Using Concept Mapping to Ease Tensions
Wanda Martin,
4th Year PhD Candidate
School of Nursing, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC
Funded by CIHR Doctoral Award
Tensions between those working in food security and those working in food safety in British Columbia surfaced due to policy changes that highlighted different perspectives on safe food production (e.g., meat inspection regulation). I used Concept Mapping to explore those tensions. The objective of the exercise was to solicit ideas from those working in these areas with regard to the best approaches for easing tensions and enhancing intersectoral collaboration.
Food safety is highly regulated under the Public Health Act, with the food safety core program focused on inspection, education and surveillance. The food security core program is community-based with a Food Security Coordinator providing resources, advocacy, and leadership support. These two programs share a common goal of access to a safe food supply, but finding the right balance between full access and full safety is challenging due to the different disciplinary perspectives operating across subsectors within the public health system.
Concept mapping is a participatory mixed methodology that can contribute to the exploration of reframing the relationship between those working in food security and those in food safety. It is a type of structured conceptualization that consists of six phases.1 This method enables a group to describe ideas in response to a focused question, which translates to maps for visual representation.2 I found there were 6 clusters identifying the best ways to ease tensions.
“Communicating” emphasizes the importance of finding common ground and language and recognizing the interdependence of the groups.
“Understanding Intent” refers to understanding the intention of providing food security initiatives in an urban versus in a rural or isolated setting. Additionally, the intention of food safety regulations in promoting safe food handling is important with regard to understanding how to apply food safety principles across food security initiatives.
“Educating” stresses the need to have a balanced understanding of what constitutes a safe and secure food supply. A practical recommendation calls for reader-friendly information on regulatory environments.
“Understanding Risk and Regulation” suggests that a better understanding of the benefits and limitations of broad-based regulations intended for health protection could be one way forward to ease tensions.
“Enhancing Partnerships” refers to the need to work collectively to develop policy, programs and guidelines that apply to food activities, and to create working models illustrating common goals and objectives.
“Recognizing Scale” is the primary concern that the same regulations are applied to both large and small producers and processors; the suggestion is to consider appropriate regulations for non-industrial food production/processing and to sort out issues of locality and size.
The most important and feasible statements recommend that food security and food safety groups meet face to face to discuss common goals and how conflicts can be resolved. The range of statements highlighted the diverse views, and that only by building relationships will tensions ease and the value of intersectoral collaboration be recognized.
For a full report, contact Wanda Martin at wmartin@uvic.ca
