Chapter 2 Methodology and research design
2.2. Research methodology
2.3.1. Case study questions, hypothesis and propositions
In the following section a of the assumptions and research questions presented in chapter 1 are reintroduced and linked to list of working questions to inform the hermeneutic phenomenological approach of the study and help guide the case studies in order to answer the research questions.
26 Pre-assumptions:
1. Children lack food literacy: specifically knowledge of where, how and when food is produced
2. Different stakeholders in the farm-to-school context have different interpretations,
objectives and values in regards to the farm-school collaboration and food and agriculture education
3. There is a lack of links between food literacy, health and sustainability perspectives and limited focus on developing children’s related action competence in existing practice in farm-school programs.
4. The scientific and theoretical foundation related to ‘food literacy’ and ‘food citizenship’ is weak at present and needs a future orientation linked to action competence and Education for Sustainable Development.
Based on these normative assumptions, the following research questions helped inform the assumptions and identify possible recommendations for future actions and theoretical perspectives.
Research questions:
What are the overall learning goals, motivation and values behind farm-school collaboration cases and related teaching in Denmark?
How can the collaboration arrangements be characterised in the various farm-school programs in Denmark?
How can farm-school collaboration and related teaching contribute to theoretical
perspectives on food literacy and food citizenship and integrate Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) perspectives?
To answer these broader research questions, a number of working questions were formulated to help guide the data collection process, including the questions asked during the semi-structured interviews with farmers, teachers and representatives from agricultural interest organizations.
Working questions:
1. How are farm visits in the Danish case farms linked to food and agricultural education in schools?
2. Are there links between food literacy, food citizenship and ESD in existing farm-school collaboration in Denmark and related food and agriculture education in the case schools?
Methods:
Interviews with teachers about their teaching (including open-ended questions on the content and learning goals and specific questions related to food literacy, health, action
27
competence and sustainability) and their integration of the farm visit in their teaching back at the school,
Interviews with farmers about on-farm activities and their understanding of the concept of sustainability and the extent to which they include this term in the activities on-farm,
Observations on-farm
Review and analysis of scientific research, learning plans, and educational manuals/materials
Working questions:
3. Who are the main stakeholders and related networks behind farm-school collaboration in the different settings and how are they organized?
4. What are the main challenges and opportunities for farm-school collaboration and food and agriculture education?
Methods:
Interviews with farmers, teachers as well as representatives from agricultural interest organizations, who provide the support, incentives and other structural conditions for farm visits, were conducted.
A review of educational goals and school reform by the Ministry of Children and Education and the Danish Government was carried out. All of these factors have an important impact on the collaboration arrangements as well as the barriers and opportunities for farm-school collaboration in the future.
Working question:
5. Are the farm-school activities linked to or aiming at influencing the whole school (e.g.
school food supply, school food/nutrition policy and cooking activities)?
Methods:
Review of school websites and interviews with teachers regarding additional measures and linkages to other part of school practice beyond their own subjects to also include supporting measures in the school and the integration to other subjects and grade levels.
2.4. Theoretical framework on food literacy, food citizenship and ESD
Below is the initial overview of the theoretical concepts on which the analytical framework of the study has been developed. Towards the end, the theoretical framework and concepts are operationalised and put into a matrix, which was used for the development of interview guides and inspired the later analysis of findings and the theoretical overview and further development in chapters 5, 6 and 7.
28
The term ‘food literacy’ is not a well-defined term. One exception is a study in by Vidgen and Gallegos (2011) from the Queensland University of Technology in Australia, where it is defined as:
“The relative ability to basically understand the nature of food and how it is important to you and how able you are to gain information about food, process it, analyse it and act upon it” (Vidgen, Gallegos 2011).
