A Public Policy Advocacy Project to Promote Food Security: Exploring Stakeholders’ Experiences
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Food security is said to exist “when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (Food and Agricultural Organization, 2008, p. 1). In the last several decades, challenges related to the achievement of food security in Canada have had a significant impact on public health. To address such challenges, comprehensive approaches are required, which include action at the public policy level. In this study, I worked with stakeholders from Growing Food Security in Alberta’s policy working group to develop a public policy advocacy project to promote food security in Alberta. I also explored the experience of this group as it engaged in this process. This study was informed by principles of community-based participatory research (CBPR) and a focused ethnographic approach. In total, 14 stakeholders from across Alberta participated in the study. Data generation included semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and document review. Data analysis took two forms. First, I arranged data chronologically to document and describe the advocacy project. Second, I conducted a thematic analysis to explore stakeholders’ engagement experiences. Development of the advocacy project involved three phases carried out between November 2012 and July 2013: (a) an initial workshop to begin the identification of our advocacy focus; (b) monthly meetings to develop the advocacy project, and; (c) a final workshop to summarize outcomes and develop a plan for project sustainability. During this process, the group engaged in advocacy steps informed by CBPR approaches to policy advocacy, including issue identification, determining our advocacy focus, research and information gathering, developing our position, strategic analysis, and organizing for action (Themba-Nixon, 2010). The result of the advocacy project was the beginning of a campaign calling on the Alberta government to develop a Universal School Food Strategy. Through the exploration of stakeholders’ experiences, I identified four main themes. The first theme explores the research project as a positive and open space to contribute, the second theme focuses on diversity and achieving common ground, the third theme describes the group’s sense of confidence and capacity throughout the project and, finally, the fourth theme highlights the group’s experience of uncertainty. Contextual factors identified include the meeting mode, time, and meeting organization. I end the study with a critical reflection on our advocacy focus, as well as highlights and lessons learnt from the advocacy project. I also situate the exploration of stakeholders’ experiences in relation to the literature. Last, I provide recommendations for future research and action. Taken together, findings and recommendations from this study may help to inform advocacy work to promote food security in other Canadian jurisdictions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,039 | 0,019 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».