Reflective Action in the Academy:

Exploring Praxis in Critical

Geography using a “Food Movement”
Case Study
Sarah E L Wakefield
Food and Health Research Interest Group, Centre for Urban Health
Initiatives/Department of Geography and Program in Planning,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;
sarah.wakefield@utoronto.ca

Abstract: One of the key components of critical geography is praxis—defined here as the
melding of theory/reflection and practice/action as part of a conscious struggle to transform the
world. Put simply, praxis is giving life to ideas about the way the world is—and could be—by
acting on one’s convictions in daily (work and home) life. Praxis can thus take many forms, and
can occur both within and outside the academy. This paper examines how research and practice
can be co-constituted by examining the “food movement” (ie the mobilization of disparate
social actors in resistance to various aspects of the dominant corporate–industrial food system)
in Canada as a case study. Through this lens, different forms of praxis are interrogated, not to
identify a uniform “best praxis”, but rather to highlight the benefits and drawbacks of particular
approaches in this one specific context. In so doing, the paper explores how critical geographers
might contribute, through praxis, to the recognition and restructuring of social relations as part
of the broader emancipatory project that is central to critical theory.

Introduction
This paper explores ways of linking critical theory to practice in ge-
ography, using the “food movement” in Canada as a case study. Put
simply, praxis is giving life to ideas about the way the world is—and
could be—by acting on one’s (theoretically informed) convictions in
daily life. As Fuller and Kitchin note, critical geography1 seeks to “ex-
pose the socio-spatial processes that (re)produce inequalities between
people and places”, and therefore critical praxis,
while a form of applied geography, differs from what is commonly
held to be applied geography (as typified by the journal of that name)
because of its ideological intent; its challenge rather than support of
the status quo. (Fuller and Kitchin 2004:5)
I attempt to add to this conceptualization of praxis through an ex-
ploration of my own experiences in the “food movement”, an alliance
of disparate social actors mobilizing in resistance to various aspects of
the dominant corporate–industrial food system. To contextualize these

C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
332 Antipode

experiences, I draw on a range of recent writings, with special atten-

tion to a recent collection of papers edited by Duncan Fuller and Rob
Kitchin (2004). I begin by elaborating the broad range of activities that
could constitute an academic’s critical praxis. Then, I highlight key ar-
eas of tension that can develop from, and also serve to shape, academic
praxis. These areas of tension, and the negotiations involved in reconcil-
ing them, are used as a mechanism to think through the value of various
forms of academic praxis. In so doing, I hope to inform a new way of
recognizing and valuing “critical” praxis, while at the same time re-
specting the situated nature of those attempting it, and remaining open
to the full range of activities involved in the bold and joyful pursuit
of a better world. This paper contributes to existing work by identify-
ing the key elements that define critical praxis. It goes beyond exist-
ing frameworks in critical geography, which tend to privilege particular
types of praxis a priori, to identify the particular characteristics of praxis
that allow critical geographers to act most effectively to facilitate social
change.

Food Forever and for All: The Food Movement in Canada

In this paper I have chosen to explore praxis by drawing examples from
what I consider the “food movement” (see also Hassanein 2003; Wekerle
2004). In Canada and around the world, issues related to the food sys-
tem have become prominent among the concerns of individuals, groups,
and organizations. Food security (ie the “condition in which all peo-
ple at all times can acquire safe, nutritionally adequate and personally
acceptable foods that are accessible in a manner that maintains human
dignity”; Ryerson University Centre for Studies in Food Security 2003)
among the marginalised in all countries has long been a concern (eg
Daily Bread Food Bank 2005; Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations 2004). More recently, the environmental sustainability of
a food system fuelled by chemicals, gasoline, and, increasingly, genetic
modification has been questioned by environmentalists (eg Greenpeace
Canada 2005; Sustain, 2005; see also Pretty et al 2005). Further, the
dominance of a globalized, corporate industrial model of agriculture
has been challenged for its unfair treatment of workers (including mi-
grant labourers, family farmers, and workers in processing plants; Cor-
porate Agribusiness Research Project 2005; Schlosser 2001), its inhu-
mane treatment of animals (Canadian Coalition for Farm Animals 2005),
and its commodification of the basic requirements of life (for example,
through gene patenting and restrictions on seed saving—Rademacher
2002; Third World Network 2004). In this context, access to sustain-
able, healthy food is increasingly seen as an environmental justice issue,
and the connections between formerly disparate fields of engagement
(eg between anti-poverty and environmental activism) are being made

C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Reflective Action in the Academy 333

clear. Food activism, then, can make visible the normally opaque rela-
tionships between environmental and human devastation. Healthy food
is a fundamental human need—as such, food can be a powerful tool for
broad-based education and mobilization.
The food movement, perhaps best seen as a loose alliance of actors
concerned with a variety of food issues, is becoming increasingly or-
ganized in Canada. After numerous networking meetings and strategy
sessions, two national organizations were formed in 2005 with the in-
tention of formalizing and strengthening relationships in this arena. The
first of these, Food Secure Canada, has emerged as “a national alliance
of civil society organizations and individuals working collaboratively
to create food security in Canada and globally” (Food Secure Canada
2005). The organization is a very diverse partnership, bringing together
food banks, environmental groups, farmers, First Nations representa-
tives, farm workers, public health organizations, and others to lobby for
hunger reduction, sustainable food systems, and healthy uncontaminated
food (Food Secure Canada 2005). The second organization, the Cana-
dian Association for Food Studies (CAFS), was organized to promote
“critical, interdisciplinary scholarship . . . in response to societal needs
for informing policy makers, assessing the outcomes of community-
based work, and demonstrating the environmental and social impacts
of changes affecting food systems and food policies” (CAFS 2005).
CAFS is seen by some as the “research wing” of Food Democracy
Canada.
While I think that the issues at stake within the food movement are
on their own worthy of research attention, the key reason that this pa-
per focuses on food is my own active involvement with this issue as
researcher and movement participant in Toronto, Canada. I have a long-
standing interest in food—I grew up in a household where growing food
was a part of life, and as an undergraduate became interested in how
food security relates to both sustainability and social justice, and be-
came involved in both research and action related to food. Two years
ago, I joined the University of Toronto Geography Department as a
tenure-track assistant professor. Since then, I have been collaborating
with FoodShare Toronto, the Food Justice Coalition, and the Toronto
Food Policy Council (among others) on research projects. I am the coor-
dinator of the “food and health” working group of the Centre for Urban
Health Initiatives (an organization which facilitates the development
of intersectoral and community-based research partnerships). In addi-
tion, I am part of a community-supported agriculture (CSA) program,
in which individuals purchase “shares” of a local organic farmer’s crop,
involved with several local food-related organizations and committees,
and an enthusiastic but itinerant backyard food grower. These activi-
ties have given me an opportunity to engage in praxis, and to develop
relationships with a wide range of activists (including farmer activists,

C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
334 Antipode

gardener activists, service provider activists, student activists and other

academic activists). While these experiences are context-specific and
contingent, I hope by exploring them to contribute to a larger discussion
on the role of academic praxis within the academy and in the broader
community.

