Doing Community-Based Research: Perspectives from the Field 9780773599222

Citation preview

Recto Running Head

DOIN G COMMUNIT Y - BASED RESEARCH

i

This page intentionally left blank

Recto Running Head

iii

Doing Community-Based Research Perspectives from the Field

G R E G H A L S E T H , S EA N M A RK EY , L AU RA RYS ER , AND DON MANSON

With vignette contributions from Nikolaus Gantner, Regine Halseth, Maura Hanrahan, Catherine Nolin, Kelly Vodden, Kieran Walsh, and Rachel Winterton

McGill-Queen’s University Press Montreal & Kingston • London • Chicago

iv

Verso Running Head

© McGill-Queen’s University Press 2016 isbn 978-0-7735-4727-8 (cloth) isbn 978-0-7735-4728-5 (paper) isbn 978-0-7735-9922-2 (epdf) isbn 978-0-7735-9923-9 (epub) Legal deposit second quarter 2016 Bibliothèque nationale du Québec Printed in Canada on acid-free paper that is 100% ancient forest free (100% postconsumer recycled), processed chlorine free This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, through the Awards to Scholarly Publications Program, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Funding has also been received from Simon Fraser University and the University of Northern British Columbia. McGill-Queen’s University Press acknowledges the support of the Canada Council for the Arts for our publishing program. We also acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Canada Book Fund for our publishing activities.

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Halseth, Greg, 1960–, author Doing community-based research : perspectives from the field / Greg Halseth, Sean Markey, Laura Ryser, and Don Manson ; with vignette contributions from Nikolaus Gantner, Regine Halseth, Maura Hanrahan, Catherine Nolin, Kelly Vodden, Kieran Walsh, and Rachel Winterton. Includes bibliographical references and index. Issued in print and electronic formats. isbn 978-0-7735-4727-8 (cloth). – isbn 978-0-7735-4728-5 (paper). – isbn 978-0-7735-9922-2 (epdf). – isbn 978-0-7735-9923-9 (epub) 1. Communities – Research. 2. Participant observation. 3. Social sciences – Fieldwork. I. Markey, Sean Patrick, 1970–, author II. Manson, Don, 1961–, author III. Ryser, Laura, 1973–, author IV. Title.

hm756.h34 2016

307.072

c2016-901084-8 c2016-901085-6

This book was typeset by True to Type in 10.5/13 Sabon.

Recto Running Head

v

Contents

Figures Boxes

vii ix

Acknowledgments PART ONE

ix

INTRODUCTION TO CBR

1 Introduction

3

2 The Case for Community-Based Research PART TWO

16

GETTING TO KNOW ONE ANOTHER

3 Understanding and Shaping Capacity for cbr 4 Building Projects

71

5 Research Design 108 6 First Steps PART THREE

7 In the Field

148 WORKING IN THE FIELD

175

8 cbr: Methods and Techniques PART FOUR

199

AFTER THE FIELDWORK

9 Staying in Touch: Analysis 225 10 Staying in Touch: Change 245

43

vi

Contents

11 Conclusion

268

Appendix: Sampling of Research Protocol Agreements References

287

Contributors Index

319

315

277

Recto Running Head

vii

Figures

1.1

Reliability and distance from research subjects

5

1.2

cbr and researcher control 10

4.1

Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation

4.2

Competencies for effective cbr

5.1

Sample checklist for planning safe community-based fieldwork 142

78

90

This page intentionally left blank

Recto Running Head

ix

Boxes

Treading Carefully: Negotiating the cbr Relationship Kieran Walsh, Irish Centre for Social Gerontology

22

cbr and Marginalized Populations 26 Regine Halseth, National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health, unbc Research Approaches in Transition: Experiences and Challenges in Canada’s Arctic 45 Nikolaus Gantner, unbc Lesson Learned: cbr Risks for Academic Production

54

Love and Loss: Community-Based Research in Northern Canada Maura Hanrahan, Memorial University Community-Based Research in the Classroom Kelly Vodden, Memorial University

57

63

Lesson Learned: Managing and Incorporating Multiple Voices Rachel Winterton, La Trobe University

75

An Iterative and Reciprocal Process: Involving Community Members in Research 84 Kieran Walsh, Irish Centre for Social Gerontology Example from the Field: A Community Housing Course

97

Example from the Field: Working with Communities over the Long Term 114 Example from the Field: Working with Communities on Projects 116

x

Boxes

The Importance of Organizational Alignment Rachel Winterton, La Trobe University

128

Example from the Field: “Drive-by Research” 136 Example from the Field: Different Ways of Finding Information 158 Example from the Field: Looking Beyond Census Subdivision Boundaries to Understand “Community” 161 Lesson Learned: Public Policy Impacts on Community Change Lesson Learned: Think on Your Feet

162

180

Lesson Learned: Anonymity in a Small Community Advocacy and Community-Based Research Catherine Nolin, unbc

183

189

Example from the Field: Building Community Capacity

194

Example from the Field: Developing Self-Confidence and Building Capacity 196 Example from the Field: Homeless Shelter Example from the Field: Using Video

212

215

Example from the Field: cbr and the Benefits of Capacity Building 239 Research Relationships that Last 248 Kelly Vodden, Memorial University Example from the Field: crrf Conferences

251

Example from the Field: Responding to Economic Closure

258

Example from the Field: The Northern bc Economic Development Vision and Strategy Project 265

Recto Running Head

xi

Acknowledgments

We must start by recognizing and thanking the many people and groups from the many communities with whom we have worked over the years. You have been wonderful partners and patient teachers; many of you have become good friends. Together, we can be proud of all that we have accomplished around community-based research (cbr). It has been a pleasure to learn from so many colleagues and students about their own experiences working collaboratively with communities towards positive change. cbr is a large and growing field of inquiry, and we are glad to see that so many are pushing forward with new explorations of its potential and generating new insights about its applications. No book on cbr would be complete, however, without thanking and acknowledging Lana Sullivan. More years ago than we would care to recall, Lana was the first member of what would become our cbr team. She had a driving passion for communities and for including communities in our projects. Through those first years together, we learned a great deal about cbr, and this early work set the foundations for what would become the unbc Community Development Institute and the next decades of our research. Each of us works in settings where we get to interact with wonderful and talented colleagues. At unbc this includes people like Annie Booth, Rob Budde, Gail Curry, Gail Fondahl, Mike Gillingham, Neil Hanlon, Dawn Hemingway, Catherine Nolin, Ellen Petticrew, Dave Snadden, Glen Schmidt, and Ramona Rose. At sfu this includes people like John Pierce, Mark Roseland, John Brohman, Joanna Ashworth, Gretchen Ferguson, and Sarah Breen. Our thanks also to other colleagues across the country and internationally, including David Douglas, Karen Heisler, Ryan Gibson, and Sean Connelly.

xii

Acknowledgments

We are also grateful to our collaborators who have generously contributed vignettes that draw from their own research experiences. We thank Nikolaus, Regine, Maura, Catherine, Kelly, Kieran, and Rachel for taking time out of their very busy schedules to share heartfelt recollections of respectfully constructed cbr. For the contribution by Regine Halseth, we also thank the National Collaboration Centre for Aboriginal Health for her participation. There are also many research groups with whom it has been our pleasure to work over the years. These include Bill Reimer and the many, many colleagues and students who have worked with him on various iterations of the large New Rural Economy research program and now through the Rural Policy Learning Commons. Through these projects, David Bruce became not just a good colleague but also a good friend. He is someone who really understands small communities. Also included are our colleagues Peter Apedaile, Nobuhiro Tsuboi, Tokumi Odagiri, and others representing the Canada-Japan Project who frequently engaged with the New Rural Economy program. We also want to thank Mark Skinner, Alun Joseph, and Neil Hanlon who brought together many international scholars with stakeholders in Northern bc’s resource towns for conversations about the impacts of population aging. We also thank and acknowledge Tor Gjertsen, Oksana Romanova, and the rest of the University of the Arctic’s Thematic Network on Local and Regional Development in the North. They are true practitioners of cbr, and it has been a wonderful opportunity to meet with people in the northern communities where they conduct their work and where they are making such an important and positive difference. Thank you as well to the On the Move Partnership, which is examining the impacts of mobile work on workers, families, and communities. Brought together by Barbara Neis, this is a talented multidisciplinary team, and we have learned much from our interactions with them. Special thanks as well to the international collaborative group brought together around the University of Eastern Finland (uef) by Kati Pitkänen, Mervi Hiltunen, Mia Vepsäläinen, and Michael Hall. We also thank the uef’s Markku Tykkyläinen for his ongoing collaboration with our research team. We also wish to thank the people, offices, and organizations who participated with us in the National Network for Urban Aboriginal Economic Development (uaed). The uaed Learning Circles and other

Acknowledgments

xiii

collaborative events provided a unique opportunity to explore cbr with Aboriginal stakeholders. A special thank you goes to Ray Gerow, our colead on the uaed network, and his staff at the Prince George Aboriginal Business and Community Development Centre (pg-abdc). We also acknowledge the late John McBride for his gentle mentorship within the uaed network. Thanks as well to Vince Prince, current executive director of the pg-abdc, from whom we have learned so much over the years about Aboriginal community development work. All of these collaborative groups have been a pleasure to work with and to learn from. We have learned so much from all of you, and we hope this book does at least partial justice to your amazing contributions. Over the years, many funding agencies have supported the research from which we have drawn our community-based insights and experiences. We wish to recognize them, in part, because fundraising for community-based research is always a challenge – it takes time and may not always go in anticipated directions. These funders have been bold and welcome partners and deserve recognition. Among the national funding councils, we thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (sshrc) (through their Standard Research Grants, Social Cohesion Program, Insight Development Grants, Insight Grants, Knowledge Impact in Society Program, Partnership Grants, Aid to Research Workshops and Conferences, Community-University Research Alliances program, and Initiative on the New Economy program), and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. Greg Halseth’s participation was generously supported through the Canada Research Chair program (award numbers 950-200244, 950-203491, and 950-222604). Other projects have received support from sshrc (award numbers 4302011-0475 and 895-2011-1019). This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, through the Awards to Scholarly Publications Program, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. It was also assisted by publications grants through the unbc and sfu Research Offices. Within the federal government, we thank Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, especially their Office of the Federal Interlocutor and Economic Development Branch. We also thank Industry Canada, Western Economic Diversification Canada, Service Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Canadian Rural Secretariat, Mitacs, and the federal government’s Community Economic Development Initiative. We also recognize and thank the University of Northern British Co-

xiv

Acknowledgments

lumbia and Simon Fraser University for the many forms of support they have offered through the years. In British Columbia, we need to thank bc Housing, Forest Renewal bc, and various ministries within the provincial government, as well as the Royal bc Museum. We have also worked with many local governments in British Columbia, and with several other organizations and groups: the Omineca Beetle Action Coalition, the Vancouver Foundation, the bc Oil and Gas Commission, and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions. Our work internationally has been supported by the above groups as well as the Academy of Finland, the Canada-Japan Project, and the University of the Arctic’s Thematic Network on Local and Regional Development in the North. We also wish to thank the publishing team at McGill-Queen’s University Press, including Filomena Falocco, Jacqueline Mason, Joanne Pisano, and Ryan Van Huijstee. It has been a pleasure to work with you, and your support and advice is greatly appreciated. We also recognize the assistance of Joanna Reid and Larissa Ardis in helping to improve the manuscript, as well as the helpful feedback from the anonymous reviewers selected by the press. As part of our goal to make this book both useful and practical, we have sought to include real-world examples of both processes and protocols. In this regard, we would especially like to thank and acknowledge two groups for allowing us to share information from their procedures. We thank and acknowledge the Aurora Research Institute for granting permission to share their guidelines for scientific research licences in the north. We also thank and acknowledge the Tl’azt’en Nation for granting permission to share their Tl’azt’en Nation’s Guidelines for Research in Tl’azt’en Nation Territory. We think both examples are valuable, and we are honoured to have been granted permission to use them. We also thank and acknowledge The First Nations Information Governance Centre in Akwesasne, Ontario for their permission to include discussion of the concept of ocap® for which they hold the trademark rights. In closing, as always, our greatest thanks go to our families for their ongoing support of our research journeys. Greg Halseth, Sean Markey, Laura Ryser, and Don Manson … enjoying a second breakfast, and beautiful autumn sunshine, by the side of the road in Northern bc …