This definition is very much focusing on the individual level, in other words the food literacy of an individual and related behaviour. The more used term in Danish is ‘food bildung’ (maddannelse) as an educational goal, and stems from the German term ‘bildung,’
The closest term in English is ‘life skills.’ In some contexts, this term is closely connected to food literacy with its focus on the individual and with an underlying consumer focus. This understanding takes on a relatively narrow meaning focusing on learning and development of knowledge and skills related to cooking, health, nutrition, hygiene and sensory aspects of food. It is linked to the former definition of food literacy by Vidgen and Gallegos (2011).
A definition of food bildung from Denmark is by Carlsen, a home economist. Carlsens definition is broader than the one by Vidgen and Gallegos. She sees food bildung as:
Self-determination in terms of pleasure and responsibility concerning one’s own body and skills and techniques to produce food;
Participation in aesthetically observing and forming food and making judgment about food choices. The relation to food here moves from the subjective and individual level of self-determination to an interpersonal level, where participation or co-determination is made in connection and collaboration with others and in relation to food choice can take on a critical perspective towards society. These aesthetic choices can in other words include a political choice and not just one of aesthetics.
Solidarity is even more so than the former about interpersonal relations and how our choices are influenced by interpersonal factors as well as making ethical and political decisions and related actions. (Carlsen 2011)
Carlsen’s more specific views on what food bildung entails in terms of content related aspects (especially connected to home economics) include such factors as:
knowledge and skills relevant for health and quality of life, including nutrition, chemical and physical properties of food, cultural and historical factors, hygiene, societal conditions for food and meals, cooking skills and other techniques related to food;
knowledge on identity related to food including social dimensions and symbolic factors related to food;
communication, insight and skills related to aesthetic factors and ability to act as a consumer;
29
insight into production, its consequences and the impact of consumption, including an understanding of possibilities for change.
Carlsen’s view of food bildung is not only about cooking and other food related hands-on skills, but equally about the ability to make choices related to food, health, animal welfare, resources and production conditions as well as about food as a social factor and a source of pleasure. (Carlsen 2011) Carlsen’s food bildung perspective is inspired by Klafki, a German thinker and researcher in theory of education and didactics and his work on critical-constructive didaktics (Klafki 2001).
Carlsson and Benn (2010) bring forth a slightly similar definition of food bildung or food literacy, when they talk of competence within the food area as having four dimensions within a learning process:
To know: for instance to know that there is a connection between what you do and the result or impact, e.g. between what you eat and resource use and the environment, or between what you eat and drink and your health.
To be able to: to master everyday life with the resources available, e.g. to be able to make a healthy meal.
To want: is about wanting to participate in working with everyday problems and issues, such as food, production, and make food choices and opt not to eat certain foods, engage in school food policy or in school environmental policy.
To be: includes interaction with and being caring towards others e.g. when choosing and deciding which foods and meals to select that can be eaten by everyone.
(Carlsson, Benn 2010) p. 64 and 69
The emphasis here is slightly less on the food skills, techniques and communication, which Carlsen highlights.
The term ‘bildung,’ however, has a broader definition that the individual focus; it is tied to democratic citizenship. Bildung is here not so much about compliance and individual behaviour or self-development. Rather it is about forming ways that stimulate and qualify students to become future citizens, who can make sound judgements, think critically and independently, and who can and will play an active role.(Mogensen, Schnack 2010) This understanding of food bildung is more closely related to the term ‘food citizenship’ which is about engaging students (and other citizens) in food-related behaviours that support rather than threaten, the development of a democratic, socially and economically just and environmentally sustainable food system both in the short and in the long term (Wilkins 2005).
Combining food literacy and food citizenship with sustainability is tied to how our food is produced, understanding the natural foundation of food production, agricultural practice, socio-economic factors influencing our food supply and access and the impact of our food choices on
30
health, social and economic issues and the environment as well as understanding and acting on global and local food issues.