Praxis in Critical Geography: a Typology

Recent commentaries have bemoaned the limited contribution that
geography—and by extension, geographers—have made to important
public debates (eg Martin 2001; Massey 2001; Dorling and Shaw 2002).
Fuller and Kitchin (2004:6) relatedly argue that geographers have been
“somewhat restrained” in their policy and community engagement. They
go on to state that in geography:
critical praxis seems to consist of little else beyond pedagogy and aca-
demic writing. Potentially it might consist of calling for changes in
policy. It may consist of research praxis that aims to be more reflex-
ive or emancipatory or empowering (changing the conditions of the
research process but rarely seeking wider social change). But it rarely
consists of a marriage between academic and activist roles, in which
one’s private and professional attempts to change the world are not
divided into distinct and separable roles and tasks. (Fuller and Kitchin
2004:6)
This quote suggests that, while some praxis is occurring, certain kinds
of praxis are not occurring. It also implies that certain forms of praxis
are valued above others by the authors. This paper explores the nature
of different forms of praxis, and also examines whether, and in what
contexts, certain forms of praxis should be considered to have greater
value.
In this paper, I view praxis in a way that is closely aligned with
Maxey’s (2004:160) definition of activism, as “something we can each
engage with in our everyday lives . . . attempting to do as much as we
can from where we are at”. Defining praxis broadly allows the full suite
of activities engaged in by food movement participants to be evaluated.
These range from the personal and everyday to encapsulated moments of
group struggle (such as protests). I attempt to categorize these forms of
praxis, not to set up boundaries around what counts as praxis, but rather
to illustrate the importance of several broad types, some of which can
go unrecognised. I have divided activities somewhat arbitrarily based
on whether I consider them to occur inside the academy, outside the
academy, or to somehow link these two worlds. This serves as a starting
point for elaborating the forms of praxis that bridge these largely illusory
boundaries, and also helps to contextualize later discussions. It should
be noted that I do not evaluate these forms as I describe them—I leave
this until later in the paper.

C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Reflective Action in the Academy 335

Praxis from the Inside

Many commentators, including Mitchell (2004) and Fuller and Kitchin
(2004), suggest that two forms of praxis dominate within the
university—teaching and academic writing. Teaching students is of
course one of the main functions of the university, and many academics
use their classes as an opportunity to inform and inflame students. In
some cases, praxis through teaching is informed by radical pedagogical
concepts such as those of Freire (1970, 1994; see also Shor 1980) or
hooks (1994), while in others the critical or radical aspect is embedded
in the material being taught. In any case, teaching is seen as a primary
way to engage students in critically re-assessing their taken-for-granted
world and to think about alternatives. Interestingly, a number of geog-
raphers have reported how they use food issues as a launching point
for critical reflection and engagement among students (eg Jarosz 2004;
Mitchell 2004).
And of course, many academic geographers undertake writing for
publication in (usually peer-reviewed) journals and books as a form of
praxis.2 Critical scholars work to expose injustices and the underlying
dynamics which produce them, advance or refine theory, and occasion-
ally suggest and/or evaluate alternative ways of living, and they get the
word out through publications and presentations at conferences. Mitchell
(2004:24) argues that this kind of written scholarship is an academic’s
most enduring contribution, using Karl Marx as an example:
Marx’s relevance to the world is precisely his scholarly work . . . There
were dozens—hundreds—of radical pamphleteers and revolutionary
political activists working, and doing important work, during Marx’s
life; yet most of these are forgotten to history . . . But Marx’s expla-
nations, contested as they may be, together with his mode of reason-
ing, live on. They have been germinal rather than terminal, promoting
whole social movements, political struggle, and shelf after shelf of
further scholarship, polemic, and analysis.
In relation to the food movement, geographers and others have con-
tributed significantly to articulating the problems associated with the
dominant agro-business model (eg Barndt 2002; Friedberg 2004; Kim
forthcoming) and to interrogating alternative modes of food produc-
tion and consumption (eg Baker 2004; DuPuis and Goodman 2005;
Goodman 2003; Guthman 2004). These and other works play a role in
shaping the theoretical perspectives that guide movement activists.
These two forms of praxis within the academy can be augmented
by a third: attempting to change the system we teach, write, and pur-
sue the many other aspects of our careers within. Castree (1999) argues
that activism “at home”—that is, within the university—is important
and increasingly needed, and should not take second place to activ-
ity outside academia. Many articles have been written condemning the

C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
336 Antipode

increased pressure to “produce” articles and teach more students

(Castree 1999; Castree and Sparke 2000; Roberts 2000; Smith 2000;
Wilbert and Hoskyns 2004). Others (eg Martin 2002; Shor 1980) have
presented powerful critiques of the higher education system as a mech-
anism for reproducing and legitimizing existing social stratifications. In
this context, struggling to rework the university as an institution could
be an important form of praxis.

Praxis on the Outside

A somewhat broader range of academic praxis exists when activities
outside the academy are considered, ranging from everyday activities to
isolated but important moments of protest. Outside the university, aca-
demics often subsume their university identities and engage with others
as “regular people”—of course, these identities, though subsumed, are
still present and can never be fully set aside (hooks 1994).
The first broad category of praxis outside the academy is the incor-
poration of one’s values into everyday activities. It is not surprising that
within the food movement, activities related to food—getting it, prepar-
ing it, eating it—matter. In order to act in a manner consistent with their
values, food activists have created alternative food provisioning systems.
These include specialty stores and co-ops that provide organic and local
foods, community supported agriculture (CSA), community gardens,
and other shared facilities such as community kitchens and communal
bake ovens (eg Friends of Dufferin Grove Park 2005). By supporting
these systems, food activists enact their values and also create informal
opportunities to meet others with similar interests. This may help facil-
itate a point of entry for those concerned about food issues but not yet
part of the “movement” per se.
A second form of critical praxis outside the academy is involvement
with groups and organizations. These groups may serve a primarily
activist function, or provide services to those disadvantaged by the ex-
isting system. In its most basic form, this involvement could take the
form of donations; at the other end of the spectrum is involvement at
the managerial level (such as being a member of a board of directors).
For example, Moss (2004) provides an in-depth description of her in-
volvement with a service organization providing housing to women in
need, while Maxey (2004) describes his participation in various envi-
ronmental groups. Similarly, academics have played a large role in the
development of Food Democracy Canada, the new national alliance,
and are actively involved in a number of local and regional food-related
organizations.
Academics can also take action outside the academy through explic-
itly political action. Formal political involvement could include vot-
ing, contacting elected representatives about issues or working for a

C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Reflective Action in the Academy 337

political party or candidate (or being one). Informal political actions

include civil disobedience with the goal of obstructing some activity.
These activities are generally more periodic than other forms of praxis,
serving as intense, crystallized moments of struggle. In my own recent
experience, formal political action and direct action by academics has
not been prominent in the food movement in Toronto, although some
health professionals with academic affiliations were involved in a recent
campaign for supplements to welfare and disability support payments to
allow recipients to buy better food (Ontario Coalition Against Poverty
2005).

