An Ethnographic Case Study of Food Justice Education Through an Ecojustice Lens

ScienCivic Literacy: An Ethnographic Case Study of Food Justice Education Through an Ecojustice Lens

Erin Randi Sperling

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto

ScienCivic Literacy: An Ethnographic Case Study of Food Justice Education Through an Ecojustice Lens

Erin Randi Sperling

Doctor of Philosophy of Education

Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning University of Toronto

2020 Abstract

In a time of crisis, during a global pandemic, climate change and racial unrest, access to food is a heavily pressing issue, impacting and impacted by overlapping social, cultural, sustainability and physiological spheres. This dissertation presents an ethnographic case study, as a participant- observer, of community-based research with teenage women and adult facilitators in an afterschool program of a food justice organization in an urban centre in Canada over the course of a year. It is guided by the overarching question of what are the envisioned, enacted and experienced curricular moments in a community-based after school food justice education program. It examines the factors that impacted the envisioned and enacted curriculum as developed and delivered by adult facilitators, as well as the factors that influenced the youth experiences of the enacted programming, and the nature of those impacts. Sources of data included field notes, interviews, documents and artefacts. Ecojustice education is presented as an integrated conceptual framework for analysis through overlapping fields of environmental education as a subset of science education, citizenship education and social ecology theory, all

iii

within a critical pedagogy of place, highlighting both the potentials and challenges encountered in this case of food justice education.

The findings show facilitators provided insight to the mainly structural challenges that may have inhibited deeper experiences for the youth, such as access to and continuity in the program, staffing, and space constraints. Notably, youth expressed an increase in their leadership capacity and desire to make changes for themselves and their families in relation to food. As an interdisciplinary topic, food justice education offered participants a means to the integration of narrative, agency development, and community building for individual and social change.

Ultimately, this research articulates the reciprocal relationship of learning through food and learning for food justice as a space for the development of ‘ScienCivic’ literacy, the development of knowledge and skills for engagement with complex socioscientific issues.

Acknowledgements

I dedicate this project to my daughter Audrey Marion, my light, my drive and my joy, and to my sharp, wise and warm mother, Marsha Mae, may her memory be a blessing.

This dissertation process was a passion project with many hurdles, twists and turns. I would like to acknowledge my village of family, colleagues and friends who supported me in myriad ways, from words of encouragement to meals of sustenance, as well as hugs and laughs along the journey. First and foremost, to the mentor who helped me arrive here at the finishing line, there are not enough ways to say merci to Antoinette Gagné for her wisdom, words of encouragement, technological genius, creative spirit and firm guidance. She was exactly who I needed when I needed her, and I am grateful to have had such a stellar supervisory model in Antoinette to guide me as I will work with my own students. I also especially thank my committee members and critical friends Carol-Ann Burke and Mark Evans, for sharing their insights and critiques with light-hearted aplomb. Special acknowledgements to Diane Gérin-Lajoie and Larry Bencze for their earlier mentorship in getting this project out of my head and onto the ground. Thank you to Charles Levkoe for agreeing to be my external examiner and providing amazing critical feedback. And to Angela Vemic and Jack Miller for their input and insights as well.

To my Dad, Stephen Sperling: thank you for putting up with my protracted academic journey, always encouraging me to keep at it, setting me on a path to ask questions about how to make the world a better place, and for sharing with me your love of food and humour. To my sisters Danielle and Amber, and extended family, yes, I am finished being a student... kind of! To my extended family but especially my Uncle Gerry Sperling and Aunt Maggie Siggins, who led the way for me as an academic, a writer and a socialist.

I would like to anonymously acknowledge the staff, volunteers and youth participants of this project. Without you, there would be nothing on these pages. Your honesty, vulnerability, passion and joy in your work and play with food and each other were a constant source of wonder for me. I hope you continue to find ways to gather to share food and stories with community.

To the irreplaceable mentors I have had the honour of working with as a co-researcher, co-author and co-educator, thank you to Hilary Inwood, Doug Karrow, G. Michael Bowen, as well as my friend, colleague and editor Sara Scharf. Additional acknowledgements to the community of the ESE-TE, the SMT of OISE and the SERG special interest group of CSSE.

To the incredible friendships I made through the graduate school journey, that have helped to sustain, provoke and guide me over many years at OISE, thank you to Darren Hoeg, Susan Jagger, Jesse Bazzul, Velta Douglas, Dawn Shickluna, Katie Brubacher, James Corcoran, Leah Burns, Lovisa Fung, Bob Spencer, Joanne Nazir, Gail Russel, Gary Pluim Jr., Jeff Myers, Michelle Dubek and Nenad Radakovic, Dan Atkinson, Traci Spencer Scheepstra, Sarah El- Halwany, Kristen Schaffer and the women of the feminist sci-fi book and food club. Thank you all for your humour and humility through your own processes.

The research for this project was made possible in part by financial support of the Province of Ontario and the University of Toronto.

Yes, Audrey, Mommy wrote a book!

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Acknowledgements ...... iv

Table of Contents ...... vi

List of Tables ...... xii

List of Figures ...... xiii

List of Appendices ...... xvi

Chapter 1 Setting the Table: An Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Background ...... 1

1.2 Research Questions ...... 4

1.2.1 The Research Site ...... 5

1.2.2 A Research Framework to Respond to the Research Questions ...... 5

1.3 Rationale and Positioning Myself as a Researcher ...... 7

1.4 An Apéritif—On Recipes and Meals ...... 10

1.5 An Overview to Whet your Appetite ...... 12

Chapter 2 Ingredients: A Literature Review ...... 14

2.1 What’s on the Menu? A Guide to the Literature that Foregrounds this Study...... 14

2.1.1 Rationale for the Research and Research Questions Reiterated ...... 14

vii

2.1.2 Overview of Literature ...... 15

2.2 Food Justice ...... 17

2.2.1 Food Justice in Relation to Social Justice ...... 17

2.2.2 Food Security and Food Sovereignty: A Great Intersectional Challenge ...... 18

2.2.3 Responding to Food Insecurity ...... 20

2.2.4 Summary ...... 21

2.3 Food Justice Education...... 21

2.3.1 Food Literacy ...... 22

2.3.2 Critical Food Literacy ...... 23

2.3.3 Pedagogical Orientations and Learning Opportunities ...... 25

2.3.4 Limitations of Food Justice as Education ...... 26

2.3.5. Summary ...... 26

2.4 Science Education as a Context for Food Justice ...... 26

2.4.1 Formal Education ...... 28

2.4.2 Non-formal Education ...... 30

2.4.3 Inter- and Trans-disciplinarity ...... 34

2.4.4 Summary ...... 35

2.5 “Girls Only” - Responding to Gender in Programming ...... 35

2.5.1 The Gendered Nature of Food and Food Issues ...... 36

viii

2.5.2 No Boys Allowed? Benefits and Challenges to Girls-Only Programs ...... 37

2.5.3 Summary ...... 37

2.6 Curriculum Theory and Curricular Moments...... 37

Chapter 3 Who’s Hungry? An Integrated Conceptual Framework ...... 39

3.1 Conceptualizing Ecojustice Education as an Integrated Framework ...... 39

3.1.1 Social Ecology Theory ...... 41

3.1.2 Citizenship Education ...... 43

3.1.3 Environmental Education ...... 47

3.1.4 Critical Pedagogy of Place ...... 49

3.2 Why Ecojustice in Food Justice Education? ...... 51

Chapter 4 Tools and Materials: Methodology, Methods and Context ...... 54

4.1 Methodology and Methods ...... 54

4.1.1 Qualitative Research ...... 54

4.1.2 Ethnographic Case Study, with a Critical Approach ...... 55

4.1.3 Methods ...... 57

4.1.4 The 3E Model: Envisioned, Enacted and Experienced Curriculum ...... 67

4.2 Where Shall We Sit? The Context of the Research ...... 68

4.2.1 A Food Justice Organization ...... 69

4.2.2 Time, Space and Place: An Overview of Activities ...... 71

4.2.3 Participant Recruitment ...... 74

4.3 Challenges in the Research Process ...... 75

4.3.1 Ethical Considerations and Research Ethics Board Approval ...... 75

4.3.2 Limitations of the Research as Ethnography ...... 76

4.4 Why Me, Why Now? Positioning Myself as the Researcher ...... 77

4.5 Summary ...... 81

Chapter 5 First Course: An Envisioned Curriculum for Youth Food Justice Education ...... 82

5.1 Introduction to the Envisioned Curriculum in LiFT ...... 82

5.1.1 Practitioners and Places ...... 82

5.1.2 Policies and Practices ...... 88

5.1.3 Potential Participants: Recruitment ...... 92

5.1.4 Planned Pedagogical Practices ...... 97

5.2 Interpretation and Analysis through an Ecojustice Lens ...... 104

5.3 Summary ...... 107

Chapter 6 Second Course: Enacted Curriculum of a Food Justice Education Program ...... 108

6.1 Introduction and Overview of Enacted Curriculum ...... 108

6.1.1 Participants in Enactment ...... 108

6.1.2 Places for Enactment ...... 120

6.1.3 Enacted Pedagogies ...... 124

6.2 Interpretation and Analysis of Enacted Curriculum from an Ecojustice Lens ...... 141

6.3 Summary ...... 143

Chapter 7 Third Course: The Experienced Curriculum of Food Justice Education ...... 145

7.1 Introduction and Overview...... 145

7.2 Participant Experiences of Program Pedagogies ...... 145

7.2.1 Touchstone: Food Stories as Powerful Pedagogy ...... 159

7.2.2 “Girls only”—Creating a Safe Space ...... 168

7.2.3 The Program Culmination ...... 170

7.3 Practitioner Reflections of the LiFT Program ...... 170

7.4 Ecojustice Analysis of Experienced Curriculum ...... 181

7.4.1 Experiences of Pedagogies and Practices ...... 182

7.4.2 Mentorship and Modeling for Leadership Learning ...... 183

7.4.3 Critical Systems Thinking into Social Justice Action ...... 187

7.4.4 Structures in Food Justice Education...... 192

7.4 Summary ...... 196

Chapter 8 Just Desserts: A Synthesis of Food Justice Education Through Ecojustice Analysis 198

8.1 Introduction ...... 199

8.2 The 3E Model as an Interpretive Tool for Ecojustice ...... 199

8.3 Food as/for Ecojustice Education ...... 202

8.3.1 Potentials and Possibilities ...... 202

8.3.2 The Critiques of this Food Justice Education Case Study from an Ecojustice Perspective ...... 205

8.4 Summary ...... 211

Chapter 9 Clearing the Table: Implications of this Food Justice Education and Research ...... 212

9.1 Introduction ...... 212

9.2 Implications for Non-formal and Public Food Education ...... 212

9.3 Ecojustice Analysis and ‘ScienCivic’ Literacy– Beyond Food Justice ...... 215

9.4 Community-Institution Research Collaboration and Areas for Future Research on Food Justice Education ...... 217

9.5 Limitations of This Study ...... 219

9.6 Conclusions ...... 220

A Digestif Epilogue: The State of Food Justice Education Today ...... 222

References ...... 224

Appendices ...... 242

xii

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Summary of youth and adult research participants at time of the project...... 58

Table 4.2 Summary of data sources...... 59

Table 5.1 Program objectives and indicators excerpted from the LiFT logic model, which can be found in full in Appendix E...... 99

Table 6.1 Summary of food pedagogies using Lock’s model with an ecojustice analysis...... 143

Table 7.1 Summary of analysis of expressed connections to identity, agency and community building through food justice pedagogies in LiFT...... 182

xiii

List of Figures

Figure 2.1: A concept map of the literature from the nexus of food justice education, with each arrow indicating a connection ...... 16

Figure 3.1: Overview of an integrated conceptual framework for ecojustice education...... 40

Figure 4.2: Adaptation of Lock’s (1990) Model, a Matrix for Variations in Control of Learning...... 66

Figure 4.3: A snapshot of a bulletin board at the CBO...... 70

Figure 4.4: Industrial kitchen after participants have left, showing common food prep area, large gas stove and fume hood, cooling racks, fridge and freezer, February 27th, 2013...... 73

Figure 4.5: Developing knife skills and sushi-making, February 27th, 2013...... 73

Figure 4.6: The dish pit, where it was hot and steamy...... 74

Figure 4.7: The researcher with participants at a University greenhouse site, sharing sensory explorations of the plants. Image by a program participant, March 14, 2013...... 79

Figure 5.1: Promotional text about LiFT from the CBO website, June 2014...... 90

Figure 5.2 An excerpt of the LiFT recruitment flyer, 2012-2013...... 94

Figure 5.3: Overview of envisioned curriculum relationships...... 105

Figure 6.1: Advertising email to participants to attend the LiFT March Break Camp...... 123

Figure 6.2: A cooking surface prepared for sushi making, February 27, 2013...... 125

Figure 6.3: Hand rolling vegetarian sushi for the first time, with water-splattered recipe directions off to the side, February 27, 2013...... 126

Figure 6.4: Consuming the final sushi creations together, February 27, 2013...... 127

xiv

Figure 6.5: A double-sided flyer to encourage youth-led thematic presentations that with cooking and eating, based on the Food Stories activity, February 6, 2013...... 131

Figure 6.6: An image taken by a LiFT participant, representing one of her connections to maiz (corn) during the March Break market tour...... 132

Figure 6.7: LiFT participants deep in thought considering the Game of Real Life introduction, at the University of Toronto, March 14, 2013...... 133

Figure 6.8: Game of Real Life results from March Break programming, March 14, 2013...... 134

Figure 6.9: A participant holds a bolus of red wiggler worms from the greenhouse vermicomposter, March 2013...... 135

Figure 6.10: LiFT participants making seed bombs for guerrilla gardening, April 24, 2013. ... 136

Figure 6.11: LiFT participants out in the local neighbourhood distributing flyers to advertise the CBO weekly food market, March 13, 2013...... 139

Figure 7.1: A display of products with corn in them, from a workshop on the agricultural industrial complex and processed foods, December 12, 2012...... 158

Figure 7.2: Land, Food and People: Food Stories brainstorming outcomes, January 16, 2013...... 160

Figure 7.3: Sandra’s food story poster, January 16, 2013...... 163

Figure 7.4: LiFT participants reading stories and making connections with yarn...... 164

Figure 7.5: LiFT participants collaborate to give labels to the connections they observed between their stories...... 165

Figure 7.6: The final display of food stories posters with connecting themes...... 166

Figure 7.6: A table set for lunch for the LiFT and younger participants during March Break, with a backdrop of Food Stories posters, March 3, 2013...... 168

Figure 7.7: Vegetarian mushroom and mango tortillas made by LiFT participants, to be eaten together...... 169

Figure 7.8: Three youth participants of LiFT and the research project, Patricia, Marsha and Felicia, volunteering at the CBO food bank, with smiles...... 174

Figure 7.9: LiFT participants working in a community garden, weeding to prepare for the spring planting, May 8, 2013...... 175

Figure 9.1: A screenshot of the Canada’s Food Guide (2019) website, https://food- guide.canada.ca/en/...... 214

Figure 9.2: A conceptual graphic of ScienCivic literacy...... 216

xvi

List of Appendices

A. Research Recruitment ...... 242

B. Intake and Exit questionnaires ...... 246

1. Pre-program/Intake Questionnaire for Youth ...... 246

2. Post-program/Exit Questionnaire for Youth ...... 248

C. LiFT Program Schedule, 2012-13 (as of January 29, 2013) ...... 252

D. March Break - Detailed Camp Planning Schedule March 10 to 13, 2013 ...... 254

E. LiFT Program Logic Model in full ...... 261

F. Land, Food, People (Food Stories) Curriculum Plan ...... 262

G. Guiding Semi-structured Interview Questions ...... 266

H. Program Work Plan (Based on the Organization Template) ...... 267

Chapter 1 Setting the Table: An Introduction

Welcome to the kitchen. Please, put on an apron, roll up your sleeves, and wash your hands. We are going to get a little messy today, but the hard work will be worth it in the end. And you will each have something to take home with you. So, let’s begin!

1.1 Background

Each day, our world is experiencing many challenges: social, environmental and economic. Human and non-human, living and non-living entities face numerous challenges both locally and globally. Living beings are facing decreases in survival and replacement rates. We, as citizens and educators, are now grappling with a world that seems to be changing at a pace beyond our understanding and control. How do we offer opportunities for our youth to feel empowered and safe in the face of such challenges as global pandemics, climate change, massive species extinction, and air and water pollution? This project began by considering the intersection of three theoretical approaches to addressing socio-environmental issues: first, through environmental education within science education, then from through civic engagement as citizenship education, and third, through social ecology theory, in which humans are considered as one component of complex living systems. Ecojustice education overlaps and interweaves large parts of these fields and works to address knowing about and working towards change by demanding a critical understanding of systems and structures of power. It emerged out of the efforts of critical educators and theorists from the fields of citizenship education and environmental education, among others. Ecojustice education offers a theoretical framework that includes critical historical and discourse analysis, reconceptualizing curricula to attend to injustices produced by education, including conceptualizing the natural environment as an entity, and demanding a call for action. Ecojustice education is a growing field of research and practice (i.e., Martusewicz, Edmundson & Lupinacci, 2015; Martusewicz, Lupinacci & Schnakenberg, 2010; Stapleton, 2017). By bringing it in as a theoretical lens, it sheds new light on the

complexity of relationships between the human and more-than-human world and helps us to understand the outcomes of this case study in novel ways. For clarity, the more-than-human world refers to the abundance of living and non-living entities which comprise of nature, as the human world is sustained, surrounded, and permeated by the more-than-human world, which encourages a humility on the part of humanity (Abram, 1996).

Food is one realm of human activity that has an enormous impact on the wellbeing of individuals, societies and the environment. Food is something we need viscerally, and like other visceral needs, it offers opportunities to get messy, both physically and figuratively. Food interconnects with us at all levels, from molecules to organ systems and ecosystems. Food production, consumption and the resulting wastes have been identified as being among the leading causes of climate change, human health deterioration, soil degradation, and the loss of biodiversity, among other issues (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario [ECO], 2019; Mikulak, 2013) Land use by humans—including agriculture and forestry—accounts for 23 percent of human greenhouse gas emissions which are known to increase the impacts of global climate change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2019). Nevertheless, we need food to survive and thrive. Food is both temporal and timeless. Food is grounded in culture, place, in the local, and offers community‐based challenges and solutions. Food is a living thread between the individual and community.

Food justice is a critical systems approach to understanding and dismantling the intersectional injustices (re)produced by food production and consumption practices, at all levels. Food justice is a growing movement to address local and global challenges we face to sourcing sustainable, healthy, nutritious, and accessible food (i.e., Alkon & Agyeman, 2011, Mares & Alkon, 2011; Levkoe, 2013). It has and continues to grow as a movement in response to global capitalist economic policies and neoliberal practices that focus on the individual (Gottlieb & Joshi, 2010; Sbicca, 2018). During the current global pandemic, one out of seven Canadian families are impacted by aspects of food insecurity, with a greater proportion of those having children (Statistics Canada, 2020). By asking us to deconstruct current and past practices in education and society broadly, food justice offers ways of understanding the realities of one community-based

social justice-oriented education program, and potential for the future in addressing global challenges from a local level.

While I delve more deeply into the concepts of food security and food sovereignty in Chapter 2, in brief, food security can be conceptualized as strong local food systems, in which all people have secure and sufficient access to the safe and nutritious food they need to maintain a healthy and active life (ECO, 2014). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] (2019) defines four pillars of food security: availability (yield and production), access (affordability and ability to obtain food), utilization (nutrition and cooking), and stability (disruptions to availability). Food sovereignty expands the definition to also include social resilience, namely: the ability of human communities to adapt and recover from major disruptions, including environmental, social, economic and political changes, on their own localized terms (ECO, 2014).

Food justice education through an ecojustice lens may provide insight to the greater eco-socio- political challenges we face in our world, but also in the specific context of a large urban centre and the locality of one community. The community of note in this project presents food justice issues that make space for educational opportunities and alternative (non-mainstream) pedagogies to address them. For example, capitalist systems and structures most often place a burden on low-income, newcomer and/or Black, Indigenous and People of Colour (BIPOC) families to participate heavily in the labour market at the expense of communal cooking and eating experiences (Gottlieb & Joshi, 2010; Sbicca, 2018). Food justice is an important means for education to disrupt these systems, with an impetus for alternative pedagogies, such as growing one’s own food, building community around food skills and knowledge development, and learning to advocate for better access to fresh food, among many other things. I discuss more deeply such intersectional issues of poverty, race and gender impacted by food justice, in Chapter 2.

For these and many other reasons, this dissertation explores the experiences of secondary school- aged youth in a food justice education program in order to begin to understand how food may foster connections for them and lead to engagement in their social and ecological communities. I

was drawn to focus this research project within a community organization with goals to address food insecurity and injustices at the local level, as one grassroots approach to food justice education.

1.2 Research Questions

In this research, I view food as a learning experience, space, and tool offering interesting overlaps with the education spheres of science, environment and citizenship, through the lens of ecojustice. Thus, my core research question is What are the envisioned, enacted and experienced curricular moments in a community-based after school food justice education program? This overarching question is supported by sub-questions: What factors impacted the envisioned and enacted curriculum as developed and delivered by adult facilitators and volunteers, and in what ways? What factors influenced the youth experiences of the enacted programming, and in what ways? In this context, I understand curricular moments as any expression by facilitators or participants that reflect some type of learning or shift in understanding, related to food or otherwise. I have intentionally used the term “curricular moments”, rather than curriculum. (W)holistic curriculum theory helps explain the outcomes of the research from the perspective of curricular moments (Miller, 2007; Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery & Taubman, 1995). What I am calling curricular moments are expressions and observations of envisioned or unintended learning that happened on the part of program participants, both youth and adults. Some of these curricular moments were expressed by program participants and corroborated by me as a participant-observer or by other adult participant leaders (i.e., facilitator, staff or volunteers). Curricular moments were not always planned by the program facilitator and at times were completely unintended. Because of the embodied nature of food justice education, being that food is both literally and figuratively consumed, holistic curriculum theory lends itself to opportunities for understanding these embodiments (Harris & Barter, 2015). Three themes of curricular moments in food justice education emerged through the data analysis: expressions of agency and self-efficacy, understanding food, and creating community. These themes are explained in further detail in Section 2.6.2. As much as possible, the outcomes in this ethnographic case study are interpreted through an ecojustice lens, which I explain in depth in Chapter 3.

1.2.1 The Research Site

The community-based organization (CBO) in an urban centre I worked with over the course of this project is located in a neighbourhood with a population composed of predominantly newcomers with a high frequency of English-as-an-additional-language and low socio-economic status (SES). I was involved in this research with youth who would mainly self-identify and be identified as cis-gendered females and persons of colour, and who belong to cultural communities considered non-power-dominant in the urban Ontario context. The data collection took place in an afterschool program that met once a week over the course of the 2012–2013 school year, with four core teen participants within a fluctuating group of twelve, along with three core adult participants (two staff and one volunteer) involved in program development and delivery. The program for youth that is the focus of this research was founded three years prior to my year of data collection. For the purposes of this study, it will be referred to as the Leadership in Food for Teens (LiFT) after-school program.

The CBO and its programming were located in this community due to issues of food access and inequity. The overall income of community members was low and capacity to grow or purchase fresh food within walking distance was limited. The CBO itself was located within a low-income housing complex. The CBO offered a variety of program entry points ranging by age, gender, ethnic identity and comfort level. Some examples were intergenerational cultural gardening, an Indigenous men’s cooking group and a prenatal nutrition education program. At the time of this research, they had been running an after-school program for teens for several years, and looking to enhance the curriculum, thus it was a good time for my research partnership with them.

1.2.2 A Research Framework to Respond to the Research Questions

Through this dissertation, I attempt to attend to goals of ecojustice through a conceptualization of food justice education. I explain in detail both the broader conceptualizations and understandings of food justice education (FJE) from the field of this work, as well as my own understanding of it for this research project. My research questions may provide a simple framework for beginning

to understand food justice education, through my perception of the envisioned, enacted and experienced curriculum of the afterschool program.

In Chapter 2, the literature review, I clarify the ingredients of the research project by outlining the relevant fields I have selected to both frame the research and the current gaps I address. The core areas are food justice, food justice education, food in relation to science education, gendered programming, and holistic curriculum theory.

In Chapter 3, I explain ecojustice education through the theoretical approaches of social ecology theory, environmental education, and citizenship education, and how these approaches relate to food justice education. These are each explained briefly here, with greater depth in Chapter 3.

A social ecology lens helps position the organization as a research site within a broader socio- economic and environmental context. Social ecology theory, as a component of the ecojustice analysis lens, helps to address the question of what the role of food justice education is with regard to engaging youth in socio-ecological action and to position the organization and its goals and program offerings, and the after-school program of interest, in particular, in relation to a continuum of neoliberalism and social change.

Environmental education (EE) is an umbrella term that links everything from outdoor education to ecojustice, it encompasses a vast array of theoretical and pedagogical approaches. It is an interdisciplinary field of education research and practice that is concerned with awareness of, concern for and action on environmental issues. For the purposes of this study, based on my own research and teaching expertise, I anchor EE to the formal space of science education.

Citizenship education supports an understanding of the concepts of agency development and awareness, or self-efficacy, for program participants. It is another interdisciplinary umbrella with a focus on engagement in human rights and responsibilities, and the development of agency and identity in individuals.

There are certainly other theories that can explain ecojustice education beyond the three I have chosen. However, based on the groundwork on, and my own interest in, food justice education,

these theories appear to provide the richest means of exploration and understanding. I had also considered actor-network theory (ANT) (Pierce, 2013), as a post-structural approach to deconstructing components within the research frame, particularly for scientific literacy. ANT could be valuable in part because ecojustice considers all living and non-living actors and their co-relationships toward outcomes. However, I found ANT to be limiting in its scope because it seems to attribute the same degree of power to all components and does not adjust to changing power dynamics over time. This requires more analysis in educational research.

Chapter 4, on methodology and methods of data analysis, takes support from the literature and has some connection for rationale from the ecojustice education framework. Given the perspectives and positionings of ecojustice education, it was important for me to use analysis methodologies that were aligned with it. In line with ecojustice approaches which I link to anti- racist methodology, I tried to be mindful and transparent of my positionality as a researcher and also of the broader systemic influences that would support or impede the emergence of certain themes from the data. My research was set within an ethnography with a critical approach, which also delineated my methods of data collection. As such, through the research journey, I tried to immerse myself in my research site, and thus became, as much as possible, open to challenges, issues, and moments of empowerment. The data was based on open and structured interviews with individuals and groups, field notes and observations, digital and analog documents and artifacts created by the participants and the organization, images I curated from those I took myself and from the participants, digital interactions with staff, and my own participant-observer reflections after the fact. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 summarize the participants and data sets, respectively.

1.3 Rationale and Positioning Myself as a Researcher

Both social ecology and holistic curriculum theories work together in this dissertation to help explain the phenomena that I encountered as a researcher. I also use both theories to unpack my role and position as a researcher in the space. Ecojustice education, growing from a theoretical and praxis position of social justice, demands self-reflection, awareness of self within the broader social and ecological systems, and an understanding of the forces and structures that

have more or less power within these structures (Martusewicz, Edmundson & Lupinacci, 2015). It would be negligent of me, from an ecojustice perspective, to deny this foundational exercise of coming to know my multiple positionings within this process. While it is at times uncomfortable to acknowledge one’s privilege as well as one’s intersectionalities and oppressions, I believe it is through this process that we approach the most honest understanding of our work as researchers.

I was drawn to working with youth, as a mother, a teacher educator and former classroom teacher and camp counsellor. At its core, my research is about making the world a better place today and for future generations. I am drawn to the objectives of ecojustice education because I feel, and have read research to support that many educational traditions, particularly in formal spaces, continue to reproduce patterns of oppressions on both human and more-than-human beings, as well as in natural spaces (Abram, 1997; Dei, 2007; James, 2001). As a teacher educator in the areas of science and environmental education, I work with the officially mandated curriculum documents regularly and facilitate my students’ understandings of their obligations to their students in these documents, while at the same time offer opportunities for critical engagement with such texts.

I am a white, female-identifying cisgender woman from a middle-upper class position of privilege. Neither of my parents completed a university degree, although I have an uncle who was a professor of political science at a Canadian university. I grew up in a religiously and culturally Jewish family in a small city in Ontario, where in both elementary and secondary school, my two younger sisters and I were the only students who openly identified as Jewish. At times this was challenging, as from a young age I experienced ignorance, intolerance and even anti-Semitism. I was often called up to represent “Jewishness” in our community, thrust into a tokenized cultural ambassador role regardless of my feelings about it. I believe this experience of being a relative outsider at times helped me to become self-reflective, aware of othering and passionate social justice issues.

At the time I was conducting the research on-site, from September 2012 to August 2013, I was newly married with two stepchildren in elementary school. Since then, I have become a single mother to a young child. My identity as a mother and experiences of motherhood have enhanced

my attention to issues of sustainability, gendering, food security and civic engagement. I am particularly attuned to the construct of sustainability as an overarching tendril to all of these, in how I think about my daughter’s future, in even more holistic ways than I have done as a teacher. Along with elementary teaching qualifications, I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Marine Biology. This experience and identity in life sciences also gave me perspective on the roles and values of both quantitative and qualitative research methods, as well as some insight into the complexity of life systems and that pertains to food. I felt a perceptible shift in my view of statistical research through my induction into social sciences research. For my master's research project, I worked with a middle-school science teacher who was engaging her students in action- oriented research around waste management (Sperling & Bencze, 2010). This process began my mastery of qualitative research with youth, along with SSHRC-funded research assistantships with Dr. Bencze on teacher practices around integrating and facilitating action orientations and projects for elementary and high school students in the science classroom.

I have previously been a classroom teacher in both public and private schools in Ottawa, Ontario Yorkshire, England, and Arusha, Tanzania. My teaching experiences have been diverse: I taught as a high school science teacher, in split junior-level classes in English for French immersion students, and, in Tanzania, among other things, I taught French to students—some as young as three years old—as their fourth language. In terms of professional practice, over the past four years, I have become more embedded in teacher education, working as a sessional lecturer in science methods and environmental education, for both early years and elementary teacher education programs in the Ontario context. I have also worked with teacher candidates on their major research papers and in support of their practicum experiences.

In addition to my experience as a researcher and educator, I have a background working in nature conservation and agriculture. I worked for several years for both the Ontario Ministries of Natural Resources (MNR) and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) as a young adult. I was exposed to some of the structures and systems in place which impacted humans (social) and non-humans (nature). For example, for two summers as a potato scout in an integrated pest management program in Southern Ontario, I worked closely with potato farmers to help reduce their pesticide use and increase the crop yield. As their crop was beholden to a

major potato chip producing-corporation, I was given a bonus if there were fewer pest infestations AND less pesticide application. I was concerned about the pesticide for my own and ecosystem health, while the farmer was concerned, in addition, due to the added cost of each application of Bayer’s Admire® to keep Colorado potato beetles, aphids and leafhoppers at bay.

This combination of storytelling, relationship building, systems thinking and apprenticeship which I described above brought me to ethnographic research in food justice education. This ethnographic case study captures data over a period of one academic year, however, I was involved as a participant-observer and co-facilitator in the program for two years prior to the year I spent as part of this project. At one point during my time with the program, my whiteness and my age were called out by one of the non-facilitating staff after an interaction in which she perceived me as “speaking for” the teenage women in our after-school program; during one of the program sessions, when the staff person had been invited to speak to the participants, she had asked the group a question and, after some moments of silence, I responded. Later, in private, she confronted me about it. I had to support and reiterate my position in the program as someone with some expertise, and as someone who was both familiar with and who had a desire to enact anti-oppressive pedagogies. I will reflect on this further through the outcomes of the data analysis.

1.4 An Apéritif—On Recipes and Meals

Given the nature and positioning of the research in the field of food justice education, I have chosen to use the thematic structure of a recipe to provide a scaffolding for the dissertation. This section provides a summary of the use of a recipe structure, why it was selected and how the metaphor itself supports the work of the thesis. I also discuss how the thesis interrogates the formalized structure of the recipe as a sociocultural entity and re-appropriates it as a reimagined curriculum artefact.

The recipe may be seen as a set of instructions, along with its recommended ingredients, with a noted and expected outcome (“Recipe,” 2018). Modern culinary recipes normally consist of several components, including: the name (and often the locale or provenance) of the dish, how

much time it will take to prepare, required ingredients along with their quantities or proportions, the equipment and environment necessary to prepare the dish, an ordered list of preparation steps and techniques, the number of servings that the recipe will provide, descriptive notes about the texture and flavour of the dish, and, often a photograph of the finished dish (“Recipe”, 2018). This structure may be seen, intentionally, as very prescriptive, realistic and rationalistic (Paradowski, 2017). True, a recipe is meant to be a method of imparting or furnishing knowledge to another person, who may require specific instructions and who may never have experienced anything like the prescribed finished dish before. I find this definition limiting and seek to subvert it. From a more subjective and constructivist perspective, we may consider that the receiver of the recipe appreciates, consumes, and understands the knowledge, as well as the final product of the recipe (the meal), to only a degree of intent of the original. Borghini (2015) elucidates further on this notion, stating that “recipes are social entities whose identity depends (also) on a process of identification, typically performed by means of a performative utterance on the part of a cook” (p. 719). The word recipe originates in the Latin term for “take,” as each recipe in Ancient Roman times began with this command (Colquhoun, 2007, p. 25). This directive is particularly poignant, in the sense that I, as researcher, have developed this recipe based on my experience and inquiry into this case. The design, collection of data and analysis is based on my particular “take,” or taking in, of the realities as they exist in this context. There was some structure as a research project, but there was also much fluidity of inquiry and interpretation. I share it with an audience, I take the reader on my reflective journey, knowing that it will change with time and with the lens of the reader. The dissertation text is a sociocultural product, much like a recipe is a product of the main ingredients, the spices and the cooking technology available to the chef at that time, not to mention the background, knowledge, expectations and mood of the consumer. In addition, recipes have become commodified as intellectual property, sold in books or used to sell advertising space on food blogs, in much the way as academic research. The recipe also reinforces the holistic approach to learning that runs like a thread through this document. The recipe has little meaning without the embodied experience of it, thus I ask the reader as you engage with my research, to consider your own relationship to food..

In reality, a recipe is merely a guideline, a starting point. And as a curricular product, I believe that a recipe provides the perfect structure from which to have this research project emerge. Recipes are passed down through generations and adapt over time to the local and seasonal ingredients. This is also a metaphor for research methodologies broadly which are changed and adapted to offer better approaches to understanding the world and more socially just engagements with participants. Then, as I began to deepen the writing of this document, the metaphor broadened to include meal sharing, for the recipe itself is not enough to engage us. We must sit together, eat, engage our senses and memories, to be able to reflect and build on the communal experience, and acknowledge the multilayered experience of the research as a meal.

1.5 An Overview to Whet your Appetite

In the following chapters, the reader is taken on a journey through my research at a food justice education site. We begin in Chapter 2 with a look at the menu, the literature that supports this research, through some of the current and common discussions and practices in science education, food justice education, non-formal education, girls-only sites and curriculum as a social justice endeavour. In Chapter 3 I share an integrated conceptual framework for ecojustice education, and how it may help to explain my research questions and findings. Chapter 4 explains my methodological choices and methods of responding to the research questions, as well as the context within which it all took place. In Chapter 5, I begin to share the meal with you, the reader. We are introduced to two of the adult research participants and the envisioned curriculum of the program. Chapter 6 introduces the youth participants and draws attention to the enacted curriculum. Chapter 7 elucidates the experiences of the adults and youth, and the role of pedagogies and institutional structures in offering both support and challenges to addressing food justice education from an ecojustice perspective. Chapter 8 offers an analysis of why these findings are significant to food justice and non-formal education. Chapter 9 discusses the implications of what these findings can mean more broadly for the implementation of ecojustice education theory and practice in both formal and non-formal settings, and introduces a new term in ScienCivic literacy. With this dissertation, I provide one person’s view and engagement, as developed through my own context, experiences and ways of knowing and being in the world. My project here is to make my lenses as transparent as possible to provide insight on the data and

analysis I have gathered and prepared on this one case of participants in a food justice education program.

Chapter 2 Ingredients: A Literature Review

Youth of today know very well the crises that face us all, and too often are left in a morass of depression and helplessness. Getting them outside the confines of school walls and taken-for- granted assumptions and into mentoring relationships with the elders of their communities, to do real work that matters to them, creates the physical, intellectual, and inter-personal skills needed to reclaim our communities.

Martusewicz, Edmundson & Lupinacci, 2015, p. 358-359

2.1 What’s on the Menu? A Guide to the Literature that Foregrounds this Study

This chapter situates the research rationale and questions with a delineation of the boundaries of literature that informed the selection of the questions, as well as the research project. Within the recipe metaphor, here we consider the contents and contexts of the meal and menu. What shall we consume and how will we prepare it? How does each component relate, enhance or fight for attention on our palate? The component parts of the literature are identified in the overview Figure 2.1, and in depth in the sections below.

2.1.1 Rationale for the Research and Research Questions Reiterated

At this time in our world, physical and financial access to healthy, nutritious and equitably sourced foods is becoming increasingly limited and politicized. Some regions struggle more than others; some slices of some communities struggle more than others. How and what humans are being fed is becoming more and more contentious in our globalized and corporatized reality. Our human impact on the Earth through our consumption of food and food products is certainly worth examining from a sustainability perspective. However, the complexity of food systems and our relationships with them is much greater than can be interpreted and conveyed here. Rather, one small part of this big area of interest and concern is the space of food justice education. I

have selected this area of focus because it intersects directly with my personal and academic areas of interest, highlighting connections to science education through socio-scientific issues, to environmental education and to issues of equity and activism. As an experienced educator in the fields of science methods for elementary teachers, and environmental education for all panels, I have begun to see the value of using food as an entryway to address social, scientific and environmental ideas and issues (i.e., Sperling & Bencze, 2017). While I provide much greater detail in Section 2.2 below, briefly, food justice education emerges from a growing need to acknowledge the complexities of our food system, the inequities inherent in its current structure, and the need to draw awareness to and act to mitigate these problems (e.g. Flowers & Swan, 2012; Vigden, 2016). Figure 2.1 provides an overview of my interpretation of where food justice education lies in relation to the broader food system as well as delineates the focus areas for my literature review in this chapter, foregrounding my research. Note that health appears at the top and bottom of the figure, attesting to the two-dimensional constraints of this construct. It may be imagined as a sphere, if the reader wishes.

This research attends to the following questions: What are the envisioned, enacted and experienced curricular moments in a community-based after school food justice education program? This overarching question is supported by sub-questions: What factors impacted the envisioned and enacted curricula as developed and delivered by adult facilitators and volunteers, and in what ways? What factors influenced the youth experiences of the enacted programming, and in what ways? As described in Section 1.2.2, I understand curricular moments as any expression by facilitators or participants that reflect some type of learning or shift in understanding, related to food or otherwise.

2.1.2 Overview of Literature

In order to situate this research, I have delineated areas of literature to inquire about and highlight the history, necessity and contributions of this research area, starting from the driving point of food justice education. This literature review draws out a space within which the research questions inhabit, showing the need for this research. The literature review investigates the fields of food justice and food justice education, non-formal education, girls-only learning

spaces, and the relationship of each to science education. Figure 2.1 indicates the ways that I have conceived of the relationships and interrelationalities of these constructs for the sake of this project. Given the complex sociopolitical nature of many of these constructs, especially food, science, justice, gender, health and literacy, I understand that this delineation is somewhat arbitrary and perhaps limiting. Each line with an arrow indicates a connection. For the purposes of this project, the three subsets of food justice education literature were contained within the discipline area of science education, the content area of food literacy, and the political area of food justice, each in coloured text. Certainly, there are other topics and areas of literature that could contribute to the project, but the lines must be drawn to limit the project to a feasible scope.

Figure 2.1: A concept map of the literature from the nexus of food justice education, with each arrow indicating a connection

2.2 Food Justice

Food justice is a growing movement in response to the need to address local and global challenges individuals and communities face in accessing and achieving self-determined sustainable, healthy, nutritious, affordable and geographically available food (i.e., Alkon & Agyeman, 2011, Mares & Alkon, 2011; Levkoe, 2013; Food Secure Canada, n.d.). As Food Secure Canada states,

The Food Justice movement strips down issues related to food production and access to reveal the hidden layers of oppression within our food system (such as unequal rights for migrant workers). It promotes the creation of systems that reflect practices of decolonization and that actively supports systems based on justice, equality, cultural pluralism and human rights (Food Secure Canada, What is Food Justice?, n.d.)

For example, pesticides can be used to increase crop yields so as to feed our growing human population, but pesticides can also leach into the water table and end up in our drinking water, causing illnesses in humans and harm to bird populations through bioaccumulation, to result in weakening egg shells for non-viable offspring, as well as eutrophication (a dense growth of aquatic plant life and death of animal life from lack of oxygen) (Carson, 1962; Schindler & Vallentyne, 2008). The food justice movement acknowledges and attempts to dismantle systemic trauma/inequities and injustices in the food production and supply chain, including agricultural practices that cause harm to land, animals and people, directly or indirectly (Cadieux & Slocum, 2015).

2.2.1 Food Justice in Relation to Social Justice

We cannot discuss food justice without acknowledging its relationship to social justice. The social nature of justice is embedded in the concept of food justice. Initially encountering this term, people may think that is justice that is allotted to or directed toward food, which seems irrational. In fact, the term is the inverse. Mares and Alkon’s (2011) article Mapping the Food Movement provides a review of food movement literature, bringing to light the social inequalities related to “race and class in the production, distribution and consumption of food, as well as the

neoliberal constraints of inherent to market-based solutions in the food system” (p. 68). Food justice, by definition, centres racial and economic justice to enhance access to and capacity for healthy, culturally appropriate and sustainably grown food (Mares & Alkon, 2011). Barron (2017), building on the work of Alkon and Agyeman (2011), adds that “food justice initiatives ... strive for equitable universal access to healthy food that is also culturally appropriate and produced in a sustainable and equitable manner” (para. 6.2). Gottlieb (2010) names some of the many key human stakeholders, as “justice for all in the food system, whether producers, farmworkers, processors, workers, eaters or communities” (p. 51). What is understated here from an ecojustice perspective is the acknowledgement or recognition of nature, the environment itself that provides the food—the bounded, dynamic and living ecosystem within which we all must survive. The very materiality of food demands some degree of action to seek out just and sustainable solutions to environmental, social and economic issues (Alkon & Agyeman, 2011). Food security and food sovereignty are two subsets of modes of addressing food justice issues, with differing political agendas.

2.2.2 Food Security and Food Sovereignty: A Great Intersectional Challenge

Food security is a term growing in prominence, particularly for governance spaces. In 2019 the IPCC released a report that defines four pillars of food security: availability (yield and production), access (prices and ability to obtain food), utilization (nutrition and cooking), and stability (disruptions to availability). As recently as the 2019 Canadian budget, it was noted that “one in eight Canadian households currently experience food insecurity, meaning that they are without reliable access to a sufficient quantity of affordable, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food” (Canada, 2019, Introducing a Food Policy for Canada section, para.1). Many citizens live in what is classified as a food desert, with limited access to fresh food (Wrigley, 2002).

The food security movement has shifted from being focussed on food provision through food banks toward “seeing food as a right of citizenship, and the fulfilment of this right as a critical component of a more democratic and just society” (Barron, 2017, para. 6.2). Food insecurity has been described as a product of complex factors. Recognizing the embedded connectedness of

food insecurity to other systemic injustices such as poverty, chronic illness, lack of access to clean air and water, and exposure to toxins, some of these initiatives embrace a holistic approach to ameliorating multiple inequities, working to incorporate health, wellness, environmental, ecological, and economic justice, and sustainability into their goals (Winne, 2008). The growing gap in wealth, powered by capitalism and neoliberalism and their focus on the market and on individual choices is simply one node in a complicated web of factors, many of which give too much power to a few mostly multinational companies (Belasco, 2007; Roberts, 2013). Food security is highly aligned with democratizing decision-making related to food, as well as redistributing the power to produce food. Identity politics and social constructions of food and consumers of it lead to great intersectional injustices (Stapleton, 2017).

Often, due to challenges and oppressions, most notably historic and systemic racism, misogyny, ableism and ageism, it is the most vulnerable people in our societies who are most directly impacted and marginalized by issues of food security. Marginality in this case pertains to a spectrum of broadly fluid and intersecting subjectivities such as, within the realm of citizen access, the resources of healthy food, workplace stability and immigration status. It should be noted that ageism refers to both older adults as well as children and youth. Thus, the structures of civil society in place around food security can make it challenging for some stakeholders to participate in food security activities. den Heyer (2006) considered the heightened challenges to civic engagement with increased marginalization: “Given the immensity of challenges so many collectively face … and most peoples’ more modest zones of influence, this hyper-individualized heroic and idealized notion of agency likely contributes to the widely acknowledged political apathy of youth” (p. 87). However, there are many initiatives and responses to issues of food insecurity that are both developed by and targeted at intersectionally marginalized communities. With deep roots in Toronto’s food movement, Roberts (2013) noted that the food justice movement is largely driven by youth, who demand more access to knowledge and skills through food studies, and who promote issues of food justice through social media.

2.2.3 Responding to Food Insecurity

There is a growing movement encompassing multiple stakeholders to democratize power over and access to food. Policies, practices and interventions have been advocated for and implemented by individuals and communities, by governments at all levels and by non- governmental organizations. This may lead to a flattening of hierarchy, building up more grassroots and community-run initiatives and practices, which increased democratization through more diverse and greater inclusion of voices and practices.

Food sovereignty represents the activity associated with this notion of democratization. For example, Vandana Shiva and the Navdanya women’s movement in India have been working to save seeds from every generation of growth, to maintain seed growers’ ownership of seeds, enabling them to share seeds as they wish, and to keep seeds from being taken over by major corporations—something that might never have been considered a generation or two ago (Shiva, 2016). This movement is one of many that either have been of long standing (e.g. in various Indigenous communities, among heritage seed enthusiasts, and among naturalists) or came about in reaction to the Green Revolution of the 1960s. And more recently, seed libraries have popped up throughout the world to hold safe, share and redistribute seeds to local communities, maintaining the biological diversity of seeds in local and global agricultural systems, in a grassroots way (Wang, 2010).

Another response to food insecurity is community gardens. Power is inherently removed from the industrial agriculture complex when citizens work collectively to grow their own food, in their own communities (Williams, 2011). Furthermore, the tangible benefits of cultivating and producing one’s own food can create a ripple effect that can lead to taking ownership of other aspects of the food system (Barron, 2017).

An additionally powerful response to food insecurity is culturally appropriate cooking. There is much research that supports the enhancement of emotional and social wellbeing by cooking culturally familiar and nurturing foods, especially with others and intergenerationally (Çakir, 2014). The satisfaction of being nourished by and of consuming one’s home culture, can lead to

deeper feelings of empowerment through acknowledgement of and participating in one’s identity and connection to others.

2.2.4 Summary

Food justice, and its component parts, food security and food sovereignty, have quietly begun to take up space in our collective consciousness and in our bellies in recent years. While the impacts of food insecurity are felt more strongly by those most marginalized in our society, the impacts are widespread and growing. However, there are many organizations and policies responding to these issues, supporting actions toward equitable access to sustainable food production and consumption. In the Global North we have been separated from our food through industrialization, but with popular education, we can learn to reclaim our relationship to food, as individuals and communities, from seeds and soil to sauce and sustenance.

2.3 Food Justice Education

The domain of food justice education has emerged in response to the challenges of food insecurity. Currently, food (justice) education mainly exists as a topic of popular and non-formal education in Ontario, aimed at all ages and demographics of society, due to scaling back in formal spaces, which I discuss further in section 2.4.1 below. There are several organizations that offer food justice education programming, and specifically for youth in urban centres. They have different approaches and means of engagement. Some focus on agriculture, growing and selling food produce as their primary engagement mode, such as FoodShare’s School Grown program in Toronto (Wever, 2015). Others focus on the embodied learning of play-based gardening (Hobbis, 2016). There are also other programs with a more intersectional entry community-based model, such as Black Creek Farms in North Toronto. Among these, there are varying elements of critical engagement in food systems learning. There is, as yet, not a great deal of research published on youth-focused food justice education programs in Ontario.

Because of limited resources for non-governmental organizations to create and offer programming, and the limited time of potential participants, organizations that advocate for the goals of food justice education often describe a best impact scenario in formal education as well

(Conference Board of Canada, 2013; SustainOntario, 2013). Given the broad implication of a just food system, more contact points and variety of engagements, are more likely to produce a knowledgeable and justice-oriented citizenry. Youth as a demographic have much to gain from food justice education. A critical curriculum based in food creates space for youth and facilitators to engage in (scientific) discourses related to nutrition, agricultural practices, climate and ecology, among others, as a component of what Belasco (2007) refers to as the edible dynamic that is food studies. Additionally, the pedagogy of food allows for renewed examinations of self and identity which can lead to moments and positionings of empowerment. I explore each of these ideas in the following sections.

