Critical Ethnography

This section addresses the principles of critical ethnography along with the closely associated framework of political economy, while the subsequent section introduces a socioecological model of health. Ethnography is most frequently recognized as a methodology (Creswell, 2013); however, it may also serve as theory when it is combined with other critical approaches to social science investigation, in particular political economy (Rossman & Rallis, 2012). In essence, critical ethnography is an approach to social research that investigates in depth—and for extended periods of time—the lived experiences of groups of people who share a certain number of

60

sociocultural conditions in common (Creswell, 2013). Details about how a modified version of critical ethnography was used as a methodology in this study are presented in section 3.3.1.

The critical face of ethnography emerges in response to the need for ways to surface and understand the roots of diverse social justice/injustice issues such as undemocratic regimes of social and political control, progressive or reactionary public policies, as well as power

differentials among non-marginalized and marginalized groups (Fetterman, 2004; O’Leary, 2010; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011; Madison, 2012; Rossman & Rallis, 2012; Creswell, 2013). When conducting an inquiry using critical ethnography as a theoretically informed methodology, it is important to build trust. Like Brazilian adult educator Paulo Freire, Madison (2012) and Creswell (2013) call for establishing a process of dialogue between researchers and study participants in order to promote trust, mutual learning, critical reflection, and deeper understanding of realities experienced by the participants (Freire, 2000; Jackson, 2007; Dos Santos, 2008; Sharma & Romas, 2012; Madison, 2012; Spencer & Lange, 2014). Schwandt (2007, p. 50) argues that a central purpose of critical ethnography is to provide a critical counterpoint to “the taken-for- granted social, economic, cultural, and political assumptions” of those who possess a disproportionate measure of power and/or authority.

Political Economy. In general terms, political economy can be understood as an approach to the analysis of political power and economic exploitation rooted in the historical and contemporary development of capitalism:

The political economy approach argues that different classes have different interests because of their economic position and the conflict between these interests is reflected in political and social institutions. Indeed, the class position of individuals influences their consciousness and practices. Economic relations are therefore seen as the main basis of social power and underlie politics and its institutionalization in structures such as the state and parties. The state in particular is a focus of study because it is identified as playing a significant role in securing the conditions for capitalist accumulation. The critical position of political economy seeks to comprehend the dynamics of capitalist accumulation as the basis for explaining the nature of society. It has taken a particular interest in the growth of the world economy, with its international division of labour and unequal development (Youngman, 1996, p. 194).

61

Political economy approaches are employed in many academic fields relevant to this study including adult education (Youngman, 1996), labour studies (Spencer & Kelly, 2013), and OHS education and training (Elling, 1989; Eakin & Eachen, 1998; Barnetson, 2010; Krieger, 2010; Howse, Jeebhay, & Neis, 2012), as well as rural sociology and political ecology. Broadly, political ecology can be understood as the study of the intersections between politics and the ecological sciences (Walker, 2005). Political ecology draws on political economy to look at how sociopolitical and economic power influence groups of people that have less or no power, and how such powers marginalize the interactions of people with the environment (Walker, 2005). Hence, OHS in the agriculture sector may also be studied using the lens of political ecology.

Engaging with political economy perspectives can help us to better comprehend the global context of the politics of agricultural OHS education and training (Levenstein & Wooding, 1997; Krieger, 2010). Political economy can also contribute to our awareness and understanding of issues surrounding the distribution of social and economic power, and likewise, of issues surrounding the sharing or non-sharing of knowledge and information across organizations and groups, or among individuals (Krieger, 2010). Political economy helps us to understand

neoliberal globalization as the global context of OHS (Krieger, 2010). Neoliberal (or

neoconservative) globalization tends to undermine worker OHS because globalized markets heighten competition and focus employer (and state actor attention) more narrowly on

profitability and capital accumulation. In this climate, social and political dimensions of effective OHS practice such as workplace inspections and regulatory enforcement get pushed to the back burner (Walker, 1997; Taylor & Murray, 2009). Loudoun and Johnstone (2009) also contend that neoliberal economic globalization promotes contingent and casualized forms of work such as part-time, temporary, and seasonal employment that may not correlate positively with the implementation of effective OHS training and practices.

Under the pervasive dominant discourse of neoliberal globalization, OHS regulation is frequently viewed as unwarranted and unhelpful interference in business activities (Marié, 2006; Hilgert, 2009). Political economy is a useful approach for critically analyzing OHS within the contexts of neoliberal globalization and the temporary foreign (agricultural) worker programs that are closely associated with this approach to economic development. The overarching rationale of such

62

programs is to provide affordable, docile, flexible and readily available pools of farm labour when and where workers are needed—for example, in conjunction with the peaked labour demands of seeding and harvesting seasons that may occur at different dates in different regions (Thomas, 1985; Martin et al., 2006; Castles & Delgado, 2007). As Pfeffer (1983) and Thomas (1985) have pointed out, securing a reliable supply of hired farm labour has been important for sustaining both corporate capitalist agriculture and family farming—but particularly the former. In fact, some would argue that the easy availability of migrant labour pools is one of the

conditions that tend to promote business restructuring and concentration in agriculture, ultimately favouring the emergence of larger-than-family, corporate farming operations. Of course, political economy is not just critique; it can also be part of programs of reform and restructuring that address economic, social, and political inequalities. While a political economy approaches reveal sociopolitical factors that may have negative implications for workers and their organizations, it can also help us to identify approaches and practices that may have positive impacts with respect to the lives of workers (Satzewich & Liodakis, 2010).