mgardnerscienceshops

from Budd Hall: Task Force Report

back to Science Shops

~ A new architecture of knowledge ~
~ A scholarship of engagement ~

The University of Victoria
Community-Based Research Programme

Report of the University of Victoria Task Force on
Community-based research

Task Force Members:
Peter Keller and Budd Hall (Co-Chairs),
Kelly Bannister and Maeve Lydon

Advisors:
Lorna Williams and Peter Levesque

Assistants:
Ann Zurbrigg and Michelle Reid

June 30, 2006

PREAMBLINGS

Although researchers are successfully integrating their efforts at a European level and even global level to address the increasing complexity of scientific inquiry, there appears to be a yawning gap between science and society at large.
--Rainer Gerold, Science and Society Director, Research Directorate-General, European Commission

Sometimes the ring road of the University of Victoria appears to those of us in community agencies as a kind of moat…keeping the University from reaching us and us from ease of entry into the University.
--Victoria Community Agency Member

The University of Victoria has positioned itself to be a leading, perhaps the leading university in Canada on the development, implementation, and utilization of collaborative methods and theory.
--Peter Levesque, University of Ottawa, Architect of the SSHRC Community-University Research Alliance Programmes

Despite the increasingly evident benefits to social engagement by institutions of higher education, there remain many challenges to raising its status and effectiveness. Some of the most difficult challenges are those posed by traditional academic culture and governance, but others can also be identified.
--Peter Boothroyd, Centre for Human Settlements and Margo Fryer, Learning Exchange, UBC

Community-based research (CBR) offers higher education a distinctive form of engaged scholarship and a transformative approach to teaching and learning.
--Kerry Strand et al (2003)

No amount of technology substitutes for the experience of a real person in an actual place.
--John McKnight

I dream my painting, and then I paint my dream.
--Vincent Van Gogh

Table of Contents

Executive Summary and Recommendations 4

1. Civic Engagement and Community-Based Research at the University
of Victoria 7

2. University of Victoria Task Force on Community-Based Research 13

3. Findings 15

4. Functions of the Community-Based Research Programme 27

5. Expected Outcomes 30

6. Recommendations 31

Executive Summary and Recommendations

1. This report is based on consultations and inquiries that took place between January and June 2006 with Senior members of the University community, faculty, staff and students, as well as community partners and Aboriginal community members.

2. There is a rich tradition of community-based research at the University with many long established and productive partnerships in place. This initiative will as a priority give visibility to these iniatives and support those interested in working in collaborative ways.

3. A community-based research programme is a key element in a larger vision of civic engagement emerging within the University of Victoria and can contribute significantly to strengthening the links between research and teaching. It is intricately linked to the knowledge exchange and knowledge mobilization strategies at the University.

4. There is cautious optimism expressed by community partners. Moving beyond words and good intentions will be important.

5. The priorities and concerns of Aboriginal communities, beginning, but not restricted to those on whose traditional territory the University sits are of paramount importance.

6. Strong regional, national and international support exists for the University of Victoria to move forward with this initiative. There is already substantial visibility for what has been discussed. This is a natural area for University of Victoria to take leadership.

7. Opportunities for significant increases in external support for community-based research are available from traditional sources as well as from local and national foundations, government sources and international sources.

8. It will be important to share information about initiatives being taken in other universities and to support conversations at the University of Victoria on the implications for such research policy matters as ethical reviews, tenure and promotion criteria, annual performance reviews.

Recommendations

A Community-Based Research and Knowledge Mobilization Programme

We are recommending the creation of a community-based research and knowledge mobilization programme. The programme would combine the activities now underway within the Knowledge Mobilization Pilot Project with the mandate of community-based research. Further thought might need to be given to the precise naming of the programme, but the functions described in this report are what we suggest.

Timing

The University of Victoria must, in our opinions announce the creation of a Community-Based Research and Research Mobilization Programme at the time of the release of the revised University of Victoria Strategic Plan. There are significant advantages to our being out of the gate first in Canada. There are many universities, including universities in the region, beginning to explore this area of activity seriously. We recommend that this programme be give a five year initial mandate subject to development of a detailed plan of action including indications of additional external support by the end of the first year or operation. There would be a normal institutional review at the end of the first five years.

Steering Committee

A 12 person steering committee consisting of 50 per cent University of Victoria leadership and 50 per cent community leadership is recommended. The functions would be overall governance and strategic planning. It would meet three times per year. The steering committee, along the lines of best practices in other Universities, would be co-Chaired by the Vice-President, Research and a Senior Community Leader. On the University of Victoria side we recommend three deans, a Sr. Aboriginal Faculty member and a Centre Head. On the community side, we would like representatives from the health sector (VIHA for example), community economic development, housing and poverty organizations, environmental groups, local First Nations communities, and Aboriginal organizations.

External Advisory Committee

We recommend the creation of an external advisory committee of national and international experts and practitioners. It might include Jim Randall (UNBC), Peter Levesque (Knowledge Exchange Specialist), E.T. Jackson (Carleton University), Anita Friesen, Winnipeg; Sarah Flicker, York University; Rajesh Tandon, India; Casper de Bok, Utrect University; Marjorie Mayo, Goldsmiths, University of London; and so forth. It would meet as possible taking advantage of CU Expo events or Living Knowledge events.

Staff Model

A senior Academic would be the Director of the Office of Community-Based Research and Research Mobilization. S/he would have full course buy-out (as with the Centre for Teaching and Learning). The Director would work on fund-raising, partnership development, links to the UVic Executive and Deans, national and international networking and would be the Secretary of the Steering Committee and the Advisory Committee. The Director and the Assistant Director will shine light on the faculty leading the way already in these fields at UVic.

There would be an Assistant Director would be responsible for partnership development, student placements, CBR Forum, Partnership agreements, MOU development, publication agreements, liaison with Coop Education, Student Services. This person would come from a community background, and would have extensive experience in Community-University engagement.

Knowledge Mobilization Officer – The existing KM Officer would continue to play his current role, but would be able to be more effective building on the synergies by being part of a larger team with similar goals.

Aboriginal Programming- The programme would work with Aboriginal communities and organizations to assist in strengthening support from University research resources. This person might be associated as well with the LE,NONET project.

Knowledge Exchange and Administrative Officer
This would be a PEA position with financial responsibilities as well as event coordinating, and knowledge exchange responsibilities through web-portal, a wiki-based forum. This person would liaise with UVic communications on community-based information strategies.

Student involvement

This is key. Close cooperation with Coop Education Office, Service Learning, Community Law Clinic, student services, Graduate Studies, LE,NONET Project, Vancouver Public Interest Research Group, Engineers without Borders, and others will facilitate engagement of both undergraduate and graduate students in community-based research settings. The community-based research programme will aggressively pursue funding opportunities to, in working with others at UVic increase the opportunities for students to have these kinds of research experiences as part of their undergraduate and graduate learning experiences. A commitment to service learning in the form of ongoing student internships and placements holds significant potential as a mechanism to maintain partnerships with community organizations beyond formal research project funding cycles.