Introduction

1

PART ONE

Introduction to CBR

In this first part of the book, we introduce the concept of community-based research (cbr). We begin with a discussion that questions the role and value of research in society. Our objective here is to illustrate the value of cbr in terms of providing both useful community processes and products, while also seeking to advance academic discourse. cbr has the potential to address many of the frustrations communities feel toward research – mainly that they feel over-studied, are rarely included in the research process as anything other than as subjects, and rarely see the results of the work. The first chapter illustrates how cbr may provide some solutions to these problems while also paying critical attention to issues of the rigour and reliability of the research itself. In the second chapter, we draw from the literature to continue to advance our understanding and definition of cbr. We trace the roots of cbr within the methodological discourse and use action research (ar) and participatory action research (par) to frame a spectrum of different origins of, and orientations to, cbr. We also include a discussion of some of the valuable points of the critique of, or resistance to, cbr. The chapter finishes with an overview of research in rural and small-town places, which frames much of our experience and application of cbr. The lessons and practices contained in the book have relevance to the application and discussion of cbr regardless of specific context. However, given the intense place-based application of cbr in any setting, understanding the rural and small-town setting will help to contextualize many of the points and examples we use throughout the book.

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

3

1

Introduction We have been studied to death… Community member

The opening quote reflects a common sentiment encountered by researchers who work in community settings. Often these communities are located near a university, which makes them easy (and affordable) for researchers to access. They are also places that may be experiencing particular challenges – such as poverty, crime, homelessness, or economic decline or transition –– that make them targets for both academic and government-related studies. Stable or wealthier areas are less frequently studied, as they are not often the targets of granting programs or numerous government services that require monitoring; nor are they the subjects of researchers who are motivated to “make a difference in the world.” Residents in more highly researched communities are often subjected to waves of surveys, interview requests, open forums, roundtables, and other forms of data gathering. These demands for participation in research breed fatigue, particularly when study results are rarely shared with the communities, and the government programs or other forms of intervention that they are intended to inspire or enhance, while possibly launched with much fanfare and hope, often fade quickly. Governments change, granting programs have limited funding timelines, and all interventionist actors – governments, academics, charities, community stakeholders, and granting agencies – are prone to “moving on” to the next issue of the day before seeing any durable change through previous work. The grinding process of community development and transition requires time, investment, and attention that exceed most interventionist mandates. The disjuncture between the pace of change and the patience (and budgets) of researchers and community developers is a main reason

4

Introduction to CBR

why communities feel as though they are being studied to death. Communities have seen it all before. While the causes of this problem are complex and varied, this book seeks to offer guidance on one dynamic in the community-researcher relationship: the research process itself. We focus on the use and process of community-based research (cbr), which offers some interesting answers to the challenges of conducting research and ensuring, in some way, that the results of the work actually do make a difference to the communities where the research is located. This ability to make a difference depends upon two important variables: the capacity of cbr to generate good information, and the extent to which cbr is understood and constructed as a two-way relationship between – and set of responsibilities for – both researchers and communities. At the core of the literature surrounding cbr are long-standing debates concerning the role of “participants” in the research process. The central concern is how distance between the researcher and research subjects influences the quality of information being generated (figure 1.1). Advocates of traditionalist approaches to research dictate that, as the distance closes, the likelihood for bias increases because researchers who become invested or involved in the research setting lose their sense of objectivity. On the other end of the continuum, proponents of participatory research techniques posit that a wide distance means that researchers will be missing much of what is relevant and important in the research process; it is better, therefore, to close the gap and where possible involve research subjects who then become collaborators or even partners in the research process. The involvement of people who are directly affected by the study will generate better findings, more reflective of the nuances of context, and help to ensure that these findings are actually used by community members. There are, of course, an array of research approaches along this continuum (discussed below), but in general, cbr advocates believe that community connections enhance rather than limit reliability. cbr is not, therefore, an external process. Within this frame, the community is involved as a full partner in proposing and designing the research. There is a shared ownership of the research and its mobilization and an expectation of capacity building for all partners. Partnering researchers (usually from universities) are committed over the long term, and each stage of the research process is part of an iterative relationship-building process. As a result, communities are no longer “studied

Introduction

Figure 1.1

5

Reliability and distance from research subjects

to death,” but rather are part of a research relationship that, over time, will address their goals and aspirations. The approach to cbr outlined in this book is aligned with the notions of participatory research. Three forces influence this decision. First, universities are being prodded to be more relevant to the conditions and challenges facing society. Research should matter. How research unfolds is not only important; it is also intimately intertwined with where and how research takes place and what difference it makes in the world. Second, communities often present researchers with parameters or protocols about how research is to be done in communities or regions. Communities are either involved in the research process and dictate some of the terms and potential outputs associated with the work, or researchers can move along to the next town. This speaks to the two-way responsibility for ensuring that research matters. Communities have considerable power in the research process. If they choose to exercise this power – as is their responsibility – their involvement in the research process (and through its different stages) will invariably influence the research process toward cbr. Finally, cbr is increasingly informed and motivated by place-based development. Placebased development, described in detail below, prioritizes the assets and aspirations of the local level as a focus for attention in development

6

Introduction to CBR

processes. In a research setting, this means that research is informed and shaped by the context of place. It requires the active participation of community members at each stage of the development process: conducting research and making strategic decisions about what types of development to pursue, doing the work and building capacity for different types of activities, and learning from the process so that future endeavours build upon (rather than repeat) these efforts and avoid past pitfalls. Place-based development also requires that researchers consider how communities may become the direct, long-term beneficiaries of the work. The experiences with cbr in this book are primarily grounded in Western society and Western scientific approaches to rural and smalltown research. This lens influences our perspective on cbr in a number of ways: we have been working with communities that are undergoing considerable social, economic, and environmental restructuring; we are often working with communities that have relatively limited capacity to adapt to change; and the communities we work with display a pragmatism that is often associated with rural and small-town places facing challenges. While the lessons we convey in this book are rooted in our rural and small-town experiences, many of the approaches and themes may be (and have been) applied to research in urban neighbourhood settings as well. Further, these lessons will also hold value when working with communities of interest or social groups that are wary of engaging in research projects given past negative experiences, where research may have served as a vehicle for repression or exploitation. While the particulars of working in different types of communities may vary, the principles of cbr as we outline them here are robust and will provide useful insights in a variety of research settings. At the same time, our approach in this book focuses on the lessons of using cbr, rather than on extensive descriptions of research techniques; as such, the book’s messages, lessons, and practices are generalizable to other research settings. We have included vignettes from cbr researchers from around the world who share experiences and insights that reinforce our key messages. We hope that researchers and practitioners will find useful information in these chapters. Finally, the experiences and lessons will be useful to consumers of research – the communities and community organizations that work with researchers – to better help them understand and influence their conditions and to better navigate the research process.

Introduction

7

TH E VALUE OF RESEARCH

What is research? And, importantly, what is the value of research? These are critical questions, so it is surprising how infrequently they are asked at the start of research projects. The first question lends itself to static definitions. Here definitions can be divided into two categories: basic and applied research. Basic research is experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts, without any particular application or use in mind. Applied research, on the other hand, is original investigation undertaken in order to acquire new knowledge that is directed primarily toward a specific practical objective (oecd 2013). Such binary definitions are, of course, problematic. The world, and especially the world of research, is never so simple as to fit into these neat opposites. In practice, we have found more synergy than separation between the notions of basic and applied research. Whenever we conduct an applied research project in partnership with a community or organization, for example, we invariably find that the results speak to issues being debated within the academic literature. Our practice suggests that cbr can rest comfortably across both definitional worlds. Debates rage within the literature about whether research can ever truly be “basic” (or, in another term, “pure”); however, the above definitions align cbr more with applied research. The task, then, according to the definition, is to generate “new knowledge.” This goal represents a threshold for what constitutes meaningful research: it places a burden of responsibility on the researcher to develop a new research idea and/or develop appropriate research that is new to a particular setting or organization (i.e. to ask, “What happens if we try this here?”). cbr argues that it is also a community responsibility to know what research has taken place in the area before and to help shape a productive new research process. Much of what follows in the chapters dealing with designing and implementing cbr is about meeting the challenge implied in the simple definition of research. The second question – what is the value of research? – is equally important but more complex and nuanced in application. Politics often trumps evidence; political ideology can drive policy. If political processes blatantly ignore research evidence or, worse, make up their own evidence out of thin air, then why bother investing in research? For that matter, why bother with the considerable efforts needed to

8

Introduction to CBR

conduct research if it will simply be scorned because of a political agenda or relegated to the dust heap of the filing cabinet? The important distinction here is between research that is ethically implemented to generate findings versus forms of research that are conducted to perpetuate bias or to confuse. Questioning the value of research invokes the reality that all research is political or has the potential to become politicized. This view arose within early feminist research that was committed to achieving change and which critiqued standard social science methodology long before cbr and participatory research were being debated (Dyck 1993; Moss 1993; England 1994). Given the inherently political nature of research, and in an age where information is presented with blurring speed and overwhelming volume, the need for quality research is higher than ever. It is not always possible to know how research will be used, or who will use it, but it is possible to control the rigour of the research and the transparency of our purposes and positions. cbr practitioners can also assume the task of ensuring that research activities and products are shared and publicized. Ultimately, grounding research in the conditions of place, combined with quality methods, may help to ensure a positive answer to the question that all researchers must ask about their work: “Did we get it right?” In addition, the extent to which cbr is transparent about its purpose and intent may to some degree lessen the politicization associated with the research. Alternatively, if participation is not open, researchers are transparent about why not – and make efforts to explain who did and did not participate in the research. THE CO NTE XT FOR COMMUNIT Y - BASED RESEARCH

The approach to cbr in this book is shaped by the pragmatism researchers encounter in rural places. Rural stakeholders are busy, often fulfilling multiple community roles. They face a world filled with change and challenges, and they want solutions to their problems. In many rural communities, there is a deep sense of engagement with processes of community and economic development, and a willingness to invest in processes and products to achieve more viable and sustainable communities. Community people understand and can appreciate that research may entail different dimensions of theory; however, they want the theoretical to inform and make a difference to the practical. Reason (2006, 188) refers to this as the “primacy of the practical.” The interrelationship between theory and practice must not be abandoned

