McCullum _ Agenda Setting and Power in CFS Framework

8/3/2019 McCullum _ Agenda Setting and Power in CFS Framework

1/12

RESEARCH BRIEF

Agenda Setting within a Community-Based Food SecurityPlanning Process: The Influence of Power

C H R I S T I N E M C C U L L U M , P HD, RD;' D A V I D P E L L E T I H R , PH D ; -DoNALD B A R R , P H D ; - ' J E N N I F E R W I L K I N S , PHD, R D -'Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research, University of Texas-Houston, Homton,Texas;

-Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NewYork; 'Department of PolicyAnalysis and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the effectiveness of using citizenpolitics as a framework for empowering citizens to build acommunity food security agenda.Design: A critical perspective, case study design, and multi-ple qualitative methods were used.Pafticipants/Setting: Forty-four participants were purpose-fully recruited to participate in acommunity-based planningprocess called a search conference (SC). Seven additional dis-enfranchised stakeholders who did not attend the SC werealso recruited to participate.Phenomenon of Interest: To assess how power influencedagenda setting and to determine the extent to which disen-franchised stakeholders' most salient interests were incorpo-rated into the fmal SC action agendas.Analysis: The constant comparison method, content analy-sis, and consensus were used to produce the final analysis.Results: Power influenced agenda setting by managingknowledge, problem framing, trust, and consent. Two ofseven of disenfranchised stakeholders' most salient interests,including need for adequate food preparation skills andincreased availability of locally produced foods, were incor-porated into the final SC action agendas.Conclusions and Implications: Citizen politics can be usedto build a community' food security agenda on issues that arenot at odds with stakeholders in positions of power. To bringabout change on issues in which power differences between

Fiiiidiiig \v.is provided throiigl) grants from the Centers for Di-scasc Control and Pre-vention and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Cooperative Kese.irch.Educat ion , and Exteiisioi] Service (CREES). Additional support was providedthrough N.itional Institutes of Health Grant #2R25CA57712-l)(i , Behavioral Sci-ence Education Cancer Prevention and Control, National Cancer lnstittito.Address for correspondence: Christine McCulIuni. PhD. RD, Center for Mealth Pro-motion and Prevention Research, University of Texas-Houston , Health ScienceCenter, 7000 Fannin St.. Suite 2568. Houston. TX 77030;Tel: (713) .=>00-976.?: Fax:

groups are substantial, additional theoretical frameworks andpublic policy-making models are needed.KEYWORDS: critical perspective, community food secu-rity, agenda setting, power

(J Nutr Educ Behav. 2003;35:189-199

INTRODUCTION

Community food security is a relatively new term that hasno universally agreed upon definition. It can be viewed as numerical aggregation of household food security, which isconcerned with the ability to acquire food at the householdlevel. Alternatively, it can be viewed as relating to broaderconcerns underlying social, economic, and institutional fac-tors within a community that affect the quantity and qualityof food and its affordability. Communities are unlikely to beentirely "food secure" or "food insecure." Rather, they can bplaced on a continuum, with the end goal being a food-secure comiTiiniity, which has been defined as "all persons ina community having access to a culturally acceptable, nutri-tionally adequate diet through non-emergency or conven-tional food sources at all times."'

Public dialogue is an important tool that can be used as partof a larger process toframeand prioritize key community foodsecurity issues and to generate social action around identifiedissues and concerns. ' As noted by Thomson and coUeagues,"opportunities to engage citizens in discussions on communityfood issues can empower*' local people in several ways:

1) citizens become aware of others who share commoninterests about food system issues; 2) people learnspecifics about their community food system (such as theextent of hunger and farmland loss) and how they canput their knowledge to work; 3) citizens become part ofa solution that addresses community concerns; 4) peoplecan be prepared to contribute in meaningful ways to


2/12

190 McCuIlum etal/AGENDA SETTING WITHIN A COMMUNITY-BASED FOOD SECURITY PLANNING PROCESSbusiness, or supermarkets closing in a neighborhood);and 5) citizen dialogue forces other people to considerthe ideas and opinions of others as they create a visionfor the future of their community food system.'*

The research-based conceptual framework of "citizen pol-itics" has been proposed as a way to empower citizens to takepositive action on public problems such as poverty, hunger,and food insecurity in their com munities.^'' Th e purpose ofcitizen politics is to develop and strengthen societal capacityto do public work, influence public policy decisions, andenable disenfranchised stakeholders to particip ate as activecitizens in the policy-making process. Citizen politics is basedon 3 core concepts: public, diverse interests, and power.'''Public refers to a "pub lic world " in whic h citizens use theircollective power to act on diverse self-interests to shape theirsurrounding environments and solve common problems.''The public work of problem solving and governance is car-ried o ut tbroug h mediating institutions, for example, schools,churches, and the w orkplace, which connect people to largerpublic arenas and issues. Diverse interests refer to the differ-ent Hfe experiences, perspectives, knowledge, and talents thatpeople bring to public life. Power, within this framework, isconceptualized as dynamic and interactive and is seen asbeing created through building relationships among diverseinterests and taking action on shared problems and goals."''Although citizen politics has been proposed as a way toempower citizens to take action on public problems such ashunger and food insecurity, to our knowledge, little researchhas assessed how power is used to influence agenda settingwithin this type of an approach.