Praxis that Bridges the Divide

Of course, much of the praxis of academic activists serves to extend
academic activities into the community (or to a more limited extent
vice versa), thus reducing the separation between “inside” and “out-
side”. Some activities are obvious extensions of the work we already do
as academics—namely teaching and writing—to non-academic venues.
Teaching outside the academy can take place through public lectures,
presentations at non-academic conferences, popular education and al-
ternative training initiatives, etc. Often these forums are organized by
community organizations and activist groups to build awareness around
a particular issue or activity, and may include a number of different kinds
of presenters as well as different kinds of learning opportunities. Some
examples from the food movement in Canada include the Food for Talk
seminar series (Centre for Urban Health Initiatives 2006), the National
Food Assembly (National Food Assembly 2005), and the Food Justice
Camp (Anglican Diocese of Rupert’s Land 2005). Critical praxis in
teaching can also bring “the outside” more explicitly into the classroom
through practices such as bringing in guest lecturers and introducing ser-
vice learning as a means of connecting students to communities (Jarosz
2004; University of Toronto 2003).
Writing for audiences outside academia is a similar extension of aca-
demic work. It can include writing for newspapers and popular mag-
azines as well as activist-oriented publications. Writing up the results
of research with marginalized communities in ways that are accessi-
ble to those communities can also be a powerful form of praxis. In
Toronto, books and newspaper articles are written (eg Roberts 2004,
2005; Roberts, MacRae and Stahlbrand 1999) and traded with zeal by
academics and non-academics alike through venues such as the “Food
News” e-bulletin. Other forms of dissemination, such as art installations,
have also been undertaken by local academic activists (eg Royal Ontario
Museum 2000).
The last two forms of critical praxis identified here have perhaps
received the most attention from other commentators. Direct policy

C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
338 Antipode

engagement—through research contracts, and/or the purposeful tailor-

ing of research messages to policymakers—is considered a centrally
important form of engagement by many geographers (eg Dorling and
Shaw 2002; Martin 2001). By working directly with state actors, geog-
raphers may be able to facilitate the development of progressive poli-
cies. In Toronto, some academics work directly with municipal gov-
ernment to shape local policy (eg through the Toronto Food Policy
Council).
Finally, working directly with communities (particularly activist and
marginalized groups) in the development, execution, and final distribu-
tion of research is seen by some as the ultimate form of critical academic
praxis, in which academic and activist roles are thoroughly blended and
research becomes “a collective experience that contributes in some tan-
gible way to the goals, tactics and strategies of those with whom we
collaborate” (Routledge 2004:84). This can include community-based
research (Sclove, Scammell and Holland 1998) and participatory action
research (Smith and Willms 1997), and generally differs from tradi-
tional research by actively involving community members in the re-
search process (from idea generation to analysis to dissemination of
results), and through its orientation towards community improvement
and social change rather than solely the expansion of knowledge (Fuller
and Kitchin 2004; Morris 2002; Ritas 2003). Community-based research
is a prominent component of academic praxis within the Toronto food
movement (eg Centre for Urban Health Initiatives 2006).

Tensions in Praxis: Lessons from the Food Movement

The preceding section identified a wide variety of activities that could
be considered part of critical praxis. Maxey (1999, 2004) notes that con-
straining definitions of activism can serve to exclude those who prefer not
to (or are unable to) engage in those activities considered “real” activism
(eg protests), and conceals the often gendered, classed, and racialized
processes by which particular activities get constituted as more or less
central. Similarly, defining academic praxis too narrowly can obscure the
various forms of engagement that are undertaken by critical geographers
inside and outside the academy.
However, providing a laundry list of modes of praxis does not address
the question of whether some forms of praxis are in fact more important
or effective than others, nor does it necessarily add to our understanding
of how particular forms of praxis are supported or hindered by the posi-
tioning of an academic activist within a social milieu. In order to address
these questions, I return to my own activities within the food movement.
These experiences (and related literature) are used to identify points of
tension in academic praxis, which are then used in turn to think through
how critical praxis can be best understood.

C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Reflective Action in the Academy 339

Tension One: Position and Privilege

A key point of tension in my own experience has been the develop-
ment of forms of praxis that are sensitive not only to my own classed,
gendered, and racialized position, but also to that of the other actors in
the movement with whom I hope to collaborate. As a 33-year-old white
woman of upper middle class Canadian origins, I cannot fully appre-
ciate the hardships—for example, poverty and racism—experienced by
others (as in Gleeson 1998). My personal characteristics and upbring-
ing also contribute to the way that I am seen by others (and the way I,
not entirely consistently, see myself), as of course does my academic
position (Barnett 1997).
This social and institutional “positionality” affects what I can do both
inside and outside the university. As an academic, I am ceded the power
to instruct others in a classroom setting, and in interactions with gov-
ernment officials, organizational representatives, and community mem-
bers, my opinions are given consideration due to my position. Being a
youngish-looking woman disrupts this authority somewhat, but in gen-
eral my power to act “as a professor” goes unquestioned, no doubt aided
by my (generally unconscious) use of the language and symbols of the
intellectual middle class that I emerged from.
This has facilitated my praxis in a number of ways. My inclusion of
course material that makes visible the social and environmental dynam-
ics involved in growing, processing, and distributing the staples of every-
day life generally goes unchallenged, as does my use of guest speakers
who can bring “on-the-ground” realities (eg of hunger in Canada) home
to the students. I am invited to participate in activities both within and
outside the university that allow me to voice my concerns about the food
system and its relation to underlying systems of oppression, and the ar-
ticles I write for academic and popular audiences on the subject have a
good chance of being published. I have also found it relatively easy to
insert myself into “expert networks” made up of other academics, orga-
nizational representatives, and sympathetic government actors, whose
activities are focused on policy change. In all of these situations, I am
able to push and challenge acceptance of the status quo and promote
particular policies and programs.
On the other hand, my social and institutional position has constrained
my ability to work easily in direct partnership with marginalized com-
munities. My position as an academic can lead to unwarranted deference
to my comments and a reluctance amongst collaborators to voice their
opinions. It is difficult to pick out particular examples of this occurring—
however, after working closely with a community-based researcher on a
project investigating local community gardens’ contributions to neigh-
bourhood well-being, I have grown to appreciate how differently I am
treated and responded to than an “insider” would be. This resonates with
much of the literature on postionality that suggests attention must be

C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
340 Antipode

consistently paid to the unequal power dynamics within a collaborative

research relationship (Chacko 2001; England 1994; Rose 1997; Wilton
2004). Dismantling these barriers to academic–community partnerships
is difficult and time-consuming. Indeed, given that these barriers are
lodged within deeply rooted mechanisms of social stratification, they
are likely to continue to emerge as problems despite ongoing efforts to
develop new relationships. For the same reason, however, working to
break down these barriers is central to the work of making visible and
pulling apart these exploitative structures.
An additional facet of this tension is how we, as academics, mobilize
our academic “persona” to move particular issues and agendas forward.
Academics who become directly involved in activist campaigns must
walk a fine line, since giving support in an unqualified way can lead
to questioning of a person’s “academic integrity” in a way that negates
the ability to mobilize an academic identity (eg “going native”—Fuller
1999). In this context, there is pressure to maintain or enhance the percep-
tion of objectivity, however false this perception may be. For example,
the new Canadian food studies research association (CAFS) adopted
a non-interventionist mandate, as follows: “CAFS encourages research
that promotes local, regional, national, and global food security, but
does not advocate or endorse specific policies or political platforms”
(CAFS 2005). This was the subject of considerable debate within the
group (which overlaps substantially with the activist network of Food
Secure Canada), but it was decided that adopting an explicit statement
such as this would help temper potential criticisms about the objectivity
of the group and would thus enhance the effectiveness of the organiza-
tion. However, adopting such a stance clearly precludes particular forms
of action. Determining if and when this is a worthwhile tradeoff is a
difficult negotiation.
All of these examples illustrate the necessity of thinking through one’s
own praxis in relation to the interplay between identity and situation. As
Routledge notes:
The point is not to escape our institutional or locational identities, but
to subvert them, or make them work for us in political ways that attempt
to effect social, environmental, and political change. (2004:84)
Paying appropriate recognition to “what we are” (Massey 2004), and
how that intersects with where we find ourselves, is thus an essential
component of critical praxis.

