Feminist action research in response to food insecurity among college students

Abstract

Feminist action research can instigate community, organizational, and policy changes to address social issues. We describe how we considered inclusion, participation, action, social change, and researcher reflexivity, as well as researcher positionality, in design and implementation of the 2016 Michigan College Campuses Food Pantry Summit. Specifically, in this case study, we describe ways we used these principles to plan this event around concept mapping, an interactive, collaborative research approach. Our event led to the formation of a regional community of practitioners, enabled an exchange of institutional best practices among campus pantries, and informed federal policy on food access for college students.

Keywords

Community of practitioners feminist action research concept mapping campus food pantries student food insecurity

Introduction

Recognizing limits of traditional research to bring about social change, the emergence of participatory, action, and feminist action research (FAR) approaches began in the mid-20th century, becoming commonly practiced in the last 30 years. Rooted in influential conceptualizations by Lewin (1948), Freire (1970), Carter (2003), and many others (Moxley, Alvarez, Gutierrez, & Johnson, 2003), FAR embraces a method of engaging collaboratively with those experiencing social issues to produce expert knowledge about problems and solutions in society. It also recognizes researcher positioning (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014) that may shape power dynamics in the production of this knowledge. Theorists explain that feminist and action research orientations are concerned with cooperative inquiry, or research with people rather than on people to identify efforts towards social change (Heron, 1996). In this epistemological vein, researchers cannot be the sole producers, analysts, and interpreters of knowledge, and participants have invaluable expert knowledge (Cook & Fonow,1986). Similarly, as delineated by Reid (2004), the principles of FAR (defined in Table 1 in the context of this case study) include: inclusion, participation, action, social change, and researcher reflexivity where researchers recognize their “conceptual baggage” (Kirby & McKenna, 1989; Reid, 2004) and are transparent with collaborators. In this case study, which describes the planning and implementation of the Michigan College Campuses Food Pantry Summit (MCCFPS), we pursue concept mapping to honor the principles of FAR, challenge our own position as researchers, and address an emerging and increasingly urgent social issue: food insecurity among college students (Goldrick-Rab, Cady et al., 2018).

Table 1.

Examples of strategies to implement five principles of feminist action research at the MCCFPS.

1. Inclusion: including those with real life experience as experts in research processes	• Included staff, students, volunteers, and practitioners equally as participants at the summit
2. Participation: collaborating with pantry practitioners in all stages of research	• Worked with pantry practitioners to design summit and recruit participants• Developed pre-survey to inform research questions for concept mapping and day’s activities
3. Action: individual or collective efforts made toward institutional, community or policy changes to address campus food insecurity	• Facilitated problem-solving session in which pantry practitioners shared problems and solutions as individual actions to take on respective campuses• Planned panel of policymakers and community leaders to discuss collective potential programmatic and policy actions• Supported action by sharing preliminary data immediately in summit, technical report, and follow up emails
4. Social change: institutional, community or policy changes, including new or improved programs or policies to address campus food insecurity	• Created regional network of pantry practitioners• Provided opportunity to share challenges and opportunities with Congressman Levin to inform federal policymaking efforts
5. Researcher reflexivity: transparency in research goals and approach	• Acknowledged multiple disciplinary perspectives in planning summit and with participants• Shared design and goals of research with pantry practitioners at multiple times in various ways during summit and follow-up materials

Campbell and Salem (1999) explicitly suggest that concept mapping may be consistent with feminist research approaches as it upholds diverse perspectives (Ackerly & True, 2010). Concept mapping is a research approach applied to complex social issues, primarily in public health, social work, and human services evaluation and research (Campbell & Salem, 1999) to engage groups in problem-solving in the context of diverse issues, such as healthy food access (Johnson, Burke, & Gielen, 2014; Martin & Perkin, 2016; Reppond et al., 2018; Walker & Kawachi, 2012), substance abuse (Lloyd, Johnson, & Brook, 2014; Windsor, 2013), and youth services (Davis, Saltzburg, & Locke, 2009; Miller & Collins-Camargo, 2015). In practice, concept mapping is a dialogic stepwise process where participants address a research question by proposing, sorting, and ranking responses to the question, before finally interpreting resulting cluster maps together. For instance, Johnson et al. (2014) invited researchers, administrators, policy advocates, and public health practitioners to identify and sort factors associated with rural food access in the United States, resulting in a set of group-identified research and policy priorities, as well as variables for measuring rural food access. We organized the MCCFPS around concept mapping to develop a collective conceptual framework about an issue of shared interest among various stakeholders (Trochim, 1989a, 1989b)—in this case, the role of food pantry work to address food insecurity on Michigan college campuses. Building on these examples and theoretical underpinnings, we aim to unpack how we innovate concept mapping intentionally as feminist action research to instigate community, organizational, and policy changes in the context of growing inequity on college campuses in the U.S.

Background: Addressing food insecurity on campus

The College and University Pantries (CUP) research team emerged in 2014 after several researchers at University of Michigan-Dearborn came together to understand food insecurity on their own campus, where a food pantry opened in 2012. Our interdisciplinary team has since pursued regional and national research to examine how campus pantries address student food insecurity ( Price et al., 2019; Price & Sampson, 2018; Reppond et al., 2018). The MCCFPS emerged from this research program at a time when nationwide attention to this social issue was rapidly mounting, particularly in response to national survey findings from the Wisconsin HOPE Lab (now the Hope Center for College, Community, and Justice) (Goldrick-Rab, Broton, & Eisenberg, 2015; Goldrick‐Rab, Richardson, et al., 2018).