Using Q methodology, PeUetier et al identified 3 diversegroups (social justice advocates, pragniatists, visionaries) whoplaced varying levels of im port ance on 4 different aspects ofcommunity food security: social justice, healthfulness of thefood supply, econ om ic viability of local agriculture, and envi-ronm ental sustainability.* Social justice advocates were pr i-marily conc erned about social justice and the social welfareof low-incom e comm unities (eg, their ability to access high-quality, healthful food), especially in hght of welfare reform.Pragmatists were concerned about the dechne of local agri-culture but were not concerned about the environmentalconsequences of the curre nt food system. They were alsounsympathetic toward social justice and social welfare issuesbecause they viewed such issues as a matter of personalresponsibility.Visionaries were primarily concerned about thedecline of local agriculture and enviromnental consequencesof the current food system and were mildly concerned aboutthe social welfare of low-incom e comm unities.These authorsconclude d that the diverse values and interests associated withthe concept of "com mu nity food security" were saUent tocomm unity m embers in 6 upstate N ew York counties butthat not aD persons emb raced all comm unity food se curitycomponents simultaneously." Participants representing these

food system goals and commit to a series of action plans.'^However, the action plans that emerged from a series of community food security planning processes reflected the valuesand interests of certain stakeholders more than others, even inthe absence of overt conflict."*"'" How power influencedagenda setting within these conmiunity-based food securityplanning processes has not been investigated.

Therefore, this study used a critical pe rspective, case studydesign, and quahtative m ethod s (1) to assess how p owe r influenced agenda setting within a community-based food security planning process called a search conference (SC) and (2)to determ ine the extent to wh ich disenfrancliised stakeholders' most salient interests related to community food securitywere incorporated into the fmal action agendas that e mergedfrom the SC .The m ain tenet of critical theory is that the construction of meaning and knowledge is shaped by social rulesand larger social structures within which their action isguided and constrained.A critical perspective recognizes thimportance of human understanding through multiplesocially constructed meanings and realities of everyday lifehowever, it also seeks to uncover silences that may reside incom mu nicatio n systems.'-'""''

S T U D Y P R O C E D U R E SProject DesignTliis research was embedded within a larger action researchproject entitled "Th e N orth Coun try Food and Econom icFood Security Project." Action research is a process thaincorpo rates professional know ledge, local knowledgeprocess skills, research skills, and dem ocratic values as the basifor cocreated knowledge and social change." A SC was usedfor the initiation of community-baSed food security actionplanning processes in 6 upstate NewYork counties.''A SC ia strategic planning process that places citizens side by sidwith formal decision makers to defuie problems and goalsdevelop alternatives, and initiate action plans based on a common vision that emerges. Its theoretical premises of democratic decision making, open participation, and respect for difference and diversity'** are closely aligned with the theoreticapremises of citizen politics, which include public, diverseinterests, and power. ^'''

The planning and implementation for the SC were carried o ut through a series of sequential steps: (1) com mu nitybased organizations committed to conducting the SC; (2logistical planning occurred; (3) a community-referencingsystem based on informal relationships within the community was used to deter mine wh o was eligible to participate inthe SC; (4) a "search question" was determined; (5) statisticand data on the pi-oblenis or concerns of interest were collected by a community advisory committee (which wercompiled into a profile and distributed to participants at th


3/12

ournal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Volume 35 Number 4 July August 2003 191

plem ent action plans, goals, and objectives identified ate SC. A more detailed description has been provided else-re.'-* Th e design elem ents for the SC w here the curr ent1.

om one county in upstate NewY orkully recru ited to participate in a 2.5-day SC oniunity food security.The Peer Reference System (PRS),

fic geographic location (ie, county). Mem bers of a cou nty-PRS. Advisory committee members (n = 11)

1 who was dis-a social

unity-based hum an services organization, and a healthThe first step in conducting the PRS was to identify keymants who met 2 eligibility criteria: demonstrated inter-d system. Using these criteria, advisory comm ittee me m -fied 30 key informants representing 8 different sec -

tail m arketing, consumer, and "oth er") . Each key infor-participants who met the 2 eligibihty c riteria. After 3

204 names, members of theSC. Table 2 illustrates selected

Disenfi-anchised stakeholders who attended the SC (n = 7)where they \vere represented in the "consumer" cate-