Tension Two: Working the System

“Being a professor” also implies working in an academic environment,
often within a university or an affiliated centre or institute. This particular
structural and institutional setting confers a unique set of facilitators and

C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Reflective Action in the Academy 341

constraints to critical praxis. Much recent writing has focussed on the

challenges faced by academics trying to engage in critical work (eg
Butterwick and Dawson 2005; Castree 1999; Castree and Sparke 2000).
However, others have adopted a more positive view of the university as
a place for critical praxis. For example, Mitchell argues:
Doing radical scholarship has perhaps never been easier . . . Many of us
who do radical scholarship are highly protected. We have permanent
or tenured jobs. We get rewarded for pursuing our political agendas.
(2004:25)
This difference in opinion might be accounted for by national and insti-
tutional dissimilarities, or by the diverse experiences and perspectives
of those writing, but I suspect this contradiction is more fundamental. I
personally have found the academy to be both an easy and difficult place
to act. Critical praxis has been easy, because I have almost unequalled
freedom to set my own agenda and organize my days as I choose; be-
cause I have supportive colleagues and mentors within and outside the
university; and because the current Canadian research funding infras-
tructure is open to (and in some cases highly supportive of) certain kinds
of critical inquiry. Unlike many other activists, I am relatively well paid
for the work I do. On the other hand, critical praxis is difficult, because
the pressure to be productive (that is, to publish in peer-reviewed jour-
nals) can overwhelm other activities, and because institutional interest
in exploring alternative models of research, pedagogy and governance
is low. These institutional pressures have not directly impacted on what
I think or say;3 instead, they can force my praxis into narrowly defined
channels.
For example, publishing in peer reviewed journals is an important
component of my performance review and tenure decisions (see Kitchin
and Fuller 2005). However, the inaccessibility of academic publications
to non-academics—both in terms of their obfuscating style of writing
(Dempsey and Rowe 2004; Martin 2002) and their limited availability to
those without access to a university library—can limit their usefulness.
Access to academic publications has been a problem for community
food activists in Toronto, thus limiting the ability of academic work on
food systems to help those seeking to challenge these systems.
Conversely, in work with food-related organizations I have repeatedly
been asked to help assess the state of existing knowledge through liter-
ature reviews, often with a very short turnaround time. I have also been
asked to help with primary research to fill specific gaps (eg to calculate
the greenhouse gas emissions that would be saved if schools bought local
apples rather than imported ones), so that the knowledge generated can
be incorporated directly into a specific campaign. I have rarely if ever
been asked to develop the kind of expansive, long-term, theoretically
engaged research that is most likely to receive funding or lead directly

C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
342 Antipode

to peer-reviewed publications. There is an important disconnect, then,

between the work that has meaning within the academy and the work
that has meaning outside it (see also Kitchin and Fuller 2005).
Similarly, the progressive potential of teaching is shaped by the in-
stitutional environment. There is no external control exercised over my
classroom content, assuming that the students don’t complain too much.
However, the paucity of resources allocated to things like teaching as-
sistance, field trips, honoraria for guest presenters, and administrative
support for service learning and community engagement means that op-
portunities for radical pedagogy (Friere 1994; Jarosz 2004; Shor 1980)
are somewhat constrained. Overall, limits are placed around “useful”
academic work through a subtle (and at times not so subtle) system of
rewards and resource allocations.
The university is thus a place that facilitates and constrains particular
activities. It is also a place through which significant material resources
flow. The university represents a significant accumulation of assets, in
the form of libraries, classrooms, office space, laboratories, computing
and telecommunications equipment, etc. In addition, there is a constant
flow of money into the university in the form of research funding. These
resources can be hard to come by in activist groups and community or-
ganizations. I have found that while working in research partnerships,
sometimes the most important contribution I can make is not my aca-
demic skills, but rather my ability to provide resources and to open doors
that would otherwise remain closed. For example, in my own research
projects, the provision of material resources—such as library privileges,
facilities for having meetings, access to photocopiers, computers and the
internet, and support for community events—has often been more im-
portant to the research partners than the research itself (see also Maxey
2004; Wilton 2004). This is not to imply that research funding or infras-
tructure should be misappropriated, but rather to draw attention to the
fact that collaborative research can—and should—be of direct benefit
to participants in material as well as psychological ways. However, the
extent to which this is feasible may be limited by existing structures and
norms that restrict the use of university and granting council resources
to more traditional research activities.

Tension Three: Making Change

Trying to think through the effectiveness of particular activities in rela-
tion to their potential to stimulate positive change is of course central to
any radical project. This is an undercurrent of much of the literature that
discusses both policy relevant research and community-based research.
That is, calls to make geography more “policy relevant” (eg Dorling and
Shaw 2002; Martin 2001) or more participatory (eg Fuller and Kitchin
2004; Kitchin and Hubbard 1999) often rely on either explicit or implicit

C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Reflective Action in the Academy 343

assumptions about how change is made. Doreen Massey (2002), in her

response to Dorling and Shaw’s (2002) paper on the policy relevance of
geography, takes the authors to task on just such an assumption:
[The authors] conclude with an argument for policy engagement as
prime means of making our research “relevant”. I am not so sure . . . To
begin with, influencing policy can be done by other means than direct
access to Ministers and such . . . Rather, one might believe it to be more
effective to work with campaigning groups, to engage in wider ways
of influencing public opinion, to participate in a more embedded way
within “civil society”. For me, this has been particularly productive.
Further, one’s decisions on these things will depend on the situation.
In the Thatcher years, I did not judge highly my potential influence in
the corridors of Whitehall . . . The current situation, for me, is much
more ambiguous, and the possibilities for direct “policy advice” are
greater. (Massey 2002:646)
Massey’s response clearly articulates a tension between the belief that
the way to create change is by working with existing policymakers, and
the belief that change—and radical change in particular—is achieved
though work at the grassroots. It also notes how responses to this tension
are contingent: certain actors are more likely to be able to achieve their
goals in certain situations using particular tactics, and so the tactics
employed might reasonably vary by context. In my own work, I have
been opportunistic as much as tactical, taking advantage of situations as
they arose. When I arrived at my new job, I was lucky enough to know
another academic involved in the food movement, and so was quickly
introduced to what was happening within the city’s universities and in
some of the local organizations. While this process of introduction is
ongoing, I have worked within this growing network to carry out both
policy analysis and local, community-based projects (see Centre for
Urban Health Initiatives (CUHI) 2006). These projects have different
aims and different audiences, and so not surprisingly have had different
effects. However, I would be hard pressed to suggest that one set of
outcomes is more important or meaningful than another.
While this tension between making change “from within” versus “at
the grassroots” has been most clearly articulated in relation to research
practice, it can permeate other aspects of academic life, particularly
teaching. In Canada, university geography students are still mostly white
and middle class. Teaching this cohort provides an opportunity to im-
pact “the leaders of tomorrow”; however, those interested in bringing
about change within broader civil society, or by working directly with
marginalised groups, may consider this too narrow. This is again con-
text specific—my university, in the heart of one of the most multicultural
cities in the world, has an extremely diverse student body, particularly
at the undergraduate level, and this tremendous breadth of experience

