Research ideas: On connoisseurship and what happens when somebody spoils the party

Tempus fugit, not that I have to remind anybody. Spring is very officially here (even yesterday’s unexpected snowstorm- 23 heavy centimetres, a new record for this date, are going to make the grass green), the lilacs will soon enough be blocking the light from the windows in my basement cave here, I have ONE week of classes left to teach, and, even though I did not get my bloody SSHRC grant, I have to start think about what I want to accomplish research-wise over the summer.

Well, I don’t have the budget for travel and the sort of fieldwork that travel permits, but I have lots of ideas around the “coffee” theme still, and the one I want to cogitate on today (in this post- watch me cogitate!) has to do with two coffee-related news items of late:

1. McDonald’s is going to have “baristas” at its stores (some? all?) in the US. Now, this effort of McDonald’s to sell “specialty coffee” is not new; in fact, anybody who’s been abroad, in Asia, South America, or Europe, and for all I know in Australia or the Middle East and elsewhere, has been exposed to the “McCafe.” We saw these when Brian and I were in Argentina in 2004 (and noted that they were all 100% smoking- not so in the one I ducked into in Cologne, which was one of the very few NON-smoking refuges in that smoky city). My only experience actually drinking the coffee (a double espresso) there was laughably bad, but that’s not really the point. Well, it is sort of the point, but the REAL point is what happens when an already corporatised and watered-down thing that used to be the provenance of aficionados- espresso and espresso-based drinks- gets FURTHER routinised and bastardised by being sold out of a McDonald’s.

I just saw a commercial on one of the US stations about this, and I’d love to link it but can’t (yet) find it online. Two women are at a woody-looking coffeehouse and one says, “Did you hear McDonald’s is selling LATTES?” They both erupt into relief about how now they don’t have to act all snobby and read books and so forth. It’s actually pretty funny and reflects how this dumbing-down is part of McD’s promotional strategy, and is reflected in their “unsnobby  coffee” web campaign too. But what about us coffeegeeks? Is something being usurped here? Well, no, not “taste.” But this does give us (and me, wearing my sociologist hat) something to talk about.

2. Starbucks bought Clover Equipment. A “Clover” is a machine that make brewed coffee a la minute and by the cup. Before Clover, brewed coffee had to made in pots or receptacles that entailed making a huge batch at once and selling progressively-less-fresh cups; what’s more, those cups all had to have the same blend or varietal of coffee. If a customer wanted an Ethiopian Sidamo and all that was in the pot was a “house” blend, a decaf, and, say, a Colombian, then there was no way to give the customer her Sidamo. The only alternative would be personal drip stations or press pots which both take several minutes, for one cup (versus the 20 or so seconds it takes to make espresso, but this isn’t about espresso). Enter the Clover, which makes ONLY single cups and does it fast, about as fast as espresso, and permits the operator to “Clover” any bean in stock. Very cool. Until recently, Clovers were the provenance of a small number of shops that could afford the technology (about C$11,000 per maker, versus say $2500 for a standard drip maker) and who had the customer base who knew enough to support it. Clovers shine at bringing taste profiles out of good beans, and good beans are expensive. So Clover-brewed coffee tends to be expensive as well.

The entrepreneurs at Clover sold the company earlier this year and as of now it looks as if they’ll delimit all sales of new Clovers to Starbucks ONLY. It does appear that they (Starbucks, presumably) will still provide service and support for these machines, but there has already been fallout from the third-wave coffee community about this, to the extent that one outstanding shop/roaster (Stumptown in Portland) has sold all of its Clovers. They don’t want to be affiliated with or otherwise attached to Starbucks. We have three shops in Calgary with Clovers at this time- Phil & Sebastian, Caffe Artigiano and the opening-very-soon Kawa Espresso Bar. I’ll keep my ear to the ground.