Food security, or “the ready availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods” (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2017), among college and university students, is of increasing concern. Several researchers have analyzed prevalence patterns on college campuses (Chaparro, Zaghloul, Holck, & Dobbs, 2009; Morris, Smith, Davis, & Null, 2016; Patton-Lopez, López-Cevallos, Cancel-Tirado, & Vazquez, 2014; Tsui et al., 2011). Approximately half of undergraduate students may experience food insecurity during college (Goldrick‐Rab, Richardson, et al., 2018). Food insecurity is reported higher among those at community colleges compared to four-year schools, students of color compared to white students, and first-generation students compared to those who had at least one parent who attended college (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2015). Among students, food insecurity threatens health, as well as progresses toward graduation and future employment (Goldrick-Rab, Richardson, & Hernandez, 2017; Price & Sampson, 2018).

Many factors likely contribute to this food insecurity, including decades of underfunding of public education (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2016; Pew Charitable Trusts, 2015), which has contributed to the growing cost of tuition in the U.S. During the 2015–2016 academic year, an annual average cost of undergraduate tuition, fees, room, and board was $16,757 and $43,065 at public and private non-profit institutions, respectively (Snyder, de Brey, & Dillow, 2018), in addition to cost of living and books. Need-based financial aid has insufficiently countered increasing costs, resulting in a national trend, wherein 68% of graduating seniors graduated with $28,650 in debt in 2017 (The Institute for College Access & Success, 2018). Additionally, students are often ineligible for public assistance, which exacerbates food insecurity (Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2019; Blind for Review). These economic challenges suggest that the U.S. college experience may actually perpetuate inequity (Hurst, 2012).

In response, the number of food pantries on college campuses registered with the College and University Food Bank Alliance (CUFBA) tripled, from approximately 150 to 650, within the last five years. CUFBA provides many resources to campuses, including an online network space and various resources, such as a Campus Food Pantry Toolkit (CUFBA, 2015). Despite the tripling of food pantries on college campuses, we know little about if and how pantries are meeting the needs of college student populations (Price & Sampson, 2018), and feminist action research may elucidate strategies for reducing inequity.

The Michigan college campuses food pantry summit

We present the MCCFPS as a case study, using data from pre- and post-surveys and a description of our planning process. To push the potential of concept mapping as a FAR approach, we considered Reid’s (2004) principles and positionality explicitly in designing and assessing the MCCFPS. Sometimes we fell short of FAR, as described in our research methods, findings, and discussion sections below where we reference corresponding Principles 1–5 (Table 1) when appropriate. During planning stages, we found few studies reporting logistics or assessment of the concept mapping process. We show how we interspersed concept mapping with several activities during a daylong event with campus pantry practitioners intentionally as FAR, which instigated community, organizational, and policy changes to address student food insecurity.

Over six months, the CUP research team planned the MCCFPS with pantry staff at our own and nearby campuses with whom we had existing relationships (Principles 1 and 2). We were interested in examining opportunities, challenges, and approaches shared among pantry practitioners, and how pantry practitioners address underlying food security among college students in Michigan (Principle 3). Most U.S. campus pantries are run by staff or students, who are navigating complex university structures and often have limited experience working in food systems (Price & Sampson, 2018). We recognized our relational position to this work as scholars not involved in day-to-day operations (Principle 5). As such, we aimed for an event that was a valuable use of pantry practitioners’ time with space to discuss issues most important to their daily work, which we knew may not fully align with our research aims (Principle 1). Shaped by a pre-survey to gather initial perspectives on these issues (Principle 2), the MCCFPS entailed a full day of events in October 2016 (Figure 1): opening remarks, introductions, a problem-solving workshop, a networking lunch, a panel addressing food security programs and policies, and a post-survey, between which interactive concept mapping steps were scheduled throughout the day.

Figure 1.

A summit agenda built around concept mapping steps.

Methods

To identify and recruit participants for the inaugural MCCFPS, we developed a list of all campus pantries publicly registered with CUFBA in Michigan (N = 19). We called and emailed pantry practitioners, inviting one to three practitioners from each campus. The hierarchal nature of academic culture is a barrier for some staff- and student-led pantries, as subsequently discussed by participants during the summit, and we aimed to be inclusive of all staff, students, volunteers, and practitioners leading pantry operations on campuses by identifying session topics and recruiting participants collaboratively with staff and students on our campus (Principle 1). At some campuses, volunteers, faculty, or staff are also clients of pantries, but we did not ask if any of our participants shared this dual status to avoid stigmatization associated with food insecurity (Price & Sampson, 2018).

The University of Michigan-Dearborn Institutional Review Board approved study procedures for data collection at the event. In pre-summit emails, participants were provided a copy of our informed consent document. They were asked if they had questions and invited to sign it at the summit check-in. Each participating school was offered $150 to recognize contributions to research; many donated their stipend directly to their campus pantry, perhaps emphasizing their commitment to action (Principle 3) on their campus.

