As a basic starting point, I grew up at a time when “middle class” was a large segment of the population representing, with summer vacations, in a two parent household with one working parent, and with money to meet extra needs and wants as they arose. So, in my home and in the homes around me, I did not experience people who suffered from food insecurity. As I grew older, attended college, and entered the work force, I saw a wider variety of living experiences and it opened my eyes to the privilege in which I was raised. Somewhere along the way, from a very young age, I developed a sense of justice and equity. I feel concern for individuals
One memory that arose in my mind recently, is a project I had in college where I was in a food service management program and we were to plan, prepare, and serve the class a meal. Though, I do not recall all the specifics, I recall serving a meat dish with some vegetables and, vaguely, I recall comments, that did not penetrate at the time, regarding costs and choice of menu. Today, I believe the comments go to the heart of what I hope to study. Although, I could be retelling memory to suit my current beliefs, this meal project from college illustrates how various socioeconomic classes feed their families. I presented in the class my version of the world and the comments recalled represent another worldview.
Through a personal transformation, I became acutely aware of the food system and began to see its flaws. In this pilot study, I hope to begin to understand how SNAP participants access food at farmers’ markets. This combines my core belief in equity, concern for the unsustainable food system, and belief that local and regional systems can strengthen the overall food system.
Part II. Epistemological Stance
1. Ontological stance
What is “social reality” (ontology) and how do we know it (epistemology)?
In order to better understand my own worldview, I used the continuums presented by Rossman and Rallis. First, I consider Interpretivist and Objectivist continuum. Later in this memo, I consider the Radical Change and Improvement continuum (Rossman 2017). These continuum discussions are supplemented with Guba and Lincoln’s 1998 article discussion various paradigms (Guba 1998).
I believe I am more interpretivist though I do believe to some extent that there are laws and structures that a more fluid reality exists. I believe that the systems underlying all human activity controls and influences reality.
Interpretivist’s argue that there are multiple truths out there where objectivist’s argue for a Truth regarding a particular circumstance (Rossman 2017). I believe in this study of ESFM and SNAP participants, the various stakeholders (claimants) see different views that represent their respective truths. As I expand this study to broaden the number of claimants, these truths will become more apparent. I will learn about these truths by conducting semi structured interviews with claimants. These semi structured interviews will be analyzed to understand and explore experiences of each participant. Some more objective information, such as SNAP program statistics and ESFM market statistics and experiences to the extent this information is available, will be included in the larger study to place these claimants’ views in context of the system and compare to the objective data. The claimants’ interviews are accepted as their truth and will be accepted as truth in this pilot study.
2. Epistemological stance
I see this study from a Constructivist view. The reality of how the ESFM is impacting the lives of SNAP participants can be understood. That knowledge or reality is very local in nature and changes over time. The relationship between the research, researcher, and participants is interactively linked. It is through the semi structured interviews that the findings will be created as the interview proceeds (Guba 1998).
Considering Guba and Lincoln’s paradigms, I come from a place between Constructivist epistemology, where the seeker and sought create “findings” through their interaction, and Critical Theory, where the investigator and subject’s inquiry is interactively linked and values of the seeker influence the inquiry (Guba 1998). This is the case, I believe, because I sense injustice in the system and believe that SNAP participation should be broadly encouraged at farmers’ markets. Further, I believe that farmers’ markets, as part of the larger local food system, are critical for feeding people. Because of these beliefs, although these study results are meant to shed light on the workings of the system, they are part of a larger study that hopes inform policy makers on how to radically change the system to provide for SNAP participants and reduce hunger.
Investigating social phenomena is based on theory, model, or working understanding of society (Rossman 2017). It is important to understand where I stand – what is my theoretical orientation to social research. What is my political stance towards the social world. I believe that the world system is flawed and works against the best interests of people and I believe that radical change is needed. However, in conducting this study, I hope to understand how the system works at this farmers’ market with these participants. On the continuum between Improvement and Radical Change, I possess beliefs that overlap the two quadrants, however, for practical purposes hoping to impact policy changes likely requires for patient improvement. For these reasons, I place my position in the matrix in the high range of the quadrant referred to as Descriptive Interpretivism (Rossman 2017).
