Critical Pedagogy in North American Food Systems Planning: Looking Back to Look Ahead

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to revisit, and build upon, themes that emerged from a 2011 article on food systems pedagogy in the discipline of planning (Mendes & Nasr). The chapter begins with an overview of findings that emerged from the 2011 article. This is followed by a consideration of how the literature on food systems pedagogy in planning and related disciplines is evolving, and what has held true in the intervening years. Four themes are identified from the literature since 2011: interdisciplinarity, social justice and ethics, community-university research partnerships, and systems thinking. The themes are intended to serve as signposts to signal a bridge between early concerns of food system planning educators, and the new or additional skills and capacities that may be needed to prepare future food systems planners and community leaders.

… community food planning is still at the seedling stage, but recent signs show that the plant is growing at a healthy pace and becoming more firmly rooted in the planning community. (Kaufman and Caton Campbell in Mendes et al. 2011, p. 32)

More than a decade ago, over strong espressos in a Toronto coffee shop, my colleague Joe Nasr and I began what would be a series of conversations about our early experiences teaching courses on food systems in the discipline of urban planning. Both Joe and I had been teaching university-level food systems planning and/or urban agriculture courses since 2005. Our courses included both undergraduate courses and graduate seminars in face-to-face and online formats. During our caffeine-fueled conversations, we pondered the changes we had observed since 2005. We reflected on the support (or lack thereof) of our respective institutions in considering food systems in their course offerings, noted the rapid increase in our students’ knowledge and hands-on experience with food systems from year to year, and considered the ways that global trends such as climate change and social inequality informed how we approached the topic.

It was quickly clear to us that our colleagues in planning programs across Canada and the United States who were also early adopters of food systems as a topic of instruction, may have similar observations. It was from these reflections that Joe and I embarked on the task of documenting and analyzing first-hand accounts of university educators who taught courses with a focus on food systems. Our belief was that this exercise would serve as an important point of reference within the fast-evolving realm of food systems research, teaching and practice. At the time, with a few notable exceptions (Hammer 2004), the literature on food systems planning had largely neglected the pedagogical aspects of how and why planning educators sought to teach food policy topics, what strategies they used, what professional and institutional challenges they faced, and what benefits their students may have gained. Where the literature existed, what Joe and I felt was missing was attention to educators’ voices and first-hand narrative accounts of their respective experiences.

For Joe and me, and the colleagues we engaged in conversation about these questions, the result was a 2011 article entitled “Preparing future food system planning professionals and scholars: Reflections on teaching experiences,” published in the Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development (JAFSCD) (Mendes et al. 2011). Our 2011 article begins with an overview of how food systems came to be decoupled from, and reconnected to urban and regional planning. It summarizes some of the key advances in food systems research, scholarship, teaching, and practice beginning with Pothukuchi and Kaufman’s pioneering publications about planning having overlooked the food system (Pothukuchi and Kaufman 1999, 2000). The piece then takes an unconventional turn: Joe and I invited eight of our university educator colleagues in the US and Canada to provide a 1000-word reflection on their early experiences teaching courses on food systems within the planning discipline.¹ With such a small sample size, our intention was not to claim an exhaustive view of the topic, but rather to provide a space for colleagues in an emergent field to tell more nuanced stories of their experiences than a typical article format allows.²

Our colleagues’ first-hand accounts are included in full in the 2011 article, followed by an analysis of key themes and findings that emerged from their reflections. We conclude our article with some thoughts on what this may suggest about current and future training for food systems professionals and scholars. In the article, Joe and I write:

One of the primary reasons for documenting and analyzing the early experiences of university educators who teach food systems issues is to identify challenges and innovations as we move forward into an increasingly complex global context for food system research and practice (Mendes et al. 2011, p. 22).