. In this study, disenfranchised was defined as "the deny-a privilege, freedom, or power to a person or group

and nutrition assistance programs, receipt of? unemploymentbenefits, and receipt of disability ben efits. iThirte en of 14(93%) disenfranchised stakeholders in this study werewomen, had at least a high school degree, and reported par-ticipating in 1 or more food and nutrition assistance pro-grams.Ten of 14 (71%) participants reported receiving u ne m -ployment benefits, and 6 of 1 4 (43%) reported receivingdisability benefits.Data CollectionParticipant observations were conducted at all advisory com-mittee meetings held prior to the SC to assess how powerinfluenced agenda setting within die larger community foodsecurity SC process. In this study, power was defined as thecapacity to produc e inte nde d, foreseen, or unforeseen effectson others based on the ability to control access to valuedresources.-' According to Bachrach and Baratz, agenda settingis shaped by "a set of predo minant values, beliefs, rituals, andinstitutional procedures that operate systematically and con-sistently to benefit some persons and groups at the expenseof others."^- All docum ents produced prior to and du ring theSC were also reviewed to assess how power influencedagenda setting and the extent to which disenfranchised stake-holders' interests were incorporated into the final SC actionagendas. Docu me nt review is considered useful in portrayingthe values, beliefs, and viewpoints on a specific issue expressedwithin a particular setting and can provide valuable empiri-cal insights when used in combination with other methods.'-*

An open-ended questionnaire was administered at 2 dif-ferent points during the SC to all attendees (n = 44) to fur-ther assess how power influenced agenda setting. Questionsdeveloped for use in the open-ended questionnaire werebased on theoretical considerations of group behavior andpower dynamics-'-^''"^'^ and were pilot tested with communitymembers. A subsample of participants (n = 25), including alldisenfranchised (n = 7) and powerful stakeholders (n =18)wh o attended the SC, were interviewed after the SC to gainfurther insight into themes that emerged from earlier datacollection m ethods and to exaixdne the extent to which theirmost sahent interests were incorporated into the final SCaction agendas. In this study, a participant's categorization aspowerful was determined by his/he r organizational decision-making authority and access to valued resources.^-* and not byindividual-level characteristics. All interviews were taperecorded and transcribed verbatim.

Focus groups were conducted widi disenfranchised stake-holders (n = 14) prior to and after the SC to explore theirmost salient community food security h-iterests within a safeenvironm ent, that is, an environmen t in w hich authoritativeinterests and values are not present, and to prevent the pres-ence of ideological false consciousness, that is, a process bywhich people develop a systematic misunderstanding ofthemselves through participation in a world in which publicideas and images distort reality in the interests of various


4/12

192 McCullum et al/AGENDA SETTING WIT HIN A COMM UNITY-BASED F OOD S ECUR ITY PLANN ING PROCES S

Table 1. Design Elements for One County's Search Conference on CofnmLinity Food SecuritySession Search Conference Design Eiements

Welcome and overviewDay1

Local sponsors welcome, describe baci


5/12

Nutrition Education and Behavior Volume 35 N umbe r 4 July August 2003 193e 2. Selected Demographics and Food System Representation

Participants (N = 44)

Demographics*MaleFemale19-2526-3435-4344-5253-6162+< High schoolHigh schoolAssociate degree/some coliegeBachelor degreeProfessionai degreeAdvanced degree

Food System RepresentationFarmland protection/natural resources conservationAgricultural productionFood processingFood distribution/transportationWhoiesaie marketingRetaii marketingConsumer*Other*

N

1925038

1710618

20726

473415

1010

%

4357

07

183823142

1845165

14

916792

112323

*Race is not reported here as a demographic variable because allarticipants (N = 44; 100%) were white.'Seven disenfranchised stakeholders who attended the search con-in the consumer category.*This category included a nutrition teaching assistant with theutrition Education P rogram (EFNEP), a Communitydirector, a food stamp administrator, an associate director, a legislator, a food service supervisor, and 2 educators.

a deeper p robing of issues

Questions were pretested with members of the target

informed consent and confidentiality were applied through-out the study. A university com mittee on hum an subjectsapproved all aspects of this research.Data Analysis and QualityData analysis occurred throughout the entire data collectionprocess to identify bhnd spots in the data and to allow theresearcher to pursue emergent themes in subsequent data col-lection.-' Data collected prior to and during the SC (includ-ing notes of observation, documents, pre-SC interview andfocus group transcripts, responses from open -end ed ques-tionnaire s, and field notes) were analyzed using constantcomp arative me tho d and th em atic co nten t analysis." A sec-ond round of data analysis using verbatim post-SC interviewand focus group transcripts was conducted to test workinghypotheses that emerged from the first round of data collec-tion.'' ' Identified themes common to all sources wereincluded as emergent categories and were entered into amatrix to organize the data.The matrix included how manytimes each emergent category was mentioned and thebreadth of each category.-**' Inconsistencies in the categorieswere explored and revisions were made, and negative cases,that is, cases in whic h data did n ot fit into any of the em er-gent themes, were so ught."