Introduction

9

when engaging in participatory work for fear of becoming trapped by short-termism; however, by the very nature of its participatory dimensions, research and development processes must be grounded in, and relevant to, the reality of local circumstances. The pragmatic orientation of most cbr research also means that there should be no illusion that it is particularly “empowering” to local people. The effects and outcomes of the work may help to build awareness and capacity over time (which certainly are forms of empowerment), but these gains depend on the community people themselves – on their contributions and engagement. A small portion of the cbr literature tends to make grandiose (and potentially disingenuous) claims about its efforts to empower. These claims may be motivated by a passion for making a difference, but researchers need to be careful about suggesting that the work is transformational. The extent and longevity of a research team’s presence is a central question when assessing the impacts of any work, particularly when the team is engaged in longterm development processes. Researchers are likely the main beneficiaries of knowledge and information generated from cbr (via their own financial gain, publications, and career advancement, depending on the location of the researcher). The task then is to ensure that the community relationship is honoured by making research matter. There are many different terms used for community-based research internationally. These include, for example, participatory research (Jason et al. 2004; Wynne-Jones, North, and Routledge 2015), participatory action research (Cameron and Gibson 2005; Jupp 2007), transdisciplinary research1 (Bracken et al. 2015), rural appraisal approach (Chambers 1994; Wilmsen et al. 2008), community-based participatory research (Andrews et al. 2012; Viswanathan et al. 2004), or communitybased (participatory) research (Castleden, Morgan, and Lamb 2012; Roche 2008). For a more full list of these terms see also Etmanski, Hall, and Dawson (2014). In this book, we use the term community-based research, but different approaches also inform our analysis. Each of the terms associated with cbr refers to research that is participatory and inclusive of the people most directly affected by the issue or setting. Minkler (2005, ii3–ii4) describes cbr as a “collaborative process that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings,” noting that it “begins with a research topic of importance to the community with the aim of combining knowledge and action for social change.” Just as a continuum exists regarding researcher closeness to participants in research

10

Figure 1.2

Introduction to CBR

cbr and researcher control

generally (figure 1.1, above), there is a continuum of cbr, depending upon the extent of participation of community members and organizations and the amount of power they have to determine research processes and outcomes (or, put differently, the level of control retained by the researcher) (figure 1.2). STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK

The book is organized into four parts: (1) Introduction and the case for cbr; (2) Getting to know one another: steps for research design; (3) Working in the field; and (4) After the fieldwork: making research count. Part One: Introduction and the Case for CBR In chapter 2, we provide a more detailed review of the cbr and participatory research literature. We also describe a more in-depth rationale for the appropriateness and value of cbr to community settings. This chapter concludes with an extended discussion of place-based development, the specific approach to development that complements (and demands) the use of cbr.

Introduction

11

Part Two: Getting to Know One Another In chapter 3, we begin to navigate the delicate task of considering, negotiating, and constructing cbr relationships between researchers and communities. We highlight the importance of understanding community capacity and discuss the idea of community “readiness” for the considerable burden of co-designing good cbr. Communities must become better consumers of research if cbr is to be truly effective and genuinely inclusive. In this chapter, we address many institutional challenges to doing quality cbr. These challenges are presented as career barriers that faculty may encounter when adopting a cbr approach to their work (e.g. time demands, emphasis on journal rather than community publication, and academic concerns about the theoretical relevance of their work). We also discuss the barriers that students may encounter either when trying to use cbr for their own research or when becoming members of a cbr team. The last series of barriers presented includes challenges associated with raising and using funds for cbr. Standard academic granting agencies have made considerable progress toward embracing (and even requiring) greater attention to community engagement; however, many challenges still exist in implementing cbr. Finally, this chapter reflects upon how cbr can respond to the greatest question of relevance for research: “So what?” Overcoming the challenges presented in this chapter requires that researchers have a very solid answer to this deceptively simple question. Chapter 4 explains the work of preparing for the field; it includes a look at the vital role of establishing constructive and open relationships with communities. A key component of this work is setting and managing expectations. Communities tend to overestimate the potential contribution of researchers (i.e. “You’re the expert – tell us what the answers are”) and researchers tend to overestimate the capacity of communities to participate in projects. Work at the front end of the process to clarify roles and responsibilities will help to ensure a more productive relationship going forward. It will also help to establish a baseline from which researchers can measure progress. In chapter 4, we also offer a more substantive discussion on the ethics of cbr. An important question in cbr is, when does the ethics process begin? What counts as formal data collection – a conversation on the phone? A preliminary visit? We present information on ethics relative to emerging standards in academic research and funding agencies. Fi-

12

Introduction to CBR

nally, the chapter concludes with information and insights about research team composition and skill sets.2 Particular attention here is focused on the role of students to help enable them to be productive and full members of research teams. In chapter 5, we present tips for creating an appropriate research design, including important considerations concerning the scope of projects (and realistic timelines). Research design represents one of the greatest challenges of doing cbr. It is difficult to define and contain research that involves community members and actively engages in current development processes. While chapter 4 discusses the need to set realistic expectations, chapter 5 emphasizes how expectations and plans translate into research design choices. These decisions are connected with an overall discussion on how to generate ideas for cbr. If cbr is a reflexive and iterative process with communities, where do cbr practitioners begin to identify and set research tasks? What research will meet researchers’ interests and institutional career requirements while also meeting the information and development needs of communities? We next focus in on the specifics of research design, including budgets, methods, and sampling decisions. The methodology literature reminds us that there is always a range of available options when approaching the research design for any particular project. For cbr projects, within these choices and options, the research design needs to be developed collaboratively. It must benefit from local knowledge and include attention to community hopes and goals through the research and the research process. It should also adequately reflect community capacity and support infrastructure. Attention to collaborative research designs helps support the guiding principles of cbr: respect, flexibility, patience, and sincerity. Making these research design decisions requires ongoing discussions with community members. This chapter concludes with information about planning for researcher safety in the field. Establishing set processes of communications, arranging for appropriate transportation, and researching accommodation options are important components of the cbr process for everyone involved. The dynamics of field safety vary considerably depending on the research setting, but this discussion should be a part of every research project before work begins in the field. We conclude part 2 of the book with some final tasks before beginning fieldwork. In chapter 6, we discuss the background material relevant to a research topic. Efforts to construct quality background information can then become an immediate contribution from the research, in the form of community profiles. All of this work will make the research design better – and, importantly, ensure that time in the

Introduction

13

field is both respectful and efficient. We conclude this chapter with a section on data tool testing in order to ensure that the selected tools will be appropriate and operational in the field. Part Three: Working in the Field – It’s a People Process In chapter 7, we begin the discussion of the exciting and rewarding work that takes place in the field. The chapter starts with a discussion about researcher integrity, including the need to be consistent in both actions and behaviours when working with different groups in the community. It also underscores the point that the researcher’s behaviour in the field will be noticed and can affect the research. Reflecting on researcher behaviour is particularly critical in cross-cultural settings. This chapter then discusses how to adapt fieldwork to the rhythms of community life. Given the continuum of control discussed above, the reality of doing cbr means that there is a dependence upon community partners’ engagement with the work. Busy lives and other community activities may occasionally interfere with tight timelines. We conclude the chapter with insights into how to work with community partners to best facilitate the research process. In chapter 8, we introduce a suite of cbr considerations on research techniques. Our intention is not to discuss the basics of different approaches but to reflect upon the use of these different techniques in the cbr setting. We must ensure that the selected methods and techniques will both generate quality information and be respectful of, and appropriate to, local conditions. Balancing concerns about the “level of intrusion into community life” with goals for the “scope of participation or engagement” is important. We also include general tips and points of etiquette that should be considered, together with the need for attention to the importance of relationships and interpersonal dynamics. When working with communities, it is important to remain open to innovative approaches that can support cbr work. The chapter covers a range of individual and group research techniques. Part Four: After the Fieldwork – Making Research Count The final section of the book deals with the period after the fieldwork. Throughout the preceding chapters, we emphasize the role of various activities in cbr toward building long-term research relationships. In

14

Introduction to CBR

this section, we reflect on the variety of potential challenges that can affect the research relationship over time. Indeed, researcher behaviour and activities after the fieldwork may determine the fate of the research relationship and whether the entire process can be described as cbr. This section has two chapters. Chapter 9 is “Staying in Touch: Analysis.” The discussion focuses on the benefits of staying in close contact with the community and with other research partners during the analysis phase of the work. It raises a number of issues and challenges with respect to staying in touch in this post-fieldwork period and highlights important lessons for reporting back to communities. In chapter 10, “Staying in Touch: Change,” the discussion focuses on the critical need to stay connected with the community and with various research partners after the completion of the formal research project. This period is when implementation and change are supposed to happen. For change to occur, there must be adequate time and resources allocated to knowledge mobilization as researchers seek to develop relationships throughout the research process that will strengthen community ownership, engagement, and capacity to co-produce knowledge that can produce meaningful change through new skills, policies, processes, programs, and initiatives (Belkhodja et al. 2007, Levesque 2007; Sá et al. 2011). We discuss knowledge mobilization in two contexts: direct community change and policy influence. Staying in contact during periods of change or implementation is the critical component that helps differentiate cbr from other research approaches. The book then closes with a concluding chapter. Throughout these chapters, we have employed boxes to share real cbr experiences drawn from a range of experiences in Canada and internationally. These boxes show how the concepts of cbr unfold in practice. They also highlight how complex and messy cbr practice can be, but also how rewarding the cbr process is for participants. We hope that the insights provided in these boxes complement and extend the analysis and discussion throughout the book. CONCLUSION

The lessons contained within this book set a high standard for doing cbr. There are a number of value-added benefits – to researchers, communities, and students – of doing cbr well. cbr fosters a sense of passion and commitment to those who engage in the work: there is a sense

Introduction

15

of gratification that comes with seeking to establish enduring relationships and support meaningful change. However, cbr must be used selectively, in cases where time, funding, relationships, and issues permit. Where these conditions are not present, researchers and communities will be better served by more traditional research techniques. Traditional research that is more quickly done or where researchers drive the process may deliver the exact feedback and results needed by all of the actors in the process for a given situation. We hope the lessons within these pages will help both researchers and consumers of research make better decisions about how they approach their work together.

NOTES

1 Transdisciplinary research is understood as initiatives that engage multiple sources of knowledge across academic disciplines and various social and political spheres, and which engages stakeholders affected by the issues under investigation throughout the development and execution of the research (Bracken et al. 2015). 2 Throughout the book, we refer to “research teams.” While much traditional social science research is driven by individual university-based researchers, the complexity of cbr and resultant capacity challenges often means that a team of university-based researchers will now work collaboratively on cbr projects. Such teams may involve faculty as well as graduate and undergraduate students. However, we also employ a more expansive understanding and use of the term “research teams.” We view all partners in cbr relationships as equal members in, and thus co-partners of, the research team. For the most part, when we refer to the research team, we refer to the mixed group of university, government, and community participants in cbr projects. The mix on any research team is, of course, dependent on the cbr context and project.

16

Introduction to CBR

2

The Case for Community-Based Research With vignette contributions from Regine Halseth and Kieran Walsh

Universities and research institutions are under increasing pressure to pursue collaborative cbr partnerships in order to produce meaningful, practical knowledge that can lead to change. The problem is that cbr has not been a natural and normal part of the way researchers have been trained. Most institutions lack experience engaging with communities on equal, participatory terms. The body of written work on engaged projects and processes is relatively limited, a fact that further challenges researchers seeking to undertake cbr. Historically, universities and research institutions have often been resistant to participatory and engaged research approaches for fear that these somehow taint the purity of knowledge production. A starting point for addressing these gaps and concerns about engaged research is to define the parameters and principles of cbr; we begin this chapter with these definitions and explain how they frame and inform cbr practice. We will then identify some critiques of cbr so cbr practitioners and students can learn about, and hopefully avoid, potential pitfalls. The chapter closes with a description of why cbr is particularly relevant to small communities where stakeholders face highly complex challenges and have limited capacity to address them; cbr can create conditions to connect researchers with communities to co-create new knowledge that is of benefit to all partners. DEFINING COMMUNIT Y - BASED RESEARCH

There is no common definition of cbr, and many of the terms employed in describing participatory research are used interchangeably.