C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
344 Antipode

enhances opportunities for cross-cultural exchange and dialogue in the

classroom. At the same time, getting involved in popular education both
within and outside the university (eg through the “Food for Talk” semi-
nar series; CUHI 2006) allows me to connect with an even broader range
of people.
One other issue worth noting here is the relative importance of, and the
relationship between, theory/research and action in making change. Us-
ing a personal example, David Sibley notes that theoretical development
can outstrip the practical and political purposes of that theory:
[These] ideas were attractive and relevant and, in retrospect, I would
consider this to have been “good enough” theory. If the object of writing
is to raise political consciousness and to influence practice, why bother
with further theoretical elaboration? However, this Occam’s razor view
of academic writing—that it is vain to do with more what can be done
with fewer, as Bertrand Russell expressed Occam’s principle—does
not accord with the idea of academic knowledge as an element of the
accumulation process. (Sibley 2004:53–54)
If this is indeed the case, to what extent do we, as academics, contribute
to what may be a further refinement of theory at the expense of action?
This is an important question for those attempting to engage in critical
praxis, particularly in concert with community-based activists, who are
often skeptical of the utility of academic inquiry. At a recent community
event, some young food activists and I had a lengthy conversation on this
point. They were convinced that research work was a waste of money that
could be better spent on direct interventions (see also Halfacree 2004).
While I was nominally arguing that research could play an important role
in social change, I don’t think any of us left convinced that knowledge
in and of itself could move an agenda forward, or that more research is
always a good thing.

Tension 4: Linking Action Back to Reflection

Praxis is by definition theoretically informed, as it consists of melding
theory and practice in a dynamic relationship. Reflexivity—constant
regard for, and critique of, our own practices—is also a fundamental
component of critical praxis. The praxis of the academic-activist thus
entails explicit and honest reflection on one’s own actions, how well
they reflect underlying values, and how effective they are in relation to
embraced theories of change. It can also involve the sympathetic but
critical analysis of activist movements and organizations themselves.
Within the food movement, there is considerable evidence of this kind
of organizational critique. Some authors raise concerns about attention
to class and social justice issues within the food movement. For exam-
ple, Allen et al (2003) discuss the limited extent to which social justice
concerns are being incorporated into local food initiatives, while

C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Reflective Action in the Academy 345

McCullum et al (2003) highlight how marginalised groups can be disem-

powered within food security planning. Others note that food movement
activities are often middle-class and highly localized, which can result
in exclusionary practices (DuPuis and Goodman 2005; Hinrichs 2003).
Other critiques of the broad movement centre on the utility of partic-
ular activities being engaged in. Monbiot critiques guerrilla gardening
as “futile” (Monbiot, quoted in Halfacree 2004), while Tarasuk (2001)
suggests that alternative food programs are “depoliticizing” and unable
to address the root causes of food insecurity. Goodman and Dupuis
(2002:17) suggest that alternative food practices, such as CSAs, could
be viewed as “transitory utopian entertainment for a few middle-class
consumers and their fortunate few farmer friends”, while others have ar-
gued that these alternative practices are by their very nature incapable of
fundamentally changing the mainstream food system (Allen et al 2003;
Guthman 2004; Magdoff et al 2000).
Within the Toronto movement, these critiques could prove relevant,
whether in relation to the use of volunteer and low-paid labour in local or-
ganic farms and CSAs, or the over-representation of white, middle-class
women (and the concomitant under-representation of people of colour
and men) within food security organizations. Reflecting on these issues,
as well as on the usefulness of particular strategies in creating change,
could help activist groups become more effective. However, negotiating
how and when to raise these critiques can be challenging, and the aca-
demic activist runs the risk of being perceived as an interfering outsider
rather than co-participant (see Halfacree 2004). In addition, seeking out
and highlighting these contradictions, especially for a broader audience,
could do more to harm the movement than move it forward (see also
Routledge 2004), and so the academic-activist must wrestle with how,
and how far, to pursue these critiques.
Academics must also consider the extent to which their critiques can
be considered unwarranted nay-saying. As many activists and academics
have noted, criticising is often easier than developing solutions—while
critical reflexivity is absolutely essential to ensuring that activists do
less harm than good, zealous critique can lead to paralysis if it is not
accompanied by theoretically informed suggestions about how to move
forward. Flipping this argument around, engagement in the practical,
on-the-ground activities of change can also be a catalyst to theoretical
development. Massey captures this relationship, reflecting on her own
experience:
Most of my (intellectual, theoretical. . .) arguments developed precisely
in political activity. It is not a case of sitting at one’s desk, having an
idea, and rushing out to tell a politician. For me, what I have always
found most productive as a way of working is an endless moving-
between. (Massey 2002:645)


C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
346 Antipode

It is worth remembering that praxis is not only about informing action

with theory, but also about how action can itself lead to the development
of richer theory—academic theory that is, as Foucault had hoped, “an
activity conducted alongside those who struggle for power” (Foucault
and Deleuze 1977:208).
My position on “alternative” practices within the food movement is
one example of how theory and practice develop iteratively. I am in-
volved in a number of alternative food system activities (eg CSAs, gar-
dening) and work with organizations that develop these systems. The
recent critiques of these activities that have emerged in the literature
are cogent and powerful, and in many cases accurately reflect what I
see in the food movement. However, I continue to be involved with
these activities, for both theoretical and practical reasons. While I agree
with those who suggest that alternative food systems cannot substitute
for mainstream change, I also agree with scholars who argue that these
kinds of projects are important to our ability to imagine alternatives to
existing exploitative structures (as in Gibson-Graham 2005) and to de-
veloping capacity for local democracy (Baker 2004; Hassanein 2003).
In this context, identifying and “living” alternatives—trying to live as if
the world were different—is an important component of change. Analo-
gous to Bey’s (1985) notion of the “temporary autonomous zone”, I see
day-to-day involvement in the alternative food system—for example,
receiving fresh wholesome food and developing “living relationships”
(Kaldjian 2005) with food growers through a CSA—as providing an
arena for liberating experiences (see also Soper 2004). This theoretical
perspective is enacted through my involvement in the alternative food
sector. On the other hand, I feel that the concerns raised about the classed
nature of and lack of attention to social justice issues within alternative
food practices are worth pursuing, not only in an academic context, but
also within the movement itself. Continued engagement thus provides
me with an avenue for raising these issues with others in the movement
and for changing the programs I am a part of. Overall, my engagement
with both theory and practice in a number of different settings enhances
my understanding of the issues in ways that shape both my scholarship
and social action, and my various activities knit together into a broader
political project.

