The F4 from the partnership’s department perspective

been, I launched a pumpkin from a pumpkin catapult. This led to a discussion about the engineering and locational logistics of a pumpkin catapult and the family effort that goes into creating this contraption. In another interview I was asked a question about hayrides.

I mentioned to the participant that I had been on several (as an agritourist) and she asked me: what makes a really good hayride? I was able to elaborate on an anonymous

comparison, which I think, earned me some credit from the participant. Had I not had the experience as an agritourist, this exchange would not have been possible. My ability to talk in detail about the hayride lead into a conversation about the ‘behind the scenes’

activities that go into its staging.

My experiences as a participant observer also influenced the interview process and the relationships I developed with participants. Talking about agritourism from my own experiences negotiated my identity as a person outside the realm of research. My experience as an agritourist was a conversational talking point around which we both had a lot to say. It showed my familiarity with the phenomena under study, as well as the area in which it takes place, which was important for relating in some way to the people I was taking to. Having place in common was a way to establish rapport quickly and played into the relationships I developed with participants – the focus of the following section.

3.6 Power Relations and Research

It is important to outline how I gained access to insider knowledge of the agritourism production process. The interview is a social encounter between the

researcher and participant whom are caught in webs of power relations, which effect the way the participant and researcher think and feel about one another (England 2006). An

awareness of how I influence the study is a reflexive concern involving a “self-critical sympathetic introspection and the self conscious analytical scrutiny of the self as a researcher” (England 1994, 82). I acknowledge that my role as researcher influences my relationships with participants, and is part of the knowledge production process (England 1994; Rose 1997).

I made the assumption that my role as a researcher and the associated social power with being an academic likely constructed my identity in the eyes of participants, even before they met me in person. This power relationship was a concern because it could inhibit accessing situated knowledge specific to the individual everyday contexts of agritourism operators. This is of course a relationship in which participants could choose not to participate. Nonetheless, the knowledge shared by the participant is, to some degree, dependant on the relationship with me. I realize that being different is actually necessary for being a researcher, but there was still opportunity to reduce the ‘distance’

between the participant and myself in order to be able to say something about the phenomena under study ‘from the inside’.

For the most part, it was not difficult to access agritourism owners and operators for interviews. Other researchers have recognized that families engaged in agritourism are characterized as being proud of their accomplishments and pleased to share the information they know about their farm (Veeck et al. 2006). Participants likely saw my research as relevant, useful and directly relating to their everyday lives. I would guess that a sense of empowerment with respect to their knowledge and expertise of the subject under study, and thus the elevation of their social power as experts during the interview, is gained by participating. On only one occasion did I experience a feeling of participant

mistrust or skepticism. The participant was unsure about the conversation being recorded (I am not entirely certain why). This was a tense moment for both the participant and myself. I was able to gain his trust by simply asking my first question, which was about the history of the farm – a clear source of pride for him. In fact, the interview turned into a show and tell where, like many of the other farmers I interviewed, the farmer could not wait to share his farm with me, nor could he stop talking about it.

My gender, age, ethnicity and education, as well as my rural upbringing are part of my identity as a researcher and position me relative to the people I interviewed. A unique characteristic of farmers in this study is their common European family backgrounds. My identity as a youngish white female of European decent likely

facilitated how and what responses participants gave. From their view, I perceive myself to take on the identity of a nice white girl from the country doing research on pumpkin farms in Ontario. How non-threatening is that? Farmers were open to talking with me because of this non-intimidating identity and agenda. Despite the fact that I am not a farmer, they likely saw me to be ‘someone like them’, which no doubt increased my access to their views and experiences. I am not part of an ‘othered’ group or ethnic minority and neither were my participants. I doubt that a queer black man from the city would have got access to the same information. Researchers who share the same

identities with their participants are more likely to be positioned as ‘insiders’, have closer access to knowledge, and more directly connect to the participant than a researcher who is considered an ‘outsider’ (Valentine 2002). The identity I have is part of the role I play as researcher, which shapes the quality of my engagement with participants.

Respect and understanding for academia is another unique participant trait that influenced the success of the research and is related to how I am positioned relative to participants. Many farmers had an appreciation for the value of research because they were educated with a post secondary education or had family members whom received or were receiving a university degree or diploma. This also made farmers a unique group to interview because they were very knowledgeable, especially about Ontario’s farming industry and how it operates in the broader mechanics of a global food economy. As a research group, farmers understood themselves as caught in a larger system, which is a characteristic that facilitates the data.

One attempt in feminist research to lessen power relationships in the research process is to refer to those involved in the study as research participants rather than as subjects. This is what Morris et al. (1998) consider the “third tenet of feminist

methodology, which is the rejection of hierarchical relationships within the research process by making those being researched into partners or collaborators”(221). In this project, collaboration took the limited form of giving the participant a degree of control with respect to choosing what they wanted to talk about during the interview. This was important to exercising sensitivity about people’s livelihoods, home and life, and to establishing that they were the experts of their own experiences. Participants did not aid in designing the study nor were they sent interview transcripts for comments.

To get participants to talk openly about their experiences, a big part of my research method was to find strategies that diffused perceived power relationships between the participant and myself that might inhibit access. Although my research strategies are based on minimizing hierarchical relationships by treating participants as

human beings rather than as data sources (England 1994), in reality they are sources of data and my strategizing to treat participants with respect is, in large part, to gain access to their knowledge for a limited time and specific purpose. The following sections outline two power diffusing research strategies that helped me to accomplish my goal.