2.3.1 Food Literacy

Food is contextual and material. It requires some skill and knowledge to be what can be considered successful: palatable, healthy, aesthetically pleasing. To contextualize this research project on food justice education for youth, it is important to understand the concept of food literacy. Food literacy is a concept outlined in a growing number of official and popular discourses. From a basic perspective, food literacy is often defined as the knowledge and skills needed to consume food, including sourcing and preparation (Conference Board of Canada, 2013; Vigden, 2016). Other components of food literacy may include, for example, the cultural and social significance of cooking, eating and feeding, the health and social benefits of preparing and sharing food with others, and understandings of the complex food networks and systems, at various levels of locality and governance (Korzan & Webb, 2014; Vigden, 2016; Levkoe & Wakefield, 2014). Numerous studies show that hands-on food preparation and cooking skills are what is presented in school curricula (e.g. Korzun & Webb, 2014; LDCP, 2017). In 2013 several courses were released by the Ministry of Education. However, these courses, operating in a crowded curriculum, often focus on only hands on skills at the expense of examining social and cultural issues around food. While there is a history of food studies in formal education, particularly at the secondary level, offerings of this course have waxed and waned in Ontario over the years. There is an open (non-academic) course called Food and Nutrition (HFN1O/2O) offered in some schools for grade 9 or 10 students. As of 2013, the course description states:

This course focuses on guidelines for making nutritious food choices. Students will investigate factors that influence food choices, including beliefs, attitudes, current trends, traditional eating patterns, food-marketing strategies, and individual needs. Students will also explore the environmental impact of a variety of food choices at the local and global level. The course provides students with opportunities to develop food-preparation skills and introduces them to the use of social science research methods in the area of food and nutrition. (Ontario MoE, 2013)

With an updated curriculum in 2013, there is a unit on food security. The components of food security are defined in the curriculum document as “availability, accessibility, adequacy, acceptability and sustainability”, with responses to it being listed as “local programs to increase food security (e.g., education programs, food banks, community kitchens, community gardens)” (Ontario MoE, 2013, p.160). While the Ontario Home Economics Association (OHEA) is lobbying for mandatory food literacy courses, the focus remains on knowledge and skills (OHEA, n.d.).

A collaborative report presented to the province by 16 health units in Ontario defines “Food Literacy [as] a set of interconnected attributes organized into the categories of food and nutrition knowledge, skills, self-efficacy/confidence, food decisions, and other ecologic factors (external) such as income security, and the food system” (LDCP, 2017, p.2). In addition, Abarca (2016), through her work on food narratives as a means to teach critical theory, noted that food can function as a medium for deciphering existing theories and creating new ones, superseding the paradox of the abstract nature of theory within the practicality of food related activities. Thus, the focus in food literacy, at least from some policy and community perspectives, is taking on a critical lens.

2.3.2 Critical Food Literacy

Some of the research and literature on food literacy is opening up to more complex conceptions, giving it a more critical lens. As Sumner (2016) noted, food literacy is inherently political. By applying a critical literacy approach to food literacy, we begin to acknowledge and attend to the

multiple, intersectional and complex aspects of food that go beyond the pragmatic skill and knowledge sets to attend to the social and cultural significance of cooking, eating and feeding (Fordyce-Voorham & Lai-Yeung, 2015; Korzun & Webb, 2014; Renwick 2013; Vidgen, 2016). Critical food literacy has been described by Yamashita & Robinson (2016) in relation to their work in understanding the complexity of food production and distribution, as “the ability to examine one's assumptions, grapple with multiple perspectives and values that underlie the food system, understand the larger sociopolitical contexts that shape the food system, and take action toward creating just, sustainable food systems” (p. 269). This is supported by McKenna and Brodovsky’s (2016) work in schools as they noted that youth shifted “from being passive recipients of [school food] policy to active participants throughout the policy process—from identifying the need for policy change to developing, adopting, implementing, and evaluating it” (p.201). In their meta-analysis of food education programs in Ontario, Korzun and Webb (2014) acknowledge that “complex data that examines critical elements of analysis such as gender, age, race, socio-economic class, family composition, immigration status and geographical regions” (p. 15), are missing from the research and documentation. This is supported by Guthman’s (2008) notion that food literacy as it often exists, as a subset of food education, may be taken up as an extension of existing social intersectional hegemonic structures, which is why the critical component is so important. Guthman contends that the capitalist culture of our society privileges white desires, through commodification of certain agricultural food products and experiences, and assumptions that lead to marginalizations of particular bodies, such as through community garden projects lead by folks from beyond the community. As in many justice-oriented projects, the entry of privileged bodies to “fix’ problems in communities, can lead to disempowering local members, especially when the white leaders are no long present or available. Rather capacity building of local members, through projects such as community gardens, enhances the true sustainability of the projects and the power of the community. Critical food literacy would offer opportunities to interrogate and begin to understand the complex and powerful interrelation of factors in the food system by addressing how constructs of health, oppression and inequity impact individuals and communities.

2.3.3 Pedagogical Orientations and Learning Opportunities

Some pedagogical orientations and interventions are naturally closely affiliated with food literacy and food justice education. Pedagogies may be oriented to serve a curriculum that is focused on the individual or the collective, or somewhere along the spectrum. Pedagogies of food can be taken up in a variety of ways. According to Flowers and Swan (2016), food pedagogy may occur within the realms of various theoretical positions, including public pedagogy, cultural pedagogy and the pedagogy of the everyday. They posit that “Food pedagogies denotes a congeries of educational, teaching and learning ideologies and practices carried out by a range of agencies, actors, institutions and media which focus variously on growing, shopping, cooking, eating and disposing of food” (Flowers and Swan, 2016, p.1). The most common pedagogical practices of food security are through gardening and cooking (Barron, 2017). Food pedagogies range along the spectrum of individualized to communal. Each of us may have a personal relation to food, preferences for tastes, texture, smell, and so on. In addition, the natural commensality of many food-based practices, through socialization, offers opportunities for development of community, belonging and collectivity, offering an integration of cultural connections. Food has the capacity to offer learners space to express their identities, to draw out realities of their past and home lives. Baskin (2008) worked with Indigenous youth around their cultural food practices and drew connections to an additional spiritual connection that comes from food-based learning. This is also congruent with holistic education goals and practices. A holistic curriculum has a goal of being transformative for educators and learners, through balance, inclusion and connection through pedagogies of embodiment (Miller, 2007). The inherent experiential potentials of food justice education also connect learners to place. These may lead to taking ownership of local issues based on their own knowledge of community, climate and consumerism (Jagger, 2016). By helping youth to become justice-oriented participants in food justice education, they may become powerful actors in the community food network over time, as they are able to access their existing knowledges and begin to grow their own food and knowledge (Sperling & Bencze, 2015).

2.3.4 Limitations of Food Justice as Education

Food justice as a set of educational practices has limitations. As an interdisciplinary learning space, educators may struggle to find a home for it and may have to take up multiple identities and knowledges to create a robust program. In this way, they must be knowledge experts in areas of botany, construction, nutrition, cooking, and social justice, among other things (Levkoe & Stephens, 2009). Another limitation to food justice education work is that it is an alternative approach to learning, implementing hands-on, place-based and justice-oriented work, thus often being outside the mainstream funding structures. Facilitators of this work often have to direct time and energy to securing funding to run the programs, often competing with similar programs and thus being beholding to funder mandates in program development (Incite!, 2007). Additionally, similar to much work done in the non-profit sector, the turn-over rate of staff can be very high due to the financial and social sustainability of such positions. Workload may be high and working with vulnerable populations can take a mental toll. Staffing within food justice movements has also historically been white, male bodies, which often means that they are not members of the community within which they are working (Sbicca, 2018). Staff turnover and non-membership may lead to discontinuity of programming and loss of institutional history. In addition, there is privilege of time and access to participate in such alternative programming beyond one’s “regular” responsibilities. Thus, food justice education is at the mercy of operating within a neoliberal system of capitalism.

2.3.5. Summary

Food justice education can be seen to encapsulate teaching and learning about issues related to food inequities and insecurity, and the means by which to address them. This can happen along a spectrum of curricula, and in multiple spaces for people with multiple intersectional identities, and may be impacted by limitations imposed by broader socio-political systems.

2.4 Science Education as a Context for Food Justice

As a researcher and educator in science education, the context and impacts, both positive and negative, of science education are important to me. It is the conceptual space where I have done

the most thinking about and implementing theories into action in education, as a researcher and teacher educator. Science education has the potential to help develop a set of critical literacy skills to enhance both wonder and knowledge about the world, which I have seen in my own work (i.e., Sperling & Benzce, 2010) and in the work of others, such as Calabrese Barton, Birmingham, Sato, Tan and Calabrese Barton (2013). In addition, the spheres of science literacy and pedagogy may be seen as highly influential as we look toward developing environmentally minded, activist and educated citizenry. In 2016, the United Nations implemented a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which focus on the need for increased and enhanced approaches to sustainability-related research and practice with a strong focus on education.

This document represents a growing concern for how we can conceptualize and analyze the complex relations between nature and society. Science is one lens we can use to understand these relationships. “As a functional system of society, science provides the means for the domination of nature and thus, ultimately, is one of the drivers that has turned mankind into a geological force, which now threatens to push the planet to its boundaries” (Hummel, Jahn, Keil, Liehr, & Stieß, 2017, p. 1). The corollary of this statement by Hummel and colleagues is that science and science education may also form the basis from which we can invert that relationship of human domination over nature toward sustainable existence. Science provides a formalized space to think through problems and seek solutions. The social and ecological justice aspects of scientific literacy are articulated by Roth and Barton (2004), in that “Political power associated with scientific literacy as a collective praxis changes power relations because it not only changes the science that gets done and who has a voice in the process, it changes the very nature of science and society” (p. 78). Martusewicz, Lupinacci and Schnakenberg (2010) commented, from an ecojustice perspective, that,

Culturally, so much value has been placed on modern science and technology that many expect that it will be only a matter of time until science solves all of the worlds’ problems (hunger, poverty, disease, war, etc.). And yet, we can trace some of the world’s most serious problems to modern science and technologies. (p. 25-26).

As such, science education has a special role in addressing and undoing the damage of its/our history.

2.4.1 Formal Education

The Council for Ministers of Education in Canada (CMEC) works to develop policy support and direct learning outcomes for students across the country. In its most recent publication on the topic in 1997, it presented the Common Framework for Science Learning Outcomes K-12, which included statements that attend to some of the goals and complexities of science learning. The document highlights Hodson’s (1994) notion that scientific literacy is an evolving combination of the science-related attitudes, skills, and knowledge that students need to develop inquiry, problem-solving, and decision-making abilities, to become lifelong learners, and to maintain a sense of wonder about the world around them. To develop scientific literacy, students require diverse learning experiences that provide opportunity to explore, analyze, evaluate, synthesize, appreciate, and understand the interrelationships among science, technology, society, and the environment that will affect their personal lives, their careers, and their futures (CMEC, 1997, sec. 2). These beliefs are (re)iterated in many formal learning spaces for science, such as the Ontario Science and Technology Curriculum, grades 9–10, revised in 2008 (MoE, 2008).

2.4.1.1 Science Curriculum, in Relation to Food Literacy

As mentioned in Section 2.3.1 above, food literacy is a space that requires and is bolstered by a degree of scientific knowledge and skills. Despite the expressed need for students to develop skills, knowledge, and attitudes in relation to lifelong scientific learning and decision-making, in the current Ontario curricular context, there is little overt connection made to one of the most impactful materials in our lives: food. Given the nature of this project—research with teenage youth—and based on my prior research history with middle- and high school teachers and students, the project continues to focus on the high school age learning. The grade 9 and 10 Science curriculum (Ontario, 2008) mentions food in the front matter section discussing Antidiscrimination Education and Science:

Students might examine the impact of climate change on different regions and cultures around the world, as well as the impact of technologies or technological processes in use in different countries in relation to the food chain, the environment, or the ozone layer (p. 37- 38).

There are eight further places within the curriculum expectations where food is suggested as an example of a means a teacher could use to facilitate student achievement, or within a sample question. The majority of these suggestions are related to technological interventions, such as food preservatives or food safety, although there is one example of a more systems and sustainability-related approach, in grade 10 applied Earth and Space Science, where food consumption is related to a person’s carbon footprint and the suggestion is made that students could plan a course of action to eat more local foods (Ontario, 2008).

There are few other options for learning about food systems in formal education in Ontario. Several courses are available under the umbrella of Nutrition and Food systems within the newly renamed Home Economics discipline. In her dissertation, Brady (2017) reflected on the focus of such courses which when offered, tend to be more focussed on nutritional science and food systems management, without evidence of much social justice oriented critical thinking around food issues. The Ontario Home Economics Association (OHEA) is, at the time of this writing, petitioning the Provincial government to make food literacy mandatory in Ontario.

2.4.1.2 Science, Technology, Society and the Environment (STSE)

Along with the knowledge and skills associated with learning science, STSE is a strand or a subsection of the science curriculum as well. It is a broader way of approaching an understanding of how science knowledge production is related to social relations and activities. As desirable as it may be to include ecojustice education, including food literacy, in the Ontario high school curriculum, there are limitations. Resource limitations, in combination with attending to expectations of the official science curriculum that do not blatantly require student action, let al.one taking up a particularly political stance, cause a disconnect between the intentions of ecojustice education and reality (Hodson, 2003; Sperling & Bencze, 2010). Non-formal

education can therefore be used to provide rich sites of citizenship development around STSE issues and can work at supporting the development of citizenship attributes in youth that emerge through engagement with STSE issues.

2.4.2 Non-formal Education

Non-formal education exists for many reasons. Because there is a gap in the offering of programming focussed on food justice in the formal sector of education in Ontario, it seems natural that there would be programming offered by the non-formal sector. Non-formal education includes any programming out of the official school curriculum, that is a facilitated learning experience in an organized manner. This contrasts to informal learning which is learning that occurs through unstructured spaces and engagements, such as taking a walk with a friend. Non-formal education offers opportunities and challenges for research. Community-based organizations (CBOs) may deliver unique non-formal educational programming that may provide access and exposure to conflict and structural power imbalance in ways that are perhaps more obvious than the same issues would be if they were addressed in the formal school system. Community-based organizations, who work with both adults, youth and children, have more freedom to create spaces of culture organically, as opposed to forcibly, because they often work at building strength through the development, gathering and mobilization of localized, community-based scientific and other knowledge forms. In this section I discuss the rationale for focusing on non-formal education, the role these spaces take up in society, and I include examples of sites delineated for non-formal learning.

2.4.2.1 Rationale and Roles of Non-formal Science Education

Historically, there has been a lot of research about how school science spaces have been undesirable for youth who are marginalized by intersectional identities, such as young women of colour (i.e., Barton, 1998; Brickhouse & Potter, 2001). Beyond-school science participation is highlighted as a means to access and increase “the social, material, and personal wellbeing” of individuals, groups, and nations (NRC, 2009)— “indicators and aspirations that are deeply linked with understandings of equity, justice, and democracy” (Philip & Azevedo, 2017, p. 526).

In a recent project, researchers who took on the role of participant-observers in a summer science camp for Indigenous youth reflected that they were able to achieve their goals in programming, to “get youth curious about the natural world and equip them with the skills needed to explore and protect it” (Reid, Lane, Woodworth, Spring, Garner & Tanche, 2020, para.2). Calabrese Barton and Tan (2010) found that youth participants in a renewable energy summer program were able to assert themselves as knowledge producers and critics of classroom practices. There are multiple ways that citizens of all ages are engaged in non-formal educational experiences. In many ways, non-formal education has historically provided real-life experiences for adults and youth, by “meeting them” in their communities. O’Donnell and Kirkner (2014) assert that out-of- school programs (e.g., community-based) rooted in positive youth development principles can help marginalized youth “to overcome barriers to learning and enhance academic achievement” (p. 178); examples include homework clubs, youth tutoring (Fredricks et al., 2010), various literacy programs (Carter et al., 2008; Rahm, 2012), youth leadership, mentoring and civic engagement groups (O’Donoghue & Strobel, 2007; Rhodes et al. 2000). In addition to democratic and social outcomes, researchers have also found positive impacts on youth academic (in school) outcomes as a result of non-formal program participation (O’Donnell & Kirkner, 2014), although that is not the focus of this project.

There is growing research on the development of indirect learning through participation in groups, but many scholars have identified active participation in social activity and movements as a necessary part of democratic learning (Levkoe, 2013; Merrifield, 2001; Schugurensky, 2003). The site of non-formal education offers new or different networks for learning from the formal school space and, in particular, may expose youth to contextual issues of food in their community, which may be beyond the physical and theoretical boundaries of formal schooling spaces and capacity. Rahm (2012), building on the community science programs work of Calabrese Barton (1998), noted that the types of programs that “respect youth for who they are play a crucial role in youth’s identity work as potential insiders … to co-construct science and become agents of science” (p. 47). In previous studies that engaged students through a research- based, action-oriented curriculum (i.e., Bencze, Sperling, & Carter, 2011; Sperling & Bencze, 2010), fellow researchers and I found that there are certain constraints in formal schooling that

inhibit youth from full participation in civic engagement with sustainability issues. Among these, the limitations of time in combination with an official science curriculum that does not blatantly require student action around issues caused disconnection between the best intentions of sustainability education and reality. Davies et al. (2019) note that

concerns have been raised that most forms of civic engagement learning for and by youth, … often occur randomly in their communities while school-based programmes (aiming to educate with this intent) are limited and tend to be involved in ‘safe,’ ‘acceptable’ and ‘minimal’ forms of civic action, such as ‘fundraising, fasting and having fun,’ recycling, planting trees or supporting established community organizations (such as a foodbank) (p.12).

As such, a non-formal education site offers different networks for learning from the formal school space and exposes youth to contextual issues in their community, as well as offering divergent modes of engagement than can be experienced in a tighter learning environment, such as schools (Paraskeva-Hadjichambi et al., 2020). This contextualized learning may offer moments of intersecting citizenship education with ecojustice. The site of non-formal education offers new networks for learning from the formal school space and exposes youth to contextual issues of food in their community.

There are multiple ways that youth are engaged in non-formal educational experiences. In many ways, non-formal education has historically provided real-life experiences for youth, by “meeting them” in their communities, often in a form of place-based education (Gruenewald, 2003). Place-based education connects to the realities of youth (or any learners), incorporates experiential and embodied learning, and has been noted to be one of the most successful ways of engaging in learning and collaboration (Rahm, 2010). Place-based education locates the community as a site of learning that often offers opportunities for collaboration that are not as common in formal learning spaces. Collaboration is further understood as important to ecojustice education as a tool for addressing power imbalances. Higgins-D’Allesandro (2010) referred to “learning programs to immerse youth in community problem solving [and] promot[ing] the development of youth cognitive and social capabilities as well as enhancing civic understanding

and the willingness to work for social justice” (p. 572). There is a sense of freedom from the top- down, official curriculum in non-formal education that allows for localized, youth-driven curriculum that inherently works toward ecojustice by (becoming and) knowing one’s own environment, both physical and social (Barton, 2003). Through non-formal educational opportunities, youth are exposed to systemic power dynamics and encouraged to research and act on [socioscientific] issues they feel are most relevant and prudent for them (Weinstein, 2010).

Shiller (2013) described that CBOs helped young people acknowledge “structural constraints”, as identified by Ginwright and Cammorata (2007) in their communities by asking youth to look at who lives in the neighborhood as well as what housing conditions, transportation, and services exist for those residents. Shiller’s analysis of those constraints (i.e., why the conditions of their neighborhoods exist the way they do), highlighted that the adults “fostered more aware and empowered civic identities in youth,” as defined by Rubin, Hayes, and Benson (2009). Thus, non-formal learning can be seen to be embedded in and connected to the greater “understanding that all human communities are nested and participate in complex communities of life— ecosystems—that we depend upon for our very lives” (Martusewicz, Lupinacci and Schnakenberg, 2010, p. 11). The site of non-formal education offers new networks for learning from the formal school space and exposes youth to contextual issues of food in their community.

There is a gap in the literature concerning youth inclusion in non-formal science education, especially so the discourse around ESL-Science praxis is minimal. In this increasingly globalized world, there is a small body of research about ESL learners in formal science — particular with respect to content learning (i.e., Cummins, 2009) — but there is still an absence of data about sustainability education and civic agency for ESL learners in science. For individuals who may not share a common first language, an action-oriented pedagogy, with food in hand and place in mind, provide an opportunity to challenge dominant notions of culture and access,

2.4.2.2 Role of the Facilitator

Given some of the goals of a non-formal education program, much like a teacher in the formal education setting, we need to examine the role and actions of the facilitator in non-formal

education. One set of goals in non-formal education programming is to build civic identity and close the civic knowledge gap. Rubin, Hayes and Benson (2009) worked with youth and their facilitators in non-formal settings in order to achieve these goals. They found it is important for urban youth to participate in civic activities in which they can have an impact and see the concrete results of their work. Thus, the facilitator would need to provide opportunities for youth to do just that: participate and achieve results.

Another set of goals in many non-formal settings is to raise awareness and take action on oppressive practices in society, some of which are entrenched in language (Nieto, 2002). Providing a base knowledge and vocabulary for issues and oppressions means developing a language with which to name and identify with others, to break down feelings of isolation and to build community. The facilitator of youth programs can take on this task, offering both an existing language of oppressions as well as a space for the youth to create their own language(s).

2.4.2.3 Sites

Place-based pedagogy makes reference to the materiality of teaching and learning, among other things (Sobel, 2004); where, when, by whom, how and in relation to what, is learning taking place? Food offers a contextualized space that can be viewed analogously to a place. All humans have a relationship with food. We all have an interest in it, either tacitly or actively, in time and in space. Food justice education may take place in a variety of sites. By the nature of its goal for participant self-determination and actualization, hands-on experiences are integral. Locations that offer opportunities to grow, cook and share food, such as community kitchens, school or community gardens, and greenhouses, and spaces set up for communal eating, are typically available in urban settings. Secondary spaces, such as food banks and markets, are also valuable sites for learning and sharing knowledge.

2.4.3 Inter- and Trans-disciplinarity

Food as a topic and materiality may offer one of the most interdisciplinary spaces imaginable. From the molecular (chemistry, physics) and cultural (hospitality, traditions) to the aesthetic (flavour, presentation) and then to the industrial systems of production and distribution

(agriculture, commerce, consumerism, logistics), the analysis of food spans many disciplines, from science, politics, geography, health, business and the arts, to name a few. Koch (2016) identified several formalized, disciplinary engagements for youth related to food, such as reading about it in English and doing fractions for cooking or gardening in math. Food also builds bridges and common points between thought and practice spaces. Coming back to Figure 2.1, there is overlap and repetition in topic areas, and much left to be explored in the in-between spaces. The benefit of this multitude of knowledges about and approaches to food is that there is an entry point for everyone. Solutions to the challenges to and problems of the complexities of food justice can be drawn out and intertwined, like a tightly woven tablecloth.

2.4.4 Summary

This section offered some insight into the boundaries and interconnections of food-based learning, in relation to science education, in formal and non-formal spaces. The literature speaks to some strengths as well as the challenges of a food curriculum in all of these spaces.

2.5 “Girls Only” - Responding to Gender in Programming

Note: For the purposes of this writing, I use the terms girls and women to refer to female- identifying persons, unless otherwise defined. Throughout the project the young female participants were referred to as “girls” by the youth and program staff, and I have maintained that usage here, in addition to the term youth, because all participants were in their teens.

Gender is socially constructed. It can be described as the “complex ways that men and women come to identify themselves as masculine or feminine via the reproduction, exchange, and even resistance to strong root metaphors” (Martusewicz, Edmundson & Lupinacci, 2015, p. 135). I would push even further in the challenges this binary presents and that individuals express gender across a spectrum. Kimmel (2000) further explains that “when we speak about gender we also speak about hierarchy, power, and inequality, not simply difference” (p. 1). Some research has shown that some spaces are more conducive to learning when they are exclusive to specific gender. Ironically, it has been noted that in co-educational groupings, boys have lower academic achievement than in single gender schooling, although there may be multiple other contributing

factors, such as socio-economic status or teacher motivation (Demers & Bennett, 2007). Other studies have shown that teachers have a tacit preference to call on boys, who are, in general, quicker to raise their hands in response to questions posed to groups (Datnow, Hubbard & Woody, 2001). In their systematic, comprehensive review of the literature on gender and science, Brotman and Moore (2008) highlight issues of identity in relation to science learning and how envisioned, enacted and experienced science curricula can be problematic for some girls. They noted that girls in science classrooms were less likely than boys to see themselves as having a scientific identity—a view of themselves as scientists. Brown and Ronau (2012) noted that girls express a deeper sense of confidence learning in science when they are with other girls exclusively, as opposed to in mixed gender classrooms, although the results were not as strong in their mathematics learning. These findings have also been noted in both formal and non-formal learning spaces, from classrooms to camps. A great deal of thought, research and practice has been devoted to setting up learning spaces targeted to enhance the sense of safe learning for female-identifying persons. There are both parallel and divergent constructs of gender identity and learning between science and food studies.

2.5.1 The Gendered Nature of Food and Food Issues

There has been a long and oppressive history of position female bodies as (re)productive servants tasked with responsibilities for both the physical nurturance of bodies and the formation of future citizenry (Martusewicz et al., 2015). Gender may be seen as strongly constructed in the space of food, in particular regarding meal planning, shopping and cooking (Jubas, 2016). A slice of feminist scholarship draws attention to the enslaving process of domestic cookery (Caraher, 2016), whereby it is largely women of all ages who take up the responsibility, either by choice, pressure, or socialization, of planning, preparing and serving meals. Shiva (2016), among others, has written extensively about the global food sovereignty movement and notes the role of women in this movement, especially in the Global South. She draws attention to the physical, mental and emotional burden of doing not only the labour of food growing and preparing, but along with it the political work of drawing awareness to issues of food insecurity. Women and children, and those who are already marginalized within patriarchal power structures, are most at risk of suffering from food insecurity and its impacts, from obesity, mental illness, negative pregnancy

and neonatal outcomes, to decreased quality of life, among other issues (Ivers & Cullen, 2011). Beagan and Chapman (2012) offered a critique of ‘healthy eating’ as a way of constructing self, both in identity development and in gendered bodies. It is without question that food is a gendered entity. This understanding also brings up questions around the inclusion of non-female identifying bodies in food justice education.

2.5.2 No Boys Allowed? Benefits and Challenges to Girls- Only Programs

Girls-only spaces, while offering benefits for particular people spaces, are not without their challenges. For one, what does “girls-only” mean for non-gender-binary bodies? With increasing attention to the needs of transgender, two-spirit and queer bodies, the promotion of a “girls only” space is problematic. Thus, how does a social justice organization attend to the needs of all members, with many intersectional identities and needs? The exclusion of non-female identifying bodies is also problematic in the messaging it may send to program participants. In addition, because of the traditionally gendered nature of food, which I mentioned in Section 2.5.1, this kind of exclusionary policy may serve to reproduce these inequities, both externally and internalized in the participants, thus working at cross-purposes with social justice empowerment goals. The intersectional nature of food issues and of (marginalized) bodies may require a less arbitrarily bounded recruitment to and recognition within a food justice organization.

2.5.3 Summary

There are positive and negative aspects of “single-gendered” learning spaces. Because of the gendered nature of food, female-identifying persons may benefit from learning about food together, opening spaces to address inequities in conversation and with action.

2.6 Curriculum Theory and Curricular Moments

How we plan, implement and experience curriculum, as both educators and learners, is important to consider. In this dissertation, I use the term curricular moments to determine what some

educational spheres call a learning outcome, but with the allowance for some variability in intentionality, temporality and disciplinarity. I have conceptualized curricular moments by drawing on both curriculum theory literature as well as my experiences as an educator of both children and adults. This stems from holistic-focused curriculum theory, in contrast to the notion of a teachable moment that can get taken up in that time, which I expanded on previously in Section 1.2. As a participant-observer, in the role of program co-facilitator, I had capacity to step out and reflect on my own observations as well as on the expressions of the youth and adult participants. This reflective practice gave a privileged viewpoint and also enabled me to present findings as these curricular moments.

In Chapter 3 I expand on the integrated conceptual framework of ecojustice education to understand how various intersecting curricula of science education, citizen education and social ecology theory helped to give insight to food justice education. In this way the ecojustice framework provided not only a set of literature to guide the position of this research, as with the literature review here, but also a way of understanding the 3E curricula through a lens I have explained below.

Chapter 3 Who’s Hungry? An Integrated Conceptual Framework

Remembering we are earth citizens and earth children can help us recover our common humanity and help us transcend the deep divisions of intolerance, hate, and fear that corporate globalization’s ruptures, polarizations and enclosures have created.

Vandana Shiva, 2005, p. 7

3.1 Conceptualizing Ecojustice Education as an Integrated Framework

Part of my work as an ethnographer is to situate myself and my research lens as they influence the story I am telling. Researching the space of food justice education might occur from multiple conceptual or theoretical lenses. For example, an agricultural industrialist approach might consider economic or energetic inputs and outputs. A nutritionist approach might consider metabolic and molecular impacts to individual and demographically labelled bodies. Health- centred lenses might apply a pathological or epidemiological lens from an entirely anthropocentric position. None of these is incorrect, and each serves to elucidate data and analysis in ways that are particular to the discipline areas, as well as to speak to historical data in those fields. For this project, I have chosen to apply an ecojustice education lens, which I deconstruct and explain below in section 3.2, including the rationale for doing so.

This research project is situated within an integrated conceptual framework that locates ecojustice education at the intersection of three theoretical and conceptual spaces: environmental education, citizenship education and social ecology theory. This study attempts to understand curricular moments, envisioned, enacted and experienced, in an afterschool food justice education program. In this chapter, I begin by sharing my understanding of ecojustice education as an integrated conceptual framework for carrying out my ethnographic research. I provide details to explain my conception of the ecojustice education framework, with attention to each component of the triad of integration, in the following order: social ecology theory, citizenship education, and environmental education. Then I locate the overall framework within a larger

structure of critical pedagogy of place, which I explain in Section 3.1.4 as the space for integrated implementation. Figure 3.1 is a conceptual drawing of this integrated framework. Note the dotted line boundaries to indicate the inherent overlap and fluidity of theories and practices between these conceptual spaces. This figure is not meant to be considered to scale, by any means.

Environmental Citizenship education education Awareness, Engagement in rights concern for and action on and responsibilities; Ecojustice environmental agency and identity education issues

Social ecology

Consideration of our relationships with other human and more-than-human beings toward alternative ecological society

Figure 3.1: Overview of an integrated conceptual framework for ecojustice education.

I have assembled an integrated conceptual framework to draw attention to the complexity of the issues at hand, as well as to provide a variety of entry points and provocations for analysis. This integrated conceptual framework is adopted because ecojustice education seemingly draws from these multiple spaces, and also serves to heighten the understanding and potential at the interstitial points. In the case of this research project, the complexity of food and food justice education asks for overlapping lenses of the social, ecological, educational and scientific. The Ecojustice education framework application shows where points of conceptual overlap offer the

strongest way forward for responding to local and global socio-ecological issues. Ideally, indicators that emerge at the nexus of ecojustice are the most representative of core understandings from two or more of the conceptual areas, such as environmental AND citizenship education AND/OR social ecology theory. These overlapping areas are likely to help reinforce ecojustice education as both a theory and a practice.

3.1.1 Social Ecology Theory

There is a complex shaping of social relationship to nature and the environment. As human beings, over the course of history, culture and geography, we have had multiple, overlapping and at times oppositional relationships with nature and our construction of it. Nomadic societies lived in relative survival mode within the elements. Indigenous cultures are often considered by Indigenous scholars to be in harmony with and holding deep respect for nature (Snively & Williams, 2016). Judeo-Christian theology spread among populations an impetus of stewardship but also became inverted in ways to promote dominance of nature and reinforced a human/nature dichotomy, fostering a better-than narrative and lead to a consumerist shift that was exacerbated by modernism (White, 1967). The industrial revolution contributed to a consumerist mentality in which nature was seen as raw material from which to profit, and its concurrent urbanization further disconnected us as a species, both geographically and viscerally, from nature. While there are exceptions, such as apps like iNaturalist (California Academy of Sciences and the National Geographic Society, 2011) that connect us to citizen science knowledge about nature, the technological revolution has further separated us not only from nature but from each other, with the explosion in the last ten years of the ironically named social media (Louv, 2006). Social ecology may have a role in explaining our social(ized) role in relation to nature and each other. Mikulak (2013) more recently asserted that it is new spaces of co-production rather than green capitalism that offer stories of hope, as it is crucial “to come up with alternative models of plenitude and pleasure that do not follow the consumerist path” (p.191). What social ecology brings to and elucidates in ecojustice is the deep critique of the socio-historical realities that have led us to be in a state of socio-ecological crisis, and theorizing ways of breaking out of these patterns.

Social ecology theory employs the tools and language of complexity theory. It gives language and structure to complex systems, such as human/more-than-human interactions, the agricultural- industrial complex and health care. Theorists study relationships among individuals and socio- ecological systems and institutions. These are all implicated in food justice education.

Ultimately, we are all human beings, doing this work, creating these thoughts and practices, thus the frame of social ecology helps us to understand how and who we are in this greater question. Morris (2017) describes social ecology as a “coherent, synthetic philosophy and social theory that was holistic, radical and libertarian” (p.198). Social ecology offers a critique to the position of the human as “other than” nature, a being with social interactions who is within but not a part of the natural world. Hummel et al. (2017) describe social ecology as “Patterns of regulation stand[ing] for the material and symbolic aspects of the organization of the individual and societal satisfaction of needs, [and as such] modes of regulation [that] mirror the norms and power structures of a society” (p.1050). It offers critique, also, to universalised notions of knowledge and to the construct of dualism, both of which are disconnecting practices. As Berry (2000) elucidates,

To defend what we love we need a particularizing language, for we love what we particularly know. The abstract, “objective,” impersonal, dispassionate language of science can, in fact, help us to know certain things, and to know some things with certainty . . . But it cannot replace, and it cannot become the language of familiarity, reverence, and affection by which things of value ultimately are protected (p.41).

Theoretical and pragmatic circles are working toward the dismantling of such greatly destructive and unsustainable practices of our relationship to nature and the world through the topic and materiality of food (Mares & Alkon, 2011; Levkoe, 2013; Levkoe & Wakefield, 2014). And with this critique from social ecology, there is space to shift philosophies, thought patterns and practices of human power and dominance over nature. Powerful discourses must begin by recognizing previously silenced or marginalized voices, and in fact through privileging them, if that can be stated.

3.1.2 Citizenship Education

Citizenship education has a long and deep scholarship. Its envisioned, enacted and experienced curricula span the breadth of formal and non-formal education spaces as well as the political spectrum, from fascism to communism, with space for liberation and various forms of democracy somewhere in between. The research of conceptualization of, engagement in and expression of citizenship education presents a diverse history in formal and non-formal education spaces, modes of participation and desired outcomes for individual and social mobility (Ladson- Billings, 2005; Evans, Evans & Vemic, 2019). When thinking about ecojustice education, the field of critical global citizenship education as described by Andreotti (2006) comes to mind. Andreotti’s vision of global issues describes “a complex web of cultural and material local/global processes and contexts [that] needs to be examined and unpacked” (p. 41). This prescribed unpacking of interrelations and potentials afforded through the tenets and practices of critical global citizenship education—postcolonialism and anticonsumerism—has value for ecojustice education as well, especially for imagining the scaling up of outcomes at the local level to broader geographies. For the purposes of this document and project, I focus on localized and place-based education from a democratic, anti-oppressive perspective, and I discuss the connections of democracy to ecojustice education, followed by three subsets of potential outcomes of citizenship education, namely civic engagement, agency development and identity formation.

3.1.2.1 Democracy in EJE

The state of the environment and our social wellbeing is an issue of democracy. As I described in the introduction as well as in the rationale for this research, in Section 2.1, social and environmental wellbeing are inextricably connected, in part through our capacity to participate their constructions. In 2016, Smale and Hilbrecht mapped the UN Sustainable Development Goals to a Canadian Index for Wellbeing, and included among the indices, “Democratic Engagement means being involved in advancing democracy through political institutions, organisations, and activities” (p. 3). This construction of wellbeing means that challenges to wellbeing can inhibit individual and collective capacity to participate in the machinery of

democracy, and inversely, increasing democratic participation may positively impact one’s sense of wellbeing.

How and with what intentions we educate youth is also an issue of democracy. What are the skills, knowledges and attitudes needed for democratic participation? As Shiller (2013) states, “A democracy cannot fully function if large groups of citizens do not have the civic knowledge they need to participate effectively” (p. 70). What does it matter that we can all participate in coding hacks or complicated math equations if we do not know how our governance structures work or why they do not work? The American Psychological Association (APA) adopts a broad view of civic engagement, defining it as “individual and collective actions designed to identify and address issues of public concern” (APA, 2009, n.d.). This definition is limited by liberal democratic notions of participation, with a rational, culturally neutral and universalist approach (Richardson & Blades, 2006). Scholars of “critical civic engagement” depart from the APA’s definition and suggest that civic engagement emanates from recognition of injustice and developing a subsequent desire to act to correct it (Kirshner, Strobel & Fernandez, 2003).

Furthermore, participation occurs in connection with one’s location, and justice is often grounded in knowing the space and the community that one inhabits. Three core components of citizenship education are civic engagement, agency development and identity formation. Each of these is explained in some detail below, with reference to connections to ecojustice education.

3.1.2.2 Civic Engagement

Civic engagement can take many forms. Paying taxes, voting for the first time, attending a protest or rally, writing letters to Members of Parliament, or cleaning up a neighbourhood park, are just some examples of ways that people may choose to or be required to participate in their social and political commons. Such varieties of engagement may be classified as electoral or nonelectoral, and may occur face-to-face or virtually. Engagement may take form and focus on multiple intersectional identities and needs of participants, in much more diverse ways than in the past. According to Evans, Evans and Vemic, (2019) there is an

increasing level of youth engagement in what is referred to as informal or nonelectoral or participatory political activities in areas of personal interest (e.g., antiracist initiatives, environment, Indigenous peoples’ concerns, LGBTQ rights, access to higher education), enhanced by the emergence of social media platforms which have facilitated the development of rights-based interest groups in particular (para.10).

This conceptualization of critical civic praxis is an additional layer of civic engagement focusing on the civic engagement of youth, and urban youth in particular, as they are often exposed to and impacted by, structural oppressions more frequently than non-urban youth (Kennelly, 2009). For example, access to nature, food security, non-toxic housing and good air quality all pose challenges in higher density living situations. It could be well-argued that Indigenous youth on reserve are also impacted by structural inequalities as well, but for the sake of this project, the focus is on urban youth (First Nations Information Governance Centre [FNIGC], 2018). More specifically, through critical civic praxis people are “engaged with ideas, social networks, and experiences that build individual and collective capacity to struggle for social justice” acknowledging “structural constraints in communities, but also views young people as active participants in changing debilitative neighborhood conditions” (Ginwright & Cammorata, 2007, p. 693). Rubin (2007) described that “in order to build their civic identity, and close the civic knowledge gap, it is important for urban youth to participate in civic activities in which they can have an impact and see the concrete results of their work” (p.88). Ecojustice education has a mandate to participate in making changes, not just talking about change. In addition, such participation is meant to be with acknowledgement of structural assets, challenges and barriers, within communities, with participation from all stakeholders, including youth.

3.1.2.3 Agency Development

Agency development is closely tied to civic engagement. The notion and practice of engaging in social change is tied to a person’s sense of capacity and self-efficacy, which leads to agency, or the ability to perceive and make change (see Schugurensky). Agency may also be determined beyond the individual, in relation to collective capacity. As an individual or a group is exposed to both skills and knowledge connected to an issue, there is an increased potential that they will be

internally and/or extrinsically motivated to try to enact change (Arnold & Clark, 2014; Botchwey, Johnson, O’Connell & Kim, 2019). Of course, it is a process to go from awareness to action, and it may include an apprenticeship modelled and guided by a competent and confident facilitator (Bencze & Sperling, 2012).

The goal of social activism is not necessarily to develop justice-oriented citizens but to instil a sense of engagement that may lead to a justice orientation through participation (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004; Evans, 2006). From Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004) influential and innovative model, participatory citizens believe that “to solve social problems and improve society, citizens must actively participate and take leadership positions within established systems and community structures,” while justice-oriented citizens must “question, debate, and change established systems and structures that reproduce patterns of injustice over time” (p. 240, Table 1). Ecojustice education practices may offer opportunities for this type of justice-oriented participation through and for agency development.

3.1.2.4 Identity Formation

Identity is a marker of communicating who we are to others and a way of making connections and engaging in politics. Agency development is tied to identity formation in that how we see ourselves and our communities lends validity to the choices we make, as Stapleton (2017) described in relation to food politics. Civic knowledge and engagement are elements in developing and growing civic identity. How people identify with issues, how they see themselves positioned in relation to socio-environmental issues, helps to engage or disengage them in making change around the issues (Barton, 1998; Gee, 2000). Wenger (1998), in his book Communities of Practice, described identity as “a way of talking about how learning changes who we are and creates personal histories of becoming in the context of our communities” (p.5). Participating in communities enhances myriad ways of learning and identity formation. Merrifield (2001) elaborates that

we learn the values, norms, language and styles, and we call on the group to help us accomplish our purposes. Above all, communities of practice are involved in creating

meaning and identity: [the] primary means of sustaining alternative political cultures (p.29, italics my emphasis).

Youth identity formation is a steppingstone to engaging in civic participation. Shiller (2013) built on the work of Rubin (2007) in terms of articulating and analysing youth civic identity formation, and the role of educators in that process. By viewing young people as change agents who could improve their own communities, educators can engage young people in an examination of their communities and discussing how to change the conditions that they see around them. Educators can play a key role in the development of a civic identity among youth, encouraging a sense of self as a community member responsible for making improvements and working toward positive change. Knowing the local and temporal realities for youth impacts the role of the educator to create more authentic and empowering experiences. Ridgeway and Yerrick (2018) attested that “educators must pay attention to youth identity, their current place in society, recognition of their importance, and a shared goal to work within the current constraints of mainstream society both in and out of school” (p. 81). To do otherwise is to undermine the projects of identity and agency development. Citizenship education, as a human endeavour, is highly located within the social sphere.

3.1.3 Environmental Education

Environmental education (EE) is a highly interdisciplinary field. It holds official space within the Ontario curriculum as a policy framework, which calls for it to be implemented in every subject and in every grade (Ontario MOE, 2009). At its core, EE focuses on awareness, concern for and action on environmental issues. Historically, EE draws attention to the ecological issues that come about as a result of human interventions. There is also much contention within the field of environmental education with regard to constructions of sustainable development in relation to consumerism, resource management, and white privileged lenses (Kahn, 2010; Martusewicz et al., 2015). In a study in Toronto, Gibson-Wood and Wakefield (2012) drew attention to constructions of environmental justice and action as a practice of white privilege created limitations to participation for the Latinx community. Bowers (2004) concurred that an environmental education that is rooted in dominant ideology, with deep cultural assumptions and

historically destructive practices, is not sustainable, nor does it address the root causes. In support of this, Orr (2011) is adamant that we need an “ecological concept of citizenship [that is] rooted in the understanding that activities that…degrade the beauty and integrity of landscapes are forms of theft. Ecological vandalism undermines future prosperity and democracy alike” (p. 159). However, Orr’s proclamation may be contested, in that understanding of landscapes and issues are not universal, nor is the concept of prosperity. This is where I enter from an ecojustice perspective, in critical engagement with traditional Eurocentric and anthropocentric conceptions of environmental education. This research intends to come from a place where “we begin from the understanding that all human communities are nested and participate in complex communities of life – ecosystems – that we depend upon for our very lives” (Martusewicz, Lupinacci & Schnakenberg, 2010, p. 11).

Environmental education often has a focus on the development of identity and agency for learners, two aspects of relationship to environment intrinsic to engagement with environmental issues. Thomashow (1996) described an ecological citizenship that is political identity intrinsically integrated with ecological identity, which is connected to a sense of belonging to a larger community of species, the commons and personal actions within social systems. Two particular aspects of EE that connect with ecojustice education are the notion of an action- orientation and pedagogies of hope.

3.1.3.1 Action Orientation

Within the field of ecojustice education there is impetus to engage learners with knowledge of, and skills related to, scientific, social and economic systems and their interrelations (Reis, Ng-A- Fook & Glithero, 2015). This engagement forms a foundation from which citizens may begin, as agents of change, to address the challenges that have arisen in opposition, either intentionally or not, to the wellbeing of individuals, societies and environments. Ecojustice education, among many types of approaches to environmental and sustainability education, offers a particular and more holistic view of the human as a part of the ecosystem as an integral but not necessarily central piece of the picture. A holistic view in partnership with action orientation and engagement can offer hope for wellbeing from a sustainability standpoint, and may include

opportunities to consider injustices perpetrated through social inequities, such as classism, racism and sexism, and their intersections (Sperling & Bencze, 2015). In addition, as mentioned in Chapter 2, this research project began from the position of science education, and within the component relationship of science to technology, society and the environment (STSE) (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2007). While STSE provides a focus on action-orientation, ecojustice education has a strong goal of preparing educators to “assume the responsibility of preparing citizens ready to create democratic and sustainable communities in an increasingly globalized world” (Martusewicz, Edmundson and Lupinacci, 2015, p.21).

3.1.3.2 Pedagogies of Hope

Orr (2011) and Sobel (2004), among others, have written about how the work of environmental education can feel daunting and insurmountable, to both educators and learners. Some have even defined a subfield called catastrophe education, which focuses on “doom and gloom” approaches, which have not been proven to be successful, as yet, (Martusewicz et al., 2015). Educators in this field may encounter a common response to environmental education that sounds something like: What can I do about this? It’s too big. It’s too far. I am just one person; and so on. These kinds of reactions can lead to superficial engagement with, or worse, deep disengagement from issues of concern (Freire, 2014). One approach to mitigating disengagement is through pedagogies of hope. Pedagogies of hope refers to infusing into teaching and learning opportunities for positive transformation or liberation of the individual, community or society as a whole (Orr, 2011). Ecojustice education acknowledges the potential psychological impacts of addressing socioecological issues, which in part considers the greater potential of working in place, in and with community, to circumvent or at least mitigate disengagement. Hopefulness stems from pro-social and pro-environmental practices, that reinforce the efforts of individuals and communities.

3.1.4 Critical Pedagogy of Place

Critical pedagogy of place is presented as an overarching framework for the intersection of the three theoretical spaces, with ecojustice education at the nexus. Critical pedagogy of place (CPP)

offers theoretical and pragmatic interpretations of how and why citizenship education, environmental education, and social ecology theory can work together to support ecojustice. Place-based education and its contingent pedagogies are intentionally oriented so that citizens might have some direct bearing on the wellbeing of the social and ecological places they inhabit (Gruenewald, 2003). The criticality is needed to “challenge the assumptions, practices, and outcomes taken for granted in dominant culture and in conventional education” (Gruenewald, 2003, p.3).

CPP offers the critical perspective of interrogating the colonial approach to human history and relations to place and land. Gruenewald (2003), a thought leader in this field, described that CPP “proposes two broad and interrelated objectives for the purpose of linking school and place- based experience to the larger landscape of cultural and ecological politics: decolonization and reinhabitation” (p. 9). The reinhabitation process is a critical engagement activation process with the historical and contemporary contexts of places, while also working to restore social and environmental practices that are anti-oppressive and more sustainable (Kumashiro, 2000; Paraskeva-Hadjichambi et al., 2020). Through this critique of place-based education, CPP opens and demands space for Indigenous and other marginalized voices and experiences, acknowledging and bringing to the forefront traditional ecological knowledges. CPP also highlights the notion of pedagogy as a foundation for understanding ecojustice education, because the modalities and philosophical underpinnings through which learning is envisioned, enacted and experienced have everything to do with learning outcomes. CPP attends to the variations of formal versus non-formal spaces, in community. As well, because there are relatively few spaces for food justice education, CPP offers a way of locating a place where FJE may be happening and its affordances.

Building on a traditional education theory of social constructivism (Dewey, 1963), CPP connects a person’s location with a critical engagement with social and scientific issues such that embodied learning may occur through critical pedagogy of place. CPP provides a framework for understanding the affordances of ecojustice-oriented educational practices. As explained by Karrow and Fazio (2010) an “aim of ecojustice is to develop an understanding of the tensions between cultures and the needs of the Earth’s ecosystems. Tensions may include

intergenerational knowledge and skills, beliefs and values, expectations and narratives” (p. 211). Ecojustice pedagogies tap into lived realities of learners in “out-of- classroom spaces and places; experiencing the knowledges of different cultures and cultural relationships to place; gaining a diversity of natural history knowledge; and developing community relationships and actions” (McKenzie, 2008, p. 366). The goals are to bridge western scientific knowledge with traditional ecological knowledge through multidisciplinary approaches, moving beyond binary codifications (Paraskeva-Hadjichambi et al., 2020). Thus, the critical pedagogy of place provides a means of engaging a transformational process, for students (as individuals), for society, and for the environment.

3.2 Why Ecojustice in Food Justice Education?

The food system as it currently exists is a major contributor to socially and environmentally damaging outcomes, such as climate change, deforestation, food insecurity and biodiversity loss (Mares & Alkon, 2011; Seed & Rocha, 2018; World Health Organization, 2017). Such complex, historically entrenched and insidious challenges require multi-layered, critical, systems thinking and community-based solutions. Ecojustice offers critical entry points and a way of addressing these issues by engaging with food justice. In addition, it offers a lens through which a particular construction of food justice education may emerge, and to understand the challenges to which the FJE movement may strive to respond, along with the hurdles that may slow or inhibit success, such as racist, gendered and classist assumptions (Gottlieb & Joshi, 2010). Ecojustice education currently sits at the (leading) fringe of possibility for transformation and change. It asks people to consider and dismantle value-hierarchized or centric thinking, and historical, systemic structures that have and continue to propagate and reproduce violences, oppressions and suffering (Martusewicz, Edmundson & Lupinacci, 2015). Because of its marginal, or peripheral positionality as an educational theory and praxis, I believe that, based on this integrated conceptual framework, an ecojustice education lens has the potential to move food justice education toward deeper anti-oppression implementation in both formal and non-formal education. Ecojustice also relates to scientific literacy as a discourse of analysis of and action on issues that are linked to critiques and engagements with scientific knowledge, socio-scientific issues, power structures and the environment.