The Case for Community-Based Research

17

Kingsley and Chapman (2013, 553) use cbr “as an inclusive term to encompass forms of participatory, action-oriented, and collaborative research approaches.” Sclove et al. (1998, 1) provide a basic definition of cbr as research that is “conducted by, for or with the participation of community members.” This definition leaves open a myriad of possible emphases and objectives that could be linked with specific projects and places; as such, it provides a nice starting point for determining the parameters of cbr. If a project does not legitimately and authentically engage community members, then it is not cbr. The level of engagement within projects may vary; not all projects have to involve direct community participation at every stage of the research process. For example, community members are likely to happily take a pass on the hours of library work necessary to conduct thorough content analysis of newspapers. They will be fine just to know its purpose and that a dedicated research assistant is doing it. For more involved types of cbr, four additional themes found in the literature are useful to consider: asset-based development, the engaged university, direct community benefit, and empowerment of marginalized populations. Strand et al. (2003, 3) define cbr as “a partnership of students, faculty (i.e. university professors, lecturers, and teaching staff), and community members who collaboratively engage in research with the purpose of solving a pressing community problem or affecting social change.” This definition highlights a variety of cbr themes associated with the move toward collaborative research that is driven by awareness of the complexity of problems and the desire to address social issues using multiple sources of expertise (Ryser, Halseth, and Thien 2009). Linking cbr directly to development objectives is appropriate given how cbr represents an “asset-based” approach to doing research; specifically, it draws from existing community resources (Holkup et al. 2004). These resources may include individual skills, networks of relationships, and the participation of formal community-based institutions. Andrew Petter, president of Simon Fraser University, links this perspective on cbr to an evolving discourse on the nature of knowledge, knowledge mobilization, and the role of academic institutions in society.1 This “engaged university” discourse has transformed research practice from the older approaches to research extension (which largely focused on “one-way” communication from the researcher to communities and their participants) to the multi-directional and ongoing engagement and communication of today, which also focuses on mutual learning from the start. As Petter (2012) states, an engaged university

18

Introduction to CBR

“harnesses all of its capacities, its research strengths, its commitment to education, and connection to its communities to create the best possible environment for students, faculty, and the communities it serves. It also means we utilize every resource we have to contribute to social betterment.” The emphasis in the engaged university is on tangible external connections and contributions (see also Piper 2002). Graham (2014) provides some useful context for understanding the shift within universities toward engagement. She explains that the “current state of community-based research in Canadian universities is shaped by three influences: the personal inclination of some faculty and students to engage with community as a central part of their personal research agenda; the availability of tri-council support for community research (especially through sshrc [the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council]); and the heightened awareness on the part of universities that they have an institutional contribution to make in building sustainable communities in the broadest sense.” Realizing this objective of social contribution requires fundamental changes to the way research is conducted and how we view the social role of universities and research institutions. Although relationships between universities and communities have long existed, engaged community-based scholarship represents a partnership that “blends the intellectual assets and questions of the academy with the intellectual expertise and questions of the public” (Holland 2005, 11). Reciprocity and mutual benefit are core elements of engagement (Holland 2001; McNall et al. 2009; Ramley 2014). Dorsey (2001, 127) further argues “the ‘engaged campus’ is one that does not simply target community problems as research topics, but takes a two-sided approach to community service by eliciting direct involvement from the community.” Acknowledging that the goal of cbr is to produce new knowledge that can also support change in communities, Minkler (2005) highlights several core principles that can unlock the benefits associated with effective cbr. Engaging and mutually supportive collaboration between researchers and community partners can lead to the development of research questions that reflect important local issues, as well as the ability to address the costs and benefits of research to the community. Engaging community partners in study design and the collection and analysis of data can help to improve the credibility, validity, and usability of the data for local partners (Creswell 1998). Such involvement throughout the research process can be an effective way to transfer valuable skills and capacities among the partners. It can also enhance the ac-

The Case for Community-Based Research

19

curacy of findings as community partners may be able to better incorporate the complexities and nuances of the local context into the project design and interpretation of the results (Cargo and Mercer 2008), while the academic partners can set this local information into a broader framework based on literatures from other places and contexts. This integration of different knowledge fields can help to develop a richer context for the analysis and provide more meaning to themes that emerge (Minkler 2005; Roche 2008). Furthermore, the development of meaningful collaboration between researchers and community partners can help to ease insider-outsider tensions. If we isolate the community side of the cbr collaborative process, the research activity should result in direct community benefits. As discussed further below, these benefits may be difficult to assess within the given timelines of the research process. However, there are a variety of dimensions to community benefit that should be explicitly built into the research process, in addition to the indirect spinoffs associated with participation. This aspect of defining cbr answers the increasingly common and assertive community sentiment of “What’s in it for us?” Many research projects have adopted a cbr approach because of the wishes of communities and community participants. cbr is the condition that allows the research process to take place. Mendis-Millard and Reed (2007) and Reed and Peters (2004) offer a variety of community benefits associated with the cbr process. They argue that cbr can help residents work together and strengthen connections across local and non-local groups, as well as help residents overcome assumptions about key issues or about other residents or groups in the community. cbr can build critical thinking skills and lead to new strategies to address community development and community economic development needs. A specific form of community benefit that exists at the origins of many participatory techniques concerns the role and directionality of power relations – both within the community setting and between researchers and community stakeholders. Viswanathan et al. (2004, 24) state: “When participants are conscious of how power is organized by the policies and institutions that govern research, the researchers and the researched are more likely to redefine the power relationship between them. Failure to reflect on and openly discuss how power dynamics vary at each stage of research can inhibit meaningful participation and result in a sense of powerlessness and cynicism.” The discourse surrounding power often speaks of “empowerment” as being

20

Introduction to CBR

a driving motivation for using cbr and a critical outcome associated with the process. Empowerment of community participants in cbr projects occurs in three main ways. First, empowerment is a by-product of community members gaining skills through their active participation in the research process. These skills may include experience with the research design, different methods of data collection, and analysis and presentation of results. There are also “softer” skills associated with the research process: the skills of collaboration, teamwork, and the appreciation of different perspectives. Grenier (1998), for example, outlines how cbr can build dignity, confidence, and independence – all of which are critical ingredients of empowerment. Second, issues of empowerment may be associated with the revelatory nature of the research process. Research may reveal important information that can be used by community members for development purposes. Research findings may also uncover the dynamics associated with the condition of the community – how it is shaped, restrained, ignored, or potentially manipulated by different power relations. This information may then influence decision-making and the distribution of resources within communities. Finally, empowerment is associated with the core of cbr: the valuing of local knowledge. This includes processes that seek to “decolonize knowledge” and also democratize the process of knowledge production and dissemination (McDonald 2004). Graham (2014) brings a number of these points together and traces some of the specific roots of cbr in Canada. She identifies key events that led to this shift: the role of hiv/aids activism in helping to change Canadian Institutes of Health Research (cihr) funding models, and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and its argument for the principles of mutual respect and reciprocity of benefit in research. This turn toward engaged research is now reflected in the guidelines and priorities of federal funding programs: for example, transformation in the Canadian Tri-Council Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans guidelines, and the introduction in 2000 by sshrc of its cbr flagship program, Community-University Research Alliances. The adoption of cbr and community-based participatory research methods within health research has been widespread. Some of the threads within health research include addressing health disparities, improving general and target population health, and working with specific communities, such as those who abuse substances, and in support of the aforementioned hiv/aids activism (Guta et al. 2014; Lazarus et al. 2014).

The Case for Community-Based Research

21

POWER A ND THE PRODUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE

The relationship between power and the production of knowledge is multi-faceted and complex. cbr will not produce useful and appropriate information to support change in an organization or a community, however, if its practitioners fail to consider the relationship between power and the production of knowledge. As Stoecker (2009, 398) argues, “When people engage in designing, carrying out and using research … they learn the process of knowledge production … By acting on knowledge they produce power that in turn informs their knowledge production.” Understanding the relationships among power, social relationships, and the production of knowledge is about understanding who controls access to information. It is about questioning what is included and what is excluded. Timing may also be an issue in terms of what information is provided when. Information might also be reinterpreted or “spun” to rationalize specific points of view. Community-based researchers must always be aware of how power can shape and alter the production of information throughout the research process. The process may be influenced by demands to change research questions, methods, and interpretation of the results (Hollander 2011). Researchers may face requests to include specific stakeholders while quietly excluding others (and their points of view). The research process can also be influenced by changes in political conditions and leadership that can alter the direction or even continued support for the project (Gearheard and Shirley 2007). While there may be pressure to value one perspective over others (Boser 2006; Maiter et al. 2008), it is the role of the community-based researcher to ensure that a more balanced story is told (Markey, Halseth, and Manson 2010). Researchers may also fall under enormous pressure to ensure that the research conforms to the preconceived conclusions of those who hold power and influence within the community and within the research relationship. As we discuss below, researchers can address these challenges by mapping a community’s power dynamics and by ensuring cbr principles of objectivity are explained early on during the development of the community-researcher relationship. Positive change from new knowledge production will also only be possible if there is a willingness by those in more powerful or influential positions to act on that knowledge (Pain and Francis 2003). In this respect, it may be important to inform and/or incorporate pow-

22

Introduction to CBR

erful groups into the research process from the beginning. In his vignette, Kieran Walsh shares insights about negotiating early community-based research relationships. Treading Carefully: Negotiating the CBR Relationship Kieran Walsh, Irish Centre for Social Gerontology Perhaps because many of our communities are, by international standards, small and often tightly interconnected, negotiating the cbr relationship sometimes takes on additional significance in Ireland and is often a delicate process. Local residents can become aware of a research presence in these communities very quickly, and they form opinions as to whether or not this presence should be facilitated. The cbr relationship is in many ways about securing and sustaining positive momentum around the research from the early stages of a study. It is also about developing a trusting and transparent relationship between the research team and the community. This process is especially important when focusing on specific sub-groups of local populations, such as older people, where vulnerability may be perceived to be an issue and where the pool of relevant community stakeholders and residents is even smaller. For these reasons, at the Irish Centre for Social Gerontology (icsg) we have had to carefully consider and consistently work on how we develop relationships with various community sites over the years. We have found that negotiating the cbr relationship means, in effect, negotiating the politics of localities and the different power relationships that are at play at a local level. Such a negotiation can be in terms of internal power relations within communities themselves, such as tensions between “competing” community organizations, or – because these settings do not exist in isolation – in terms of the relationship between communities and external actors. Therefore, while we have benefited from using external intermediaries to assist in identifying site contact points, sometimes such paths can introduce their own set of power dynamics. This is especially the case when these actors are perceived to have an external coordinating or funding role in locally based projects and activities. We face a tension between exploiting these pathways and becoming inadvertently aligned with a particular view or position.

