Weekly Objectives & Achievements

This week, the team was less successful in achieving the stated weekly objectives. A setback arose on the logistics of contacting and visiting the gardens within the deadline of a week. The following objectives were not accomplished but are now updated and incorporated into next week’s objectives later in this post.

  • Visit CGs during flexible learning and/or weekend of October 24/15
  • Contact community organizations by Friday, October 16th
  • Contact James O’Neill regarding CG membership demographics

Achieved objectives:

  • Meet with Joshua Edwards
  • Restrict CGs of interest based on number of plots/membership numbers
  • All team members complete ethics tutorial individually
  • Make the first contact with CG coordinators
  • Complete blog post #3

Weekly Challenge Analysis

Using the “What? So What? Now What?” framework (Rolfe et al., 2001), we will reflect upon a significant event which occurred over the previous week; discuss the causes and consequences of said event; and propose methods for minimizing recurrence of similar events. We will also attempt to incorporate lessons around “scope change” and project development as discussed in a story told by Dan Barber in an episode of the radio program This American Life (Barber, 2011).

What…?

A significant event occurred when the group realized that project objectives, as outlined in the original proposal, were somewhat “out of sync” with the new project direction, following discussion with project supervisor (Josh Edwards) and continued group research. As the scope of research broadened to include the neighbourhood and CGs of Mount Pleasant, the project supervisor voiced the opinion that expanding the project’s geographical scope would change the nature of the neighbourhood comparisons. Fulfilling objectives as set out last week then proved difficult, not only because of the shifting research parameters but also due to a lack of logistical coordination regarding meeting with and interviewing CG coordinators and members. It was soon apparent that plans to meet with all CG coordinators were overly ambitious given individual time constraints and scheduling conflicts.         

So what…?

Although the group was well-intentioned in creating a timeline of objectives for the project, thorough consideration of how to fulfill these goals effectively and on-time was not given, and as a consequence some were not met. Perhaps a lack of clarity and communication between group members also contributed to a level of uncertainty regarding objectives and expectations. Additionally, the project would have benefitted if the supervisor had been contacted earlier to discuss possible changes to research parameters (i.e. expansion of geographic scope), in order to allow group research better focus and clarity.

Now what…?

Once a discussion occurred between the group and project supervisor, research focus became clearer, and a decision was made to focus exclusively on the neighbourhoods of DTES and Strathcona, barring further changes in research scope. Josh provided the group with further clarity by discussing Grounded theory, a “bottom-up” approach to research within the social sciences. This research method, which will inform our research methodology moving forward, will also provide a framework with which to structure our final report. This project has also narrowed its focus from gardeners and users of community gardens to community garden coordinators, making group objectives and goals more achievable. In Dan Barber’s This American Life story of ethical foie gras production, Barber (2011) focuses on the importance of different perspectives when approaching complex problems and how scope change can be essential in updating project objectives as conditions evolve. Further potential changes to research scope will need to be discussed with the project supervisor much sooner going forward; this will help minimize future delays or confusion among group members resulting from such a change.

Upcoming objectives:

Below are upcoming and amended objectives from last week:

  • Organize meetings with CG coordinators
  • Prepare a set of questions to ask CG coordinators
  • Have CG coordinators sign consent forms
  • Interview CG coordinators and document the experience
  • Contact James O’Neill with new questions

Strategies:

To ensure the completion of objectives, the group will apply the following strategies:

  • Conduct follow-up correspondence (email/phone call) to CG coordinators if no response is received to initial email
  • Meet to prepare interview questions to ask CG coordinators
  • Prepare, print, and deliver consent forms to meetings with coordinators
  • Maintain communication within the group and with Josh

References

Barber, D. (Speaker). (2011, December 2). “Latin Liver” [This American Life, 452, audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/452/poultry-slam-2011?act=3#play

Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D., Jasper, M. (2001). Critical reflection in nursing and the helping professions: A user’s guide. Basingstoke; Palgrave, Macmillan.