Pre- and post-summit surveys

Using Google Forms, we conducted a 10-item online pre-survey to ensure pantry practitioners informed the event (Principle 1), and we conducted a 15-item post-survey to assess their experience with this FAR approach to concept mapping. In the pre-survey, we wanted to understand who would be attending the summit and any necessary accommodations (e.g. dietary needs), as well as gauge participants’ expectations by asking: What are you hoping to gain from attending this event? In the post-survey, we wanted to understand if and how the event may have: (1) allowed pantry practitioners to share and increase knowledge through dialogic, collaborative research activities, (2) achieved inclusion and the intended participatory approach, and (3) instigated policy or programmatic action for social change (Principles 1–4). This approach entailed nine quantitative 7-point Likert-scale items, as well as six open-ended qualitative questions asking participants to describe key lessons learned, new networking opportunities, skills or practices they plan to take back to their campus, the knowledge gained regarding food policy, and what they found most and least valuable about the event. To analyze survey data, we generated descriptive statistics on quantitative items and coded open-ended qualitative questions.

Concept mapping at the MCCFPS

We adapted the concept mapping stepwise process in ways that prioritized topics raised by participants in the pre-survey as partners in research (Principle 2) and to accommodate a day-long timeframe. Concept mapping typically entails: (1) identification of a research question, (2) generation of statements responding to the research question, (3) consolidation of those statements, (4) sorting and ranking of statements into related piles, (5) development of cluster maps based on statements, and (6) interpretation and use of resulting maps (Campbell & Salem, 1999; Kane & Trochim, 2007; Rosas, 2017). In the pre-survey, participants commonly referenced themes related to best practices and student needs, and based on these responses, our research question became: How does your campus pantry best serve students and foster their success? Pantry practitioners defined ‘best’ and ‘success’ in incredibly diverse ways, and we deliberately approached the concept mapping exercise without defining these terms for participants (Principle 1). The next concept mapping steps were interwoven with activities (Figure 1) based on practitioners’ interest in advancing their work and learning from others about day-to-day operations (Principles 1–4). In the morning, participants generated statements in response to the research question (Step 2), members of the research team worked behind the scenes during the problem-solving workshop to consolidate those statements (Step 3), and participants then sorted and ranked those statements into thematic piles (Step 4). During a networking lunch and panel, research team members developed preliminary cluster maps based on participants’ statements and themes (Step 5), and preliminary interpretation and use of resulting maps (Step 6) occurred in a late afternoon group discussion between researchers and participants (Principle 3). Participants completed Steps 2 and 4 on tablets using Concept Systems Global® MAX_TM (2017), a concept mapping software. More comprehensive analyses and findings, including statistical analyses depicting the relationships between concepts as visualized by cluster and pattern match maps are published elsewhere (Reppond et al., 2018).

Problem-solving workshop

Mid-morning at the MCCFPS, we facilitated a problem-solving workshop that enabled networking among pantry staff across campuses and provided time for researchers to complete consolidation of statements as part of concept mapping. We asked small cross-campus teams to briefly describe the problems they face in developing, implementing, or evaluating their campus pantries. We redistributed these problems to other teams who offered practical solutions in writing. In an afternoon debrief, participants shared stories and suggestions (Principle 1) on topics such as institutional barriers, client stigma, and limited resources. To support rapid follow-up towards programmatic or institutional changes on participating campuses (Principles 3–4), we immediately emailed de-identified text that included all problems and solutions to participants. Major takeaways were shared in a technical report (Sampson et al., 2017) with attendees within a few months, while more elaborate, time-intensive analyses were later published (Reppond et al., 2018).

Panel of policymakers and community leaders

Our midday panel was open to the public with a keynote address from U.S. Congressional Representative, Sander Levin (D—MI). Panelists included: Sharelle Arnold, Associate Director of the Women’s Center at Grand Valley State University; Kait Skwir, Deputy Director of the Food Bank Council of Michigan; and Nate Smith-Tyge, Co-Founder of CUFBA. U.S. Congressional Representative, Debbie Dingell (D—MI) also attended. After comments from Congressman Levin and a brief overview from each panelist about their work, a dialogue ensued about possible policy and program interventions to best support pantries and address food insecurity among college students (Principles 3–4). For instance, participants asked Skwir about how campus pantries partner with regional food banks and Arnold and Smith-Tyge about best practices. The inquiry was multidirectional, as Congressman Levin also asked questions of pantry practitioners to get a better sense of their work and possible policy solutions to reduce campus food insecurity (Principle 4).

Findings from pre- and post-summit surveys

Table 2 describes MCCFPS participants based on the pre-survey, which was completed by all pantry practitioners in attendance. There were 32 attendees, 29 representing 16 Michigan campuses and, to support action towards policy change (Principle 4), three staff members from Congressman Levin’s office. Of the 16 campuses represented, 6 were 2-year colleges, and 10 were 4-year universities. Four were in the process of developing a new campus food pantry, six had established theirs in the last six years, and five established in 2010 or earlier. MCCFPS was comprised mostly of women; of 32 participants, 26 identified as female, plus four female scholars, and four female undergraduate research assistants.

Table 2.

Descriptive summary of participants from campus pantries.

