From the beginning of the research I sought to generate materials rather than collect data. The notion of ‘generating materials’ refers to a position challenging “the activity of doing research and its implicit distribution of energies, in which the researcher does all the acting while the researched are merely acted upon” (Whatmore, 2003:91). The implication of this statement is therefore that they should be ‘working together’. A case study is a useful way to employ a mixture of research methods for generating material (Yin, 2009). This case study approach was particularly appropriate for developing strategies for future practice due to its exploratory and evaluative perspectives in research on the commons (Poteete et al., 2010:34-35). This approach is supported by a large survey on the food issues census across UK civil society. Many participants in this survey offered feedback that the survey method was not appropriate due to inflexibility of survey design, not enough space for important answers, no questions able to reveal organisational complexity and the diverse range of activities they work on (Food Ethics Council, 2011). I did not strive for a one-dimensional picture but followed the notion of knowledge pluralism that different perspectives may exist on the same reality. I spent long hours with each initiative in order to familiarise myself with their working patterns and people (e.g. staff, volunteers, users). Having said all this, I did not aim to achieve a totality of understanding and evaluation of each individual community food initiative.
Once again, since the main purpose of investigating the current landscape of community food initiatives was to help me understand the general context and strategic planning for growing a commons food regime more effectively, it is important to mention that the focus of these case studies was not only to explore the views representing each initiative. Through intensive engagement with these selected initiatives and study participants, I also aimed to explore as many ideas and practices as possible regarding challenges, opportunities, and strategies related to growing a commons food regime in London. Therefore, unsurprisingly, some of the study participants’ views expressed during the investigation might not necessarily represent those community initiatives where I met those participants and then invited them to join the investigation.
In terms of finding study participants, I made a short list of selection criteria. I had two ways of finding study participants. First, I explored the work of these case studies through interviews with multi-stakeholders within these initiatives, including key staff, organisational partnerships and volunteers. I tried to maintain a balance of gender, ethnicity, educational and professional backgrounds and age. Second, while I understood
that food professionals and environmentally-aware citizens might have a stronger impact on promoting the idea of a commons food regime, I also wanted to widen the diversity of study participants. Therefore, I had ‘informal’ conversations with people whom I met ad hoc whenever and wherever I could. This was because I did not want to lose any opportunity to engage with a diversity of people. In addition to these ongoing informal conversations with different people throughout my investigation period, I conducted interviews with 47 study participants (see Table 3.2).
Category Name of initiatives Study participants
I�
Community self-help (charitable) food initiatives
The Calthorpe Project 1 environmental worker 1 volunteer
Hare Krishna, King’s Cross 1 coordinator 1 volunteer Spa Hill Allotment 1 site manager
2 spot holders
II�
Community Food Enterprises
Bonnington Café 1 chef
1 neighbour customer FoodCycle 1 project leader (volunteer)
1 event volunteer Greenwich Cooperative
Development Agency
1 officer 1 member Growing Communities 1 project leader
1 apprentice Organiclea 1 cooperative worker 1 outreach worker 1 volunteer III� Campaigning Groups
Capital Growth 1 officer 1 volunteer Friends of Queen’s Market 1 campaigner
1 food vendor at the market
Transition Town Brixton
1 environmentalist (core team member) 1 member in food group
1 member at energy group UK Food Sovereignty Movement 1 movement organiser
2 members
Women’s Environmental Network
1 site coordinator 1 member 1 volunteer
IV. Networks
London Food Link 1 network coordinator 2 members
Good Food Partnership 1 network coordinator 1 member
Slow Food London 1 manager 1 member V� Event-based Initiatives Feeding the 5000! 1 event organiser 1 volunteer 1 event participant Guerrilla Gardening 1 event organiser
1 event participant The Big Lunch, Peckham 1 event organiser
1 volunteer VI.
University SOAS Food Studies
2 members
97 The integrative framework served as ‘a tool of insight’ for the investigation. While I
have identified the key elements and associated components of commoning dynamics in the framework, there is a need to further explain how I understand and evaluate them. As mentioned earlier, care played a significant role during this investigation. Through caring about these community food initiatives and people around them, I also cared that one day a commons food regime might be grown in London. Oriented by strategic planning in the integrative framework and inspired by the Food Ethics Council (2011), I considered five exploratory questions were significant for informed priority-setting. These were:
A. Objectives (what do they want to achieve?) B. Capacity (what has been done already?)
C. What are challenges and opportunities for change?
D. What are the strategies to copy with challenges and make good use of opportunities for change?
E. Evaluation (what worked and what didn’t?)
In other words, I used these five exploratory questions to evaluate the key elements of commoning dynamics with associated individual components (see Table 3.3). It is important to note that these elements and components were not presented as variables and indicators. Rather, they were taken as a set of conceptual and analytical tools to inspire me to see and understand those community food initiatives in a more systemic way. Thus, it is important to be flexible to apply those exploratory questions to those key elements of commoning dynamics and components that were more relevant to different initiatives and those study participants.
Key elements Components Questions
Care
Care receivers
(humans, society, life, ecology, history, and the world)
A� Objectives B� Capacity C� Challenges and opportunities D� Strategies E� Evaluation Core values
(democracy, justice, diversity, coexistence, aesthetics)
Institutions
Forms of institutions
(regulative, normative, cognitive-cultural institutions) Levels of institutions
(operational, collective action, constitutional) Ideological divides and unity (piecemeal reform, progressive, radical)
Participation
Feature of participation
(cosmetic, capacity building, citizen control) Power relation of participation
(forms, levels and spaces) Food consumerism vs� food citizenship
(sustainable consumption to progressive citizenship)
Networks
Structure of network (density, centralisation, heterogeneity) Multi-level and multi-layer interactions (vertical, horizontal, across sectors/systems) Relational/hybrid/co-existing food networks (Global/local, nature/culture, markets/movement, place/space,
humans/non-humans
Collaboration
Motivations
(Self-interest, mutual/symbiosis, super symbiosis) Collaborative mechanisms
(design approaches, strategies and processes) Collaborative impacts
(single effects to virtuous circles)
Learning
Types of learning (multi-loop and multi-level learning)
Perspectives of knowledge (production, dissemination, utilisation)
Transformative learning and knowing (democratisation of knowledge and
citizen-led innovations)
Table 3�3 Key elements of commoning dynamics with components and exploratory questions
In this regard, during the interviews, I started by asking some simple questions at a very general and tentative level. I then added some sensitive and political questions such as their relationships with other organisations and initiatives, their vision of London’s food system, community development, and the thoughts about their own initiatives, challenges they encountered and opportunities and strategies they identified. I deliberately kept my interviews flexible to allow for differences between the initiatives and kept the discussions relatively open. The monologues I encouraged at the beginning of each conversation with participants seemed to put them at ease, reassuring them that I was genuinely interested in whatever they wanted to say and piquing their interest in the topic. I asked questions to which my study participants responded, but then relinquished control by asking, “Do you have anything to add?” or “Do you want to ask me something instead?” I considered this was a small way to illustrate my willingness and commitment to learning, collaborating and caring about them.
This research approach resulted in two outcomes that a traditional approach would not have done. First, those initiatives and study participants felt cared for and encouraged to share their wisdom and living experiences; they were likely to do their best to help me understand the complexity of the current landscape of community food initiatives. Second, they also said they had benefited from the exchange of views and experiences with me and gradually a relationship or friendship was established beyond the investigation which, in many cases, continued to the time of writing this thesis.