Redes neuronales

I did ethnographic research, involving both qualitative personal interviews and

participant observation. The data collected from personal interviews formed the primary basis for my formal analysis of current membership of the CFFO. However, participant observation was an important aspect of the research as well.

1.3.2.1 Participant Observation

Participant observation was my first introduction to the CFFO, and has continued

throughout my research on the organization. As is discussed in more detail below, CFFO meetings usually combine business and social aspects, allowing me different

opportunities to get to know the people involved, and the issues of the day.

I attended many different meetings of the CFFO over the period from 2008 to 2013. These include: the Annual Convention held by the CFFO in November every year from 2008 to 2013; six Provincial Council meetings from 2011 to 2013; two policy meetings (one of Stewardship and Policy West in 2012, and one Pork Producers Meeting in 2012); and 13 district meetings in seven different districts over the period from 2011-2012. District meetings included local seminar series meetings (held in 2011), annual business meetings, summer barbeques, and annual banquets. Between interviews and district meetings, I covered a total of 11 different districts, including: Chatham-Kent, Dufferin-Wellington, East Central, Grey-Bruce, Huron, Oxford, Rainy River, Simcoe, Thunder Bay, Wellington, and Wentworth-Brant.¹³ Members from other districts attended Provincial Council meetings and Annual Conventions, so I have heard from or spoken with members from an even wider representation of districts within the organization.

It was primarily through participant observation that I was able to meet interviewees, to establish an initial relationship, and to carry on subsequent informal conversations at different meetings with many interviewees over the course of the years that I have been working on this research. Participant observation also allowed me to

13 District names are based on county names, indicating their rough location within the province of Ontario.

carry on informal conversations with many more members, leaders and current staff who were not formally interviewed. As I went through the research process, these

conversations at meetings allowed me to gain further understanding of the organization, and to confirm or further question for myself some of my findings from the interview data. My presence as a researcher at meetings allowed some members, leaders and staff to approach me to offer their perspectives, or to question me about my research and its progress.

Participant observation also gave me much better insight into the issues that the CFFO addresses, and the debates around many of these issues that have gone on within the CFFO during the years I have been attending meetings. This helped me to see more clearly the spectrum of perspectives that coexist within the CFFO and to some degree how these different voices are balanced in the debates and policies, as well as in the types of speakers that are invited to CFFO events.

1.3.2.2 Personal Interviews

In addition to participant observation, I also conducted personal interviews. I used several methods of finding people who were willing to be interviewed for my research. The first few interviewees were people whom I met at the Annual Convention held in November each year. I sat next to them by chance and, having found our conversation interesting, I asked them if they would be willing to be interviewed. I also later asked people I met at other meetings, usually district meetings, if they would be willing to be interviewed, and found several other interview subjects this way. I also found some interviewees through snowball recruitment, being introduced to other members by those I had already met, or had interviewees recommended to me by others I had already interviewed.

As I was not able to attend meetings in some districts across the province, I connected with other interview subjects by “cold calling” those who were listed as part of the local executive committees on the CFFO website. I was surprised how many people, having never met me, were willing to have me come to their homes to interview them. In fact, in every district, and at every meeting and interview, I was impressed with how welcoming members of the CFFO were, and how willing they were to take time, many hours in some cases, to talk with me, give me tours of their farms, have me stay for a meal, even overnight, and explain to me their interest and involvement in the CFFO. I had more people willing to be interviewed than I was able to interview.

I also did not interview any of the current staff working at the CFFO. While that is the case, the staff have also been very helpful in allowing me access to CFFO archives, giving me space in the offices to work on the archives, including me in the weekly

commentary e-mailing, and generally making me welcome, not only at meetings but in so many other ways as well. My interactions with these people, and countless others I did not formally interview, over time situated me deeply into the CFFO culture.

Because of my methods for finding interview subjects, almost all of my

interviewees represent leadership, or spouses of leaders in the organization on one level or another. Those few who are not leaders either at the provincial or district level at the current time likely have been leaders in the past, although not in all cases. At the very least, they are all active members in the CFFO—active enough that I either met them at a meeting, had them recommended by other active members, or found their names on a list of district leaders. This was not my goal when I set out to find interview subjects, but considering the relatively small number of interviews that I did, this has resulted in very

rich material from the interviews. To be sure, this material does not represent everyone.

