Learning, Food, and Sustainability in Community-Campus Engagement: Teaching and Research Partnerships That Strengthen the Food Sovereignty Movement

2016 ◽  
pp. 133-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Andrée ◽  
Lauren Kepkiewicz ◽  
Charles Levkoe ◽  
Abra Brynne ◽  
Cathleen Kneen
Author(s):  
Charles Z Levkoe ◽  
Holly Stack-Cutler

Academic institutions and community-based organizations have increasingly recognized the value of working together to meet their different objectives and address common societal needs. In an effort to support the development and maintenance of these partnerships, a diversity of brokering initiatives has emerged. We describe these brokering initiatives broadly as coordinating mechanisms that act as an intermediary with an aim to develop collaborative and sustainable partnerships that provide mutual benefit. A broker can be an individual or an organization that helps connect and support relationships and share knowledge. To date, there has been little scholarly discussion or analysis of the various elements of these initiatives that contribute to successful community–campus partnerships. In an effort to better understand where these features may align and diverge, we reviewed a sample of community–campus brokering initiatives across North America and the United Kingdom to consider their different roles and activities. From this review, we developed a framework to delineate characteristics of different brokering initiatives to better understand their contributions to successful partnerships. The framework is divided into two parts. The first examines the different structural allegiances of the brokering initiatives by identifying their affiliation, principle purpose, and who received primary benefits. The second considers the dimensions of brokering activities in respect to their level of engagement, platforms used, scale of activity, and area of focus. The intention of the community campus engagement brokering framework is to provide an analytical tool for academics and community-based practitioners engaged in teaching and research partnerships. When developing a brokering initiative, these categories describing the different structures and dimensions encourage participants to think through the overall goals and objectives of the partnership and adapt the initiative accordingly.


Author(s):  
Lauren Kepkiewicz ◽  
Charles Z. Levkoe ◽  
Abra Brynne

While community-campus engagement (CCE) has gained prominence in postsecondary institutions, critics have called for a more direct focus on community goals and objectives. In this paper, we explore the possibilities and limitations of community-centred research through our collective experiences with the Community First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CFICE) and the Community Food Sovereignty (CFS) Hub. Drawing on a four-year research project with twelve community-campus partnership projects across Canada, we outline three key areas for reflection. First, we examine the meanings of community-centred research—called “community first”—in our work. Second, we explore key tensions that resulted from putting “community first” research into practice. Third, we discuss possibilities that emerged from attempts to engage in “community first” CCE. We suggest that while putting “community first” presents an opportunity to challenge hierarchical relationships between academia, western ways of knowing, and community, it does not do so inherently. Rather, the CCE process is complex and contested, and in practice it often fails to meaningfully dismantle hierarchies and structures that limit grassroots community leadership and impact. Overall, we argue for the need to both champion and problematize “community first” approaches to CCE and through these critical, and sometimes difficult conversations, we aim to promote more respectful and reciprocal CCE that works towards putting “community first.”


2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-33
Author(s):  
Yolanda García Rodríguez

In Spain doctoral studies underwent a major legal reform in 1998. The new legislation has brought together the criteria, norms, rules, and study certificates in universities throughout the country, both public and private. A brief description is presented here of the planning and structuring of doctoral programs, which have two clearly differentiated periods: teaching and research. At the end of the 2-year teaching program, the individual and personal phase of preparing one's doctoral thesis commences. However, despite efforts by the state to regulate these studies and to achieve greater efficiency, critical judgment is in order as to whether the envisioned aims are being achieved, namely, that students successfully complete their doctoral studies. After this analysis, we make proposals for the future aimed mainly at the individual period during which the thesis is written, a critical phase in obtaining the doctor's degree. Not enough attention has been given to this in the existing legislation.


1995 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Fernández ◽  
Miguel A. Mateo ◽  
José Muñiz

The conditions are investigated in which Spanish university teachers carry out their teaching and research functions. 655 teachers from the University of Oviedo took part in this study by completing the Academic Setting Evaluation Questionnaire (ASEQ). Of the three dimensions assessed in the ASEQ, Satisfaction received the lowest ratings, Social Climate was rated higher, and Relations with students was rated the highest. These results are similar to those found in two studies carried out in the academic years 1986/87 and 1989/90. Their relevance for higher education is twofold because these data can be used as a complement of those obtained by means of students' opinions, and the crossing of both types of data can facilitate decision making in order to improve the quality of the work (teaching and research) of the university institutions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document