It is important to proponents of ecojustice theory and practice to draw attention to the ways that our Western, industrialized system perpetuates ways of thinking that structure how we relate to each other and how we relate to the human and non-human world. Through understanding ecojustice, it may become clearer that these imposed and infused relationalities are damaging to humans and the environment. Ecojustice demands attention to ways of thinking and being that are marginalized by powerful systems of capitalism, patriarchy and neoliberalism. Such systems otherwise empower individual actors, usually white, male human bodies, at the expense of the vast proportion of living beings on the planet. Ecojustice education is aimed at dismantling and reinhabiting colonized spaces, both physically and philosophically, to reimagine and reorient our world toward practices of sustainability, equity and accessibility for all creatures. In and through ecojustice education, there is impetus to engage educators and learners with the knowledge and skills of the histories and impacts of scientific, social and economic systems and their interrelations and intersections, through place (Martusewicz, Edmundson & Lupinacci, 2011; Turner, 2015).

Most notably, ecojustice education acknowledges that humans can access social and political power to become agents of change. There are five aspects of ecojustice education that apply to both the institutional and public spheres, providing the potential for a larger moral and conceptual framework for understanding how to achieve the goals of social justice. Ecojustice education demands the following:

(1) eliminate the causes of eco-racism;

(2) end the North’s exploitation and cultural colonization of the South;

(3) revitalize the commons in order to achieve a healthier balance between market and non- market aspects of community life;

(4) ensure that the prospects of future generations are not diminished by the hubris and ideology that drives the globalization of the West’s industrial culture; and

(5) reduce the threat to what Vandana Shiva (2005) refers to as “earth democracy” – that is, the right of natural systems to reproduce themselves rather than to have their existence contingent upon the demands of humans. (adapted from Martusewicz, Edmundson & Lupinacci, 2015)

In point 1 above, the term eco-racism refers to the disproportionate burden on marginalized bodies and communities to bear the weight of toxins, such as waste, impure water, and so on. In point 3 above, the notion of the commons refers to cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable earth, that are held in common and not owned privately, a definition that was repopularized from traditional English discourse into political economy, by ecologist Hardin (1968), as noted by van Laerhoven and Ostrom (2007). Building on the integrated conceptual framework for ecojustice that I presented above, it is necessary to understand what this particular framework offers to understanding food justice education.

By applying this ecojustice education lens, through the overlapping spaces of citizenship education, environmental education, and social ecology theory, grounded in critical pedagogy of place, I offer openings and offerings for discussion around the envisioned, enacted and experienced curricular moments of youth participants in a food justice education program. In the following chapter, Tools and Materials—Methodology, Methods and Context, I provide detail on the methods used to access participants and collect data, as well as describe my rationale and process of analysis, and how this methodology was selected to correspond to the ecojustice education lens I attempt to apply.

Chapter 4 Tools and Materials: Methodology, Methods and Context

You can’t really get much nearer than the internal micro-environment of your digestive system as a focal point for the curriculum.

David Sobel, 2004, para. 9

4.1 Methodology and Methods

Building on the theoretical underpinnings of the previous chapter, this chapter addresses the methodological practices that embody the integrated conceptual framework I described in the research design. Below, I share my rationale for designing and implementing a qualitative, ethnographic case study from a critical perspective in a community-based food justice education organization with female-identifying young adults. I explain and support the methods that were implemented for both data collection and analysis. I also describe how this analysis helped to define the findings structure selected, namely the envisioned, enacted and experienced curriculum, or 3E model. I ground a discussion of the implications of the choices I made in the ecojustice education literature. In Section 4.2, I share the layered contexts of the research setting, including participant recruitment. Section 4.3 shares some of the challenges to the research process, including ethical considerations and limitations. In Section 4.4, I share some of my reflections on my positionality and my perceptions of the impacts it had on the research project.

4.1.1 Qualitative Research

For this project, I use qualitative educational research approaches. In many ways I have taken up the role of the bricoleur in my position as the researcher (Kincheloe & Berry, 2004). As I explain in more detail below, I connected to and engaged in a variety of methods and methodologies in order to respond dynamically to my integrated conceptual framework, the data and my experiences as a researcher. My research took me on a spiral rather than linear journey. As such, I tried to immerse myself in the realities of my research site and become, as much as possible,

open to challenges, issues, curricular moments and moments of empowerment. My research was set within an ethnography with a critical approach, which delineated my methods of data collection. My analysis was guided by methods determined both by the literature and theoretical framework of ecojustice education, as well what research participants, through the data collection and analysis, seemed to express. In this way, I have written the recipe and served the meal that represents this project.

4.1.2 Ethnographic Case Study, with a Critical Approach

This research was conducted with a qualitative, ethnographic, case study and a critical perspective. Ethnography as a methodology was preferred because it gave me the opportunity to work more deeply and over time with the participants in the organization. As Delamont (2017) noted, the educational aspects of ethnography are “its analytic emphasis on formal or informal arrangements and processes that contribute to the socialisation or enculturation of members, of modes of knowledge-transmission, and practices of pedagogy” (p.338). It also seemed to be aligned, broadly, with the goals of the community-based organization, which has a pronounced ideological goal of social justice. As a case study, it documented participants in a bounded time and space. It was inherently place-based, with the goal of being empowering to participants, heightening their awareness of local potential and challenges related to food and their local social and environmental realities, as I described in Section 3.1.4.

Emerging from a history in anthropology, ethnography initially had problematic beginnings. Much early Eurocentric anthropology was situated as the collection of artefacts and information from the Other (Tuhiwai Smith, 2006). As Tuhiwai Smith (2006) describes, ethnography offers, or rather, demands, the building of relationships between the researcher and the participants. Ethnographic research often requires time, patience, humility and reciprocity from the researcher in commitment to the research site and participants.

This study used the approach of ethnography from a critical perspective for both data collection and analysis. The original intention for the project was to use a critical ethnography methodology. Growing from the anthropological traditions of observing a community in action

over time, ethnography helps tell a story. Critical ethnography as a methodology sat well with my intentions and goals as a researcher, to help tell a story about a community of participants in a social justice space. Barton (2001) explained, “Critical ethnography has broadened, drawing its strength not only from its openly ideological agenda but also from its embrace of human agency, which it locates within the shifting, contextual, and multilayered terrain of power and oppression” (p.906). Additionally, critical ethnography helps to locate the socio-politico- ecological research context, attending to both place-based and ecojustice perspectives, and to also help locate the researcher within it, through reliance on researcher reflexivity and relationality. As Madison (2005), stated, “Politics alone are incomplete without self-reflection. Critical ethnography must further its goals from simply politics to the politics of positionality. The question becomes, how do we begin to discuss our positionality as ethnographers and as those who represent Others?” (p.7). While this still speaks to the role I envisioned for myself as a researcher, one important aspect of critical ethnography is to work with research participants to open up the analysis to their conceptualization of the research problem and outcomes. However, in this case, a lack of time and participant availability prevented the participants from being able to engage with the project in this way, and thus the methodology shifted to a more researcher- driven ethnography, though still maintaining a critical perspective. I have endeavoured especially acutely to be self-reflexive as a researcher throughout the project, in data collection, analysis and representation, in order to attempt to bridge the gaps in participant contribution to these components, as per the goals of an ecojustice perspective.

For this research, a case study was also deemed appropriate because it draws attention to the implications of this contextualized project with young women in an after-school program as a single unit of analysis (Merriam, 2002), also referred to as a “bounded system” of people and programs (Stake, 2005, p. 444). Case studies are often selected because of the “experimental” or “unique” nature of a particular program (Merriam, 2002, p. 8). Certainly, the site, locality, temporality, and opportunities of the project presented a unique case that I had the privilege of working within. Because I had already been a participant-observer for two years prior in a previous research project at the site, I had a unique perspective already on the potentials and challenges the site presented. Also, because of the relationships I had built at the community

organization, I was privy to some institutional decisions and constraints and knew a number of things about how they impacted the program and, by extension, my research participants. There is a growing body of research and practice in the field of food studies and addressing the role partnerships between communities and institutions. Levkoe, Erlich and Archibald (2019) note in particular that “collaborations among students, faculty, and community practitioners provide an important leverage point for building healthy, equitable, and sustainable food systems within post-secondary institutions—and for food movements more broadly” (p. 72). I expand on this more deeply throughout the findings Chapters 5, 6 and 7.

There are strengths and weaknesses to both ethnographic and case study methodologies. Being immersed in a project as a participant-observer over a long period of time (two years prior and one year during data collection) and contributing to the wellbeing of the program participants (as a co-facilitator) can cause several issues to arise. Observer bias, which is contextualized in all spaces, may grow as the researcher becomes more entrenched in the research site, necessitating continual self-awareness and -reflection. The contributions of the researcher as participant must be documented and negotiated carefully in order to be as clear as possible about the context as it exists and what and how the context is constantly becoming for the researcher (Atkinson & Hammersley, 2007). In addition, particularities of the research context in a case study can limit the generalizability of the research findings (Canen, 1999).

4.1.3 Methods

In this section, I detail the methods of data collection and analysis that were used for this research, and how they existed as a reflection of methodology and theoretical framework.

4.1.3.1 Data Collection and Sources

For this ethnographic case study, I worked with four teen girls, two adult staff and one adult program volunteer. Table 4.1 gives a simple summary of the core youth and adult research participants. Data for this research included interview transcripts, field observations, youth- created artefacts and facilitator planning documents, along with official documents produced by the CBO and cultural artefacts of the organization, such as photographs, as well as photos taken

by participants and by me. The set of data that was collected and analyzed included pre- and post- program and semi-structured interviews with the four program participants, a review of the organization’s internal qualitative questionnaires completed by program participants at the beginning and end of the program, semi-structured interviews with two paid staff (including the program director at the time) and one adult volunteer. More in-depth profiles of each youth participant, as well as of the facilitator and one of the adult volunteers, are found in the findings chapters 5 through 7. The summary table highlights the diversity of backgrounds, cultures and home languages of the research participants, which are reflective of the location of the program in the city. The pseudonyms were selected by me to be representative of the family ethnic origin of each person.

Table 4.1 Summary of youth and adult research participants at time of the project.

Pseudonym Age at Country of Home language(s) Public or Catholic program family origin school/ end education

Sandra 18 Philippines Tagalog Catholic, all girls

Marsha 15 South Africa English Public, co-ed

Felicia 15 Philippines English/Tagalog Catholic, all girls

Patricia 16 Mexico Spanish/English Catholic, co-ed

Shirley- ~34 Vietnam English, French, Undergraduate; former Facilitator Vietnamese kids gardening programmer, 2 years in CBO

Roxanne - ~40 Canada English Master of Social Work, 14 Program years in the CBO Manager

Sharron - ~27 Canada/USA English Pursuing Master’s; post- Volunteer graduate diploma in culinary arts

I gathered observations and field notes during programming and at meetings outside of programming with staff and volunteers, including email correspondence and casual gatherings with program participants. I also collected and included participant and CBO products, such as the program logic model, materials used to advertise the program to potential participants, and materials used to share program outcomes with the public, such as the CBO’s annual report. Interviews and group meetings were recorded, when possible, and transcribed. Planned methods of inquiry included a literature review, document analysis, participant observation, semi- structured interviews, and a review of the organization’s internal questionnaires completed by program participants at the beginning and end of the program. While the scope of this cohort included my participation from August 2012 to August 2013, the official data collection took place once consent forms were signed, in early April 2013. Data collection included semi- structured interviews and casual conversations with program staff member Shirley and her manager Roxanne, volunteer Sharron, and four youth participants, Sandra, Marsha, Felicia and Patricia. Table 4.2 summarizes the type and quantity of each type of data collected.

Table 4.2 Summary of data sources.

Methods/Type of data collected Quantity Who participated?

Recordings and transcripts of 15 Four youth: Sandra, Marsha, Felicia semi-structured interviews and Patricia. Three adults: Shirley, Roxanne and Sharron

Recordings and transcripts of 8 All participants except Roxanne group meetings

Field notes of 2-hour weekly 28 Erin meetings and 4 full-day meetings over March Break

Photographs 1,000+ Youth participants, Shirley and Erin

CBO documents: program logic ~20 Roxanne, Shirley, Erin model and schedule, recruitment poster, parent information poster, curriculum plans, pre- and post- program interview structure.

Youth products related to ~10 All four youth programming, i.e., presentations, posters, LiFT journal entries

Emails and meetings about LiFT 40 Shirley, Sharron and Erin programming

Interviews included program entry and exit interviews and ranged from 30 to 90 minutes in length, with some exceptions for longer conversations. Appendices B1 and B2 share the intake and exit questionnaires. Each regular program session was approximately two hours after school, with additional day-long sessions for four days during the March Break. The regular LiFT program and additional March Break schedules are found in Appendix C and D respectively. The study also includes an analysis of the demographics of the community in which the CBO is located. This study represents a portion of the culmination of three years of work and research with the community-based organization in the LiFT program.

A typical data collection unit of time, based around one weekly meeting with the program, tended to include the following: one or more emails and/or phone calls and/or in person meetings, with the program facilitator, Shirley. I would log field notes and reflections after these interactions in a notebook. I would meet the other adults about an hour before our program participants were arriving so that we could set up the program. I would participate as an adult facilitator, usually with a recorder and a notebook, if that was possible and appropriate for our activities; it was more difficult record or use a notebook during hands-on cooking or gardening than when we sat together in a workshop. As discreetly as possible, I would pay special attention to the four girls who had given consent to participate in my research study. After the program was over and tidied up, I would head home to do a “data dump” of field notes and reflections into a digital file at home. I also gathered copies of artefacts created by the organization and the

participants in either or both digital and analogue formats including images of the general environment where we met, and drawings and writing participants created during programming. All recordings were transcribed. All data were stored and catalogued digitally on a secure external hard drive at my home, organized by date and, when possible, tags were assigned to them for ease of searchability, through an iterative coding process. Some items had more apparent codes due to the context, such as leadership activities that were envisioned and enacted, for example when the participants went into the community to promote CBO programs.

4.1.3.2 Data Analysis and Coding Through an Ecojustice Lens

Ecojustice, as a growing field of research and practice, does not have a strong baseline of analysis methodology per se. In order to attend to my research goals, I assembled a bricolage of methodologies that would be appropriate to ecojustice-focused research. I drew on the traditions of case study design, ethnographic research, critical anti-racist methods and critical discourse analysis, which I describe below.

As per the ethnographic tradition, all data were coded in a mixture of emergent and reductive approaches, creating categories and themes in a constant-comparative manner, both internally and across data sources (Suter, 2012). This can be called a forward double spiral process of considering field notes in conversation with transcripts, official documents and so on, comparing what I noted, with what I recalled and what was documented by the organization and the youth participants. Data were coded and analyzed using a constant comparative methodology and triangulated iteratively for emerging themes (Charmaz, 2006; Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Themes were cross-referenced to the literature review, which was then revised to address emergent ideas using a combination of inductive and deductive code and theme emergence processes (Charmaz, 2006). By this, I acknowledge my positionalities, biases and prior knowledge and experiences in how they entered into and also informed the analysis process. I also tried to remain open to what the complex data was elucidating. Additionally, data was triangulated as much as possible to enhance the robustness and validity of claims, for example, comparing field notes to interview transcripts and participant documents (Suter, 2012), as well to as the literature I had mined in the review and the integrated conceptual framework I had chosen. This process involved data

collection, described in more detail below, and a spiraled iterative process of analysis to produce coding and themes. I was mindful of the literature I had mined in the review as well as for the integrated conceptual framework, so that impacted my analysis and coding process.

4.1.3.2.1 Critical Anti-racist Lens

In order to maintain the integrity of the core values of ecojustice education, I was also mindful, throughout data collection and analysis, of engaging in anti-racist research praxis that “highlights the issues of power and the manner in which power dynamics inform the research project and provide alternatives to the racist paradigms that inform normative research projects” (Daniel, 2005, p.66). Dei (2005) states that anti-racist research looks provide “local subjects with the opportunity to speak about their experiences within the broader contexts of structural and institutional forces of society” (p. 11). Thus, while I was working within an institutionally structured program and curriculum, I sought to privilege the voices of my youth and adult participants within and beyond these structures.

In light of the citizenship education component in ecojustice education, I have drawn on both traditional and updated frameworks to assist with analysis. Initially, I thought one tool for analysis would be through the framework of Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of citizen participation. This ladder, while dated, offers some eight levels for understanding boundaries and inputs of power and control in citizenship participation. However, there are limitations to its applicability due to the impact of diversity of populations, intersectional identities and the rise of corporatization since the time of Arnstein’s publication. Arnstein (1969) even attends to these limitations, noting (with some challenging language):

neither the have-nots nor the powerholders are homogeneous blocs. Each group encompasses a host of divergent points of view, significant cleavages, competing vested interests, and splintered subgroups. The justification for using such simplistic abstractions is that in most cases the have-nots really do perceive the powerful as a monolithic ‘system,’ and powerholders actually do view the have-nots as a sea of ‘those people,’ with little comprehension of the class and caste differences among them (p. 218).

New research offers a fresh lens. From a youth participation perspective, recent research has shown that there are impactful ways to engage youth “in productive and non-tokenistic decision- making frameworks” (Botchwey et al., 2019, p. 255). This body of research is within the sphere of urban planning, which leans on non-formal education and public pedagogy to be successful, not the least of which are related food issues. In particular, their work notes that advocacy, a form of leadership that ensures youth voices are heard, is beyond what Arnstein conceptualized. They state that adults and “youth rely on decision makers’ receptivity, their political will, and the confines of their role within institutions of power” (p. 266), thus advocacy names the space where youth envision and design for change, rather than just promoting a pre-existing structure. Figure 4.1 shows the updated ladder of Botchwey et al (2019).

Figure 4.1 Botchwey, Johnson, O’Connell & Kim’s (2019) Ladder of Youth Citizen Participation, adapted from Arnstein (1969)

Youth may take on the role of designing projects in their own communities, through the levels of advocacy and upwards. The updated ladder of participation by Botchwey et al. (2009) also includes three additional rungs, being consent, advocacy and incorporation, which altogether provides a framework for analysis which implicates much of the goals of ecojustice education, while I am, as the researcher, mindful of intersectional power structures through a critical anti- racist lens. The three layers of the ladder – receiving, giving and sharing – may also be seen to correspond to Miller’s (2007) three orientations to holistic education, where transmission, transaction and transformation are presented.

4.1.3.2.1 Critical Discourse Analysis Lens

As a way to gather some of the codes and themes that were less obvious, and more evident with some distance from the space, I used critical discourse analysis (CDA). CDA is known for its capacity to illuminate interdisciplinary texts and spaces (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997; Unger, 2016). CDA also allows for an understanding of the diversity of texts that are produced in social contexts and in research beyond formalized writing (Janks, 1997). Much as Burke (2014) described, I saw CDA as method “to give participants an opportunity to place their own meaning on the research scenario, describing their positions within the societal discourse as viewpoints in a holistic sense rather than as a collection of discrete pieces of information” (p. 245). This provided a capacity to negotiate between the various responses by diverse stakeholders to the envisioned, enacted and experienced curricula. These stakeholders included the program manager, the program facilitator, an adult volunteer, four youth and me as a participant-observer, along with the overall discourse of the organization and the places of participation. The social interactions among individuals, within groups, between people and an institution, as well as the intermodal encounters between people with/in the land (i.e., in gardens, or food items), all create texts to be assembled and unpacked for the purpose of my research questions. Unger (2016) explained that understanding and naming interdisciplinarity is necessary to attend to analysis of complex intersectional social problems. As I described in Chapter 2, food, by its very nature, is interdisciplinary, with fingers in the social, political, educational, gastronomic, environmental and scientific pots. I drew on two tools to help me engage with the texts, which were Lock’s (1990) model of learner control and Levinson’s (2010) frameworks for democratic participation.

One tool that supported this CDA approach is Lock’s (1990) model, which provides a matrix of engagement of learner control in curriculum design and outcomes. Lock’s model was designed to analyse science teaching and learning in a secondary science classroom, but I have adapted it for CDA in this non-formal learning space, shown in Figure 4.2. The original offers opportunities to consider the role of the participants and the content (activities) in the teaching and learning relationship. I have adapted the language to reflect the role of the facilitator rather than the teacher. In this model, we see the range of control of activities by the adult facilitator in relation to the youth participants along the horizontal axis in green. Activities planned and led by the facilitator (FD) in entirety are noted closest to the left side of the matrix. If the intention is to allow learners to determine conclusions based on evidence and theory available to them, learners should mainly control procedures (LD). The vertical axis, in blue, represents the “openness” of implemented activities, meaning how flexible the results may be to participant and place-based inputs. A closed-ended (CE) activity is envisioned to have only one possible outcome, with predetermined conclusions, much like the traditional conception of a recipe, as I described in Chapter 1. An open-ended (OE) activity may have outcomes that aren’t even conceived of by the facilitator, as it may evoke responses, inputs and entanglements by the participants that are particular to and situated in the context and the learners, thus heightening the learners’ sense of agency and knowledge production (Hodson, 2010). This model can be applied to help critically analyse control of choice and inputs related to pedagogical planning and outcomes for a non- formal education program. As a matrix, the pedagogies and activities can be plotted anywhere within the grid, with an orientation that responds to both elements of the axes, activity control and outcome openness. Ecojustice education practices would suggest more learner control and opportunities for learner-driven outcomes, most likely found in the top right quadrant. I integrate this model into the analysis in the findings chapters, especially in relation to participant experiences of the program pedagogies, Chapter 7.

Figure 4.2: Adaptation of Lock’s (1990) Model, a Matrix for Variations in Control of Learning.

In addition to Lock’s model, I have applied Levinson’s (2010) four frameworks for democratic participation to identify the various types of engagements through the implemented pedagogies. In the case of Levinson’s frameworks, the notion of food justice education is supplemented for science education and non-formal settings for schools. These frameworks provide a set of guidelines with which to critique the curricular engagement of democratic participation. The four frameworks are deficit, deliberative, food justice education as praxis, and dissent and conflict. Each of these addresses the implications of pedagogy, conceptions of knowledge production and relations to society in relation to democratic participation, and how that is manifested by the educator. While there is some congruence between Lock’s model and Levinson’s frameworks, the frameworks offer the additional analysis tool of conceptualizing youth learning within a politicized pathway to civic engagement.

4.1.4 The 3E Model: Envisioned, Enacted and Experienced Curriculum

The envisioned, enacted and experienced (3E) model is an approach to understanding curriculum planning and implementation that provides a simplified framework within which to reconstruct the complexity of interactions that take place over time and space. The findings of this research are presented in the structure of a 3E model. This refers to the envisioned, enacted and experienced curriculum, as mentioned in the research questions. Each of these represents a traditional curriculum space. The envisioned curriculum refers to the planning stages of programming, incorporating the mandates of the organization, the lived experiences of the staff, including myself as a volunteer, and the educational goals of the program, which were influenced by ideologies as well as practicalities. The enacted curriculum refers to the implementation of programming activities, including the individuals who participated, both youth and adult, and the structures that influenced the enactments. The experienced curriculum refers to the responses by participants once the curriculum was enacted.

Through data analysis, became necessary to implement a heuristic for understanding and explaining the findings of a complex ethnographic case study. With consideration to the non- formal education space of the program, with a fairly strongly constructed curriculum (explained more deeply in Chapters 5 through 7), the 3E model structure was adopted for illuminating the findings of this research, as well as mirroring the research questions. This model seems to work because it creates a structure that is familiar to educational research both in and outside of schools. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 respond to each of the envisioned, enacted and experienced aspects of the curriculum, respectively. Each level of the 3Es offered an increase in view from the focus of the curriculum and curricular moments, from the micro to the macro, with the envisioned curriculum being the most bound to the facilitators and the CBO and the experienced curriculum being the most broadly impacted by intersectional factors brought by the participants. In each findings chapter I indicate the core players, texts and structures, sharing the arbitrary delineation I have selected for each.

At times this model was challenging. It created messiness and required some compromising in order to get certain pieces to “fit.” Some pieces of data could have found “homes” in multiple chapters, and some of them did, with variations on interpretation. For example, the envisioned curriculum of the participants was not included, overtly. Certainly, each of the participants entered the program with their own desires or reasons, but this was not included in the planning or analysis. Thus, the delineations are artificial, but a heuristic is required to help make sense of the data in one particular way. In actuality, the findings are in cyclical and reciprocal relationship to each other and to my perceptions of them, thus this is temporal engagement, a snapshot of one time.

4.2 Where Shall We Sit? The Context of the Research

The context of this study envelops several intersecting and overlapping spaces, including an urban environment, a community-based organization, and a non-formal education program in a low-income, high percentage immigrant neighbourhood. Each of these components, along with many others that were known in advance and some that emerged, impacted the experience and outcomes of this research project.

Canada is a country of immigrants and Indigenous peoples. This diversity of bodies and origins is especially rich in urban centres. The city of Toronto has one of the most diverse populations in the world, and many newcomers to the city are from places where English is not the primary language. Based on the 2016 census, in the city of Toronto approximately 43% of the population identified their first language as being something other than English or French, while nearly 25% of the population speak a language other than English or French most often at home (Statistics Canada, 2017). Other than English, the top languages reported to be spoken at home in the city were Tamil, Tagalog, Arabic, the Slavic languages group (Polish, Russian, and others), Punjabi, Farsi, Spanish, the Chinese language group (Mandarin, Cantonese, and others), and Spanish, and just under 5% of Torontonians had no knowledge of either official language (Statistics Canada, 2017). While statistics are generally not included in pure qualitative research, I share this information to highlight the diversity of the city and of the particular neighbourhood where the research took place.

The population of the target neighbourhood is diverse. At the food justice community organization, overall program participants come from 32 countries and collectively speak 16 languages (Toronto, 2012). The overall neighbourhood population is multilingual and multicultural, but the individuals that make up the population, and the groups that they compose, may each be monolingual and monocultural. They may be brought together for several reasons, including a desire for community and a lack of adequate income with which to purchase nutritious food that ensures good health. For example, the median after-rent income per person per day of community residents is $5.80 and 66% of participants report that they have no money left for food or any other expense after they have paid rent (CBO website, 2013). The CBO is a critical resource for many of the most vulnerable people in the urban community it serves.

4.2.1 A Food Justice Organization

On a busy, mixed residential-retail street, with an abundance of shoebox-sized convenience stores, the CBO’s primary location is on the ground floor of a high-rise community housing building that fronts a large complex of low-income housing. The street is heavily trafficked by vehicles as it crosses much of the city from east to west. The organization identifies itself as a community food centre, a place where people come to cook, grow, eat, learn about and advocate for good food, as stated in some of their public literature. Figure 4.3 is a snapshot of a bulletin board at the CBO. Items posted include an open invitation to attend a memorial event for a late community member who was very active in the organization, a quote from renowned food journalist Michael Pollan, a review of the book published about the organization, and images of food items used in a variety of cuisines.

Figure 4.3: A snapshot of a bulletin board at the CBO.

The community-based organization (CBO) is not-for-profit strategically located based on the needs of a community which is otherwise lacking in food security. It provides both food and educational programming related to food security for all ages, attempting, as its website states, to provide more access to healthy food while addressing dignity, community building and dismantling inequality (mission statement paraphrased to maintain anonymity). It began as a food bank in a church basement, offering food products and meals to those in need. some 20 years previous to the time of this research. Now programming goes beyond hamper handouts, which implicitly go to passive recipients. After multiple transformations and iterations, the CBO offers a diverse range of programming for community members, addressing food access, advocacy and education. These range from a drop-in for those in need to come in several days a week for healthy, hot meals, to community advocacy groups to bring issues to the attention to power brokers. There are pre- and neo-natal nutrition programs, cooking groups for people

identifying as Indigenous, for men only, healthy eating for seniors and an afterschool program for kids and for teen girls. There are workshops and programs on gardening and about talking to the government. In other words, the programming tends toward creating gardeners, cooks and engaged citizens who have the agency to access their own food.

This youth program is the focus of this research was founded three years previous to my year of data collection. For the purposes of this study, it will be referred to as the Leadership in Food for Teens (LiFT).

4.2.2 Time, Space and Place: An Overview of Activities

The physical context of the LiFT is important to understanding the site and the research project. The founder of the food justice program wrote that

the program … is aimed at high school girls who are from the community who can benefit from opportunities to learn about cooking, food issues and gain self-confidence to address issues for themselves and their families. ... It is meant to be a welcoming space where youth could learn about and develop agency around food issues …where girls could have the necessary social support to develop … skills [and to] gain confidence to think of themselves as leaders on food issues within their social group and beyond (McGregor, 2012, pp. 28–29).

I was a co-facilitator with the program founder and the subsequent program facilitator over a total of three years. For this research project, data were collected beginning late in the summer of 2012 and through to August of 2013. The program met weekly for two hours after school on Wednesdays, for a total of 22 weeks. As a result of research under the umbrella of Dr. Bencze’s SSHRC-funded STEPWISE project, we were able to incorporate an additional March Break camp into the programming for the participants. I had been involved as a volunteer/researcher in the program for the two years prior to the data collection for this project. Subsequently, I have already presented at conferences and published an article discussing issues concerning the CBO- institutional relationship as well as the girls’ implementation of research-based activism

(Sperling & Bencze, 2015). The data from this earlier research and the publications that emerged from it also informed this project.

Each week, youth participants would buzz in through the main door of the organization’s facility, the front of which is on a busy urban street, near a bus stop, on the main floor of a community housing high-rise building. The buzzer was installed as a security measure to stop people from wandering in to use the washrooms or the phone, or even taking office supplies, as had happened in the past. Each week the LiFT participants would meet in the main meeting room or in the industrial kitchen (see Figure 4.4), depending on the program for that week. Because the program started at 4pm each Wednesday and some of the schools got out earlier, some of the youth would arrive early and work on their homework of just chat until the start time. The programming ranged from food preparation (see Figure 4.5) to workshops on body image and industrial agriculture and gardening. Participants worked together to tidy up (see Figure 4.6) and had a communal meal or snack each week. More detail is found in Appendix C, the overall schedule of LiFT activities. Each week was a different workshop and participation was voluntary. The lowest participation was a week with three youth, which was during a heavy snowfall, and the most was twelve at one time.

Figure 4.4: Industrial kitchen after participants have left, showing common food prep area, large gas stove and fume hood, cooling racks, fridge and freezer, February 27th, 2013.

Figure 4.5: Developing knife skills and sushi-making, February 27th, 2013.

Figure 4.6: The dish pit, where it was hot and steamy.

To be clear, this data was collected seven years prior to the publication of this document. Regardless, the relevance of this research has increased rather than decreased. The programming described here is still available, and it is perhaps more relevant than ever: food security is one of the greatest concerns as a result of the global pandemic and impacts of climate change. There is a heightened interest in looking to the local to help mitigate or solve many of these issues.

4.2.3 Participant Recruitment

Recruitment for this project took place over two phases. First there was the initial recruitment of participants to the program in general, followed by the internal recruitment of research participants. Program recruitment is explained in depth in Chapter 5. There were up to fifteen participants in the overall program throughout the year, with eight attending consistently. They ranged in age from 13 (at program start) to 18 years old, as one participant was a newcomer and still in high school despite being slightly older than most of the others. I introduced the idea of participating in my research project to the group after four program meetings so that the youth would already have had time to settle into the overall program itself and so that I would have

already had built relationships with them, hoping to develop more comfort with allowing me to work with them. I spoke briefly about my doctoral program and the research project to the whole group and explained the consent form to them, reading the youth assent script (see Appendix A2). I had had the consent form, which was written in English, translated into Spanish, Tagalog, and Portuguese by native speakers of each language for parents to review as needed. I told the group that I would leave out an empty folder in a place that was not in open view for the following two weeks and that any girls who wanted to slip a consent form in their language of choice into the folder at any time could do so. In this way, no one would know who else had or had not given consent to participate in the research portion of the LiFT program.

Ultimately, four young women gave consent or had consent given on their behalf by their parent or guardian (for those under 16) to participate in my project. Two staff members and one volunteer also agreed to participate. Table 4.1, above, generally summarizes the basic demographics of the research participants.

4.3 Challenges in the Research Process

As in any research project, there were challenges to acknowledge and try to overcome. In this case, I considered ethics and the limitations of ethnography.

4.3.1 Ethical Considerations and Research Ethics Board Approval

The required ethical review application was submitted to the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board and approved for this project in March of 2012 and has been renewed up until March 2021, with protocol reference # 28690. In October of 2012, all participants in this study were given verbal and written summaries of the research expectations and instructions describing the purpose and means of participating in the research, including the research approaches used, the responsibilities of the researcher and the participants and their ability to withdraw from the study at any time. Consent letters were prepared in accordance with the requirements of the University of Toronto (U of T) and translated into Tagalog, Spanish and Portuguese for increased ease of information access. These documents and letters can be viewed in Appendices

A1 and A2, Informed Consent and Youth Assent Script. Protocols regarding confidentiality, privacy and anonymity were followed as described in the institution’s guidelines. I selected the pseudonyms used in this study, as requested by the participants in several cases, and lacking access to them in other cases. I was mindful of selecting names to connect to the ethnicities identified by participants, in the ethnographic tradition.

4.3.2 Limitations of the Research as Ethnography

The generalizability of this study is limited by the ability of qualitative research, and in particular ethnography, to achieve the goals of painting a rich picture of a unique time, place and context (Canen, 1999). This picture is developed by medium to long term interactions among the researcher, the context and the participants. This study was highly contextualized in time and place. While the program delivery is replicable, the participants, political climate and even the environment have changed.

In addition, I had a longer-term relationship with the organization, which is both helpful and a challenge. It was helpful because, in the two years of relationship building, volunteering and data collection prior to this project, I had built up connections with some of the staff at the location, showing my commitment to their cause, and this history gave me the ability to contribute to the program in deeper ways than if I had walked in off the street at the start of this project. I had worked in the culture of the space and was able to negotiate programming challenges to a certain degree. However, the years I had been involved before my year of data collection for this project meant that I had developed some biases and expectations about potential outcomes. I had also worked with a different facilitator for the first year and a half, so when the new facilitator came in, there was some tension around my role in the program. This staffing change necessitated ongoing conversations and communications about expectations. As an insider-outsider, I had the privilege of access but not the full exposure to the lived realities of my participants, and I had to be careful about assumptions and biases I was bringing into the research space and data analysis. In addition, the ecojustice integrated conceptual framework of analysis described in Chapter 3 in conjunction with my positionality have impacted the project from conception to publication and beyond.

4.4 Why Me, Why Now? Positioning Myself as the Researcher

Ethnography requires a long-term, deep engagement with participants and/in place (Kimpson, 2005; Tuhiwai Smith, 2006). My official contact time with the research participants was from September 2012 to August 2013. However, entering the project as outlined in my ethical review application, I was already in the position of participant-observer, because of my previous experiences of co-institutional partnerships at the CBO. I had spent two years at the site, building relationships with staff and previous youth participants each school year. For this project I continued in the role of researcher as participant-observer because it allowed me to acknowledge the inside-outside relationship with participants in their local community, as well as with program staff at their place of work.

The role of participant-observer is especially suited to support the social justice orientation of the research project as well as the host organization’s mandate. This position as participant-observer researcher allowed me to take up a role as co-facilitator within the program. This meant a few different intentions and possibilities, in theory and practice. Within the role of co-facilitator, I was given the privilege of helping to plan and support curriculum delivery with the participants, giving me a deep perspective of the arc of the program trajectory as well as many modifications that were made along the way, and often the reasons behind the shifts. It also meant that I had a personal interest in and commitment to some of the programming, as I had helped to develop it. This also posed a challenge to my capacity to be as objective as possible in terms of delivering the material and analyzing the outcomes.

I came to this project with a particular position, as every researcher does. I chose to draw on ethnography and critical anti-racist research methodologies as valuable tools in the project of ecojustice. To this end, I see value in the disclosure of researcher positionality, to reduce biases and prejudices toward the point of elimination, increasing the research reliability, authenticity and credibility (Jamal, 2005). My academic background from my undergraduate degree positioned me as a science student with an interest in and passion for the environment. During my fourth year, I veered into unknown territory, taking my first ever post-secondary social sciences course. While I had taken “non-science” courses before, notably in English and Spanish

language and literature, this course, which studied the communities affected by science-oriented issues relating to coastal fisheries management, was an eye-opening, and perhaps life-changing experience for me. I began to explore various sociological and social justice impacts of environmental issues, realizing that, without considering and addressing the social realities and implications of social injustice, the work of environmental justice is limited, fraught, and perhaps impossible.

Also, I have a strong history of participating in community-based activities and organizations, for social, cultural, environmental, or combined purposes. I have always valued community participation as part of my learning process, in parallel with formal schooling. In recent years, throughout graduate school, I have found it most rewarding to participate in spaces and endeavours that have an overt engagement with achieving positive change in addressing both social and environmental issues. Additionally, I have always had an interest in food. From farmers markets, to apple picking, to urban gardening, many of my personal interests connected easily to the research space I was in. I had the privilege of working, learning and conducting research about something that I was already passionate about. And this privilege is something for me to be mindful of as I wear my researcher’s hat, in that I must continue to acknowledge bias and subjectivities as they may impact the research story.

Given my identities and considering my privileges of whiteness, education, socio-economic status, and age in the research space, I feel the need to expand further on these subjectivities and their impact on my role as a researcher. I also address my positionality as an ethnographer from a critical perspective.

Figure 4.7: The researcher with participants at a University greenhouse site, sharing sensory explorations of the plants. Image by a program participant, March 14, 2013.

I acknowledge that I was an insider-outsider through the research project. Because I had been a volunteer facilitator in the space for the previous two years, I had some insight into the program, its goals and challenges. I had been working with the staff there to help bring youth activism into the program, but also had to ultimately yield, on several occasions, to the limits identified by the original facilitator and her colleagues. At the time of my data collection, in 2012–2013, I had established a relationship with Shirley, the facilitator, and we communicated regularly to plan for and reflect on the program. There was somewhat of a power imbalance, however, because Shirley, as the new facilitator, did not have access to all the previous years’ documents due to a computer failure in their office. She had to rely on the documents I had through my previous work in the program, which I readily shared with her. She also mentioned, in a few different conversations, some inadequacies she felt because she was new to the program whereas I had

experience working with it, and that I was a “trained teacher” and she was not, even though Shirley had worked for several years with another local non-governmental organization involving youth with gardening.

I encountered many moments of frustration during my time as a researcher. At times I thought I saw a greater potential for engagement by program participants than what was being offered to them. I saw how participation was being limited by physical access to the program via transportation to and from school and home, and how these barriers impacted both morale and programming. I saw, from my position as an educator and as a caring adult, that some youth may have needed more encouragement to participate. I observed body language that was reserved: shy glances and downward looks in large group gatherings from participants who would chat easily one-on-one, which could be in part due to their cultural backgrounds or newcomer status. Ultimately, I had to reconcile myself with the fact that I was not a member of staff, and, moreover, doing ‘good’ ethnographic research from a critical perspective means letting things happen from the core of the organization, assuming no harm is done to anyone.

I had moved from formal classrooms to non-formal education settings to conduct research, as non-formal settings are thought to have fewer curricular requirements that tend to constrain youth activism (Bencze, Sperling & Carter, 2012). My initial intention was to engage youth in participatory action research (PAR) on socio-scientific or environmental issues in their community. This would involve an activist project determined by the youth (Fox, Mediratta, Ruglis, Stoudt, Shah & Fine, 2010). At the community-based site where I conducted research, I initiated several discussions with the research site staff, the manager and program facilitator, regarding the desire and feasibility of such an approach. Ultimately, however, it was explained to me that activism, while embedded in the mission of their programming, was not possible for the youth participants in the context of the LiFT program. Thus, my research design had to shift to accommodate the desires and perceived potential of the research site. In accommodating my research to this reality, I began to understand that criticality as a social justice project can backfire on the ground if the intended contributors do not feel adequately equipped to participate in the way they desire to or that their desires are not being honoured. I also realized upon reflection that what may be perceived as resistance from an individual may also be a result of

institutional and administrative challenges that are beyond their control. I began to recognize that projects of criticality and activism are often a demonstration of power and privilege, already requiring a form of social capital that marginalized individuals and communities frequently do not have or do not believe they have, a reflection of self-efficacy in dominant power structures. Thus, the project methodology became an ethnography, which allows for critical perspectives on the part of the researcher but does not engage participants in critical activity in the same way PAR does.

By committing to capture both the individual participants through a case study as well as the larger socio-politico-ecological structures in place, this research project uses ethnography with a critical perspective to paint a picture of a time in place, as well as the potential of programs that are operating within similar structural realities.

4.5 Summary

This chapter provided a detailed overview and rationale of the selected methodology, methods, frameworks for analysis, context and challenges presented in this research project, which seeks to document and analyse the experiences of four teenage girls and their adult facilitators in an after-school food justice education program. This chapter described the process of data collection methods, data analysis strategies, recruitment and selection of the program and study participants, and limitations of the study. The next four chapters provide insights into the findings from the data from an ecojustice education perspective. Chapters 5 through 7 each highlight findings associated with specific research questions about the envisioned (Chapter 5), enacted (Chapter 6) and experienced (Chapter 7) curriculum of the program.

Chapter 5 First Course: An Envisioned Curriculum for Youth Food Justice Education

Food is one of our very few common denominators—a part of our shared humanity. Nothing breaks down barriers like sharing a meal together, and … that shared experience also breeds health, friendships, confidence, and support.

CBO Annual Report, 2013

5.1 Introduction to the Envisioned Curriculum in LiFT

The Leadership in Food for Teens (LiFT) program had been in existence for three years at the time of this research project. The envisioned curriculum of the program was impacted by the overarching goals and practices of the community-based organization (CBO) as well as learning from prior deliveries. These trickled into the following spaces for envisioned curriculum: practitioners, policies, potential participants, and planned pedagogies.

5.1.1 Practitioners and Places

There were two people at the core of the envisioned curriculum for LiFT, Shirley and Roxanne, both pseudonyms. Shirley had the title of Youth Education Co-ordinator and Roxanne, the Site and Program Manager, was her supervisor. Below I present profiles of Shirley and Roxanne, along with descriptions of the spaces where they worked, to deepen the picture of the development of the envisioned curriculum. At the time of this research, we had not discussed the notion of ecojustice or its implementation as a curriculum framework, but rather there was a strong discourse of social justice connected to economic and political literacy. I should add that, in my role as co-facilitator, and having been at the site for the two previous years as both a volunteer and a researcher for a different project, I had gained some insight, expertise and expectations around what I envisioned for the program as well. To be clear, I was not involved with the selection of the program objectives and it was interesting to me to become aware of the desired outcomes for this food justice education program.

5.1.1.1 “Shirley,” LiFT Facilitator

When Shirley began as the LiFT program facilitator, she had been working at various local community organizations on garden-based youth programming for about eight years. Shirley has an undergraduate degree. Along with food- and garden-oriented organizations, she had also worked for an agency that supports children’s mental health initiatives, using gardening as a tool for wellbeing. Along with LiFT, Shirley was also tasked with running an in-school workshop program through the CBO for elementary students to explore with them issues of social inequality through food and housing, under the umbrella of her role as Education Coordinator.

Shirley was born in Europe to a family who moved to France as refugees from Vietnam. She had been living in Toronto since she was a young girl. She speaks three languages fluently—English, Vietnamese and French—and at times speaks very quickly. She has an extensive knowledge of foods and considers herself a foodie. She talked about a particular industry event she had attended, with a celebrity chef, where she emphasized the quality of the food. “It was very French, like only the stuff I would only ever eat in France. I would never eat [food like this] here. Really elaborately made…”. This is an example of her knowledge of and appreciation for haute cuisine, or gourmet food.

Shirley took over programming from the LiFT program founder midway through the programming year before my research project began, when the founding facilitator went on maternity leave after the winter break. As a new staff member, Shirley had to hit the ground running. She had stepped into her role midway through the school year. Within the organization, Shirley reported to her manager, the education director Roxanne, and she collaborated with several colleagues around education programming for different ages and audiences, such as the Community Advocacy Coordinator, the After-school Program Coordinator for the elementary age youth and the Garden Coordinator. She also worked closely with the two professional chefs for meal planning and food ordering.

5.1.1.2 “Roxanne,” Site and Program Manager

Roxanne appeared less directly involved in the program planning than Shirley did, thus I had less data to draw on for her profile. Much of it came from an introductory meeting, a few casual interactions over time and a semi-structured closing interview I had with her. I also drew from conversations I had with Shirley that mentioned Roxanne, along with meetings and conversations I had had with her prior to my work on this research project.

I first met Roxanne when I was a research assistant on a related project that was a collaboration between the CBO and STEPWISE at the University of Toronto, with Dr. Larry Bencze. She expressed interest in partnering with the University and seemed happy to contribute to the research project at that time in exchange for the expertise, resources, and additional adult on offer to support the youth programming, with pedagogical knowledge and providing supervision of activities. Roxanne, previously a social worker, had been working at the CBO for 14 years at the time of this project. She reported to the executive director of the organization.

Roxanne had started her career at the CBO as the Coordinator of a combination of community cooking and gardening programs. She had a background in social work and community development at that point. In our post-programming interview, she noted about her trajectory of experiences that “it is kind of interesting to start off from that point of having a social work background and being an activist on anti-poverty and economic and social issues, but then to not really have a whole lot of background particularly in gardening… I was passionate about food, obviously”. This shows she had an interdisciplinary educational background, both formal and non-formal, that was a balance of her training and her passions when she took up her role at the CBO. Her community development and social work experience was valued over her lack of gardening knowledge, which she picked up from program volunteers and other experts. It is also notable that she considered herself an activist.

Roxanne mentioned that there had been a “huge growth” in programming during the 14 years she had been at the CBO. While historically she had been very passionate about working hands-on in

gardens with community members, her shift to a management role, as she stated, “turned out it wasn’t exactly what I wanted to be doing”. She took the role due to the expansion of the CBO programming and the roots she had put in by that point. She acknowledged that her transition into management involved, learning to let go, stepping back in order to accomplish more as an organization. She noted that, as much as she enjoyed being front-line staff, that being on the management side of the programs meant that “if you are supporting other people who are actually doing the work and being that link between them, you are accomplishing a lot more. So that was the part about getting bigger and growing that I did like”. This comment represents some of the complexity of community-based programming, or education in general, in that the front-line workers are so important to the delivery of the curriculum, and how also important administrative support is to a successful enactment.

Roxanne provided some insight into the history of the CBO and its programming choices. She noted that LiFT was initially developed because of the interest of the education coordinator before Shirley. Prior to 2010, the community centre next to the CBO main site did a lot of youth programming, and, as Roxanne noted, “we don’t want to duplicate what another agency is doing”. As the CBO expanded to include a new neighbourhood, “suddenly the idea of working on a youth program didn’t seem such an unusual thing to do and it was something that [former facilitator] and I personally wanted to work on.” This indicates some discrepancy between the organization priorities and the personal passions of the staff, in developing the Lift program, in that the upper administration of the CBO had to be convinced that a youth-direct program was part of their food justice agenda, separate from regular youth programming on offer nearby.

Roxanne mentioned that LiFT was a program different than what the CBO had tended to offer because it drew on her more on social work background knowledge, with a focus on the individual over the group. She related that

we had a little bit of conversation around that because [the founding facilitator] was developing it in a way that kind of fell a little bit outside of our normal approach to run a program. Her approach was very much ... almost becoming case work. She was spending a lot of time with individual girls and that’s not how we work at the CBO. It’s a

community-building organization, so you do some work with people, obviously, but the focus is on food-based community projects as opposed to the individual.

This possibly indicates a tension between programs that focus more on adult participants and their needs in comparison to the additional scaffolding and apprenticeship that may be needed for youth participants for community engagement, as outlined in Botchwey et al. (2019). Roxanne elaborated:

There was a little bit of that tension and so that was our approach to it, but I think that I felt that the way the program itself is structured, it’s really hard not to get caught up in that. I think Shirley [the newer program facilitator] probably was a little less into [working with individual youth], but you don’t want to be micromanaging the girls themselves. Like concern about “well this one has a really strange approach to eating, how can we get her to stop?” No, no, you’re not supposed to try and do therapy on each individual girl. ...You actually have a greater impact … if you can build an environment where people can help each other out a bit more, then you are going to have a much bigger impact than if you try and sit down and solve it.

This highlighted the community orientation of the programming at the organization, which was privileged over the individual. But Roxanne is also drawing attention to the notion that community-building brings strength and support to individuals (Wenger, 1998). She also noted the particular role and potentials offered by the focus on food:

Because truly [food is] one of those super common experiences that is so enriched with cultural traditions, personal traditions, stories of many, many avenues for accessing it and emotional connectors and so on, so I think it is a really powerful tool for making those kinds of connections. Obviously, you can do work in other fields that don’t involve food, but I think the food is a really integral part, particularly for working with teen girls who have very complicated relationships to food for a variety of reasons.

Roxanne reflected on the conceptualizing the envisioned curriculum of the LiFT program, saying,

it’s for kids to develop a sense of healthy food, both the skills and the attitudes, and, we kind of hope, a little bit of the behaviours. But it takes some time to develop good food habits. It doesn’t happen overnight. It doesn’t necessarily happen just when you are doing it once a week, but at least if you start laying that foundation. ...there’s the food skills component, but then there’s also the community development component. So, developing the social support network, making friends, but then also developing their own leadership and my definition of leadership is quite broad.

Roxanne also drew connections to how she envisioned the role of LiFT in relation to formal education opportunities, and how program planning is related to official curriculum offered in schools. She noted that

there’s a huge gap that is being filled by the LiFT program because a lot of the environmental education, the food education has been pulled right out of the curriculum. And I think teachers are particularly wanting to bring it back in again, but they don’t have much room within the formal structure. I think it is changing a little but, yeah, I think we provide a valuable service in that sense. Is it more explicit? I think we talked about this too both in terms of the [elementary workshop] program, the after-school program and LiFT: does it make sense to connect it more somehow to the curriculum? And I don’t have an answer to that. In a way, I wouldn’t want it to be so tied to that. Sometimes you end up tying yourself in knots. It’s already very hard to cover our own curriculum, the things we want to see girls walk away with. But then to try and match that with what they are learning in schools? I think that would be a challenge, and to have an idea that teachers are then going to be more supportive of the programs, I don’t think so. I think we assumed that with the [elementary workshop] program that you had to have it really, explicitly connected in order for the teachers to come on board, and I don’t think that is holding true across the board. We could test for that a little bit more, but my sense is that teachers just love to see their kids have the experience.