Communications, Knowledge Exchange/Mobilisation

The head of UVic communications has expressed enthusiasm for joining forces on support for a community-based communications strategy. Web-based support, local and national media outreach are well within the existing mandate of UVic Communications and will highlight those faculty, staff and project teams engaged in community-based research and knowledge mobilization.

Space

“The smell of flowers and coffee” is the image. An office at the Gordon Head campus where community members and agencies will always feel and be welcome would be ideal. A four-office suite with a gathering area shared by others nearby would be ideal. One possible location might be the Division of Continuing Studies Building. This Office will be a very important symbol to the community. Ease of parking for visitors, while seemingly a minor matter, would be a most welcome hospitality matter.

Community-University Exposition 2008

We strongly recommend a formal announcement of the dates of CU Expo 2008 and the creation of the initial website and designated conference email. This would be preceded by the creation of the host planning committee. We have many community agencies interested in getting involved and many UVic folks who would like to be involved as well. We recommend a joint University and Community Leadership Team with the Deans of Education and Social Sciences on the UVic side and two community leaders from the other side. A conference organizer has already been identified.

6.9 Research policy discussions

Conversations, access to changing policies in other jurisdictions and support for discussions about policies that govern and influence (directly or indirectly) research activities will be extremely useful. Of priority are issues related to human research ethics, intellectual property ownership, and faculty merit criteria.. A web-based survey result may provide a useful initial basis for discussion and identification of interested individuals.

1. Civic Engagements and Community-Based Research at the University of Victoria

1.1 Background

The University of Victoria is the home of an unusually large number of faculty, students and staff whose work and values are directed towards civic engagement in a rich variety of expressions. There are faculty members of every single Faculty in the University of Victoria who identify their research and other scholarly work as “community-based” in one way or another. Community-based research, while being the focus of this report, is one part of a larger set of activities, which taken together demonstrate how the University of Victoria is already making a substantial contribution to the building of social capital at local, national and international levels. Civic engagement has, furthermore, emerged as a strong theme from the yearlong consultations of the University of Victoria Planning Committee as the University seeks to renew its strategic vision for the future.

Among the already existing initiatives with a focus on civic engagement at the University of Victoria are the Co-op educational programmed, Service Learning initiatives, the entire Division of Continuing Studies, various practica/internships in school, legal, health and social work settings, Vancouver Island Public Interest Research Group internships, Aboriginal programming, and the Knowledge Mobilization pilot project in collaboration with York University. Civic engagement is prominent in the work of most of our research centres. For example, our Centre for Health Promotion works exclusively in a community-based research mode. The Centre for Youth and Society has pioneered civic engagement in projects with adolescent youth and Aboriginal youth. The Centre for Aging similarly works with a range of community partners in their outreach. Furthermore, aspects of the work of The Centre for Addictions Research BC, Earth and Ocean Sciences, Engineers without Borders, the LE,NONET Project, the Community Relations Office (and others) demonstrate our engagement with community.

Additionally, the University of Victoria is home to a substantial number of individuals who live and work comfortably in both community and university settings simultaneously. Some of these persons are research collaborators who are employed sometimes by the university and sometimes by the community; community activists who do formal studies on the subjects of their social or political engagement, and faculty members who are deeply integrated into long-term community commitments. The latter includes all Aboriginal faculty members and a substantial number of others. These “bi-cultural” knowledge workers are particularly valuable in advancing the CBR agenda at the University of Victoria.

1.1 University-Community-Based Knowledge and Action: The Dynamic Triangle

The co-creation of knowledge between the university and the wider community has been happening everyday since the University of Victoria was founded. For the founding colleges of the University, including Victoria College and the Provincial Normal School, the origins go back much further. But the most recent interest in systematically strengthening community-based research and knowledge mobilization can be traced to the creation of the SSHRC Community-University Research Alliances and similar Canadian Institutes for Health Research programmes. Dr. Ted Jackson (2005), a Carleton University authority on community engagement depicts what he calls a dynamic triangle of community-based knowledge and action:

1.2 What is Community-Based Research?

The term “community-based research” that is in use at the University of Victoria encompasses a spectrum of research that actively engages community members or groups to various degrees, ranging from community participation to community initiation and control of research. From a university perspective, community-based research refers to a wide variety of practices and is supported by several academic traditions: Academic or scientific knowledge put at the service of community needs; Joint university and community partnerships in the identification of research problems and development of methods and applications; Research that is generated in community settings without formal academic links at all; Academic research under the full leadership and control of community or non-university groups; Joint research, which conceived as part of organizing, mobilizing or social advocacy or action.

Community-based research most often includes approaches such as collaborative research, partnership research, participatory research, participatory action research, or community-based participatory research. Much feminist, queer, anti-racist, urban or rural planning research approaches draws on similar principles of engagement. Aboriginal scholars point to the importance of relationships and the acceptance of many ways of knowing as necessary steps before thinking about ‘research’.

For the purposes of this report we have used a modified version of a definition published by Kerry Strand and others in their 2003 article, “Principles of Best Practice for Community-Based Research”:

Community-based research (CBR) involves research done by community groups with or without the involvement of a university. In relation with the university CBR is a collaborative enterprise between academics and community members. CBR seeks to democratize knowledge creation by validating multiple sources of knowledge and promoting the use of multiple methods of discovery and dissemination. The goal of CBR is social action (broadly defined) for the purpose of achieving (directly or indirectly) social change and social justice.

1.3 Tensions and Directions in Community-Based Research

Collaborative, participatory, action or other forms of community-based research bring their own set of challenges. The knowledge-making cultures of the academic world and the diverse community settings are different. Community needs for research are nearly always for a specific action being studied or planned at the moment. The needs are for clear language and immediacy. Academic research, while often of an applied nature, is strongly curiosity-driven and linked to longer scientific discourses and more complex expressions of knowledge claims. Community-based research can help to bring together community and university needs through partnership practices that integrate community-university interests. Memoranda of Understanding, joint-funding proposals, joint credit for publications, co-creation of knowledge, and community-based reporting are some ways to move ahead.

Similarly, community movements and local agencies are often looking for students to work in specific social change settings. The University’s role vis-à-vis the students is to provide the best possible opportunities for them to learn and make a contribution to society. Service learning, a common term used by educational institutions, does not imply social action. A strong partnership between parts of the university and specific partners in the community would need to begin with a conversation about values, direction, expectations and community needs. The practices of community-based research provide examples and guidance for the university in navigating these waters.

A third set of challenges relates to the relative importance of relationship. There are obvious tensions when a research relationship engaged in and nurtured over a period of years disappears when the external funding runs out. Aboriginal community members have often stressed the importance of building long-term respectful relationships consistent with local protocols and cultural values. Relationships such as these must take precedence over short-term granting conventions or publication needs. These are challenges that need to be taken up within a context of developing a respectful capacity for community-based research at any university. This is particularly relevant for institutions such as the University of Victoria that are located as neighbours within the territory of First Nations who have an active interest in being partners in research and learning that involves their people, culture, language and land.