Focus group transcripts were coded to determine disen-franchised stakeholders' most salient interests reported withina safe environment at 2 different points in time (before andafter the SC). A salience score for disenfranchised stakehold-ers' interests was calculated by multiplying the frequency ofeach response (number of times it was mentioned) by theintensity (low, moderate, high) with which it was expressed.For those disenfranchised stakeholders who attended the SC(n = 7),doc um ents produced within th e first small-group ses-sion at the SC (expectations) and responses from ope n-en dedquestionnaires were coded to determine their reported inter-ests at 3 different points in time during the SC.-''

Two researchers independently coded themes that emergedfrom all data sources. Initial differences in agreement overthemes that emerged were discussed until there was 100% agree-ment in assigned codes.^' Data quality was ensured by severalcriteria and corresponding methods: credibility, dependability,and confirmability Credibility was established throug h the useof prolonged engagement, member checks, peer debriefers,reflexivity, metho d triang ulatio n, and negative case analysis.'''-*Dependability and confirmability audits were conducted toensure that shifts and changes in the data were both trackedand trackable (dependability) and throu gh an inspection of theraw products of the research inquiry (confirmability).'-

FI N D I N G SCotnmunity Food Security Action AgendasSix final action agendas and corresponding goals emerged


6/12

194 McCuUum et al/AGENDA SETTING WIT HIN A COMM UNITY-BASED FOOD SECURITY PLANNING PROCESSfor (1) distribution of surplus food, to strengthen a distribu-tion network for surplus and leftover food; (2) education, toraise awareness of consumers as to the food and fiber systemand related life skills through education; (3) family and com-munity values, to encourage and nurture a commitment topersonal responsibility and wider relationships through build-ing community: (4) food processing and marketing, to givethe North Country producers outlets for their products; (5)legislative initiatives and actions, to develop a plan to bringchange to issues brought up at the SC; and (6) new agricul-ture, to explore agricultural economic opportunities in theNorth Counti'y.How Power Influenced Agenda SettingPower influenced agenda setting through 4 separate mecha-nisms, including m anaging (ie, controlling) know ledge, pro b-lem framing, trust, and consent (Table 3) . The results havebeen recontextuaJized in the data and are described below.Managing knowledge. Knowledge was managed by useof "decisionless" decisions on certain issues and by avoidingdiscussion on sensitive issues. A decisionless decision was usedduring the pre-SC advisory committee meetings when theconcern that some elderly persons in the county may be eat-ing pet food owing to a lack of income was btought to theattention of the advisory committee members by a healthinspector from the county health departm ent: "I've hadrepeated reports from public health nurses that the elderly areeating dog food. But w hen I called the state to rep ort w hat Ihad heard, they told me, 'back off, there's too m uch moneyinvolved.'" Advisory committee members acknowledged theneed to make a decision as to whether the SC participantsshould be made aware of this problem; however, no decisionwas made, and this knowledge was not shared with, partici-pants. During the SC, knowledge was managed by avoidingopen discussion on sensitive issues relevant to the topic ofcommunity food security as was reflected in a statement by apowerful stakeholder who attended the SC : "I avoided dis-

cussion on the topic [agricultural pesticide use] becauseknew it would be perceived as controversial."Managing prob lem framing . Problem framing wmanaged by the pursuit of narrow interests, choice of the teminolog y used, and decisions being m ade before all identifiecosts, benefits, and risks were considered. Prior to the SCproblem framing was managed by the pursuit of narrointerests and by using the terminology of "com mun ity foosystems" instead of "com mun ity food security." For examplalthough it was originally agreed that the SC would focus ocommunity food security, it was later reframed to focus ocommunity food systems by a member of the advisory committee whose primary interest related to agriculture opposed to hixnger or food insecurity. Problem framing wafurther managed by the pursuit of narrow interests during thSC . A city planner observed, "Certain individuals were paticipating because they had their own agendas. They mighave needed to justify how their participation was going benefit their particular organization, and that gets frustratinbecause we were talking about communities and benefitineveryone." Problem framing was managed during the SC bthe choice of terminology used when some SC participanreferred to gove rnm ent w elfare program s as "easy welfareNot all SC participants agreed with the use of this terminoogy, including an associate director o\ a food and nutritioassistance program who com me nted, "Easy welfareI donlike this terminology; it's used by people with niiddle-clavalues." This participant, however, reported not feeling comfortable sharing this point of view openly w ith othe r SC paticipants. Finally, problem fiaming was managed by makindecisions before all identifie d costs, bene:fits, and risks weconsidered.With regard to the issue of welfare reform, a dienfranchised stakeholder who attended the SC commente"They kept talking about moving us [welfare recipients] oof pubHc assistance and taking personal responsibility. Bwhat I want to know is where I can get a decent paying joso that I can support me and my two kids? Right now thonly place I can get a jo b is at [a fast food restauran t], an