The Case for Community-Based Research

As researchers from outside the community sites, we too can become a part of these power relations and need to be aware of how our involvement and positioning may be perceived. For instance, when arriving on a small island community, bringing a brightly colored rucksack, a laptop, research materials, and a (shiny) bicycle, I couldn’t help but feel like the “government man” coming to enforce taxation laws or – even worse, in the context of rural Ireland – like a long-lost relative back to lay claim to a farm of land. Negotiating local politics can also become more complex in the context of broader regional political circumstances. In a study that involved a number of communities in Northern Ireland (which is a part of the uk) that had historical links to Protestant loyalist traditions – and in one instance, sectarianism – we were in effect not just a group of outside researchers but a group of researchers from the “Catholic” Republic of Ireland. The issue created by this perception was not so much about us as individuals feeling uncomfortable (incidentally, we didn’t, and we were very much welcomed) but about how such circumstances can change the relationship between researchers and the community. This was apparent in one community when we were cautioned that loyalist paraphernalia (e.g. British union flags; red, white, and blue painted curbstones; etc.) would be on display for the summer Orange Order marching season (a series of public walks by a Protestant fraternal organization to commemorate historic events and battles important to Protestant culture in Northern Ireland), and apologized to in advance for any potential offence caused and distancing the views of the majority of the community from those of “a small minority.” It was also apparent when an interviewee provided her surname, which could indicate either a Protestant or Catholic background, and specified its Catholic spelling with a wink, suggesting an assumed cultural solidarity between herself and the researcher. In all community-based settings, we have found that when it comes to negotiating these local political contexts, it is necessary to tread carefully and to remain focused on the validity of the research objectives as the central message. In this light, it is important to contextualize the research questions at each community site when negotiating the cbr relationship. While project materials and information packs are

23

24

Introduction to CBR

beneficial here, we have found it necessary to invest significant time either face to face or by telephone in providing examples of the ways in which such work can relate to community contexts. These personal connections are also essential in terms of building trust. This process in itself is useful in helping researchers to reaffirm the applicability of the study to real-world settings. For some research topics, elements of relevance might be perceived to be contrary to existing local ideas and collective community identity. In a study of social exclusion and aging in diverse communities, for example, where we were interested in the complex pathways to multi-dimensional old-age exclusion, it was not unusual for some stakeholders to definitively remark, “Oh this is a very close-knit and supportive community, so older people wouldn’t really be excluded.” In such cases, it is important to be clear that research questions are not simply making assumptions and that the research will need to tell its own story of people’s local lives, irrespective of previous conceptions within the community. Ultimately, in many of the community-based research studies conducted by the icsg, negotiating the cbr relationship is a multi-level process that involves creating a “buy-in” from, in some cases, external actors, community-level stakeholders, research participants, and sometimes their families. Whether formalized through research protocols or agreements of understanding, the cbr relationship can often continue to evolve and to be negotiated informally. For example, at the end of an interview with an older man in his home, he suggested, “You’ll have a drop [a glass of whisky]” (I was not driving). After several protests of saying, “No, no I am fine, thanks,” I saw that this offering was a part of an important exchange to this man, and one I later remembered reflected a common rural tradition of welcoming “official” guests. As his hand tipped the bottle heavily into my glass, and his wife entered the room exclaiming, “God, stop – you’ll kill him!” it was apparent that this interaction was more important to this man in the negotiation of our micro cbr relationship than any official documentation. I am not (necessarily) advocating the consumption of whisky as a part of official research protocols! I am suggesting that it is helpful to bear in mind that even if a research team receives the blessing of local community decision-makers,

The Case for Community-Based Research

25

the cbr relationship is often defined by all of our interactions with and within these communities. Being conscious of these aspects of the negotiation process will, I would suggest, help us to develop better relationships and to secure better communitybased research outcomes. Researchers may also inappropriately exert considerable power within the community-researcher relationship. In this instance, power can influence the production of knowledge depending on who shapes the problem, who controls the resources, who has the knowledge or capacity (including the time) to participate in the research process, and who has the capacity to mobilize knowledge into action (Blair and Minkler 2009; Viswanathan et al. 2004). If researchers are to examine these power relationships and adhere to the principles of cbr, they should try to help community partners understand which policies and institutions govern research and how these structures can be shaped to incorporate the experiential knowledge, assets, and institutions of community partners (Delemos 2006). Howitt and Stevens (2010) continue the dialogue on power and critical self-reflection on power relationships as they consider cross-cultural research. Written as a conversation between researchers, their book reinforces core cbr messages about the importance of engaging communities and truly listening. However, they also highlight just how demanding, difficult, and challenging it can be to understand the nuances of other cultures and other people’s lives. They also identify some of the differences between colonial and post-colonial modes of research. For them, colonial research “reflects and reinforces domination and exploitation through the attitudes and differential power embodied in its research relationships with ‘others,’ its dismissal of their rights and knowledge, its intrusive and non-participatory methodologies, and often also its goals and its use of research findings” (Howitt and Stevens 2010, 24). In contrast, post-colonial research is “a reaction to and a rejection of colonial research and is intended to contribute to the selfdetermination and welfare of ‘others’ through methodologies and the use of research findings that value their rights, knowledge, perspectives, concerns, and desires that are based on open and more egalitarian relationships” (Howitt and Stevens 2010, 24). Further, decolonizing research is “attempting to use the research process and research findings

26

Introduction to CBR

to break down the cross-cultural discourses, asymmetrical power relationships, representations, and political, economic, and social structures through which colonialism and neo-colonialism are constructed and maintained” (Howitt and Stevens 2010, 24; see also Kindon 2010). These authors do not dismiss out of hand the contributions of older colonial research but instead highlight how we are long past a time when subordination and marginalization should be at the core of our research approaches. In her vignette, Regine Halseth demonstrates the value of cbr relationships to support marginalized populations.

CBR and Marginalized Populations Regine Halseth, National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health, University of Northern British Columbia Minkler (2005, ii3–ii4) defines cbr as a “collaborative process that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings,” noting that it “begins with a research topic of importance to the community with the aim of combining knowledge and action for social change.” cbr has also been described as an approach to research that increases “the value of studies for both researchers and the community being studied” (Viswanathan et al. 2004, 1). O’Fallon and Dearry (2002) identify six core tenets of cbr: (1) the promotion of active collaboration and participation by community members and researchers at every stage of the research process, (2) the active fostering of co-learning, (3) the purposeful construction of projects that are community driven, (4) the dissemination of results in ways that are understandable and practically useful to all partners, (5) the maintenance of research and intervention strategies that are culturally appropriate, and (6) the definition of community that builds from shared interests and identity rather than just a coincidence of location. cbr also incorporates theories and practices that are population centred (Blumenthal and Yancey 2004) and embody a deep commitment to cultural awareness, recognition of diversity and unique interests, and the redress of power imbalances. Through this orientation, cbr is ideally suited to investigating topics and problems in traditionally marginalized or disadvantaged communities. In such cases, the explicit focus of cbr on combining

The Case for Community-Based Research

27

knowledge and action for positive social change is the key. cbr may be especially useful in those communities further marginalized or disadvantaged through past forms of “outside expert” research (Minkler 2005, ii3) since it embodies a level of focus and control on the part of the community that can be empowering. In such circumstances, it is an emphasis upon co-learning and a commitment to enhancing the knowledge, skills, and capacity of all partners that can be directly targeted at overcoming marginalization or disadvantage. These goals can be achieved with a highly relevant set of research questions and the generation of “knowledge products” that are not only high quality, but also relevant, useful, and culturally appropriate. Finally, cbr is also ideally suited to cases where the community demands “authentic partnerships in research that are locally relevant and ‘community based’ rather than merely ‘community placed’” (Minkler 2005, ii3).

RO OT S O F C B R

Within these descriptions of cbr, we see the intention to enhance the quality and utility of the research process by involving communities in the production of knowledge (Flicker et al. 2008a). The apparent simplicity of this ideal has complex roots within the two fields of action research (ar) and participatory action research (par). For heuristic purposes, ar and par may be viewed as two ends of a spectrum of cbr, with ar being the most acceptable to established institutions and processes and par being the most radical and political in terms of empowerment and participatory objectives. Action research stems from the work of Lewin (1946), who sought to advance social scientific understanding while at the same time contributing, in a more direct manner, to change and problem solving (Aguinis 1993). People are invited into action research as co-researchers who actively participate in the planning, action, and reflection that leads to understanding and change (Stringer 1996). A potential limitation of ar, however, is that it is often situated within existing programs and political structures (Brown and Tandon 1983). At the more politicized end of the research continuum is par, a set of approaches that originated within the alternative international

28

Introduction to CBR

development field and actively seeks to confront dynamics of oppression (Freire 1970). Kindon (2010) provides a comprehensive review of participatory action research (par), emphasizing the critical elements as being those of participation, co-learning, and collective action. She situates par in a wider research tradition that includes iterative cycles of research and reflection, learning, and action. Those elements are linked through research stages that are similar to the ones that we use in this book, including getting started, building relationships, working together, and looking ahead. Like other writers, Kindon emphasizes that it is the approaches, relationships, and purposes that distinguish participatory action research – not the research techniques used. In her review of participatory research (pr), Pain argues for the involvement of “those conventionally ‘researched’ in some or all stages of research, from problem definition through to dissemination and action” (2004, 652). She also argues for “ownership of the research [that] is shared with participants” (Ibid). For Pain (2004, 652), pr is “a collaborative and nonhierarchical approach which overturns the usual ways in which academics work outside universities.” Finally, she argues that pr has deep roots (see also Whyte 1991), is transdisciplinary, and can be richly informed by a wide range of research techniques (see also Bracken et al. 2015; Pain and Francis 2003). par seeks empowerment and change through the participation of community members in research and development processes that may be in direct conflict with elites and the status quo. The intention is to create change, not simply to study events. As noted by Wadsworth (1998), par “is not just research which we hope will be followed by action! It is action which is researched, changed and re-researched, within the research process by participants” (italics in original). With its attention to changing power relations, par is connected to the strong feminist research tradition that emerged as a challenge and an alternative to mainstream academic discourses (Darroch and Giles 2014; Gustafson and Brunger 2014; hooks 1989; Muhammad et al. 2015; Reed and Peters 2004). While older social research traditions stressed “objectivity” and “detachment,” feminist methods build upon the notion of participatory research and “emphasize inclusiveness, transparency, advocacy, and are rooted in an anti-oppressive epistemology” (Lo and Halseth 2009, 8). Attention to advocacy means attention to social change (Bocarro and Stodolska 2013; Fonow and Cook 2005; Klodawsky and Andrew 1998; Reinharz and Davidman1992). Participatory research is also grounded in the growing em-

The Case for Community-Based Research

29

powerment and self-determination of Aboriginal peoples; in this context, research protocols and relationships must change to more equitably address key principles of research ownership, control, and access to and possession of information (Cargo and Mercer 2008). Finally, the roots of cbr are very much present in the lineage of work associated with American sociology (Park 1952), within a body of work that situated the researcher within the laboratory of “community.” One of the most influential contributions was from the Chicago School of Sociology, which, during the first half of the twentieth century, explored the rapidly changing and industrializing American metropolis at an intensely local scale. Connecting researchers with communities, the approach was humanistic in orientation, concerned with understanding individual behaviour “on the ground” and in the context of everyday life (Baxter 2010). It emphasized extensive fieldwork as a foundation for building understanding. Unlike in cbr, the communities themselves were not engaged in the design of the study, but they did shape its execution. In this sense, the Chicago School’s ethnographic research was often referred to as pragmatic, in that it sought understanding to build toward positive social change. The work of ar, par, and feminist scholars and researchers creates a foundation for just engagement with communities in three fundamental ways. First, researchers have always worked in communities, but only more recently have begun to work with and for communities. This change requires fundamental shifts in the approach of the researcher. The starting point is to shed the veil of objectivity and to honestly assess, through a reflexive process, individual experiences and how they may influence or bias the research. This reflexive process also enables researchers to understand how they relate to research subjects or collaborators (Cargo and Mercer 2008). As Reid, Brief, and LeDrew (2009, 6) state: “Reflexivity, or engaging in a reflexive process, involves openly and honestly recognizing one’s experiences and deeply considering the implications of one’s power. Working reflexively involves reflecting systematically on one’s influence and involvement in the research, being sensitive to one’s personal biography, and considering how these things come together and influence the research.” Second, traditional researchers must fight their “inner academic” and seek to understand and value local knowledge. Within the discourse of feminist researchers, this effort is linked to labelling power dynamics and relationships within the research process. While there is truth to the statement that there is “nothing as practical as a good theory,” cbr re-