Those who are active, especially in leadership roles, usually have spent time considering the issues, and also have wider networks of contacts within the organization. They have thus encountered a wider range of the perspectives and membership that were beyond what I personally encountered in meetings or interviews. Many of them had been active for an extended period of time, thus also giving perspective on the history and changes within the CFFO.

I conducted interviews primarily in people’s homes or on their farms (some were conducted in offices in the barn). Two exceptions included one interview at a coffee shop, and one at the offices of the off-farm job of one of the interviewees. All interviews were conducted in person and were audio-recorded. I also took hand notes during the interviews, and made field notes after the interviews (or during my stay on longer visits).

I conducted 21 interviews with 30 people. It was my initial intention to conduct all interviews individually, but in several cases married couples preferred that I interview them together. It is for this reason that nine of the interviews were conducted with both spouses in the same interview conversation. One of these interviews began as a one-on-one conversation and later the other spouse joined the conversation. The remaining 12 interviews were individual one-on-one conversations. In many cases having couples interviewed together added to the conversation, as spouses would bring up issues, or ask questions of one another in addition to my questions. Because they chose to be

interviewed together, even in some cases when I specifically asked to interview them individually, I did not feel confidentiality of the interview was compromised. In the end I interviewed each spouse individually with only one couple. I also became more relaxed

after the first few interviews and no longer pressed the issue of individual interviews when both members of a couple were willing to participate.

I did not always request to interview both spouses, but I often did, especially if I had met both of them at an event or meeting, but even in cases where I had not met them before. CFFO membership is held by the farming couple together,¹⁴ which is in part why I attempted to interview both spouses of farming couples whenever possible. In some cases both spouses of a couple were active in the CFFO and had an interest in the issues addressed by the CFFO. In other cases, only one spouse of the couple was actively involved. Some less active spouses still agreed to be interviewed. In several cases the spouse who was less directly involved with the CFFO declined or was uninterested in being interviewed. In other cases I did only request to interview the most active member of the couple.

My interviews were semi-structured. I kept quite closely to the same set of

questions, once it was established. Over the course of the first four interviews, I tested out the questions I wished to use, and adjusted them, so that from the fifth interview on, I used all the same questions for every interview. I interviewed both farmer members of the CFFO, as well as former staff who worked with the CFFO in a significant capacity.

The interviews with farmer members were conducted in eight different districts of the 21 currently in Ontario.

14 CFFO, “Backgrounder” (Guelph: CFFO, 2012), 4.

1.3.2.3 Interviewees

I interviewed 30 people over the period from December 2008 to May 2012. Of the 21 interviews, nine were with married couples, and the other 12 were individual interviews.

These interviews were conducted with members of the CFFO and with former staff who had worked in a significant capacity with the CFFO. Of the 30 individuals interviewed, 27 are of Dutch or partially Dutch ethnicity, or family background, but only 10 of them were born in the Netherlands. Eleven of the interviewees were women, 19 were men.

Ages of interviewees ranged from retiree farmers to young couples recently married.

Number of years farming ranged from less than 5 years to over 35 years. I did not ask for specifics of farm size based on either gross income or acreage. However, many farmers volunteered some information about their farms that gave an idea of size, or gave a self-description of the size of their farm. Based on this information, sizes of farms ranged from very small (less than 10 acres) to large or very large. All farms were owner-operated farms. Some farms did also have hired labour.

The predominantly Dutch ethnicity of the interviewees is also reflected in their religious affiliations or connections over their lifetime. I asked about interviewees’

current denominational affiliation. I also asked with which denomination(s) of

Christianity they have been associated in the past, with emphasis on the denomination of their childhood. For this reason, the numbers here will not add to 30. The most

predominant religious association was with the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), with 27 people expressing a connection to this church either currently or at some point in their

lives.¹⁵ This is followed by affiliation with the United Reformed Church (7 people), followed by Catholicism (4 people), United Church of Canada (2 people), Baptist Church (1 person), and no church affiliation (1 person) at some point in their lives.