A decade after the publication of the 2011 article it seems timely to revisit and build upon themes that emerged from our early analysis, and consider what the literature now has to say about food systems pedagogy.³ The purpose of this chapter is precisely that. I begin the chapter with an overview of findings that emerged from the 2011 article. I then consider how the literature on food systems pedagogy in planning and related disciplines is evolving, and what has held true in the intervening years. I identify four themes drawn from the literature since 2011. The themes are not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, they serve as signposts to signal a bridge between early concerns of food system planning educators, and the skills and capacities that may be need to be deepened to prepare future food systems planners and community leaders.⁴

1 Looking Back: Early Themes Identified by Food Systems Planning Educators

Janet Hammer’s 2004 article was one of the first to systematically consider food systems pedagogy in planning curricula in the North American context. While offering valuable and pioneering insights, Hammer’s article differs from the research that Joe and I, and our contributors, conducted in that the former is based on a survey of course syllabi while the latter explores individual teaching experiences. The eight educators who contributed to the 2011 JAFSCD article offered insights and observations based on their respective first-hand experiences teaching food systems and/or urban agriculture courses. Each contributor was provided with the same set of questions, and was encouraged to respond to the questions that most strongly resonated with them (Mendes et al. 2011, p. 20). The questions are:

• 1. What is the title and main focus of the food course you taught (or teach), and was it (or is it) taught in a planning school or another department?

• 2. How did you come to propose and teach the course? What or who inspired you?

• 3. What specific contributions do you feel it makes to the planning curriculum and to preparing the planners of tomorrow? Are there other benefits?

• 4. How did you “sell” the course? Was it a struggle to offer it? Was it a challenge to attract students? If so, please tell us about these or other challenges.

• 5. Because food is a nontraditional planning issue, did you (or do you) adjust your teaching methods? If so, how and why? Is there anything about the topic itself that changed your pedagogical approach? Did you seek to treat it (or make it appear) as a traditional planning issue?

• 6. How do you feel the course is perceived by colleagues and students in your planning school or department? Does it complement other offerings in your planning school or faculty? Do you think it has broadened perceptions about emerging planning issues?

• 7. How would you describe the pre-existing knowledge of your students of food issues? Were you teaching to the converted? (Mendes et al. 2011, p. 20)

In response to these questions, contributors offered eloquent reflections that illustrate the richness and diversity of teaching experiences in a multi-faceted and emergent field of study. Commenting on the value of food-related courses in planning, Timothy Beatley observed that they “... seem especially potent as community catalysts” (Beatley as cited in Mendes et al. 2011, p. 44). Beatley added: “I have also learned that sustainable food and community food systems are wonderful avenues for teaching about community sustainability and sustainable place-building” (Beatley as cited in Mendes et al. 2011, p. 44). Barbara Lynch remarked: “On the whole, the class seemed to have gained a new consciousness about the centrality of food to national culture, social integration, and well-being” (Lynch as cited in Mendes et al. 2011, p. 49). Kristina Bouris wrote that her experience teaching a food systems planning course “provided an opportunity to explore the delicate forces that create and shape an emerging planning issue” (Bouris as cited in Mendes et al. 2011, p. 43). Branden Born noted the importance of food planning courses as a way to “prepare students to think about the emerging issues for society generally, and planning specifically” (Born as cited in Mendes et al. 2011, p. 40).

Threaded through the diversity of perspectives and experiences that emerged from contributors’ first-hand narratives, a number of common themes were identified as examples of intended or unintended pedagogical outcomes that contributors felt were facilitated by their courses due to the unique attributes of the topic of food systems. These themes are:

• 1. Increased awareness of, and sensitivity to, the diversity of people involved in and affected by food systems issues.

• 2. Increased attention to the importance of stakeholder involvement in planning processes.

• 3. Higher awareness of the broader governance context of planning.

• 4. Deeper understanding of the links between globalization and planning education.

• 5. Better awareness of the connections between food systems and sustainability principles. (Mendes et al. 2011, p. 23)

An additional theme worth noting is what contributors identified as the role of food planning courses as catalysts for community-building, activism, and social awareness (Mendes et al. 2011, p. 25). Tightly linked to this theme is the role of community-based experiential learning and/or service learning as integral aspects of the course delivery methods that contributors generally felt facilitated the community-building and activism that ensued. These and other themes and reflections offered by contributors foreshadow findings that emerge in later research on food systems pedagogy in planning. Let us now turn to how the literature on food systems pedagogy in planning and related disciplines has evolved in the intervening years, and how emergent concerns and possibilities correspond with observations from a decade ago.