Individual participants
Sex
Female	26 (90%)
Male	3 (10%)
Race/ethnicity
White	24 (83%)
Black	2 (7%)
Latinx/Hispanic	2 (7%)
Asian American/Pacific Islander	1 (3%)
Role on campus
Administrator	5 (17%)
Faculty	5 (17%)
Staff	8 (28%)
Student	5 (17%)
Other	6 (21%)
Time working at pantry (years)
6+ years	1 (3%)
4–6 years	1 (3%)
1–3 years	11 (38%)
<1 year	16 (55%)
Participating schools
Type of school
4-year	10 (62.5%)
2-year	6 (37.5%)
Pantry in operation (years)
2000 or before	2 (12.5%)
2001–2005	0 (0.0%)
2006–2010	4 (25.0%)
After 2010	5 (20.0%)
Planning a pantry	5 (20.0%)

In the pre-survey, when asked: What are you hoping to gain from attending this event?, participants responses fell into eight themes: (1) best practices, (2) logistics and resources for establishing/sustaining a pantry (e.g. funding), (3) networking with other campus pantries, (4) awareness of pantry or food insecurity on campus, (5) assessing food insecurity on campus, (6) advancing related campus initiatives, (7) knowledge of state or federal policies (e.g. financial aid, assistance programs), and (8) general successes/challenges in integrating a pantry into campus programs (e.g. counseling, curriculum). In opening remarks, we shared these themes and our research goals, so participants got a sense of issues emerging among their peers (Principle 2) and in the literature (Principle 5).

Table 3 provides findings of the post-survey 7-point Likert-scale items. The summit increased knowledge and skills to promote policy and program actions on respective campuses (Principles 3–4), most notably allowing pantry practitioners to “reflect on the practices of [their] own food pantry” (M = 6.8, SD = 0.4) and increase “knowledge of other food pantries in Michigan” (M = 6.6, SD = 0.6). Participants reported a slightly lower impact of the Michigan food policy discussion (M = 5.9, SD = 1.1) (Principle 4). In general, the feedback was overwhelmingly positive, averaging 6.0 or higher. Participants strongly agreed they were well informed about objectives of the summit (M = 6.0, SD = 1.0) (Principle 5), it lived up to their expectations (M = 6.3, SD = 0.9), the context was relevant to their work (M = 6.6, SD = 0.6), they gained new ideas (M = 6.6, SD = 0.7), and they were able to use what they learned (M = 6.8, SD = 0.5). In sum, participants appeared to find the summit well planned and useful for informing their work.

Table 3.

Post-survey results for quantitative items.^a

	n	Mean (SD)	Range
Knowledge & skills
“The workshop activities encouraged me to reflect on the practices of my own food pantry.”	20	6.8 (0.4)	6–7
“The workshop activities furthered my knowledge of other food pantries in Michigan.”	20	6.6 (0.6)	5–7
“I will be able to use the practical skills and best practices that I learned about in this workshop.”	20	6.2 (0.9)	4–7
“How useful was the discussion about Michigan food policy?”	16	5.9 (1.1)	4–7
Feedback on MCFPS
“I was well informed about the objectives of this workshop.”	19	6.0 (1.0)	4–7
“This workshop lived up to my expectations.”	20	6.3 (0.9)	5–7
“The content is relevant to the operation of the food pantry on my campus.”	20	6.6 (0.6)	6–7
“The workshop provided me with new ideas for our campus food pantry.”	20	6.6 (0.7)	6–7
“I will be able to use what I learned in the workshop today.”	20	6.8 (0.5)	6–7

^a1–7 Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree).

To assess the potential for action and social change (Principles 3–4), in the post-survey we asked: What were the most important concepts you learned today, and how will you apply them to your food pantry? Some respondents reported a general appreciation for the abundance of information throughout the day. For example, one practitioner wrote: “So many great ideas were shared! It opened my mind and my brain and got me even more motivated!” Others identified specific information they found useful. Among the more specific answers, three key themes emerged as the most important concepts. (1) Participants described ideas about how to shift paradigms to raise awareness of food insecurity and reduce stigma for pantry users. Several participants commented on their newly recognized need to be more inclusive and address staff and adjunct faculty hunger, in addition to student hunger. (2) Participants described learning about small details, particularly knowledge about new ways to operate their program. One campus reported learning that “we don’t need to throw out food at the printed expiration date,” and another campus learned how to build a raincheck system to deal with demand when supplies are low. (3) Many participants commented on lessons learned regarding logistics around fundraising and partnerships. For example, a campus pantry reported new plans to “look into working with community partners and our foundation office to locate more resources and funding.” Responses consistently highlighted ways practitioners aimed to take actions to enact social change on their respective campuses (Principles 3–4).

We also asked: What practical skills and best practices do you plan to use in your campus food pantry, and how? Three themes emerged (Principle 3). (1) Participants described how they planned to develop or increase partnerships to stretch financial resources, such as with regional food banks, CUFBA, or local growers. (2) Building on new knowledge of “best practices,” pantry practitioners intended to try a variety of strategies, such as tweaks to timing, location, or distribution style (e.g. pre-packaged, shopping model) to increase accessibility and/or decrease stigma. (3) Pantry directors also planned to apply new practices in their efforts to assess needs or evaluate their programming.

