A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Drawing boundaries: Negotiating a collective ‘we’ in community-supported agriculture networks
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2051-6656
Abstract Research on community-supported agriculture (CSA) has highlighted the coexistence of different models and types of CSA initiatives. However, no study has explored how diverse models and definitions of CSA are collectively established, maintained, and enforced vis-à-vis changing political, economic, social, and cultural contexts. This article addresses this gap by drawing on the concept of boundary work, developed in social movement theory, which describes the process through which a social movement defines and situates itself in time and space in relation to its context. We investigate the boundary work of CSA at the level of the national network organisations in Germany and Italy, which provide a space where boundary work occurs, that is, where protagonists and antagonists are framed and a common understanding of CSA and who should join the network is constantly negotiated. By reconstructing the narratives and key topics of boundary work in both CSA networks, we showcase how the CSA model is delineated and a collective ‘we’ is constructed differently across countries in relation or opposition to pre-existing movements as well as the international CSA movement. Through the lens of boundary work, we highlight the internal contestations within the networks, which are often hidden by the seeming unity depicted in social mobilisations and the networks' official communication. Moreover, this study identifies different mechanisms of boundary work, which can be grouped into three types: creating, institutionalising, and enforcing the boundary. We find that the networks are engaged, to different extents and in different forms, in these types of boundary works. Based on the two case studies, we discuss potential misalignments, the implications of choosing a narrow or broad definition for the membership, and the challenge of addressing the internal heterogeneity within CSA networks.
Highlights National CSA networks provide spaces for collectively defining the CSA model. Pre-existing movements fundamentally shape the boundaries of CSA in a given context. A processual perspective on boundary work reveals internal contestations within networks. Boundary work mechanisms include creation, institutionalisation and enforcement.
Drawing boundaries: Negotiating a collective ‘we’ in community-supported agriculture networks
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2051-6656
Abstract Research on community-supported agriculture (CSA) has highlighted the coexistence of different models and types of CSA initiatives. However, no study has explored how diverse models and definitions of CSA are collectively established, maintained, and enforced vis-à-vis changing political, economic, social, and cultural contexts. This article addresses this gap by drawing on the concept of boundary work, developed in social movement theory, which describes the process through which a social movement defines and situates itself in time and space in relation to its context. We investigate the boundary work of CSA at the level of the national network organisations in Germany and Italy, which provide a space where boundary work occurs, that is, where protagonists and antagonists are framed and a common understanding of CSA and who should join the network is constantly negotiated. By reconstructing the narratives and key topics of boundary work in both CSA networks, we showcase how the CSA model is delineated and a collective ‘we’ is constructed differently across countries in relation or opposition to pre-existing movements as well as the international CSA movement. Through the lens of boundary work, we highlight the internal contestations within the networks, which are often hidden by the seeming unity depicted in social mobilisations and the networks' official communication. Moreover, this study identifies different mechanisms of boundary work, which can be grouped into three types: creating, institutionalising, and enforcing the boundary. We find that the networks are engaged, to different extents and in different forms, in these types of boundary works. Based on the two case studies, we discuss potential misalignments, the implications of choosing a narrow or broad definition for the membership, and the challenge of addressing the internal heterogeneity within CSA networks.
Highlights National CSA networks provide spaces for collectively defining the CSA model. Pre-existing movements fundamentally shape the boundaries of CSA in a given context. A processual perspective on boundary work reveals internal contestations within networks. Boundary work mechanisms include creation, institutionalisation and enforcement.
Drawing boundaries: Negotiating a collective ‘we’ in community-supported agriculture networks
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2051-6656
Abstract Research on community-supported agriculture (CSA) has highlighted the coexistence of different models and types of CSA initiatives. However, no study has explored how diverse models and definitions of CSA are collectively established, maintained, and enforced vis-à-vis changing political, economic, social, and cultural contexts. This article addresses this gap by drawing on the concept of boundary work, developed in social movement theory, which describes the process through which a social movement defines and situates itself in time and space in relation to its context. We investigate the boundary work of CSA at the level of the national network organisations in Germany and Italy, which provide a space where boundary work occurs, that is, where protagonists and antagonists are framed and a common understanding of CSA and who should join the network is constantly negotiated. By reconstructing the narratives and key topics of boundary work in both CSA networks, we showcase how the CSA model is delineated and a collective ‘we’ is constructed differently across countries in relation or opposition to pre-existing movements as well as the international CSA movement. Through the lens of boundary work, we highlight the internal contestations within the networks, which are often hidden by the seeming unity depicted in social mobilisations and the networks' official communication. Moreover, this study identifies different mechanisms of boundary work, which can be grouped into three types: creating, institutionalising, and enforcing the boundary. We find that the networks are engaged, to different extents and in different forms, in these types of boundary works. Based on the two case studies, we discuss potential misalignments, the implications of choosing a narrow or broad definition for the membership, and the challenge of addressing the internal heterogeneity within CSA networks.
Highlights National CSA networks provide spaces for collectively defining the CSA model. Pre-existing movements fundamentally shape the boundaries of CSA in a given context. A processual perspective on boundary work reveals internal contestations within networks. Boundary work mechanisms include creation, institutionalisation and enforcement.
Drawing boundaries: Negotiating a collective ‘we’ in community-supported agriculture networks
Guerrero Lara, Leonie (author) / Feola, Giuseppe (author) / Driessen, Peter (author)
Journal of Rural Studies ; 106
2024-01-01
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
| Online Contents | 2012
Negotiating with the Collective Ear
| Taylor & Francis Verlag | 2024
Growing food, growing community: Community Supported Agriculture in rural Iowa
| Oxford University Press | 1999
Invited Artist: Drawing Across Boundaries Exhibitions
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 1998