Beyond Policy Relevance: Praxis as Critical Engagement

The tensions identified above focus attention on a number of elements
of critical praxis:
1 the need to situate oneself and one’s praxis “within multiple and
often contradictory fields of power” (Andermahr 1997, quoted in
Butler 2001:267);
2 the importance of thinking through the university itself as a setting
that both facilitates and constrains praxis;

C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Reflective Action in the Academy 347

3 the need to orient oneself in relation to potential levers of change;

and finally
4 the importance of an iterative relationship between theory and prac-
tice.

The discussion also points to the roles that academic activists can play
in facilitating access to resources and to the perceived legitimacy of
academics in particular types of discourse. The potential role of sym-
pathetic critique in stimulating progressive change is highlighted—with
caveats—as well.
The final step is to determine how these roles and concerns map onto
the categories of praxis identified earlier in the paper. Are there modes
or forms of praxis that can genuinely be construed as more meaningful
then others? Does critical praxis differ from “policy relevant geography”
in more than just its ideological intent, and if so, what are its distinctive
characteristics? While any answer to these questions elucidated here is
admittedly partial, I think the above discussion points to three elements
that set critical praxis apart.
The first is the importance of direct versus indirect engagement. Most
accounts of academic praxis prioritize either direct policy engagement
or direct involvement with marginalised communities through research.
The focus on direct action to achieve change, and on direct interaction
with other change agents, probably makes sense. Engaging directly with
the agents and levers of change, rather than expecting academic research
and teaching to “make a difference” in isolation from these agents, is
an important component of critical praxis. However, other forms of
praxis deserve some attention in this context—in particular, teaching is
often left out of discussions of direct engagement, despite the potential
importance of popular education and critical consciousness raising in
creating change.
Second, the position of the academic-activist within an institutional
context provides an opportunity to “loosen up” and “open out” the
boundaries between the university and the “real world”. This can involve
research, teaching, or “service”: forms of research that actively involve
communities can demystify the research process and break down bar-
riers; popular education takes the university into the community, while
service learning and other initiatives bring the community into the class-
room; and, as the university has been criticized as a mechanism for
reproducing social stratification, working to reform the institution is
important. The focus here should not be on the type of praxis being un-
dertaken, but rather its purpose—namely, to break down the boundaries
between “inside” and “outside”.
The third element is an intimate, iterative relationship between think-
ing and acting. This is a key component of the “marriage between aca-
demic and activist roles” that Fuller and Kitchin (2004:6) would like to

C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
348 Antipode

see, but rather than link this melding of identities exclusively to participa-
tory research, I see it as part of a larger range of activities. Many academic
activists engage in more than one form of praxis, and these complemen-
tary activities—in conjunction with theoretical engagement—impact on
the identity of the person undertaking them. The reflexive dynamic be-
tween theory and action thus has the potential to improve both. In addi-
tion, partnerships with other activists, whether for research or through
other forms of praxis, can help to keep academics connected with the is-
sues they hope to influence. Dempsey and Rowe (2004:35) suggest that
if critical theorists “work from too much distance . . . [they lose] touch
with the political spaces they should be interrogating, and the constituen-
cies they should be conversing with”. Wilbert and Hoskyns (2004:64)
go further, stating that academics engaged exclusively in policy work
can develop “the same situated perspectives as policy makers, failing to
see how things may look ‘from below’ in its differing forms”. We don’t
just act in praxis, it also acts on us, and the most effective critical praxis
therefore works to crystallize and reinforce the radical/critical identity
of the person engaged in it.
It is important to keep in mind however that opportunities for and
expressions of praxis are contingent. Where a person is—personally,
culturally, socially, and even geographically—influences how they will
combine theory and practice, and the challenges they face in their praxis
will also vary. What works in one context can fail in another. For exam-
ple, the middle-class nature of many “alternative” food practices creates
opportunities and constraints that would be different than those encoun-
tered in anti-hunger advocacy with food bank clients. Praxis can there-
fore be positioned as a series of tactics that can be used in the struggle
to transform the world, in which the unifying theme is dedicated but
reflective commitment to a radical change.
It is also important to avoid a conception of praxis that sees these
critical intellectual processes as necessarily boring and self-excoriating.
On the one hand, it has been argued (as in Massey 2004:14, emphasis
in original) that we must recognize—and act on—“the responsibilities
which attach to those relations and aspects of our identity . . . through
which we, and our places, have been constructed”. On the other hand,
and at the risk of sounding earnest, I want to emphasize one aspect
of critical engagement that often gets ignored in academic discussions:
namely, the joy that can come from working together with others to build
a better world. In particular, imagining and participating in alternative
emancipatory spaces (or temporary autonomous zones—Bey 1985) can
generate a thrill of liberation that points us toward the world we could
have, as Bertrand Russell described it almost a century ago:
The world that we must seek is a world in which the creative spirit
is alive, in which life is an adventure full of joy and hope, based


C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Reflective Action in the Academy 349

rather upon the impulse to construct than upon the desire to retain
what we possess or to seize what is possessed by others. It must be a
world in which affection has free play, in which love is purged of the
instinct for domination, in which cruelty and envy have been dispelled
by happiness and the unfettered development of all the instincts that
build up life and fill it with mental delights. (Russell 1997 [1918]
unpaginated)
This is not dry academic stuff, but rather what hope is made of.
Similarly, working in partnership with the oppressed and marginal-
ized, as well as with those who have concretely dedicated their lives
to their liberation, can generate strong feelings of fellowship. While
Corbridge (1993) has argued that academics have a particular respon-
sibility to act to protect distant strangers (see also Routledge 2004), I
would suggest that critical praxis at its best serves to bridge the distance
between academics and others, so that the oppressed are no longer dis-
tant or strangers but rather colleagues and companions and occasionally
co-conspirators. This is not to say that it should be taken for granted
that these bonds are always reciprocal, or that the differences in power
and status between academics and those in marginalized positions can
be erased. Instead, it is a call to try and create relationships through
praxis that challenge existing structures of domination and simultane-
ously bring joy and respect into the lives of the people participating in
those relationships.
As Maxey (2004:169) notes, praxis is not a separate element from ei-
ther our academic or our personal lives. Instead, “our reflexive activism is
something we, as critical geographers, carry with us throughout the day,
enriching our lives and helping us live them so that life more generally
may be enriched”. By exploring different forms of academic praxis in
relation to the food movement, this paper has attempted to highlight po-
tential benefits and drawbacks of particular approaches in one particular
context. By so doing, I hope to contribute to a broader discussion of how
critical geographers might contribute, through praxis, to the recognition
and restructuring of social relations as part of the broader emancipatory
project that is central to critical geography.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the assistance and support
of many activists and academics within the Toronto food movement,
who provided the substance of this paper. Mustafa Koc, Charles Lev-
koe, Carolin Taron, Fiona Yeudall and Joy Harewood deserve spe-
cial thanks for commenting on paper drafts. Thanks should also go to
the four reviewers who provided extremely insightful and constructive
comments.