30

Introduction to CBR

searchers must not rigidly employ their theoretically informed perspectives without also seeking to value local knowledge and incorporate it into the research process. Valuing local knowledge then balances the distribution of power within the research process, as researchers come to recognize that those who experience phenomena are well positioned to understand it and by virtue, to contribute to theory. Third, cbr operates within the live conditions of community events. These complex and dynamic realities make it very difficult to design research projects in a university or research office and implement them, problem free and perfectly as intended. In the community setting, things change. cbr, learning from the traditions of ar and par, allows this dynamism within the research setting to be part of, rather than an impediment to, the research process. If community members are included in the design and implementation of the research process, then their experiences and the events shaping the community are legitimate aspects of the research process. Changing conditions mean adapting methodologies as part of an intentional and reflective process; as such, they are part of the data collection process, rather than phenomena that taint the purity of the research. These factors, which add robustness and contextual relevance to the cbr process, are also the very conditions that expose collaborative research processes to criticism. It is important to view these critiques as legitimate questions of cbr processes, rather than as outdated views from those who don’t “get it.” cbr has much to learn from the traditional academic debates about high standards of research design. If cbr can change in the field, adapt to local conditions and capacities, and use different and non-traditional sources of information as research data, how do we construct valid and reliable cbr projects? The answers to this question will unfold throughout the book; however, understanding various forms and arguments of resistance to cbr techniques and how these can lead to better cbr is a good place to start. R ESISTANCE AND EVOLVING TECHNIQUE

The different cbr approaches share fundamental methodological similarities – community participation and flexible process – that have fostered some resistance toward the academic acceptance of participatory methods. Participatory research is critiqued for being biased (by community participation and researcher involvement), lacking in rigour (given varying levels of community participation throughout the re-

The Case for Community-Based Research

31

search process and the acceptance of methodological flexibility once in the field), and parochial (by definition of being company or community focused) (Buchanan, Miller, and Wallerstein 2007; Makhoul et al. 2014). Drawing upon an older argument that traditional forms of research quality assurance may not be legitimate or appropriate to cbr, Kingsley and Chapman (2013) explore the specific notion of “rigour.” Through interviews with cbr practitioners, they explore the themes of “obligation,” “representation,” and “action.” Their findings highlight the value of emergent communities of practice both among cbr practitioners and within cbr projects. Specifically, they argue that the “social-constructive nature of cbr presents an opportunity … [through which we can] … develop shared understandings, practices, and language” more appropriate to the evaluation of quality and rigour in cbr (Kingsley and Chapman 2013, 554). Other research questions the rigour and validity of studies conducted by researchers who know little about the social and cultural settings of targeted populations and communities, and thus have more limited potential to produce knowledge that can lead to meaningful change (Cargo and Mercer 2008). As Levin (2012, 136) argues, “Being able to combine empathic involvement, local problem solving, and critical analytical capacity could create a social science that would balance rigor with relevance” for community stakeholders. These notions have prompted calls for a shift from research practices that focus on the importance of rigour, narrowly defined (and often strongly associated with statistical approaches), to a greater emphasis on internal and external validity of cbr projects by investing in the structural quality of decision-making processes; the quality of planning, transparency, and collaboration; and the ability to strengthen the impacts of outcomes of the research (Wright et al. 2009). Defenders of the inclusion of participation and social action within the formal research process argue that cbr should complement rather than replace traditional methods (Nyden 2003). Far from diluting or obscuring findings, pairing the theoretical knowledge of researchers with the contextual knowledge of the study group produces more robust and deeper understandings (Garvin 1995). Locality-based participatory methods can take theoretical knowledge, test it in places, and thus provide another avenue for including new knowledge in ongoing theoretical debates. Engaging in a respectful dialogue as coresearchers with community participants may also aid researchers in selecting the most appropriate methods, rather than imposing a rigid

32

Introduction to CBR

program that may be culturally or technically inappropriate and thus “miss the mark” (Fondahl et al. 2009; Huntington et al. 2006). Some specific aspects of cbr that present challenges to the objectives of reliability and validity in the research process include questions of researcher neutrality, the use of multiple data sources, and the overall level of researcher control. First, some critics see the lack of perceived neutrality and or objectivity in cbr as a problem (Dorsey 2001; Roche 2008). The non-neutral stance of cbr can be seen as a lack of control over the research problem and over the research process and results. It is under these conditions where the loyalties of the researcher to the research process may be tested against the bonds of trust with community partners that have been generated through the research process. In response to these criticisms, however, many scholars suggest that – in both the natural sciences and the social sciences – traditional positivist approaches to inquiry are simply not objective either. As a product of human inquiry, they are prone to the intrusion of human opinions, values, and biases. Collins and Pinch (1998) are part of a growing group of scholars who build on real (sometimes infamous) examples to demonstrate that science is not the value-free objective method of inquiry that some would suggest. Increasing recognition of this point and of the need for the researcher to identify their approach and connection to the research work has been reflected in the literature on “positionality.” England (1994, 80) links reflexivity and positionality, and argues that “the researcher’s positionality and biography directly affect fieldwork and that fieldwork is a dialogical process which is structured by the researcher and the participants.” Like England and many others, Gilbert (1994) draws on feminist research theory and methodology to highlight how social position and social relations affect both methodology and the research techniques that link researchers and participants. She argues: “Feminist research critiqued the idea that objectivity was possible or even desirable. Instead of attempting to be a neutral, distant researcher, feminists focused on the mutuality of the research process; intersubjectivity not objectivity and dialogues in place of monologues became the goals. The relationship between the researcher and the researched was thereby made visible and open to debate” (Gilbert 1994, 90). With reference to topics such as reflexivity, positionality, and subjectivity (Levin 2012), critiques of cbr can also be used to build stronger

The Case for Community-Based Research

33

foundations for more careful inquiry. For example, one critique focuses upon the degree to which researchers may identify with their research community or participants – or with their cause. Staeheli and Lawson (1994) examine and critique this question of “separation” between researchers and participants. They point out that as “committed academics, we use our power to be part of our respondents’ projects … On the other hand, since we cannot fully comprehend the subjectivities of the people we research, feminists recognize the boundaries that limit our ability to speak for them. Some feminists experience a sense of crisis about how to navigate this contradiction” (1994, 99). This contradiction and the crisis it provokes come from the feminist research commitment to political action and social change (see also Kobayashi 1994) – something close to the core of cbr as well. Further to concerns about rigour, Israel et al. (1998) identify that using information from a variety of community-based sources may produce multiple types of data. Aside from the challenge of data overload, different sources of data present a challenge to the epistemological consistency and logic of the research design. Community-based researchers must be very careful in what they use as data. Sorting through data sources and relying on the mechanism of triangulation are equally if not more important to cbr as they are to more traditional research approaches. A last “resistance” argument we wish to introduce is raised by Hollander (2011), who rightfully indicates that cbr is potentially rife with problems because of the researcher’s inability to maintain control. Even within a collaborative design, where power and decision-making are balanced between researchers and community participants, researchers may lose control of their core research objectives. A change in objectives can occur either by virtue of dynamic community conditions or changes in the motivations or capacity of community participants, and it embodies the inherent complexity and risk associated with selecting cbr as an approach to doing research. The issue of control relates to the importance of thoughtful and rigorous research design and front-end work within the research process. The following chapters deal specifically with the fundamentals of research design for cbr and will provide guidelines and principles that may help to alleviate some of the unpredictability and other potential pitfalls associated with hastily designed cbr and/or dynamic research settings.

34

Introduction to CBR

RESE ARCH IN RURAL AND SMALL- TOWN PLACES

cbr’s central objectives are to involve community members in respectful ways and to ensure that direct community benefits flow from the research process. These objectives are critical for working in any community setting, but they are particularly relevant to rural areas. Many research institutions are based in urban areas, creating a physical separation and cultural barrier between researchers and community members. cbr can help to orient urban researchers to the dynamics of rural life that may directly or tangentially affect their research topics. Harris (2004) states that cbr is important in rural places because of its ability to ground the research process in a realistic understanding of the local economy and community. Further, as we outline in the following section, the present realities of rural change make cbr relevant and valuable to rural places. The impacts of political and economic restructuring create both a demand for locally accessible information and a need to engage local capacity in ways that are sensitive to the stresses and time demands of community transition (Gjertsen and Halseth 2015; Markey, Halseth, and Manson 2012). In other words, “involvement toward action” is central to contemporary rural and small-town community needs. If as researchers we request time and other commitments from community members during a period when they are stressed and stretched by change, our research products should honour and return in kind that time, commitment, and contribution. The unique attributes and institutional processes that shape rural and small-town places can affect cbr activities. The distance and isolation of some communities can affect rural residents’ access to information and research supports, and help determine the frequency of meetings and field research activities. Large geographic distances mean that a larger portion of already limited budgets is consumed by travel costs. Rural and small-town places also have more limited physical and communications infrastructure to support cbr activities. Limited transportation and daycare, for example, are available to facilitate participation in research activities. With no or limited broadband Internet access, residents in some rural and small-town communities are unable to load complicated websites or receive large files. While there is some (limited) availability of technicians to provide assistance with equipment and software, most access to training and equipment has traditionally been focused in larger centres. Furthermore, these rural groups may have use of only aging and unsuitable infrastructure.

The Case for Community-Based Research

35

Despite these potential challenges, cbr represents a particularly timely form of research in the rural setting for two important reasons. First, rural areas in both developed and developing country contexts are undergoing dramatic and rapid processes of economic, social, and political restructuring (Essex et al. 2005; Markey, Halseth, and Manson 2006; Pezzini 2001). These forces place considerable pressure on rural actors and organizations, which then directly influences the nature and scope of the research relationship. Given its flexibility and sensitivity to local dynamics, cbr represents an appropriate form of research under these conditions. In addition, there is a need for all types of research in rural communities to deal with the pace of change and its diverse and complex economic, social, cultural, and environmental implications. Second, the prevalence of place-based development and territorial policy as a response to rural restructuring provides an explicit link to cbr. Place-based development is grounded in the particularities – the assets, challenges, and political dynamics – of place (Markey, Halseth, and Manson 2012; Woods 2007). The attention that cbr affords to the importance of context makes it an appropriate methodological approach for generating information for place-based development. As senior governments and corporations increasingly withdraw from direct forms of community development responsibility (Polèse 1999; Shucksmith 2010), local actors and organizations are more directly involved with the development process through forms of governance that rely heavily on local initiative and leadership (Cheshire, Everingham, and Lawrence 2014). This places pressure on local capacity and increases the need for information that is relevant and accessible to community actors. Within the rural development literature, the importance of context and local capacity is being captured in discussions of place-based development (Markey, Halseth, and Manson 2008a; Woods 2007). This discourse is grounded in Massey’s (1984, 1995) work, which recognizes that combinations of assets, populations, histories, and circumstances mean that general processes are always modified by the matrix of place. This turn toward context is found in a variety of ongoing rural research themes. For example, Reed and Gill (1997) explore the transformation in values and economic activity of rural economies. This research theme explores the changing nature of production (through the shift to noncommodity products), the multiple uses of rural space, and the increasing importance of governance (especially local actors and institutions) in land-use planning (Mather, Hill, and Nijnik 2006). Fol-