These two developments- the McDonald’s “invasion” into specialty coffee and the Clover sale- are sociologically interesting because they expose and problematise issues surrounding “taste” and distinction. This sort of thing is a constant challenge to connoisseurs: what happens when your “thing” is usurped? Well, we’re seeing it happening right now in the coffee culture, and I look forward to following it.

My idea for the 2008 U of C sociology hoodies slogan:

U of C SOCIOLOGY
No, not social work.

Like Christmas morning for demography geeks: 2006 census “ethnic origins and visible minority” stats released this week, and they confirm that Calgary is one heck of a diverse city. Seriously.

In Canada, censes are conducted every five years on 1 and 6, and we’re still seeing releases from the 2006 census. The most recent one is the one I’m most excited about, next to the basic population counts (those came out over a year ago); they’re on “ethnic origins and visible minorities,” and they comprise counts on ethnicity and race. As every student or past student of mine knows, “race” and “ethnicity” are related but quite different concepts, and until fairly recently (1996 to be exact), the Canadian census didn’t even ask about “race” (which determines that cludgy and unfortunately named category of “visible minority”). Before then, anybody interested in the racial composition in Canada could only infer race based on ethnicity, but that poses problems. For example, in Canada, one can’t assume that all people claiming West Indian heritage are “black.” Brian is a perfect example of this, because his “racial” background is South Asian, but before 1996 he’d be presumptively considered “black” after identifying as coming from Trinidad (and since Indians are the plurality in Trinidad that would be a stupid assumption, but such was how things were done). Now, there are good reasons for finding out not only where people come from or what they construe as their ethnic heritage but also, for lack of a better way of saying it, what colour they are. And so Canada now collects this information.

And for those naysayers who say “why are we adopting an American obsession with race,” it should please them to know that what’s considered a racial “minority” in the US is not necessarily considered one in Canada. For example, in Canada, we term Arabs/West Asians as “visible minority”; in the US, they’re “white.” In the US, native Americans are considered racial minority; in Canada, First Nations people are not, though they are counted in a separate census module. Finally and most interestingly (for me), whereas in the US they report “Asian” as a composite blob, in Canada we distinguish among South Asian, Chinese, Filipino/a, Southeast Asian, Korean, and Japanese.

Even with all these caveats about definitions, we can still see matters of fair comparison and contrast between the US and Canada. Canada is only 2.5% “black” versus about 12% of the US, but this proportion in Canada increased 18% in five years. In Calgary it doubled (from 1 to 2%, but still). The area where Canada “wins” is in a much, MUCH larger Asian population, percentage-wise. In the 2000 US census (last one conducted), 4.2% of the country was “Asian.” In Canada, 4% alone was South Asian (and per capita that’s fully ten times- yes, 1000%- larger than the US South Asian population). If we add all “Asian” groups in Canada they exceed 10% of the population. All told, about 16% of Canada is “visible minority,” and if we adopt the American policy of counting Native people as “minority,” then that percentage is more than 20%. Interesting times.

If you consider diversity a good thing, and I do, then we have a lot to celebrate in Calgary. Among Canadian cities (by which I mean CMAs), Calgary not only handily exceeds the national average (remember, it’s 16.2%) with respect to its “visible minority” aspect; it’s actually the fourth most “diverse” CMA in the country (and third among “major” CMAs). First and second are, not surprisingly, the world-leading multicultural meccas of Toronto and Vancouver, with VM percentages of 42.9% and 41.7% respectively. Third is the small CMA of Abbotsford, to the east of Vancouver, with 22.8%, but the vast majority of those persons are South Asian (in fact Abbotsford has the highest proportion of South Asians of any CMA in the country). Fourth is Calgary, 22.2%. What’s more, that percentage for Calgary reflects an increase since 2001 of 44%, versus 20% in Vancouver.

Earlier there was a census release on immigration and migration, and it revealed that Calgary was, proportionally, the third largest immigration magnet (INTERNATIONAL immigration- migrants from Saskatchewan, for example, are not “immigrants” although they are important aspects of population growth here) in the country with respect to recent (2001-2006) immigrants. What that report didn’t say, and I had to do some poking around for this, is that it was also third in all of North America on the same statistic. Toronto is first; Vancouver second; Calgary third; Miami fourth. This does not mean that Calgary is third in North America in terms of the proportion of total immigrants, but with, now, a city comprising 24% foreign born, it’s high on the list.