A last set of challenges has to do with differing senses of knowledge claims. Community groups, social movements, trade union locals, volunteer fish hatcheries, land and sea-based Aboriginal communities have been creating knowledge since time began. They have evolved systematic approaches for the creation of knowledge needed to survive and prosper. The specific knowledge about homelessness, for example, is learned and relearned everyday by the homeless themselves and by the agencies that work with them. Persons who are not formally trained or who were formally trained in universities and are now working in community settings as researchers or administrators are creating new knowledge in non-university settings. Universities sometimes see themselves as the creators or generators of new knowledge with the challenge being to disseminate or mobilize the knowledge so that it can be of more use to those outside the academic walls. Community-based research is that space where the ideas and the practices of these different worlds can be explored in collaboration.

1.4 A Rich Tradition at the University of Victoria

A university-wide forum on community-based research in April of 2005 was the first formal step by the University of Victoria to explore the extent of community-based research as a model of academic practice at the University. The forum was in part stimulated by a Master’s project written in Public Administration by Janet Dunnett that documented many aspects of community-based research at UVic. The client for the report was the Community-University Connections (CUC) initiative of the POLIS Project on Ecological Governance led by Dr. Kelly Bannister. The supervisor of the MPA project was Dr. Rod Dobell, Principal Investigator in the SSHRC/CURA Clayoquot Alliance for Research, Education and Training. The forum addressed the question of to what extent do University of Victoria scholars identify their work as falling within the broad understanding of community-based research? It was also designed to solicit opinions from within the University community on the value of creating a formal organizational support structure for community-based research.

The CBR forum was a success as over 80 academics answered to the description of community-based research. The President of SSHRC at the time, Dr. Marc Renaud, in his closing remarks, threw out a challenge to the University of Victoria to take up a leadership position in this field as he felt that we were ideally suited to do so. There was strong support from the participants as well as from some 40-50 additional persons who could not attend the forum in person. On the basis of this strong support, Peter Keller, Dean of Social Sciences, Budd Hall, Dean of Education and Kelly Bannister, POLIS Project were asked to develop a proposal for a structure and to extend the preliminary thoughts through further consultations on campus. The full documentation of the CBR forum and a number of other related documents are found at http://www.research.uvic.ca/CBRF/.

A report was submitted to Dr. Martin Taylor, Vice-President, Research in September of 2006 for consideration. A strong UVic delegation, the strongest of any university in Canada, attended the Community-University Exposition (CU Expo) in Winnipeg later in September and informed that network that the University of Victoria was intending to pursue the feasibility of setting up a facilitating structure of some kind. The many participants met this news with much enthusiasm. In October, Ted Jackson, one of Canada’s leading scholars in community-based research came as a Lansdowne Scholar and among other responsibilities met with the CBR team to further explore ways that UVic might move forward. He echoed SSHRC’s sense that UVic was uniquely placed to create such a structure.

1.6 Canadian Initiatives in Community-Based Research

While no university-wide structure for community-based research has been created to date, there are many other limited experiences to draw on. We have been in touch with or have studied the following centres:

Community-University Institute for Social Research

University of Saskatchewan

The Community Intervention Project

Universite de Quebec a Trois Rivieres

Trent Centre for Community-Based Education

Peterborough, Ontario

Centre for Urban Health Initiatives

University of Toronto

Community Building Resources

Edmonton, Alberta

Council for the Advancement of Native Development Officers

Ottawa, Ontario

U-Links for Community-Based Research in Haliburton County

Haliburton, Ontario

Across Boundaries

York University School of Social Work

1.7 International Initiatives

We have consulted with persons from each of these international initiatives:

The International Science Shops, The Netherlands
Living Knowledge Network, Bonn, Germany
Community-University Partnership Project (CUPP), University of Brighton, Sussex
Centre for Research, Education and Action (CREA), University of Barcelona
New Directions, Community-Based Research Institute, New York
Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), New Delhi
Centre for Popular Education and Participatory Research, University of California, Berkeley
Highlander Centre for Research and Education, Newmarket, Tennessee
University Community Partnerships, University of California, San Francisco
Community Campus Partnerships for Health, Seattle, Washington

2. University of Victoria Task Force on Community-Based Research

2.1 Terms of Reference

In January, 2006, Dr. Martin Taylor, Vice-President, Research created the UVic Taskforce on Community-based research to report by June 30, 2006 with a mandate for:

Exploring needs, interests and expectations with community partners;
Refining models and structures from elsewhere that might be applicable to UVic.

Making recommendations on the composition, structure and function of a CBR Steering Committee

Identifying prospective national and international networks and partners
Deepening our understanding of what is meant by community-based research
Identifying possible sources of funds to sustain the structure and its activities
Providing suggestions on how a CBR structure could interact with already existing research centres and projects, such as the Social Science Knowledge Mobilization pilot project that UVic has entered into with York University.
Identifying ideas and support for UVic hosting the next Community-University Expo (CUEXPO) in the Fall of 2007

2.2 Members, Advisors, Administrative and other support

Dean Peter Keller of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Dean Budd Hall of the Faculty of Education served as the Co-Chairs of the UVic Task Force on Community-Based Research. The team also included Dr. Kelly Bannister, Adjunct Professor in Environmental Studies and Director of the POLIS Project and Maeve Lydon, Programme Manager and community developer with Lifecylcles and the Groundworks Learning Centre in Victoria.

Dr. Lorna Williams, Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Learning and Knowledge has been an advisor on Aboriginal community involvement. Peter Levesque of the University of Ottawa’s Institute of Population Health and former Deputy Director in SSHRC has been an advisor on national and international networking and on external funding opportunities.

Assistance to the team has come from Ann Zurbrigg and Michelle Reid (research apprenticeship from the LE,NONET Project) both located in the POLIS Project. Maureen Nelms and Sonia Bermingham in the offices of Dean Hall and Dean Keller have also provided much support in terms of scheduling meetings and finding space for various activities. Mary McQueen in the office of Dr. Lorna Williams assisted with workshop logistics. Workshop recorders included Kersten Wuthrich, Heather Tufts, Rachel Forbes, Michelle Reid, Robin J. Hood, and Amy Maas.

2.3 National and International Consultations

Planned and fortuitous discussions and informal conversations have been undertaken by all of the members of the Task Force as opportunities have arisen. Discussions have taken place at the September Winnipeg CUExpo conference, through email exchanges at the national and international levels, at selected academic conferences including the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences at York University late May and early June 2006. Peter Levesque and Budd Hall have carried out the bulk of the national and international conversations.

2.4 Development of a Letter of Intent for a SSHRC Networking CURA

In the course of working together on the Task Force, Peter Levesque and Budd Hall learned that a call for Letters of Intent for the next round of SSHRC CURA applications was underway. In consultation with the rest of the team and with the Vice-President, Research it was agreed that a LOI should be developed on the theme of “Community Knowledge Infrastructure and Networking” (CKIN). The idea being to go ahead with building the kind of national and international networks which the Task Force members believe will be necessary in order to both support and give visibility to effective institutional transformation and improved capacities in community-based research. The development of the LOI was also an opportunity to brief a large number of national and international CBR specialists in the University of Victoria plans. Letters of support provided for the LOI by prospective collaborators exceeded anyone’s expectation.