36

Introduction to CBR

lowing from these analyses, a second rural research theme focuses on the transition from economies built around notions of comparative advantage to those now built around competitive advantage (Gunton 2003; Kitson, Martin, and Tyler 2004). In the “new” rural economy, resource production (a traditional source of comparative advantage) remains important; however, competitive advantage is increasingly central. Analyses of competitive advantage consider complex and interdependent outcomes associated with mobilizing local/regional assets and actions in rural places so as to attract and retain both capital and workers across a diversity of sectors (Markey, Halseth, and Manson 2012; Reimer 2006). In a recent paper, Halseth et al. (2014) draw upon the theoretical frameworks of staples theory, evolutionary economic geography, and institutionalism to explore how resource sector trends are fundamentally reshaping the economic geography of communities and region. They use the themes of “emergence,” “transition,” and “continuity” in global economic geography to highlight that despite rapid and far-reaching transformations of the global economy, many of the “new” rural economies remain locked in traditional resource production pathways. A third rural research theme focuses on policy and planning in a dynamic and competitive global economy that demands more of place. A participatory and place-based policy approach can allow for greater integration of local economic, environmental, social, and cultural dynamics in planning and decision-making, and can assist in building local capacity and ensuring better buy-in from local peoples for development outcomes (which may then lead to outcomes that are better suited to local and regional conditions). Place-based development and the community-based research that supports it stand in direct contrast to the homogenizing effects of a reliance on “best practices” to direct development decisions. The ascendancy of place within the development process provides a substantial rationale for the use of cbr in the rural setting. Local actors are increasingly active agents in the development of their communities, no longer passive recipients of top-down decision-making (true also in urban neighbourhoods). This changing dynamic fundamentally alters the relationship, conditions, and methods linking researchers with communities. The expanded roles and responsibilities for local actors are far from just a rural phenomenon and are experienced across multiple community and neighbourhood settings. Beyond the dramatic changes taking place in rural areas that support or demand the use of cbr, there are a variety of researcher-specific rea-

The Case for Community-Based Research

37

sons for engaging in rural work. Rural areas tend to be under-researched. This fact presents researchers and students with numerous opportunities (and both geographic and conceptual territory) for engaging rural communities in a research program – there is no shortage of topics. Rural places, despite community claims of being “studied to death,” are not “run over” by researchers to the same degree as urban areas. Many rural places continue to be welcoming and appreciative of well-constructed research attention. In keeping with the activist academic roots of ar and par, there are significant opportunities to “make a difference” in rural places. Rural research, if conducted and shared appropriately, may be more influential, as it does not get lost in the sea of similar reports and projects done in urban areas. The relatively smaller scale of rural places means that more people are likely to know about cbr initiatives, which can lead to a larger interest in the process and its results. Linked with this fact, rural research is renowned for the level of access to community members, leaders, and decision-makers. Both of these factors make it possible for researchers to have their work matter – and make a tangible difference – to the development processes and policies/decisions associated with their research. DEFINING RURAL , UNDERSTANDING PLACE

Definitions of rural vary considerably in the literature. From a policy perspective, rural boundaries carry political implications in terms of defining population levels and allocating jurisdictional capacities and responsibilities. Population estimates affect decisions regarding a wide range of issues, including service delivery, the division of electoral boundaries, and overall political influence. For example, the Statistics Canada “census rural” definition (individuals living in the countryside outside of centres of 1,000 or more) produces a rural population figure of 19 per cent of Canada’s total population (Bollman and Clemenson 2008). However, if an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (oecd) definition is used (individuals in communities with less than 150 persons per square kilometre), the Canadian rural population figure jumps to 38 per cent of the total population (du Plessis et al. 2002). Beyond strict statistical interpretations of “rural,” researchers have presented a variety of definitions that include community characteristics and perceptions of identity. For example, Cloke (1977) describes a

38

Introduction to CBR

settlement continuum with rural at one end and urban at the other. Similarly, du Plessis et al. (2002) present the concept of “degrees of rurality,” which nicely accommodates various interpretations of rural and allows for community identification as rural, even though certain communities may exceed population, distance, or density thresholds. Interest in how rural and small-town communities are meeting the challenges and opportunities associated with social, political, and economic restructuring has led to a search for a broader and more inclusive understanding of rural places beyond that captured in simple statistical formulae. As a result, we agree with the approach of du Plessis et al. (2002, 2004): the definitional framework should be selected based on research topic, approach, and purpose. There is a need to incorporate both the spatial setting and social behaviours within that setting. This approach links well with notions of rurality and, depending upon the project, offers definitional flexibility that allows cbr practitioners to capture more of the rich diversity and variability of the rural condition. We also draw upon definitional efforts by writers such as Cloke (1989, 173), who attempts to bridge the empirical and social definitions by suggesting that “rural” involves extensive land uses, small and generally low-order settlements, and a way of life which recognizes “the environmental and behavioural qualities of living as part of an extensive landscape.” The literature that seeks to conceptualize “rural” is essential for understanding and wrestling with the nuances of place. This nuance matters, for example, because many granting bodies and funding agencies do not always have such a complex understanding of rural (or urban, for that matter). They may employ simplistic definitions to direct their funding or, worse, may be prescriptive and use simple checklists for places, processes, or even participants that must be included in the projects. The intention of these conditions is usually sound (i.e. trying to diversify participation and include traditionally marginalized groups); however, when the flexibility of contextual application is lost, forced or false structures may prevent the production of quality work that is truly place based. CONCLUSION

In this chapter, we have outlined the opportunities and value available to both researchers and communities when employing cbr as a core methodology. An appreciation of the benefits is balanced by a serious

The Case for Community-Based Research

39

recognition of the validity of the many critiques that may be levelled against cbr and participatory research more generally. Communitybased researchers must be mindful of these criticisms in order to elevate the quality of their work. Finally, this chapter discussed the applicability of cbr to the dynamic conditions of rural and small-town places.

NOTE

1 There is a consortium of universities in Canada that have pledged to work together to change university culture, policies, and practices to recognize and reward community-engaged scholarship (see http://engagedscholarship.ca).

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

41

PART T WO

Getting to Know One Another: Steps for Research Design

Quality cbr is grounded upon well-established and trusting relationships between researchers and communities. All research requires the thoughtful, preparatory steps outlined in this section; within cbr, however, the added emphasis is that these steps are considered with particular engagement with local context. As tempting as it might be to design a project in a research office and then rush out to implement it (and many funding sources require just this approach by virtue of short timelines or the necessity of predetermined research objectives before the release of funding), the quality of the research and the foundation for enduring and meaningful relationships and, therefore, impact on local settings, depend upon getting to know one another as people and research partners. These relationships, along with issues of context, affect not just matters of research design but a host of related issues, including budgets, logistics, field safety, and others.

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

43

3

Understanding and Shaping Capacity for CBR With vignette contributions from Nikolaus Gantner, Maura Hanrahan, and Kelly Vodden

The most critical step in the cbr process is deciding whether to use cbr as the research approach. Once that decision has been made, the next choice involves what type of cbr to use; there are varying “degrees” of cbr to consider, each involving different methods and levels of engagement. These decisions are dependent upon the capacities of the researcher, the research team, and the participating community; the time and resources available; and the issue being studied. These early questions must be explored collaboratively, as cbr is an iterative and recursive process. In this chapter, we discuss different aspects of these early discussions and present some of the challenges that face communities and researchers as they consider cbr. COMMUNIT Y CAPACIT Y

The first step in contemplating cbr is to understand community capacity. An assessment of capacity will help to identify possible research topics and, given how cbr is dependent upon community participation, outline some possible parameters for engagement. Rural areas exhibit a specific variety of experiences, circumstances, capacities, and assets that combine to shape the dynamics of the research process. To start, past experiences play an important role in building and maintaining cbr relationships. No place, community, or individual encounters an event without drawing upon past experiences to interpret and understand it. All current issues and debates have a history – and

44

Getting to Know One Another

the research process cannot understand the present without reference to the shaping and defining role of the past. In rural and small-town places, many of the present-day challenges are associated with traditional, long-standing factors such as location and economic dependence. Others are shaped by the past thirty years of neoliberalism – by the public sector withdrawal of economic activity, services, and commitments to infrastructure renewal (Sullivan, Ryser, and Halseth 2014). Current efforts to address change are not only shaped by this history, but may also include increased demands on an already taxed community capacity. Research offices tend to be located in larger metropolitan centres; this distance creates additional challenges for research budgets and the ability to understand the nuances of place that can generally only be understood through time in the field. The conditions of rural communities create significant demands on time and travel budgets, especially as distance increases, bad weather approaches, or resource development booms price limited available accommodation well out of reach for all but large companies. The nuances of rurality, in turn, exacerbate these costs as access to information, histories, people, and local debate requires still more time and understanding. From a capacity perspective, rural communities rely more heavily on volunteer resources than professional staff people for many community functions. People are often so busy that connecting with them for research purposes can be very difficult. There is also a smaller pool of people generally associated with any given issue, and individuals are likely cross-appointed or voluntarily sit on numerous boards and represent the interests of various community organizations and committees. The smaller potential sample group holds certain advantages, but it also represents a challenge to researchers who seek to honour anonymity as a fundamental component of research ethics and access a wider cross-section of opinion. In addition, the capacity of rural communities to participate, co-create, or engage in research is affected by other variables such as limited access to information and sparse financial resources. Overall, people living in rural communities are very busy, their capacity stretched as they deal with complex forces of transition in addition to the regular duties of personal and professional life. Researchers must be mindful of these capacity limitations when designing their research (Mendis-Millard and Reed 2007). The capacity issue also increases the demand on researchers to value and “pay back” the contributions of community members. We often tell students, “If you

Understanding and Shaping Capacity for CBR

45

are going to request time and other commitments of people, groups, and communities during a period when they are stressed by change, your work should honour and return in kind that time, commitment, and contribution.” Nikolaus Gantner from the University of Northern British Columbia shares some of his experiences – and challenges – with engaging communities in Canada’s Arctic.

Research Approaches in Transition: Experiences and Challenges in Canada’s Arctic Nikolaus Gantner, University of Northern British Columbia Increasingly, Canada’s Arctic communities expect to be part of an entire research process, from the idea to the planning, fieldwork, and analysis, through to the interpretation of findings or implementation of recommendations. In addition, research projects to be carried out in Canada’s North should provide local stakeholders and policy-makers with information relevant to local issues. The question “How are you involving the community in your research project?” is being posed to Arctic scientists of all disciplines more and more regularly, and these researchers respond in a variety of ways. Here, I outline three common types of projects and review the benefits and challenges of each. Lastly, I discuss the associated hurdles specific to early career researchers and suggest possible solutions and further reading. Across Canada’s Arctic there are many projects focused on physical or natural sciences that are conducted far from any settlement, camp, or community and typically allow little more than local participation as a way to incorporate community in the research. An example would be a study based on the remote location on Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, that investigates climatic factors or ice conditions. Members of such projects are typically southern researchers. Interactions with communities are rare, though principal investigators (pis) are required to consult with and report to nearby communities by way of in-person visits, mail, email, social media, or other forms of communication. Members of local communities participate in such projects as bear monitors, camp managers, or field assistants, and often carry information and knowledge of the projects and its results back to the community.