2 Looking Ahead: The Evolution of Food Systems Pedagogy in Planning and Related Disciplines

Since 2011, a sizeable literature has evolved that addresses various aspects of food systems pedagogy in planning and related disciplines. Empirical evidence showing considerable growth in food systems planning education can be found in Greenstein, Jacobsen, Coulson & Morales’ 2015 study of food system planning course syllabi. Greenstein et al. analyze US planning education programs to assess developments in food systems curricula since Hammer’s 2004 study (Greenstein et al. 2015, p. 489). By analyzing growth in the number of stand-alone food systems courses offered by US planning departments, and how the courses are structured, the authors found that the number of Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP) schools that include food systems in their curriculum tripled from 2004 to 2012 (Greenstein et al. 2015, p. 491). Specifically, in 2004 nine schools offered a food systems course or a course that included the topic. In 2012, 27 ACSP schools offered stand-alone food systems courses (Greenstein et al. 2015, p. 491). While still an under-represented topic of instruction in planning schools, and one that has yet to be embedded within required program curricula, the rate of growth remains noteworthy.

Comparable data do not yet exist for accredited Canadian planning schools; however, a review of the literature on food systems pedagogy reveals a number of themes analyzed by scholars based in both US and Canadian universities in planning and related disciplines. While Greenstein et al. limit the focus of their study to the discipline of planning (ACSP planning schools), my discussion focuses on food systems pedagogy within planning and related disciplines more broadly (e.g., environmental studies, agroecology, public health, community development, nutrition, etc.). This is due to my interest in exploring issues that transcend single disciplines, and reflects what I see as the evolving nature of food systems planning pedagogy as inherently interdisciplinary, which poses both opportunities and challenges to the discipline of planning. While far from an exhaustive list, common themes include:

• 1. Interdisciplinarity

• 2. Social justice and ethics

• 3. Community-university research partnerships and community-based research methods

• 4. Systems thinking

These themes, reflecting a combination of content, pedagogical approaches, and learning objectives, are often interconnected in the literature.

3 Interdisciplinarity

One of the preoccupations identified by contributors to the 2011 JAFSCD (Mendes & Nasr) article on food systems pedagogy is the challenge of demonstrating the significance of food systems as a legitimate planning concern within the profession, and its rightful place in planning school curricula. While this remains an ongoing concern, a tension that adds complexity to this challenge is how to balance the need for theoretical and technical training that is specific to planning, with the recognition that food system challenges cannot be understood or solved by any one discipline, and that efforts to do so may in fact prove to be detrimental. A growing number of food system scholars argue that a singular disciplinary problem-solving approach is inadequate for the task of analyzing the multidimensional nature of food systems issues, and preparing professionals and community leaders to address them (Hilimire et al. 2014; Kolodinsky et al. 2012; Levkoe et al. 2016; Miller et al. 2012; Rojas et al. 2012; Valley et al. 2017b).

Referring to the essential skills and competencies required by future food systems professionals, Valley et al. argue that “... they will need to demonstrate individual and collective agency to advance workplace and societal missions that encompass economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainability in food and agriculture” (Valley et al. 2017b, p. 468). The authors add that achieving this aim is often hampered by the fact that in many university programs, students are educated in narrowly defined disciplines that do not reflect the complexity and systemic nature of the problems they are being trained to solve: “Graduates are thus often ill-prepared to deal with complexity in food systems or interact effectively with knowledge and practical domains outside of their specialization” (Valley et al. 2017b, p. 468). To provide an interdisciplinary approach that prepares students for the challenges they will encounter in future work and community endeavors, food system scholars and educators point to the need for innovative curricula that are purposefully designed to make connections between diverse topics, epistemologies, practices, and other social and ecological food system dynamics (Hilimire et al. 2014, p. 725).