2.5 Web-Based Survey

An email contact list of approximately 300 individuals was compiled based on the participant list for the 2005 CBR Forum plus an additional pool of contacts known to the CBR Task Force from the university, community, Aboriginal, local government and local business sectors. A web-based survey was developed using Survey Monkey (an inexpensive, widely used pay-for-use service) as a tool to systematically gather information on the needs, interests and expectations of potential “contributor” and “user” groups regarding the creation of a structure at UVic to support, facilitate and promote community-based research. The survey consisted of 10 items and took approximately 30 minutes to complete. Respondents were asked to provide basic information such as name, email, affiliation, and sector, reactions to proposed definitions of “community” and “community-based research’, shared experiences in community-university collaborations, reactions to proposed functions of a structure to support community-based research, and indications interest in being part of an interactive workshop on CBR or a follow-up meeting.

2.6 Workshops and Interviews

Approximately 50 members of the university, community, Aboriginal, local government and local business sectors participated in a half-day workshop on June 8th at UVic to discuss the survey questions in more depth within an interactive forum. A number of additional individuals or representatives of organizations who were unable to attend the CBR workshop requested an alternative opportunity to provide feedback on the CBR initiative and these were accommodated to the degree possible in the short time allotted for this phase of work. Individual interviews and small group meetings were held on campus, at participants’ homes or work locations and by telephone in May-June.

Peter Keller and Budd Hall had a substantial discussion with Tim Wolzak and colleagues at the Innovation and Development Centre. Budd Hall had conversations with the Deans of all UVic Faculties as well as the President, the Vice-Presidents, Head of Coops and the Chancellor of the University.

2.7 Aboriginal Perspectives and Contributions

Community-based research involving Aboriginal communities was given special consideration and contributions to furthering understanding on this type of work were sought through a number of ways including: (i) a small workshop on June 6th to bring together Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal faculty, students and community members with expertise in Educational and health research involving Aboriginal communities. The workshop was organized under the guidance of Dr. Lorna Williams and with the in-kind assistance of Mary McQueen (Education); (ii) a breakout session on CBR involving Aboriginal communities that took place during the June 8th workshop; and (iii) individual and group interviews.

2.8 National Scholarly Consultations

On March 19th, 2006 Deans Hall and Keller organized a panel discussion entitled Advancing Community Based Research in the Academy at the “Western Deans of Arts and Sciences Conference”, Victoria, BC, March 17-19. Panelists were Lorna Williams, Maeve Lydon, Budd Hall and Peter Keller.

On April 22nd, 2006 Deans Hall and Keller organized a special session entitled Furthering Community Based Research at the annual meeting of the Canadian Council for the Deans of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (CCDAHSS), UBC, Vancouver. Speakers were the Dean of Social Sciences at UNBC, Prof. Jim Randall as well as Budd Hall and Peter Keller.

3. Findings

3.1 University of Victoria, National and International Support

It is reasonable to expect support from academic institutions, community organizations and intermediary brokering agencies in every province and territory of Canada. The current efforts of UVic reflect the original plans found in the precursor to the CURA programme, the Community Research Information Crossroads (CRIC) project. This proposal called for a national secretariat linking CBR projects across the country into a network, a “community of practice”. The desire for and expressed need for a linking structure between projects has been a key point of discussion at two CU Expo conferences as well as part of the internal discussions at SSHRC. However SSHRC has been reluctant to take the leadership role in something that is rightly grassroots based. The UVic proposal could be viewed as fulfilling part of the strategic goals of SSHRC and CIHR by increasing the uptake of research and enhancing the capacity of the academic communities in the service on Canadians.

Very strong support with interest in playing both leadership and collaborative roles within a CBR programme has been expressed. Offers of both in-kind and financial support have been received. The Faculties of Human and Social Development, Education, Social Sciences, Humanities, Business, Law and the Division of Continuing Studies have expressed the greatest interest, but all Faculties have some faculty or student interest. The Cooperative Education Programme, The Canadian Centre for Social Economy, the Centre for Global Studies, the Canadian Centre for Addictions Research, the Centre for Health Promotion, The Centre for Youth and Society, Student Services, the Centre for Ageing, the Vancouver Island Public Interest Research Group, the POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, UVic Communications, Community Relations Office and the Office of Alumni Services all have a role to play and will come on board as soon as possible.

We have had direct expressions of support and/or interest in collaborating from the following Canadian organizations: University of Northern British Columbia, Research Services and Faculty of Social Sciences at Malaspina University-College; Centre for Community Innovation, Carleton University; Centre for Community Health, Toronto; Canadian Network for Community Economic Development, Lifecycles Project Society, the United Way of Greater Victoria and the Urban Community Research Partnership, Winnipeg, and the Provincial Centre for Child and Youth Mental Health, Ottawa.

International expressions of support and/or offers of collaborations have come from the Centre for Urban and Community Research, University of London, Centre for Research, Education and Action, University of Barcelona, University-Community Partnership Project, University of Brighton, Living Knowledge Network, University of Utrecht, Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), New Delhi, Department of Sociology, University Wisconsin.

The above is not an exhaustive list of supporters. Given the growing interest in CBR, service learning and various forms of community-university linkages worldwide, it is reasonable to expect broad support from a wide range of institutions and organizations globally. The role of research and universities is, in many ways, following changes brought on by globalization.

3.2 Potential Sources of External Funding

SSHRC and CIHR remain logical sources of support for an UVic community-based research initiative, especially given their growing but unrealized knowledge mobilization and exchange mandates. Other local sources include the VanCity credit unions, the Victoria and Vancouver Foundations and several smaller foundations in the region. At a national level the Maytree Foundation and the McConnell Family Foundation are potential partners. Furthermore, at the level of the provinces, there is a growing emphasis on linking community and university resources to grounded problem solving. The University of Victoria is well positioned to act as a broker of ideas, solutions and resources dealing with a diversity of problems including education, health, gender, environmental and Aboriginal issues.

In the United States, a number of foundations have supported similar initiatives. While not all of these would be able to support a Canadian-based initiative, they might well be sources of support for the international networking envisaged through partnerships. The include the Carnegie Corporation, The Annie E. Casey Foundation; Marguerite Casey Foundation; Edward F. Ford Foundation; The Francis Family Foundation; William T. Grant Foundation; The Heinz Endowments; The F.B. Heron Foundation; the W.K. Kellogg Foundation; The Johns S. and James L. Knight Foundation; Kraft Foods; John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; The A.L. Mailman Family Foundation; The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation; The Noyce Foundation; The David and Lucille Packard Foundation; The Pew Charitable Trusts; The Prudential Foundation; The Rockefeller Foundation; and The Wallace Foundation.

On the Federal Government side, this initiative could well benefit from opportunities with the Voluntary Sector Initiative, Industry Canada (Western Diversification Fund), Health Canada and Human Resource and Social Development. The Canadian Council on Learning is a further potential partner.

3.3 Survey Results

The web-based survey proved a highly successful tool to gather feedback from the campus and non-campus communities on CBR. Of approximately 300 individuals who were sent an invitation to participate in the web-based Survey, 110 responded. The majority of respondents were affiliated with a college or university (73%) and many respondents indicated more than one affiliation. The remaining sectoral breakdown was: Non-profit organisation (30%), First Nations (6%), Funder (6%), Government (3%), Business (5%).