Those who grew up in the Christian Reformed Church and moved to the United Reformed Church, either when it was formed or shortly thereafter, did not express this as a conversion, but rather as a change of church to more correctly express their beliefs. Not counting those instances, only four of the interviewees had experienced a form of

conversion or change of their religious affiliation. For some this meant they had

converted, or fully changed their affiliation. For others this meant they held two religious identities, to some degree at least, at the same time. In three instances, these interviewees changed to the religious affiliation of their spouse around the time of their marriage. One person experienced conversion from no particular religious upbringing to a calling to a religious life. In all four instances, they changed their regular attendance or affiliation to the Christian Reformed Church.¹⁶ Interestingly, there were two other cases within this pool of interviewees where spouses (not interviewed) were born into another

denomination but married someone from the CRC, and one interviewee was the child of this type of marriage. In all cases the family worshipped together at the CRC, and children were raised in the CRC.

15 For those who emigrated from the Netherlands, most identified having grown up in the Christian

Reformed Church when asked in interviews, even though the Christian Reformed Church in North America does not share ecclesiastical governance with any denominations in the Netherlands. Interviewees

expressed either that the church they belonged to in the Netherlands was the equivalent of this

denomination, or that the church they belonged to and the CRC are essentially the same. This is most likely in part because I as an interviewer am not a Dutch speaker, nor am I Dutch myself, so the responses were somewhat simplified for me as an outsider.

16 Personal Interviews #1-21.

1.3.2.4 Farming Operations

The interviews represent responses based on 17 different farming operations. These farms ranged in size from what interviewees described as very small to very large. Fourteen were conventional, although some who are still conventional self-described their methods as “sustainable” in the sense that they used primarily manure as fertilizer, or may use very limited amounts of herbicide or pesticide, but are not certified as sustainable or organic by any available certification. 3 farms were certified organic. The most

predominant supply managed commodity was dairy, on 10 farms, followed by eggs, on two farms. Non-supply managed commodities included: 15 farms with crops (used both as feed for the farm’s animals or sold as cash crops), such as corn, wheat, soybeans, hay, alfalfa, barley, potatoes, and fava beans. Two farms had greenhouses and outside

horticulture crops: one flowers, one vegetables and fruit. Non-supply managed animal commodities included four farms that had cow-calf beef operations, while two farms had pork, one farm had rabbits, and one had a small flock of meat chickens, which was not under supply management because the flock was less than 300 birds.

1.3.3 Questions

I conducted all the interviews myself. The interviews were structured to semi-structured, as I’ve noted, following the list of questions. I only added questions for clarification, or to encourage a subject to expand further on a topic that had been raised. Those who were former staff members were asked somewhat different questions to better reflect their role in the organization, but these questions were in a similar vein to those asked of the farmer members.

The questions I asked ranged from specific fact-finding questions to open ended questions that could have been answered in many different ways. I did not, for example, ask farmers their age, but I did ask them how long they had been farming. Some

questions focused on specific issues to test the waters and see how farmers understood and responded to them. Other questions were left much more open to see what topics farmers mentioned off the top of their head on their own as being of particular concern to them.

The specific questions are listed in Appendix A. They highlight CFFO membership, Christian identity and attitudes, and important concerns within agriculture in Ontario.

They also ask about farming methods, including changes in personal farming methods and techniques over the course of the farmer’s career.

Some of the questions, as might be expected, were less meaningful to some farmer members than for others. In some cases, however, I was surprised by the

underwhelming response to particular questions. For example question 8, about the issues of food safety, food security and food sovereignty, often received responses that indicated these were not issues of concern for many farmers—especially the concept of food

sovereignty. Many farmers interviewed were completely unfamiliar with this term.

Interestingly, I included this question because it came up in an early interview, initiated by the couple I was interviewing, and also was mentioned in recent CFFO publications from the head office around the time when I was formulating the questions. While this particular couple may have been more interested in the topic of food sovereignty, or perhaps had recently been to a workshop or presentation on the topic, in other districts,

and later in time, this was not seen as such a pressing issue, or was unfamiliar to many interviewees.

On the other hand, in many interviews, the term stewardship or family farming came up in questions even when it had not been asked. There were no specific questions about Abraham Kuyper or the idea of sphere sovereignty either, but several interviewees also mentioned this on their own initiative.