Contributors to the 2011 JAFSCD (Mendes & Nasr) article on food systems pedagogy foreshadowed the importance of interdisciplinarity in the frequency with which inherently systemic and interdisciplinary topics such as globalization, sustainability, community development, and governance arose in their narratives. What the more recent scholarship on interdisciplinarity in food systems pedagogy adds are specific pedagogical models and approaches designed to purposefully incorporate skills and learning based on interdisciplinarity, systems thinking, experiential learning, and collective action among others. For example, Valley et al. (2017b) propose a “signature pedagogy” for Sustainable Food Systems Education (SFSE) that combines three “structures”: (1) “surface,” referring to the learning settings and configurations that facilitate the deep and implicit structures of the pedagogy including multiple learning contexts, individual and group learning opportunities, and diverse assessment strategies (Valley et al. 2017b, pp. 473–474), (2) “deep,” referring to the ontological and epistemic beliefs of a knowledge domain and the educational conditions for acquiring them including multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinarity, systems thinking, experiential learning, and open-ended case inquiry (Valley et al. 2017b, pp. 474–475), and (3) “implicit,” referring to the choice of content, process, and behavior within a classroom including critical reflection and collective action (Valley et al. 2017b, pp. 475–476).

A clearly articulated call for purposeful interdisciplinarity with/in food systems pedagogy should not downplay the very real tensions that arise when planning educators are required to simultaneously demonstrate the specificity and relevance of food systems to planning in particular, while at the same time proving that such courses should embody interdisciplinary values, theories, and methods. As new “signature pedagogies” for food systems are developed and implemented, more attention will need to be given to how to respond to the need to define food’s “place” within traditional disciplinary structures. This may be particularly true for applied disciplines such as planning where professional accreditations and hiring practices may still rely on specific technical skills and theoretical knowledge. In addition, there are institutional and logistical challenges involved in mounting interdisciplinary courses including determining in which department they are housed, course scheduling, and procedures for determining assignments and evaluation criteria (Miller et al. 2012). Finally, and perhaps most significantly, there are important epistemological implications stemming from the ways that interdisciplinarity can productively challenge the very basis of assumptions about knowledge and truth by extending inquiry beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries. Challenging taken-for-granted assumptions about knowledge production often surfaces underlying patterns of privilege and oppression that can be obscured by a single worldview – or disciplinary approach. Although not without its own gaps and omissions, food systems scholarship, education, and practice can claim a rich history of attention to multiple worldviews and intersectional identities. The ways that this is taken up and addressed in relation to food systems planning in particular is explored in this chapter’s second theme: social justice and ethics.

4 Social Justice and Ethics

The literature on food systems has shown consistent interest in, and attention to themes of social justice and ethics dating back decades. Since at least the late 1990s, scholars have been writing about food democracy (Hassanein 2003), food justice (Allen 2008, 2010; Hinrichs and Allen 2008; Power 1998; Slocum and Cadieux 2015; Wekerle 2004), the “right to food” (Anderson 2008), food citizenship and civic food networks (Renting et al. 2012), food sovereignty (Levkoe 2013; Wittman et al. 2011), the intersection between food justice and specific food system practices such as urban agriculture (Horst et al. 2017, this volume, Chap. 6), anti-colonial and indigenous food systems (Elliott et al. 2012; Kepkiewicz et al. 2015; Morrison 2008, 2011), and issues of race and ethnicity in relation to the food system (Bradley and Herrera 2016; Burdick 2014; Guthman 2011; Lim 2015; Moore and Swisher 2015; Pirog et al. 2015; Roman-Alcalá 2015). A smaller but growing subset of the literature examines these issues in relation to food systems pedagogy in particular (Galt et al. 2013; Niewolny et al. 2017; Parker 2015; Peña 2015; Yamashita and Robinson 2016), however very little is specific to food systems planning pedagogy. Contributors to the 2011 JAFSCD (Mendes & Nasr) article clearly identify the role of food systems planning courses as catalysts for community-building, activism, and social awareness (Mendes et al. 2011, p. 25), but what this means for the evolution of current pedagogical practice in the discipline of planning remains unclear. If this is indeed a gap that needs filling, how might planning educators rise to the challenge?