Interest in creating a voluntary CBR directory to facilitate communication and networking among university and community researchers and organizations was high, with over 80% indicating willingness to participate. Creation of this directory would be logically undertaken in collaboration with the Knowledge Mobilization Unit.

Inclusive working understandings of “community” and “community-based research” proposed in the survey were widely agreed as sufficient by the vast majority of respondents (65-75%). A number of useful comments and considerations were also received, which will assist UVic in developing an integrated conceptual and theoretical foundation for strengthening and facilitating scholarly and applied CBR activities.

Ninety-four respondents shared their personal experiences with community-university research relationships, including a brief description of the project, what worked well and what did not. While the majority of respondents indicated an overall positive experience, some common challenges expressed were related to lack of acknowledgment in university reward criteria and by funders for the significant time, financial and energy investments in relationship building and in developing project outcomes that met community partner needs, lack of training for these necessary aspects of CBR, inflexibility in project financial management and in meeting timelines for deliverables, inadequate recognition of community contributions, loss of relationship and social capital investments in the “disengagement” phase (end of funding) phase leading to the need to start again in re-building research relationships.

Support for creating a structure to facilitate CBR (also linked with knowledge mobilization activities) was very strong, albeit with some concerns about potential to increase bureaucracy. The idea of a combination of centralized and decentralized functions, a goal to facilitate communication, funding opportunities and reporting requirements, and the combination of virtual/physical/personal presence were all enthusiastically received.

Experiences and concerns with existing UVic policies on human research ethics, intellectual property ownership and faculty merit criteria were shared by 62 respondents, clearly indicating that these policies will require careful review in light of any initiative undertaken to enhance CBR activities.

3.4 Workshop Results

Over 50 people from on and off-campus participated in a half-day workshop on CBR on June 8th. The goals of the workshop were to provide an interactive forum to discuss the survey questions and UVic’s broader initiative on CBR. The workshop was a huge success from the perspective of both the organizers and participants.

In addition to interactive cross-sectoral discussions on who is “community” and what is “community-based research”, the workshop included a discussion of priorities, assets, gaps
and potentials within six thematic breakout sessions on the following subtopics:

Community-University Collaboration: Partnerships and best practices

Linking Local to Global CBR: Networks and networking

Knowledge Mobilization: Exploring services and opportunities at UVic

Enabling and Disabling Spaces: CBR involving Aboriginal Communities

CBR Rights and Responsibilities: Research ethics and intellectual property policies

Supporting Students in Community-based Research and Learning

The predominant crosscutting theme that emerged from the breakout sessions was the need for creating an “enabling space” for respectful and fruitful research collaboration. Linked are needs for institutional acknowledge and support (and reward) for building and maintenance of the “relationship” component of research, training and resources for individuals in skills beyond research methodologies (such as cultural competency, increasing cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural communication, mediation, and protocols development). Full workshop proceedings are in progress and will be made publicly available on the CBR initiative website.

3.5 Additional Campus Responses

Beyond the information gathered by the survey and workshop, a number of additional meetings, interviews and consultations with individual faculty and administrators were undertaken. Summaries of key points are included below.

3.5.1 Interviews with Faculty
A small number of interviews and meetings were held with UVic faculty who were unable to attend the CBR workshop but wished to provide comments. Persons whose comments are including in this report are listed in the Appendix. A sample of comments and sub-themes are summarized below:

Complementarity with Community Relations Office
“Could you help us do some work on urban villages?” A simple request like this from a community group or local government leads to a lot of work for the Director of Community Relations, Martin Segger who notes, “I shopped around for ages and people were interested but there is no structure at UVic set up to respond. There’s no need to make a big fuss, just a need for UVic to respond.”

The mandate of the Community Relations office is to “keep lines of communication open” but not to “fill up those lines”. This main focus is local community in the vicinity of the university with occasional island-wide and BC-wide events. The office receives requests every month
From off-campus organizations to connect with UVic researchers on projects. In many cases, such requests offer significant opportunity for UVic to get involved in large grants (e.g., rainwater recycling) but limited time and staff prevent the office from addressing most of the requests directly. The infrastructure proposed to support CBR could provide an obvious portal to receive requests and broker collaborations, mobilize resource people, and facilitate reporting back to research partners in the communities, complementing the goals of the Community Relations office.

Maintaining CBR legacies and lessons
Without institutional support, a legacy of contacts, on-going projects, and social capital developed through collaborative research (e.g., CURAs) continually disappears since there is nothing to carry it on once the external funding has ended. As one former CURA leader Dr. Rod Dobell notes, “To improve dissemination of results from university research, we need to be talking about forging an understanding of how to engage in research relationships, not just forging ahead with projects.” There is no academic culture to connect with community (academic community is worldwide, not local). In recruitment of faculty at UVic, we are starting to realize that we need to connect faculty with local community or we don’t retain them. The same can be said for research relationships underlying CBR. Martin Segger notes, “We need a culture beyond the institution to stay involved”. On-going Co-op student placements are one way of maintaining continuity and students are often well received by community partners.

CBR and knowledge mobilization
CBR is a knowledge mobilization undertaking. A broadening of the concept of the university is needed to include modes of discourse and observation that occur in the university setting and lead on to research questions that are priorities for communities. We are not talking about making university research more relevant to communities or research for social change, but drawing research insights and opportunities from communities. The “ethical space” framework proposed by Cree scholar Willie Ermine is a borderlands notion, i.e., zones or spaces of interaction, or “cultural edges” where communities edge each other. Knowledge mobilization is occurring in a different way in these borderlands. A different kind of research is required – interactive. And structured so it is interacting around a meshing of understandings/backgrounds/cultural traditions, and negotiating interpretations and ultimately shared understandings of some of the evidence from the world around us.

What are the payoffs to justify supporting a structure that facilitates CBR and knowledge mobilization? As Joan Wharf-Higgins points out when we promote health and well being, the payoffs are long term. There is a different ‘capture’ of benefits compared with the standard medical model. It is the same with community-based research. The benefits are long term – warm and fuzzy perhaps, but rightly so – the indicators are less about transaction costs, more about democratic production of knowledge, more about engaged and contributing citizens, increased benefits of research to civil society. It is the ultimate investment in the future of society – and we may not even see the benefits that we contribute to during our own professional lives.

Functions of combined CBR and knowledge mobilization office
As a source of “accumulated wisdom and experience” the institutional memory provided by such an office would be very helpful at the onset of a community-university partnership (e.g., initiating faculty unfamiliar with CBR and community realities) and, more important, following the end of the project, to ensure that the legacy of the work remains accessible. Such an office would be a repository for and facilitator of ‘rules of conduct’ around the community need to see topics originate in the community and to employ structures within the community.

The facility would be a specific investment in learning from the comparative experience, e.g., learning from past CURA’s at UVic (as well as those not funded). Topics of “research” could include:

What is meant by “interdisciplinary research”?
What is a “successful” versus “unsuccessful” CURA project and can these be distinguished?