Participants generally responded with enthusiasm regarding the community of practitioners that formed at the summit, when asked: How do you now think about your relationship to other campus food pantries, and do you plan to network/coordinate with other campus food pantries in MI? Pantry practitioners discussed plans for new synergistic efforts, networking opportunities, and mentoring relationships between those doing this work for a long time and those newly established or not yet in operation. Making initial face-to-face connections between pantries across Michigan reportedly increased the likelihood of future collaborations. For example, one school reported: “I made some really good connections with other campuses today. I feel more comfortable reaching out to other campuses with questions and support. This was very helpful for a new employee working with a very new food pantry.” Other schools noted the importance of these networking opportunities, for example: “I feel all Michigan pantries should support each other by coming together as we did today to share best practices and challenges” and “we’re all in the same place with the same issues … this is the beginning.” Not all campus pantry practitioners knew that other campuses were running pantries. As one participant noted, they “did not realize the number of colleges/universities interested in having a pantry on campus.” Inclusion of campuses in diverse phases of implementation may have strengthened the resulting experience.

Participants also reported that they were excited about the potential for social change related to their work (Principle 4), particularly to have Congressional representation in the room, in responding to the question: What was the most useful information that you took away from the discussion about Michigan food policy? Responses referenced new awareness about policies at the pantry (e.g. food safety), campus (e.g., financial aid), or federal (e.g., SNAP) levels. Two participants noted that the “most useful information” they took away from the discussion about food policy was, “that we need to advocate for not reducing SNAP.” Although some participants did not think about or understand the ways, the summit instigated discussion of social change through policy advocacy at multiple levels.

Finally, participants commented on the least and most valuable components of the summit, which enabled us to understand if and how we successfully achieved an inclusive, participatory approach. Overall, themes suggest that participants valued the collaborative nature of the event, opportunities to network, problem-solving their work, and generally increased knowledge and awareness of other programs on nearby campuses. Statements about the most valuable aspect of the day included: “Being able to share ideas and experiences with other schools,” and “Networking with other schools and getting energized about expanding services to meet needs.” Participants provided suggestions for improving the summit, which included more time to debrief the concept mapping activity (Principle 2) and to “mentor” the colleagues who had not yet started a pantry. A few noted that the sorting and ranking aspects of concept mapping were time consuming, but some acknowledged their value by providing responses such as: “The sorting of statements took a bit long but I know that was essential and [will] have a positive impact on food pantry development.” Participatory planning approaches (Principle 2) and openly fostering reflexive dialogue with participants (Principle 5) may have added some value by clarifying the underlying goals of the experience.

Discussion

To both support pantry practitioners’ work in addressing food insecurity among college students in Michigan and advance scholarship, we intentionally applied principles of FAR in our design of the MCCFPS. Admittedly, we had a small sample size and provided inadequate time during the summit to complete the post-survey, resulting in a lower-than-desired response rate (69%). However, in combination, post-surveys, additional outcomes from the summit described below, and our researcher reflexivity enable us to achieve a major aim of this paper—to interrogate the potential of concept mapping as a FAR approach.

Our approach led to the identification of an underlying research question, of interest to researchers and practitioners alike, that was addressed through the combined activities of the MCCFPS: How does your campus pantry best serve students and foster their success? As indicated in both post-surveys and findings from concept mapping (Reppond et al., 2018), participants collectively identified ways that pantries could best serve their students, including strategies for fundraising, raising awareness, daily operations, and integration of the pantries into campus programming, for instance. More work is needed to conceptualize and measure student success in its many forms and how pantries may impact it (Cady, 2016; Gupton, Trost, & Collins, 2018). The CUP research team continues to investigate the impact of campus pantries on issues of equity, academic success, and mental and physical health.

Our team was also interested in the next steps beyond the summit that may address campus food insecurity. This requires moving beyond only using traditional dissemination of study findings (i.e. peer-reviewed articles) and towards multidirectional translation of study findings to diverse audiences, which aligns with participatory, action, and FAR approaches (Beckman, 2014; Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker 1998; Sampson et al., 2017; Sommer, 2009). To this end, we immediately created an electronic mailing list of participants, distributed problem-solving notes, and published a technical report (Sampson et al., 2017). We have since learned that participants from three campuses used lessons learned and networks from the MCCFPS to successfully open their campus pantry, with one even receiving a $34,000 local foundation grant. Of course, many factors influenced this work beyond the MCCFPS.

Further, the CUP hosted the second annual MCCFPS in 2017 (Watters et al., 2018) and supported planning for the third MCCFPS in 2018 at a nearby university led by pantry practitioners active in the first two summits. Each summit has increasingly been practitioner-focused as pre-surveys identify interests in practical topics such as assessment, fundraising, and working with food vendors. In 2017, the MCCFPS focused on some of these topics, and the CUP research team conducted focus groups to better understand policy challenges and opportunities at institutional, state, and federal policy levels, which other scholars have started to identify and/or advocate for mostly at the federal level (GAO, 2019; Goldrick‐Rab, Cady, et al., 2018). In 2018, we led a session on the state of related research, shared our research findings, and facilitated a discussion, which was lively and multidirectional, on how research can support pantry practitioners’ work. Discussion included, for example, the role of research in documenting the prevalence of campus’ food insecurity, assessing impacts of pantry work, and justifying the need for a pantry or related resources at institutions of higher education.