One possibility may be found within the nature of interdisciplinarity itself. It is worth noting that the authors of the “signature pedagogy” for Sustainable Food Systems Education (SFSE) referred to in the previous section of this chapter suggest that interdisciplinarity can and should be used to help students understand and address injustices in the food system and beyond. The authors argue that their critical (interdisciplinary) pedagogy requires students to question assumptions about knowledge, who participates in its construction, and whose version of truth prevails:

The critical nature of SFSE programs asks students to engage with historical and current injustices within the food system, often connected to privilege and oppression arising from unequal positions in social hierarchies related to class, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, dis/ability and nationality. Involving students in critical learning contexts may place students, especially from privileged backgrounds, in positions where they witness power, authority, privilege and oppression in the food system play out in the daily lives of others (Valley et al. 2017b, p. 477).

Meek & Tarlau echo this sentiment by proposing a pedagogical model that they refer to as Critical Food Systems Education (CFSE) based on a combination of theory, pedagogy, and policy intended to transform the food system, particularly in relation to racism and other systemic injustices (Meek and Tarlau 2015, 2016). They write: “Food systems educators need to rethink how they can help their students connect interdisciplinary knowledge to transformative systems changes ... where students both learn to analyze their world of food production and access, and take actions to change these systems” (Meek and Tarlau 2016, p. 243). Similarly, Galt et al. (2013) document efforts by a teaching team at the University of California, Davis to take an interdisciplinary approach to the concept of transformative learning in food systems education, based on collaboration, openness to varying perspectives, and critical self-understanding. Leveraging interdisciplinarity as a way to help students understand and address injustices in the food system does not resolve the tension of how food systems planning must situate itself as specific to planning while at the same time woven across – and informed by – multiple disciplines. However, it does reinforce the need for more robust pedagogical approaches aimed at understanding patterns of privilege and oppression that arguably only an interdisciplinary epistemological lens can provide.

The discipline of planning, and sub-discipline of food systems planning, may already hold the seeds to a partial solution to achieving this goal. Inherent in the ability to acknowledge and address systemic inequalities is purposeful training in how to deal skillfully with conflict and disagreement that necessarily ensues when contentious issues are surfaced. Traditional courses on facilitation, ethics and conflict resolution are now relatively commonplace in planning school curricula. What is less common is training designed to engage with entrenched conflict stemming from historic injustices and systemic inequalities based on indigeneity, race, class, gender, physical ability and other aspects of identity. Existing methodologies outside of planning such as Deep Democracy facilitation, feminist and postcolonial methodologies, Critical Race Theory, and anti-colonial praxis provide frameworks for understanding and navigating difficult conversations about identity and power. Other methods include the work of practitioners such as Adam Kahane who argues for deliberate engagement with conflict, rather than avoidance, or the default assumption that consensus is the best outcome. In Collaborating with the Enemy, Kahane (2017) argues that in order to move towards solutions on deeply divisive issues, we must move beyond “conventional collaboration” which is typically organized around like-minded people seeking ways to work in harmony, towards “stretch collaboration” which expects engagement with divergent viewpoints, and requires the ability to embrace inevitable conflict. (Kahane 2017). What “conventional” collaboration can obscure are the underlying power relations that reinforce dominant voices and assumptions. As Paul M. Taylor, former Executive Director of FoodShare in Toronto, Canada writes: “For folks atop the power pyramid who are supported in taking up all of the space, consider listening before speaking, and follow the lead of those most affected by the issues that affect our food system and world” (Taylor 2018).

Considering the observations of contributors to the 2011 JAFSCD (Mendes & Nasr) article about the role of food systems planning courses as catalysts for activism and social awareness, along with recent findings that reveal the prevalence of food systems planning courses as spaces to train students as change agents contributing to altering power relations (Greenstein et al. 2015, p. 497), it seems reasonable to suggest that food systems planning holds potential as a space to advance these aims by drawing from complementary methodologies that foreground identity and power. However, the common tendency in food systems work to practice “conventional” collaboration means there is considerable work left to do in pedagogy and practice. One of the ways to bring us closer to the goal of “stretch” collaboration may be found, in part, in the next theme explored in this chapter: community-university research partnerships.