Developing food citizenship is linked to the term ‘action competence’, which is an educational approach and ideal that challenges individualistic approaches and the emphasis on behavioural modification within health and environmental education. Action competence within education research has been defined by Elmose (2007) as ‘knowledge’, ‘action experiences’, ‘involvement’
and ‘co-determination’ (Elmose 2007). Jensen stresses the key importance of commitment in relation to action competence. Knowledge alone – including knowing how to act - will not necessarily lead to any actions – thus making the combination of commitment, experience and knowledge key. Commitment is often strengthened or spurred through a sense of community – for which reason the focus on the individual level has been largely ineffective (Jensen 1993). The focus on knowledge transfer and modifying individual behaviour alone in health promotion and environmental education has been documented to be ineffective and often lead to feelings of guilt and apathy (Breiting, Schnack 2009, Breiting, Hedegaard et al. 2009). As a result, there has been a shift towards emphasizing the development of action competence; focusing on positive visions and concrete actions to ultimately develop responsible and action-minded citizens capable of seeing
“beyond their own noses”, and trusting that they can have influence. (Breiting, Hedegaard et al.
2009) In doing this, one key role for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in an action competence perspective is according to Mogensen and Schnack (2010) about developing students’
ability, motivation and desire to play an active role in democratic solutions to sustainable development (Mogensen, Schnack 2010). Food citizenship and Education for Sustainable development (ESD) overlap: thus both have to do with democratic citizenship rather than compliance and individual behaviour.
Building closer links in the food system through the establishment of collaboration between local farmers, schools and students to promote sustainable and healthy food behaviours and actions can provide an important practice field for students to enhance their learning and food literacy - and ideally build food citizenship. An important lesson from education research and reviews of school food experiences is the important link between learning and experience. According to Dewey, learning is fostered and enhanced through the individual’s own actions, thoughts and experimentation in practice and in the surrounding society (Vaage 2000), which farm visits and related teaching can be an example of. Action-oriented learning can enable student ownership and develop important action competence (Jensen, Simovska et al. 2005). Establishing collaboration between the school and local farmers, facilitating farm visits and students’ own actions at school or in the wider food system are examples of experiential education.
Based on these overall theoretical concepts, an analytical framework was developed for each of the three key concepts to operationalize these concepts into broader albeit more concrete categories to develop questions and interview guides. Teachers’ and farmers’ perception, values and learning objectives related to food literacy were along the way assessed and compared to these initial criteria, and later further developed based on the empirical findings.
31
Table 3: Analytical framework operationalizing food literacy
Table 4: Analytical framework operationalizing food citizenship Food literacy
Knowledge and skills:
Comprehensive knowledge about food and agriculture; origins, seasonality, production, distribution, consumption and disposal, impacts on health, environment and social issues from the individual to community and beyond.
Ability to work with food in practice and the ecological foundation of food (incl. growing and/or cooking food) Using knowledge about nutrition, hygiene and environmental impacts when composing a meal.
Knowing about possibilities for making food choices and the food system more sustainable.
Attitudes and commitments:
Students’ pro-environmental attitudes
Commitment and motivation to work with food issues and to contribute to positive solutions.
Actions and visions:
Implementation of concrete actions in food related activities
Students’ active participation in and motivation for engaging in concrete actions in food related activities Focus on and development of visions and creativity of what the food system could be like in the future incl.
students’ own ideas and perceptions about the future
Food citizenship
Democratic ideals, participatory and action-oriented teaching–learning:
Objectives and activities reflect democratic ideals, participatory and action-oriented teaching helping students develop ability, motivation and desire to play an active role in finding democratic solutions connected to SD Connections to/ dialogue with the community:
Objectives reflect goals of action competence and practice connected to the community and focusing on dialogue Critical thinking and future visions:
Learning approach focuses on critical thinking and the critical process of reflection and inquiry based on an empathetic and optimistic vision of potential
Development of students’ ability and desire to play an active role in democratic and sustainable solutions:
Learning in an open-ended way, developing knowledge, values and skills focusing on ability and desire to play an active role in sustainable solutions
32
Table 5: Analytical framework operationalizing Education for Sustainable Development