Here Roxanne expressed her understanding of the importance of the work that LiFT was doing, and the opportunities for learning that the programming was offering to its participants, in

relation to the potential environmental education and food education in the formal curriculum. She noted that she is still becoming aware of role of the teacher in how they can support EE and FJE learning in formal spaces.

At the time of my last conversation with her, Roxanne was one month past leaving her role at the CBO and was moving on to other activities. She summed up her reason for leaving:

I’m happy to be leaving it when I’m still passionate about it, as opposed to leaving long after that excitement is gone, because it’s the kind of work that you need to really care a lot about in order to be not a punch clock.

She went on to co-found a network of urban gardeners, offering consulting support to urban growing projects. Roxanne’s vision of social-justice oriented, community-building and environmental programming has some resonance with ecojustice education. I elaborate on this interconnection further in Section 5.2.

5.1.2 Policies and Practices

The CBO is a site to address issues of food injustice through its various policies and practices. These policies and practices are influenced by both philosophical ideals and pragmatic responses to realities. There are many overlaps to the intentions of ecojustice education such as integrating holistic concepts of dignity, accessibility and anti-oppression. Roxanne, CBO’s the program manager at the time of my research, offered some insight to the program delivery model of the organization, contrasting it with another social service organization in proximity to their programming hub, thus sharing much of a member base. She commented,

[Community Housing] get their toes into food, but they don’t really ... they are just figuring out where food fits in. So, they do a little bit of programming here and a little bit of programming there, and it’s very much the community housing model, the health outcome ... the idea of community-building is not as integrated. It’s more of a patient model: you come in, you get treatment, you go home… as opposed to building an

ongoing relationship with people or help[ing] them develop ongoing relationships with each other. It’s just a different way of doing things.

This is relevant in showing there are multiple delivery modes and models for attending to social justice issues, and the CBO overall has prioritized community-building and collaboration over a provision model, as described by Roxanne.

In terms of the LiFT program itself, the goals and function were presented as being more focussed on the individual over the community. The following Figure 5.1 reproduces text that was available to the public on the CBO website up until at least June 2014 explaining the goals of the LiFT program and how it works. It also includes a testimonial from a parent of a previous participant.

Leadership in Food for Teens (LiFT)

LiFT is an after-school program for high-school girls who want to learn how to cook while engaging in issues related to nutrition and environmental sustainability. The program has a strong leadership component that allows participants to solidify food concepts and skills learned while gaining volunteer hours for helping to educate their peers, friends and family. The program runs once a week on Wednesdays from October to May.

Phase I (October to January)

The program during this period focuses on:

- Increasing cooking skills and training in a commercial kitchen

- Providing workshops on nutrition, gender and diet issues, media, and sustainable food systems learning

- Including numerous ice breakers that help to build group cohesion and solidarity

Phase II (February to May)

This period focuses on putting the student’s skills and knowledge into practice by:

- Hosting cultural food days. Girls have to do research on their own cultural foods, bring recipes and complete a presentation for the group

- Completing a March break camp that includes conducting primary research on a food issue of their choice, making educational videos and completing volunteer hours in CBO programs

- Writing, drawing and editing a magazine (Click here to download a PDF of the girls' first zine! [link is no longer active])

- Planning and executing school food demos and presentations

- Planning and executing an Iron Chef Competition with a teaching component on nutrition for friends and family

What the parents of LiFT students are saying ...

“Her eating habits have changed. Towards the end of the school year she started making her own lunch and eating it! Before I would make her lunch and she wouldn’t eat it or throw it out even. She started making sandwiches and making them healthy by adding lettuce and tomatoes. She’s eating fruit, before she would leave it in her bag and they would come home mushy. Her school lunches are looking better and healthier.”

Figure 5.1: Promotional text about LiFT from the CBO website, June 2014.

In terms of planning for programming, some thought was put into managing the expectations of staff and funders, especially around measuring and reporting impacts, in the short and long term. Roxanne noted that the question of return on investment in programs and clients was “a really relevant question now, because we are having some ‘tense’ conversations about what are these expectations”. She elaborated on the tension, stating that,

I think people do expect that we’ve got quotas and a certain number of people that we need to share with them. It’s a little more complicated than that and the way I explain is you’re not going to work with one person for a year, you’re not going to be able to work with 100 people over the course of a year, so what’s the balance in between? And it depends on what it is you are trying to accomplish. If you are handing out meals to people and just making sure that they are fed for that day, you can have a higher number. If you’re trying to build food skills and leadership in a community, then it’s a little harder to do that with a cast of thousands. So what is it you want to accomplish? What can your physical space accommodate? If you’re working in a kitchen, you can’t have 30 people. So balancing all those factors out, and if all the elements of the program lead you to say, “you know what, this program is only going to work with 5 people for 6 months,” then you say, “maybe the program isn’t worth doing. There’s not enough reach to make it happen.”

This explanation from Roxanne offers some insight to the complexity of planning programming with a social justice focus. She also sheds light on the challenges of measuring outcomes and the capacity to do so in a linear manner. Often in the final reports from the CBO, there are statistical representations of program outcomes, such as “95% of participants learned something new about cooking healthy meals in their cooking programs” but as we know from the evolution of qualitative research, statistics do not paint the full picture, in all dimensions. In addition, from a community capacity perspective, building up the leadership capacity of a few people more deeply, may have longer term and richer impacts than delivery meals to 1000s, which speaks to the complexity of the programming to which Roxanne alluded. Ecojustice education, with a focus on sustainability of engagement and transformation, supports both a deeper and richer programming perspective.

Along the lines of anti-oppressive pedagogy and encouraging dignity, the LiFT program was planned so that it included time, space, and the intention to allow for the youth participants to have input on what would be done, with unplanned weeks on the latter portion of the schedule (Appendix C). The facilitator Shirley mentioned on several occasions her desire to cater to the girls’ interests, that they should feel engaged and keep coming if the programming was

responsive to them. As an optional afterschool program, with a lot of competition for time and attention, it was important to Shirley that the girls felt their needs and interests would be met in the program. Roxanne her manager reiterated this as well, reflecting “It would be interesting to figure that out too, whether the girls have their own ideas. ‘This is what we’re interested in and what we’re not interested in’”. At the same time, there was an impetus to focus on food and a rather rich curriculum to cover with only two hours per week, not counting major snowstorms and exam schedules. As Roxanne commented, LiFT staff had to

be careful not to skate too far off the topic because not everyone stays focused and that’s always a challenge too because when you do set up that social environment people then automatically want to open up and talk about other things, and you just have to watch the balance, because you don’t want to tell them ‘no, can’t talk about that topic now, we’re [about] food’.

These various comments from Shirley and Roxanne indicated some tension between the curriculum of food justice as it was indicated by the overall mandate of the CBO, and the subset of goals as they pertained to working with teenage girls who were attending on a volunteer basis.

5.1.3 Potential Participants: Recruitment

Because the organization has a focus on community-based social justice, the advertising, recruitment and selection of program participants were meant to reflect the overall population served by the CBO. Youth participants in the program were recruited from local public and Catholic high schools early in the school year through in-school awareness activities, such as organized lunchtime presentations and/or information tables in the main hallway set up by Shirley, the program facilitator. The program intended to recruit 16–20 regular participants, due to anticipated space constraints in the two main rooms that were used, including the industrial kitchen.

The catchment area for recruitment was defined by boundaries loosely prescribed by the city neighbourhood guidelines. From the Program Logic Model (Appendix E) as well as through anecdotal communications, the target group of participants was meant to be teenage girls aged

13–17 (grades 9 to 12) from the same demographic as the population served by the overall organization, attending neighbourhood high schools and who are from low-income or newcomer families. Students were asked to sign up on an indication of interest form and then have a formal phone interview to determine their eligibility for the program. After becoming aware of the program through outreach activities at four local schools, 40 girls indicated their interest by signing up on site. Some participants asked to join LiFT after it had been recommended to them by friends who had participated in previous years, or by a teacher, guidance counsellor or principal who thought the program might be useful to them. The program facilitator, Shirley, and I called them to conduct eligibility interviews. The initial recruitment interview questions are indicated in Figure 5.2, which is an excerpt of the advertising flyer for LiFT 2012-2013.

Leadership in Food for Teens

A cooking and wellness program for high school girls!

What you need to bring:

Enthusiasm  Cook tasty recipes, garden, Willingness to learn  learn new skills, make new Adventurous spirit  friends, earn volunteer hours Commitment  and discover hidden talents!

LiFT Application & Interview Questions Did you know the food we eat can affect our body weight, acne and even our grades at school!?

Before you can join LiFT, you and your guardian will be contacted by phone. Questions we will ask are:

1. Why are you interested in LiFT?

2. Are you interested in knowing how cooking and gardening relates to the environment and positive mental health?

3. Are you able to attend our March Break Camp?

4. Would you like to help design a magazine, make videos, do food demos, and other activities?

5. What is your level of commitment? LiFT has two parts: fall to winter will be the training period. Winter to spring we will focus on leadership building. Are you able to commit to the program from October to May?

Questions? Contact Shirley via email or call [phone number]

THANK YOU! Figure 5.2 An excerpt of the LiFT recruitment flyer, 2012-2013.

This recruitment strategy was meant to address CBO goals of serving the local community and its residents’ needs. According to Roxanne:

[The LiFT program is] definitely focused on low income youth or is supposed to be. And we have had lots of conversations about how do you do that without jeopardizing the program. It’s a very tricky question to ask young people. But I think they have managed to excel quite well. So yes, definitely low income is the target, but beyond that I don’t think there are any restrictions. In a lot of the goals and objectives, it is stated that we want to reflect the diversity of the community, particularly the neighbourhood is very ethnically diverse, educationally diverse, as well. So we do have to think education background, but not so much economically though.

Eligibility was determined through interview questions that were meant to confirm that potential participants fit the target demographic of the CBO, as mentioned above. The recruitment interviews had tenuous clarity for determining status as being from lower SES families and/or new Canadians. In addition to the questions listed in Figure 5.2, some questions were identified by the facilitator as used to help filter out potential participants who were not ideal to the target group. These additional questions included how many people live in the same home as the potential participants, how many siblings they have, whether they have access to a computer, what other commitments the youth had outside of school, and where they live. Ideally, the participants were not involved in other activities that would interfere with their participation in the program, such as other leadership or sports clubs. Even though the interview questions helped to narrow down which youth were eligible to participate in the program, Shirley and I deliberated about how to determine eligibility, and even contacted guidance counsellors at the high schools to ask, Who will benefit from this free program the most? Who will get the most from the program? Thus, some applicants were not invited because they had too many other after-school commitments. Others were given an invitation but never came. And while they all went to school within the official neighbourhood catchment area, they lived at various distances to the program centre, which became an unforeseen retention issue later, which I discuss further in Chapter 7.

During a recruitment activity, on October 17, 2012, at one of the neighbourhood high schools, Shirley had a conversation with a guidance counsellor who was acting as liaison between the CBO and the students. He had been involved with recruitment with the former program facilitator. He mentioned that possibly he could help with the selection process, with some reluctance, in terms of who was more eligible or met the target audience of CBO programming. At the same school, we also met the settlement worker, who had been at the school for about three years. He worked closely with a nearby culture-based community organization to provide support for newcomer youth, including an orientation week and some monthly or weekly programming. He said he knew of about five girls who were interested in the intergenerational gardening program at the CBO, but it was full by the time they tried to join. He spoke about how the girls he works with have very poor levels of English and low self-confidence. He asked how we would facilitate different, more complex, activities with them, such as talking about food systems and anti-oppression. Shirley did not have an answer for him at that time.

Later that day, Shirley expressed concern to me that she wouldn’t be able to facilitate adequately for girls whose English language skills were not well developed yet and who therefore were at even greater risk of lower self-confidence. She addressed her own concerns, however, when she later talked about partnering up girls with stronger English skills with those who seemed to have weaker skills, which could also help build relationships and leadership for both girls. This indicated some grappling with the friction between her visions of recruitment and programming. Roxanne reflected on the program recruitment, noting that

sometimes your criteria for judging whether a particular girl is going to fit into what we are looking for, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. Anyway, there have been arguments about when it comes to kids and youth, all kids and youth ... you can argue all people in general need access to learning about healthy food skills. So if you have some kids in the mix who are not necessarily our target population, then it’s not such an issue. But my argument is that kids who do come from more well-off backgrounds have a lot more access to resources. They are the ones who already know how to go to farmer’s markets, and they get to go on the field trips and stuff like that, and their schools have

more resources, so in a way, we are going to have more of an impact with kids who don’t have such resources.

Ultimately, it was decided that anyone who made clear references to privilege would be placed on a waiting list, with preference to those who indicated markers like large or multigenerational families, shared computers and/or cell phones, and minimal, if any, extra-curricular activities already on their schedule.

The topic of a boys-only or mixed gender food program came up a few times, both at the school and then back in the office with Roxanne, who asked Shirley to make note of requests for the inclusion of boys, for as a society we were “coming into a time of talking about these things”. Shirley seemed a bit concerned about that. For Roxanne, the question of whether to include male participants was a matter keeping track of the approximate numbers of boys who wanted to participate so that programming for them could be justified to funders when planning for future programming support and outreach. In contrast, Shirley focused on the idea of “creating a safe space for girls”, and worried that shifting to a mixed gender program might entail shifting the curriculum delivery. She also said that she didn’t feel she had a lot of experience working with teenage boys. It was not fully clear to me why it would be a challenge to her, but the possible inclusion of boys became a thread that the girls picked up though the year.

Ultimately, from a list of about 60 girls across four different high schools in the neighbourhood, 18 participants were invited to attend the program. Of those, eight left at the midpoint of the program, the winter holidays. Ten stayed on and four of this ten consented to participate in my research. These four teens, along with adult staff and volunteers, comprised the focus of this project, as explained in Chapter 4.

5.1.4 Planned Pedagogical Practices

The pedagogy of food is a new concept on the educational landscape, drawing on multiple schools of thought and providing opportunities for interdisciplinarity. From a holistic perspective, food may be both the teacher (context) and the strategy (tools). Modes of food pedagogy are variously aligned with an ecojustice orientation to different degrees. Food

pedagogies integrate a diverse range of actors and materials, integrating the whole food system from growing, cooking and eating, to disposal (Flowers and Swan, 2016).

Pedagogies are often determined through program logic models, in planning for implementation. Logic models can be used in program planning, implementation, evaluation, or communication (UMinn, “What is a logic model?”, 2018). A LiFT logic model is a graphical representation of a program’s projects, operations, activities, and goals (see Appendix E), guided by the overall program goal is: To develop healthy, food literate, confident and empowered young women.

Similar to the Overall Expectations in a school curriculum, the LiFT program had a program logic model made up of three objectives, namely,

1. To increase participants’ skills, knowledge and behaviours around healthy food,

2. To foster strong self-esteem and build the leadership capacity of participants, and,

3. To increase program participants' capacity to apply new knowledge to take effective action on food system issues in their community.

Many types and methods of programming were designed and implemented in this food justice education program in order to meet these objectives. The variety of pedagogies were across the spectrum from facilitator-led to participant-led, corresponding to the range of instructional strategies outlined by Pedretti, Bellomo and Jagger (2014) in relation to science education for teacher candidates. Lock’s (1990) model, which is explained in detail in Section 4.1.3, offers wider application with regard to the ecojustice agenda and framework. In the section that follows, many examples from LiFT programming across the spectrum of instructional design for learner control are discussed.

From a curriculum perspective, we could break the pedagogies into three strands, namely, cooking, leadership, and community engagement, which align respectively with the three core program objectives of the LiFT program logic model (Appendix E). Each strand also included the development of skills and knowledge, both distinct and overlapping. Cooking addressed enacting skills, knowledge and behaviours. Leadership activities encompassed the development

of self-esteem and agency. Community engagement entailed applying knowledge and taking action around food systems issues. The envisioned programming endeavoured to meet LiFT’s three objectives by enacting each of these strands to varying degrees in cooking and non-cooking activities, which also offered community engagement, as described below.

All program objectives had a subset of outcomes and indicators which are found in the logic model. The desired outcomes were linked to the following indicators, outlined in Table 5.1, below. Colour blocking is used to group each set of Objectives 1 through 3 with their associated activities, outcomes and indicators. Outcomes refers to short-term changes in learning (knowledge, skills, awareness, etc.) and medium-term changes in action (behaviours, practices, etc.) Indicators refers to how we measure success (e.g. participants demonstrate improved food preparation skills). Note that the activities listed in this table were envisioned based on previous deliveries of the program and were developed along with the program logic model before the start of the program in 2012. These envisioned activities are distinct from the enacted activities, as described in Chapter 6, Section 6.1.3.

Table 5.1 Program objectives and indicators excerpted from the LiFT logic model, which can be found in full in Appendix E.

OBJECTIVE 1: ACTIVITIES:

To increase participants’ A. Offer programming once a week for a total of 26 skills, knowledge and sessions from October - May behaviours around healthy B. Recruit participants: connect with principals & teachers, food. make presentations in schools C. Provide cooking sessions 2x per month based on themes that increase healthy cooking & nutritional knowledge and build skills

OUTCOMES:

1. More positive attitudes and increased knowledge and frequency of healthy food choices among participants. 2. Increased food preparation knowledge and skills among participants.

100

INDICATORS:

1. Participants report preparing food more often at home & making healthier food choices (final evaluation) 2. Participants demonstrate new cooking skills: knife handling, measuring, etc. (observation) 3. Participants know how to cook without a recipe (observation) 4. Participants know how to cook & bake with substitutes & protein alternatives (observation)

OBJECTIVE 2: ACTIVITIES:

To foster strong self-esteem A. Ask participants to develop and facilitate their own and build the leadership cultural cooking sessions within the program capacity of participants (individually or in small groups) B. Provide assistance & support as needed while participants develop sessions (choosing recipes, purchase food, tips on facilitation, etc.) C. Introduce recreational activities related to food and wellness in areas outside of the kitchen (films, short games, guest speakers, gardening)

OUTCOMES:

1. Participants gain leadership skills (planning, organization, teamwork, presentation) 2. Participants learn new ideas about topics that are relevant to their lives 3. Participants feel an increased sense of self-confidence 4. Participants gain a better understanding of their interests & talents and begin to think about how these apply to their futures and their careers

INDICATORS:

1. Participants volunteer to lead group activities and sessions and report gaining specific leadership skills (observation) 2. Participants feel comfortable with staff and group to discuss issues that affect them (final eval) 3. Participants report increased self-confidence (final eval) 4. Participants report learning new ways of dealing with peer pressure and stress (final eval)

101

OBJECTIVE 3: ACTIVITIES:

To increase program A. Offer educational programming in food systems issues participants’ capacity to apply B. Introduce specific activities and projects aimed at new knowledge to take empowering students to think critically about and take effective action on food action on wider systemic issues in their community (e.g. system issues in their making a video or doing a study on the food system) community C. Ask participants to bring their new knowledge back to their schools & do presentations to inspire action more widely

OUTCOMES:

1. Increased participant knowledge of food system, social justice and anti-oppression concepts and issues 2. Active participation by participants in actions to address systemic issues 3. Increased ability among participants to think critically 4. Increased sense of empowerment among participants

INDICATORS:

1. Participants demonstrate increased knowledge of food system issues (pre-post test or quizzes) 2. Participants critically analyze new information (e.g. video, study) (observation) 3. Participants report increased feelings of empowerment & control over conditions impacting their lives (final eval)

5.1.4.1 Leadership

Developing leadership skills in participants was a clear goal of the program, both in its name and in the defined objectives of the planning logic model. Objective 2 of LiFT, as shown in Table 5.1, is to foster strong self-esteem in and build the leadership capacity of participants. Indicators of success in this endeavour include observations that 1. participants volunteer to lead group activities and sessions and report gaining specific leadership skills, 2. participants feel comfortable enough with the staff and the group to discuss issues that affect them, 3. participants report increased self-confidence, and, 4. participants report learning new ways of dealing with peer pressure and stress.

102

Roxanne noted that some success in the past focussing on leadership directly with youth participants.

So, something as simple as taking information home to your family and friends is an example of leadership. It doesn’t have to be speaking in front of group of 100 people ... it’s laying those foundations for them to become more fully participating members of the community, and whether they do that in the context of food, or if they do it in some other context, that’s fine. It could be on the smaller level, but getting the girls to identify that as leadership, like this is an example of leadership. “I just showed leadership here. Wow! Wasn’t that great.” I think, not this year, but the year before, we had a student working with a ... she did a workshop on leadership, and one of the girls came out of it saying “Wow, one of the things that I learned is that you don’t have to be a big famous person to be a leader.” And that was like “Yeah!” That’s the “aha” moment there.

However, she continued with a focus on leadership as directed through personal food choices:

But if you have, as I said, that spectrum of objectives—they may not become Cordon Bleu chefs or anything like that, but if they at least feel comfortable assembling some recipes and making choices differently than they would before, or at least [become] aware of how they make their food choices, [that] is the big one. They feel that there are small steps that they can take, to make change in their community, then that’s fine.

According to the program logic model, this type of personal choice and change outcome would be more in line with Objective 1, to increase participants’ skills, knowledge and behaviours around healthy food, rather than a more externally oriented definition of leadership. While Objective 2 is more focused on leadership as an expression of self-esteem, the outcomes and indicators are described in relation to participation within the LiFT program group, rather than in home life or in their community.

103

5.1.4.2 Community-based Programming

Because the third program objective and its contingent indicators related to fostering leadership related to action on local food systems issues, this connoted a desire to build and connect to community. Roxanne noted that community development work means investing in reaching many participants, rather than targeting individuals:

...As a community development agency ... I enjoyed hearing that recently in order to have a higher impact, you have to have high turnover. So you can’t be working with the same people over and over again, but if you are doing community building, you are inherently working with the same people over and over again, and doing the kind of redundant web of overlap and you’re wanting to strengthen that because that’s what actually makes the community stronger. So in some ways, you would want to have programming that has kids work through the different levels of involvement.

The envisioned curriculum held space for community-based programming. Activities such as community food mapping, a local grocery store tour, community gardening and volunteering at the CBO’s two sites with other programs were identified as potential ways to meet program objectives, as identified in the program schedule, Appendix C. Each of these offered opportunities for youth to see component parts of the food system and how it related to their community, as well as exposing them to some additional means of participating in the CBO’s programming after LiFT was completed.

A leadership opportunity that was offered toward the end of the program was to participate in a youth advisory board for the next year. Roxanne reflected on the reasons for this option, that the role of LiFT for young women was to offer the opportunity for their participation as community members, as had been done in the past with all CBO participants and programs. However, as she stated,

... we started off having a lot of community input, trying to get a lot of community input, so we would have these community dinners where people would come and we’d have questions for them and so on, and ... we used to have advisory committees for a lot of

104

programs. And I think fairly consistently, there were some successes for the advisory committees, but for the most part, it was challenging to get people to participate in them and whether people actually felt that they had an impact or could think on the level that we need to the work to do. So, how would the girls in the LiFT program contribute to what the program looks like in the future? How would they contribute to how the organization runs? Do we even stop to ask them about? “So you’ve had a chance to experience from the program here, what do you think the CBO should look like? What impact do you think the organization has on community?” Nobody ever asks them that.

Thus, Roxanne was encouraging of Shirley to invite the girls to participate in a youth advisory committee once the program was complete.

The Program Logic Model with its list of activities, outcomes and indicators of all three objectives, along with the program schedule, offered a view of an envisioned curriculum of leadership and community engagement. Both the program facilitator Shirley and the manager Roxanne brought their own visions and interpretations of how these objectives might be achieved. This case of an envisioned food justice curriculum can be interpreted through an ecojustice lens in order to provide insight to where its strengths and challenges may exist.

5.2 Interpretation and Analysis through an Ecojustice Lens

In this section, I bring an ecojustice lens to the envisioned curriculum and my findings related to it. Primarily, I consider the role of community and participants and the envisioned relationships between participants, facilitators and the medium of food. Figure 5.3 offers insight into these relationships. The dotted lines represent the anticipated relationships through the curriculum of the food justice education program. The blue dotted line represents the focus of the facilitators on the relationship between the youth and food through programming. The solid black line represents a set of relationships between the facilitators and the medium of food that is pre- existing, given their presumed expertise in the area.

105

Participants:

Individuals, youth, cultural and social realities, desires, priorities

Facilitators: Food:

People, histories, Material, personal, institutional structures, cultural, commodity, desired outcomes natural

Figure 5.3: Overview of envisioned curriculum relationships.

Ecojustice education calls attention to the role of the educator and the curriculum, noting that these are meant to work to develop people in community with each other, who have a collective vision of what is meant by and who belongs within their community (Martusewicz et al., 2015). One approach that captures this attempt to be clear about our vision for the community from an ecojustice education perspective is culturally responsive teaching. Culturally relevant teaching focuses on instruction that includes and connects to the strengths of a person’s home culture as a way of inviting them to learn (Ladson-Billings, 1995). In this way, it is meant to be directly opposed to deficit approaches, which view those participate from outside the dominant culture discourse as being less-than (Martusewicz et al., 2015).

In order to understand, categorize and compare the pedagogies I explored in the envisioned curriculum of LiFT, I have drawn on Lock’s (1990) model of variations in control of learning as explained in greater detail in Chapter 4. The LiFT program Objectives two and three are

106

particularly noteworthy because both capacity-building for leadership and applying knowledge as part of taking action toward food system transformation are key goals of EJE (Martusewicz et al., 2010); direct reference to social justice and anti-oppression knowledges are valuable to the ecojustice mandate. EJE demands the taking of action to address systemic biases and oppressions beyond personal issues. Critical thinking and empowerment are highly desirable in order to facilitate the deconstruction of systemic issues. However, the indicators in the Program Logic Model do not clearly align with the outcomes, especially not from an ecojustice perspective. In the LiFT program, the desired outcome of active participation to address systemic issues affecting food justice was given limited space and support, as far as I observed. This observation was corroborated in discussions I had with Shirley and other staff at the CBO.

The program curriculum as it was envisioned and enacted by the facilitators may be understood in a variety of ways. The program curriculum in this case was guided by the three overarching program objectives and suggested various activities to meet these outcomes and indicators. As discussed in Chapter 4, Lock’s (1990) model allows for the pedagogies used to deliver program objectives to be mapped along the spectra of learner control and outcome-orientation, from facilitator-directed and closed-ended to learner-directed and open-ended. This model for analysis is useful from an ecojustice education perspective because ecojustice education, particularly for marginalized learners, would suggest that more learner control and opportunities for learner- driven outcomes would benefit the learners the most, if it is successfully scaffolded. In this case, the teacher is known as the facilitator because the educational setting is non-formal. Many of the activities run during the LiFT program were closer to the teacher-directed, closed-ended end of the spectrum. These activities were both within the cooking and non-cooking aspects of the programming. The focus on the individual and the bounded space of the program do not line up as strongly with ecojustice goals. Analysis of the enactment of the activities (see Chapter 6) suggests that the types of activity delivery, or pedagogy, impacted the outcomes of expressions of ecojustice and possibly the desired outcomes of the organization.

From this ethnography, I consider that non-formal education for food justice has both great potential and positive impacts for the wellbeing of youth and their communities, at least in the short term, though it also faces challenges. From the perspective of the envisioned curriculum of

107

the food justice education program, the LiFT staff expressed many desires about their intentions when it came to LiFT programming and participation. However, the participation of the youth was not considered in the envisioning of the curriculum, in part because of the structure of the Logic model, which was driven by the organization, rather than the participants. The envisioned curriculum of this food justice program was conceived of primarily by the program manager and the facilitator, with some input from me in my dual role as researcher-facilitator. Shirley did attempt to leave room for youth input, at least tacitly, as there was some discourse from Shirley on several occasions about “catering to the interests of the youth to keep them engaged.” In the overall program goal implementation through planning, only a few adjustments were made for the expressed desires of the youth participants. This will be more apparent in Chapter 7 which discusses the experienced curriculum of the LiFT program. It is worth considering here the goals of ecojustice education, and in particular its intention to support agency in marginalized spaces, such as for intersectional identities through gender, race and class, or for the more-than-human world. These goals, orientations and critiques through the lens of ecojustice will be explored further in Chapter 8.

5.3 Summary

This chapter, the first of three findings chapters, addressed the envisioned curriculum of LiFT, a food justice education program for teen girls. The envisioned curriculum was broken down into the components of policies and practices, potential participants, and planned pedagogies. I described some examples of the envisioned curriculum with some explanation of how they are related to potential expressions of ecojustice. I have interspersed my observations with reflections by participants as well as documentation from the organization to support my claims. My analysis revealed some gaps between the potential for deep food justice education and the lived realities of the LiFT program.

Chapter 6 Second Course: Enacted Curriculum of a Food Justice Education Program

The shared meal elevates eating from a mechanical process of fueling the body to a ritual of family and community, from the mere animal biology to an act of culture.

Michael Pollan, In defense of food: An eater’s manifesto; quotation on the wall of the CBO

6.1 Introduction and Overview of Enacted Curriculum

The enacted curriculum of the Leadership in Food for Teens (LiFT) program was impacted by the overarching goals and practices of the community-based organization (CBO) that ran it. These goals were reflected in the participants, places, and pedagogies of the enacted curriculum. In this chapter, we get to know more about the youth participants of the study.

6.1.1 Participants in Enactment

There were four key youth participants who consented or for whom consent was given to participate in the research component of the program: Sandra, Marsha, Felicia and Patricia. The following descriptive profiles give insight from my perspective on the four key youth research participants, as well as one of the adult volunteers, Sharron. These youth portraits were written based on their intake interviews into the program, post-evaluations (as available) of their official participation, exit interviews done candidly with me after the program, field notes, observations, and other conversations and documents that each produced in relation to the program. Appendices B1 and B2 share the intake and exit questionnaires. Exit interviews were given a higher weight than other material as they represent a culmination of reflections on experiences for participants and for me as their facilitator, or co-programmer, in the case of the two other adults, Facilitator Shirley and Program Manage Roxanne. Each story follows a rough trajectory over time, covering demographic and life history information as well as participants’ reflections on their connections to food and other related ecojustice issues before their program

109

participation. Reflections after program participation are included in Chapter 7. I now introduce you to Sandra, Marsha, Felicia, Patricia, and Sharron.

6.1.1.1 “Sandra”

Sandra was 18 years old. When she started in the LiFT program, she had been in Canada for about four months. She had a younger brother, age 9, and she, her father and her brother came from the Philippines to join her mother, who had been living in Canada for six years already, working as a nurse. Sandra had some cousins in Toronto as well. Sandra also wanted to be a nurse, which she explained on several occasions, and she talked a lot about her academic path to achieving that goal. She felt that her English wasn’t very strong, and so she thought she would have a higher likelihood of success if she were to attend a pre-nursing program at college first before applying to university for a nursing degree. She had been taking ESL English in high school and summer school to get up to speed for her final year of secondary studies. Because she was a new immigrant, despite her age, she still has to complete one more year of high school. She was the oldest participant of LiFT. She considered herself to be shy, perhaps because she was new to the country and not fully confident in her use of English. We spoke candidly at different times during the program and she told me that, back in the Philippines, her home country, she had lots of friends and was very active and outgoing. Here she was more reserved because she is still working on her English and doesn’t always feel confident in her assessment of what is going on. By the time of the final interview, she was participating in a summer volunteer program gardening with seniors, and she had also recruited two of her other friends who were also Filipina immigrants of high school age to the volunteer program. She seemed very driven to do what she believes is right and to follow her dreams. She did not talk a lot about popular culture, in comparison to other participants in the group, but instead spoke more about her family and school. She was very positive and hopeful, as well as considerate and thoughtful. She smiled and laughed a lot and was always polite. She talked about whether she felt that her friends are doing their best in their schooling in terms of choosing the right courses to achieve their post-secondary goals. Despite indicating a lack of confidence early in the program, Sandra exuded maturity among the group of teens.

110

On August 19, 2013, I met with Sandra for the last time to complete her exit interview. This interview was semi-structured and was influenced by the context and location. It took place at a community site affiliated with the CBO where Sandra was volunteering with a gardening program. Sandra had become aware of this gardening program through her participation in LiFT when she was able to participate in the March Break component of the program which had included time working in and exploring that international garden space. During that time, the group visited the alternative site where the gardens are located, and she expressed interest in getting involved with the gardens more extensively. The program facilitator, Shirley, connected her to the garden coordinator to help facilitate her participation in the summer of 2013.

6.1.1.2 “Marsha”

Marsha was the second-youngest member of the group who came through the program in 2012– 2013. She was 15 and at the beginning of Grade 10 when it started. She is originally from South Africa but moved to Canada when she was around 3 years old. Both of her parents are from there, and she has spent a lot of time visiting extended family over the years. She is white and identified herself and her family as Jewish but secular rather than observant. Marsha’s story brings a particular narrative thread to the research because of her focus on the animal world and her connection to it.

Marsha was very passionate about animals, which is a big part of her story. She had been a vegetarian since she was nine years old. This eating preference was unique in the group, although she was not pushy or overly vocal about this choice. At different times, especially in the latter half of the program, the other participants questioned her about this choice, and she cheerfully responded with, “I just love animals. I can’t eat them.” She shared with me in her post-program interview that much of her free time was spent caring for animals, either her own pets or those at animal-focused camp programs for kids, such as a regional zoo with exotic animals that taught kids animal care while they stayed overnight on site for a week. She was aware of her learning styles and preferences, and was concerned about how she would bring her ethics into her future work, as she told me,

111

I don’t want to go to university. I want to go to college, because that’s how I learn. I learn hands-on and not be lectured at. So I want to go to college, but I don’t know where, because I don’t know what programs I want to take. I know I want to work with animals, but I know I don’t want to be a vet. … [I know] a vet tech, and so he does sheep, and cows and pigs, and he makes a lot of money. But the sad thing is a lot of animals that he goes to are probably food animals, so it would be sad for me. It’s like “yeah, I’m coming to make sure you are okay. You are going to die.”

According to Marsha, her passion for animals caused her to influence her mother to become pescatarian, before her participation in LiFT, as she related to me,

[My mother] used to eat all meat. And then at one point she was only eating chicken and minced meat. And then she was just eating chicken, and then she was saying to me “I feel really bad, I don’t think I want to eat chicken anymore.” But she didn’t give up fish. So she’s a pescatarian now.

Although Marsha was pleased with her success in convincing her mother to stop eating mammals and birds, she did not otherwise attempt to actively convince others to become vegetarian because of past experiences encountering entrenched cultural values of meat consumption:

Usually I don’t like talking about it, because in our society, like a lot of people find it weird to love animals. They are really opposed. … a lot of kids ... their parents will teach them it’s okay to eat meat. Animals, you shouldn’t love them, because a lot of people who don’t like animals it’s because of their parents. So, usually I really don’t like talking about it, because then they’ll try to fight me and they’ll be like “Oh, it tastes so good,” and they’ll rub it in my face. So I usually keep quiet about it.

Marsha talked about being an only child of parents who were divorced but still good friends. She referred to them often when explaining how she understands the world. She lived in both of their homes equally, close to each other, in the neighbourhood of the secondary site of the CBO. This proximity to the CBO meant she expressed some familiarity with its programming prior to her involvement in the LiFT program. Marsha’s prior familiarity with the CBO was uncommon in

112

the program, as none of the others had been involved with it prior to the recruitment for LiFT. She attended a local public high school.

Marsha was motivated to join the LiFT program because, she said, she spent a lot of time on her own after school when her parents were still at work, and she thought that she did not snack or eat well. She wanted to learn how to cook simple meals so she could “eat better” and “more healthy,” as she stated on many occasions, both during formal interviews and casually during programming time. She spoke about going to the gym with her mom sometimes and working with a trainer there. She also referred to herself as “lazy” several times, referring to times when she didn’t go to the gym or didn’t want to cook for herself, and that “sometimes it’s just easier to grab a bag of chips.” She also commented that, despite loving the animals at a zoo camp, she didn’t want to give a zoo feeding tour to the public, given the opportunity, “because I did it last time and it wasn’t that fun for me, because you had to do research and write stuff down. I’ve done it once, and didn’t do it again.” This can be seen as an indication of her preference for more hands-on learning, as well as her focus on the animal wellbeing directly rather than educating other people.

Marsha seemed to have a lot of access to technology and social media. When referring to a friend, she mentioned that “her parents were really super strict. She wasn’t allowed a phone, no email, no Facebook, no MSN, nothing,” while Marsha commented that she had no limitations placed on her social media consumption. Marsha was noted, rarely, checking things on her phone during the program, sometimes looking up information, or just checking in with her parents about getting home, while other participants had to use the office landline to do so.

Marsha was quite quiet when the program began in October, but by the end in June she was very involved and seemed to have made some new friends. At times she was even unintentionally disruptive with her enthusiasm, and the facilitator, Shirley, or other adults had to ask her politely to focus on the task at hand. She sometimes spoke very fast, almost sometimes narrating her stream of consciousness, and offers many details without much prompting. For example, during her exit interview, Marsha talked about the temperature fluctuations she experienced during her recent trip to South Africa, how the houses are not built for the cold, and how she had to adapt by

113

layering her clothing in the evening. She had a large vocabulary, for example referring to the behaviour of goats at a privately-owned zoo she attended as “overzealous” toward young children, and she also stated that the ram had “reached sexual maturity.”

Marsha had thoughtful, and at times conflicting, insights about the world. During her exit interview, she recounted more about her summer camp experience at the zoo and was talking about making friends with other kids there:

I’m surprised, because you’d think if it’s an animal camp, they’re going to be animal lovers and nice people, but there was this clique of five or six people and they were “we’re too cool for you,” and they would always hang out with each other and they were really rude to everyone else…. My friend explained to me that they’re the kind of people who like animals, but they don’t love them, so they’re just there because they can afford it, because it’s $1,000 a week. So it’s an expensive camp, so that’s why they’re going.

This indicated that she had an awareness of the expense of her camp, and that she placed value on spending so much money because she knew she loved animals. It also indicates that her family had the resources for such an expense, which perhaps placed her beyond the ideal candidate status intended by the program. It also shows that she thought that some people do things for material reasons, like going to an expensive camp just because they can, and their attitudes to others are conflated for her in that.

Marsha had opinions on animals in captivity. She expressed that the conservation of the animals in a private zoo was a good thing: “And they also make money off it for the animals, and so they’re using the money for great reasons.” She had opinions about the taming of the wild animals, for example, referring to a wolf that had been raised at the zoo,

We petted her and she always comes up to the fence and you can pet her, and she licks you. Even though she’s a wolf, she acts exactly like a dog, [which is] really sad. You have to remind yourself that she’s a wolf because they can be dangerous, even though if you went and met her you’d be, “she can’t be dangerous.”

114

But later when she talked about the fennec fox, and said, “they are the cutest things ever. I actually want one as a pet.” This desire to keep an undomesticated animal as a pet conflicts with her previous statements, that it was sad to see a wild animal tamed and playful with humans.

She expressed a connection to the lions at the zoo overnight camp, applying a highly anthropomorphic lens to them, as she recounted a story:

...it’s really sad because they had two pairs and one of the males died, and the female misses him, and it’s so sad. All through the day, she is calling for him. She’s making this sound, … the lioness. She makes like this guttural sound from her throat, and you can hear it in the night while we’re sleeping. You hear her calling for him and it’s so sad, but they don’t think they are going to get her another mate, because it’s really hard to find someone that [a lioness] like[s], because she has lived with him for so long. So they might not be able to find another male that she’ll be friends with.

This story indicates that she had empathy for the animals and understanding of their relationships. However, it also shows that she was comfortable with the decontextualized and anthropocentric reality of these animals.

She also told me a story about once having gone to a crocodile farm, trying to reconcile the farm (raising animals for consumption by humans) aspect of it.

Yeah, a farm and a reserve and you can eat crocodile there … it’s really weird, because they have living ones, and then dead skin, and then meat. ... And my dad said, “that’s weird.” ... I guess because they don’t have enough space, they have males and females living together, so they can’t keep all of them alive.

By this statement, I could see that she was trying to process why there was a need to sell the meat, due to the proximity to breeding (males and females living together) and thus overpopulation for the habitat that was available for the crocodiles.

Around the time of our last meeting, there had been an incident in the news in which a large snake that had been kept as a pet killed two young children in New Brunswick (see news

115

coverage in Bissett, 2016). Marsha appeared to be upset by this story and had a lot to say about it, drawing on her knowledge of these reptiles, and stated that was a mistake that the snake was killed in response. “When animals kill, [people] kill the animal straight away, they don’t even ... there’s no breathing room.” She was very passionate about animals and the human relationship to them, modelling what could be considered a stewardship perspective of this relationship. She told many elaborate stories of encounters she had had with animals during her life but less so about her friendships with people, either at LiFT or outside of the program.

6.1.1.3 “Felicia”

Felicia was the youngest member of the group, just 14 when she started participating. Felicia joined the program a bit later than other participants, after a second round of recruitment took place after the winter holidays once numbers seemed to settle and there was still space available. She was recommended to join by other girls who were already participating.

She was born in the Philippines and her family, her mother, father and younger brother, came to Canada together when she was six years old. She had some memories of being with her grandmother in the Philippines. At the time of her exit interview, in June 2013, her parents were both in school to upgrade their qualifications or certifications that they had from their home country. Her mother was trained in pharmacy and her father was in business. Felicia has two brothers, two and four years younger than her, of whom she spoke with much fondness. She talked about how they make her laugh. She also laughed and giggled frequently during programming and exhibited a very joyful demeanour. She was noted by many of the participants and the facilitator to have a contagious laugh, which they appreciated and told her as much. She was very easy to talk to and not long-winded. Felicia attended an all-girls Catholic public school close to her home. She had attended a mixed-gender elementary school, but switched for high school to all-girls because she wanted to be “more confident,” and because, according to her, boys are distracting to her and make her nervous. There was much giggling about this topic. Although Felicia finds the girls school “more boring,” she said she “answered more questions [in class] than in elementary.” This shows a self-awareness and maturity about her learning needs and self-confidence in different social spaces.

116

Felicia expressed a great deal of interest in my research project and in the university when she was talking to me. When arranging her combined exit and post-program interview in June, she wanted to return to the university to meet me rather than have me come to her neighbourhood or meet elsewhere; she had visited the campus for the first time during the March Break program. Felicia was thoughtful and not afraid to share her ideas one-on-one, and expressed that she liked to listen and give advice to help her friends. But she told me that in big groups or class, she is quieter, and got a Satisfactory on her report card for not participating in class as much as her teacher expected of her. This designation is along the Learning Skills spectrum between Excellent, Good, Satisfactory and Needs Improvement, somewhat akin to a C, what would be the Initiative section of the Ontario report card. She claimed that she was most interested in science as subject and wanted to be a dermatologist as a future career.

Felicia described an affinity for animals over people, after she asked me to explain more about my research, which involved working with people. She commented:

Wow. You would like to know people? If I am going to become a dermatologist, I think I would just want to learn with animals, I wouldn’t even want to learn people! I feel so mean! but…[laughs] It’s too difficult [to be a veterinarian], and I don’t want to see [animals] die, or something. …when there’s homeless people with dogs it makes me feel more sad than when they don’t have pets. I just find animals more sadder when they die.

In contrast to volunteering help with people, such as the homeless population, Felicia had a clear idea that “If I were to help out, like with volunteering, I would just go to marine biology. …I would like to go there and volunteer and see all those water animals. Go somewhere and do scuba diving, see all those things, learning underwater life.” She also talked about wanting to study marine biology as an option to dermatology, saying marine biology “would be my second option would be that, if something happens, like oh my god, I don’t want to do this, I can do that”.

She also indicated that she enjoyed working with the younger children when we spent time together during March Break, and when we met in the summer, she was excited to tell me she

117

had obtained a baby-sitting job. I observed some tension between what she thought she should be doing in her future life and what she actually wanted to do. Her interest in dermatology because “it pays a lot” versus her clear excitement about being with kids or animals was apparent.

6.1.1.4 “Patricia”

Patricia was absent the day of my initial research recruitment conversation with the girls, however when she had heard about it from one of the other girls, she spoke to me privately about wanting to participate in the research aspect of the program. Patricia’s family gave consent for her to participate. Unfortunately, she did not include her contact information on the form, and because she joined the program late, after recruitment by one of the other girls, I was not able to contact her beyond the scope of the LiFT program.

Patricia identified ethnically and culturally as Mexican, the only girl of this self-identification in the group. This came up the first time when we discussed the globalization of patty food, and she mentioned enchiladas as her cultural food. She was in Grade 11 and attended the mixed-gender Catholic high school within the community catchment during the program. She had a younger sister and she liked to take home LiFT cooking leftovers for her family to try after. She often reported back on their thoughts on the food.

She was gregarious, chatty and friendly. Patricia would talk easily with any of the participants and willingly joined in group activities, providing insight whenever she could. When she entered the LiFT program, she seemed to have a good basic knowledge of and degree of confidence about food, despite starting later than the other girls. She knew something of the difference between whole and processed foods, and she stated she liked cooking “a lot” (Patricia, intake interview, March 22, 2013). She was also aware of systemic issues such as the nature of advertising, stating that “companies make commercials that say something is healthy when it’s not” (Patricia, intake interview, March 22, 2013). (Note: Patricia’s intake interview took place several weeks after she started the program, so it may reflect what she had learned in the program by that time). During the program she was a regular participant, coming to most of the sessions once she began. She readily offered answers during group discussions, which was noted

118

by staff and some of the other participants, indicating an existing level of self-confidence regardless of starting the program later in the year.

6.1.1.5 “Sharron,” Program Volunteer

Sharron was a new volunteer to the program when the school year started in 2012. She was a master’s student at a local university in environmental studies but also had a background in food studies, as she had completed a certificate in culinary studies at a community college after her liberal arts undergraduate degree in the United States. She was a dual citizen of Canada and the United States. She identifies as white and was in her mid-twenties during this time. Sharron had grown up in Toronto and gone to a private all-girls school. She lived about an hour’s commute away from the program site by car. When she talked about her personal life, she mentioned her interest in health and fitness and how it related to what she chose to consume. Her participation as a volunteer was being documented to give her credit toward her master’s program. She subsequently wrote her master’s thesis about her participation in and observations of the program again the following year. Part of her thesis was published as a chapter in a book on food literacy programming. I have drawn on some of her reflections in this project and participated in her project; Sharron interviewed me about my experiences as a volunteer, which led to rich discussions about our experiences and observations, many of which were aligned.

Because of her background and training in culinary arts, Sharron was often called upon to step into more of a leadership role when the CBO chefs were unavailable. One or both of two professional chefs were unavailable on several occasions either for personal reasons, such as illness, or due to scheduling conflicts with catering or other programming at the CBO. Sharron happily stepped in when it was required of her and offered as much of her expertise as possible. She was friendly and approachable to both the adults and the youth participants.

When we spoke, she had the opportunity to reflect on certain inspirations and influences that brought her to her interest in food systems education. I had asked her to think about some of the moments that grab onto our hearts and become part of us, moments that are, in a sense,

119

transformative learning experiences. Sharron made connections to her childhood. She commented,

When I was a kid, my mom always took us out to the garden, and we’d be gardening and we would see how things grew. Yeah, I think to a certain extent, at least for me, it’s like having been involved from a young age, being outside in nature and cooking with my parents. My mom always cooked and so I always cooked with her, and so it was very normal for me to always be cooking and helping, and that is not the case for a lot of people.

When asked about her reasons for volunteering for LiFT, she brought in her vision of food systems, saying,

It was a good experience to kind of complement what I like doing in classes...I really believe in food education…it’s not going to be the main thing, the primary thing that changes the system, but I think it is certainly an interesting component, especially if you are working with the younger generation as opposed to people and policies at a higher level. It’s like going from, not grassroots, but working from smaller levels. I believe in that and I didn’t really know a lot of the Toronto area community food centres, like what they did, and things like that, so I figured it was a way to learn, and I love to cook. I was like, sure, since I’m done chef school, I need to cook somehow.

As a volunteer, she felt she brought her strength in food skills, planning and preparation, to the LiFT program, although she felt that a stronger focus on food systems learning would be useful, stating,

I don’t necessarily think that [food skills] is the primary thing that LiFT should necessarily be focussing on exclusively, but I can bring the hard cooking skills and I feel comfortable juggling a bunch of girls cooking different things and I don’t get scared of recipes and working with youth.

120

She often reflected on the program in relation to larger food systems, at one point stating that “I feel a lot of people have a very narrow field of what they might eat, because of current ways that the system is structured.” Upon further inquiry, I discovered she was referring to what is made available to people for purchase as well as what society has normalized as food, versus opening up to different and more diverse cultural norms. This reflects her view that there are dominant agricultural and economic forces in effect that have some control over consumer and community choice.

6.1.2 Places for Enactment

Places for enactment encompass the physical, temporal and structural locations of the program. These included the inside spaces of the two main CBO locations, a green house, gardens and the temporal space of the March Break camp. Roxanne noted that, “all of the programs face the same challenge in terms of you have limited space. Just the logistics stuff. How do you get a consistent enough space and time so that you can have to devote to the program?” There were several occasions when meeting rooms or the kitchen were double-booked, so we would have to scramble at the last minute to adjust the programming plan. This dynamic situation put pressure on all the staff, but especially Shirley, who was new to the program. The computer that held all of the data from the previous years of programming was corrupted during the summer leading up to the new program year so Shirley leaned on me to share back files and documents that I had collected during my research assistantship. She also communicated with me almost weekly about planning for the week ahead. We would often speak on the phone, exchange emails and/or meet in person at her office, which was an open, shared space with other staff, or we would meet at a local coffee shop to have some privacy to discuss program-related and personal issues. At times during the year, Shirley was facing job precarity as she was covering the maternity leave of a full-time staff person and was not certain that a job would be available for her after the other staff person returned. I recall conversations that happened before and after a meeting Shirley had had with her manager, Roxanne, when she found out that she had passed a probationary period at the organization, and would be keeping the position because the original facilitator had chosen to not return to her role. Shirley was very relieved and seemed to be able to focus more on program

121

planning after that assurance was delivered, as could be expected. These experiences drew attention to some of the challenges of enacting curriculum in community-based organizations.