What’s amazing is that Calgary is, diversity-wise, about exactly where Toronto was in 1991. And as long ago as 1986 Toronto went to great efforts to market its diversity, and that was laudable- I remember seeing a story about Toronto’s diversity in National Geographic way back when, and it was part of what motivated my first trip there (with my ex, Timm Elmer- where are you, Timm?) in 1988. Now we’re in that boat, we’re DEEP in that boat, and I wish that Calgary would make room for it in its own self-promotion.

Ain’t no panic like a moral panic: The Calgary Herald, LRT crime, and how to misrepresent crime stats

When I moved to Calgary in the summer of 2000, I remember anticipating what I freak I would be for having to rely on public transit, Calgary being, I was lead to believe, a city that was so car-centred that I’d be like the old housecleaners who were the only people consigned to take what passed for “transit” in Mobile, Alabama, where I lived from ‘95 to ‘97. That entailed a 90 minute service for buses, only until 6pm, and only on weekdays. But I lived downtown, didn’t have my car (which was with Brian until he followed me a few months later), and it seemed that I had a convenient commute on the C-Train, so why not try car-free for a while?

And it wasn’t bad. Off-peak service, which was when usually rode because my schedule permitted me not to have to ride during rush hours, was an unbearable 15 minutes back then (it’s 10 now, even on weekends) versus the 5 or fewer during peak. I also learned that it was not only the poor or whatever other American stereotype exemplifies transit users on that train. Everybody uses transit, at least some of the time, here. According to a report by StatCan that will be released on April 2 (I saw the data tables even though the report itself has been delayed), 16% of all Calgary work commutes are with public transit. This is very healthy- well above the national average of 11% and behind only Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, and Vancouver (just barely); ahead of Edmonton, Winnipeg, Quebec City. But the real jewel in the crown of Calgary’s transit system is the success of its light rail (LRT), the aforementioned C-Train. With 270,000 riders per weekday, it’s the most successful LRT in North America, with more than twice the ridership of the oft-lauded MAX system in Portland, a city that’s more than double the size of Calgary, metro-wise. So being a transit user doesn’t make me deviant here, and I’m proud (and relieved) to say that.

In the midst of justified complaints about overcrowding on the LRT (and some buses too- I won’t even bother with the #2), there has also been a lot of hand-wringing lately about crime, especially since the horrific murder of a woman, a hard-working Filipina mother of five, near the Franklin station on the Northeast line a few weeks ago. Yes, this event was sickening and a despicable, unforgivable crime, committed (probably) by a subhuman dirtbag who has (probably) also raped several women in the Beltline. But is the system unsafe? One murder, with its hapless victim, shocking and disturbing though it is, doesn’t necessarily mark a community as “dangerous.” What about the transit system and its “community”?

Enter the Calgary Herald and its hard-hitting expose on crime on Calgary Transit.

When I spotted yesterday’s headline (”Crime Up at LRT Stations,” or something like that), I hoped this wasn’t just overstating, misrepresentation, or just plain innumeracy that would naturally contribute to the public’s sense of siege about LRT crime. Check out this map:

