MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7020872814

Narrative ground: Applying settler colonial theory to the discursive themes of the farmland access movement

2022· other· en· W7020872814 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRural development and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeStraddleColonialismMeaning (existential)IndigenousDiscourse analysisSocial movementMovement (music)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last decade, increasing attention has been paid to land access as a key barrier for new entry farmers (Butler-Rippon, 2020; Calo & Petersen-Rockney, 2018; Cox, 2012; Figueroa & Penniman, 2020; Ruhf, 2013; Scrufari, 2017; Valliant & Freedgood, 2020). One response to alleviating this barrier has been a suite of programmatic activities, often run by non-profits or public institutions (Hersey & Adams, 2017), related to connecting land seekers with landowners. These initiatives carry out their core objectives via a range of activities (e.g., curating land listings, technical support, facilitating relationships), and are broadly grouped under the unifying theme of championing land access for farmers.Land is also central to the reproduction of settler colonialism, maintained via dispossession and narrative erasure of those who are Indigenous to the land. Given this, how are initiatives for farmland access positioned with respect to the maintenance of settler colonial social structures? My research seeks to answer this question by exploring how the farmland access movement articulates its values and priorities, and by interrogating how those themes reverberate within and against the contours of settler colonialism. Through textual analysis of values (mission/vision) statements, I attempt a discursive examination of the narratives expressed by the farmland access movement guided by the inquiry: how do these themes reflect, resist, or relate to settler colonialism? I straddle methodologies, using content analysis as a systematic, descriptive approach to deriving meaning from language (Green-Saraisky, 2015) and critical discourse analysis to situate meaning within historical and social processes (Fairclough, 2012). By applying the theoretical lens of settler colonialism to the discourse of farmland access advocacy, I probe narrative constructions around how land is held, and by whom. Overall, my findings suggest that while the discourses of the farmland access movement are positioned in contrast to the harms of industrial agriculture, they assert entitlement to land in ways that often fail to refute Indigenous land dispossession. I identify themes of generational futurity, farmland preservation, sustainability, stewardship, community, and others. In my discussion, I examine these themes alongside a settler colonial past and present, and bring them into juxtaposition with Indigenous thinkers and frameworks. Emphasis on land transfer from one generation to the next reproduces a “knowable future” in which settler colonial structures of Indigenous erasure remain unchanged and unchallenged. Representing farmland as threatened, or in need of preservation, fails to acknowledge that agrarian land-grabs were a mechanism by which settler colonialism unfurled across the North American continent. While emphasis on ecological stewardship and community relationships echoes Indigenous epistemologies informed by land, these discourses do not in and of themselves constrain settler colonial structures.Challenging settler colonial structure requires a reckoning with the cultural logics that persistently deny sovereignty and restoration of land to Indigenous peoples. This calls for an examination of all aspects of “business as usual.” This research seeks to make visible the taken-for-granted “embodied practices” (Barker, 2021, p. 3) of settler colonialism within the specific arena of farmland transfer and advocacy. “Inhabitants of Canada and the United States take these nations' settler colonial contours so much for granted that the systems of ordinary dispossession and domination are made invisible to settler people or recede both figuratively and literally into the landscape” (Barker, 2021, pp. 4–5). Farmland access initiatives represent a moment of transfer: land is changing hands. Perhaps this moment of transfer also represents an opportunity to 'do' differently. This paper concludes by presenting frameworks of land rematriation and ‘land back’ as actively undoing narratives of settler colonialism, illustrated by organizations oriented towards relationships on and with land.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Same topicRural development and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207