C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
350 Antipode

Endnotes
1
This vision of critical geography expressed in this paper is aligned with a radical leftist
perspective, described by Amin and Thrift (2005:221) as having four main character-
istics: “First, a powerful sense of engagement with politics and the political. Second
. . . a consistent belief that there must be better ways of doing things than are currently
found in the world. Third, a necessary orientation to a critique of power and exploitation
that both blight people’s current lives and stop better ways of doing things from coming
into existence. Fourth, a constant and unremitting critical reflexivity towards our own
practices: no one is allowed to claim that they have the one and only answer or the one
and only privileged vantage point”.
2
It should be noted that, by focusing on the products of research (eg articles) rather than
the research process itself, a number of important and often positive consequences of
research could be missed. In particular, the involvement of activists and individuals from
marginalized communities in the research process can be an empowering experience for
those involved. In these cases, however, the line between purely academic activities and
those taking place ‘outside’ are blurred, so further discussion of these approaches takes
place later on in the paper.
3
This is not to say that more overt discipline is never applied by universities—it is not
unheard of for individuals to be censured for being outspoken, and activist activities
can be looked upon unfavourably in relation to tenure and promotion (see, for example,
Martin 1998, 2002).

References
Allen P, Fitzsimmons M, Goodman M and Warner K (2003) Shifting plates in the
agrifood landscape: The tectonics of alternative agrifood initiatives in California.
Journal of Rural Studies 19:61–75
Amin A and Thrift N (2005) What’s Left? Just the future. Antipode 37(2):220–238
Anglican Diocese of Rupert’s Land (2005) Food justice camp—setting the table: a
place for everyone and every place honoured. http://www.foodjusticecamp.org/ (last
accessed 12 June 2006)
Baker L E (2004) Tending cultural landscapes and food citizenship in Toronto’s com-
munity gardens. Geographical Review 94(3):305–325
Barndt D (2002) Tangled Routes: Women, Work, and Globalization the Tomato Trail.
Aurora, Ontario: Garamond Press
Barnett C (1997) “Sing along with the common people”: Politics, postcolonialism, and
other figures. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 15(2):137–154
Bey H (1985) T. A. Z.: The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic
Terrorism. Brooklyn: Autonomedia
Butler R (2001) From where I write: The place of positionality in qualitative writing. In M
Limb, and C Dwyer (eds) Qualitative Methodologies for Geographers (pp 264–276).
London: Arnold
Butterwick S and Dawson J (2005) Undone business: Examining the production of
academic labour. Women’s Studies International Forum 28:51–65
Castree N (1999) “Out there”? “In here”? Domesticating critical geography. Area 31:81–
86
Castree N and Sparke M (eds) (2000) Professional geography and the corporatization of
the university: Experiences, evaluations, and engagements [special issue]. Antipode
32(3):222–330
Chacko E (2001) Positionality and praxis: Fieldwork experiences in rural India. Singa-
pore Journal of Tropical Geography 25(1):51–63

C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Reflective Action in the Academy 351

Corporate Agribusiness Research Project (2005) The merchants of greed. http://www.

electricarrow.com/CARP/tiller/index.html (last accessed 12 June 2006)
Canadian Association for Food Studies (CAFS) (2005) About CAFS. http://www.
foodstudies.ca/about.html (last accessed 5 January 2006)
Canadian Coalition for Farm Animals (2005) FAQs. http://www.humanefood.
ca/faqs.html (last accessed 12 June 2005)
Centre for Urban Health Initiatives (CUHI) (2006) Food Project Teams. http://www.cuhi.
utoronto.ca/research/foodrig.html (last accessed 5 January 2006)
Daily Bread Food Bank (2005) Take action. http://www.dailybread.ca/apps/ in-
dex.cfm?fuseaction=resources.dspCurrent&type=1 (last accessed 3 July 2006)
Dempsey J and Rowe J K (2004) Why Poststructuralism is a live wire for the Left. In
D Fuller and R Kitchin (eds) Radical Theory/Critical Praxis: Making a Difference
Beyond the Academy? (pp 32–51). Praxis (e)Press
Dorling D and Shaw M (2002) Geographies of the agenda: Public policy, the discipline
and its (re)“turns”. Progress in Human Geography 26(5):629–646
DuPuis E and Goodman D (2005) Shall we go “home” to eat? Towards a reflexive
politics of localism. Journal of Rural Studies 21:359–371
England K (1994) Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research.
Professional Geographer 46(1):80–89
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2004) FAO’s Mandate.
http://www.fao.org/UNFAO/about/mandate˙en.html (last accessed 4 July 2005)
Food Secure Canada (2005) Draft constitution. http://www.ryerson.ca/∼foodsec/
fsc proposal 01.html (last accessed 10 June 2005)
Foucault M and Deleuze G (1977) Intellectuals and power. In D Bouchard (ed) Language,
Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews by Michel Foucault
(pp 205–217). Ithaca: Cornell University Press
Freidberg S (2004) French Beans and Food Scares: Culture and Commerce in an Anxious
Age. New York: Oxford University Press
Freire P (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. New
York: Continuum
Freire P (1994) Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by
Robert R Barr. New York: Continuum
Friends of Dufferin Grove Park (2005) Our community bake ovens, and food at the Park.
http://www.dufferinpark.ca/oven/bakeoven.html (last accessed 10 June 2006)
Fuller D (1999) Part of the action, or “going native”? Learning to cope with the “politics
of integration”. Area 31(3):195–304
Fuller D and Kitchin R (2004) Radical theory/critical praxis: Academic geogra-
phy beyond the academy? In D Fuller and R Kitchin (eds) Radical Theory/
Critical Praxis: Making a Difference Beyond the Academy? (pp 1–20). Praxis
(e)Press
Gibson-Graham J K (2005) Surplus possibilities: Postdevelopment and community
economies. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 26(1):4–26
Gleeson B (1998) Geographies of Disability. London: Routledge
Goodman D (ed) (2003) The quality “turn” and alternative food practices [special issue].
Journal of Rural Studies 19(1):1–138
Goodman D and DuPuis E (2002) Knowing food and growing food: Beyond the
production–consumption debate in the sociology of agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis
42:5–22
Greenpeace Canada (2005) GMO Campaign page. http://www.greenpeace.ca/e/
campaign/gmo/index.php (last accessed 5 June 2006)
Guthman J (2004) The trouble with “organic lite” in California: A rejoinder to the
“conventionalization” debate. Sociologia Ruralis 44(3):301–316