The MCCFPS generated interest with federal policy-makers as well, particularly Representative Sander Levin (D—MI). Since the event, his staff reached out to our research team. We shared our technical report and learned that Levin’s office followed up with several campus food pantries across Michigan, setting college food insecurity as a policy priority for their office. In September 2017, Levin co-sponsored H.R. 3875, the College Student Hunger Act of, 2017, introduced by Representative Lawson of Florida to “amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to expand the eligibility of students to participate in the supplemental nutrition assistance program.” Also, in 2018, the Government Accountability Office met with the CUP research team to better understand food insecurity on college campuses for a report (GAO, 2019) commissioned by four U.S. senators, including Senator Debbie Stabenow (D—MI). Findings from the MCCFPS and related research were shared.

This case study highlights several ways we achieved principles of inclusion, participation, action, and social change (Reid, 2004) in planning and implementing the MCCFPS; although, additional opportunities may have existed to apply FAR to address campus food insecurity. Although we included pantry practitioners as experts in the research process through concept mapping and problem-solving, future research could be inclusive of pantry clients to understand better how they interpret best practices and success for pantries. In efforts towards a genuinely participatory approach, we collaborated with some pantry practitioners in planning the summit, relied on the pre-survey to inform design of summit activities, and co-interpreted concept mapping findings. However, more time may be needed first to build relationships with pantries as a fully participatory approach. Conducting concept mapping in one day, while working to achieve diverse goals identified in the pre-survey, may be burdensome on participants, as some indicated. Future concept mapping efforts could consider a follow-up event or, perhaps, an electronic process (e.g. interactive webinar) to conduct and co-interpret analyses. Also, to more carefully apply the principle of participation, others may opt to employ a more participatory evaluation approach (Israel, Schulz, Eng, & Parker, 2005; Minkler, 2012). Summit surveys indicated that pantry practitioners were eager to advance their current programmatic and advocacy actions and appreciated learning new strategies to implement on their respective campuses. Lastly, the MCCFPS appeared to lead to social change, including the formation of a regional community of practice (Price et al., 2019; Lave & Wegner, 1991; Wenger, 2000), an exchange of best institutional practices among campus pantries, and inspiration for federal policy on food access for college students. Still, as indicated in the post-survey, the day’s events did not allow for a full discussion or shared vision on possible policy strategies to address food insecurity on campuses, which was integrated into the 2017 MCCFPS.

The CUP research team also considered the principle of researcher reflexivity, as well as positionality, in planning, implementation, and assessment of the MCCFPS. We attempted to communicate our research goals regularly and transparently. Again, as a team of scholars, we are not involved in the day-to-day operations of pantry work. Although survey feedback from the 2016 MCCFPS and informal feedback after the 2018 MCCFPS suggest participants value hearing about and engaging in research, their priority is day-to-day management, often with limited resources (Reppond et al., 2018; Price et al., 2019). Thus, we have stepped back in our leadership roles in implementing the 2017 and 2018 MCCFPSs, providing more space to focus on practice rather than research at these events.

We cannot confirm if it was our concept mapping, wrap-around sessions, or the combination thereof that led to self-reported increased knowledge, skills, and networking towards action. We conclude that concept mapping’s shared generation of statements and ranking and sorting of themes enabled cooperative inquiry in ways that other methods may not. By sharing our detailed agenda (Figure 1), we suggest that concept mapping requires careful consideration of underlying epistemology as partners determine logistics of all related activities. Given our findings, alongside the community, organizational, and policy outcomes of the MCCFPS, we agree that those working in partnership to address social issues should consider concept mapping as a potential tool for applying FAR approaches, as Campbell and Salem (1999) long ago suggested.

Finally, with regard to gender as a central concern in feminist research, more consideration is needed in examining our all-female research team’s relationship to pantry practitioners and clients as both research partners and study participants. Those in the human services profession tend to more often identify as female than other genders (BLS, 2017), and this was reflected in the demographics of our summit participants. Also, the most recent Hope Center for College, Community, and Justice national survey (Goldrick‐Rab, Richardson, et al., 2018) suggests that female (37%) and non-binary (46%) college students are more likely than male college students (28%) to report being food insecure. These gender dynamics undoubtedly have implications for how food insecurity is experienced, studied, and addressed on college campuses.

Conclusion

In this case study, we shed light on ways that FAR may be responsive to the inequities experienced on college campuses, even within outwardly privileged spheres in the North. In doing so, we show how we innovated concept mapping as FAR with consideration of key principles and positionality in ways that instigated regional community of practitioners, an exchange of best practices among campus pantries, and policy strategies to address food access for college students. This critical reflection on concept mapping and its outcomes may be useful to other scholars working with separate or isolated communities on a shared social issue; however, we do not see it as prescriptive. Other community-academic partnerships should review our agenda and plan accordingly to meet their collective needs.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This reseach was supported by the Office of Metropolitan Impact and the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs at University of Michigan-Dearborn, as well as the University of Michigan Mcubed program.

ORCID iD

NR Sampson

Author biographies

NR Sampson is an assistant professor of Public Health at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. She received her BA in Environmental Studies and her PhD in Health Behavior/Health Education from the University of Michigan, as well as a MPH from Portland State University. She conducts community-based research to study social and physical environments and their effects on health inequities. She applies participatory research approaches with diverse partners using a broad methodological toolkit, including photovoice, concept mapping, and health impact assessment.