lrtmap.pdf

The report is crap. Yes, “crime” is “up,” but only if they consider a comparison between 2000 (why?) and 2007 (why?). It’s only “up” if they assume that ridership has remained static over that period (which it hasn’t even remotely done). It’s only “up” if you ignore the fact that it went DOWN between 2003 and 2007. And the stats only make sense of they’re STANDARDIZED, taking into account huge (20% in seven years) increases in transit usage during the studied period and the different numbers of riders at different stations. This report did none of that. It reported raw numbers, which is a terrible way to relate crime info- it’s like those idiots who say, for example, that New York City has the “most murder” of any US city but fail to take into account the fact that NYC has more than 8 million inhabitants. Finally, as you can see in the PDF above, the Herald decided to report its numbers in unreadable bar graphs that only clearly report the total numbers of “crimes.” The specific crime categories cannot be read- what does a “big” versus a “small” swath of red mean? Ten crimes against persons versus two, or a hundred versus ten? It’s impossible to tell; there’s no specificity or clarity to it at all. And the bottom line: There was, over the seven years studied, a 23% increase in crime and a 20% increase in ridership. The headline should be, “Crime on LRT Not Increasing,” but if it don’t bleed, it don’t lead, right, Herald?

(Incidentally, LRT crime went down a lot in 2001 because that was the year of the strike- and the decrease in crime coincided perfectly with a reduction in ridership that year.)

Back to life, back to reality

…and yes, that is a reference to the 1989 hit by Soul II Soul.

Classes started today, mine start tomorrow, and so this sabbatical is not only “officially” but really, actually, evidently and unavoidably over. And my God what a time it’s been.

“Sabbatical” has the same etymological origin as “sabbath” and refers to something that comes every seventh something. It originated in academia as an inducement for professors to work at universities in the UK (I think) with the promise that they’d get every seventh year off, with pay, to pursue their research and writing. Apparently academic staff were once upon a time hard to come by and were an elite and very well-paid group (the founding professors at the University of Chicago all had servants in their homes) so this gave those early adopters of the sabbatical model a leg up on the competition.

Now, sabbaticals are a pretty commonplace perk, but not every university administers them them the same way. Some only allow them if the professor secures external funding to pay for his or her teaching release (to pay for replacement lecturers, in other words). Some provide them but at really harsh rates of pay that deter many profs from taking them; I have a friend at a US school where sabbaticals entail a 50% pay cut. At the last place I worked in the US, we were on a quarter system (or really a trimester system since nobody was required to teach in the summer quarter), and sabbaticals could be one, two, or three quarters, but the financial hit was increasingly painful: After six years, you could take a one-quarter sabbatical for 100% pay, two quarters for 75% pay, or three at 50%. A “quarter” was only 10 weeks, so you can imagine what a rip-off this was. A spring “sabbatical”+summer was about the same amount of time I currently get just for “summer,” and this reflects the fact that being a professor in Canada is a much better deal than in the US, for many disciplines. Sociology? Most definitely.

Anyway, at the U of C we have a very nice sabbatical system whereby every professor, including those who are not yet tenured, qualifies for a semester sabbatical after three years (every seventh semester, in other words) OR a year sabbatical after six years, your choice. Pay is 80% of salary, but if you opt for a one-semester leave after six YEARS of service you can take it for 100% of pay, and some do choose this. We don’t take a huge salary hit and we can take a sabbatical every fourth year, basically. I’ve taken two, now.

And how was it? Superb, just superb. My first sabbatical entailed a lot, a LOT, of writing seeing as I was going up for tenure the following year. I took it the second semester of my fourth year at the U and tenure decisions are made the end of one’s fifth year; one is then accorded tenure at the end of year six. It’s done this way to allow somebody denied tenure to appeal it and/or find a new job in year six. We also took a life-changing month trip to Argentina.

This sabbatical I did not get as much writing done (though I did also write a book prospectus and a SSHRC grant application), got involved with a consulting project, travelled a whole lot, but also engaged in a lot of private discovery and really do feel like a different person now from how I felt in April of last year when my classes ended. I’ve gone pro and gone public with the coffee thing. I’ve become a fairly dedicated blogger. I’ve decided to do research that actually matters to me. I’ve discovered facebook and both a new network of friends as well as having used it to reconnect with many, many old ones. I’m sure other momentous things happened (or evolved) that I’m not thinking about now, but in general I feel… changed.

It’s going to be weird to get back to the old grind, especially when I’m not at all sure that it will be the same old grind anymore.

Anyway, I have my bus pass, so here goes.