C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
352 Antipode

Halfacree K (2004) “I could only do wrong”: Academic research and DIY culture. In
D Fuller and R Kitchin (eds) Radical Theory/Critical Praxis: Making a Difference
Beyond the Academy? (pp 68–78). Praxis (e)Press
Hassanein N (2003) Practicing food democracy: A pragmatic politics of transformation.
Journal of Rural Studies 19:77–86
Hinrichs C (2003) The practice and politics of food system localization. Journal of Rural
Studies 19:33–45.
hooks b (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. London:
Routledge
Jarosz L (2004) Political ecology as ethical practice. Political Geography 23:917–927
Kaldjian P (2005) Bostan gardens: Istanbul’s urban oases. “Food for Talk” Seminar; 22
June, Ryerson University, Toronto
Kim S (forthcoming) Networks, scales, and transnational corporations: The case of the
South Korean seed industry. Economic Geography
Kitchin R and Fuller D (2005) The Academic’s Guide to Publishing. London: Sage
Kitchin R and Hubbard P J (1999) Editorial: Research, action and “critical” geographies.
Area 31:195–198
Magdoff F, Bellamy Foster J and Buttel F H (eds) (2000) Hungry for Profit: The Agribusi-
ness Threat to Farmers, Food, and the Environment. New York: Monthly Review Press
Martin B (1998) Tied knowledge: Power in higher education. http://www.uow.
edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/98tk/ (last accessed 10 June 2005)
Martin B (2002) What did that degree do to you? [book review]. Higher Education
Review 34(2):67–73
Martin R (2001) A geography for policy, or a policy for geography? A response to
Dorling and Shaw. Progress in Human Geography 26(5):642–644
Massey D (2001) Geography on the agenda. Progress in Human Geography 25:5–17
Massey D (2002) Geography, policy and politics: A response to Dorling and Shaw.
Progress in Human Geography 26(5):645–646
Massey D (2004) Geographies of responsibility. Geographiska Annaler 86B(1):5–18
Maxey I (1999) Beyond boundaries? Activism, academia, reflexivity and research. Area
31:199–208
Maxey L J (2004) Moving beyond from within: Reflexive activism and critical geogra-
phies. In D Fuller and R Kitchin (eds) Radical Theory/Critical Praxis: Making a
Difference Beyond the Academy? (pp 159–216). Praxis (e)Press
McCullum C, Pelletier D, Barr D and Wilkins J (2003) Agenda setting within a
community-based food security planning process: The influence of power. Journal
of Nutrition Education and Behavior 35(4):189–199
Mitchell D (2004) Radical scholarship: A polemic on making a difference outside the
academy. In D Fuller and R Kitchin (eds) Radical Theory/Critical Praxis: Making a
Difference Beyond the Academy? (pp 21–31). Praxis (e)Press
Morris M (2002) Participatory Research and Action: A Guide to Becoming a Researcher
for Social Change. Ottawa: CRIAW-ICREF
Moss P (2004) A “politics of local politics”: praxis in places that matter. In D Fuller
and R Kitchin (eds) Radical Theory/Critical Praxis: Making a Difference Beyond the
Academy? (pp 103–115) Praxis (e)Press
National Food Assembly (2005) National Food Assembly, Waterloo Ontario. http://chd.
region.waterloo.on.ca/web/health.nsf/0/50BD7DC4ED391B0E85256FDB0066
11F0/$file/Media Press Info.pdf?openelement (accessed August 10 2006)
Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (2005) OCAP’S fight for food supplements
for people on assistance has been such a success we need help to handle it.
http://ocap.ca/rtr/diet/support (accessed 10 June 2005)
Pretty J N, Ball A S, Lang T and Morison J I L (2005) Farm costs and food miles: an
assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy 30(1):1–19

C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Reflective Action in the Academy 353

Rademacher D (2002) The Fight to Save Seed. Terrain Magazine (Fall) http://www.
terrainmagazine.org/article.php?id=13200 (accessed 10 June 2005)
Ritas C (2003) Speaking truth, creating power: A guide to policy work for community-
based participatory research practitioners. Washington: Community-Campus Partner-
ships for Health. http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/pdf files/ritas.pdf (last accessed 5
January 2006)
Roberts S M (2000) Realizing critical geographies. Antipode 32(3):230–244
Roberts W (2004) No blood for phoney food: U.S. quietly ushers in GE food patent laws
while banning ancient seed collecting in Iraq. Now Magazine, November 25 - Decem-
ber 2. http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2004-11-25/news feature.php (accessed 11
June 2005)
Roberts W (2005) This fish is a no-brainer: if we were serious about living consciously,
we’d stop eating it. Now Magazine, April 21–27. http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/
2005-04-21/news story.php (accessed 11 June 2005)
Roberts W, MacRae R and Stahlbrand L (1999) Real Food for a Change. Toronto:
Random House of Canada
Routledge P (2004) Relational ethics of struggle. In D Fuller and R Kitchin (eds) Radical
Theory/Critical Praxis: Making a Difference Beyond the Academy? (pp 79–91) Praxis
(e)Press
Royal Ontario Museum (2000) Growing Cultures opens May 6, 2000: Captivating pho-
tography exhibit explores the gardening traditions of diverse cultures in Toronto.
Royal Ontario Museum News Release, March 30th . http://www.rom.on.ca/news/
releases/public.php?mediakey=be;80w/3358 (accessed 8 June 2005)
Russell B (1997 [1918]) Proposed Roads to Freedom - Socialism, Anarchism
and Syndicalism. Seattle: The World Wide School http://www.worldwideschool.
org/library/books/socl/politicalscience/ProposedRoads/chap 8.html (accessed 3 July
2005)
Schlosser E (2001) Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meat. New
York: Houghton Mifflin.
Sclove R E, Scammell M L and Holland B (1998) Community-Based Research in the
United States. Washington: Loka Institute
Shor I (1980) Critical Teaching and Everyday Life. Montreal: Black Rose Books
Sibley D (2004) On Being Disengaged. In D Fuller and R Kitchin (eds) Radical The-
ory/Critical Praxis: Making a Difference Beyond the Academy? (pp 52–56) Praxis
(e)Press
Smith N (2000) Afterword: who rules this sausage factory? Antipode 32(3):230–339
Smith S and Willms D G (1997) Nurtured by Knowledge: Learning to do Participatory
Action-Research. Ottawa: Apex Press
Soper K (2004) Rethinking the “good life’’: the consumer as citizen. Capitalism, Nature,
Socialism 15(3): 111–116
Sustain (2005) Food Miles. www.sustainweb.org/chain fm index.asp (accessed 11 June
2005)
Tarasuk V (2001) A critical examination of community-based responses to household
food insecurity in Canada. Health Education & Behavior 28(4):487– 499
Third World Network (TWN) (2004) Privatisation of Seeds? Available online at
www.twnside.org.sg/title2/service135.htm (accessed 10 June 2005)
Wekerle G R (2004) Food justice movements: policy, planning, and networks. Journal
of Planning Education and Research 23(4):378–386
Wilbert C and Hoskyns T (2004) “Say something constructive or say nothing at all“:
being relevant and irrelevant in and beyond the academy today. In D Fuller and
R Kitchin (eds) Radical Theory/Critical Praxis: Making a Difference Beyond the
Academy? (pp 57–67) Praxis (e)Press


C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.
354 Antipode

Wilton R (2004) Keeping your distance: balancing political engagement and scientific
autonomy with a psychiatric consumer/survivor group. In D Fuller and R Kitchin
(eds) Radical Theory/Critical Praxis: Making a Difference Beyond the Academy?
(pp 116–131) Praxis (e)Press
University of Toronto (2003) Centre for Community Partnerships: About us. Office of
Student Affairs. http://www.sa.utoronto.ca/details.php?wcid=160 (last accessed 30
July 2005)


C 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 
C 2007 Editorial Board of Antipode.