Another location where programming took place was in the International Garden. The intentionally multicultural, intergenerational garden program met there throughout the summer/growing season. It encouraged knowledge exchange among teens, who may or may not have experience growing food, and seniors, many of whom were food producers in their native countries, to work together in their “ethnically/geographically associated” garden plots. On a community gardening website, it is described that each plot is “devoted to particular ethnic communities with large populations in [the city]—Chinese, Tibetan, South Asian, Somalian, Italian, Latin American, Polish, and Filipino”. Many of the participants get involved via a partnership with a prominent neighbourhood immigrant settlement organization, gardeners meeting once a week to tend the plots, socialize, and cook together. Crops were selected that to thrive in our climate and appeal to [the city’s] ethnically diverse population. The relatively tiny plots—each about 20 x 12 feet—also demonstrate how much food you can produce in a small space. The beds are raised and wheelchair accessible. An audio project created to document previous participants gives meaningful reasons for this project, including notions of place-based education and connections between people and the land. This space offered a few different and important connections for participants. It was outdoors, it provided the names of and sensory experiences with culturally identifiable plants and produce, all of which helped to deepen participants own roots and connections with their human and more-than-human community (Louv, 2006; Williams, 2011). Similar activities and connections took place at one of the community garden sites, however the focus there was purely on food growing and did not overtly speak to cultural origins.

6.1.2.1 March Break Programming

March Break was a time when an intense amount of programming took place. All program participants were invited to attend the four full days of activities, known as March Break Leadership Camp, and 13 indicated their interest and intentions to participate. All four of the

122

research participants attended. Appendix D shares the planned schedule of March Break Leadership Camp.

Two weeks before the camp program, on February 28, 2013, Shirley sent an email to all the LiFT participants, in Figure 6.1 below, to invite them to attend the March Break Camp. For many of the participants this meant giving up other activities and time with family. It also required them to travel on their own on the fourth day to the university campus. Given the protracted time together, it was the equivalent of up to 12 additional programming sessions.

123

[The CBO] is having a FREE [LiFT] March Break Camp where you get a chance to have an awesome experience. The idea is that you’ll to explore and learn about different food projects, further develop your leadership skills, cook, garden, mentor younger kids, and also document (through photos, filming, art and stories) your experience.

You will also get some volunteer hours, and skills that you can put on your resume. BUT most of all, it will be fun! We’ll get to hangs!

LiFT March Break Camp is going to take place from March 11 to March 14 (Mon- Thurs) at different locations.

General Schedule:

Monday at the Greenhouse Site --- cooking Moroccan Stew, volunteer in the greenhouse and garden growing different vegetables, harvest greens, play games

Tuesday at [home location] --- volunteer at Food Bank, Drop-In meals, help the Food Market, games!

Wednesday at the Greenhouse Site ---- food stories mentoring with younger kids, cooking Vietnamese sandwiches with kids, hip hop dancing

Thursday --- University Urban Agriculture tour, Game of Real Life, Kensington Market Street Food Tour.

If you have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call me! Please confirm ASAP if you can participate!

C’mon, c’mon!!!

Figure 6.1: Advertising email to participants to attend the LiFT March Break Camp.

As facilitators we put a lot of thought and planning into the programming, drawing on our past experiences as camp counsellors and pulling in our network connections. Additional adult support included a hip-hop dance instructor, a campus greenhouse coordinator, and the facilitator of the children’s after school program and her volunteers, who were also running a March Break program.

124

6.1.3 Enacted Pedagogies

Pedagogy is a term widely used within the field of education. From a curriculum studies perspective, pedagogy may describe the active moments of teaching and learning, the social practices between curriculum and instructor (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery & Taubman, 1995). Pedagogy is the means by which a curriculum is enacted between the student and the teacher, the learner and the facilitator of the learning. It is a relational construct and it lives in relationships. Holistic curricula attest that the presence of the teacher is a critical factor in learning outcomes as much as the tools or strategies that the teacher employs (Miller, 2007). In Chapter Two, I outlined the role of the facilitator in non-formal education in a similar regard, noting that facilitators should allow urban youth to participate in civic activities in which they can have an impact and see the concrete results of their activities in order to motivate further participation (Rubin, Hayes and Benson, 2009). In the initial half of the program, there was a distinction, to a certain degree, between cooking activities and non-cooking activities. The program meetings tended to alternate every other week between the genres of cooking and non-cooking, as per the schedule, Appendix C.

6.1.3.1 Cooking Activities

Cooking activities took place in the industrial kitchen space of the CBO (see Figure 4.4) and covered food preparation topics, such as knife skills, cooking meat, using spices and baking. On a week fully focused on cooking, the meal was selected and organized ahead of time. The chef worked with Shirley to fix the ingredients and amounts of each, and which were then purchased in bulk through the CBO. Initially, everything was laid out by the adult volunteers, staff and chef before the youth arrived.

125

Figure 6.2: A cooking surface prepared for sushi making, February 27, 2013.

This included any implements that would be needed, pots, pans and food materials. As the program progressed, the participants were given more autonomy to source ingredients, implements and tools. Participants spent at least an hour cooking, first watching a demonstration by the program facilitator, the chef or a volunteer (often Sharron) about food skills for the week, and then they worked independently or in pairs to prepare ingredients and follow the week’s recipes. Food preparation increased in complexity over the course of the program, as knife skills were introduced and integrated. Each group was responsible for a different component of a meal, which meant they were often surprised at the end to find out what the others had created, since they were often very focused on their own component. Each group was assigned an adult volunteer to support them in their food preparations, if attendance allowed for it. After cooking, all participants gathered to dine communally and enjoy what was prepared.

126

Figure 6.3: Hand rolling vegetarian sushi for the first time, with water-splattered recipe directions off to the side, February 27, 2013.

Sharron noted that participants were generally engaged in cooking activities, with attention being paid to following recipe procedures and skills development. She said that,

sometimes when we were just in the kitchen, it was nice to just stand back and watch all the girls, and they are all busy, and they are so focused…You get them into the kitchen and you explain what you are doing and you explain why you are doing it and you give everyone a task; it’s quiet. And they are so focused on their chopping, and they’re talking a little bit and it’s really nice to stand back in those moments and see everybody is enjoying what they are doing, and everyone is working together.

These prepping, cooking and cleaning activities were mainly utilitarian, and facilitator-directed (F-D), as per the adapted model of learner control, found in Figure 4.2, with a focus on achieving the first core program outcome, to increase participants' skills, knowledge and behaviours around healthy food.

127

Figure 6.4: Consuming the final sushi creations together, February 27, 2013.

Often, this form of facilitator-directed engagement was necessary due to safety concerns, for instance, knife-handling had to be explicitly taught and reinforced for safe and efficient cutting, and meats were cooked to certain temperatures to ensure safe consumption. Close supervision is to be expected, especially as the majority of participants rated their own cooking skills in the low mid-range upon entry to the program. They seemed to be open to learning and improving.

Socio-cultural competencies were among the skills developed during cooking activities. For example, the facilitator made of point of acknowledging, based on her tacit assessment of participant countries of origin, that many cultures made stuffed dough items (i.e., Peruvian papusas, Chinese dumplings and Japanese gyozas). This led to an ad hoc discussion of the colonial influences of recipe migration. The facilitator, Shirley, discussed that drawing attention to such recipe similarities and divergences through globalization was a way to provide opportunities for self-esteem development and inclusion among the group of youth. This discussion also offered an opportunity to inject some social consciousness and critical analysis into the act of discovering and sharing recipes. There was also an acknowledgement of colonial histories that brought certain foods to and from certain places, such as the history between

128

Vietnam and France; why the soup spelled phở is pronounced feu because it is cooked over a fire.

Each cooking day ended with a communal meal, enjoying the labours in the kitchen and commenting on what was tasty and what changes might be made. This was often a time for the youth to reflect on their past weeks, sometimes commenting on their experiences of trying to recreate recipes learned in the program, other times simply laughing and sharing stories from school or home. This acknowledgement of the youths’ personal and/or cultural preference may have contributed to a sense of identity and agency development, as one of the participants, Patricia, laughed over how similar the recipes were to her mother’s cooking, but that she was excited to share some new suggestions with her.

The cooking activities, especially at the beginning of the program, were highly adult-directed and closed-ended, as led by the facilitator and the chef. As adult volunteers, we were each assigned different recipes to lead our small group of girls, usually two to three, to ensure the accuracy of the recipe completion. Over the course of the program, the act of cooking became less facilitator directed. By the end of the program, the youth self- grouped and selected their own recipes to create a meal with complementary components, generally meaning the creation of a main dish, two sides and a dessert. As Vigden (2016) writes, the self-efficacy required to select and prepare a meal with adequate nutritional value and harmonious flavours requires experience and mastery that is likely connected to individuals’ needs, that they become aware enough to prepare and assemble meals for themselves.

6.1.3.2 Non-cooking Activities

LiFT programming had a fairly balanced allotment of time to cooking and non-cooking activities in order to attend to the program Objectives listed in the Logic Model, as described in Chapter 5. One series of activities that began as non-cooking and later bridged into cooking, namely the Land, Food and People activity, which everyone eventually came to call Food Stories. (A full description of this activity as implemented on January 16, 2013 is in Appendix F). LiFT

129

participants were introduced to it by Shirley modelling her own connections to food by sharing her memories connected to a basket of different food items she had selected.

The program had a focus on understanding the agricultural-industrial complex that feeds us. One of the topics that came up on a few different occasions was the variations within the species and the diverse uses of corn. Many of the participants came from cultural backgrounds with a strong emphasis on corn as a food product. In the early stages of domestication and into the early 1900s, there were over 300 varieties of corn available, adapted to different climates, bred for differing characteristics to meet community needs and cultural practices, but now only 12 varieties are available in the National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation in Colorado (Smith, Betrán & Runge, 2004). Shirley shared the documentary film Food Inc. (Kenner & Pearlstein, 2008) and presented information about how industrial farming and food processing relies heavily on a particular variety of corn, called dent corn for the dent in its kernels, for most processed foods. This led to discussions about monocultures, biodiversity, patents, intellectual property and genetically modified organisms.

130

131

Figure 6.5: A double-sided flyer to encourage youth-led thematic presentations that with cooking and eating, based on the Food Stories activity, February 6, 2013.

132

Figure 6.6: An image taken by a LiFT participant, representing one of her connections to maiz (corn) during the March Break market tour.

During the March Break, with four full days to be together, we were able to engage in activities that required more time for deeper engagement. The full schedule is found in Appendix D. We spent the time between three sites: at the main location of regular meetings, at the secondary location with the greenhouse and gardens, and at the University campus in the Education building (OISE). One activity we ran during this period was called the Game of Real Life. On the March Break schedule, it is listed as being in line with the organization’s goals as follows:

Poverty Solutions. At this point the girls will be very tired so just pose the question “How can we solve poverty and hunger without resorting to a charity-based model?” Clarify Charity vs Social Justice. Remind the girls that in the next few days they will be working on advocating to help fight some of these issues and coming up with solutions. (Appendix D)

As an introduction to this activity, the girls were given slips of paper that had to be organized under three levels of action: Individual, Community and Government. Figure 6.7 shows the participants deep in thought considering the activity. Outcomes of the activity are shown in

133

Figure 6.7: LiFT participants deep in thought considering the Game of Real Life introduction, at the University of Toronto, March 14, 2013.

Figure 6.8 below, showcasing how the girls organized the ideas for action and advocacy presented under which level of action, from individual to community to government, although which level of government was not clear.

134

Figure 6.8: Game of Real Life results from March Break programming, March 14, 2013.

Participants were also encouraged to engage their senses with worms in a vermicomposter, as captured in Figure 8.2 below, eliciting a variety of reactions: “Cool! They are so cute!” (Marsha, March 10, 2013), “Neat! Could I have those in my apartment?” (Patricia, March 01, 2013) and “Ewww! Gross!” (Felicia, March 10, 2013).

135

Figure 6.9: A participant holds a bolus of red wiggler worms from the greenhouse vermicomposter, March 2013.

Later in the spring, participants were introduced to seed bombs, as in Figure 6.10. Seed bombs were made by combining a random selection of wildflower seeds, ideally indigenous to the area, and squishing them into a ball of dirt and clay. These are intended to be thrown randomly at any place where the person wishes to see if plants will grow, for instance beside a fence line or on a street boulevard. Shirley introduced them as being a tool for “guerrilla gardening”. She had to explain how this was a different word than gorilla, which prompted a brief discussion about how gardening can be subversive by helping plants to grow on land that gardeners do not have legal rights to cultivate. It can be done for purely aesthetic purposes or as a political act to provoke change in a place. She did not directly indicate that this was a form of activism.

136

Figure 6.10: LiFT participants making seed bombs for guerrilla gardening, April 24, 2013.

6.1.3.3 Leadership Strengths and Challenges

For the facilitators, staff and volunteers alike, there were leadership strengths and challenges. This was similar for the leadership development of the youth participants.

6.1.3.3.1 Adult Leadership

Shirley, like many of the LiFT participants, was an immigrant herself, born in Europe to a family who moved to France as refugees from Vietnam. She had been living in Toronto since she was young. She told her family history a few times to the participants as part of sharing the immigrant story and in relation to cultural foods, often referring to ingredients and dishes that provoked memories for her of her grandparents in Vietnam or of her time living in France.

Shirley had a very understated leadership style. In preparing the girls for the final graduation night, she gathered them and listed off verbally all the items that needed to be attended to, without creating any sort of list for them to refer to. She often repeated herself orally when discussing activities, rarely expressing what could be conceived of as frustration if the girls needed reminders of what to do. She made jokes to the girls, but didn’t generally laugh with them, using teen-friendly sarcasm. She was also clear to me about when she was comfortable

137

leading a topic, such as making the salves or gardening, and when she was happy to defer to an “expert,” such as the head chef, to lead the cooking. From a pedagogy standpoint, Shirley said,

I’m really about experiential learning in terms of—I don’t want to talk to them about poverty or talk to them about these issues, when they can experience it themselves and kind of develop, I guess, a sense of the nuances involved with food security and community and leadership and how all that ties in and all those various components.

Felicia mentioned to me that she thought Shirley might not be happy with her lack of verbal engagement, when she asks questions to the group: “I just said, ‘Oh, I don’t know.’ And she was like, … you know when I just say, “I don’t know” to Shirley, I always say that to her and I feel bad.” This was an indication of the role of the facilitator in encouraging the participation of the youth in ways that were preferred by the youth, as Felicia was more comfortable in one-on-one but was often called on to respond to in the group.

Roxanne reflected, in a conversation with me, on the opportunity for youth to engage at different levels and programs of the CBO and what that might mean for them, imagining that their participation in LiFT might lead to more and deeper community involvements:

Shirley has been doing a bit of [exposing the participants to other CBO programs] on various sort of micro-levels, they come in, they help out with the March Break program [for the elementary age kids] and I think she is personally very excited to do more, which is good. I think that’s a good direction, because then when they do that, they might feel more comfortable to come aboard as volunteers. It would be very nice if there was that interim gauge of “okay, you’ve done programming for yourself, you’ve started to work with younger kids, now you can have a more supportive environment where you can do that kind of development of giving back, and then move on to being a volunteer”.

Shirley was mindful of group dynamics and personalities. When she was working with me on planning the exit evaluations to do with the girls, she said, “I think [we should do them] individually, because ... I mean there’s pros and cons. If they’re in a group, they might be able to

138

remind each other of things, but I also know some of them are quieter, and also, some of them need more time”.

Sharron noted that discussion was a common form of pedagogy used in all LiFT programming, and that she appreciated that Shirley’s approach was to encourage the girls so share their opinions or experiences. However, she also noted that Shirley didn’t necessarily correct their misunderstandings of the content. From an ecojustice perspective, leaving learners to explore complex systems and nuance on their own, or even encouraging misconceptions, can be seen as counter-productive to transformation.

6.1.3.3.2 Youth Leadership Development Opportunities

The participants were given many opportunities to develop leadership capacity and engage in community, as per the mandate of the program. These opportunities included leadership within the program, within their home or personal lives, and within their schools and communities. While much of this work was tacit, or built in parallel to the programming, some of it was overt, including an examination of how the youth defined leadership.

On April 10th, 2013, several months into the program, Shirley led a workshop, asking the teens to share their response to the prompt on the board “A leader to me…” The rich discussion painted a colourful picture of how the group viewed leadership. Felicia was the first to respond, saying “Martin Luther King. He was positive. He said what is possible, not just trying.” Marsha quickly added “A leader is confident. They make you want to follow them. They are authoritative; they can’t be all over the place to take charge.” Patricia added, “A leader is supportive, encouraging and grounded in the community. They are respectful and responsible.” Sandra chimed in that a good leader “cares about others. They are kind-hearted and helpful.” Patricia continued “leaders are everywhere, they are smart not just intellectual.” Marsha added that they have “common sense.” Sandra added, “they are able to be wrong.” Shirley led this discussion to connect to the notion of life experience versus wisdom, mentioning the life experience that a young child might have in a “poor country” would be very different from the life led by a child in much of Canada. In this way, she seemed to be reinforcing the notion that

139

leaders can come from many different spaces and experiences, not just what we are socialized to see in the media. She then connected it to the LiFT program to note that leaders can step in at different times, such as when we are cooking or baking.

Participants learned about and participated in the food market during that operated out of the CBO’s main site during the March Break program, as the market takes place during the school day. All community members were welcome to come to the CBO-subsidized food market to purchase fresh farm produce at very low prices. The LiFT members were given a chance to deliver flyers promoting the market around the community by putting them in mailboxes and taping them to poles. In small groups, with an adult staff member or volunteer, the young women also spoke to people along the way, to encourage them to attend the market. There was also time spent exploring and participating in one of the community gardens that the CBO coordinates, as well as its food bank space. We also spent time putting up and distributing flyers for a weekly CBO service to invite the local community to the weekly food market during our March Break camp, as in Figure 6.11, below.

Figure 6.11: LiFT participants out in the local neighbourhood distributing flyers to advertise the CBO weekly food market, March 13, 2013.

There was a lot of excitement expressed in going out into the community and sharing what they had learned about the food market. The food market was available for any community members to come and purchase fresh farm produce at very cheap prices, because it was subsidized by the CBO. In small groups, with an adult staff or volunteer, the young women also spoke to people

140

along the way, to encourage them to attend the market. They had learned about and participated in the food market during the March Break program, as the market takes place during the school day. There was a lot of excitement expressed in going out into the community and sharing what they had learned about the food market.

6.1.3.4 Attendance and Retention

Attendance and retention played into enactment practices. Shirley was mindful that, by the end of the year, many of the participants who remained were not present for the first few months of programming and had missed some of the workshops, especially those about the industrial food system and the food groups (as defined by the Canada Food Guide, i.e., carbohydrates, fruits and vegetables, proteins). She took this into account when planning the exit interviews as well: “If they weren’t there for the food groups, it’s okay, I just want to know if they can make a meal healthier.” She was interested in improving the programming, abstractly, as she noted, in planning exit questions: “‘what do you know about the food system?’ is more a general question, but it would allow me to kind of gauge what they think it is, because that probably would inform how I could approach food systems education with youth.”

As the program wound down, during the last week of meeting, Shirley tentatively talked about planning some summer events for the former participants, and said that,

Ideally, I think I’m going to hook them up to existing programs and maybe have a couple of garden sessions, or something, but even then, I feel like they are not going to ... well, I have to figure out too. Other former alumni girls are interested, because I think given my timing, there has to be enough people wanting to come, hopefully.

At the meeting that took place two days before the graduation party, she told the girls about a trip planned for families to a strawberry farm, which was attended by a few of the LiFT participants, including Sandra and Marsha.

Roxanne deepened this discussion of retention and participation expectations. She drew attention to the role of participant retention in achieving program goals, by noting that,

141

if you are working with very marginalized people, they have a lot of things going on in their lives that make it really hard to come consistently to the program. They have appointments and things they need to work out, or they might be on medication and can’t get up early in the morning, or whatever. There’s actually a long list of stuff. So it’s not even like there’s one major barrier for people coming, it’s a whole bunch of things and you are always trying to figure out what those are. Sometimes people will tell you, sometimes they won’t. Sometimes they just don’t come back again, and we don’t know why. So I think the way that LiFT is structured right now, the particular challenge is, in order to develop leadership skills, you do need to have some kind of consistent interaction.

These comments reinforce the notion that social justice-oriented programming has to take into account the realities of the target audience, otherwise, participants will be further marginalized by yet another structural inequity.

6.2 Interpretation and Analysis of Enacted Curriculum from an Ecojustice Lens

Ecojustice education, by definition, has overarching goals, means of implementation, and exemplary pedagogies, as explained in some detail in Chapter 3. The theoretical underpinnings of this dissertation, and the framework for analysis are both based in ecojustice education. However, it is worth briefly revisiting some of the ways that ecojustice education can be imagined. In response to the intersecting goals of ecojustice education, I also provide some analysis and critique of what appeared and what did not, from my perspective as a participant- observer.

In this chapter, I was concerned with the ways that the food justice education program was enacted, by whom and for whom, and how those practices may or may not lead to ecojustice education outcomes. Program experiences and outcomes will be explained in Chapter 7. The three ecojustice goals that have been identified as being meaningful to this research project are the development and support of a social and environmental justice orientation, the development

142

of an awareness of environmental racism and cultural colonization, and the encouragement of sustainability for future generations through connections to the present (Martusewicz et al., 2010). These goals align with aspects of identity formation, agency development and community building, respectively, concepts which were made apparent in participant profiles here in Chapter 6. These ecojustice education goals also require particular modes of facilitation because, as in any justice-oriented education project, there should be a consideration for how participants in learning are offered opportunities for empowerment (Paraskeva-Hadjichambi et al., 2020). To put it simply, HOW we learn impacts what we learn. A justice orientation assumes that injustice is being perpetuated, and that this injustice must be both discursively and actively dismantled. In practice, acknowledgement of this assumption means that repeating the same/traditionally implemented strategies, even if the content is different, may be contribute to the perpetuation of injustice. Furthermore, a critically responsible justice orientation, as per Westheimer and Kahn’s (2004) definition, often provides opportunities to support and an impetus to become actively engaged in citizen-identified need for change. Thus, the pedagogy itself should model and be mindful of the desired transformative outcomes. Lock’s model can shed some light on the pedagogical practices from an ecojustice lens because it draws attention to programming that engages learners in greater control of planning and outcomes, or if it does not. Table 6.1 below gives a summary of how I used Lock’s (1990) model, as I have adapted it, along with ecojustice education goals, to interpret the enactments of the LiFT curriculum. This analysis, divided between cooking and non-cooking activities, shows that both of these modalities allowed participants to express moments of identity, agency and community building. In the table, I have indicated within which quadrat of the matrix a pedagogy was most likely oriented, being any of facilitator-directed (FD) or learner-directed (LD), and closed-ended (CE) or open-ended (OE). Activities that were most strongly within the LD/OE were more likely to achieve all three of the ecojustice outcomes of identity development, agency development and community building.

143

Table 6.1 Summary of food pedagogies using Lock’s model with an ecojustice analysis.

Food pedagogy Cooking/mainly Facilitator- Non-cooking/Across the matrix from Directed/Close- Ended FD/CE to Learner-Directed/Open- (FD/CE) Ended (LD/OE)

Opportunities for Cooking knowledge and skills body image (FD/OE) and self-efficacy (FD/CE); expressing cultural “healthfulness” (FD/CE) development identity (F-LD/OE)

Opportunities for Making “healthy” choices for Flyering for and inviting community to leadership, agency self and others (LD)**; the food market (FD/OE); community development increased confidence in gardening (FD/CE); supporting younger choices (LD/OE); expressed kids’ food stories (LD/OE); desire for more leadership opportunities (LD/CE)

Opportunities for Cooking and eating together Linking arms, sharing jokes, ice community (FD/OE) breakers, working in the food bank and building serving at the AGM

** Constructions of “health” are discussed in Section 8.3.2.1, which account for why there is not assessment of open or closed-endedness.

6.3 Summary

In this chapter, I introduced the youth participants of the research project. I drew attention to and described some of the ways that the enacted curriculum of the program engaged the participants at LiFT, noting some differences between potential from cooking versus non-cooking programming. I have implemented some analysis of why the enactments took place as they did, from an ecojustice perspective. First, mindful that there are multiple ways of knowing and viewing the world, and the nature of the research at an intentionally educational site, I have chosen to detail a selection of the variety of pedagogical interventions and curricular moments that were implemented toward achieving the outcomes, both envisioned and enacted. I applied my adapted version of Lock’s (1990) model of variations in learner control as a framework for

144

the analysis of the matrix of enacted curriculum, in relation to youth participation. This model for analysis is useful from an ecojustice education perspective because ecojustice education would suggest more learner control and opportunities for learner-driven outcomes. Finally, I focused on the goals of ecojustice-oriented pedagogy that align with outcomes of identity formation, agency development and community building as the core themes identified in the intersectional space of ecojustice education. I described and further conceptualize my understanding of the connections and relationships between pedagogy and ecojustice education. I present an overall summary interpretation of these pedagogical implementations from an ecojustice education framework, drawing connections between the self and others as practice.

Chapter 7 Third Course: The Experienced Curriculum of Food Justice Education

You seldom know exactly what someone is thinking, but when sharing food, you know just what the person is experiencing.

Mark Sakamoto, 2014, p. 136

7.1 Introduction and Overview

In this chapter, I explore, explain and analyze the experienced curriculum of the LiFT food justice education program, for the youth participants, the adult facilitators and myself in the dual role of facilitator and researcher. Constant comparative and critical discourse analysis methodology revealed the impact of institutional structures on thematic curricular moments of identity formation, agency development and community building for youth engagement in food justice issues. This chapter draws attention to some of the more impactful and challenging aspects of the food justice curriculum that evoked particular encounters with ecojustice education.

7.2 Participant Experiences of Program Pedagogies

Each of the research participants in the program expressed some different and also overlapping experiences from their time with LiFT. Along with the other data sources, I also make a point of having individual semi-structured end of program interviews with all of the research participants, youth and adults. The questions are found in Appendix G. Most of the participants in the program began with a very limited sense of self-efficacy with cooking, as they described during the intake interview (see Appendix B1). However most left the program with an increase in their sense of self-efficacy and confidence in their abilities. This positive development was evidenced in the youths’ responses to questions in the intake and exit interviews, as well as changes in their behaviours in the kitchen over time.

146

Sandra’s experience of the program was overall positive, in many ways she reflected the greatest level of transformation from the beginning to the end of her program participation, both from my observations, from Shirley and her own. When I met her for our final interview on August 18, 2013, I asked if she would recommend it to her friends. She readily agreed and said she had already recommended it to the two friends she brought to volunteer in the summer garden program. She said it was

because they are going to learn more things, maybe especially for those who doesn’t know cooking and maybe for teenagers like me who is not confident enough sometimes to express yourself to other people and just be open to them and having fun (Sandra interview, August 19, 2013).

For Sandra, there were three main areas in which she grew from her experience at LiFT: making friends, increasing her food knowledge and skills, and increasing her feelings of leadership. She stated that one of the best parts of the program was socializing with other people, “because I’m really a shy person and I decided to join LiFT because what I thought was it would be a help for me since I’m a newcomer to make friends and to get the shyness ending.” After the LiFT program ended, she took the initiative to volunteer at the intergenerational garden. She chose to work in the plot with older adults of Filipino/a origin. She commented on the connections she made with others during her work at the garden, and how it brought her some cultural connections, as well as social:

Sometimes I get to talk to [the older adults] and they tell us stories. Like where they came from, yeah. It’s feels good to talk to other people not only at our age, but especially with the seniors, because they know more about us [giggles]... because I’m Southern Asia [like the seniors], so they know more things.

Another of the highlights for her was learning the knowledge and skills for healthy cooking, and feeling good about that: “Instead of using oils or using deep frying, you can just bake, broil and grill,” and “I got to learn more recipes and culture from different parts of the world, ... like Vietnamese sandwiches and spring rolls.” She connected her increased knowledge and skills

147

with her sense of independence about food choices, saying, “Now, maybe I’ve got ideas if it’s healthy or not. To know better about what you are eating, not only thinking about what other people say about this food. For example, others said it tastes good. Not all foods that taste good are healthy. Most of the good foods are not healthy .... I like kale [now] and then we made smoothies of fruit at home sometimes.” This is in line with her initial intention for joining the program, both social and food knowledge development, and she expressed some complexity of knowledge around taste and healthiness of food. It also shows that she was applying her knowledge beyond herself by including her friends and family.

Sandra explained that she influenced her family’s eating habits because of her participation in the program, as well,

because my mom asks me ‘what did you learn, how to make it healthier?’ Well, I cook in our house, but sometimes I can’t avoid to use the old methods that I’ve been used to. I can’t control the oil, that’s my problem. So my mom would tell me, ‘Hmmm, you said you learned to reduce the oil, where you’re using this amount now.’

This highlights a tension in constructions of health and healthiness. What is the ‘right amount’ of oil? What is needed to reproduce the traditional foods that offer the comfort of home and connections to culture? Is it possible to find the healthiest middle ground for these issues? Sandra was beginning to articulate some of these concerns.

When Sandra started the program, she was asked if she could think of something that a young woman such as her could do to help people in Toronto have enough healthy food to eat (Intake interview, Appendix B1) She replied that she could “encourage people to be aware of having healthy meals and the advantages, and how to prepare the meals” (Intake Sandra, November 14, 2012). At her post-evaluation, she was asked the same question and replied, “I would show them how to apply what I have learned in their daily lives: eating, buying food, and questioning things. I think that questioning is always better than being silent” (Sandra, June 5, 2013). This shows her increased confidence in and value of critical thinking. However, when she was asked if she would want to be involved in an advisory group for future program activities, such as outreach

148

and suggesting ideas—youths are only allowed to participate in the program for one year—she said no. This response possibly indicated that despite all of her growth through the program, she did not yet feel comfortable to take on an advisory role, although I do not know if she had other reasons for declining, based on other commitments.

Sandra also talked about her increased leadership capacity and self-confidence through LiFT. When she began the program, she was very shy, listening quietly but not contributing unless specifically called upon by the facilitator. She said she likes to “volunteer, help and learn new things,” and likes to explore new experiences. She talked about enjoying the “first time to touch the worms [from the vermicomposter], because when I was a kid, I was scared ... and [now] not a bit scared.” She noted that the program could be improved through more embedded responsibilities and opportunities for leadership, for example making their own recipes, because

[the] leadership attitude will be improved for the girl, that anyone can be a leader, right?... Maybe for every time you cook, and then you will be in groups, there will be one assigned to become a leader, and then the next time another one, so everyone could speak up, I think.

She commented that she wished there had been more opportunities for competition (a running them in the programming) as well as the chance to “make my own recipe, I think that would be great!”. Sandra’s insights showed that she was aware of the need to take on leadership roles, that she had a desire to push her own comfort zones and the positive impact these types of experiences can have on individuals and groups, but she saw a need for strong and careful facilitation of these experiences.

The adults at the program confirmed some of Sandra’s transformation through the program. Sharron, one of the adult volunteers, also noted that she saw a big increase in Sandra’s expression of leadership over the course of the program, when she said

[Sandra] was always pretty quiet and stuff ... but I felt she became more comfortable speaking to volunteers as well as her peers. I’m pretty sure I saw her helping or demonstrating something at some point. So it’s like she was taking on that role.

149

The program facilitator, Shirley, also confirmed some of the changes that Sandra spoke about, noting that she saw her begin to take a turn being a leader, and speaking more often in the group by the end of the program. which I also acknowledge. Shirley also noted that she noticed that several of the girls, including Sandra, had “expanded their food comfort zones, by trying new things, substituting or including spices and herbs.” This is an indication of they increased skill set and developing agency. In addition, she commented that “their confidence increased, especially the newcomers, because the space felt safe enough for them. They supported each other. And also the space itself resonated with the girls, like when they were working with the [younger] kids after school”. This was an acknowledgment of the community building that took place. While she was disappointed by the level of engagement of the girls in food justice beyond the program overall, Shirley acknowledged that the quality of engagement was really exciting, and mentioned Sandra’s participation in several activities, including the intergenerational garden as well as a community field trip to a local strawberry farm during the summer, after the program ended. She noted that Sandra had been very vocal and proactive about staying involved with the community-based organization after the program ended, checking in and following up often with Shirley to ensure that she could participate in the additional activities.

Like Sandra, Marsha shared many positive outcomes from her participation in LiFT. We met for her final interview at the end of the summer. She built community, she gained skills and knowledge and she felt empowered to become engaged. She realized that

the reason that I like to cook at [LiFT] is because I was surrounded with other people and while I was cooking, there was someone next to me talking to me and cooking next to me and I realized at that point I like to do it, because at home I still don’t really like to do it ... I’m always alone … at LiFT I am in a group ...You can trade [tasks].

She indicated a desire to be in community and that the aspect of cooking together diminishes isolation and increases self-efficacy for cooking. She acknowledged that her time in the program helped her to be more creative and adventuresome in her eating at home, for example, eating eggs with broccoli, pepper and spinach in it, which is “better than what I usually have, and it was really filling, and then I wasn’t hungry until a lot later.” Like Sandra, Marsha also talked about

150

her surprising new appreciation of kale. She asked her mom to get her things to work with in the kitchen, including kale for salads. She is using the stove more than before and was intending to do dishes more. She also picked up new knowledge from the programming. As she said during our last interview,

LiFT made me more aware of what’s in food. So, I think before LiFT I was careful about what I was eating, unhealthy wise, but after LiFT, I think I was extra more aware, and so I was trying to have healthy alternatives, trying to snack on carrots, like vegetables instead of a grain or a carb or something. … They made healthy food really, really good!

Marsha had insights into ways to improve the cooking portion of programming, from a more holistic perspective:

how we did it, we were in groups, and we were only in charge of one portion, so the problem with that for me, that I didn’t get an overall feel of making a whole meal. I guess that’s why I wasn’t able to do it at my house, because I’d only been one part of it. So, I think it would be a little bit better if maybe we had days that we would do a whole meal ourselves with a group, instead of doing one part of the meal in a group. So for one Wednesday, we’d be like “okay, everyone choose a meal, and choose a group, and you guys would all be in charge of making that one meal, instead of making one meal together. You could get a feel of making the whole meal yourself … or with your team …. Then you could rotate and have a feel for it, and be like “Oh at the [CBO], I did it this way, and at home I can do it this way, then the next part, and so on.”

Marsha also had insight on community building, saying “I think we should do more stuff to make us closer and socialize more. … a tiny bit less than cooking, because most of it is cooking, but we didn’t really get to know each other very, very, very well.” She referred to the quality of relationships she had begun to develop with the other girls, in relation to her choice to be vegetarian. She contrasted her interactions in other spaces to LiFT by telling me that the other young women in LiFT were very respectful of her choice, and she felt very comfortable about discussing her vegetarianism in the group. When we met for her final interview, she engaged

151

very openly with me about some of the politics and options for eating less meat, and was very encouraging to me to eat less meat, speaking as a youth to an adult, showing a high degree of self-efficacy.

Marsha was motivated by the LiFT to try new things. She mentioned that she really enjoyed gardening, getting into her backyard and “try[ing] to make the garden presentable. And I went in there and there was goldenrod five feet high, and I was like ‘What a mess! I’m not even going to try.’” She did not indicate if she would approach her parent to help her. She also volunteered for one week as a counsellor with a summer camp for younger kids, based out of the CBO site closer to her parents’ homes. Responding to questions about what she did there, she said, “I cooked, obviously. I supervised when we went outside for playing. I supervised one group ... So I was in charge of one group and I also played with them in the field.” This showed an increased confidence in Marsha as she took on more responsibility by working with the younger children, as opposed to her previous preference to work independently, such as in the dish pit (see Figure 4.6) or with animals.

Shirley noted that Marsha had been proactive about connecting with the program coordinator of the kids’ summer camp to ensure she would have some time over the summer to volunteer there, which she did. This indicates that Marsha had built a connection with and placed value on her participation in LiFT, and wanted to pass some of it along to younger children through the camp. While Marsha expressed a lot positivity about her participation in LiFT, she also indicated there were ongoing challenges for her to achieve what she wanted. She mentioned wanting to be involved with a few other programs, such as the market and the community garden, but often returned to the obstacle of traveling a distance to attend, especially without her mom to provide a ride. This indicated that she had not reached a level of comfort traveling alone within the community, or perhaps was not motivated enough to travel on her own. She said she wanted to eat more vegetables, but was not responsible for grocery shopping in either of her homes. She said she wanted to cook in a healthier way, but was often alone at home and thus not motivated to do so without the social aspects. From Marsha’s perspective, while she had some autonomy to consider cooking, gardening and shopping on her own, she did not feel comfortable nor did she seem to be encouraged by her parents to be able to do these tasks alone. These are challenges

152

that can be considered structural, either as part of society or embedded in the non-formal programming.

Felicia had a positive experience with LiFT but also encountered some structural challenges in transferring her learning from the program. She noted that her cooking improved because of her program participation. “Before I had LiFT,” she said, “...my cooking was terrible and [my brothers] tasted it and they were like, ‘ugh, eww.’ [She laughed].” She stated that she’s “not too lazy of cooking, [just] too lazy of washing dishes. And then that’s why I don’t cook.” She admits she “started getting less fast food” and told her “mom to cook for dinner just vegetables so she does that and more fruits,” since her LiFT involvement. She added that she learned a lot of kitchen skills, including that “If there are a lot of people, have to cooperate, can’t just be quiet if you are holding things around you. Share what you have. Help them, if they need help.” She feels she positively influenced her family’s eating habits. She enjoyed the cooking and eating in the program so much she asked the facilitator Shirley if two of her friends could join, but by then the program could not accommodate more participants. (Her friends also went to a high school outside of the program boundaries, further east in the city, so their participation would not have been encouraged, according to communication with Shirley on the matter).

Beyond the kitchen, Felicia learned new things about greenhouse growing and the industrial food system, especially noting that “grafting … is when they clone foods and when they graft them there’s no seeds, like with oranges you can buy them with seeds or without seeds … cloning,” and also the problem of “pollution.” She had also developed an opinion about access to healthy food in the city: “I guess organic, which is so healthy, really good for you, is really expensive compared to McDonalds, which is so cheap.” This showed that she was aware of some of the complexity and powerbrokers in food systems. She translated some of her new knowledge into passion for growing. She related to me, “I planted a pepper, and I was SO HAPPY because it was growing!” Felicia was very enthusiastic and demonstrated a great memory for details at her combined exit and final interview on June 26, 2013, a few weeks after the last program meeting. She listed off all the many things she enjoyed doing in the program: “…March Break and we tried different foods ... actually that was my favourite favourite thing that we did …. The

153

graduation was really fun ... oh, hanging out with the little kids in the afterschool program. That was funny.”

During her final interview, Felicia reflected on the program. She also had good insight on ways to improve the program, suggesting activities such as

a field trip, I guess, to go up north to like, see all those animals and experience what farming is, where we get our actual food … and remember when we were handing out flyers [to advertise the market to the neighbourhood]? Just putting stuff in and those tables were just full of foods, like, where did this come from? We didn’t know, it had just been delivered! Why don’t we just go up there, help them and bring it back here?

These reflections show Felicia’s growing insight on the local food system and her desire to investigate more about it, realizing how disconnected she had been feeling from her food’s origins. It is important to note that she mentioned helping in the harvest, not just being a passive consumer.

Felicia did express hesitation about giving advice in a group. I asked her if she would be interested in joining an advisory group of LiFT graduates to help improve the program, and she connected it back to her experiences in LiFT. She responded, “Oh, I don’t know, probably not [laughing]. Because I don’t know! I am shy, I guess. Once Shirley asked me questions, I was like, [shook her head to indicate ‘no’] because Patricia had answered everything!”.

Felicia told me that she would remember “the [cooking] skills, I just tell my friends, this is how you do this, teach them how to do it. … and the food stories”. She had some good self- awareness: “I am not like a working hard [type of person]. I am more like laid back, I am between laid back and working hard. I guess at this age, I am more laid back. This, in a way validates her group participation, and her desire to coast more on the opinions expressed by other participants in a group conversation, rather than her more animated style in one-on-one conversations.

154

Felicia became friendly with some of the other participants in that they would say hello and talk if they saw each other, but they did not get together intentionally. She mentioned that some of the girls were “really older,” being in grade 11 and 12, but they would still say hi in the halls at their school. Shirley was impressed with Felicia’s participation: “Felicia’s friends dropped out of the program [after winter break] and she came on her own”. Felicia told me she was excited to see Marsha (also a grade 9 student, but from a different school) one day on the street, but because they were both with their own friends, it didn’t go further than a greeting.

For the program graduation event in June 2013, families were invited to attend a dinner, and Felicia’s mother came with her two little brothers. Her mother said she was sad that the girls were graduating already, and she knew how much Felicia had enjoyed the food.

Patricia seemed to gain much from her participation in LiFT. By the end of the program, she was more interested in the life cycles of certain food-producing organisms, such as bananas, and the impact that growing them has on workers, and the journeys that foods take to get to us. On a few occasions, Patricia commented in group discussions and later in her exit interview with me, “I never knew about organic food before, and I never thought it was important, but now I know how healthy it is and I’m going to try to eat organic food.” (Patricia, exit interview, June 6, 2013). It seemed likely from the context of this statement that her conception of health included humans and the environment. When I mentioned this to Shirley in a debrief conversation, she noted that she hadn’t expressly focused on organic foods in the programming, noting,

It was interesting she said that because we never really talk about organic food. I guess one time we did a whole processed/non-processed food, she was there for that one, I think the corn one, so. We’re never sure what they take away. It’s not like the produce we were using is even organic, necessarily.

In addition, over the course of Patricia’s involvement in the program, she grew to express a much stronger sense of how to create change around food issues. While the question about what a person like her could do to changes to influence family or community was reworded slightly from the intake to the exit interviews (Appendices B1 and B2 respectively), her response to it

155

changed dramatically. At her intake, she said “That’s a hard question ... me individually? ... no idea!” (Patricia, intake interview, March 20, 2013). By her exit interview, she easily listed the ideas of getting herself, her peers and her family involved in community activities, such as the food markets and volunteering at a local greenhouse that the CBO maintains. This was a really clear transformation for her from her experiences in LiFT. At the end of the program Patricia said she had wished she had started at the beginning of the school year and that there had been better promotion of LiFT in her school.

Patricia brought her mother and sister to the final graduation night event that LiFT hosted for friends and family. She was proud that she had been able to share her new knife skills and other skills with her mother and sister. She encouraged her sister, only a year younger, to join and she was apparently planning to join the program the following year. Patricia also noted that her family loved when she brought leftovers home from LiFT, which Patricia had done enthusiastically each week. This showed a form of leadership through the pride she felt from what she had helped to make as well as her consideration of her family in bringing home something that she had enjoyed eating as well.

In the summer after the program, Patricia, like Marsha, volunteered at the youth summer camp at the secondary site of the CBO to assist with leading younger kids in food-related programming, also proactively connecting with the program coordinator to secure a time when she could volunteer. She also mentioned the greenhouse at her school and that she really wanted to help get it running again. It had been sitting empty for many years due to lack of initiative from teachers and support from custodial staff and administration, likely due to budget cuts from the school board. Her interest in reviving that space also indicated growing leadership and self-efficacy, as well as understanding of growing as a tool for learning.

Overall, participants expressed or exhibited various increases in self-efficacy and agency in both cooking and non-cooking activities. An indicator of increased self-efficacy was in how some of the participants indicated a greater desire for leadership opportunities in the kitchen, both during and after the program. I observed that some of the participants connected the recipes at hand to the ways that they had seen a family member prepare a similar recipe, and they noted they

156

wanted to try it that way on their own. “I will use different spices, but it’s basically the same,” claimed Felicia. During a conversation after the program had finished, Shirley noted that families were being impacted by the youth participating in LiFT, saying,

I know from the family standpoint, some of them have made an impact. I had a really interesting conversation with [a non-consenting participant]’s mother and her sister, and they basically said to me, “since she’s started the program, she’s taken charge in terms of groceries,” but specifically buying the vegetables and fruit. “We should eat more of this. We should eat more of that.” And her mom made a joke, “I don’t know if her older sister is too happy, because that means they’re eating healthier.” I think she was joking, because her sister wasn’t really grumpy.

It was valuable to Shirley to get feedback from families to hear that what participants seemed to be enthusiastic about in the program was also translating to home life.

The non-cooking activities varied in topic and means of implementation. Topics ranged along a spectrum from the personal to the socio-political, in line with the program goals [see Appendix E, LiFT Program Logic Model]. For example, one week was a workshop dedicated to body image that brought up a lot of sensitive issues including bullying and the impact of food on our bodies. By the end of the program and months after, no participants referred to this activity as being memorable or impactful for them. It is possible that the girls who felt most sensitivity to this topic were not among my research participant. Or, that the topic itself is sensitive and complicated, and did not seem relevant to them at the time of our exit conversations.

A non-cooking activity that seemed more memorable was the food market experience. Some participants commented that they would be attending this market with their families, and one noted she had been back with her mother a few weeks after we went as a group. Both the community garden and attending the food market would classify as making personal choices for personal change. The community garden additionally indicates contributing to a greater collaborative engagement with others, for the good of both people and the land, albeit at the local level.

157

Another workshop on week 6, December 12, 2012, addressed the agricultural-industrial complex and the ubiquity of corn products in processed foods. This workshop also referred to the carbon footprint of foods and the choices that individuals might make, given this information. Several participants commented that they did not know how pervasive corn was in our food. “I didn’t know there was corn in everything!” was heard several times by different participants in the meetings following this workshop. However, given the time constraints of the data collection, there is no evidence from long-term follow-up to assess the impact of this learning experience.

158

Figure 7.1: A display of products with corn in them, from a workshop on the agricultural industrial complex and processed foods, December 12, 2012.

As Goldstein (2016) noted in her research on a similar type of food justice education program, there is discord between theory and reality in these types of programs because

159

it is simpler and easier to teach concrete food skills and individual behavior modification for health and wellbeing than to shape active citizens who can critically engage with contemporary food systems issues (p.195).

Educators may feel that it is hard to move from food skills to larger issues of justice and food systems issues because of the complexity of each of the issues. It is a challenge to have enough time, or even to create a safe enough space to push the issues a bit further.

7.2.1 Touchstone: Food Stories as Powerful Pedagogy

As noted earlier, “curricular moment” refers to any period of time within which learning is taking place, whether the learning is intentional, i.e., planned by the facilitator, or phenomenological, emerging from the confluence of factors in place. For example, a conversation that participants may have over a meal they prepared together can offer insight to their thoughts and learnings, which may be unrelated to or only tangentially related to a topic in the planned curriculum of the day, but the topics they discuss may still demonstrate how their knowledge is shifting or growing around food justice issues.

A particular series of curricular moments indicated the participants’ abilities to critically analyse new information and also connected with their increased feelings of empowerment, namely, the Telling Food Stories activity. This curricular intervention, or planned curriculum event, represents a moment in the program when participants were scaffolded into their own inquiry processes. I see this as one of the few times in the planned program when participants were able to co-create their own knowledge, with minimal facilitation from the adults. Not only did I and the other facilitators observe the participants creating their own knowledge, but it also became a touchstone moment for the youth themselves. The participants referred to the Telling Food Stories workshop as a time when they worked together, came up with their own stories, and built connections, community, and friendships. Even months later, during exit interviews, and much later, after the end of the program, participants commented on the positive impacts of participating in this activity. The initial introduction to the activity took place on January 16, 2013. Figure 7.2 represents the outcomes of the initial group brainstorming activity that

160

introduced them to the idea of our many connections and histories with food. They were prompted by the question: What is food?

Figure 7.2: Land, Food and People: Food Stories brainstorming outcomes, January 16, 2013.

Participants reflected on their experience of this activity. Marsha, who was one of the youngest in the program, wrote in her program journal: “We shared some interesting food stories. Some

161

are funny some are interesting. Our stories have a lot of similarities. Heritage, funny stories, farming, gardening. Today was very fun and interesting. Can’t wait til next week!” (January 16, 2013). Many months later, in her post-program interview, she recalled the Food Stories activity after the program ended, saying “I remember how much we laughed doing that, and that day I felt I was making new friendships”. Sharron, an adult volunteer, again months after the activity, mentioned that she noticed how focussed the girls were when they were doing the activity. “I hadn’t seen them that engaged in the other workshops!”. I agree with this analysis by the other two adults. Other activities had some participants engaged for some portions of the evening. And certainly, everyone who came to cook appeared to be active and attentive to their tasks as well as the eating portion. The Food Stories activity was the only experience that all research participants, and many other program youth referred to, and more than once, as something that they really loved.

As a curricular moment, the Food Stories activity represented a shift from the mainly didactic delivery of the program. In general, the program was facilitated using a transmission model, with the program facilitators bringing an agenda or goal to focus on to each session, and providing a step-by-step process to work through the agenda and/or achieve the goal. For example, in many of the cooking sessions, which comprised about half of the meetings overall (see Appendix C: LiFT schedule), the recipes were selected by the chef and/or program facilitator ahead of time and were taught to the participants. There were a few times when participants selected the recipes based on their own interests. Other workshop sessions outside the kitchen were directed by a facilitator, either the main programmer or a guest facilitator, especially during visits to other spaces such as a community garden or the food bank. Workshop sessions included focused on hands-on gardening or compost projects, both inside and outside, exploring the agricultural industrial complex through images in the process chain, watching a documentary about food, or completing activities about body image. The variation on workshops created a spectrum of topics ranging from the personal (i.e., body image) to the socio-eco-political (i.e., agricultural industrial complex), although there was not a chronological order built in to reflect that spectrum.