Other potential functions could include:

Maintenance of references/bibliographies as pooled resources.
Inventories, scans, contact lists
Making connections between projects
Flipping outcomes to impress funders and make meaning for communities
Contribute to making research visible, and stimulating research groups to pursue visibility (e.g., book of essays across related projects)
Create synthesis across different projects that would build UVic’s visibility in interdisciplinary research, health, etc. A continuing series. Not extra work but seeing to it that the same data or outcomes have multiple forms and audiences.
Drawing lessons from portfolio activity as a whole instead of “silo by silo”
This office could be “drawing lessons” instead of “losing lessons” to negate continually “reinventing the wheel” for new projects.
Provision of continuity (and even bridge funding) when projects end but commitment to relationship with community doesn’t
Identify criteria for merit appraisal etc; one role for the office would be to support deliberation in the university on reform of criteria for reappointment, promotion, tenure
Contribute to research guidelines revisions, research policies, etc.

Key dual features would be (i) reporting out (i.e., increasing UVic’s visibility) and (ii) looking in (i.e., supporting/sustaining CBR involving UVic involving especially faculty, students, community groups)

3.5.2 Consultations with the Chancellor, President, Vice-Presidents, and the Deans

There were many extremely useful suggestions from the conversations with the President, Vice-Presidents, Deans and other Senior Officials. Many of these have found their way into the recommendations. It is useful however to provide an overview of responses.

Should we move forward with a CBR initiative?
There were no negative responses to this question. Responses were nearly all in favour of proceeding as soon as practicable. Two cautions were expressed. First that we should be clear about the difference between research and community service and second that in moving forward with the CBR initiative we should not lose sight of the larger picture of community engagement or civic engagement at UVic.

Where should it be located?
There was a balance in the responses. Some specific suggestions were expressed that the CBR Programme could be located within a downtown-learning centre that might combine Continuing Studies and arts performance space. Being part of the Victoria Sustainability Centre at Dockside Green was another. Some suggested a Mall might be an idea space. Others felt that it was equally important to provide a space where all community partners would feel comfortable at the Gordon Head campus.

What would a CBR initiative offer that we don’t have now?
This initiative would give more visibility to a set of activities, faculties and staff that are here, but sometimes not noticed. Many members of the community find it difficult to access university resources and personnel. This would give a clear social justice framework to aspects of the University research. CBR is a natural link between teaching and learning and knowledge creation. It would legitimate CBR for faculty members who need support. It would provide for increased student involvement in community activities and projects. It could enhance donor relations and be supported by our communications and community relations’ functions.

How and where could a CBR initiative be structured from an administrative perspective?
Some suggestions included seeing it as a parallel to the Teaching and Learning Centre with links to both VPAC and VPR. Others mentioned the importance of links with Student Affairs. Wherever the programme is located, it is important that the links between CBR, the Coop Education programme, Service Learning and the Division of Continuing Education be strong and communications fluid. The idea of a knowledge mobilization structure geared to the community, civic or social side of the equation, but parallel to the Innovation and Development Centre that has a focus on the industrial and entrepreneurial aspects was seen as appropriate.

3.6 Additional Community Responses

We have had wide-ranging formal and informal interviews with various community leaders about this initiative. We have selected some interviews because they are with community agencies and projects that have had a strong link to the University of Victoria and will be strong partners in whatever develops. Persons whose comments are included below are listed in the appendix. Some indicative comments:

Research and learning for action
“The purpose of research is to create knowledge. Research is often a passive word – Learning is the more active word. We prefer the term “action learning rather than “service learning”. Knowledge comes from what we do and the most vibrant frameworks (e.g. popular education, experiential learning) don’t come from academia. For us, the purpose of our community research is to not research for its own sake but to create social and economic change and build community power.”

A Learning Exchange
“We would need this CBR project to facilitate the learning and relationship exchange. Our work needs great research assistants; especially to support our ongoing need to write proposals, plan, and evaluate our work. We need help to deal with the ever-changing funding frameworks that funders give us. We need skills enhancement both ways. Topics could be: How to do research, design qualitative and quantitative research, design and direct research, sharing stories.” We need to examine and create adequate community and research protocols that bridge the community and institutional cultures. Communities are often not considered smart enough to figure out ethical issues and constructs but we can.”

Who owns knowledge?
“We agree on the need for a CBR initiative supported by UVIC and the community. There are several considerations: Who owns the knowledge? We need research to be directed and supported by us. Money needs to be put into community-based research and design. Immigrant communities in Victoria are largely peripheral to the University of Victoria. There is cynicism as to the value of research as government and academia research priorities often change.”

Support
“We would be happy to engage in and support the UVIC-sponsored CBR project.”

Social Justice a key
“Social justice should be a guiding framework for this project. We need skills training both ways, in particular in the area of the design of CBPR projects. We need to create a hybrid-funding framework between Research and Action Funds. Community and university can work together to create an overall plan with diverse funders to make this happen”

Reframing ethics protocols
We need to explore the reframing of ethics protocol and practice. UVIC’s CBR work should definitely network and work with national and international partners to affect funding and research-ethics policies. We need to connect to the larger CBR and CBPR movements and help community to connect and be inspired by other stories from other places. Be creative!”

Opportunities in Rural Areas
“We are very keen on a UVIC community CBR Initiative. Rural areas and the Gulf Island are very often left out in research work and we are very keen to work with UVIC and other partners to maybe do a Saltspring Island CBR pilot project. We are ready-made for research! Right now we need baseline data assessment to use for social planning, particularly in the areas of economic development, housing and social indicators and future scenario planning.”

Skills needed

“We need skills development and support on how to do social research quickly and how to develop our overall research capacity.”

3.7 Aboriginal Perspectives and Responses

Preliminary efforts were made to understand the special and additional considerations in CBR involving Aboriginal communities. The following four types of responses are from a variety of campus and community people with ties to both the university and Aboriginal communities. Points that were emphasized included: the importance of a balanced and enduring relationship between Aboriginal communities and the University; respect for and knowledge of protocols and Indigenous ways of knowing and learning; creating a facilitating structure that is holistic and encompasses all faculties of the University; undertaking research that benefits the community as well as the university; and the importance of developing an “enabling space” for building communication, understanding and trust between parties.

The contributions summarized below should be seen as a starting point – an “initial conversation” – to stimulate further discussion and processes that need to be put into place to adequately understand and address issues and opportunities in CBR involving Aboriginal communities.

3.7.1 Workshop on CBR Involving Aboriginal Communities

A half-day workshop on June 6th attended by 15 participants (UVic faculty, graduate student or Aboriginal community member) served as a preliminary conversation on the priorities, opportunities and concerns of Aboriginal communities involved in CBR. A UVic structure to support CBR was seen as a doorway into the university community: a bridge that will create a link to Aboriginal communities, allowing them to feel comfortable and welcome enough to communicate with the university.

Participants agreed the structure must: extend to the whole university community, across all faculties, so that people can be connected to their specific research area and find others to help with creating joint projects and recruiting graduate or co-op students; support the development of the research capacity within Aboriginal communities and community settings; create a space for joint university-community communication, allowing both sides to share information; and enable Aboriginal community epistemologies.

The need was discussed for direct involvement of Aboriginal people as partners with expertise to contribute rather than subjects of research to be exploited. Key is the question of who benefits. Researchers need greater sensitivity and knowledge about Aboriginal communities before they can participate in meaningful, respectful and mutually beneficial ways. In particular, researchers need to develop cultural competency about Aboriginal worldviews and cultural protocols to minimize misunderstandings.