Table 3. Mechanisms of Power That Influenced Agenda Setting during the Commun ity's Food Security Planning ProcessMechanisms of Power Before the Search Conference During the Search ConferenceiVIanaging i^nowledge "Decisionless" decisions Avoid discussion on sen sitive issues that arereievant to the topicManaging problem framing Pursuit of narrow interests

Choice of terminology usedPursuit of narrow interestsChoice of terminoiogy usedAii identified costs, benefits, and risi


7/12

Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Volume 35 Number 4 July August 2003 195Tabie 4. Rank Order of Disenfranchised Stakeholders' Most Salient interests (n = 14) as Reported in Focus Groups Conducted prior to and afterthe Search Conference on Community Food Se curityPre-Search ConferenceFocus Groups1. iHigh food prices in iow-income neighborhoods2. Food safety3. Lack of access to high-quality foods4. Lack of adequate food preparation skills5. Store fraud/false advertising6. Negative impact of food advertising on diet and health7. Lack of availability of localiy produced foods

Saiience Score*54505040383622

Post-Search ConferenceFocus Groups1. Food safety2. iHigh food prices in iow-incomeneighborhoods3. Lack of access to high-quality foods3. Lack of adequate food preparation skills3. Store fraud/false advertising4. Negative impact of food a dvertisingon diet and health5. Lack of avaiiab iiity of locally produce d foods

Salience Score66545050504334

*The salience score was caicuiated by the frequency w ith which the issue was mentioned multipiied by the intensity.

there's no way I can survive o n those wages. They didn'taddress this bigger issue."Managing tr us t. Trust was managed prior to the SCthrough a selection of "trusted individuals" who were cho-sen to serve on the 1 l-member advisory committee and bythe perceived credibility of an information source.This lattermec hanism , that is, perceived credibility of an inform ationsource, was illustrated during discussions on agricultural pes-ticide use at the SC. An agricultural educator noted, "A fewpersons were talking about pesticides, that they were unsafe,but their source [the media] couldn 't be trusted." In contrast,a member of the county's soil conservation board stated that"Some participants felt media coverage on this issue [the neg-ative effects of agricultural pesticide use] wasn't trustworthy,bu t I feel it's critical," although this latter participant reportednot feeling comfortable sharing her viewpoint openly duringthe SC.Managing consent . Consent was managed through usinga screened process to select final SC participants, by arguingthat political issues were technical issues best left to experts,and by using the rules of "anticipated reactions."With regard

to use of a screened .selection process to decide on the final listof SC participants, one advisory committee member notedthat those individuals "who we get along with we ll" were morelikely to be selected. Consent was also managed by arguingthat political issues were technical issues best left to exper ts. Forexample, a powerful stakeholder who attended the SC com-mented, "This [recombinant bovine somatotrophin (rBST)use] is an issue that the government and scientists might beasked to talk about or make a decision on, but not your every-day pers on.. .. I don't think it was the time or the place to dis-cuss (rBST use]. It's an issue best left to experts." Rules ofanticipated reactions were used when a fear of repercussions owhat others might say or do at a later point in tinie preventedsome participants fi-om openly commenting on issues duringthe SC. A farmer who attended the SC revealed,"I didn't bringit up [rBST use] because I knew some persons wouldn't agreewith what I had to say, and that I might regret it later."Com parison of Disenfranchised Stakeholders'Interests to Final SC Action AgendasTable 4 il lustrates the most sahent community food securityinteres ts reported by disenfranchised s takeholders (n = 1 4 )du rin g a safe en viro nm ent (ie, focus groups) before an d after

Table 5. Rank Order of Disenfranchised Stakeholders' (n = 7) Most Salient Interests on Comm unity Food Security R eported at Three DifferentPoints in Time d uring the Search ConferenceBeginning of Search Conference(Expectations)* (n = 7)Food safety con cerns (n = 2)Store fraud/false ad vertising (n = 2)High food prices in low-income neighborhoods(n = 1)Lack of adequate food preparation skills (n = 1)Lack of availability of locally produced foods (n = 1)

IVIiddie of Search Conferen ce(After Probable Future) (n = 7)

Education (n = 2)Family and community values (n = 2)High food prices in iow-incomeneighborhoods (n = 1)Hunger owing to lack of income (n = 1)increased avaiiabiiity of localiy produced foods (n

End of Search Conference(Action Planning) (n = 7)

Family and community vaiues (n = 3)Education (n = 2)Hunger (n = 1)increased avaiiabiiity of locally

produced foods (n = 1)= 1)