5 Community-University Research Partnerships and Community-Based Methods

A third theme that emerges in contemporary food systems pedagogy research and practice is that of community-university research partnerships (CURPs). CURPs, and the community-based (CB) methods⁵ often associated with such partnerships, are based on the assumption that applied collaborative research between universities and non-academic partners “can enrich investigations of complex social, health, and environmental problems and lead to more meaningful outcomes” (Mendes et al. 2014, p. 166). CURPs are commonly characterized by a transition from inquiry to engagement, and from university-generated to community-generated research agendas (Rojas et al. 2012, p. 201). In this way, CURPs can be understood as one in a growing number of efforts to increase the capacity of universities and their community partners to tackle societal problems in more inclusive and accountable ways (Mendes et al. 2014). As Levkoe et al. describe it: “Working to transform any one element of the food system demands considering and acting on the multitude of internal and external factors that affect that system. No single civil society organization or campus-based actor can possibly accomplish this task alone” (Levkoe et al. 2016, p. 56).

A number of the contributors to the 2011 JAFSCD (Mendes & Nasr) article on food systems pedagogy wrote about the importance of CURPs and CB methods to their work. Contributors identified CB methods as integral aspects of contributors’ course delivery methods that contributors felt facilitated community-building and activism. For example, both Branden Born and Kami Pothukuchi observed how amenable food courses are to hands-on, community-based experiential learning and “service learning” methods of teaching. In Branden’s case, this involved a major project consisting of a client-driven paper that assisted a local food system entity (Born as cited in Mendes et al. 2011, p. 40). In Kami’s case, it involved combining lectures with a seminar series in which community-based experts discuss varying aspects of food systems” (Pothukuchi as cited in Mendes et al. 2011, p. 36). At the same time, contributors identified a number of challenges that reflect the risk borne by instructors, particularly junior faculty of embarking on what was then, and in many ways remains, an unconventional teaching and research trajectory. In relation to CURPs and CB methods in particular, this includes the challenge of teaching in an emerging field of practice in which research questions, contextual understanding, and identification of key actors necessitate active involvement in ongoing policy and grassroots efforts, which “posed opportunity costs to time for research and writing” (Pothukuchi as cited in Mendes et al. 2011, p. 36).

In spite of the challenges, food system scholars and educators continue to assert that combining experience and theory in food systems education and training is critical given the highly applied and multifaceted nature of the field. A number of food system scholars and educators identify CURPs and CB methods as important mechanisms to build community, student, and faculty capacities to create more equitable food systems, and enable the collective action required to create transformative change (Niewolny et al. 2012; Rojas et al. 2012; Valley et al. 2017a). Whitaker et al. go even further by arguing not only that universities are well-positioned to help in this regard, but they are in fact “responsible” for helping rebuild food systems through community-university partnerships (Whittaker et al. 2017, p. 8).

Arguments in favor of this approach often point to the need for students of food systems to learn to engage with practitioners and stakeholders across traditional boundaries of a range of communities and institutions, as well as disciplines (Hilimire et al. 2014; Levkoe et al. 2016; Rojas et al. 2012). Some food systems scholars and educators insist that this requires an educational approach that empowers students to work with unfamiliar practitioners and communities, under circumstances that are often ambiguous, and where “no clear right answers exist” (Hilimire et al. 2014, p. 729). The focus on developing applied skills in engaging people and place is shown empirically in Greenstein et al.’s study of food systems planning curricula where the use of participatory community projects was present in more than half of the food systems planning courses that were analyzed (Greenstein et al. 2015,p. 469).

