scholarly journals Doing Indigenous Community-University Research Partnerships: A Cautionary Tale

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-98
Author(s):  
Kathleen Absolon ◽  
Susan Dion
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
University Research ◽  
Cautionary Tale ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Research Partnerships ◽  
Community Based Research ◽  
Research Relationships

With the intention of generating critical discussion, in this paper the authors examine the complexities of doing decolonizing research within colonial institutions. Drawing on their experiences as co-investigators on a large scale partnership grant involving Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners doing community-based research in Indigenous communities, they tell a cautionary tale about confronting and working through the challenges. Specifically addressing communication, decision-making, internalized colonialism and research relationships, the authors conclude that while these kinds of partnership grants involve struggle, in the end the effort is necessary.

scholarly journals Caught up in power: Exploring discursive frictions in community research

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cindy Hanson ◽  
Adeyemi Ogunade
Keyword(s):  
Research Process ◽  
Community Research ◽  
Power Dynamics ◽  
Power Relationships ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Community Based Research ◽  
Research Outcomes ◽  
Power Asymmetries ◽  
Research Relationships

This article outlines the debate around the emancipatory claims of community-based research (CBR) and identifies discursive frictions as a pivotal point upon which much of CBR practice revolves. Using a Foucauldian theoretical lens, we suggest that CBR is neither inherently emancipatory nor repressive, but that research outcomes are more often a product of power asymmetries in CBR relationships. To illustrate how power asymmetries in research relationships produce discursive frictions, several studies from our work and the literature are presented. The article provides examples of CBR relationships between the researcher and community members and relationships within the community to illustrate how power asymmetries and discursive frictions in these relationships dynamically influence research outcomes and thus alert researchers to the need to address power asymmetries not just before initiating CBR projects, but during CBR projects as well. We interrogate how power asymmetries and discursive frictions operate and are constructed in CBR in an attempt to highlight how research might be conducted more effectively and ethically. Finally, we indicate that some of the tensions and challenges associated with CBR might be ameliorated by the use of participatory facilitation methodologies, such as photo-voice and story circle discussion groups, that draw attention to power asymmetries and purposefully use more creative participatory tools to restructure power relationships and ultimately address the inequities that exist in the research process. Because CBR is continually caught up in power dynamics, we hope that highlighting some examples might offer an opportunity for increased dialogue and critical reflection on its claims of empowerment and emancipation.Keywords: discursive friction, Foucault, participatory methodologies, power asymmetries, research relationships, emancipatory research  

A Framework of Simulation and Gaming for Enhancing Community Resilience Against Large-Scale Earthquakes: Application for Achievements in Japan

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-211
Author(s):  
Yusuke Toyoda
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Adaptive Capacity ◽  
Disaster Management ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Critical Reflection ◽  
Community Resilience ◽  
The Other ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Mutual Help ◽  
Disastrous Experience

Background. The significance of mutual-help in communities for disaster management is a fundamental important concept. However, the current societal state does not reflect this lesson. S&G (Simulation and Gaming) has the potential to overcome the challenges faced in promoting community-based disaster management. No scientific research is currently present that reviews their achievements in Japan. Aim. This paper analyzes the current achievements of S&G in enhancing community resilience against large-scale earthquakes in Japan. Method. The paper clarifies the theoretical advantages of S&G in enhancing community resilience in coping and adaptive capacity plus proposes a conceptual contribution framework of S&G in improving community resilience. Based on this framework, the paper analyzes some major games that tackle community resilience against earthquakes in Japan. Results. The paper demonstrates the achievements through the S&G spectrum that stresses the disastrous experience with specific resilience views on one side, while decision making for critical reflection from other players with more comprehensive resilience views on the other side. Conclusion. The paper showcases the current S&G achievements in enhancing community resilience against large-scale earthquakes in Japan using the proposed framework, which can be utilized by other disaster-prone countries to develop and evaluate applications of S&G for increasing community resilience against earthquakes.

Indigenous works and two eyed seeing: mapping the case for indigenous-led research

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-86
Author(s):  
Rick Colbourne ◽  
Peter Moroz ◽  
Craig Hall ◽  
Kelly Lendsay ◽  
Robert B. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Indigenous Research ◽  
Participatory Action ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Indigenous Science ◽  
Research Partnerships ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Content Domain

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore Indigenous Works’ efforts to facilitate Indigenous-led research that is responsive to the socio-economic needs, values and traditions of Indigenous communities. Design/methodology/approach This paper is grounded in an Indigenous research paradigm that is facilitated by Indigenous-led community-based participatory action research (PAR) methodology informed by the Two Row Wampum and Two-Eyed Seeing framework to bridge Indigenous science and knowledge systems with western ones. Findings The findings point to the need for greater focus on how Indigenous and western knowledge may be aligned within the methodological content domain while tackling a wide array of Indigenous research goals that involve non-Indigenous allies. Originality/value This paper addresses the need to develop insights and understandings into how to develop a safe, ethical space for Indigenous-led trans-disciplinary and multi-community collaborative research partnerships that contribute to community self-governance and well-being.

scholarly journals Governing through community-based research: Lessons from the Canadian HIV research sector

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Guta ◽  
Carol Strike ◽  
Sarah Flicker ◽  
Stuart J Murray ◽  
Ross Upshur ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
State Funding ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Community Based Research ◽  
Marginalized Communities ◽  
Research Sector ◽  
Hiv Research ◽  
Funding Mechanisms ◽  
Scientific Decision