8/12

196 McCullum et al/AGENDA SETTING WI TH IN A COMMUNITY-BASED FOOD SECURITY PLANNING PROCESSthe SC . Table 5 highlights the reported interests of disenfran-chised stakeholders wlio attended the SC (n = 7) at 3 differ-ent points in time durin g the SC.Two of 7 ofthe most salientinterests identified by disenfranchised stakeholders, includingthe need for adequate food preparation skills and increasedavailability of locally produced foods, were incorporated intothe final action agendas that emerged from the SC (eg, edu-cation and food processing and m arketing). Five of 7 (71%) ofthe disenfranchised stakeholders who attended the SCreported that their most salient interests were either down-played or ignored and that their m ost saHent interests were n otincorporated into any ofthe final action agendas that emergedfrom the SC. One disenfiranchised stakeholder reflected, "Ibrought it up at the b eginning. You know, that m any of thestores in low-in com e neighborhoods have higher food prices,but they really didn't address it. I think it was an importantissue that should have been addressed, but it wasn't." Anotherdisenfranchised stakeholder commented that her most salientconcern related to food safety was not incorporated into anyofthe final SC action ageiidas:"My biggest concern was aboutfood safety. W het her or no t the fish being caught locally aresafe to eat This issue was not addressed by any of th e g roupsthat came about as a result of the search conference."Negative CaseThere was one negative case to re port in this study. Th e direc -tor of a community-based human services organization openlychallenged a participant duritig the SC wh o stated that "'wel -fare recipients are lazy" by proclaiming, "I told him, 'yo" a^^^just not in a position to judge.' I mean I feel poverty does thatto peo ple. You becom e chronically depressed as a result ofundergoing stress On a daily basis. I don't know what poormo ther or father doesn't go through that. It's the problem thatneeds to be dealt with, not the person."This individual was anexception in that she openly expressed her differing v iewpoin tto oth er individuals at the SC and perceived that her view pointwas respected and taken seriously by other SC participants.

DISCUSSIONTh e purp ose of this study was to assess ho w pow er influencedagenda setting within a specific type of community-basedfood security planning process and to determ ine the extent towhich disenfranchised stakeholders' most salient concernswere incorporated into the final action agendas that em ergedfrom the community food security planning process. Powerinfluenced agenda setting through 4 mechanisms: (1) m anag-ing know ledge, (2) managing problem framing, (3) m anagingtrust, and (4) m anaging co nsen t.Th e results fi'om this study aresimilar to previous fmdings reported by Forester, who doc u-mented how these same mechanisms of power influencedagenda setting within land use planning.-'' The current fmd-ings also provide support for mechanisms of power described

B, confronted by A, wh o has greater power resources than decides not to make a demand on A for fear that the latter winvoke sanctions against him, and (b) decisionless decisionwhich can be observed through institutional inaction on identified issue perceived to be politically sensitive.In this research, participants' decision to not address cetain issues (eg, agricultural pesticide use and rBST use^''t) mbe explained, in part, by theories o n agenda building in w hicit is argued that for "big science"^'* issues, agenda setting apolicy advocacy do not use a social problem -solving model.-Rather, they take place within closely linked alliances that acomposed of a small group of scientific researchers, federalevel officials and their representative government agencieinterested companies/firms, and chairpersons of congresional committees w ho have jurisdiction over these m ajgjg 3->v> Others have noted that mobilizing support for a pulic issue may also be difBcult when viewpoints are too diver

or at variance with those in leadership positions.-*' In .succases, a stronger analysis of power relations, institutions, anpolitic s is needed.- '*The results from this research demonstrated that disenfranchised stakeholders had only 2 of 7 of their most salieinterests incorporated into the fmal action agendas themerged from the SC. One explanation for this finding that disenfiranchised stakeholders who attended the SC mahave been coerced into adopting other SC participantinterests as their own, given that their most salient interesas reporte d at the begin ning of the SC w ere strikingly di

ferent compared with their interests as reported by the enof th e SC (see Table 5) . These results also support previoufindings that revealed the concerns of a group of socially diadvantaged women were often overshadowed hy the concerns ofthe majority and ignored by those in power.^'-' In thprevious research, the process of community organizinenabled these women to initiate price changes in, supermakets in low-income neighborhoods. However, they remainepowerless to overcome nutritional inequities that were constructed throu gh the med ia and political system.''" The swomen also reported constraints to engaging in communitorganizing: lack of child care, underdeveloped wri ting skillresource shortages, fear of repercussions (ie, fear of havinwelfare benefits withdrawn prevented any action that chalenged the government), and lack of sustained reahzatiothat their actions lead to change."To increase the likelihoothat more of disenfiranchised stakeholders' most sahent interests are incorporated into future SC action agendaincreased use of peer groups could be adopted to reducactual or perceived status differences among participants."Individuals working in community-based organizations caalso (1) engage more disenfranchised stakeholders during thearhest stages oft he SC planning (eg, advisory com mitteformation); (2) oversample disenfranchised stakeholders irelation to more powerful stakeholders; (3) include mortime for critical reflection during the SC; (4). use an anony


9/12

Journal ofNu trition Education and BehaviorVolume 35 Number 4 July August 2003 197both facilitating factors and barriers to their participationin a SC."*'