At the same time, a growing number of scholars caution that community-university partnerships and experiential-learning strategies generally fail to address structural inequities in food systems. In essence, “a learning-by-doing approach by itself does not necessarily guarantee the development of critical thinking about food systems” (Yamashita and Robinson 2016, p. 271). In response, new approaches are being advanced that argue for the need to understand and address structural racism (and other forms of oppression) before scholars can truly engage in sustainable and equitable work (Pirog et al. 2015). With regard to food systems education, pedagogical approaches include “critical food literacy” (Yamashita and Robinson 2016), “transformative learning” (Galt et al. 2013), and “participatory praxis” (Niewolny et al. 2017), all of which are aimed at: “increasing the ability to examine one’s assumptions, grapple with multiple perspectives and values that underlie the food system, understand the larger sociopolitical contexts that shape the food system, and take action toward creating just, sustainable food systems” (Yamashita and Robinson 2016, p. 269).

In addition, new pedagogical tools and resources being developed by civil society organizations are aimed at foregrounding issues of structural inequality. For example, the organization, Food Solutions New England offers an annual 21-day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge in which participants commit to “exploring the impact of race in the food system...provid[e] an intentional way to uncover racial inequities and injustices, as well as to discover the many ways we can collectively promote a more just food system for all” (Food Solutions New England n.d.). Similarly, coalitions such as the Indigenous Food Systems Network Website (developed by the BC Working Group in Indigenous Food Systems) is designed to “allow individuals and groups involved with Indigenous food related action, research, and policy reform to network and share relevant resources and information” (Indigenous Food Systems Network n.d.).

While promising, these and other advances in scholarship and practice in relation to community-university partnerships remain far from mainstream in food systems pedagogy in general, and food systems planning pedagogy in particular. One approach that offers potential as a way to foreground underlying structural causes of inequality in food systems work is systems thinking. This leads us to the fourth theme explored in this chapter.

6 Systems Thinking

At its most basic, systems thinking is based on the understanding that complex issues are linked, there are multiple actors in the system and they are connected, and integrated solutions are required (MacRae and Donahue 2013, p. 5). With regard to food, systems thinking can be defined as “a multi-disciplinary and multi-actor approach that aims to demonstrate that the multi-scaled challenges of the current configuration of global food systems are not isolated issues, but indicative of underlying systemic socio-ecological problems” (Sonnino et al. 2018, p. 3). To put it more simply, applying systems thinking to food involves “making common assumptions [about the food system] visible and explicit in order to understand what needs to be changed” (MacRae and Donahue 2013, p. 5). Or, as Sonnino et al. describe it, food systems thinking “... maps the uncertainty that characterize the structure, conduct and performance of a complex system .... [and] unveils emerging patterns, relationships and phenomena that would not be visible under a siloed approach” (Sonnino et al. 2018, p. 2). As intuitive as this may sound in theory, food systems scholars identify the extent to which food systems work has not typically been approached this way in practice. Historically, attention has often been focused on either the supply or the demand side of food systems policy and planning at the expense of an interconnected understanding of the food system, leading some scholars to question whether the debate on food systems has gone much beyond the abstract level (Sonnino et al. 2018, p. 2). This situation is made even more challenging when considering the intersection of food systems with broader systems issues such as climate change, poverty reduction, public health and social equity (Mendes and Sonnino 2018). However, there are recent signs of progress toward food systems thinking in planning and policy-making.

One of the tangible advances towards systems thinking in food policy and planning comes in the form of integrated municipal food strategies. A municipal food strategy is “an official plan or roadmap that helps city governments integrate a full spectrum of urban food system issues within a single policy framework that includes food production (typically referred to as urban agriculture), food processing, food distribution, food access and food waste management” (Mansfield and Mendes 2013, p. 38). Food strategies coordinate and integrate ‘stand-alone’ food policies, while also embedding them within broader social, environmental and economic goals (Mansfield and Mendes 2013). Another advance can be seen in the emergence of “alternative paradigms” that are argued to result in more integrated and systemic agri-food approaches to sustainable regional development (Wiskerke 2009).