The “general public” and specific “communities” are increasingly being integrated into scientific decision-making. This shift emphasizes “scientific citizenship” and collaboration between interdisciplinary scientists, lay people, and multi-sector stakeholders (universities, healthcare, and government). The objective of this paper is to problematize these developments through a theoretically informed reading of empirical data that describes the consequences of bringing together actors in the Canadian HIV community-based research (CBR) movement. Drawing on Foucauldian “governmentality” the complex inner workings of the impetus to conduct collaborative research are explored. The analysis offered surfaces the ways in which a formalized approach to CBR, as promoted through state funding mechanisms, determines the structure and limits of engagement while simultaneously reinforcing the need for finer grained knowledge about marginalized communities. Here, discourses about risk merge with notions of “scientific citizenship” to implicate both researchers and communities in a process of governance.

scholarly journals Evaluating community-based research: Hearing the views of student research partners

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-60
Author(s):  
Mark Cullinane ◽  
Siobhán O'Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
Good Practice ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Household Survey ◽  
Participatory Evaluation ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Student Research ◽  
Research Partnerships ◽  
Community Based Research ◽  
Mature Students ◽  
Research Cycle

Despite the increasing popularity in the academy of collaborative approaches to research, evaluating the impacts of Students-as-Partners (SaP) initiatives has thus far received less systematic attention. This paper presents an evaluation of a participatory community-based research project where academics partnered with 15 mature students in a socio-economically disadvantaged estate in the south of Ireland to co-construct a household survey and conduct field research to gather the views of fellow residents on the regeneration of their area. The paper reports the findings of a subsequent qualitative, participatory evaluation of the student’s experience of this partnership with academics and its impacts. The findings illuminate some of the benefits and challenges of community-based staff-student research partnerships and points to the imperatives of aligning institutional, funder, and community participants’ capacities and objectives throughout the research cycle and the importance of evaluation to inform good practice in community-based research.

Community University Research Agreement

2007 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. 38-44
Author(s):  
Priscilla Settee ◽  
Shelley Thomas-Prokop
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Knowledge ◽  
First Nations ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Urban Housing ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Community Based Research ◽  
The University

AbstractThis paper describes the process of engaging the extended Indigenous community within Saskatoon and the surrounding First Nations communities in what would be a first major research project between Indigenous communities and the University of Saskatchewan. A management committee was established comprised of all the major Saskatoon/Saskatchewan Indigenous organisations, such as the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians, Saskatoon Tribal Council, First Nations University of Canada and other community-based groups to ensure that research reflected First Nations and Metis needs. The project called “Bridges and Foundations” awarded some 35 projects close to two million dollars in research funds. The money was awarded through graduate student research bursaries, and community-based projects which highlighted the needs of Indigenous women, youth, students, elders and urban populations. The three research themes included respectful protocol, knowledge creation, and policy development. The research projects, which were largely Indigenous designed and driven, created one of the most extensive research collections over a period of four years and included major data collection on community-based research, Indigenous peoples and Indigenous knowledge systems and protocols. The paper relates the development of the project and speaks about the need for Indigenous peoples to lead their own research as well as the benefits of collaboration. It also highlights several of the research projects including a conference on Indigenous knowledge (2004), a video project describing the community mobilisation process behind Quint Urban Housing Co-operatives,

scholarly journals Community-based research decision-making: Experiences and factors affecting participation

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivien Runnels ◽  
Caroline Andrew
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Theoretical Orientation ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Community Based Research ◽  
Research Decision

From the post World War II period through to the present, scientific research and policy has increasingly reflected acceptance and implementation of a view that public interests are better served through public participation. Built on principles of democratic participation, community-based research (CBR) can produce new knowledge through the integration of knowledge of community members’ lived experience with the scientific and technical knowledge of academics. Although community-based research has experienced considerable recent attention as an approach to knowledge production, a specific focus on the participation of community members in decision-making or governance of CBR is sparse. To assist in understanding governance of CBR in Canada and the nature and extent of public participation, we conducted an interview-based qualitative study with 54 respondents. Arnstein’s (1969) theory of participation was used as the theoretical orientation. Respondents’ experiences showed their participation in governance was generally organised through four groups of factors that modified participation: pre-existing conditions, arrangements of governance, actions of academic actors, and actions of community actors. Although community members’ participation in governance was largely contingent on the arrangements, structures and actions controlled or formulated by academics, and despite their relatively limited access to and engagement with real decision-making power, in general community members’ participation was satisfactory to them. However, the highest level of participation that Arnstein envisaged was rarely attained. Awareness of theory and practice of participation in research decision-making can help research decision-makers put in place the conditions and means for realising democratic goals and knowledge co-production. Keywords: governance, decision-making, community-based research, public participation, Arnstein

scholarly journals Funding and Ethics in Métis Community Based Research

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Evans ◽  
Chris Anderson ◽  
Devin Dietrich ◽  
Carrie Bourassa ◽  
Tricia Logan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rural Communities ◽  
Policy Statement ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Aboriginal Community ◽  
Community Based Research ◽  
Geographically Dispersed ◽  
Research Relationships ◽  
New Guidelines ◽  
Aboriginal Person

Recent ethical guidelines developed by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research along with the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans stress the importance of Aboriginal community engagement in research. Although these are positive changes meant to ensure respectful and responsive research relationships between communities and researchers, the understanding of 'community' employed by the new guidelines is problematic. In this sense, the guidelines rely on hegemonic understandings of what it is to be an Aboriginal person in Canada, as well as white spatial imaginaries of Aboriginal geographies. In this way, the guidelines codify Aboriginality and its spatiality as that of well-structured, landed, bounded and distinct rural communities. However, the contemporary Métis communities with whom the authors have worked rarely fit into hegemonic imaginaries of Aboriginality and its geographies in Canada. Rather, Métis communities are often institutionally weak, geographically dispersed and sociologically complex. Thus, we argue that the guidelines instantiate a territorialisation of society and space that risks re-marginalising Métis communities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document