Within the framework of non-formal pedagogy, the key components underpinning an activity are its explicit educational objectives, the position(ing) of the facilitator, and the layered nature of

162

the pedagogical strategy. Each component impacts the outcomes for the participants. The food stories activity, also officially referred to in the program planning as Land, Food and People, was developed by the program facilitator with my assistance. This activity had the explicit educational objectives to:

● Have participants connect to their own ‘food stories’ or memories connected to food;

● Explore cultural and social identities through food; and,

● Link individual food stories to food systems.

See Appendix F for the full description of the envisioned activity.

The facilitator Shirley began by asking the participants to connect to some foods she had displayed. For example, did they recognize any of the items, recall eating them, know anything about them? She then modelled her own storied connections to the foods, which positioned the balance of power within the group of youth, as each person was invited to view the uniqueness of her own story and its value within the community of food stories. She connected to her own cultural heritage as a living artefact of her connections to food, as well as her socio-cultural and geographical life experiences. She shared several different food items she connected to personal stories. One was an item imported from Europe that she said helped to remind her of family celebrations that are reproduced after their emigration from their home country to a new place where she was born. Shirley made a point of sharing the transitions she and her family had made, geographically, culturally and nutritionally, which had the potential to resonate with many of the group members, given their own individual transnational and transcultural connections, some more recent or more profound than others.

The activity was layered through pedagogical experiences with food products, with individual reflection through drawing and writing, and group comparison, contrast and collaboration. After it was modelled to the youth by the facilitator, she gave them each a blank poster paper and access to drawing implements. They were asked to begin by drawing a picture of themselves in the middle. This brought many giggles out of the group and some shyness about producing drawings was expressed. Participants were then asked to use the space beyond their pictures to

163

draw or write about their own food stories. They were prompted by being asked what their memories of food are. After many minutes, each participant had filled their poster paper with up to six different stories or memories, such as Sandra’s poster in Figure 7.3. This was the first phase of the activity.

For the second phase, participants were invited to place their finished posters on the wall in a cluster and to share what they had described. Then they were invited to review and ask questions of each other. The participants engaged in sharing and finding common themes among their individual story posters.

Figure 7.3: Sandra’s food story poster, January 16, 2013.

Next, as the adult facilitators, we asked the girls to identify commonalities within their stories. They were given balls of yarn and smaller pieces of paper on which they could label the

164

connecting pieces. The facilitators then stepped back. At this point, the room, after being quiet for some time when individuals were working on their own posters and then listening to each person present in turn, became quite noisy with the animation of teenagers further sharing and drawing connections among their many stories. Participants labelled the links among the posters they had made with their chosen themes: family, funny stories, gardening, farming, friends, health, future and heritage.

Figure 7.4: LiFT participants reading stories and making connections with yarn.

The resulting product of the Food Stories activity was a messy, tangible, tactile, collaborative effort, as captured in Figures 7.4-7.6. The visual piece was then enhanced with a presentation and discussion to reinforce the themes that emerged from the Food Stories web. The Food Stories activity took place over three different meeting times, broken down into an introduction by Shirley, a hands-on writing, drawing and collaborating experience for the program participants, and then a third time when the teens helped facilitate the activity with younger participants in another afterschool program.

165

Figure 7.5: LiFT participants collaborate to give labels to the connections they observed between their stories.

Each of these components built from the position of the individual toward the community within the larger food system, which was scaffolded, authentic and dynamic. Structuring the activity in this way is reinforced by some theories of successful adult education in which it is posited that learning can be achieved through strategies of “encouraging reflection and dialogue,” “connecting new learning with learners’ previous experience,” and “expanding our repertoire of instruction to include creative and artistic modes of inquiry” (Merriam, 2008, p. 98). Further supporting the paradigm of adult education in this non-formal context, UNESCO (2009) has published a report that attested, “cultural and social factors have significant impact on the division of the human life-course into age-linked stages and phases. […] Especially within a lifelong learning paradigm, it is increasingly unhelpful to make sharp distinctions between ‘youth education’ and ‘adult education’” (p.14). Adult education can be generalized to this case in the sense that it is also non-formal and that the youth, while technically minors, are not being evaluated for their participation.

166

Figure 7.6: The final display of food stories posters with connecting themes.

The final iteration offered the youth participants a heightened degree of learner control, through communal validations of their understandings of the world, sharing it, inscribing it and by then reiterating the process with younger learners. From an ecojustice education point of view, this activity was empowering for the participants in terms of identity and agency: they came to know themselves as individuals through their food stories, and to locate themselves in relation to each other’s stories, affirming their identities. The food stories series of activities offered an opportunity for them to become leaders and facilitators, taking their own knowledge-making and moving it into a new space for further expansion and mobilization (Karrow & Fazio, 2010; Reis, Ng-A-Fook & Glithero, 2015).

Sharron, as adult volunteer with her own experiences of food systems education, also brought an additional perspective to this activity. She reflected on its value as a food systems education activity, saying,

167

I think it’s really important and I like that we had the food stories and brought in the different food backgrounds and cultures, because I think when you are teaching food education and food systems education, a lot of the time you can forget that you can be teaching it from a very North American standpoint. Like, “This is our food system.” So I like how we had that because it reminded you, “oh, not everybody comes from the same background, not everyone is coming with the same experience of food that they eat or they like, whatever. So that was so good (September 10, 2013).

Her comment highlights the ecojustice education approaches which decentralize cultural hegemonies, given space to often silenced voices. This notion applies to both the practice of lifting up the stories of the girls, in and of themselves, and also giving them the power to name their own analysis and interpretation of their collective stories.

After this activity, and throughout the program, many participants referred to it as something they enjoyed, that was meaningful to them. Several participants commented that it helped them to make new friends and to build community among the group. As the researcher, I observed a higher level of engagement and collaboration, as well as laughing and smiling, than with other aspects of the program overall, as other adults and the youth also noted. Unlike when they were given a recipe to follow in the kitchen, there was no specified outcome expected and no wrong steps. Months after the activity, participants were interviewed and spoke about the sense of community they felt that was specifically connected to learning about and sharing the food stories, both among their group and then again when they facilitated the same activity with younger children during the March Break component of the program, with those outcomes highlighted in Figure 7.6 below. There had been a lot of laughter on both of those days, and later many of the stories were referred to again and again, showing that they had listened to each other and enjoyed the stories. It could be said that the stories were used to further reinforce the group’s sense of collectivity and relationships.

168

Figure 7.7: A table set for lunch for the LiFT and younger participants during March Break, with a backdrop of Food Stories posters, March 3, 2013.

7.2.2 “Girls only”—Creating a Safe Space

This program was designated for girls only. This arrangement had both positive impacts and created some challenges for the participants. Several of the young women expressed, over the course of the program, that they had spoken highly of their participation in the program and that their male peers and “boyfriends” were interested in joining. This suggestion was not taken up by the program facilitator. There was discussion among Shirley and myself, and later with Roxanne, that in the future it would be great to have a mixed-gender program because “boys need to learn to cook as much as girls, if not more!” as Felicia stated in the program one evening. Caraher (2016) would add that by excluding boys from the food program, we were reproducing socialized and potentially oppressive notions of women as responsible for domestic cookery. For

169

the duration of LiFT, it was noted that the focus was on prioritizing the safety and wellbeing of teen girls and that inviting boys would disrupt the community that was building, as noted in the study by Datnow, Hubbard and Woody (2001), who, among other things, observed teacher preference for engaging male students over females. As Felicia had also mentioned to me in her final interview, she went from a mixed-gender elementary school to an all-girls high school so she would not be distracted by boys. One year after this research project, the program went on hiatus for a few years, from 2014 to 2017. It has since been revitalized in a new location and is now open to young women and young men, with many of the same goals listed on the program website.

Figure 7.8: Vegetarian mushroom and mango tortillas made by LiFT participants, to eat together.

170

7.2.3 The Program Culmination

If we look to the program’s curricular goals, stemming from the three objectives described in Table 5.1, and imagine a project-based or backward planning approach, we might see that the culminating goal or project or performance of the program was for the participants to invite their families to attend a dinner that was prepared explicitly by the youth. The evening in June consisted of presentations by the girls about the recipes they had selected, as well as a summary of the various activities they had been involved with over the year, using a slideshow of images that had been collected. There was no social justice or action component of the program beyond the tacit encouragement of the youth to begin to make or suggest “healthy” food choices for themselves and their families. In a previous year, the program culminated in youth action aimed at their peers: that year’s LiFT participants developed and presented an overview of their program at one of the local high schools. With an audience of over 100 grade nine students, the young women, some of whom attended that school and others who did not, did a live cooking demo, shared their cooking skills and gave out samples to the whole group. They also shared a summary of some research they had done on fast food versus healthy food, and the positive impacts on both bodies and the environment of choosing healthy foods. Three youth in particular had produced a video that included the text, “what is the true cost of food?” to highlight that the true cost of food is not just the upfront monetary cost of buying from one type of restaurant over another but that there are insidious and longer-term impacts of eating fast foods (Sperling & Bencze, 2015). While this type of activity would have been desirable as an agency-building outcome for the program, during the program that I documented for the purpose of this research, there was much less scaffolding and involvement for development of agency or action around food issues. In this case, the institutional barriers were created by a lack of time and lack of regular attendance by the participants. I explore these further in Section 7.4.4, below.

7.3 Practitioner Reflections of the LiFT Program

Along with the experiences of the youth, the adults who helped run the program had their own experiences and reflections to share. Reflecting on the previous year as well as the past one,

171

Shirley had been surprised by some of the feedback from the girls, and how it connected to her role as the facilitator:

What they really enjoyed, and we did not end up doing it a lot, at all, because of girls not coming on time or early enough, was the icebreakers. They bonded anyway and that was the whole purpose of it, and they became open anyway.

This comment highlights a few issues. First, that introductory activities, like playful circle get-to- know-you games and which were not directly connected to the food justice curriculum, were identified by participants as important to their experience of LiFT. Second, Shirley is remarking on a challenge for many of the girls to arrive on time to the program, and thus would miss out on this relationship-building time.

Shirley reflected on the role of relationships in programming: “I wonder in terms of programming, that aspect of relationships is so important and not just with the girls, but between ourselves and us and the girls, and all that and how that makes a program popular.” By this she was noting that the relationships between people were just as important, it seemed, as the food curriculum. The girls had also shared their friendships and their appreciation of the building of friendships. As the facilitator, Shirley, noted,

they mentioned during it was like making friends, that part was really important to them. It was actually really cute to see how much, even in the last month or so, they bonded, putting their arms around each other. You really don’t know which girl comes from what school.

Shirley went on to recount that Marsha’s stepmother had come up to her at the graduation night to say:

‘I can see why the girls love coming to program... your personality … or the way…’ something, which is kind of awkward to say, because what if I had a shittier personality, but ... maybe I do somewhat. But that’s part of engaging, relatability, which I totally understand.

172

This expresses how she was aware of her prickliness at times, not always presenting an approachability to the youth, and also recognizing how being engaging when interacting with teen girls creates connections for them. She expressed numerous times that it was important to her to walk the fine line of addressing the girls’ needs and interests, in the sense of a youth-lead curriculum, and bringing the curriculum of the CBO to the table. She said she knew that she had to pay attention to their interests to keep them coming, but also felt tension because she felt pressure to run the program as planned, sticking to and keeping everyone focused on envisioned official curriculum.

The program was voluntary, and the youth could come and go, week by week. LiFT was at times competing for attendance against other programs and school commitments. The facilitator was therefore hesitant about planning something that might be perceived by the girls to be beyond their area of interest, or without a guarantee of success, or something that would take too much time away from other curriculum mandates. One important leadership opportunity that came up was to serve food and drink at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) for the CBO, which was held the fourth meeting week of the program. At this meeting, the youth were exposed to the many faces of clients, called community members, and other people, such as members of the Board of Directors, who expressed interest in the wellbeing of the organization, and the youth were able to interact with them while they acted as servers. As discussed in Chapter 4, the neighbourhood of the CBO represented a highly diverse population, with variations in race, home language(s), gender, arrival to or birth in Canada, age and socio-economic status. Many of the girls were able to see and interact with the other community members, from whom up until that time they had been separated.

The participation in the AGM with the CBO members created exposure to an institutional structure that may have impacted the participants outcomes, in two ways. One was seeing community members who reflected them and their own experiences, fairly early in their participation. And the other was having an experience catering food to adults in the official space of the AGM. The LiFT program had a strong mandate that the youth should learn food skills. Cooking was organized bi-weekly on the programming schedule, and over the course of the year the participants cooked a wide range of recipes which varied in difficulty, cultural origin, and

173

flavour. One of the critiques by some of the participants was that they were not given enough opportunities for leadership in the kitchen. Several of them commented that they wished they could have chosen more of the recipes and been responsible for leading the group in preparing the dishes. Roxanne commented on the subtle difference of overt leadership development versus more embodied practice, when she noted that,

my gut reaction is, if it’s just about the girls being able to sort of make their own choices around food, and it kind of just impacts them individually, I would feel a little less of a success than if ... even if they were able to take that change themselves and then have a conversation with other people. Not even doing the grand presentation thing, but if they could at least articulate it to other people and have that conversation. That to me would be success. It sounds like a very small difference, but I think it is actually quite profound.

This speaks to literature on youth empowerment and agency development, which acknowledges at times a need for modeling and guiding by adults, and that allowing for scaffolded engagement in leadership imparts a more authentic learning experience (Botchwey et al., 2019). There is truth to the adage, we learn by teaching! Offering trust in capacity to lead is a natural way to build-in the sense of identity as a leader. The inverse, which is the didactic approach of facilitator as leader, youth as receiver, did not offer what some of the youth seem to have preferred from the experience.

174

Figure 7.9: Three youth participants of LiFT and the research project, Patricia, Marsha and Felicia, volunteering at the CBO food bank, with smiles.

Shirley expressed that she was under pressure to produce some sort of data for funders, commenting that “Evaluation is ... the information that is useful in terms of reports is being able to gauge impact, because [funders] want to know [the impact of programming]”. When planning the final exit evaluation for the girls, it seemed that she hadn’t been given a lot of guidance about what types of information to gather, and spent a lot of time discussing with me about what was important to ask the girls and how it might relate back to the intake evaluations. She related to me during our planning meeting,

I haven’t heard anything, [from manager Roxanne] so I feel like I’m just going to try and figure out what I want to hear from them. I’m cutting the [questions] that I think ... “how much do you like cooking?” Cooking skills, I wouldn’t necessarily ... I don’t know if

175

would use the rating number, because it’s so arbitrary. What does 1 to 10 mean? I do like “what are two things, you ... could do to who ensure everyone had healthy food to eat? But I would probably change the wording. Because “Toronto” seems kind of very broad, and I think that is kind of maybe … overwhelming, and what can I do for Toronto? It’s more like “what can you do for ... it would be more your community, or your family?”

This shift in her thinking from the whole city to family and community is in line with place- based education, and meeting youth where they are at, realizing that she is enhancing their leadership and agency by helping them to focus on their own realities. It also shows her processing her struggles in her facilitator role between what may be required for reporting to funders versus what is something that feels attainable to the youth.

Figure 7.10: LiFT participants working in a community garden, weeding to prepare for the spring planting, May 8, 2013.

A few of the LiFT participants went on to be involved in other programs connected to the CBO, such as in the intergenerational community garden or the summer camp for younger children. Adult volunteer Sharron commented about this outcome,

176

… that’s definitely the most you can hope for with a program like this. You kind of plant the seed and get them interested, but then to a certain extent, it’s up to the girls to kind of carry it forward and extend their learning, so the fact that some of them are doing that is encouraging, I think (September 10, 2013).

This comment speaks to some of the challenges in non-formal education that are community- based and reliant on public and private funding for continuity of programming. The hard numbers, the concrete outcomes are not necessarily available to be gathered and shared.

With regard to the parts of the program involving food skills, food preparation knowledge development, and working in smaller groups, Sharron reflected,

I don’t want to generalize and say “oh, yeah, everybody improved, everybody improved and came together,” because that’s not the case, but I think certain girls who may be more introverted or quieter benefited from the small group style, plus having something hands- on that you are all doing together, that it kind of equalizes everyone, so that probably made them more confident. And then for girls who maybe cooked a lot before, I think they definitely felt more comfortable with knives and stuff, which is good because then you feel, hopefully, that when they go home, they’ll make a lunch for themselves for the week, or something.

In this comment Sharron was drawing a connection between skills acquisition and agency development, that the process of gaining confidence in cooking would encourage the youth to take care of themselves, and perhaps others, in shifting their food choices, making their own food rather than going for fast food as some had indicated they had done in the past.

In an outreach email to volunteers in the fall after my time with the program, Shirley wrote that “My goals this year are to simplify some of the cooking so things run smoother, also so participants are able to develop basic intuition for cooking/food love”. From this, it seemed that she felt the cooking activities were at times too complicated in the previous year, which is in contrast to what many of the girls claimed about wanting more autonomy with recipes and cooking. Additionally, my observations and communications with the participants indicated an

177

increased value and love of food, so it was unclear to me why Shirley felt that was lacking during that time. This email may have been an indication of conversations and administrative issues that were going on behind the scenes at the CBO.

Sharron reflected that she had brought certain strengths to the table, such as working with youth in the kitchen to understand knife-handling skills, some of the chemistry of cooking and baking, and leading them through recipes. She also commented after the programming that she felt she had more to share. As she stated,

I do have a lot of knowledge about food systems and issues of food systems. And I don’t actually know that I shared as much as I could have, just because of the structure of the program. But it is something that I could have brought to the table, and I did. (Sharron, September 10, 2013).

I interpret this to mean that she thought that her skills and knowledge were perhaps underutilized and that despite there being overt goals to address food systems in the LiFT curriculum, she wasn’t given as much opportunity as she’d hoped to be able to contribute in that way.

There were a few challenges I encountered as a researcher on the project. Shirley and I had a lot of difficulty arranging meetings with each other, beyond regular meetings with participants. Upon reviewing email strings, there were often exchanges that we should get together to discuss the program, and life in general, but firm dates and times were rarely decided. Technology was both a support and a challenge to the curriculum planning and delivery. Twice during my time as the co-facilitator and participant-observer the bad news came that the “external hard drive stopped working!” which meant that numerous images and videos of and by the girls were corrupted or no longer accessible. The second hard drive fault occurred weeks before the graduation event, which was very challenging in terms of assembling some kind of multimedia to share with the families. These technological challenges may indicate low capacity and support on the administrative side of programming. Connecting it back to having data to share with funders, if images and documents were not available, then access to funds may become limited.

178

At the end of the program, as we were wrapping up and as I was preparing to do my post- program interviews with the research participants, Shirley wanted to know who I would be talking to. I told her that was confidential between me and the youth. She commented:

I guess I’m wondering about the process. Right now, in the midst of talking about liabilities and privacy stuff and working with minors and stuff like that ... people have raised some flags about that. For example, police checks and stuff like that.

I clarified to her that, having been a volunteer for three years with the program, I did have a valid police record check for working with youth in the vulnerable sector. She brought up more ethical issues, such as whether or not people knew I was recording and what would I be doing with the recordings. At this point, my data collection was nearly complete, and I did find it confusing to have her bring these things up at this late stage of the research. Perhaps it was the first time Shirley had actually had a moment to think about it since the official data collection had started in March and this conversation took place in June. She made a point of telling me toward the end of the program year, when discussing keeping track of some information about the girls, “You’re pretty vigilant about it. I’m not”. She often indicated that the workload for her programming portfolio was quite heavy and she was often struggling to stay on top of it all. These conversations, and the computer issues mentioned earlier, suggest a data management strategy problem and possibly also a gap between official policy on managing information and maintaining privacy and what was enacted. It seemed that privacy was on the table for the management team at the organization as LiFT was wrapping up.

In a separate conversation with Roxanne, she acknowledged that she might have developed and supported the program differently:

I think looking back now about how programs can develop, I came into a manager’s position not being trained to be a manager, and I think now, knowing what I know, I would approach that kind of program development a lot differently. It wouldn’t be just ‘hey, we have a great idea, there’s time to do it, let’s do it.’ It would have been ‘how does it fit with everything?’

179

There was a sense from her that LiFT was developed and delivered to meet the needs of the teens first and foremost, as opposed to building in more connections to the other programs on offer at the CBO. Also, given her previous perspectives on the multidimensional engagements in social service work, as well as the desire for long-range impacts, Roxanne could view LiFT as having greater potential to be part of a chain of engagements in food justice education, as opposed to a one-off, one year participation.

Sharron, as an adult volunteer pursing a graduate degree and with a background in culinary studies, had some insight on what she would change or suggest if she were to return to the program (which she subsequently did). She was able to compare her time with LiFT to her volunteer work with another local environmental organization and also to the work of food education. She noted some similar challenges related to food programming content delivery, stating,

I found that sometimes it wasn’t as organized as it could be, so that we didn’t … the problem is, I found this happens in a lot of food programs, because I did a bunch of programming with [another CBO] during the summer as well. And it is really hard to get as much content as you would want in a program. … I created and organized and then executed programs at [the other CBO], and it really took a lot, a LOT, of pre-planning in order to have it run like you want, and a lot of hands-on. I was working with younger people there, like 8-to-12-[year-olds], but it was probably one [adult] person per two to three kids and then I had done so much pre-planning and stuff. Even with that I still found that it was a bit of a struggle to get everything in, all the lessons that you want to. And so that’s the same at LiFT that I found, and it’s good because [here] you have a whole year to go over stuff, but I definitely feel like there could have been … I wish we could cover more content. I don’t know how to explain other than [LiFT is] such a great opportunity, but I wish that we could have somehow put even more into it, because the girls come out of it being yes, I know they learned this, this, this and this, and it’s like obviously they learned something, obviously it was a good experience, but I feel like they could definitely increase that. (Sharron, September 10, 2013).

180

When asked to explore further what she meant by more content, Sharron also included some reflections about how the program was delivered, as she said,

I know we were teaching food skills and stuff like that, but I also know that one of the goals, at least my impression of one of the goals, is ... whether it be nutrition education, health education, systems education and even centering … and to a certain extent, this happened, but centering each week around a theme and then tying it to what you are doing in the kitchen, some sort of discussion, and I know it’s hard to get all the girls to sit down and have a discussion ... but somehow [I] like having it feel a little more educational as opposed to kind of hanging out.

This kind of open discussion that Sharron described was helpful to building community, as many participants were able to open up and share experiences in an organic way around a meal. However, Sharron also noted the missed opportunity for challenging and reorienting the participants away from misconceptions about food. She had commented that the open discussions were at times somewhat problematic, saying,

some of the girls … would say things about health or nutrition and I’m like “oh my gosh, that’s so cliché,” and it’s not actually the case, but it wasn’t necessarily corrected or set straight, so it would be nice to approach it from a … because every 15 to 17 year old girl has heard, “Such and such is good for you, such and such is bad for you. You shouldn’t eat this much fat. You shouldn’t eat …” whatever. So even just dispelling that, so they kind of have a grounded basis of knowledge that they can build from. So I think for a lot of these food education programs … like I said, you can’t really cover everything you want to. It kind of plants a seed in the participant’s head around healthy eating and food and cooking and stuff, but it can’t do a whole lot more than that. It would be great if we could do more by structuring the session so that it had a little bit more information or education focus.

This reinforces the sense that there were a lot of loose threads, both in content and delivery, in the process of LiFT participation. This applied to my research process as well. On several

181

occasions I offered Shirley the opportunity to work with me and the data, to use for strategic planning and to create academic or practitioner publications as she saw fit, with whatever time commitment she had available. This included in the research design all the way through to conference presentations based on preliminary data. Shirley never took me up on this, although two years after my time in the program finished, she contacted me with a few questions, because “funding can be tricky and it can be challenging to show funders why having long-term programming can be beneficial to youth.” Her new manager was interested in “research around program impacts, and the number of visits that were required in order for youth to absorb and learn new things ... looking for resources … that support our reasons for doing things the way we do it, and wondering if this is a resources that you have, and is relevant for our programs.” (email, May 14, 2015). Unfortunately, these were not foci I had had during my data collection, and despite being transparent with Shirley about my process and plans, I could see that she was under pressure to be able to show something quantitative for time of the program we had planned and delivered together.

These many reflections from LiFT adult participants provided much insight to where there might be gaps in the envisioned, enacted and experienced curriculum, and in some cases, why, but not always.

7.4 Ecojustice Analysis of Experienced Curriculum

Institutional structures offer supports and challenges to programming, both in education and other spheres. Institutional structures are norms and policies delineating potential opportunities for participation. They may be tacit, hidden or overt curricula and practices, e.g., imagery, documents, spaces that are privileging or welcoming versus gatekeeping, such as the LiFT intake interview. Ideally there would be coherence through the envisioned, enacted, and experienced curriculum of institutional programming, however, tensions may and often do arise from conflicts between the structures and human needs, and programming may be redirected. This section identifies and discusses my perceived encounters and analysis of institutional impacts on the experienced curriculum in terms of both supports and challenges to the LiFT from an

182

ecojustice perspective, namely the outcomes of pedagogies, the role of mentorship, opportunities for critical systems thinking and food systems learning.

7.4.1 Experiences of Pedagogies and Practices

The experienced curriculum that was highlighted by the youth participants helped to identify the ways that the enacted pedagogies impacted the youth, at least in the short term. Table 7.1 (below) identifies the activities that youth recalled and connected, either with fondness, critique or both. It builds on Table 6.1, blending cooking versus non-cooking activities. It is a summary of some of the ways the data revealed connections to identity, agency and community building, with an additional analysis through the ladder of youth citizen participation proposed by Botchwey et al. (2019), as noted in Figure 4.1. These connections were based on the experiences of the youth as expressed in their own reflections, as well as observations by the adult participants, including me.

Table 7.1 Summary of analysis of expressed connections to identity, agency and community building through food justice pedagogies in LiFT.

Food justice Cooking and Non-cooking Rungs of the Ladder of Youth outcomes/ Civic Participation (Botchwey et al., 2019) Type of pedagogy

Expressions of Self as cook Manipulation identity Cultural identity Informing

Body image

“Healthfulness”

Organic food choices

Expression of Making “healthy” choices for self and Therapy agency/civic others engagement Informing

183

Increased confidence in choices; expressed Consent desire for more leadership opportunities Advocacy Flyering for and inviting community to the food market Incorporation

Community gardening Partnership

Supporting younger kids’ food stories Delegated power Signing up for future CBO activities (field trips and programs)

Inviting their friends/family to join

Expression of Cooking, eating and cleaning up together Consultation community building Linking arms Consent

Sharing jokes Partnership

Creating food stories with each other and Delegated power younger kids

7.4.2 Mentorship and Modeling for Leadership Learning

As a food justice education project, there is some literature that speaks to the appropriate frameworks of training and mentorship for participant empowerment. Paddeu (2016) in her work on environmental justice and food justice movements, contended that “empowerment strategies are employed by organizations to train future activists and increase the number of active members by providing them with the political discourse and rhetorical tools used in the fight for social justice” (p.15). She referred to strategies of scaffolding youth participants into programs as they become adults, providing them with further experiences to reinforce and build on their empowerment as they moved through their personal development. Sharron linked food leadership development as particular to environmental education through a research article she was familiar with by Chawla (1998), who did a meta-analysis of research on experiences that

184

promote pro-environmental behaviour. Sharron drew on this article, commenting on the importance of role models to support youth. She noted that

[Chawla] analyz[ed] what the different factors are that make people be environmentally sensitive and genuinely care about the food or nature. I think she said the main things were experiences in nature as a child and then having adult, not like mentors, but people who look you look up to, who are involved in your daily life ... yeah, like role models. And I said, “yeah, that sounds about right,” because when I was a kid, my mom always took us out to the garden, and we’d be gardening and we would see how things grew.

However, this long-term mentorship or training, from youth to adulthood, was not built into the explicit program model the CBO, either as a framework or in practice. It was not clear why there was this gap in long range program planning. While Sandra did take it upon herself to become involved in the intergenerational garden at the end of the official youth program activities, this type of deepening engagement was not overtly facilitated by the organizers. That being said, the facilitators of both the school-age program and the youth program worked together on program development and brought the two groups together twice over the March Break. These collaborative gatherings had two overt goals. The first was to give the teens an opportunity to develop leadership and a sense of skill by working with the younger students, both in the kitchen and in a food workshop. The second was that the younger students were engaged with teens who modelled enthusiasm and care for them, providing an incremental view of potential participation in food programming. Coming back to previous points about how the complexity of food systems issues takes time to learn and address, this would be considered a useful vision and practice for a CBO with food justice goals. It does highlight Roxanne’s previous points about considering where, why and how a new program fits into offerings at that time.

Institutional structures and culture influenced program outcomes; youth and adults in LiFT were influenced by the spaces, and awareness of this influence may allow connections to be made to the messages that are both openly and subtly being transmitted. During their participation in the LiFT program, youth were both overtly and tacitly exposed to a variety of programs offered by the CBO. For instance, during the March Break camp component, the program met for several

185

days at a secondary site of the organization, which offers additional youth programming, a large and active greenhouse, as well as a multicultural, intergenerational community food garden. Participants were also exposed to a food bank and low-fee market through our programming space, giving them an opportunity to get volunteer hours for working in the spaces, distributing meals or produce to community members. The teens were also encouraged to explore the different spaces from the program and make connections with staff there, such as the food back and community garden. In this way, the community-based programming offered a more holistic view of some of the interventions that were used to address food security and food justice than what would be possible from simple decontextualized discussions, like those that take place in regular school contexts. In these ways, this authentic, place-based learning had the potential to be disruptive to neoliberal and individualized habits of mind around food practices. But the operation of the program in an organization within the social and economic system is subject to structural challenges as well.

In many examples of successful, collaborative and community-building movements, there is often a great deal of time and effort invested in bringing out the authentic voices of the participants to tell the stories of their place (see, for example, Motta, 2016; and, Pinnington & Schugurensky, 2009). In this context, place was represented in part through food. With yarn and tape in hand, the participants spent a lot of time together making thoughtful connections between their own food story posters and that of others. The themes emerged through a shared process and group discussion, that was entirely facilitated among the youth, developing their agency by privileging their individual and collective stories, and theme assignments.

Another aspect of mentorship that is deemed important is fostering a comfort level for and among learners that supports their ability to become more independent from the facilitator. This may help us to understand the emergence of the Food Stories experience as a touchstone for the participants. Narrative pedagogy helps to explain that telling food stories opened opportunities for the youth to make connections from their personal experiences and memories to their communities, opening the way to further reflection and engagement. Freire (1970) calls this process ‘conscientization,’ namely, the development of critical consciousness that begins with narrative in the personal and experiential, provides space for social analysis, and moves toward

186

the collective and active. These sentiments are congruous with the theoretical and practical underpinnings of ecojustice.

By acknowledging that food is a narrative and place-based curriculum we may build connections for engaging youth and communities in social justice, and we may infuse it through our formal and non-formal curriculum as it is already infused through our bodies. We may question the expected impact of the power differential, over time and in the moment of the mapping of the themes. How impacted were the participants by their perceptions of the facilitators’ expectations of them in that activity?

It is interesting to consider what may have influenced the youth responses and reflections on their food stories. As a facilitator, I reflected on how the youth led the theme development portion of the food stories, among themselves, and how they may have come to select their connection themes. At the time of the Land, Food and People theme day, January 16, 2013, the girls had been introduced to the topics of food systems and whole foods, interspersed with cooking. Seeing the theme of gardening that was selected, we can draw a connection to some of the discourse of the organization, such as the presentation of gardening images in the physical space, as well as the facilitator talking about her past experiences as a gardening facilitator, and also that we would be spending a day or two helping out and learning at the gardens of the CBO. However, at the time of this food stories activity, the girls had not yet been to the sites for these experiences. While there may have been some subtle influence on the connection to the topic of gardens emerging, it is more likely, from a discourse analysis perspective, that this theme emerged naturally for them, based on the strength of their previous gardening experiences and memories. Similar outcomes have been found by Williams (2011) in her work with community gardens.

The space for social critique and analysis was not embedded in the Food Stories activity, but rather plugged in at different times in the program, or more latently as part of the broader culture of the community organization. Thus, the facilitation of such an activity, opening space for individual and collective narratives of food, showed an ecojustice orientation to privileging participants’ voices. As Hobbs and Davis (2013) found in their work using narrative pedagogies

187

in teaching and learning science, math and technology, this process affords an “inward-looking that situated the learner within the story generated around artefact creation, and outward-looking that situated the stories of the content into students’ lifeworlds” (p.1289). As Tuhiwai Smith (2006) described in relation to decolonizing research methodologies, “The story and the storyteller both serve to connect the past and the future, one generation with the other, the land with the people and the people with the story...Their themes tell us about our cultures” (p.145). The Food Stories activity provided some insight to the culture that was developing among the community of youth in LiFT through their selections and coding of the themes of their stories, including family, funny stories, gardening, farming, friends, health, future and heritage. This speaks to the very human impulse to tell and hear stories, and then to the learning that is done within storied spaces.

7.4.3 Critical Systems Thinking into Social Justice Action

One of the goals of the CBO is to develop and coordinate social justice action around food issues with community members. For example, one group of adult community members came together to produce an educational play on the topic of possible pathways to poverty and homelessness. I had the opportunity to observe the play during a professional development session offered by the organization, and it was incredibly impactful for me. To be honest, it was the first time I had been exposed to a first-person account of how an individual may become homeless as a result of systemic oppressions related to gender and race, and the contingent peeling away of dignity. I think to that point a trajectory to homelessness was an abstraction to me, which I acknowledge as a privilege. I am not certain, beyond the group of staff and volunteers that day, who else was able to view this moving production.

Other social justice advocacy activities included lobbying local governments, either municipal or provincial, to address food security issues, such as ensuring access to healthy food by eliminating food deserts through development of policy legislation. The CBO had community organizers on staff whose roles were to engage members in taking action, either within the community or by taking aim at powerful stakeholders. The culture of the organization had some impact on the programming and delivery of LiFT. An example of this was the Game of Real Life.

188

During the March Break camp, one of the activities, “The Game of Real Life,” was envisioned to highlight structural and systemic issues that contribute to poverty. The goals of this game are to highlight:

This game provided the girls with a chance to hone and engage their critical thinking skills and consider what social justice actions would be helpful. Roxanne brought some deeper insight with her reflection on the notion of the impact of the program, considering the different types of activities and pedagogies we envisioned and enacted. During a semi-structured interview after the program had finished, she discussed her views on challenges to evaluation less concrete program outcomes with me, saying,

One thing that we dived into a little bit when we were doing program planning was theories of change. So what do you think actually makes change at an individual level, at a community level and at the broader political level, because that is kind of the foundation of how you organize your program and you need to be explicit about what is it that makes that move? Because if you are not articulating that, then how can you possibly take that approach? And I’m sorry we only had a very, very small conversation about that. It was one thought on a whole huge logic model that confused the hell out of people and they never use, but we should talk about that more, and I think we do without using that language. And I think people ... if I could go back and talk to myself five years ago, I would say stop using the language of “impact” and start talking a little bit more about theories of change, because people think talking about impact, then people think numbers. They think you are becoming an accountant, and it’s not about that, it’s about what is your theory of change and how do you think people change and make changes?

189

Sharron, in a separate conversation, added to this consideration of evaluation and impact, and how it relates to critical thinking. She stated that, a program such as this relative to school-based or formal education “inspires creativity and a lot of intangibles. You always, like in schools, like they are measuring the tangibles, they never measure the intangibles and they wonder why nobody can think critically.”

What did food justice look like in the organization and what was being presented publicly as good food justice impacts? In the organization’s annual report for the year of this program, it stated,

Teaching youth how to connect the dots between food, health, community, and the environment is at the heart of our after-school and education programs. Through hands- on cooking and gardening activities, we’re teaching kids how to grow, cook, share, and advocate for good food for all, and fostering the next generation of empowered, food- literate citizens. (CBO annual report, 2013, p.10)

The annual report also shares the following statistics: “100 % of [LiFT] program graduates want to incorporate more fruits and vegetables into their diet” and “95% of participants learned something new about cooking healthy meals in their cooking programs,” with my emphasis in italics. It also shared that “89% of all program participants surveyed have made friends with other participants” at the CBO, and “81% feel that they belong to a community there.” It is curious to find these statistics listed because these were not all questions that were directly included in the exit interviews, so it is not clear how the numbers were ascertained. The first two statistics do not reflect a deep connection to food justice, but rather the basic set of healthy eating and cooking skills and knowledge.

Analysis of the interview transcripts, field notes and program documents revealed an emerging sense of civic engagement in the youth participants centred within the realm of food. Various forms of engagement in society were expressed, especially in the linkages participants touched on between the Food Stories activity. While participants may engage in civic actions more deeply or clearly in the long term, that engagement is not within the scope of this study. Instead,

190

in the short term, it is worth focusing on community building that grows from personal experiences. Because the stories they shared were about food, by nature this may lead the participants to consider deeper and broader social and environmental issues that would be connected to their thematic webs. This learning, sharing and co-creating can be categorized through the youth participation ladder (Botchwey et al., 2019) as higher-level civic participation. Through analysis with Levinson’s (2010) framework for democratic participation, it could be said that the pedagogy of the Food Stories provided knowledge on a need-to-know basis because the facilitator was not epistemologically privileged, and, in fact, was only marginally involved at the beginning of the activity. This arrangement theoretically lays the groundwork for egalitarian democratic participation to enhance change, though political literacy is assumed (Levinson, 2010). The political literacy assumed here is the collaborative skills of listening, sharing and drawing connections between knowledges.

In addition, the skills orientation that overrides and may even preclude a deeper analysis of broader systems engagement, has the potential to contribute to problematic socio-environmental outcomes that have already been identified by diverse stakeholders and social justice organizations. As mentioned with regard to my own positionality and choice of research topic in Section 4.4, it may be seen as a privilege to trouble and challenge systemic issues through action. However, it is also a privilege to choose not to challenge them at all. The lack of critical engagement in society was perhaps a privilege, as well as a deficit, of a view of youth as not having the same level of power as adult community members. The staff of the CBO, including Shirley and the advocacy staff, had a view that youth could not participate, which could be as their privilege to not see the value in youth critical advocacy work. Without a critical lens, food literacy has the potential to reinforce the status quo instead of acting as a vibrant, diverse, and rich area for curricula and student engagement, as noted in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.2.

As the program manager, Roxanne had wanted to push participants beyond food skills acquisition, into deeper understandings of food systems, acknowledging the constraints of time and the need to keep participants interested in food preparation. She commented:

191

I guess the other thing I’m thinking about a lot is how do we get the girls thinking about broader food systems issues? Some things are really easy to connect to in a real tangible way, but how do we get them thinking about some of that broader stuff, given the time constraints, given the fact that you feel you need to do food prep every single session, and you see that with attendance (June 10, 2013).

While she saw the value in programming focusing on food preparation, Roxanne tentatively imagined the possibilities for critical food systems engagement within the current program delivery, due to time constraints, and the lived realities of the teenage girls:

How do you integrate [critical food systems literacy] into your life so that you’re looking for that information and asking those questions again and again, after the program is over? How do you set up spaces where you can have conversations with your friends and families and the school and so on? Part of me is like, let’s spend time thinking about how to get the girls up to that, but on the other, I’m realizing that it takes a long time. Shirley was spending a lot of time working on getting the girls ready to do presentations in their schools, and I think that was unwieldy ... to get someone to that level. It’s kind of like what we were talking about earlier about how do you train volunteers to develop content, curriculum content? You can’t, and the same thing with the girls. To get them ready to the point that they can even do that kind of presentation, you have to invest a lot, a lot of time, and is it worth it? What are they not able to access if you are spending all that time?

This was an indication of how Roxanne saw the importance of LiFT as a food justice education program, in that she seemed concerned that despite LiFT being a leadership program, participants will learn presentation skills elsewhere, such as in school, but that they will not likely get the food-related content elsewhere. An area of further study is the role of the activity in building community within the group and how it contributed to the further expressions of interest in other CBO program activities, such as volunteering in the food bank, community gardening, or working with seniors.

She continued, noting,

192

...maybe if integration is what you are looking for, then something much smaller is the goal. So it’s not a huge achievement up here [raises hand up high], but it is something that is sticking with them through the rest of their lives. And I personally think, in terms of impact, that’s the right thing.

Here she was drawing on her understanding of social change theory, noting that deeper, longer- term impacts were more sustainable and transformative then short term, big impacts, like giving presentations to groups of peers. In many ways, the literature on civic engagement and environmental education supports these sentiments, that incremental change and choices can lead to more lasting effects for individuals and communities (Martusewicz et al., 2015; Thomashow, 1996).

7.4.4 Structures in Food Justice Education

An institution represents the formalization of practices. The institution is both the physical manifestation of the program as well as the structures that are in place to guide, form and delineate programming. Policies, curricula, day-to-day activities and various outcomes are all part of the institutionality of a space. Institutional structures and practices help to form and are formed by the culture of an institution. This culture can be fluid over time, and depend on such factors as the leadership, funding and other material supports, but often core values, the mission statement, and mandate can form the institutional structure of a space. This means that while there is a human influence on the structures, the structures imposed by the institution are equally impactful on humans.

Institutional culture can be interpreted as part of the tacit, hidden or unspoken curriculum. There were many aspects of the CBO from an institutional or structural perspective that had an impact, either overtly or subtly, on both the curriculum enacted by facilitators and the experiences of the program participants. These challenges may have impacted the participants’ identity development, agency development and community building in relation to food justice education. Participant retention, relationships with schools, and resource issues emerged as major challenges within the institution.

193

7.4.4.1 Participant Retention

The organization, and the program by extension, had a mandate to connect to the local community, with a focus on newcomer, minority and/or low-SES teen girls. The aim was to foster connections to community in place with dynamic programming, content, and spaces. A group of teen girls from four different high schools in the neighbourhood was welcomed to the program. While they all went to school within the official neighbourhood catchment area, they lived at various distances from the program centre. Several participants throughout the program commented that their attendance could be more regular or less stressful if tickets for the transit system were offered. When I addressed this concern with the program facilitator, she explained that it was not normal practice for the organization to offer a subsidy or coverage of transit fares to the programs because they could not guarantee that they would have the funding to offer tokens over the long term. Instead, they chose to not offer to cover fares at all. And yet the youth complained that they could not come to the program consistently because they did not have the ability to get there and home. The resulting fluctuations in attendance negatively affected the programming and overall outcomes of the program. In addition, when one of the participants, Felicia, was very enthusiastic about inviting two of her friends to join, she asked the facilitator, Shirley, if they could come, but Shirley said the program could not accommodate more participants, because they went to a high school outside of the program boundaries, further east in the city. This response was an indication of the control that funding envelopes had on programming, and that a participant’s neighbourhood was more important than filling the program.

These challenges of boundary and location were subsequently documented as being detrimental to the program (Goldstein, 2013) and, eventually, the program went on hiatus for a few years. It has since been revitalized in a new location and open to young women and men. I can’t comment directly on the new incarnation of the program but can only draw some loose connections based on my own observations and experiences. In summary, the program is claiming an institutionally objective audience, and yet was not supporting the needs explicitly expressed by the participants, because of funding issues, both allocation and lack, and donor expectations.

194

7.4.4.2 Relationship with Schools

As a non-formal education program, there was still a need to form a relationship with the local high schools, in part to aid in recruitment and also to support the youth in having some of the LiFT activities, such as working in the food bank, working with the younger children or flyering in the community recognized as volunteer hours toward the volunteer hours they need to complete in order to get a high school certificate. To facilitate collaboration between schools and community organizations, there may be a formalized agreement or arrangement, which may enhance participant experiences by adding validation and reinforcing goals. Goldstein (2016) commented on “a lack of institutionalization between the [food justice education] program and participating schools” (p.195), which is not uncommon among afterschool programs and local schools. While guidance counsellors or even the principal may have been the primary contact for recruitment, there was very little follow-up, if any, on their students’ participation. This lack of institutionalization meant that participants had to do much of the work as intermediaries among themselves, teachers, and administrators. The fact that the youth were not receiving support from their schools or the program in interfacing between the two was made apparent when they spoke about finalizing their volunteer hours documentation and getting it time to present at their schools. As well, getting access to ways of sharing their learning was limited by what the girls could facilitate on their own, with their individual teachers, except in one case where the principal of the all-girls school was very supportive from having built a relationship with the previous program facilitator. Shirley spoke about that principal requesting more presentations from the girls from her school in their classes to share what they had learned and saying that she was very impressed with them. The principal reiterated this to me too. She had seen the girls who completed LiFT alumna give presentations in years past, with the previous facilitator. Shirley expressed a lack of confidence in being able to coordinate these activities with the girls, and that she was not certain that the participants who were newer to the program would be comfortable to do this, even though she considered it an important part of program. This example shows that the resources of LiFT had limitations to working with the demands and curriculum of partner schools. Similar to the greenhouse example described in previously by Patricia, the limitations of

195

LiFT to be responsive internally as well as human and material resources, impact the youth participants.

It is interesting to note that one of the feeder schools had offered to send more English Language Learners (ELLs) to the program because its administration believed that LiFT would be a good program for newcomers; however, Shirley admitted to me that she did not feel comfortable as a facilitator when there were many ELL students. She did not believe that she or the program had the resources to meet their needs. It should be noted that Sandra was a self-identified ELL student and admitted that she did thrive in the program. It might be useful for the program to revisit what resources are assumed to be needed for ELL students to succeed and evaluate them in terms of how the program itself supports their needs.

7.4.4.3 Staffing and Funding

At times, the staff turnover and underfunding at the CBO took its toll on programming. There were several occasions when LiFT participants found that meeting rooms or the kitchen were double-booked, including one time when the program was bumped from a reserved room by a Board meeting. This may be connected to technology challenges, mentioned previously. When last-minute meeting space changes happened, we would scramble at the last minute to adjust the programming plan. The resulting chaotic scramble for space presented as a devaluing of the youth program, especially in relation to the adult and mainly white and male bodies that came to occupy the space in the place of the youth. At times, scheduling was simply too complicated due to the tension of competing purposes and programming priorities. For example, there were two professional chefs at the CBO, one of whom was meant to be assigned to our program for cooking support. On several occasions they were pulled away due to scheduling conflicts. During one meeting, our program plan was usurped by a catering request, so the chef and his team took over the kitchen for that purpose. Another time, the chef was involved in a project at the CBOs satellite site with a kitchen, and she was not able to return in time for our program.

Roxanne added understanding to the concept of the impact of funders’ expectations and priorities on programming:

196

people get caught up in the idea of “what funders want ...” and yes, they do, and yes you have to respond to that, but it’s also a community. Resources for the kind of program we are doing are very scarce. If we are getting money ... let’s get right down to it ... if we are getting money, it’s not just from our funders. It is from our community. If we weren’t doing our programming, that money could go to something else, and so if you’re a community member, you’re saying “wait a moment, you’re running programs here, and because you are running this programming that only serves three people, that means that I and 15 of my neighbours can’t get access to this other program.” So it’s not just about funders. It’s about are we reaching enough community members who need our services, or are we, by running very small programs, are we excluding a whole bunch of people?

She reflected that funders are likely more interested in community impact over individual impacts. She noted, “Whether it’s easier to communicate that five girls did a presentation to 100 of their classmates, that I think works better for funders, than, say five girls changed their diet.” Regardless, the ability to deliver food justice education programming was hampered by staffing and funding issues.

7.4 Summary

This chapter discussed the experienced outcomes of participation for female youth and the program staff in the food justice education program at a community-based organization in an urban centre. I shared the experiences of the participants, based on interviews and observations, along with my perceptions of the projects and products of the programming as enacted. This chapter also created space for practitioner reflections of their own and the experiences of the participants in the program.

Using an ecojustice framework for analysis, I have begun to conceptualize the notion of the institution, in its various and nuanced forms, based on how it emerged as a factor in how practitioners and participants experienced the program. I drew on the data and the literature to show my perception of the influences and challenges that the institutionality of the program

197

presented for the program participants. For this food justice education program, I discussed the role of funding priorities as being both responsive and challenging to ecojustice education.

Chapter 8 Just Desserts: A Synthesis of Food Justice Education Through Ecojustice Analysis

Ceci n'est pas une pomme (This is not an apple) – René Magritte, 1964

199

8.1 Introduction

I have begun the synthesis and analysis chapter with an image rather than a quote, a variation on the notion of text, from a critical discourse analysis perspective. This image by René Magritte Ceci n'est pas une pomme (This is not an apple) was created in 1964. I have selected it to provoke the notion that food is much more than food. This image of an apple is not in fact an apple at all but a cultural product of a representation of an apple. And by extension, an apple is not just the material, chemical and biological entity that may sit before us, but rather constitutes much broader systems at work to arrive in the moment of being an apple for human consumption. I extend this notion further to encompass our consideration of food justice education, as I do so through this chapter.

This research project presents a snapshot of one education program at one community-based organization for one group of teenage women. It represents a slice of time, space and place with a focus on the envisioned, enacted and experienced (3E) curriculum in one program for food justice education, LiFT. Below, I outline the ways in which an ecojustice lens and the 3E interpretive model offer complementary analysis into food justice education, as well as the challenges these perspectives presented. I use the ecojustice integrated framework to reflect on and interpret the affordances of and elements missing from the program.

8.2 The 3E Model as an Interpretive Tool for Ecojustice

The 3E model, using the thematic delineations of the envisioned, enacted and experienced curriculum, offered insight to food justice education, providing a framework for assembling and accessing meaning in the data. Ecojustice education is meant to engage educational efforts of learners, educators, and members of the local community in collaborative learning toward revitalizing the local commons (Martusewicz et al., 2015). This interpretive tool brought some strengths to the analysis of the data, while at the same time it created some challenges to the narrative of the LiFT program offered by the CBO. I expand on the strengths and challenges that the ecojustice model of analysis brought to the program below.