Tarasuk has reported that, to date, the main emphasis ofcommunity food security initiatives in Canada has focused onenhancing food skills and alternative means of food acquisi-tion as opposed to challenging the structural origins of indi-vidual and household food insecurity (eg, povert)').''-' Siniilarly,Chavis has noted that community coalitions can he usedto maintain the status quo and contain the empowerment ofgrassroots leadership and marginalized groups.*'' Power differ-entials and other resource limitations iced by disenfranchisedstakeholders may limit their ability to bring about neededchanges on their own.'"' As stated by Travers, "there is dangerin placing too much responsibility on the shoulders of thosewith the fewest resources and the least political power to ini-tiate change. For the shift in power relations crucial to socialchange, advocacy is essential."^' In conclusion, citizen politicscan be used to build a community food security agenda onissues that do not conflict with the interests of more powerfulstakeholders. However, for issues that generate conflict withstakeholders in positions of power, additional theoreticalframeworks (eg, th eorie s on power, --'*- '' agenda building,'''"'-^and agenda setting'''''^') and policy-making models (eg, advo-cacy and institutional politics) are needed.

There were several limitations to this study. First, the sam-ple was very homogenous. AU participants were white andresided in one county in upstate New York. Therefore, thesefindings cannot be generalized to othe r groups.T he fmal selec-tion of SC participants was based on a convenience sample andnot a representative sample, further limiting the generalizabO-ity of the results. Because focus groups were not conductedwith powerful stakeholders (n = 18), a similar com parisonbetween disenfranchised stakeholders' (n = 14) and powerfulstakeholders' (n = 18) interests could not be made. Further-more, because focus groups were not conducted with all foodsystem stakeholder groups, it was not possible to assess theextent to which other groups did not have their most salientinterests incorporated into the final SC action agendas. Finally,all but one of the disenfranchised stakeholders recruited to par-ticipate in this study were women. Because men are morelikely than women to influence macrolevel food security andfood policy decisions,''^ gender differencesas opposed to dis-enfranchisement status as defined in this studymay haveexplained why the majority of disenfranchised stakeholders'most salient interests were not addressed within the final actionagendas that emerged from the SC.

broadly use co mmu nity organization**** and so ciopolitical th e-ories-including theories on power,--'^*-^ agenda build-jj. g j(..45 gj^jj agenda setting,'''""'to assess how power influ-ences agenda setting within other types of comm unity-basedfood security planning and decision-making processes. Sec-ond, researchers working with disenfranchised stakeholdersand other marginalized groups can adopt a critical perspec-tive'-'"'^ and a participatory action research approach-^""''"''''^"^'to assess if community-based approaches designed to buildcommunity' food security are truly empo wering these groupsor if they serve to maintain power differentials and otherresource inequities.'''''''

Nutrition educators working to build a community foodsecurity agenda in their own comnuniities would benefitfrom training in process-oriented skills, including facilitationnegotiation, conflict resolution, and constituency building, tOtransform conflict into greater capacit)', equity, andjustice.-'-*'W hen comm unity food security issues and concerns are con-nected to broader structural issues (eg, poo r con ditions forlow-waged workers) and institutional policies, educatorswould benefit from training in additional policy-makingmodels, including advocacy and institutional politics and theircorresponding strategies (eg, convene meetings with deci-sion makers, hold press conferences, and use mass media por-trayals'* to influen ce public op inio n and to h elp allocateresources needed to bring about desired policy changes).Tostrengthen efforts that involve an advocacy or social actioncom ponen t, nutrition educators Can expand their use of part-nerships from traditional institutional boundaries (eg, gov-ernment institutions, professional association) to includenongovernmental organizations.''^

A C K N O WL E D G M E N T S

Funding was provided through grants from the Centers forDisease Control and Prevention and the US Department ofAgriculture (USDA) Cooperative Research, Education, andExtension Service (CREES). Additional support was providedthrough National Institutes of Health Grant #2R 25C A5 771 2-06 , Behavioral Science Education Cancer Prevention andControl, National Cancer Institute.The authors would like toacknowledge the contributions of the 51 participants who par-ticipated in this research. An earlier version of this article waspresented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Society forNutrition Education in Baltimore, Maryland.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCHAND PRACTICE

These findings have important implications for research andpractice. First, future research needs to be conducted to deter-mine how community coahtions can be used to increase the

E N D N O T E S

'*The term "empower" is uSed here to refer to the process ofempowerment as proposed by Rappaport: "the process bywhich people, organizations, and communities gain mastery(i.e., control) over their lives."'