3.6.1 Googly-Eyed Pumpkin Stickers as Recruitment Strategy

As part of my participant recruitment I sent letters on official York University letterhead decorated with sparkly, orange, pumpkin, googly-eyed stickers to potential participants introducing myself, describing my project, and asking if there was interest in

participating (figure 3.4). The rationale for using stickers is based on the assumption that their inclusion would elicit more responses than had I not used them in the introduction letter. This is based on another assumption that the university logo at the top of the letter would be perceived as impersonal, authoritative and intimidating, which could cause hesitation to participate. The goal was to soften the hard edges of academia and to somewhat distance, but not remove, myself from the social power of an academic institution, by counteracting the serious and formal representation of the university with an informal silly-ness. Stickers were used to disarm potential skepticism surrounding the research but also to grab attention, spur curiosity, make a friendly first impression, and convey my personality in hopes that the reader would read on, and ultimately participate.

Despite the potential for being interpreted as juvenile and acting as a disincentive to participate, I assumed that for the majority of people, the presence of the stickers would increase the chances of their participation in the project, as opposed to being totally off-put by them. In large part, I am able to use this strategy because of my personality and identity as a youngish white female.

Figure 3.3: Googly-Eyed Pumpkin Pictures and the York University Logo

Source: researcher

The success of this strategy is evidenced in the study response rate as well as in participant feedback. During one interview, the participant walked over to his desk, flipped through a pile of papers, pulled out my letter, held it up and said, “this is you! I saw the sticker and I thought ‘what the heck is this?” (Donald, farmer 2010) Not only was the sticker incentive for Donald to read on, it also provided a way to break the ice and quickly establish rapport during the interview. The stickers were a means through which Donald could get to know me without meeting me in person and likely influenced his perceptions of myself, his willingness to share information, and do the interview in the first place. This is important because the initial perception the participant has of the researcher, to a large degree, influences their responses (O’Connell, Davidson and Layder 1994). First impressions are important especially since “once the interviewer’s

presentational self is ‘cast’, it leaves a profound impression on the respondents and has a great influence on the success of the study (or lack thereof)” (Fontanta and Frey 2005, 707). This is an example of how I am not only part of the interaction I seek to study, but also influence that interaction (Fontana and Frey 2005). As a researcher I construct and am constructed by the research process.

3.6.2 Coffee and Conversation at the Kitchen Table

As mentioned earlier, interviews took place in participant homes, which is another contributing factor of success. Not only does it reinforce the importance of everyday space to the project but it also emphasizes that research takes place in everyday settings.

Talking with people in their homes facilitated a less formal conversation than, for instance, doing the interview at a university. It made room for enabling a shift in power relations between participants and myself because it was they who constructed and

controlled where the research encounter took place. I had little control of the physical location, but participants felt at home and at ease, which I considered a desirable trade off.

The irony of doing interviews in participant homes is that I gained access to the private space of the backstage region whose very ‘invasion’ by tourists is problematic for farmers. This is a space that farmers try to protect from tourists and get annoyed when this privacy is breeched. As a researcher, however, I am able to gain access for the purpose of studying agritourism production. Is my invasion into the backstage region any different than that of a curious tourist?

On some occasions, coffee or tea was offered before the start of the interview. In these instances the interview was normalized through an everyday drink and

non-threatening commonplace ritual over which conversation typically takes place. Sitting at the kitchen table further normalized the interview for participants because it was an everyday space around which the household functioned. The casual task of making coffee or tea before the start of the interview was an opportunity to ‘chit chat’ informally as well as for me to ask questions about various household items, like pictures or artwork. This gave participants a chance to get accustomed to my question style and try out response strategies. Conversational fodder about household items during the interview was also a way of getting participants to talk about their home. For example, I asked Ken and Ginger: “Is that a picture of your family hanging on the wall behind you?” It obviously was, but the question triggered a conversation about running the business as a family – a very valuable addition to the project.

An important aspect of doing interviews in participant homes was that it provided a glimpse into their everyday life. Interruptions during the interview were more than welcome because they captured what would have been taking place had I not been there.

During one interview, the husband walked into the kitchen and asked a question about a bill, as if I was not there. My invisibility in this interaction between husband and wife about the everyday matters of the household made me feel more comfortable in this space and eliminated any sense that I was intruding on their daily life. More than that, it

indicated how comfortable the couple was to have me in their space. They incorporated me into their daily lives, which carried on around the interview. I became part of the everyday fabric of the household.

Ken and Ginger provide another example of how my presence in the home was woven into everyday life. At one point during the interview the phone rang. Before I could say please feel free and answer the phone, Ginger, without hesitation or saying anything stood up, walked to the kitchen, and answered the phone. While she did this Ken continued talking as if nothing was happening. The conversational flow of the interview was not interrupted despite the household business. At the same time, the household business was not put on hold on account of my being present – no apologies.

This instance emphasizes that research is not separate from, but rather, meets and blurs with, everyday life.

3.7 Conclusions and Limitations

The research method used is by no means perfect. There are several limitations.

For instance, interviews and participant observation do not provide data that allows for an extensive mapping of the agritourism phenomenon, nor does it provide insight into the