Looking at Rossman and Rallis’ matrix, I fall on the side of Interpretive and just below the mid-point between Radical Change and Improvement (Rossman 2017). Considering Descriptive Interpretivism, in order to create a detailed of the participants’ worldview (to the extent that is possible in two fifteen minute interviews), I will conduct semi structured interviews along with my observations (Rossman 2017). In the full study, I will conduct lengthy interviews of the various claimants in order to create a multidimensional view of SNAP benefits use at farmers’ markets. However, Critical Humanism, the quadrant representing Radical Change and Interpretive study, influences my desire to use my research as a “means to empower, transform, and liberate” SNAP participants and farmers’ markets from the policy structures that limit their benefit to feed the poor and their ability to provide local food to communities, respectively (Rossman 2017, p. 34). My pilot study will gather information through face to face interviews and observation over several Saturday markets in October 2017.
Using Guba and Lincoln’s categories, considering the methodology for gathering information from the participants of my pilot study, I see my role closer to Constructivist in my belief that understanding can be elicited through the interviews with the participants (Guba 1998). I would like to create a better understanding of the SNAP participants’ experience at the ESFM than currently exists. In this study, I am not trying to transform ignorance and misapprehension into knowledge as contemplated in the Critical Theory paradigm, I am trying to improve understanding about the experiences of these individuals at this market (Guba 1998).
Practical issues
My goal in this pilot study is to practice research skills and to use the information gained in this study as the foundation for my research study carried out in my fourth LD and beyond. I hope to gain some understanding about the workings of SNAP benefits at farmers’ markets by understanding from the participants in this study how SNAP benefits work at ESFM. In this study, the participants’ responses, researcher observations, and whatever data is available will serve as the sources of knowledge.
After the interviews, full transcripts of the interview will be studied and evaluated for clues about how SNAP benefits at the ESFM effect the well-being of SNAP participants, especially noting indications that the SNAP combined with Fresh Access Bucks (a grant providing limited double benefits) creates incentives to purchase and results in greater consumption of fresh produce. Information provided by the participants is their experience and assumed to be their “truth.” This information will be treated as an accurate assessment of the program and farmers’ market from that participant’s perspective.
Training necessary to carry out study is quite limited. As the researcher, I will create a research guide including some specific and general questions I want the participants to answer. From these questions, I hope to elicit broader responses through follow up questions. Other than the practice interview conducted in class, these will be my first formal interviews and double as training for future research projects.
Part 3. Research Relationships
I shop at the ESFM a couple times per month. For purposes of this study, I am a spectator. I want to know about a system that I am not a part – SNAP benefit usage at ESFM. But I am part of a system that it is part of and I want that system to be better. I want the system to provide better food to all so that people can have better health and well-being.
In the past, I have interacted with the vendors at ESFM. SNAP benefits are processed at the produce stand by Urban Oasis Project (UOP). My plan is to approach the staff / organizer on site explaining my research. I will ask if we can set up a time to interview her or one of the other staff / volunteers who has the best understanding of the SNAP benefit process and experience at ESFM. In order to avoid the need for consent, this study will only be used for purposes of developing a larger study. None of the findings will be reported further than in class. In any larger study, the name of the market itself will be masked in order to avoid identification of participants.
Recruiting a SNAP participant for interview will be done on the day of the interview. SNAP participants will be identified and asked whether they would agree to answer a few questions. No identifying information will be gathered about either participant.
It is possible that people will look at me as someone that is trying to be helpful and improve the system. It is also possible that people will look at me as someone meddling and a “know it all.” Finally, it is possible that people will see me as a privileged, out-of-touch, PhD student gathering information to complete a class assignment without really caring about what is going on at the farmers’ market. In some ways, either of these scenarios is out of my control. On the other hand, if I am genuine, explain my project, explain my larger hopes, and allow for the participants to ask questions of me, I believe that I can overcome these potential socioeconomic barriers. I do care about what happens and about people. I believe the system is flawed. I have searched for years for a way to impact change and believe that my work as a PhD student and one day PhD graduate, will lead me down a path where I can make change or, at least, influence policy.
Explicitly, I will explain this project and my plans for my larger project. My agreement will be that the interviews will be reviewed and transcribed but that no identifying information will be collected or reported regarding the participants. My report will fairly and accurately reflect the responses. Implicitly, I think my participants will sense my caring about the situation and desire to make it better based on my conduct and demeanor.
I guess ethically, any trust or caring that these individuals sense might lead them to share more than they intend. I can deal with this by including in my instructions / introduction an opportunity at any time to review what is said and restate it and then properly redacting it from the transcript. Also, at the end of the interview, asking the participant if there is anything more they want to share or if there is anything they want to take out of the interview. This will have to be done by the researcher at the time of transcription.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In N. . Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and Issues. (pp. 195–220). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Rossman, G. & Rallis, S. (2017). An introduction to qualitative research: Learning in the field (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
aste your essay in here…