A number of historical injustices to Aboriginal people and the extractive role that research has played in the past need to be recognized in order to understand Aboriginal peoples’ hesitation, fear or mistrust about being involved in research. Even the physical environment of the university can be intimidating and therefore a barrier to CBR with Aboriginal communities. A neutralized, safe “ethical space” where people can come together to learn about how to work together is needed, particularly to learn ways of being and methods of respecting Aboriginal ways of knowing in an academic setting. The creation of this space is part of a much larger need to transform the ways and structures of universities. Within this structure, there will be a place for all peoples and their knowledge to be valued equally - for the university to have real relationships with Aboriginal communities, and to break down the bureaucratic barriers standing in the way of the pursuit of true collaborative learning.

3.7.2 Workshop Breakout Session on CBR Involving Aboriginal Communities

Following the June 6th workshop, a breakout session on “Enabling and Disabling Spaces: CBR Involving Aboriginal Communities” was held on June 8th as part of a larger workshop on CBR. Participants discussed how Aboriginal people can benefit or be harmed by research depending on how, where, and for what purpose it is carried out. The discussion focused on what can be done by Aboriginal people participating in research, the University, and the researchers to create an enabling space for mutually respectful and mutually beneficial collaboration.

Key points included developing shared principles for engagement; understanding partnership between Aboriginal communities and the University on several levels (academic, spiritual and communal); the importance of knowing cultural protocols and information about working with a particular Aboriginal community in order to carry out research in a respectful manner (which requires enough time, funding and capacity to spend time in the community prior to starting research); understanding of Aboriginal worldviews and cultural values; acknowledgement and understanding of the destruction that past research has done leading to reluctance to participation, in order to see how research can be done respectfully in Aboriginal communities.

Participants said the university must cease to be a separate entity and become a part of the surrounding community. Universities are typically constructed as placeless institutions that build over others, and in order to have any kind of relationship with a community, they must acknowledge the place where they are and then their cultural identity will change in a way that allows them to connect to communities. Aboriginal knowledge must be respected and given equal weight in an academic setting. Ways of knowing by Aboriginal people have been disregarded in the academic world as superstitious, primitive and unfounded; if it is seen as inferior by the researcher, then there can be no meaningful exchange. It's important to respect and accept alternate methods of knowledge creation and types of information aside from what is typically considered “valid” or of value in a university setting.

In summary, a mutual effort is required of all parties to CBR in order to ensure success; university and community actors must overcome fear and prejudice concerning the methods, theories and beliefs of the other and approach the partnership equally. Only through this approach will such a partnership endure, and allow knowledge to flow between parties, engaging and sharing with one another.

3.7.3 Consultation with the Le'nonet Project

In some respects, a structure to support CBR and the Le'nonet Project have parallels; both are about collaborations between Aboriginal organizations and communities, and the University of Victoria; both also emphasize the importance of learning and respect prior to entering and working with a community. Co-principle investigators and staff and were consulted for advice or opinions on developing a CBR structure, drawn from their experiences with the Le'nonet Project and their own backgrounds working with Aboriginal communities and in an academic setting.

Key points discussed included the importance of balancing the power relationship in ways that are more equal, and not entirely based on the western academic worldview. Shared understandings of ethics, respect and protocol are imperative to this end; the conventional western emphasis on individuality in research ethics needs to be reinterpreted in light of the traditional Aboriginal emphasis on the people and the community as a whole. A framework agreement that establishes shared ethical principles could be put in place across all faculties of the University to foster respect at all institutional levels of the University.

Working relationships must be continuous rather than a temporary means to an end. There must be a balance between the research and the building of a relationship, rather than the relationship being a way to gain access to the research subjects and extend no further than the outcome of the project. Interactions must be carried out respectfully and researchers must be mindful of Aboriginal protocol and procedures. Working understandings of “community” must be expanded to include currently excluded groups such as urban Aboriginals and the Métis.

The University must support and encourage researchers who chose to work with Aboriginal groups and communities and reward efforts in building working relationships and adhering to community protocols, which may take significant investment of time and resources. Currently many of the necessary things that a researcher must ethically do (such as participate in culturally important events and build relationships with elders, community members, etc) are not recognized by the University. We must reward less extractive, more enduring research relationships.

Creating an advisory body comprised of representatives from the local Aboriginal umbrella organzations (e.g., Native Friendship Centre, Surrounded by Cedar) the nine local First Nation communities, and Aboriginal staff and faculty at UVic would aid in providing guidance and direction for CBR involving Aboriginal communities. The experiences of the Le'nonet Project in developing an advisory committee offer useful lessons here, as would the President’s Advisory Committee on Aboriginal Education.

3.7.4 Interview with Saanich Indian School Board Member Marie Cooper

A follow up interview after the workshop on June 8th with Saanich Indian School Board Member Marie Cooper underscored the importance and mutual benefit in exploring a more formalized institutional partnership between UVic, the Saanich Indian School Board and the local Saanich and Songhees First Nations. Marie recommended a framework agreement based on shared principles urgently needs to be developed as a basis for this relationship. This framework would support developing a holistic understanding and approach to programming for Aboriginal education at UVic (multidisciplinary and multi-cultural), as well as provide a basis for research and course work involving the local First Nations communities, which is currently taking place ad hoc.

Given the historical injustices to Aboriginal peoples resulting from some research in the past, a framework agreement is needed create a “safe” space to discuss future research of mutual benefit to the university and Aboriginal communities and to enable self-determination. In Marie’s words:

If you mention research to people here, they will run away. We have been researched to death. Students come in here without any awareness of protocol, without an awareness of spiritual or cultural values. Graduate students come and go but we don’t even see the final product. We have no clue as to where they are going with this information. Working together means building mutual respect and trust. We are not there yet as we are still healing. We still have to heal from the effects of some research. This needs to be understood by the university (Marie Cooper, interview, 16 June 2006).

Saanich is in an excellent position to develop a framework agreement and put a protocol in place with UVic, with over 50 years experience of control over education and two agency agreements already in place with Saanich School District. Marie requested a meeting between the higher administration at UVic and the Saanich Indian School Board (including representatives of the Tsartlip, Tsawout, Tseycum, and Paquachin communities) plus the two Songhees Bands. An Advisory Council should be put in place to figure out the best way to move forward in collaboration on research and educational programming.

4. Functions of the Community-Based Research Programme (CBRP)

Formal discussions within the University of Victoria, within the region, across Canada and around the world have been in progress for 14 months. The following functions summarize the scope of the CBRP as it has been discussed to date.

4.1 Support and visibility for those faculty, students and research centres already engaged in community-based research.

The first priority is to give visibility and recognition the rich and varied activities, partnerships and resources already in place at the University of Victoria.

4.1.1 Annual faculty and staff recognition for outstanding community-based research.

4.1.2 Annual student recognition for outstanding student engagement in community-based research.

4.1.3 A pool of seed funding to support community-based research grant applications and project development, similar to grants given by the Teaching and Learning Centre.

4.1.4 Modification of existing evaluation policies in faculties and departments so that community-based research is recognized and valued as desirable in terms of merit and promotion.