10/12

198 McCullum et al/AGENDA SETTING WITHIN A GOMMUNITY-BASED FOOD SECURITY PLANNING PROCESS(DNA) technology that is injected into dairy cows to increasemilk production by 10% to 15%. The US Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) approved rBST for large-scale com-mercial use in Nov emb er 1993. However, its use has elicitedcontroversy as a result of concerns related tp its effects oncows.hiiman health, and the econom ic viability of small dairyfarms.'''*The term "big science" refers to the scale of Science policyinitiatives and extends beyo nd size, cost, or extent of resourcesused. For a more detailed explanation of this concept, refer toGalison and

REFERENCES

1. Cohen B. Community Food ScairilyAssessnWirHHilkit.'Wiihmgton.DC:Economic Research Service, US Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), E-FAN-02-013;July 2002.

2. Bridger J. Com mu nity im agery and the built environm ent. Soc Q.1996;37:353-374.

3. Smith J, Maretzki AN . Citizen Ditilogiui:A Giiidehook. Universitj' Park,Pa: The Pennsylvania Scace University; 2000.

4. Thom son JS, Abel JK, M aretzki AN ; Edible contiections; a model forcitizen dialogue used to discuss local food, farm, and com mim ity issues.JAppI Commwi. 2001;85(1):25-42.

5. Rap papor t J. In praise of paradox: a social policy of empowerment overprevention. .i4mj Community Psydiol. 1981:9:1-25.

6. Wagner P. Citize n politics: a concep tual framework for shaping publicpo^cy. J Niilr Educ. l996;28:80-82.

7., Hogg KS, ed. Reini'eriling Citizenship: The Practice of Citizen Politics.Minneapolis, Minn: Project Public Life; 1994.

8. Pelletier D, KraakV, McCullum C, Uusitalo U. Values, public policy,and community food security^ Agric Human Values. 2000;i7:7S-93.

y. Pelletier D, Kraak V, McC ullum C , Uusitalo U, Rich R . C ommunityfood security: salience and participation at coilimunity level. AgricHuman Values:. 1999;16:401-419.

U). Pelletier D, Kraak V, McCullum C, Uusitalo U, Wch R.The shaping ofcollective values through deliberative democracy: an empirical studyfrom NewYork's North County. /^o/iVy Sdeiues. 1999;32:103-131.

11. McC ullum C, Pelletier D, Barr D, Wilkins J. Use of a participatoryplanning process as a way to build com munity food security.J/lm DietAssoc. 2002; 102:962-967.

12 . Pelletier D, McCullum C, Kraak V, Asher K. Participation, power, andbeliefs shape local food and nu trition policy./Nfc. 2003;133:301S-304S.

13. Travers K. Nutri tib n e ducation for social change: critical perspective.JKutrEduc. 1997;29:57-62.

14. Fay B. Ho w p eople change them selves: the relationship betwee n crit -ical theory and its audietrce. In: BallT, e


11/12

l of N utrition Education and Behavior Volume 35 NunibtM' 4 July August 2003 199. TarasukV. A critical examination of com mun itj'-based responses to

Household food iiisectn-icy in Canada. Health Educ Behav. 20Ol;28:487-499.

.T he paradoxes and pi-omise of community coalitions, ^mJ Community Psyc/io/. 20()l;29:309-3iy.

. Rochefort DA, Cobbs RW. Th e Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping th ePolicy Agenda. Lawrence, Kan: University of Kansas Press; 1994.

Agendas, .Alimuitii'cs, an d Public Policies. New York, NY:Harper Collins; 1995.

. Van Esterik P. Rig ht ro food; right to feed; right to be fed.T he inte r-section of women's rights and the right to food. Agric Human Values.1999:16:225-232.

48. Minkler M, ed. Comm unity Organising and Com munity Building fo rHealth. New Brimswick. NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1997.

49 . Sarri R, S;irri C. Participatory action research in two communities inBolivia and the U nited S tates. Itmnmionat .Social PVork 19'J2;35:267-28

.TO. Wang C, Burris MA. Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use forparticipatory needs nsscssmein. Health Educ Behav. l997;24:369-387.

51 . Park P, Brydon-MiUer M, Hall B, Jackson T, eds. Voices of Change: Pticipatory Research in the United States and Canada. Westport, ConBergin & Garvey; 1993.

52 . Greene J. Qualitative program evaluation: practice and promise. In:Denzin NK, Lincohi YS, eds. Collecting and Infei'prctin^ Qualitative Ar/uAt.Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; l9'>K:372-399.

VISION, MISSION, AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES OFTHE SOCIETY FOR NUTRITION EDUCATION

VisionHealthy people in healthy communities.MissionTo enhance nutrition educators' ability to promote healthful sustainable food choices and nutrition behaviors.Guiding Principles Fiscal responsib ility Re spe ct for diversity of opinio ns and perspectives Trust and wilhngness to comm unicate openly and respectfully Know ledge-based decisions

Pi"ofessioruilisni and integrityInclusiveness in membershipEquality among membersRewarding and enjoyable experiences for


12/12

McCullum _ Agenda Setting and Power in CFS Framework

Documents

Transcript of McCullum _ Agenda Setting and Power in CFS Framework