CE Price is an assistant professor of Sociology and affiliate faculty of Women’s and Gender Studies and the Center for Arab American Studies at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. She earned her PhD in Sociology from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville; her MSW from Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana; and her BA in Elementary Education and Psychology from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. She conducts research focused on food insecurity and environmental justice using community-based participatory research methods. She teaches courses on contemporary social problems, quantitative research methods, and poverty and inequality.

HA Reppond is an assistant professor of Psychology and affiliate faculty of Women’s and Gender Studies at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. She earned her MA in Experimental Psychology from California State University, San Jose and her PhD in Psychology and Feminist Studies from the University of California, Santa Cruz. Dr Reppond’s research focuses on the social psychological and policy dimensions of social class. Specifically, she utilizes an intersectional lens to examine the causes and consequences of economic inequality, food insecurity, and housing instability. Dr Reppond is a faculty expert for the University of Michigan Poverty Solutions Strategic Initiative and a member of the Editorial Board for the Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy.

M DeRoche is a PhD candidate and Graber Scholar in Political Psychology at the University of California-Irvine. She earned her BA in Psychology and Political Science at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. Her research intersects around questions about individuals’ implicit and explicit attitudes and biases, structural inequalities, and political power and policy. Her teaching interests include the intersections of race and ethnicity in American politics, gender differences in moral expression, and how implicit theories of self are perpetuated through political speech; thereby reinforcing structural, political, ideological, and social biases.

K Thomas-Brown is an associate professor at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. She previously taught at the University of the West Indies, Jamaica. She holds a PhD and Bachelor’s degree from the University of the West Indies in Geography. Dr Thomas-Brown has published over twenty articles in peer review journals in the United States and the Caribbean, and her research focus has been geography and multicultural education in a globalized setting. Some of her recent publications are in Research in Geographic and Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research. She is a member of the National Council for Geographic Education, the Standing Committee for the Nation’s Report Card (NAEP) in geography and a member of the Editorial Board for Research in Geographic Education.

References

Ackerly

B. A.

True

(2010). Doing feminist research in political and social science. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Beckman

L. J.

(2014). Training in feminist research methodology: Doing research on the margins, women and therapy. Women & Therapy, 37(1–2), 164–177.

Cady

(2016). Starving for knowledge: Why campuses need to address student food insecurity. About Campus, 21(2), 27–31.

Campbell

Salem

D. A.

(1999). Concept mapping as a feminist research method: Examining the community response to rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(1), 65–89.

Carter

(2003). Action research in community planning. Journal of Community Practice, 11(4), 121–131.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2016, Aug 18). State-by-state fact sheets: Higher education cuts jeopardize students’ and states’ economic future. Retrieved from www.cbpp.org/research/state-by-state-fact-sheets-higher-education-cuts-jeopardize-students-and-states-economic

Chaparro

Zaghloul

Holck

Dobbs

(2009). Food insecurity prevalence among college students at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. Public Health Nutrition, 12(11), 2097–2103.

Coghlan

Brydon-Miller

(2014). Positionality. Sage encyclopedia of action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

College Student Hunger Act of 2017. H. R. 3875, 115th Cong. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3875?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22college+student+hunger+act%22%5D%7D

10.

College & University Food Bank Alliance. (2015). Campus food pantry toolkit. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B48pfvhHPAKncGNoVWNCMHhVWkE/view

11.

Concept Systems Global® MAX_TM (2013). (Build 322.11) [Web-based Platform]. (2017). Ithaca, NY. Retrieved from www.conceptsystemsglobal.com

12.

Cook

J. A.

Fonow

M. M.

(1986). Knowledge and women’s interests: Issues of epistemology and methodology in feminist sociological research. Sociological Inquiry, 56(4), 2–29.

13.

Davis

T. S.

Saltzburg

Locke

C. R.

(2009). Supporting the emotional and psychological well being of sexual minority youth: Youth ideas for action. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(9), 1030–1041.

14.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum Publishing.

15.

Goldrick-Rab

Cady

Coca

(2018). Campus food pantries: Insights from a national survey. Hope Center for College, Community and Justice, Retrieved from https://hope4college.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-CUFBA-Report-web3.pdf

16.

Goldrick-Rab

Broton

Eisenberg

(2015). Hungry to learn: Addressing food & housing insecurity among undergraduates. Wisconsin Hope Lab, Retrieved from http://wihopelab.com/publications/Wisconsin_hope_lab_hungry_to_learn.pdf

17.

Goldrick-Rab

Richardson

Hernandez

(2017). Hungry and homeless in college: Results from a national study of basic needs insecurity in higher education. Wisconsin Hope Lab, Retrieved from http://wihopelab.com/publications/hungry-and-homeless-in-college-report.pdf

18.

Goldrick-Rab

Richardson

Schneider

Hernandez

Cady

(2018). Still hungry and homeless in college. Madison, WI: Wisconsin HOPE Lab.

19.

Gupton

Trost

J. L.

Collins

(2018). Food pantries as a gateway for academic enhancement and basic needs support. New Directions for Community Colleges, 184, 61–71.

20.

Heron

(1996). Co-operative inquiry: Research into the human condition. London, GB: SAGE Publications Ltd.

21.

Hurst

A. L.

(2012). College and the working class: What it takes to make it. Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers.

22.

Institute for College Access & Success. (2018 Sep). Student debt and the class of 2017: 13th Annual Report. Retrieved from https://ticas.org/sites/default/files/pub_files/classof2017.pdf

23.