From a pedagogical perspective, contributors to the 2011 JAFSCD (Mendes & Nasr) article reveal a strong systems sensibility in their reflections. Among the most significant learning outcomes identified by contributors about their respective food systems courses include a higher awareness of the broader governance context of planning, a deeper understanding of the links between globalization and planning education, and a better awareness of the connections between food systems and sustainability principles (Mendes et al. 2011, p. 23). While not explicitly named as systems thinking, the nature of these topics requires an ability to recognize food as a system nested within other systems. Other pedagogical frameworks discussed earlier in this chapter go further by directly naming systems thinking as an essential dimension of teaching strategies and learning outcomes in food systems courses.

While food systems pedagogy in general, and food systems planning pedagogy specifically, can be said to show advances towards systems thinking (if only in theory), what may be missing are tools and methods that assist students in what can be an overwhelming task of making sense of the full extent of a system and their place in it, rather than fragments or parts. As Social Innovation Generation (SiG) describe it: “Taking a systems approach, it becomes clear that messy, longstanding problems are created by the systems in which they exist. To innovate on these social and environmental problems, it’s necessary to find ways to see, understand and use the system itself” (Social Innovation Generation, cited in ABSI Connect n.d.). This requires approaching systems thinking not merely as a technical skill applied to processes of planning and policy-making (resulting in integrated municipal food strategies, for example), but as a “metaskill” that is essential for learning to recognize the dynamics of complex systems, root causes, power relations, underlying worldviews, and assumptions about social realities (Reos Partners 2013).

As a pedagogical strategy, using systems thinking as a metaskill may offer practical tools that students can use in applied ways to “ground” systems issues that can seem overwhelming to address. It may be an accessible way to provide students with practical signposts to move from tactical to systemic interventions in food (and other systems) challenges, a goal that is clearly echoed in a number of the experiences of food systems educators cited earlier in this chapter. By approaching systems thinking as a metaskill within the framework of a planning course, instructors may be able to better equip future planners to identify and foreground the underlying patterns and structures of the food system as a prerequisite to “technical” food systems planning interventions such as municipal food strategies and other food policy development.

7 Conclusions

The purpose of this chapter was to revisit, and build upon, themes that emerged from an early study on food systems pedagogy in the discipline of planning. I began the chapter with an overview of findings that emerged from the 2011 JAFSCD (Mendes & Nasr) article. I then considered how the literature on food systems pedagogy in planning and related disciplines is evolving, and what has held true in the intervening years. I identified four themes drawn from the literature since 2011: interdisciplinarity, social justice and ethics, community-university research partnerships, and systems thinking. The themes were intended to serve as signposts to signal a bridge between early concerns of food system planning educators, and the new or additional skills and capacities that may be needed to prepare future food systems planners and community leaders.

Overall, the review of emerging themes raises more questions than answers: Where interdisciplinarity is concerned, how might food systems planning educators balance the need for theoretical and technical training that is specific to planning, with the recognition that food system challenges cannot be understood or solved by any one discipline? How does this balance affect the perception of food systems as a legitimate planning issue? Regarding social justice and ethics, to what extent are planning schools providing training that moves beyond traditional courses on facilitation and conflict, and instead (or in addition) building capacities to engage with entrenched conflict and systemic inequality? How can planning educators respond to the disconnect between the centrality of issues of social justice and ethics in food systems planning and scholarship, and the applied skills that are needed by future professionals to work skillfully with these realities in practice? On the theme of community-university partnerships, how might food systems planning educators continue to be mindful of the time and vulnerability required to cultivate genuine trust and reciprocity with community partners? How might risks to junior faculty and contract sessional instructors teaching in an emerging field of community-based practice be mitigated? Concerning systems thinking, how might food systems educators teach systems thinking not merely as a technical skill applied to processes of planning and policy-making, but as a “metaskill” that is essential for learning to recognize the dynamics of complex systems, root causes, power relations, underlying worldviews, and assumptions about social realities.

While answers to these questions will continue to evolve over time, what is clear is that Kaufman and Caton Campbell’s observation that food systems planning is becoming “more firmly rooted in the planning community” (as cited in Mendes et al. 2011, p. 32) is reflected in the rapid advancement of scholarship and practice in food systems pedagogy. This holds tremendous promise for a future in which food, and other systems challenges are set to become increasingly complex.⁶