sustainable urban food systems, pp. 157-61, edited by M. Koc, R.J. MacRae, L.J.A. Mougeot and J. Welsh. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.

Voorhees, Richard A. 2001. Competency-based learning models: a necessary future. New Directions for Institutional Research 2001 (110):5-13.

Weimer, Maryellen. 1996. Foreword. In Engaging ideas: the professor's guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom, pp. xvii-xx, edited by J.C. Bean. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

———. 2002. Learner-centered teaching: five key changes to practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Wells, Betty L., and Shelly Gradwell. 2001. Gender and resource management: community supported

agriculture as caring-practice. Agriculture and Human Values 18 (1):107-19.Wells, Miriam J. 1996. Strawberry fields: Politics, class, and work in California agriculture. Ithaca: Cornell

University Press.Whatmore, Sarah. 1996. From farming to agribusiness: The global agro-food system. In Geographies

of global change: Remapping the world in the late twentieth century, pp. 36-49, edited by R.J. Johnston, P.J. Taylor and M. Watts. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell.

Wittman, Hannah, Annette Aurélie Desmarais, and Nettie Wiebe. 2010. The origins and potential of food sovereignty. In Food sovereignty: reconnecting food, nature and community, pp. 1-14, edited by H. Wittman, A.A. Desmarais and N. Wiebe. Oakland: Food First.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future. New York: Oxford University Press.

References

115

X. Quick Reference Page for Fieldwork

Guiding Objectives for Field TripsDuring field trips we seek to:

• Explore the philosophy, goals, and values of the social unit, and its members• Observe and describe the production, processing, distribution, consumption, and/

or disposal practices of the social unit• Assess the economic results of the activity of these social units, including

whether they meet the economic objectives of its constituent members• Evaluate the potential environmental impacts of current production and/or

consumption practices of the social unit• Examine the social relationships that exist within the unit, and the interactions of

the social unit with other social groups (such as workers, families, etc.)• Practice interpersonal, team communication, and research skills

Theoretical LensesPolitical economy Feminism Ecology Geography

Brief definition Analyzes the social structures within which individuals exist. Emphasizes class differences and ways in which power is exercised in society and the intersection of economic and political power. Often historically oriented.

Works for the liberation of all socially subjugated groups by exposing dominant ideologies and practices. Denies the existence of simple objectivity. Focuses on equal rights and opportunities, especially along gender lines.

Examines the interrelationships between different organisms and between organisms and their environment. Agroecology as a subfield applies ecological thought to agriculture and now seeks to understand the entire food system.

Studies landscapes, inhabitants, and other phenomena of Earth. Includes physical, human, and environmental geography. The latter investigates human-environment interactions by bridging social and biophysical science.

See pp. 21-22 for full details.

Inquiry StylesThe inquiry styles assigned to each team for each field trip are as follows. These inquiry styles are explained on pp. 38-40.



Field Trip (Lab 6)


(Lab 8)



Feminist team

Ecologist team

Geographer team





Back cover design by CRD 20 (2008) alumna Maggie Lickter in 2010Original screenprint created through Chicano Studies Screenprint Workshop taught by Carlos Jackson at UC Davis

Incorporated text from "Changes" by Tupac Shakur, “Manifesto: Mad Farmer Liberation Front” by Wendell Berry, and the poetry of Mowlānā Jalāl ad-Dīn Muḥammad Balkhī also known as Rumi

crd 20 2011 lab manual version 3 1 - human...

Documents