200

The strengths of the 3E model are its ability to highlight the connections and distinctions between the intentions of the programming and the perceived outcomes, offering a way to note the factors that may have influenced each one. This model also provides a way of showing the expectations, experiences and interpretations of various research participants, from the program organizers, a volunteer and the youth group members, in a programmatically linear manner. This approach has some utility in producing a richly woven narrative. In highlighting the reproduction of linear program planning, it also helps to draw attention to how well the program foci align with the delivery model and the constraints of the larger education system, including the formal education system. For example, the Land, Food and People curriculum (Appendix F) leading to the Hosting a food stories event was planned in a linear fashion, with prescribed components (introduction by facilitator, poster- and connection-making, youth planning and delivery of a cooking workshop of their choice). It was envisioned, enacted and experienced in a way that was fairly responsive to the objectives of the program, as outlined in Chapter 7. The 3E model also offered opportunities for clarifying and delineating the roles and practices of different actors in the curriculum experience, for example how volunteer Sharron was able to step into gaps left by some of the CBO organizational challenges, to help the curriculum carry through the 3Es. In this way, the linearity of the 3E model shed light on the ways that non-formal education may envisioned curriculum that needs community to come together to enact it, in line with ecojustice goals. The 3E model with its linearity highlights how non-formal education may reproduce some of the systemic challenges of social and environmental inequity which ecojustice education seeks to dismantle, such as setting limitations on empowerment of participants while also highlighting short-term outcomes over long-range engagement in community.

There are also challenges and drawbacks to the 3E interpretive model from an ecojustice education perspective. It creates some artificial boundaries: where do the spaces of envisioned- enacted-experienced curricula begin and end? Time and space are bounded arbitrarily among the categorizations. At times during the data analysis process, the 3E perspective felt like a rigid, inorganic structure, given the rich and complex histories, personalities and human experiences involved. As well, there was much overlap and iteration in the programming process, and envisioning was a shifting concept. In part this was a function of the goal of providing authentic

201

leadership opportunities to the youth, such as when the LiFT girls worked with the younger children on their food stories – this was not part of the initial envisioned curriculum but evolved organically through enactment. Also, some of the curriculum plans and objectives, such as the vision of the post-programming youth advisory committee, discussed in Chapter 5, tended to get buried through the 3E model. More of these types of leadership opportunities were requested by the girls, both within and beyond the program. As became evident in both the envisioned and enacted curriculum, being attentive to the interests of the participants was at times privileged over overt programming objectives, and at other times the interests expressed by participants were set aside in lieu of what the facilitator perceived as more pressing programming objectives. In this way, the envisioned curriculum was predicated on imagined experienced curricular moments. Yet, the enacted curriculum, impacted by multiple factors, did not necessarily lead to these experienced curricular moments. In addition, the experienced curricular moments were at times based on inputs that were not planned, such as the gathering of bodies and lived experiences brought in by recruitment. The personalities and lived realities of the young women could not be planned for, and from a place-based perspective, these are certainly impactful (Gruenewald, 2003).

Building on the notion of iteration, the 3E model does not consider the possibility that the act of envisioning the curriculum may actually impact the enactment of and experience of curricular moments. There is a complexity that is lost with this model. The envisioning process was largely explained here through the lens of the facilitator Shirley and her manager Roxanne; however, the youth participants came to the program with their own visions of their participation and what they might do, learn and gain from it. From an EJE perspective, we would need to acknowledge the agency and value that participants bring to enriching the program, as well as their desired outcomes of participation.

The overt constructions of envisioned, enacted and experienced curricula can create the challenge of diminishing the space for observing a hidden curriculum, the unconscious assumptions that are carried into learning spaces every day. Structural, systemic and intersectional oppressions such as racism, misogyny, classism, heteronormativity and ableism can be hidden by a presumed linearity. Given my position as a participant-observer, and my role

202

as researcher-facilitator, as well as having spent the previous two years in the same position, there was much opportunity for reflective practice, as well as moments of confusion or messiness in the roles. My impetus to attend to the goals of both researcher and educator/co-facilitator put me in a position, akin to action research, whereby I could provide guidance to the facilitator Shirley (Atweh, Kemmis, & Weeks, 1998). I had the privilege of a longer-range rear-view than she did for this program, and I was also attentive to the goals of the program (envisioned curriculum) while trying to be present to the experienced curriculum of participants. Ecojustice might say this triple role I took up of the educator-mentor-researcher put me in a position to work in the in-between, interstitial spaces of the 3Es, aware equally of participant and curricular goals, understanding community boundaries and potentials (Martusewicz, Edmundson & Lupinacci, 2015).

Overall, what an ecojustice analysis of the 3E model conveys is the strength in how program planning with a social justice agenda must leave room (time and space) for inputs of the constructed community (member voices) in place or there may be discrepancies between the envisioned and experienced curriculum, due to challenges in enactment.

8.3 Food as/for Ecojustice Education

Ecojustice education is shaped by an understanding that local and global ecosystems are essential to all life, challenging the deep cultural assumptions underlying modern thinking that undermine those systems, and the recognition of the need to restore the cultural and environmental commons (Martusewicz et al., 2015). Each of these assertions was met by this program to various degrees. Below, I provide wider and deeper analysis of the potentials and well as the critiques, through an ecojustice education lens, that may be gleaned from this food justice education ethnography.

8.3.1 Potentials and Possibilities

There are numerous aspects of the multi-faceted curriculum of food skills and knowledge, ranging from highly utilitarian and pragmatic food practices, such as cooking to highly abstract conceptual understandings of the many moving parts of food systems. Much of the research from

203

various disciplines tells us this and the participants of this research have confirmed it; around cooking, discussing food connections and issues, and eating (Fordyce-Voorham & Lai-Yeung, 2015; Korzan & Webb, 2014; Vigden, 2016). A variety of pedagogies and structures were in place supporting food justice education for the LiFT participants, ranging from physical spaces and tools to policies and practices. Upon a review of the envisioned, enacted and experienced curricular moments of the youth and adult participants, there were several elements of food justice education that were present, including community building, exposure to food systems issues and development of identity and agency connected to food issues.

One of the core outcomes of the program from an ecojustice perspective was community building. Despite arriving at the program for their own reasons, such as Sandra’s desire for English language practice and Felicia’s desire to cook more, the participants came together in a spirit of connection, and roots were planted deeper into the place of the community. This was done in part through the commensalism – the very act of cooking and eating together that took place every week. This may have been in part through the curriculum of food that moves fluidly through spheres of abstractionism, from highly material, in physiological response, to most abstract, as a socio-cultural construct, with layers of emotion and communalism in between. It seems to be a phenomenon that can be attributed to material learning, as in place-based practices (Sobel, 2004). In addition, as I reflected in Chapter 7, the more prolonged learning experiences, such as the multilayered food stories pedagogy, and the multiple opportunities with gardening in the community, afforded the young women with deeper growth and connections to each other and the community, as both that adults and youth observed and reflected. This outcome is similar to other research on community gardens (Williams, 2011).

The programming-participant tensions are in alignment with tensions expressed in other social justice-oriented spaces (Atweh, Kemmis & Weeks, 1998; Barton, 2003; Young, 2007). These spaces are operating within a larger socio-institutional system. The impacts of funder demands, physical space constraints, limitations on staffing capacity and access to resources, among others, were all at play in the programming and experiences of LiFT. These are not uncommon constraints in community-based, non-governmental organizations and programs (Incite!, 2017; Sbicca, 2018). However, the particular holistic approach of the CBO offered opportunities that

204

can be seen as meeting the intentions of ecojustice education. The CBO addressed needs of community members from prenatal stages to seniors. It offered culturally relevant programming to Indigenous Canadians, new Canadians, and new mother groups. It offered gathering spaces for discussing issues of the community and for advocating to various levels of government. The LiFT participants came to see themselves in their community in new ways by taking up new roles, such as advocating for the CBO programs beyond the LiFT program when distributing flyers for the market, working with younger children to develop their food stories, interacting with people running and using the food bank and participating in community gardening projects. They recognized some of the spaces where they could take up leadership roles, and did so, such as Marsha volunteering at the children’s food camp after LiFT had ended. The collection of these activities enhanced their expressions of self-efficacy and agency both as individuals and as a collective as youth. These opportunities exposed the young women to the multi-pronged approach of the CBO to food justice and began to locate their position as youth within it.

As described throughout this dissertation, the intentions of ecojustice education are by nature complex and challenging. Engaging in such projects can seem daunting and can result in learners shutting down and rejecting such propositions, as has been found in similar environmental justice education projects (Orr, 2011). However, because food is integrated into everyday life, it is less abstract than grand concerns such as climate change and poverty. Food therefore offers opportunities for learners to engage at all ages and developmental stages with these larger ecojustice issues. The threads of connection that learners can grab and weave through programming and practice in food justice education appeared to be robust and vibrant, and participants in LiFT were given some opportunities to pick up some of these threads. Ecojustice education demands action, deconstruction of complex ideas and systems, acknowledgement of power structures, stakeholders and histories (Martusewicz, Edmundson & Lupinacci, 2015). Along with this comes the dismantling of such structures which cause damage to the human and more-than-human world, in a sustainable manner - for today and for the futures, with multiple alterities for which we can and must only imagine.

205

8.3.2 The Critiques of this Food Justice Education Case Study from an Ecojustice Perspective

As in other non-formal education settings, ecojustice-oriented education is bounded by the system within which it operates. An organization with a social justice orientation may therefore benefit from reflective practice to begin to dismantle structural and institutional barriers in order to support deeper transformation for both individuals and communities. The question remains, was LiFT able to deliver a curriculum of food justice education? In many ways, yes and in some ways, no. The critiques of LiFT that emerged most strongly as inhibiting envisioned, enacted and experienced food justice education, through the ecojustice lens, are those of hypocrisies of healthiness and funding, constructions of agency development for leadership and constructions of nature as a component of food. Each of these are explained in the sections that follow.

8.3.2.1 Hypocrisies in the Neoliberal System

The ecojustice lens sheds light on the impact of neoliberalism on the goals of social justice. There are several critiques that ecojustice may contribute to the institutional structures imposed on the envisioned, enacted and experienced curriculum of the LiFT program. These are constructions of health and healthiness as it pertains to food, its connection to consumer choice and modeled representation.

While the first program objective is “To increase participants’ skills, knowledge and behaviours around healthy food”, it was never deeply articulated what was meant by healthy. Co-opting health as an imperative for food literacy may marginalize aspects of students’ lives and may pathologize the individual and her available choices and cultural priorities in several ways. Youth often have limited access, financially and geographically, to fresh food on their own without involving their adult family members. The issue of cost was addressed minimally through the program, with the facilitator noting that organic items are often more costly than “regular,” although some participants began to note when they would see organic produce on sale. In addition, the location of the CBO, positioned in a food insecure neighbourhood predicated challenges that community members might encounter in accessing fresh food, such as being in a food desert (Allen & Guthman, 2006; Wrigley, 2002). This also undermines the

206

mental health aspects of eating cultural-rooted foods, in community. Without critical engagement in it as a construct, health may revert to a status quo of white, upper-middle class suburban Canadian. What is healthy as represented by this small group becomes imposed as “right” and “healthful” and food literacy becomes a tool of marginalization and oppression.

Additionally, this construction of health is assumed to be temporal and human-individual- centred. A sample conversation often sounded like: What makes a sandwich healthier? Add tomato and lettuce (organic preferably)! Instead of potato chips, eat kale chips! and so on. However, given the knowledge of food systems that was shared with the participants, through two overt workshop days and some other tacit references scattered throughout, this limited construction of healthiness does little to attend to program Objective 3, “To increase program participants’ capacity to apply new knowledge to take effective action on food system issues in their community.” The intersection of human and more-than-human health and sustainability was not discussed deeply with participants. On week six of the program, there was an introduction and some discussion of role, dependence on and treatment of migrant workers within the industrial food system, through the partial viewing of the documentary film Food Inc. However, no opportunities were presented for the youth to take action on the issues presented, despite the fact that several of the girls identified key centres for migrant workers as their countries of origin, such as Jamaica and Mexico. Furthermore, ecojustice would interrogate what it means to make a healthy choice for the local and global ecosystem, beyond the human individual.

Consumer choice was privileged as a mode of taking leadership and having agency during LiFT, as much reporting was done by staff on the choices for change elicited by the youth. With a focus on the individual, with goals of leadership and identity shifting toward having agency around food choices, as opposed to broader, more system issues of food-related injustices (e.g. food deserts, overconsumption, industrial agriculture), the program itself is reifying these problematic aspects of neoliberal structures and systems. Carolan (2016), drawing from the work of critical food studies scholars, brought attention to the focus on consumer-led social change that ignores deeper problems—such as the classist and racial/ethnic undertones (Alkon & Agyeman, 2011) and their non-reflexiveness (DuPuis & Goodman, 2005)—of these “buy our way out of it” approaches. Carolan noted that, contrary to the neoliberal narrative of formal

207

schooling, “being a good consumer is not the same as being a good citizen” (p. 154). As another example of the impact of programming within the social and public structures of the educational system, Allen and Guthman (2006) examined the growth of farm-to-school programs, showing how these initiatives are unique in that they unfold in the public realm by partnering food growers with the public school system, yet “must work within the contemporary context of neoliberalization, in which solving social problems is seen as the domain of individuals and the market” (p. 402). Allen and Guthman drew attention to the reproduction the tensions between goals of the marketplace and goals of social and ecojustice, in that farm-to-school programs both “enable and reflect neoliberalization,” specifically in their funding sources, labour practices, framings of academic performance and obesity, and emphasis on consumer choice. Lupinnaci and Happel-Parkins (2018) asserted that access to healthy food, clean water, and clean air is not only unjustly monetized in a capitalist culture, but they also maintain that solutions to social and environmental injustices too often stem from a neoliberalized ‘public good’ that further makes social justice and sustainability unlikely goals This in attention to the greater complexity of how food systems are situated in society and nature is likely in tandem with the next challenge as well, lack of resources.

Another challenge that results from the system within which the organization operates is the social reproduction of inequity of access to resources and opportunities for solution development. By and large, the staff and volunteers at the organization represented white and mainly female-identified bodies, while the community members for whom the programs were developed and offered were people of colour of all gender identities. As Paddeu (2016) found in her work in Detroit, “young, educated people, often living in the city center and interested in urban agriculture, also prompts a ‘whitening’ of the food justice movement” (p.28). Ideally a component of leadership development is that is it modeled by facilitators and staff, as mentioned in Chapter 6. Youth should be able to see themselves reflected in their role models (Chawla, 1998). Thus, there was a noted discrepancy between the target audience of the program, and the overall leadership of the CBO. Since the time of this research, work has been done to address this, including the hiring of previous program participants and other community members.

208

There was some acknowledgement of the performed hypocrisy of being a food justice organization that operates within a capitalist system, for example as program facilitator Shirley stated in an interview on June 4, 2013. External funds and fundraising are key to the function of the organization and its programming. As a non-governmental organization, grant applications, sponsorship development, and charity events are literally the bread and butter supporting programming and staffing. Shirley mentioned being at a lavish fundraiser with a lot of food on display: “People are pretty familiar with the CBO in the sense that a lot of those chefs have done fundraisers or helped out. The CBO has a bit of that reputation, but to me it was still at odds in so many ways”. The tickets to attend such a fundraiser tend to be around $100 per person, well beyond the range of access for the target clients of the organization. These were events that the youth may have encountered by passively being exposed to conversations about or advertisements for, but not invited to attend. This practice can be seen as normalizing social structures that reproduce the social inequities that create need for the CBO in the first place. It is contentions to be sure, as the fundraising projects made the programming possible.

8.3.2.2 Constructions of Agency

One of the goals and outcomes of youth participation in the program was the development of leadership skills. Leadership is connected to both sense of identity and agency development. As described in Chapter 5, the program was envisioned as giving girls the skills and knowledge to make change in their personal and home lives. Literature and past research points to the development of agency and empowerment around issues that grow out of knowledge building in their own lived realities (Bencze, Sperling & Carter, 2012). For example, youth who were given the responsibility of gathering data around their own waste production and water usage were then able to find ways of making their family aware of and motivated to reduce their waste production and water usage (Sperling & Bencze, 2010). Conducting primary research has been seen as a valuable tool to enable youth to build their capacity to make others aware of issues, key skills to leadership and identity-building as a leader. Furthermore, that ability to act on knowledge has also been shown to increase feelings of empowerment and counter sentiments of hopelessness (Orr, 2011). Supported by Davies et al. (2019), distinctive curricular and pedagogical preferences by educators are shaped by variations on socio-cultural context, forms of democracy, and

209

ideologies, which then influence the kinds of citizenship and democratic practices that are made available through programming. When the opportunity was suggested that youth might benefit from taking action around the food justice issues they identified themselves, there was pushback from the program leadership and other staff members that the youth lacked the readiness and capacity to do so, and that there was insufficient time and other resources to orient them adequately, which led to a non-commitment to facilitating an opportunity for civic action. This standpoint of the staff was supported, in part, referring to the attendance at the program being voluntary such that the youth were not all present every week. Ecojustice education would view this as a deficit approach to the youth participants, supported by Levinson’s (2010) frameworks, seeing their participation as flawed, as opposed to seeing it as an opportunity to spotlight the broader socio-cultural structures that interfere with their participation in the program, such as girls indicating their program attendance would benefit from access to public transit tokens.

We might also consider that the girls-only nature of the program was a challenge to agency development, in particular to food justice, as it may have served to reproduce historical dualism that positioned women as nurturers of household issues and domestic science, as opposed to men, who were positioned to be in the world (Martusewicz et al., 2015). Furthermore, this program did not attend to the growing opportunities for agency development, engagement and change-making that are available from a digital media perspective (Kahne, Hodgin & Eidmann- Aadahl, 2016). In prior deliveries of LiFT, the participants were encouraged to make digital artifacts, such as slide shows, blogs and videos, to represent and mobilize their learning from LiFT. This particular year these modalities were not made available to them, thus limiting their spheres and reach of knowledge sharing and civic engagement as agency development and leadership practice.

8.3.2.3 Constructions of Nature

Ecojustice has a very firm grounding in our human connection to nature, the more-than-human. Food is not possible without nature. Despite Star Trek: The Next Generation wooing viewers with the promise of “Tea: Earl Grey, hot” within moments of Captain Picard’s voice command (Roddenberry & Berman, 1991), it is not technically possible for food to materialize without the

210

complicated chain of events and inputs that involve living and non-living things working in a system. Morris (2017) speaks from the school of social ecology, noting that “humanity’s interaction or ‘metabolism’ with the material world not only provides human beings with their means of life … but also defines them -- as conscious and psychologically complex beings” (p.200-201). Thus, how we relate to the natural world helps to define how we relate to ourselves, individually and collectively (Hoeg, 2016). If we are exposed to and interact with food as a material distinct from its natural origins, then we are setting up a relationship of consumerism, disconnection and compartmentalization, as opposed to knowledge and action that is more fluid, complex and interrelated.

While there was a great focus on the social (and) justice aspects of the CBO’s work, and an introduction to the complex food systems components at play in our access to food, the program had only a limited focus on nature. For food systems issues, the approach from the Work Plan Appendix H) was to develop and plan a series of healthy cooking lessons and tie them to food systems issues (i.e., fast food vs. homemade). However, neither nature, nor the environment, nor ecology were listed in the overall program objectives or outcomes. It is interesting to consider that an increased knowledge of food systems issues is listed as the third program Objective, but the role of nature or the environment, and therefore our human connections to and impacts on it were not explicitly noted. Rather, the term sustainability was used instead to encompass these issues and was not contextualized.

The facilitator Shirley brought the concept of food as a product of the natural world into the program by engaging the youth in certain nature-based learning activities. These activities included planting, harvesting and vermicomposting in the greenhouse and in a community garden, and the youth also took part in a sprouting workshop and a seed bomb-making activity. Each of these activities gave them literal hands-on with living aspects of the food system, with seeds and plants. The seed bombs, sprouting and vermicomposting can be problematized from an ecojustice education perspective. All these activities positioned the participants as powerful and also as disconnected from the living entities with which they interacted. Drawing from the ecojustice lens, it is possible to understand why this may have happened, and how it may be interrogated. As Martusewicz et al. (2015) noted,

211

Western cultures may be quite accustomed to the idea that we should look out for ourselves first in order to succeed … members of ecological communities (including humans) depend upon one another, and that community wellbeing is essential to individual wellbeing. Such a position requires that we look carefully at the ways that we organize decision making in our communities or culture, and the sort of decision-making practices that could lead to a just and healthy society that is available for future generations. (p.31).

Reflecting on this, the reinforcement of the notion of humans as consumers of and more important than nature does not serve to deconstruct oppressive and non-sustainable practices and is not fully attending to food justice goals.

8.4 Summary

Ecojustice education gives weight to food justice education as a space and tool for learning. FJE has the potential to bolster the goals of ecojustice. Place-based pedagogy, among the implementations of ecojustice education, refers to and draws power from the materiality of teaching and learning. Ultimately the intentions of food justice education, broadly, and the LiFT program, benefit from the plurisensory experiences that food provides to program participants.

212

Chapter 9 Clearing the Table: Implications of this Food Justice Education and Research

The great joy of food activism – beyond that warm fuzzy feeling that comes from doing the right thing – is that it’s one of those rare areas where politics and pleasure can intersect.

Palassio and Wilcox, 2009, p. 11

9.1 Introduction

This project has taken on the goal of taking a wide lens on food justice education, filtering it down to one moment in time with an ethnographic case study, and stretching the lens back out to consider some meaningful implications from the findings. As I write this, food has become more prominent in both private and public spaces as a politicized, cultural and/or sustainability topic, through newspaper headlines, foodie hashtags, podcast subject matter, and on and on. In the midst of a pandemic, access to food and other issues of food security are heightened. Below I draw attention to the implications and recommendations of this research project in relation to non-formal and public education, the application of an ecojustice lens for analysis, consider future directions of research in this area and the limitations of this study. With the tools of food justice education through an ecojustice lens, I offer a new term and approach to teaching and learning, ScienCivic literacy, to refer to the powerful agentic role of the knowing-doing dialectic that can exist through food education and in other interdisciplinary spheres as well.

9.2 Implications for Non-formal and Public Food Education

In this section I attempt to close the loop of the literature review-research relationship. I offer insight on role of non-formal food education and connect to formal schooling and how policy may be implicated.

It is a great and perhaps impossible stretch to apply the findings of one ethnographic case study to a large-scale consideration of policy implications. Knowing this, I humbly consider that this

213

case study offers some congruence to more recent shifts in conceptualizations of food literacy and food justice in Canada. In the winter of 2012, Olivier De Schutter, the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, presented his report on food insecurity in Canada with shocking and humbling results: “a staggering one in 10 families, with at least one child under the age of six, were food insecure”, (United Nations General Assembly, 2012 p.4) meaning they don’t know where their next meal will come from, not to mention the complications of cultural and nutritional appropriateness. This data was based on 2008 figures, and may have doubled, or more, since that time. Perhaps in response to this, in June 2019, the Federal government announced the first ever Food Policy for Canada, stating:

Canadian foods are recognized worldwide for the highest standards of quality and food safety. Responsible for one in eight jobs across the country, our food sector is a powerhouse of the economy, particularly in our rural communities. However, more needs to be done to improve our food system. For example, too many Canadians cannot reliably access enough healthy food. Too many children are learning on empty stomachs. And we waste more than 11 million metric tons of food every year, worth nearly $50 billion. (Canada MoAAF, 2019, para. 1)

This policy initiative, with diverse stakeholder consultation and a sizeable chunk of funding at $134 million over the next five years, shows a considerable attempt to both name and make right the injustices that have existed and amplified through the food system in Canada. The stated vision for the Food Policy for Canada developed through these consultations is: “All people in Canada are able to access a sufficient amount of safe, nutritious and culturally diverse food. Canada’s food system is resilient and innovative, sustains our environment, and supports our economy” (Canada MoAAF, 2019, para. 4). This is beginning to show that public constructions of human health are changing.

Since the time of this research, Health Canada has released a new Canada’s Food Guide (2019), considered by many to be the “Bible,” or universally accepted standard, of healthy eating in Canada. The new food guide acknowledges that traditional foods, whole foods and portion control are more important to health than eating foods in the ratios previously depicted as slices

214

of a pie chart. The newer approach, shown in Figure 9.1, is much more holistic than the previously dogmatic version, with the tagline “Healthy eating is more than the foods you eat.”

Figure 9.1: A screenshot of the Canada’s Food Guide (2019) website, https://food- guide.canada.ca/en/.

When earlier versions of the Canada’s Food Guide were published, the influence of the Wheat Board and Dairy Board lobbies on what Canadians were recommended to eat was much greater. And yet research continues to show that “traditional” foods—foods that are traditional to ethnic and cultural groups from particular places of origin, i.e., rice for Asian people or wild game for Indigenous people—tend to be higher in fibre and lower in sugar than highly processed foods, and are much better choices for everyone better for heart and gut health.

215

Seed and Rocha (2018), in their pre-publication review of the latest edition of the Canada’s Food Guide (2019), discuss the sustainability of such a practice as a national food policy. They respond to Health Canada’s undertaking of the national dietary guide with a congruence of a national food policy, going beyond the micro level of food to the systems level. As they state, “Coherence between these two policies has the potential to position the role of diets as a core link between food systems and both human and ecological health” (Seed and Rocha, 2018, p.182). From Figure 9.1 we do not see overt public education on the broader systems issues of food in Canada. The launch of this new, digital food guide could have been an opportunity to invoke more sustainable systems awareness for Canadians. The renewed approach to food systems in Canada, with some attention to our impact on the environment, is a good starting point. Given the impact of the carbon footprint of agriculture, through the production of meat, fertilizers and transportation, more policy needs to be put into practice for Canada to come close to meeting Paris Accord targets in the fight to mitigate global climate change, enmeshed with food security issues.

9.3 Ecojustice Analysis and ‘ScienCivic’ Literacy– Beyond Food Justice

In the context of an urban, non-formal, diversely populated educational site in Canada, this research attempts to contribute to the literature in new ways through food justice education. As this research as shown through this case study, food justice education is an interdisciplinary field with potential for increased individual, social and environmental wellbeing, through knowledge and skill acquisition, leadership and agency development and civic engagement. To extrapolate on these potentials as a focus for other interdisciplinary learning fields, the term ‘ScienCivic’ literacy has come into existence. ‘ScienCivic’ literacy is a term that may be used to identify and understand the broader potential of embodied, material, systems- and action-oriented curriculum such as one focused on food.

The theoretical concept of ‘ScienCivic’ literacy can be (de)constructed in order to locate it within the broad spectrum of science education and citizenship ideologies, through the lens of ecojustice education. Figure 9.1 offers a conceptual image of ScienCivic literacy as a practice of ecojustice

216

education, emerging from and converging in these two educational spaces. While the discipline areas of citizenship education and science education have found historical separation, it is through ScienCivic literacy that they may find overlaps of goals and practice. This literacy modality is posited as a way of understanding an individual’s existence as an actor within the ultra-complex structures of food production, education, society and the environment. Through the engagement of the ecojustice lens, the development of ‘ScienCivic’ literacy has the potential to position acts of knowledge production as crucial sites of resistance to biopolitical struggles against oppressive forces in communities and society (Bazzul, 2016). By unpacking these emergent curricular moments, and through revisiting the literature review through the ecojustice education lens, I have postulated the notion of a ‘ScienCivic’ literacy as a means of naming the complexity of engagement with socio-techno-environmental issues, such as food, as a citizen.

Ecojustice • address systemic oppressions within social education and ecological systems Citizenship • build advocacy identity education Science • understanding content and interrelations about education the natural world ScienCivic • knowledge • skills literacy • actions

Figure 9.2: A conceptual graphic of ScienCivic literacy.

The goal here is to bridge the potential of non-formal place-based education with formal learning spaces and practices. This approach builds on the work of many, such as Hodson (2003, 2010),

217

who repeatedly calls to action through scientific literacy, and Barton’s (1998; 2001; 2003) research highlighting the role of science education as a social justice praxis. There are educational practices that already address the potential for what this project was illuminating. Citizen science (usually) is a place-based method for learners in formal and non-formal spaces to contributed to the scientific knowledge production (Karrow & Fazio, 2010).

This notion of ‘ScienCivic’ literacy may also be problematized. Ecojustice may suggest that connections and rooting through the language and history of scientific literacy continues to reproduce hierarchies, oppressions and mechanizations (deconstructing the parts from the whole) that have led to the socio-environmental challenges we continue to face (Martusewicz et al., 2015). However, I suggest a reappropriation of the language of scientific literacy as a space and structure for engaging with community and place-based knowledge production, within larger spheres of knowledges. By setting up a framework for ScienCivic literacy in teaching and learning spaces, as educators we are attending to learning as knowing and doing for the wellbeing of human and more-than-human communities.

9.4 Community-Institution Research Collaboration and Areas for Future Research on Food Justice Education

This research was based on the collaboration of a community organization and a university. There is growing attention to such types of partnerships, especially in spaces and with goals of social justice. Allen (2008) recommends that academics can tend to social justice issues more effectively if they “challenge standard ideological categories of inquiry and problem definition” (p. 159) and “design research projects that engage real people in their real lives” (p. 160). Bullard, Agyeman and Evans (2012), from the field of urban planning, work on the concept of ‘just sustainabilities’. Translated to education, this maps on very well with ecojustice. What they consider deeply important to their work is the theory and practice of building a sense of belonging for citizens in relation to place. Belonging develops such non-commodified aspects of community life such as connectedness, care and concern, collectivity and creativity (Bowers, 2002). It promotes engagement and empowerment. While these types of ‘soft’ goals have been historically excluded or marginalized in formal education spaces, I would like to investigate

218

further the value and impact of developing a sense of belonging through a food justice lens within formal schooling. This sort of project addresses several goals. First, it continues the work of equity and inclusion. Second, it could provide tangible skills to students in terms of food procurement and preparation. Third, it deconstructs the dominant discourses of neoliberalism and the individualization of access to resources. At this time of increasing scarcity and exclusion, teaching and learning through a curriculum of belonging, has many benefits, now and in the future. Thus far a curriculum of belonging has only carved a home in the Kindergarten curriculum (Ontario MoE, 2016). Much of the socio-political context of neoliberalism strips down community and belonging but we have an opportunity to rebuild and reinfuse this into education, in whatever form that may take.

I see value in more participatory action research with youth and educators. From an ecojustice perspective, it is very important to facilitate connections to power for participants, either through finding entry points into formalized structures, such as through a youth food policy council that is adjacent to municipal governance, or through networking and building community with those who have access to “adult-allotted” civic powers (Paraskeva-Hadjichambi et al., 2020). Ideally, I imagine more research taking place in schools and in non-formal education sites that is led by community members. Such research would be designed around local food-related issues and have tangible outcomes for change for co-researchers and community members. Additionally, with a longer and more resource-robust research trajectory, I would like to reconnect years later with participants of such a project to see what, how and why they are thinking about food justice issues now, and what they feel were influencing factors.

Critical food studies scholars have highlighted the significant ways in which local food initiatives are infused with neoliberal ideologies through an emphasis on consumer choice, localism, enterpreneurialism, and self-improvement (Alkon & Agyeman, 2011; Koç, Sumner, & Winson, 2012). These practices serve to reproduce the systemic oppressions to people, land and the more-than-human through our food systems and thus, as educators and citizens, we need to interrupt them and reorient ourselves as citizens for today and the future.

219

9.5 Limitations of This Study

In an attempt to complete this research loop, it is important to offer some reflection on the limitations of this study. Beyond the methodological limitations I described in Section 4.3.2, I have reflected on additional limitations. As with any ethnography, it was limited in the scope of experiences described by participants, both youth and adult, along with my own documentation and interpretation of them. The validity of the findings of this research is partially dependant on the veracity of what participants shared. Despite the length of time I spent in the program, with the participants, in the culture of the organization, there is always room for misinterpretation, for missed documentation and decontextualization. If I were to go back in time, I would want to also speak with the parents and family members of the youth participants, to get more insight on their leadership and agency, if any, that was being express by participants in the program.

I feel that my positionality posed some limitations on both the data collection, analysis and interpretation. I was located in a position of privilege and power, with access to certain resources such as connections to University programming supports and history with the organization. In addition, in the years following the data collection, I took up a role and identity as a teacher educator and teacher education researcher, in science and environmental education. This new identity shifted my perspectives on several aspects of the curriculum from which I had trouble disentangling, creating new biases and understandings that had not been present at the time of data collection and program participation. For example, my vision of food pedagogies as interdisciplinary modality for learning has been enhanced as I have been able to engage my own students in food-based learning and I have seen how they have grasped onto and become excited by this curricular approach. Since the time of this research, I have published an article in a practitioner magazine, Green Teacher, that draws on food as a means to teach for and about ecojustice education (Sperling & Inwood, 2016) and presented a conference paper as a chapter for publication on the use of food to deconstruct traditional notions of scientific classification (Sperling & Scharf, 2019). In addition, as a participant/co-facilitator, I was invested in the success of the programming and in providing the teens with positive outcomes. Some of this tension and dissention may be visible to the reader through the different stages of the dissertation.

220

There is a clear and extended passage of time from the data collection to the completion of this dissertation, from 2013 to 2020. This was a due to several factors, and the result of which added layer of complexity to the final writing, including shifts in my perceptions of the findings, popular attention to food justice issues and how they are framed, and the overall state of the world, which impacted my lens on the whole project.

An additional reflection on the limitations, is the use of ecojustice as a lens. Ecojustice while a powerful lens, offering deep critique of socio-ecological relationships and practices, is inherently going to find flaws and gaps in any institutions or systems that operate from anthropocentric spaces (Hoeg, 2016). Going into this research, I realized that ecojustice proved to be at odds at times with the realities of working with participants who were already marginalized by powerful socioeconomic structures, that using a lens that critiques systems may decontextualize the individual actors, and the localized curriculum, whose stories I was trying to tell in this case study.

Finally, I reflect that in our current pandemic state of social distancing, the joy of embodied research and learning in which I had the pleasure of participating, is now not possible. My heart breaks for the programs, both in schools and communities, that have been curtailed or even paused by the health risks of working elbow to elbow, cooking and eating together.

9.6 Conclusions

This research project, an ethnographic case study, represented one moment in time for food justice education. Through analysis with an ecojustice lens, I was able to make connections to broader issues of justice-oriented pedagogy, food as a curriculum of place and community, and non-formal education as a space for youth civic engagement. This integrated conceptual framework of environmental education as a sub-set of science education, civic education and social ecology theory, within a frame of critical place-based pedagogy, also shed some light on the challenges that were faced in one community-based afterschool program in the ability to attend to their overarching goals and objectives. Challenges of program structure, challenges of tension between social justice orientations and desired pedagogies, and challenges to

221

constructions of the human-nature relationship were all potentially problematic from an ecojustice perspective. Furthermore, this research articulates the reciprocal relationship of learning through food and learning for food justice, as a space for the development of ‘ScienCivic’ literacy, being the development of knowledge and skills for engagement in socioscientific issues.

A Digestif Epilogue: The State of Food Justice Education Today

Food justice is now, more than ever, on the radar of the general public. It is popping up in popular media, social media, in schools and in community organizations. It is on the agenda of national and international organizations (i.e., ISSC, IDS & UNESCO, 2016). Food justice issues are also being connected in popular media, through science, to global poverty, climate change and impacts on education, in Canada and internationally. In addition, scholars, the media and the public alike are beginning to pay attention to the role of access to good food as an index of intersectional oppression. (i.e., Carrington, 2019; Flowers & Swan, 2016; Koç, Sumner & Winson, 2012; Levkoe, Erlich & Archibald, 2019).

Formal learning in post-secondary institutions are offering more opportunities for students to engage in learning in and about food, addressing the multiplicities I have mentioned here from perspectives of health, both social and individual, technical and cultural. These foci on food may, hopefully have create desires and demand for such courses or at least topics addressed even more at the secondary and elementary levels. Ideally, this spreading of skills, knowledge and attitudes toward food justice will connect to diverse communities through policies and practices, as we have begun to see in Zero-Waste Movements, learning gardens pedagogies (Williams, 2017), and land-based learning (Reid et al., 2020).

As of this writing, food security continues to be at risk, perhaps now more than a few years ago. Climate change has impacted weather patterns and growing seasons. A global pandemic has deeply impacted the migrant worker population we so desperately rely on in Ontario, both their health and ability to be present due to a national border lock down. Access to food has been affected due to shortages which has increased the cost of what is available. Farming is becoming a less and less financially and ecologically sustainable practice. For these reasons and many more, food justice education needs to be on the forefront of our formal and non-formal curricula.

Food justice education is taking place in sites around the province and the country. One organization that started as a community-based initiative to attend to the needs of its local

223

community members has now branched out to offer and support similar sites across the country, with a central virtual and physical hub of information-sharing and support. This model of localized and networked social movement has an incredible potential to address socioenvironmental challenges in a world that is struggling against climate change, racism and a global health pandemic.

And so, we conclude our commensal meal. We may reflect on the ingredients, the sensory experience of consuming and we continue to digest, as the nutrients flow through our bodies to help power our human machine and nourish our spirit.

References

Abarca, M. (2016). Food consciousness: Teaching critical theory through food narratives. In R. Flowers & E. Swan (Eds.), Food pedagogies. (pp. 215–228). Ashgate.

Abram, D. (1996). The spell of the sensuous: Perception and language in a more-than-human world. Vintage.

Alkon, A. & Agyeman, J. (2011). Cultivating food justice: Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press.

Allen, P. (2008). Mining for justice in the food system: Perceptions and possibilities. Agriculture and Human Values, 25, 157-161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9120-6

Allen, P., & Guthman, J. (2006). From “old school” to ‘farm-to-school’: Neoliberalization from the ground up. Agriculture and Human Values, 23(4), 401–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-006-9019-z

American Psychological Association. (2009). Civic engagement. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/slce/civicengagement.html

Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, 3, 40-51.

Arnold, J. & Clarke, D. (2014). What is ‘agency’? Perspectives in science education research, International Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 735-754. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.825066

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. JAIP, 35(4), 216-224. https://lithgow- schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation_en.pdf

Atkinson, P. & Hammersley, M. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice (3rd ed.) Routledge.

Atweh, B., Kemmis, S. & Weeks, P. (Eds.), (1998). Action research in practice: Partnership for social justice in education. Routledge.

Barron, J. (2017). Community gardening: Cultivating subjectivities, space, and justice. Local Environment, 22(9), 1142-1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2016.1169518

225

Barton, A. (1998). Teaching science with homeless children: Pedagogy, representation, and identity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 379-394. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199804)35:4<379::AID-TEA8>3.0.CO;2-N

Barton, A. C. (2001). Science education in urban settings: Seeking new ways of praxis through critical ethnography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 899-917. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1038

Barron, A. C. (2003). Teaching science for social justice. Teachers College Press.

Baskin, C. (2008). Indigenous youth exploring identities through food security in Canada and Brazil. MAI Review, 3, Article 5. http://www.review.mai.ac.nz/

Bazzul, J. (2016). Ethics and science education: How subjectivity matters. Springer.

Beagan, B. L. & Chapman, G. E. (2012). Constructing ‘healthy eating’/constructing self. In M. Koç, J. Sumner, & A. Winson (Eds.), Critical perspectives in food studies (pp. 136-151). Oxford University Press.

Belasco, W. (2007). Appetite for change: How the counterculture took on the food industry (2nd ed). Cornell University Press.

Bencze, J.L, Sperling, E., & Carter, L. (2012). Students as socioscientific activists: Impetus from their primary & secondary research. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 129-148.

Bencze, J.L. & Sperling, E. (2012). Student-teachers as advocates for student-led research- informed socioscientific activism. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 12(1), 62–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2012.649054

Berry, W. (2000). Life is a miracle: An essay against modern superstition. Counterpoint.

Bissett, K. (2016, November 3). Escaped python ‘coiled’ itself around brothers, repeatedly bit them: New Brunswick court told. The Star. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/11/03/new-brunswick-brothers-killed-by- python-were-blue-court-told.html

Borghini, A. (2015). What is a recipe? Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, 28(4), 719-738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9556-9

Botchwey, N., Johnson, N., O’Connell, L. K. & Kim, A.J. (2019) Including youth in the ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 85:3, 255-270, https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1616319

226

Brady J. (2017). Trading the apron for the white lab coat: A contemporary history of dietetics in Canada, 1954 to 2016 [Doctoral Dissertation, Queen's University]. QSpace. http://hdl.handle.net/1974/15399

Brickhouse, N. W. & Potter, J. T. (2001). Young women's scientific identity formation in an urban context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8): 965–980. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1041

Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971-1002. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20241

Brown, S. L., & Ronau, R. R. (2012). Students' perceptions of single‐gender science and mathematics classroom experiences. School Science and Mathematics, 112(2), 66-87.

Bowers, C. (2002). Toward an eco-justice pedagogy. Environmental Education Research, 8(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620120109628

Bowers, C. (2004) Comments on David Gruenewald’s “A Foucauldian analysis of environmental education”. Curriculum Inquiry, 34(2), 223-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 873X.2004.00288.x

Burke, L. E. C.-A. (2014). Post-colonial science education: The challenge of negotiating researcher positioning. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 37(3), 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2013.824776

Cadieux, K. V. & Slocum, R. (2015). What does it mean to do food justice? Journal of Political Ecology, 22(1), 26pp. https://doi.org/10.2458/v22i1.21076

Çakır, E. (2014). Let’s cook together: Empowering intergenerational communication through cooking. Formazione & Insegnamento XII, (2), 16pp. Online: Pensa MultiMedia. https://doi.org/107346/-fei-XII-02-14_18

Calabrese Barton, A., Birmingham, D., Sato, T., Tan, E. & Calabrese Barton, S. (2013, Fall). Youth as community science experts in green energy technologies. Afterschool Matters, (pp. 25-32). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1016811.pdf

Calabrese Barton, A. & Tan, E. (2010). We be burnin: Agency, identity and learning in a green energy program. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 187–229.

227

California Academy of Sciences and the National Geographic Society. (2011). iNaturalist (1.20.11) [Mobile app]. www.inaturalist.org.

Canada. (2019). Introducing a Food Policy for Canada. Budget 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.budget.gc.ca/2019/docs/plan/chap-04-en.html#Introducing-a-Food-Policy- for-Canada

Canadian Ministry of Agriculture & Agri-Food [MoAAF]. (2019, June 17). “Everyone at the Table!” Government of Canada announces the first-ever Food Policy for Canada. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/agriculture-agri-food/news/2019/06/everyone- at-the-table-government-of-canada-announces-the-first-ever-food-policy-for-canada.html

Canen, A. (1999). The challenges of conducting an ethnographic case study of a United Kingdom teacher education institution. Journal of Teacher Education, 50(1), 50-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248719905000106

Caraher, M. (2016). Food literacy beyond the individual: The nexus between personal skills and victim blaming. In Vigden, H. (Ed.), Food literacy: Key concepts for health and education (pp. 118-133). Routledge.

Carolan, M. S. (2016). Embodied food politics. Routledge.

Carrington, D. (2019, July 16). True cost of cheap food is health and climate crises, says commission. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/16/true-cost-of-cheap-food-is-health- and-climate-crises-says-commission

Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin Company.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.

Chawla, L. (1998). Significant life experiences revisited: A review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity. Environmental Education Research, 4(4), 369-382. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462980040402

Colquhoun, K. (2007). Taste: The story of Britain through its cooking. Bloomsbury.

Conference Board of Canada. (2013). What’s to Eat?: Improving Food Literacy in Canada. https://appetite4change.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/cbofc-food-literacy.pdf

228

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada [CMEC]. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K-12. Ottawa: CMEC. Retrieved from: http://science.cmec.ca/framework/

Cummins, J. (2009). Supporting ESL students in learning the language of science. Research into Practice, Science. 4 pp. Pearson Scott Foresman. https://assets.pearsonschool.com/asset_mgr/legacy/200728/SciAut0404585MonoCummin s_844_1.pdf

Daniel, B-J. (2005). Researching African Canadian women: Indigenous knowledges and the politics of representation. In G. J. S Dei,. & G.S. Johal, (Eds.), Critical issues in anti- racist research methodologies (pp. 53-78). Peter Lang.

Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Woody, E. (2001). Is single gender schooling viable in the public sector? Lessons from California's pilot program. Final Report. Ford Foundation and Spencer Foundation.

Demers, S. & Bennett, C. (2007, June). Single-sex classrooms: What works? Research into Practice. Research Monograph # 4. Ontario Ministry of Education. Retrieved from: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/Demers.pdf

Davies, I., Evans, M., Fulop, M., Kiwan, D., Peterson, A., & Sim, J. B-Y. (Eds.), (2019). Taking action for change: Educating for youth civic engagement and activism. University of York. http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/148500/1/45102_Guide_complete_WEB_small.pdf

Dei, G.J.S. (2005). Critical issues in anti-racist research methodologies: An introduction. In G. J. S. Dei & G.S. Johal, (Eds.), Critical issues in anti-racist research methodologies. (pp. 1- 28). Peter Lang.

Dei, G.J.S. (2007) (Chap. 23) The denial of difference: Reframing antiracist praxis. In T. Das Gupta, C.E. James, R. Maaka, G. E. Galabuzi and C. Anderson (Eds.), Race and Racialization: Essential Readings (pp. 188-199). Canadian Scholar’s Press.

Delamont, S. (2017). Ethnography. In D. Wyse, N. Selwyn & E. Smith (Eds.), The BERA/SAGE handbook of educational research Vol. 2, (pp. 336-354). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473983953.n17 den Heyer, K. (2006). Defining presence as agents of social life and change. In G. Richardson & D. Blades (Eds.), Troubling the canon of citizenship education (pp. 85-102). Peter Lang.

Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. Macmillan.

229

DuPuis, E. M., & Goodman, D. (2005). Should we go “home” to eat?: Toward a reflexive politics of localism. Journal of Rural Studies, 21(3), 359-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.05.011

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario [ECO]. (2019). Agriculture. Retrieved from: https://eco.auditor.on.ca/learn-more/environmental-topics/agriculture/

Evans M., Evans R., & Vemic A. (2019). Youth civic engagement and formal education in Canada: Shifting expressions, associated challenges. In A. Peterson, G. Stahl & H. Soong (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of citizenship and education (pp.1-17). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-67905-1_4-1

Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997) Critical Discourse Analysis. In T.A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction. (pp 258–284). London.

First Nations Information Governance Centre [FNIGC]. (2018). NATIONAL REPORT OF The First Nations Regional Health Survey PHASE 3: VOLUME TWO. https://fnigc.ca/sites/default/files/docs/fnigc_rhs_phase_3_volume_two_en_final_screen. pdf

Flowers, R., & Swan, E. (2012). Pedagogies of doing good: Problematisations, authorities, technologies and teleologies in food activism. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 52(3), 532-572.

Food Secure Canada. (n.d.) What is food justice. In Food Justice. Retrieved from https://foodsecurecanada.org/community-networks/food-justice

Fordyce-Voorham, S., & Lai-Yeung, T. W. L. (2016). Developing food literacy through the education sector: A focus on home economics. In H. Vidgen (Ed.), Food literacy: Key concepts for health and education. (pp. 165-185). Routledge.

Fox, M., Mediratta, K., Ruglis, J., Stoudt, B., Shah, S., & Fine, M. (2010). Critical youth engagement: Participatory action research and organizing. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney- Purta & C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 621-649). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470767603.ch23

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.

Freire, P. (2014). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury.

230

Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25(1), 99–125.

Gibson-Wood, H. & Wakefield, S. (2012). “Participation”, white privilege and environmental justice: Understanding environmentalism among Hispanics in Toronto. Antipode. 45(3), 641-662. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01019.x

Ginwright, S., & Cammorata, J. (2007). Youth activism in the urban community: Learning critical civic praxis within community organizations. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(6), 693-710.

Goldstein, S. (2016). Youth and food literacy: A case study of food education at the Stop community food centre. In J. Sumner, (Ed.), Learning, food, and sustainability: Sites for resistance and change. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53904-5_10

Gottlieb, R. (2010). Food justice: Why we need a community empowerment and social change agenda. Solutions: For a Sustainable and Desirable Future, 1(2), 51.

Gruenewald, D. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3-12.

Hammersley, J., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice. 3rd Edition. Routledge.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science. 162(3859), 1243–1248.

Harris, C. E. & Barter, B.G. (2015). Pedagogies that explore food practices: Resetting the table for improved eco-justice. Australian Journal of Environmental Education. 31(1), 12-33.

Health Canada. (2019). Canada’s Food Guide. Retrieved from https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/. Ottawa: Government of Canada.

Higgins-D’Allesandro, A. (2010). The transdisciplinary nature of citizenship and civic/political engagement evaluation. In L. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth. (pp. 559-592). Wiley.

Hobbis, C. (2016). Access Rerooted in Play. Ecosource. https://ecosource.ca/wp- content/uploads/Access-ReRooted-In-Play.pdf

Hobbs, L., & Davis, R. (2013). Narrative pedagogies in science, mathematics and technology. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1289-1305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012- 9302-5

231

Hodson, D. (1994). Seeking directions for change: The personalisation and politicisation of science education. Curriculum Studies, 2(1), 71-98.

Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education. 25(6), 645–670.

Hodson, D. (2010). Science education as a call to action. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education. 10(3), 197-206.