Israel

Schulz

Eng

Parker

(2005). Methods in community-based participatory research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

24.

Israel

Schulz

Parker

Becker

(1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173–202.

25.

Johnson

S. L.

Burke

J. G.

Gielen

A. C.

(2012). Urban students’ perceptions of the school environment’s influence on school violence. Children & Schools, 34(2), 92–102.

26.

Kane

Trochim

W. M. K.

(2007). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

27.

Kirby

McKenna

(1989). Experience, research, social change: Methods from the margins. Toronto, ON: Garamond Press.

28.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Lewin

G. W.

(Ed.). (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

30.

Lloyd

M. H.

Johnson

Brook

(2014). Illuminating the black box from within: Stakeholder perspectives on family drug court best practices. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 14(4), 378–401.

31.

Martin

Perkin

(2016). Food safety and food security: Mapping relationships. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 6(2), 13–24.

32.

Miller

J. J.

Collins-Camargo

(2015). Success on their own terms: Youths’ perspectives on successful foster care. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 10(1), 59–78.

33.

Minkler

(Ed.). (2012). Community organizing and community building for health and welfare. (3rd Ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

34.

Morris

L. M.

Smith

Davis

Null

D. B.

(2016). The prevalence of food security and insecurity among Illinois University Students. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 48(6), 376–382.

35.

Moxley

D. P.

Alvarez

R. A.

Gutierrez

L. M.

Johnson

A. K.

(2003). Action research, case study, and community practice. Journal of Community Practice, 13(1), 1–10.

36.

Patton-López

M. M.

López-Cevallos

D. F.

Cancel-Tirado

D. I.

Vazquez

(2014). Prevalence and correlates of food insecurity among students attending a midsize rural university in Oregon. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 46(3), 209–214.

37.

Pew Charitable Trusts. (2015 June 11). Federal and state funding of higher education: A changing landscape. Retrieved from www.pewtrusts.org/∼/media/assets/2015/06/federal_state_funding_higher_education_final.pdf

38.

Price, C., Sampson, N., Reppond, H., Thomas-Brown, K., & Camp, J. (2019). Creating a community of practice among Michigan college campuses food pantry directors. Journal of Community Practice, 27(1), 96–109.

39.

Price, C. & Sampson, N. (2018). Food pantries on college and university campuses: An emerging solution to food insecurity. In Hossfeld, L., Kelly, B., & Waity, J. (Eds.). Food and Poverty: Food Insecurity and Food Sovereignty among America's Poor. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

40.

Reid

(2004). Advancing women’s social justice agenda: A feminist action research framework. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(3), 1–15.

41.

Reppond, H. A., Thomas-Brown, K., Sampson, N., & Price, C. (2018). Addressing food insecurity in college: Mapping a shared conceptual framework for campus pantries in Michigan. Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy, 18(1), 378–399.

42.

Rosas

S. R.

(2017). Group concept mapping methodology: Toward an epistemology of group conceptualization, complexity, and emergence. Quality & Quantity, 51(3), 1403–1416.

43.

Sampson

Tetteh

Schulz

Ramirez

Wilkins

de Majo

Lawrence

(2016). Multidirectional translation of environmental health science in community settings: The case of oxidative stress pathways. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 10(2), 275–284.

44.

Sampson, N., Al-Khshali, A., Reppond, H., Price, C., & Thomas-Brown, K. (2017). Campus Pantries Feeding Students: A Report from the 2016 Michigan College Campuses Food Pantry Summit. Dearborn, MI: CUP Research Team. Retrieved from: https://sites.google.com/umich.edu/cupresearch

45.

Snyder

T. D.

de Brey

Dillow

S. A.

(2018). Digest of Education Statistics 2016 (NCES 2017-094). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017094.pdf

46.

Sommer

(2009). Dissemination in action research. Action Research, 7(2), 227–236.

47.

Trochim

W. M. K.

(1989a). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(1), 1–16.

48.

Trochim

W. M. K.

(1989b). Concept mapping: Soft science or hard art? Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(1), 87–110.

49.

Tsui

Freudenberg

Manzo

Jones

Kwan

Gagnon

(2011). Housing instability at CUNY: Results from a survey of CUNY undergraduate students. Healthy CUNY Initiative, City University of New York. Retrieved from www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Centers/Center%20for%20Human%20Environments/cunyhousinginstability.pdf

50.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2017 October 4). Measurement. Retrieved from www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/measurement/

51.

United States Government Accountability Office. (2019, January). Food Insecurity: Better Information Could Help Eligible College Students Access Federal Food Assistance Benefits (Publication No. GAO-19-95). Retrieved from www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-95

52.

Walker

R. E.

Kawachi

(2012). Use of concept mapping to explore the influence of food security on food buying practices. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 112(5), 711–717.

53.

Watters, E., Sampson, N., Price, C., Reppond, H., Camp, J. & Thomas-Brown, K. (2018). Feeding Student Success: A Report from the 2017 Michigan College Campuses Food Pantry Summit. Dearborn, MI: CUP Research Team. Retrieved from: https://sites.google.com/umich.edu/cupresearch

54.

Wenger

(2000). Communities of practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

55.

Windsor

L. C.

(2013). Using concept mapping in community-based participatory research: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(3), 274–293.