4.1.5 Expansion of opportunities for the involvement of undergraduate and graduate students for service learning and other forms of credit engagement in community-based research. This will involve clear links with and support for existing opportunities in Co-op and the VIPIRG research intern programme.

4.1.6 Workshops, public lectures and related instructional programmes that raise community awareness of the needs and outcomes of community-university research in cooperation with Continuing Studies and other Faculties.

4.1.7 Faculties could each have a faculty contact person to be part of a more intentional support structure across the university.

4.2. Support to communities and community-based researchers

The University of Victoria needs a more effective means of relating to the knowledge strategies and needs to build research capacity in our communities. We need:

4.2.1 An open window/door indicating to a wide and diverse set of community organizations and agencies that they are welcome to bring their research concerns and needs to the University of Victoria.

4.2.2 Annual recognition to a community group that has made outstanding contributions to community-based research.

4.2.3 Funds to support an appointment of 2-3 community scholars-in-residence annually to centres or departments at The University of Victoria and to utilize already existing support (such as the Lansdowne funds) in this direction.

4.2.4 Small-scale grants to community-based organizations to initiate research projects in partnership with the University of Victoria.

4.2.5 Development of instructional programmes/certificates that build capacity for research and partnership in the community.

4.3. Academic Programming

The full realization of the implications for joint community-university knowledge making depends on increased opportunities for students and faculty to learn more about the theory and practise of community-based research. We have many nationally and internationally recognized scholars ready to provide leadership in these areas. We need:

4.3.1 The expansion and development of regular and on-line courses in community-based research in cooperation with the Division of Continuing Studies, the Faculty of Human and Social Development and others.

4.3.2 Development and implementation of more field-based courses in community-based research as partnerships with community groups and First Nations.

4.3.3 Creation of A Minor interdisciplinary undergraduate option specializing in community-based scholarship (akin to Indigenous or European Studies).

4.3.4 a suite of undergraduate courses offered in conjunction with the Minor.

4.3.5 A faculty appointment to offer the above courses and direct the Minor.

4.3.6 An interdisciplinary Graduate specialization in community-based research (akin to CSPT) under the auspices of Leadership Studies in Education and others in the Faculties of Human and Social Development, Social Sciences, and the Humanities.

4.3.7 A faculty appointment in conjunction with the graduate specialization.

4.3.8 Support for community scholars to be involved in teaching on campus.

4.3.9 Strengthened field research methods and skills through a variety of training/learning approaches.

4.3.9.1 A Professional Specialization Certificate in Community-based Research that targets post-degree and community-based scholars and professionals and draws on expertise throughout the university.

4.3.9.2 Courses, workshops and both credit and non-credit opportunities to learn about working in respectful ways with Aboriginal Communities.

4.4. Knowledge Exchange and Mobilization

Awareness of existing resources, the sharing of stories of research in action, more effective ways for members of our communities as well as academics to know what is going on is needed. Special attention will be given to interactive databases using wiki, pod casting and similar approaches. We need more accessible and interactive means of sharing knowledge. Some of what is needed includes:

4.3.1 A UVic-Community CBR Directory that is regularly updated and a dedicated website as a key communications and clearinghouse mechanism for information on the University of Victoria and other locally generated community-based research.

4.3.2 Regular contributions to newsletters and other venues highlighting the University of Victoria, national and international community-based research.

4.3.3 an electronic ‘Occasional paper’ series in community-based research.

4.3.4 Assistance in mobilizing support for community-based learning to encourage community partners to share their research and evidence-based knowledge among other community groups.

4.3.5 A regular forum and learning opportunity series (possibly becoming an interdisciplinary module) on community-based research. The location of the forum could be in communities, at the University of Victoria or at the University of Victoria downtown.

4.3.6 Links to leading national and international knowledge mobilization and networking organizations in community-based research such as the Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, the University Education for Community Change, the International Science Shops Network, and the International Participatory Research Network.

4.3.7 A commitment to host CU Expo 2008 at the University of Victoria, using this event as an anchor and motivator for building the profile of community-based research and capacity in community-university partnerships at the University of Victoria.

4.3.8 Use of existing media outlets to highlight the University of Victoria’s involvement in community-based research.

5. Expected Outcomes

The Community-Based Research Programme will succeed not by being an isolated island of activity. Its success will be as yeast in bread, visible through the growth and visibility of community-based research activities throughout the university and the community. Each faculty member, student and community partner interested in these forms of partnership should feel the benefits of this programme. Some concrete ‘deliverables’ or outcomes by which we might measure our progress include:

5.1. A Directory and web accessible interactive database of community-based research projects, faculty interests and resources would be created.

5.2. an increased number of community-based research partnerships.

5.3. An increase in the number of submissions, sources identified and funding secured from external sources for community-based research and related projects

5.4. An increase in the number of students places in community-based research and related settings (Service Learning, Co-op, VIPIRG research interns, LE,NONET)

5.5. Increased media coverage of community-based research initiatives

5.6. New academic programming: an undergraduate minor in CBR; A Graduate specialization; and various diplomas and certificates via Continuing Studies.

5.7. Annual recognition of community-based research partnerships (perhaps linked to the Craigdarroch presentation ceremonies)

5.8. An international CBR web-based portal

5.9. Training and briefing workshops and modules for Faculty and students on learning to work with Aboriginal communities on knowledge creation.

5.10. Participation in a a bi-monthly CBR Forum

5.11. An annual CBR conference at the University of Victoria

5.12. An international CU Expo conference to be held in spring, 2008 with 500 participants from Canada and the world.

5.13. Creation of a Working Group to work on the implications for academic programming

6. Recommendations

6.1 A Community-Based Research and Knowledge Mobilization Programme

6.2 Timing

6.3 Steering Committee

6.4 External Advisory Committee

6.5 Staff Model

6.6 Student involvement

6.7 Communications, Knowledge Exchange/Mobilisation

6.9 Community-University Exposition 2008

6.10 Research policy discussions

Appendix: List of Contributors

In addition to information provided by the 110 survey respondents, the 65 participants in the two workshops on June 6th and June 8th, comments provided by the Chancellor, President, Vice Presidents, and Deans, the following individuals provided additional comments through interviews that were noted herein:

Rupert Downing, Executive Director of the Canadian CED Network
Jody Patterson, Prostitutes Educations and Empowerment Recovery Society, Journalist
Jean McRae, Executive Director - InterCultural Association of Greater Victoria
Jannit Rabinovitch, Centre for Health and Learning, Community Development consultant
Rob Grant, Executive Director, Saltspring Island Social Services Society
Rebecca Vines, Research Coordinator, Clayoquot Biosphere Trust
Marie Cooper, Saanich Indian School Board
Martin Segger, Director, Community Relations and Director, Maltwood Art Museum and Gallery
Rod Dobell, Professor Emeritus, School of Public Administration
Joan Wharf-Higgins, Associate Professor, School of Physical Education, Faculty of Education and Canada Research Chair, Health and Society
Roger John, Co-Principle Investigator, LE,NONET Project
Ruth Lyall, community Internships Coordinator, LE,NONET Project
Darlene Clover, Leadership Studies, Faculty of Education