Hoeg, D. G. (2016). Constitutions of nature by teacher practice and discourse in Ontario grade 9 and 10 academic science. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto]. TSpace. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/76492

Hummel, D., Jahn, T., Keil, F., Liehr, S., & Stieß, I. (2017). Social ecology as critical, transdisciplinary science—Conceptualizing, analyzing and shaping societal relations to nature. Sustainability, 9(7), 1050-1070. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9071050

Incite! (2017). The revolution will not be funded: Beyond the non-profit industrial complex. Duke University Press. https://doi- org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1215/9780822373001

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. (2019, August). Climate Change and Land, an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/

International Social Science Council [ISSC], Institute of Development Studies [IDS] & UNESCO. (2016). Challenging inequalities: pathways to a just world. World Social Science Report 2016. UNESCO Publishing, Paris.

Ivers, L. C., & Cullen, K. A. (2011). Food insecurity: Special considerations for women. The American Journal Of Clinical Nutrition, 94(6), 1740S–1744S. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.111.012617

Jamal, S. (2005). Critical ethnography: An effective way to conduct anti-racist research. In Dei, G. J. S. & G.S. Johal, (Eds.), Critical issues in anti-racist research methodologies (pp. 225-240). Peter Lang.

Jagger, S. (2016). “It’s more like what you think of land”: Bringing together community and education through mapping. LEARNing Landscapes, 10(10), 105-124.

232

James, CE. (2001). Multiculturalism, diversity and education in the Canadian context: The search for inclusive pedagogy. In C.A. Grant & J.L. Lei (Eds.), Global constructions of multicultural education: Theories and realities. (pp. 175-204). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publ.

Janks, H. (1997). Critical discourse analysis as a research tool. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18:3, 329-342. https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630970180302

Jubas, K. (2016). If I am what I eat, who am I? How critical shopping teaches adults about food, identity and social change. In E. Swan & R. Flowers (Eds.), Food pedagogies. (pp. 131- 146). Routledge.

Kahn, R. (2010). Critical pedagogy, ecoliteracy, and planetary crisis: The ecopedagogy movement. In the series Counterpoints: Studies in the postmodern theory of education; v.359. Peter Lang Publishing.

Kahne, J., Hodgin, E., & Eidman-Aadahl, E. (2016). Redesigning civic education for the digital age: Participatory politics and the pursuit of democratic engagement. Theory & Research in Social Education, 44(1), 1–35.

Karrow, D. & Fazio, X. (2010). Educating-within-place: Care, citizen science, and ecojustice. In D.J. Tippins, M. Mueller, M. van Eijck & J. Adams (Eds.), Cultural studies and environmentalism: Cultural studies of science education, Vol. 3, pp. 193-214. Springer Science+Business Media B.V. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3929-3_16

Kennelly, J. (2009). Learning to protest: Youth activist cultures in contemporary urban Canada. The Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies, 31(4), 293–315.

Kenner, R. (Producer/Director) & Pearlstein, E. (Producer). (2008). Food Inc. [Motion picture]. Magnolia Pictures.

Kimmel, M. S. (2000). The gendered society. Oxford University Press.

Kimpson, S. (2005). Stepping off the road: A narrative (of) inquiry. In Brown, L. & Strega, S. (Eds.), Research as resistance: Critical, indigenous and anti-oppressive approaches. Canadian Scholar’s Press/Women’s Press.

Kincheloe, J. & Berry, K. (2004). Rigour and complexity in educational research: conceptualizing the bricolage. Open University Press.

233

Kirshner, B., Strobel, K., & Fernandez, M. (2003). Critical civic engagement among urban youth. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 1(2), 1-20.

Koç, M., Sumner, J., & Winson, A. (Eds.). (2012). Critical perspectives in food studies. Oxford University Press.

Koch P.A. (2016). Learning, food, and sustainability in the school curriculum. In Sumner J. (Ed.), Learning, Food, and Sustainability. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Korzun, M., & Webb, C. (2014). Opportunities to fill the gaps in knowledge about the impacts of food education for children and youth in Ontario. Guelph, ON: The Institute for Community Engaged Scholarship/Research Shop. www.theresearchshop.ca/resources

Kumashiro, K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 25-53.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2005). Differing concepts of citizenship: Schools and communities as sites of civic development. In N. Noddings (Ed.), Educating citizens for global awareness (pp. 69–80). Teachers College Press.

Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence? Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69-119.

Levkoe, C. (2013). Learning democracy through food justice movements. In C. Counihan & P. van Esterik, (Eds.), Food and culture: A reader, 3rd edition. (pp. 587-601). Routledge.

Levkoe, C. Z., & Stephens, A. (2009). From school meal programs to food citizenship: Doing food at George Harvey Collegiate Institute. In C. Pallassio, C. & A. Wilcox. The edible city: Toronto’s food from farm to fork. (pp. 238-245). Coach House Books.

Levkoe, C. Z., & Wakefield, S. (2014). Understanding contemporary networks of environmental and social change: Complex assemblages within Canada’s ‘food movement’. Environmental Politics, 23(2), 302-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.818302

Levkoe, C., Erlich, S., & Archibald, S. (2019). Campus food movements and community service-learning: Mobilizing partnerships through the good food challenge in Canada. Engaged Scholar Journal: Community-Engaged Research, Teaching, and Learning. 5(1): 57-77.

234

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 163–188). Sage.

Locally Driven Collaborative Project Healthy Eating Team [LDCP]. (2017, July). Food literacy for life - a call to action for healthy eating: using a food literacy framework for public health program planning, Policy, and Evaluation. Public Health Ontario [PHO]. 12pp. https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/ServicesAndTools/Documents/LDCP/Food%20Lit eracy%20Call%20to%20Action.pdf

Lock, R. (1990). Open-ended, problem-solving investigations - What do we mean and how can we use them? School Science Review, 71(256), 63-72.

Louv, R. (2006). Last child left in the woods: Saving our children from nature deficit disorder. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.

Lupinacci, J., & Happel-Parkins, A. (2018). Food for a common(s) curriculum: Learning to recognize and resist food enclosures. In S. Rice & A. G. Rud (Eds.), Educational dimensions of school lunch: Critical perspectives (pp. 91-115). New York.

Madison, D. S. (2005). Critical ethnography: Method, ethics, and performance. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452233826

Mares, T. M., & Alkon, A. H. (2011). Mapping the food movement: Addressing inequality and neoliberalism. Environment and Society, 2(1), 68-86.

Martusewicz, R. A., Edmundson, J., & Lupinacci, J. (2015). Ecojustice education: Toward diverse, democratic, and sustainable communities, 2nd edition. Routledge.

Martusewicz, R. A., Lupinacci, J. & Schnakenberg, G. (2010). EcoJustice education for science educators. In D.J. Tippins, M. Mueller, M. van Eijck, & J. Adams (Eds.), Cultural studies and environmentalism: Cultural studies of science education Vol. 3, (pp. 11-27). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3929-3_3

McGregor, K.R. (2012). Food leadership for youth. Women & Environments International Magazine, Fall2011/Winter2012, 88/89, 27-30.

McKenna, M. & Brodovsky, S. (2016). School food and nutrition policies as tools for learning. In J. Sumner (Ed.), Learning, food, and sustainability, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53904-5_11

235

Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (2008). Adult learning theory for the twenty-first century. Third Update on Adult Learning Theory. Jossey-Bass.

Merrifield, J. (2001). Learning citizenship. Discussion paper prepared for the Institute of Development Studies Participation Group. 36 pp. http://www.participatorymethods.org/sites/participatorymethods.org/files/learning%20citi zenship_merrifield.pdf

Mikulak, M. (2013). The politics of the pantry: Stories, food and social change. McGill University Press.

Miller, J. (2007). The holistic curriculum, second edition. University of Toronto Press.

Morris, B. (2017). Pioneers of ecological humanism. Black Rose Books.

Motta, R. (2016). Social mobilization, global capitalism and struggles over food: A comparative study of social movements. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315609539

Nieto, S. (2002). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives for a new century. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publications.

O’Donnell, J. & Kirkner, S.L. (2014). Effects of an out-of-school program on urban high school youth’s academic performance. Journal of Community Psychology, 42 (2), 176-190.

O’Donoghue, J.L., & Strobel, K.R. (2007). Directivity and freedom: Adult support of activism among urban youth. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(3), 465-485.

Ontario Ministry of Education [MoE]. (2008). The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 9 and 10: Science. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/science910_2008.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education [MoE]. (2009). Acting Today, Shaping Tomorrow: A Policy Framework for Environmental Education in Ontario Schools. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/teachers/enviroed/action.html

Ontario Ministry of Education [MoE]. (2013). Social Sciences Humanities - The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf

236

Ontario Ministry of Education [MoE]. (2016). The Kindergarten Program. https://files.ontario.ca/books/kindergarten-program- en.pdf?_ga=2.257068492.698178624.1541697706-360786519.1536166579

Orr, D. W. (2011). Hope is an imperative: The essential David Orr. Island Press.

Paddeu, F. (2016, January). From one movement to another? Comparing environmental justice activism and food justice alternative practices. justice spatiale | spatial justice, 9, 33pp, https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01507261/

Pallassio, C. & Wilcox, A. (2009). The Edible City: Toronto’s food from farm to fork. Coach House Books.

Paradowski, M. B. (2017). What's cooking in English culinary texts? Insights from genre corpora for cookbook and menu writers and translators. The Translator. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2016.1271735

Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, D., Goldman, D., Hadjichambis, A. Ch., Parra, G., Lapin, K., Knippels, M.-C. & Van Dam, F. (2020) Chapter 14: Educating for Environmental Citizenship in Non-formal Frameworks for Secondary Level Youth. In A. Ch. Hadjichambis et al.. (Eds.), Conceptualizing environmental citizenship for 21st century education, environmental discourses in science education, 4, (pp. 213-235). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20249-1_14

Pedretti, E., Bellomo, K. & Jagger, S. (2014). Explorations in secondary school science: Practice and theory 7-12. Pearson.

Philip, T. M., & Azevedo, F. S. (2017). Everyday science learning and equity: Mapping the contested terrain. Science Education, 101(4), 526-532. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21286

Pierce, C. (2013). Learning about a fish from an ANT: Actor network theory and science education in the postgenomic era. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10, 83–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-013-9498-3

Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. Peter Lang.

Pinnington, E. & Schugurensky, D. (2009). Learning citizenship by practicing democracy: International initiatives and perspectives. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

237

Pollan, M. (2008). In defense of food: An eater’s manifesto. Penguin.

Rahm, J. (2010). Science in the making at the margin: A multisited ethnography of learning and becoming in an afterschool program, a garden, and a math and science upward bound program. Sense Publishers.

Rahm J. (2012). Diverse urban youth’s learning of science outside school in university outreach and community science programs. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol. 24 (pp. 47-58). Springer.

Recipe. (2018, June 8). In Wikipedia. Retrieved June 19, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recipe

Reid, A., Lane, J-F., Woodworth, S., Spring, A., Garner, R., & Tanche, K. (2020). Leading on- the-land science camps with Indigenous youth: Towards reciprocity in research. The Solutions Journal, 11(1). https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/article/leading-land- science-camps-indigenous-youth-towards-reciprocity-research/

Reis, G., Ng-A-Fook, N., & Glithero L. (2015). Provoking ecojustice—Taking citizen science and youth activism beyond the school curriculum. In M. Mueller & D. Tippins (Eds.), Ecojustice, citizen science and youth activism: Situated tensions for science education, vol 1. (pp. 39-61). Springer.

Renwick, K. (2013). Food literacy as a form of critical pedagogy: implications for curriculum development and pedagogical engagement for Australia’s diverse student population. Victoria Journal of Home Economics, 52(2), 6–17.

Rhodes, J.E., Grossman, J.B., & Resch, N.L. (2000). Agents of change: Pathways through which mentoring relationships influence adolescents’ academic adjustment. Child Development, 71(6), 1662-1671.

Richardson, G.H. & Blades, D. W. (Eds.), (2006). Troubling the canon of citizenship education. Peter Lang.

Ridgeway, M.L., & Yerrick, R.K. (2018). Whose banner are we waving? Exploring STEM partnerships for marginalized urban youth. Cult Stud of Sci Educ. 13, 59-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9773-1

Roberts, W. (2013). The No-nonsense guide to world food: New edition. New Internationalist.

238

Roddenberry, G. (Executive Producer) & Berman, R. (Executive Producer). (1991). Star Trek: The Next Generation (Television series). Paramount Domestic Entertainment.

Roth, W-M., & Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. Routledge Falmer.

Rubin, B. (2007). There’s still not justice: Youth civic identity development amid distinct school and community contexts. Teachers College Record, 109(2), 449-481.

Rubin, B., Hayes, B., & Benson, K. (2009) “It’s the worst place to live”: Urban youth and the challenge of school-based civic learning. Theory into Practice, 48, 213-221.

Sakamoto, M. (2014). Forgiveness. HarperCollins.

Sbicca, J. (2018). Food Justice Now!: Deepening the Roots of Social Struggle. University of Minnesota Press.

Schindler, D. W., & Vallentyne, J. R. (2008). The algal bowl: Overfertilization of the world's freshwaters and estuaries. University of Alberta Press.

Schugurensky, D. (2003). Three theses on citizenship learning and participatory democracy. http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/research/clpd/lclp_intro.html

Seed, B. & Rocha, C. (2018). Can we eat our way to a healthy and ecologically sustainable food system? Canadian Journal of Food Studies. 5(3), 182-207. https://doi.org/10.15353/cfs- rcea.v5i3.258

Shiller, J. T. (2013). Preparing for democracy: How community-based organizations build civic engagement among urban youth. Urban Education, 48(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912436761

Shiva, V. (2005). Earth democracy: Justice, sustainability and peace. South End Press.

Shiva, V. (2016). Seed Sovereignty, food security: Women in the vanguard of the fight against GMOs and Corporate Agriculture. North Atlantic Books.

Smale, B., & Hilbrecht, M. (2016). Mapping the Canadian Index of Wellbeing to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Canadian Index of Wellbeing and University of Waterloo. https://uwaterloo.ca/canadian-index-wellbeing/sites/ca.canadian-index- wellbeing/files/uploads/files/ciw-mapping_the_ciw_to_un_sdgs-oct2016-final.pdf

Smith, W., Betrán, J, & Runge, E. C. A. (Eds.), (2004). Corn: Origin, history, technology, and production. John Wiley & Sons.

239

Snively, G., & Williams, W. L. (2016). Knowing home: Braiding Indigenous science with western science, book 1. University of Victoria Press.

Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classrooms & communities. The Orion Society.

Sperling, E., & Scharf, S. (2019, June). Methods & strategies for understanding diversity, social and cultural history in elementary Science: The nature of food classification. Presented at the Science Education Research Group [SERG] of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education [CSSE], Vancouver, BC.

Sperling, E., & Inwood, H. (2016, Fall). Ecojustice education through pictures. Green teacher. pp. 18-22. https://greenteacher.com/ecojustice-education-through-pictures/

Sperling, E., & Bencze, J.L. (2015). Reimagining non-formal science education: A case of ecojustice-oriented citizenship education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 5(3), 261–275.

Sperling, E. & Bencze, J.L. (2010). ‘More than particle theory’: Citizenship through school science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10(3), 255-266.

Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed. Sage Publications.

Stapleton, S. R. (2017). Food, identity, and environmental education, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 20, 12-24.

Statistics Canada. (2020, June 24). Food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic, May 2020. Catalogue no. 45280001. Government of Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/45-28-0001/2020001/article/00039- eng.pdf?st=DmC31uNM

Statistics Canada. (2017). Toronto [Census metropolitan area], Ontario and Ontario [Province] (table). Census Profile. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316- X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E

Sumner, J. (2016). Ch. 11 Learning to eat with attitude: Critical food pedagogies. In E. Swan & R. Flowers (Eds.), Food Pedagogies. (pp. 201-215). Routledge.

240

Suter, W. N. (2012). Introduction to educational research: A critical thinking approach. SAGE.

Thomashow, M. (1996). Ecological Identity: Becoming a reflective environmentalist. MIT Press.

Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2006). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books.

Turner, R. (2015). Teaching for EcoJustice: Curriculum and lessons for secondary and college classrooms. Routledge.

UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. (2009). Global Report on Adult Learning and Education, 12 & 14. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001864/186431e.pdf

Unger, J. (2016). The interdisciplinarity of critical discourse studies research. Palgrave Commun 2. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2015.37

United Nations General Assembly. (2012). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, Addendum: Mission to Canada. http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20121224_canadafinal_en.pdf

University of Minnesota [UMinn]. (2018). What is a logic model? Promoting the Wellbeing of Children, Youth, and Families. https://cyfar.org/what-logic-model van Laerhoven, F. & Ostrom, E. (2007). Traditions and Trends in the Study of the Commons. International Journal of the Commons, 1(1), 3–28.

Vigden, H. (2016). Food literacy: Key concepts for health and education. Routledge.

Wang, J. (2010). A seed library for heirloom plants thrives in the Hudson Valley. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/garden/07seed.html

Wever, C. (2015). Cultivating critical learning: Critical food pedagogy in FoodShare’s School Grown program. [Master’s Thesis, York University]. YorkSpace. http://hdl.handle.net/10315/34751

Weinstein, M. (2010). A science literacy of love and rage: Identifying science inscription in the lives of resistance. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education. 10(3), 267-277.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press.

241

Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004) What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237-269.

White, Lynn, Jr. (1967). The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science. 155(3767), 1203- 1207. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.155.3767.1203

Williams, D. (2011). Multiculturalism and sustainability education: Engagement with urban school communities via food and learning gardens. In T. McDonald, T. & G. Eisman (Eds.), Social responsibility and sustainability: Multidisciplinary perspectives through service learning. (pp. 146-164). Stylus.

Winne, M. (2008). Closing the food gap: Resetting the table in the land of plenty. Beacon Press.

World Health Organization. (2017). Climate change and human health: Biodiversity. http://www.who.int/globalchange/ecosystems/biodiversity/en/

Wrigley, N. (2002). ‘Food deserts’ in British cities: Policy context and research priorities. Urban Studies, 39(11), 2029 – 2040.

Yamashita, L., & Robinson, D. (2016). Making visible the people who feed us: Educating for critical food literacy through multicultural texts. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 6(2), 69-281. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2016.062.011

Young, P. A. (2007). Thinking outside the box: Fostering racial and ethnic discourses in urban teacher education. In R.P. Solomon & DNR Sekayi (Eds.), Urban Teacher Education and Teaching: Innovative Practices for Diversity and Social Justice. (pp. 109-128). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publ.

Appendices

Appendix A. Research Recruitment

1. Youth Recruitment Letter and Informed Consent Forms

[These were available in English (below) as well as Spanish, Portuguese and Tagalog, as per the home languages indicated by participants. Similar letters were provided to staff and volunteers.]

Dear Parent/Carer of [Participant’s Name],

My name is Erin Sperling and I volunteer at your daughter’s after-school program. I am a PhD student and researcher at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. As part of my program I am interested in the outcomes for youth participants in a program that promotes food leadership. I would like to collect information from your child regarding their participation in the program. With this information, I hope to develop my understanding of youth participation in the organization’s activities. I will ultimately use the information to create reports to be published in scholarly journals, and to present the outcomes at academic and practitioner conferences, as well as providing insight to the organization for programming, fundraising or other venues. Your child may benefit directly from the research by having the opportunity to reflect on her program experiences. A description of the data I hope to collect is provided below, along with my responsibilities for this research.

This is not a contract. Your child does not need to participate in all parts below. While you may sign this form, you or she can always opt out of any or all data-collection by simply notifying me verbally or in writing. There are no negative consequences for opting out.

Data Collection: With your approval, I would like to collect the following information: 1. audio-recordings of all meetings of the program; each meeting lasting about 2 hours and occurring once per week during the academic year (February - June); 2. audio-recordings of up to four 45-minute interviews relating to THE PROGRAM between the researcher and THE PROGRAM participants (in small groups or individually), at times negotiated between us at her convenience either on site or elsewhere, as you or she require; 3. copies of completed student activities created by or for the program; 4. copies of documents or artefacts created by the youth during the program; 5. pixilated images of your child (face will be obscured) participating in activities.

Responsibilities of the Principal Investigator:

Erin Sperling, with your approval to participate in this research, will ensure: 1. Anonymity: While the researcher will know your child’s name, pseudonyms will be used in all communications about research participants. Although her voice will be recorded, the audio files will only be used for research purposes and will be erased after they are transcribed. All images

243

will be pixilated to obscure faces. All documents and digital files will be kept in a secure place in my home. 2. Right of Refusal: You or your child have the right to refuse to participate in this research and may, for no reasons given, withdraw from the study at any time without negative consequences. As well, you can refuse to answer any particular questions. Before any data collected are used for publication purposes, you and your child will have an opportunity to view them and grant or withhold permission for their use in publication. 3. Safety: Although she may experience some anxiety regarding being observed, I intend to provide as much positive reinforcement as possible. Although there is no monetary compensation, she may learn something about education and research from this study. Data will be used for educational purposes only. 4. Contact: I invite you to ask questions about the project at any time. Copies of reports of this project will be distributed, without charge, at your request. Questions about ethics also may be directed to the ethics review office of the University of Toronto ([email protected], 416-946-5763). 5. Destruction of Data: The audio-recordings will be destroyed after their contents are transcribed into typed text. All data collected will be destroyed not later than five years after completion of the project.

Contact information: If you have any questions or concerns about this research or your participation in it, you can always speak to me at [LiFT] or you can contact me by email, text or phone ([email protected] or 416 996 1029), or you may wish to contact my supervisor Dr. Larry Bencze ([email protected] or 416 978-0079). You may contact the Office of Research Ethics at [email protected] or 416-946-3273, if you have questions about your rights as a participant.

Consent to Participate: I, the undersigned, have read and understand the above information and agree to allow this research to be conducted with my child. Also, I have received a copy of this information/consent form:

______

(Printed Name of Parent/Guardian) (Signature) (Date of Signature)

Contact number/email for youth: ______

Contact number/email: ______

244

2. Youth Assent Script [This script is to be read to “Minors” which, in Ontario, means anyone under the age of 18.] Hi everyone,

My name is Erin Sperling and along with volunteering in this program, I am a graduate student at the University of Toronto. I am hoping to collect information from you about your participation in this afterschool program that connects you with issues related to food, the environment, society and taking action.

I would like to make copies of any activities that you complete in this program. I also would like to interview you. If you agree to this, you can let me know where you want to be interviewed, if you want to be on your own or with other participants, and I will be as flexible as possible to your needs. During the interviews, we will record the discussions with an audio-recorder.

It is important for you to know that I will keep your identity a secret. I will change your names in any publications to a pseudonym that you may select if you like. I will delete the audio-files, as well, after I type out what is said on it.

You should also know that you do not need to accept my invitation to participate in the research. You do not need to answer any of the questions. You also can change your mind and stop participating at any time. No harm will come to you for not participating in any way. I cannot imagine any harm coming to you from participating in this project. I am studying things that normally happen in the program. I will destroy all data (e.g., assignments) after five years. If you decide to stop participating, all the data that involves you will be destroyed at that time.

I do hope that you agree to participate in our research. I think that the research activities that I offer you are helpful. You will not get any money for this, but I hope you will learn a lot.

When the project is over, you will get a chance to look at the typed version of any interviews involving you and a report I make about it.

Before you can participate in this research, I need permission from a parent or guardian. Please take the information/consent form home to them and return it to me as soon as possible. If you or your parent(s)/guardian(s) would like further information about the ethics of research, someone at the Ethics Review Office of the University of Toronto could be contacted ([email protected], 416-946-5763) [Refer to this contact information on the informed consent form].

When we are doing programming together, I will always ask your permission again to collect information from you and to audio-record interviews with you (if you agree to this).

Thanks!!

245

[Note: I will ask the students if there are any questions and/or any parts of this they would like to have re-explained in different words.]

246

Appendix B. Intake and Exit Questionnaires

1. Pre-program/intake Questionnaire for Youth

REMIND THE PARTICIPANTS that there are no wrong answers. We value their honest opinions so that we can improve the program!

1. Do you help to cook meals at home?

❏ no ❏ yes

If ‘yes’: How frequently do you cook at home? (Circle)

Always Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never

How much do you like cooking?

❏ not at all ❏ a little ❏ a lot

2. Do you eat breakfast regularly?

❏ no ❏ yes

If ‘yes’: What do you normally eat for breakfast?

3. How would you rate your cooking skills?

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10

4. Please give an example of a whole foods and a processed food.

Which is healthier and why?

247

5. Do you regularly read food labels? (Circle) YES NO

6. What are some things to look out for on a label that indicates that a food product is unhealthy?

7. Name a food that contains good fats Name a food that contains bad fats

______

Name a food that contains natural sugar Name a food that contains artificial sugar

______

8. If you want the food that you are cooking not to taste too simple or bland, what would you use to add flavor?

9. If you had to make a balanced meal for your family with all the food groups what would you make?

10. What are two ways you can make a meal healthier?

11. Name two major problems with the industrial food system today?

12. Some people in Toronto do not have enough healthy food to eat. Name 2 reasons why.

(If they mention “lack of money” then ask: Why don’t people have enough money?)

13. What are two solutions that young women like yourself can do to help ensure everyone in Toronto has enough healthy food to eat?

14. Name two solutions the government can do to help ensure everyone in Toronto has enough healthy food to eat?

A gardening question! Name two benefits of growing your own food.

PRE-SURVEY QUESTIONS:

15. What are you hoping to learn from and get out of the LiFT program?

248

2. Post-program/Exit Questionnaire for Youth

LiFT Post-Evaluation June 2013

Name: ______School: ______Date: ______

REMIND THE PARTICIPANTS that there are no wrong answers. We value their honest opinions so that we can improve the program! They are the Food Leadership for Youth experts!

PART 1 – Habits

1. Do you help to cook meals at home? NO or YES 2. If “no”, why not? ______

3. How much do you like cooking? (Circle) Not at all/ A little bit/ A lot

4. If “yes”, how frequently do you cook at home? (Circle) Always/ Frequently/ Sometimes/ Rarely/ Never

5. Do you eat a healthy breakfast? Always/ Frequently/ Sometimes/ Rarely/ Never Why ______

6. Have you made any changes in your food choices or eating habits since you joined LiFT? If yes: What were they?

7. Have you become more interested in gardening since attending LiFT ? Yes/No How?

PART II – Nutrition

1. Do you regularly read food labels? YES or NO

2. If you were to just look at the visual images of this package, what is your first impression about this food?

249

3. What does the nutrition list tell you about this food?

4. What does the ingredients list tell you about this food? CHICKEN STOCK, COOKED ENRICHED EGG NOODLES WITH ADDED CALCIUM (WHEAT FLOUR, CALCIUM CARBONATE*, EGGS, EGG WHITES, NIACIN, FERROUS SULFATE, THIAMINE MONONITRATE, RIBOFLAVIN, FOLIC ACID), COOKED CHICKEN MEAT, CARROTS, CONTAINS LESS THAN 2 % OF: WATER, CHICKEN FAT, POTATO STARCH, SALT, POTASSIUM CHLORIDE, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, ONION POWDER, DEHYDRATED COOKED CHICKEN, CHICKEN FLAVOR, LOWER SODIUM NATURAL SEA SALT, DISODIUM INOSINATE, DISODIUM GUANYLATE, MILK SOLIDS, DEHYDRATED GARLIC, MODIFIED FOOD STARCH, SPICE EXTRACT, SOY PROTEIN ISOLATE, SODIUM PHOSPHATES, BEEF EXTRACT, ASCORBIC ACID

250

(ADDED TO HELP RETAIN COLOR), CHICKEN FLAVOR (CONTAINS CHICKEN STOCK, CHICKEN POWDER, CHICKEN FAT), BETA CAROTENE FOR COLOR. * IN EXCESS OF STANDARD

5. Is this food healthy? Why or why not?

PART III – Cooking Skills/Knowledge

1. If you want the food that you are cooking not to taste too simple or bland, what would you use to add flavour?

2. What are 2 or 3 ways you can make a meal healthier?

3. List cooking skills or knowledge you’ve picked up or improved on since joining LiFT.

PART IV: Food Issues

1. Name two major problems with the industrial food system today.

2. Some people in Toronto do not have enough healthy food to eat. Name 2 reasons why.

3. Name two solutions the government can do to help ensure everyone in Toronto has enough healthy food.

4. What are two actions you could do to make changes or influence people or the government about access to healthy food?

PART V: Leadership

1. For the following statements, answer: SD = Strongly Disagree D = Disagree A = Agree SA = Strongly Agree

2. _____I’m not afraid to make mistakes because they help me learn new things and develop talents

3. ____ I wait until I know how to do something perfectly before trying to accomplish something new

4. ____When I plan to accomplish something, I set goals, make a plan and keep track of my progress

5. ____ I try new things or experiment with different activities

251

6. ____ I take pride in my opinions and ideas and I’m not afraid to voice them

7. ____ I have made contributions to help improve the lives of my family, peers or neighbourhood a. Example:

8. _____I feel comfortable taking action on an issue that affects the lives of my family, peers or neighbourhood. Example:

9. Has any of this changed because of LiFT?

10. Have you shared anything you’ve learned at LiFT with other people your age or your family? If yes, what? And why?

PART VI: OVERALL PROGRAM

1. List your favourite activities that we have done during the LiFT program.

2. Do you have suggestions for how we can make the LiFT program better?

3. Would you recommend the LiFT program to other youth?

4. Would you be interested in any of the following now that LiFT is over:

❏ Community gardening ❏ Working with younger children ❏ Volunteering in the drop-in or food bank ❏ Advising for the next group of LiFT participants ❏ A summer program that includes all of these and cooking

5. What is the most important difference that coming to LiFT has made for you?

Interviewer: ______

Time it took to conduct interview: ______

Were there any questions you think we need to revise or go over? Or parts that took too long?

What was your impression of the student during the post-evaluation?

252

Appendix C. LiFT Program Schedule, 2012-13 (as of January 29, 2013)

Program Goals 1. To increase the food skills of participants through hands-on cooking 2. To build knowledge and positive attitudes towards healthy eating principles 3. To build knowledge of local and global food issues and how these connect to health living 4. To foster positive body image and self esteem 5. To foster the leadership capacity of participants to promote healthy eating and/or food issues to their peers and their families 6. To build knowledge and positive attitudes around growing food.

Oct 31 Volunteer Training & Meet up

WeekMonthDate Theme Objective Activity

Intro/ Cooking: 1. Increase knife handling, Intro. Ice breakers. Kitchen orientation. Knife demo. Healthy 1 Nov 7 part one measuring and food safety skills Snacks! Stovetop popcorn flavourings. Fruity Fruit Salad.

Ice breakers. Pre-Evaluations. Knife demo. Make Vietnamese Intro/Cooking: part 1. Increase knife handling, 2 Nov 14 Cold Rolls and three dipping sauces i.e. Peanut based, Chuoc two measuring and food safety skills Mam (fish sauce) and ginger soy sauce. How to read a recipe!

Whole Foods vs. 1.Introduce nutrition concepts, ie Pre-Evaluations. Snack. Ice Breakers. Nutrition 101. What do 3 Nov 21 Processed Foods whole foods vs. processed food you know about food? What do you want to know about food? Nutrition 101

1. To increase participants' skills, knowledge and behaviours around healthy food, sustaintable food 4 Nov 28 AGM Intro to the CBO. Orientation. Event! systems and social justice. 2. To build the leadership capacity of participants

1. Increase knife handling, Cooking: How to 5 Dec 5 measuring and food safety skills, Ice breakers. Complete Pre-Evalution. Make Pizza cooking with whole foods

2. Increased knowledge on food Ice breakers. Intro to Food Systems. Play Corn's Conquest. 6 Dec 12 Food Systems systems, food production and Watch Food Inc. Discuss documentary. distribution

1. How to cook and bake with Ice Breakers. Bake 4 different types of baked goods. Discuss 7 Dec 19 Holiday Baking substitutes // 2. Increased knowledge on food groups and food culture and traditions. how to eat balanced meals Winter Break

Cooking: Fast food To explore the benefits and 8 Jan 9 vs. home cooked disadvantages of fast food vs home Ice Breakers. Check-In. Send out invitations to Parent Night. OR breakfast cooked

Land, Food and Ice Breakers. Snack. Prep for Host LiFT for A DAY. Reminder 9 Jan 16 People about Parent Night.

253

1. How to cook and bake with Cooking: The Salad substitutes // 2. Increased Ice Breakers. Making 4 different cultural salads. Revisiting food 10 Jan 23 mixer knowledge on food groups and stories. how to eat balanced meals

11 Jan 30 END OF TERMS EXAMS: NO LiFT

Cooking: Host LiFT For a Day Demo - 12 Feb 6 Check-in. Ice Breakers. Cooking. Colonial & settlement stories

Food Issue or 13 Feb 13 Ice breakers. Snack. Activities Activity 14 To explore different cultures and 20 Host LiFT For a Day: give the girls the oppritunity to host Cooking, Presentation, Eating LiFT Feb Food Issue or 15 Feb 27 Activity To explore different cultures and Host LiFT For a Day: give the girls the oppritunity to host Cooking, Presentation, Eating LiFT 16 Mar 6

3. Increased knowledge of food systems, food production and distribution// 3. Increased knowledge on food and Day 1: Garden Centre - cooking with ASP kids, greenhouse and March Break Camp - environmental concepts// 3. gardening, local food March 11-15 Increased knowledge of poverty Day 2: 1884 - volunteering at food bank, drop-in, good food and social justice issues// 5. market Increase leadership skills.//5. Increase knowledge on healthy food & communities

17 Mar 13

To explore different cultures and Host LiFT for a Day give the girls the oppritunity to host LiFT 18 Mar 20

Food Issue or To help the girls understand the Introduction, Ice Breaker, Encouraging Yarn, Sprouting Work Activity: Sprouting benefits of home grown food shop Workshop 19 Mar 27 To explore different cultures and Host LiFT For A Day give the girls the opportunity to Cooking, Presentation, Eating host LiFT 20 Apr 3 Food Issue or 21 Apr 10 Activity 22 Apr 17 Cooking Promote Cook-Off Competition. Food Issue or 23 Apr 24 Activity 24 May 1 Cooking Cook off Competition Prep. Teams. 25 May 8 Gardening 26 May 15 ? Cook Off Practice 27 May 22 Garden Party & 28 May 29 Evaluation Cookoff 29 May 31 Competition 30 Evaluations! 31 Trips 254

Appendix D. March Break - Detailed Camp Planning Schedule March 10 to 13, 2013

MONDAY @ The Growing Centres

Time Activity LiFT Goal Materials

8:00 AM Coordinators and volunteers prep

8:30 - Girls Arrive. Eat breakfast. Intro Intro cameras and talk about Video 9:30 cameras & documenting project. why (5 + 10 mins) - Use cameras for If there is time, tour the gardening camera to document things pairs of girls if centre (GC). you find interesting about or they don't problems that you see that have people may not agree with.

9:30 - LiFT girls will do a little 2. To build knowledge and Ice breaker: 10:45 presentation about the program. positive attitudes towards name game Ice Breakers and GC tour, rules healthy eating principles with After School Camp Kids

10:45 - Cooking Moroccan Stew-Girls 1. To increase the food Recipes 12:45 will be paired up with ASP Camp skills of participants through kids to cook lunch. Volunteer hands-on cooking activities; time. 5. To foster the leadership capacity of participants to promote healthy eating and/or food issues to their peers and their families

12:45- Eat Lunch 1:15

1:15 - Break 1:30

255

1:30 - Greenhouse Gardening. Tour the 3.To build knowledge of worm bin, 3:00 greenhouse and global roots local and global food issues newspaper, garden, do a scavenger hunt, learn and how these connect to food scraps, about vermicomposting, plant and healthy living knife, cutting pick sprouts for afternoon snack. board, Greenhouse orientation. Girls scavenger work for half an hour with a hunt sheets, greenhouse volunteers and get salve making volunteer time. Start seedlings for Children's garden.

3:00 - Break & Snack & Ice Breaker Fruit, salad 3:15 dressing to try sprouts

3:15 - Discuss food systems...security 3.To build knowledge of white board 3:45 and urban gardening connections. local and global food issues and markers Make connections between local and how these connect to and bean bags, food and urban gardening. Do healthy living 3. Increased Room 250 three tomato puzzle: Garden knowledge of food and tomato, Ontario greenhouse environmental concepts like: tomato and California tomato. urban farming, local, What are the environmental, organic, biodiversity, labour and nutrition differences companion planting between these tomatoes? Tie this message in with why people worked hard to create a place like the growing centres.

3:45 - Drawing exercise. Ask girls to use To connect goal # 3 to a White paper, 4:00 their imagination to draw any part meditation exercise in crayons or of what they have learned today drawing markers and about growing food and urban pencils gardens. Journal writing (if time permits)

256

TUESDAY @ CBO

Time Activity LiFT Goal Materials

9:00 AM Coordinators and volunteers prep.

9:30 - Girls arrive. Eat Breakfast from 10:00 Drop-in. Do ice breakers

10:00- Discussion about The CBO. Who 3. Increased knowledge Laptop and 10:15 uses the CBO? Is it only homeless about poverty and social projector and AM people or people with jobs, kids, justice issues 5. presentation re etc? What do poor people look Increased leadership skills, What do poor like? Train them on conflict i.e., how to run and operate a people look resolution tips like listening, community food bank and like? Conflict repeating, etc. and do scenarios drop-in centre resolution and that may happen in the food bank scenario hand and learn what to do about it. Set out work expectations.

10:00 - Volunteer placements in the food 5. Increased leadership Girls will be 1:00 PM bank, drop-in, kitchen and etc. the skills, i.e., how to run and rotating Food Market Outreach. This operate a community food between the includes time to have lunch and bank and drop-in centre FM outreach, help with clean up. Food Bank/Drop In and Kitchen

1:00-2:00 LUNCH, break and Icebreaker PM

257

2:00 - Food Market Promotion and print out of 3:30 PM Community Food Mapping maps Activity- give them a printed map and give them specific things to look for and put it on a big map - area bounded within CBO's catchment area. Come back to market to buy snack and Thursday breakfast.

3:40 - 3. Increased knowledge markers and 3:50 about poverty and social flip chart justice issues

3:50 - journal writing. How has today Journal 4:00 changed their view on the world Notebooks, or how they can get involved? pencils, pens

Wednesday @ The GC

Time Activity LiFT /OISE Goal Materials

8:30 AM Volunteers and Coordinators arrive

9:30 AM Girls Arrive. Eat breakfast. Ice Breakfast food breakers. - fruit, yoghurt, bagels

10:00 Food Stories Activity with ASP 5. Increased leadership skills markers and AM - paper 10:40 AM

258

11am - Cooking Vietnamese Banh Mi 5. To foster the leadership Prep the 12:30 PM sandwiches capacity of participants to dicing of veg promote healthy eating for quick and/or food issues to their pickling. peers and their families

12:30- Eat Lunch 1:00 PM

1:00-1:30 Clean and Break PM

1:30 PM- Hip-Hop Wear 2:45 PM comfortable shoes

2:45 - Break 3:00 PM

2:45 PM Banana split/Tomatoes - 4:00 PM

4:00 PM Energizer! Snack! Journal writing. Journal Impressions so far Notebooks, pencils, pens, Snack( crackers and cheese, veggies)

259

Thursday @ The GC or U of T

Time Activity LiFT /OISE Goal Materials

9:30 AM Coordinators and volunteers prep. Meet at OISE. 8-214

10:00 - Girls arrive. Meet outside Tim Breakfast food 10:15 Hortons. Eat Breakfast, 8th floor, - muffin, fruit, ROOM 214 granola, yoghurt

10:15 - Game of Real Life Poverty Solutions. At this Game of Real 11:00 point the girls will be very life game tired so just pose the question "How can we solve poverty and hunger without resorting to a charity based model?" Clarify Charity vs Social Justice. Remind the girls that in the next few days they will be working on advocating to help fight some of these issues and coming up with solutions.

11:00- Ice Breaker 11:15

11:00 Street Food Tour Take a tour and pick a place or two to sample food -1:00 PM (Empanadas, dumplings). Wear comfortable shoes! Eat on U of T campus.

260

1:00-2:30 Urban Agriculture U of T Tour Be part of another PM (TBD): Dig In!, Harvest Noon, community food initiative etc. with yummy food!

3:00-4:00 Reflection and Journaling, PROJECTOR PM icebreaker - OISE show and tell <, Paper, pens

Pick up cameras and videos

261

Appendix E. LiFT Program Logic Model in Full

262

Appendix F. Land, Food, People (Food Stories) Curriculum Plan

Land, Food & People: Connecting to our own food stories and the food system

Last Revised by Shirley for LiFT - January 15, 2013

Objectives:

• Have participants connect to their own ‘food stories’. • To explore cultural and social identities through food • Link food stories to food system

Materials:

• Paper • Chart paper • Markers, crayons, pastels etc. • Map of the world • Post-it notes, tape • Probing questions list • An assortment of food photos, foods, kitchen objects • Prepare snacks connected to food stories

1. Introduction (10 minutes)

a. Look at different food related items in the middle of table. Ask participants to pick an item and tell a story related to item. What does the item make you think of?

b. “What are food stories? Any examples?”

Brainstorm ideas around what food stories could be about.

c. “What are your connections to food?”

Do you have any food stories? Many of us associate certain foods, dishes, jobs, making food, specific events in our lives (where food plays central role often), or places where we eat with memories or phases in our lives.

Present them the snacks. bánh phồng tôm(shrimp chips) --- association with family events as long as I can remember i.e., birthdays, ancestral birthdays, Tet (new year), funerals and special childhood snacks. Eaten both in France and Canada where I grew up.

263

Shrimp chips are from Vietnam, but are eaten in other parts of the world.

2. Get participants to come up with their story/stories on their own. They can draw and write. (15-20 minutes). Prompt with questions if necessary (see list of prompts)

3. Pair participants and have them share their own stories with one another. (5 minutes)

4. Get participants to post their stories on wall. Share stories with the group. You can refer to world map.

5. Find common themes and issues in the participants’ food stories. Using string/markers to connect stories. Connect your food stories to food issues with post it notes.

Themes:

• Memories – good, bad, happy, sad etc. • Past, present, future • Oral traditions: interviewing elders, relatives or family friends • Comfort foods • Childhood foods • Settlement • New/Old foods • Experimental food • Growing foods • Traditional foods/ Food rituals • Celebratory foods • Events/Incidences

6. Reflection & Meaning

Why do food stories matter? Why are food stories important?

You can connect your food stories to your own history, politics, culture, etc.

You can find commonalities with other people and their stories.

What would you like your food story to be?

What’s missing in your food story? How can you find out more?

What do you want to know?

What do you think “Land, Food & People” means?

264

Extensions:

A. Linking food stories to food system & mapping

-Review what a food system is. What are the main components? (Growing, Producing, Processing, Transportation, Sale, Consumer etc.)

Probing question: Where does your food come from? Who isn’t represented?

B. Choosing recipes to make with and present about to other LiFT participants

Choose a theme – find recipes that are connected to stories and your theme

Research --- secondary (books, magazines, internet) and primary (interviews with

family and friends)

Criteria:

• Must be about 50 minutes to make • Be healthy • Choose a selection of recipes that are part of a complete meal (i.e., not 3 desserts!) • Develop and make 15-20 minute presentation – each participant to speak • Can use visual aids: photos, art, etc.

C. Re-visiting our food stories

After some time has passed, revisit food stories. Are there any changes? Has your story changed?

D. Create a zine, blog, organize a storytelling event to showcase food stories

Prompting questions:

1. Is there a dish or food that reminds you of a food story?

2. Have you or someone in your family worked in a food related job?

3. Have you or people in your family gardened or farmed?

4. Have you or someone in your family worked in a restaurant or owned a grocery store?

5. Is there someone in your family that is a great cook?

6. Are there any specialty dishes in your family?

265

7. Do you remember the first time a food or dish left a significant impression on you?

8. Can you think of any food rituals or traditions in your life?

9. Is there a special food ritual that you share with a friend?

266

Appendix G. Guiding Semi-structured Interview Questions

1. For youth participants 1. Please tell me about the food program. 2. Why have you been involved in the program? 3. Are there ways that your involvement in the program has become important or active in other parts of your life? Please explain. 4. Are there things that you would like to learn in the program that you have not, (yet)? Explain. 5. Has your participation in the program affect the way you think about and do food related things in your life? Explain.

2. For adult volunteer participants 1. Please tell me about the food program. 2. Why have you been involved in the program? 3. What do you bring to the program from your own background? Please explain. 4. Are there things that you would like the participants to learn in the program that they have not, (yet)? Explain. 5. Has your participation in the program affect the way you think about food and youth education? Explain.

3. For adult staff participants

1. Please tell me about the food program. 2. Why does this organization deliver this program? 3. What do you bring to the program from your own background? Please explain. 4. Are there things that you would like the participants to learn in the program that they have not, (yet)? Explain. 5. What barriers or supports impact the effectiveness of the program, in your opinion. 6. What do you believe about participation in the program affecting the way youth think about food and education? Explain.

267

Appendix H. Program Work Plan (Based on the Organization Template)

Program: Leadership in Food for Staff: Shirley Time period: November 2012 – April 2013 Teens (LiFT )

GOAL ACTIVITY TASKS (OPTIONAL) TIMELINE

The agency-wide What you would like What are the main tasks When the strategic objective or to do that you need to activity will program-specific undertake in order to be objective you want to realise the activity (i.e., conducted/ meet. See CBO workshop – find facility completed Strategic Objectives (i.e., on- and/or your program’s going, by a Logic Model. X month, weekly, etc.)

To increase the food Develop and plan a · Plan with Community November skills of participants series of healthy Chef cooking lessons 2012 - through hands-on cooking lessons and tie teaching participants a wide ongoing programming them to food systems range of skills so that they issues (i.e., fast food develop the confidence to vs. Homemade foods cook at home lesson to dietary To build knowledge and diseases) and/or food · Observe the LiFT positive attitudes culture participants cooking skills towards healthy eating and consult with them to principles adjust cooking lessons to meet their needs and their interests

· Relate cooking lessons to larger food issues (i.e., facts/figures and integrate with other lessons

268

Plan and implement · Plan March Break January 2013 March Break Camp Camp activities & lessons - ongoing (see separate document) · Invite LiFT girls and To build knowledge of create permission form local and global food A. Engage the issues and how these LiFT participants in · Communicate with U of connect with healthy various CBO Food T contact Erin Sperling living Centre programs: about using U of T space

(1) ASP · Communicate and coordinate with two site (2) Greenhouse staff (ASP, Greenhouse, Food Bank, Drop-In, (3) Food Bank Kitchen, etc.)

(4) Drop-In · Contact outside facilitators (either yoga B. University of teacher, hip hop dance Toronto teacher, screenprinting etc.)

· Plan meals (food order, etc.)

· Coordinate and schedule students and volunteers (call-out for volunteers, create schedule)

Have the LiFT · Prepare and develop a January 2013 participants organize set of clear guidelines for - ongoing To foster the leadership and plan their own the LiFT participants to capacity of participants Host a Food Story Day follow while planning their to promote healthy Food Story Day eating and/or food issues to their peers and their · Get feedback from families Education Committee Team

· Develop a flyer

Celebrate cultural and · Demo a Host Food other forms of diversity Story day presentation

269

To foster the leadership Have the LiFT · Start planning with March 2013 capacity of participants participants organize LiFT participants – ongoing to promote healthy and implement a eating and/or food issues school presentation · Acquire materials and to their peers and their resources required for families presentations

· Consult with school officials – finding a date

Provide opportunities Have the LiFT · Expose and teach the November for community members participants pick and girls about a wide breadth 2013 - to take on leadership choose an issue(or of food issues that have ongoing roles various issues) they impact on them, their peers, want to advocate on. families and community

· Facilitate a To foster the leadership discussion/brainstorm of capacity of participants food issues February to promote healthy 2013 - eating and/or food issues · Identify what issues ongoing to their peers and their interest them and ones they families want to take action on

· Identify the kinds of action they can

Develop a food justice · Develop a lesson plan January 2013 workshop geared and activities exploring the - ongoing To build knowledge of towards youth concept of food justice local and global food issues and how these · Invite a speaker to talk connect with healthy about food social living Re frame/ re-structure movements and activism LiFT curriculum through an Anti- · Introduce LiFT to Anti- Oppression Pedagogy Oppressive Pedagogy and how it relates to food systems issues and impacts

270

To foster positive body Develop and revise · Revise activities and January 2013 image and self-esteem existing further dismantle – ongoing workshops/lessons that explore Food Choices · Develop self-care (i.e., media, peer, etc.) activities and · Plan and acquire Wellbeing materials for hands-on activities like making beauty products with natural ingredients, making tea from harvested leaves etc.

A. Plan a series of · Acquire materials and March 2013 indoor and outdoor seeds for indoor sprouting – ongoing To build knowledge and gardening lessons that lesson positive attitudes around feature healthy and growing food varied greens and · Consult with Local vegetables to connect Community Garden with cooking activities coordinator about garden activity possibilities B. Model community garden participation as · Set a couple dates when a community LiFT can visit the Local engagement initiative C.G.

C. Invite LiFT participants

To foster the leadership Initiate a LiFT Youth · Invite old and existing May 2013 – capacity of participants Council Advisory LiFT participants to reflect ongoing to promote healthy Committee on their participation on the eating and/or food issues program and provide to their peers and their feedback and ideas on the families program and youth involvement

271

To foster the leadership Start planning for the · Build –in cooking Early April capacity of participants LiFT Cook-Off lessons that prepare LiFT 2013 to promote healthy Competition participants for Cook-Off eating and/or food issues Competition to their peers and their families · Start creating work plan May 2013 to organize event

To reduce social Connect the LiFT girls · Keep track of relevant May 2013- isolation and increase (their peers and CBO workshops, events ongoing connection to a variety families) to other and trips of supports programs and events at the CBO · Connect LiFT girls to other relevant CBO workshops, events and trips (i.e., farm trip, canning workshops, pizza oven, etc.)

To increase knowledge Reframe and · Start Education January 2013 of poverty and food restructure LiFT Committee at the CBO (See - ongoing systems issues and curriculum through an Work Plan for Education create opportunities for Anti- Oppression Program) community members to Pedagogy take effective action on these issues.