46

Getting to Know One Another

Community-driven projects are conducted within or in close proximity to a community or at a site culturally important to the community (e.g. harvest grounds) and often involve researchers and community members as equal partners. The researchers are typically based at a southern institution, but work closely with stakeholders and decision-makers in one or multiple Arctic communities. As a result of the involvement of local project members, knowledge about the work is shared readily throughout the process. Challenges include maintaining regular communication throughout the duration of a study in spite of the often short research visits of the researchers to the communities for fieldwork or other project activities. Lastly, community-based research projects generally operate based in one or multiple communities and are led by researchers permanently residing in a community. These projects may or not involve southern institutions as partners or collaborators to complement the locally existing expertise, for example, by contracting out analytical work to southern laboratories. Projects of this type provide ample opportunity for meaningful engagement with community members and are perceived as accessible to the community members. For early career researchers (ecrs) in Canadian academia, three main challenges exist in establishing such community-driven or community-based projects: 1 Securing funds to consult with communities in person a priori and to initiate new studies together with the community. It is often expected that the idea for a project should originate within the community, rather than be brought to the community from the “outside”; however, funding agencies support proposals with predetermined project ideas, and universities may be reluctant to support unfunded students. This creates a Catch-22 conundrum of how to obtain funding (which requires an idea to be packaged into a proposal) for a community visit that aims to generate that very idea. 2 Additional non-academic workloads with little formal recognition. Building and maintaining relationships within Arctic communities takes considerable time and effort, particularly for southern-based scientists. Additional efforts by early

Understanding and Shaping Capacity for CBR

47

career scientists are currently not well or formally recognized in academic institutions. Moreover, graduate students heavily engaged in community-driven or community-based projects (or processes) may even be at a competitive disadvantage compared to their colleagues in their field who are not expected to engage with communities. Efforts made at some institutions to formally acknowledge this additional workload, by translating relationship-building work into formal requirements for a thesis or curriculum, are the laudable exception. Such steps in the right direction will provide additional incentives for students to follow the models of communitydriven or community-based projects. 3 Potential delays through communication requirements upon completion of field components. ecrs are under pressure to publish their theses or work in a timely manner, upon completion of their field and laboratory work. However, and understandably, many communities expect to be informed of results prior to the release of these findings to the broader public via publication. This additional requirement to communicate back to the community can range from submitting lay language reports to in-person visits, which can be obstructed by lack of funding or support by the academic supervisors or both. Further reading on the current status of community-driven or community-based research in the Canadian Arctic includes works by Brunet, Hickey, and Humphries (2014) and Tondu et al. (2014). The latter provides an introduction to a regularly updated online listing of Canadian Community Collaborative Research (ccr) resources (see apecs 2012), which was produced by ecrs for ecrs. Although persistent challenges remain, splendid examples of success are emerging as a result of recent long-term efforts to improve community relations with research programs. The mere existence of such publications provides evidence that academic researchers acknowledge the need to improve the status quo.

While the challenges discussed here represent considerable barriers to the fluidity and openness of the research process, rural communi-

48

Getting to Know One Another

ties are also endowed with a variety of assets useful in cbr. Access to community leadership is unprecedented compared with that in urban research. On a research trip in Saskatchewan, a graduate student whose previous research experience was exclusively urban was amazed at the degree and ease of access made available to the research team by community leaders. In addition to the small-town dimensions that explain access generally, it is the development of a positive and mutually rewarding research relationship over time that builds a solid foundation for cbr. At the start, it is not uncommon to encounter an attitude of “you’re not from around here” protectiveness or weariness built up from dealing with parades of external consultants, agency professionals, and academics. Through repeated opportunities to “get to know” one another, an openness develops that is very supportive to research. Communities are of course interested in obtaining external advice and expertise to help address pressing local issues and, providing that the nature of the research relationship is well understood and embraced by all parties, will typically offer assistance to offset the capacity limitations noted above. Finally, the strength of social networks can be a tremendous asset to the research process (e.g. see Jackson [1999] for a discussion of “snowball sampling”). However, researchers must also be mindful of community power dynamics and ensure a balanced engagement to maintain a good relationship over time – one that keeps long-term access open to a cross-section of community perspectives and interests. Time is central to cbr dynamics. It takes time to build relationships, it takes time in the field to be respectful of the needs and rhythms of places and communities, and it takes time after the research is completed to honour the cbr relationship by staying in contact with communities. This commitment of time is a serious matter and researchers should not enter into cbr relationships unless they are committed to long-term engagement and are able to sustain connections during lapses in research funds. Even researchers with the best intentions will garner unfavourable local impressions if they only show up when their grant money is flowing. Tondu et al. (2014) report on their experiences as natural scientists conducting what they hoped would be collaborative research with communities in Canada’s Arctic. Their experience echoes our text as they identified six elements that were critical to their collaborative work. These elements include being present, communicating, listening, respecting and understanding, building trust for col-

Understanding and Shaping Capacity for CBR

49

laborative knowledge exchange, and dedicating enough time to build and maintain relationships. Taking time to get to know participants and communities through the cbr process is crucial – and it is a shared and multi-directional process of building relationships and understanding. In a study with a focus far different from our rural community development interests (it involved ride-alongs with the Los Angeles Police Department), Herbert (2001, 304) nicely describes the process that his research partners went through in “getting to know” him as a researcher and as a person, and the implications for the research process: I came to believe that my fictional transformation from “spy” to “okay guy” mirrored reality. Initially wary and skeptical of my presence, most officers grew friendly and helpful with time. This transformation raises a number of interesting and important questions: Why were the officers initially wary? Did they behave differently in my presence; and if so, how? Why did the transformation occur? What do these dynamics, concerning as they do the shifting ground on which ethnographic relationships are established, say about the type of data I gathered and how I gathered them? These questions are important, in large measure because they point to one of the critical issues in ethnography – the acquisition of valid data. How can an ethnographer ever be sure that behavior witnessed is, in fact, natural in that setting? How to account for the effect of the ethnographer’s presence on the behavior of those under study? And if their behavior is affected, should the ethnographer’s data and conclusions be considered suspect? Time, whether it involves dedicating enough time to work in communities or simply spending enough time to get to know the research partners, is a crucial element of cbr. COMMUN ITIES AS CONSUMERS OF RESEARCH

An important part of the capacity issue in any cbr undertaking is the ability of communities to understand and work with research partners. This concern places a considerable share of responsibility for quality research – research that meets the needs of communities – on the communities themselves. Greater efforts are needed by post-secondary in-

50

Getting to Know One Another

stitutions, funding partners, and other government agencies to assist community partners to become better consumers of research. For example, many small local government offices have a limited staff complement that must take on increasing responsibilities downloaded by senior governments. These pressures will invariably limit their capacity to engage in research partnerships (Halseth, Sullivan, and Ryser 2003; McMillan 2006; Smith and Stewart 2006). Other places may have limited human capital, skills, and experience to mobilize new knowledge. In times of economic uncertainty, there may be labour turnover and a resulting leakage of capacity and institutional memory from the community (Lackey, Freshwater, and Rupasingha 2002). Finally, local governments may have limited local technical capacity, support, and resources to fulfill these roles (De Loë, Di Giantomasso, and Kruetzwiser 2002). These constraints can make it difficult to establish or deliver upon mutual commitments in community-university partnerships. Relationship demands can be difficult to maintain with limited time and staff, not to mention that many small communities cannot afford a financial commitment to research projects or partnerships during periods of fiscal crisis. Senior levels of government and post-secondary institutions need to realize that some communities may not have the receptor capacity to take up their part of a research or knowledge relationship – they may just not have the capacity to receive, or start to respond to, the new knowledge and information that research provides. Ongoing supports are needed to enable particularly small places to build relationships and capacity that can be mobilized to pursue new ideas and processes. This support will serve communities well during both positive and challenging economic conditions. Unfortunately, this need is poorly understood by funding programs. While academic and funding institutions talk the “engaged” language, they often are not equipped to follow through to provide the infrastructure and support needed to transition from producing knowledge to producing change (Williams et al. 2005; Wolff and Maurana 2001). Academic institutions, for example, may have inadequate resources allocated to support the development and evaluation of university-community partnership work (Williams et al. 2005). Incentives or requirements to pursue cbr may not be incorporated into hiring and tenure or promotion policies. Standards of practice for engaging with communities and cbr ethics protocols may be underdeveloped (Roche 2008). Peer-reviewed publications may also place an emphasis on theo-

Understanding and Shaping Capacity for CBR

51

retical work, thereby undermining faculty interest in cbr (Savan 2004). There may be few community-based scholarships to encourage graduate student interest in cbr. Furthermore, community partners may have limited access to funding resources, mentoring and training supports, and research processes that are allocated to, and controlled by, university partners (Roche 2008). With short-term grants, funding institutions generally do not provide the resources necessary to nurture university-community partnerships (Flicker et al. 2008b). While more funding programs are being created to support cbr (Levesque 2007), the broader range of grants for traditional scholarship can discourage university-community partnerships. Few granting programs are designed to accommodate the decision-making processes of community groups throughout the research process (Williams et al. 2005). LIN K COMMUNIT Y PARTNERS WITH A PPRO PRIATE UNIVERSIT Y RESOURCES

Community partners strive to discover what types of research and expertise universities offer; however, it is not easy to quickly browse university websites or accurately identify specific research capacities. Many university websites are almost impenetrable from this perspective. More outreach activities are needed to promote areas of research expertise to communities. This should include matching community stakeholders and needs with valuable contacts and information. In 2008, unbc undertook an initiative to extend its community connections. The unbc vice-president and provost asked our research team to execute a region-wide community dialogue process to identify the range of research needs among Northern bc communities and link these to various research capacities at the university (Manson and Halseth 2008). Despite other Canadian programs that highlight the need to provide resources that support ongoing outreach work for developing university-community partnerships (Roche 2008; Savan and Sider 2003), the “North First” Community Dialogue Project did not include a budget to follow through with linking research capacities across Northern bc communities. As community needs are constantly changing, universities must revisit this type of exercise on a routine basis and allocate adequate resources for outreach activities to ensure that research continues to be relevant and useful for places.

52

Getting to Know One Another

The unbc Community Development Institute1 (cdi) has set up many mechanisms for maintaining contact with communities in its service region. It has also invested a great deal of time and effort in general contact and dialogue so that communities themselves have a better sense of what resources and expertise universities can bring to the questions that challenge them every day. The cdi has developed, for example, a Community Speakers Series to showcase unbc’s research capacity, with events occurring at its main campus in Prince George and in communities across Northern bc. Recognizing the restructuring challenges facing the local forest sector, for example, the cdi has sponsored Community Speakers Series events featuring faculty, community, and industry speakers with expertise in a range of forest management issues. Other communication tools, such as the cdi’s newsletter and website, as well as informal discussions, have helped link communities to the broader range of research capacity and expertise at the university. Supporting the use of a broad range of communication tools is critical to building the university’s capacity as an “engaged campus” and to linking a breadth of community organizations and residents with appropriate university resources (msfhr 2010). The annual and special meetings of a range of national, provincial, regional, and interest-based groups and organizations have provided additional opportunities for the cdi to connect research capacity and expertise with local economic and community development groups. Despite these successes, rural infrastructure is largely underutilized by research teams; the organization of conferences and other outreach activities in rural regions would not only provide another venue to build relationships with rural stakeholders and provide access to research expertise, but would also support the ongoing operations and maintenance of rural facilities. Many rural health, economic, and community development meetings continue to be concentrated in urban areas, resulting in a loss of potential economic benefits to rural research partners and other local stakeholders. It may also continue to undermine the receptor capacity of community partners who have limited resources and are unable to commute to distant regional centres. INSTITUT IONAL CHALLENGES TO CBR

Following an assessment of community capacity and efforts to identify both relevant research needs and interested parties, researchers must determine if the conditions to pursue cbr are right. The next step is to

Understanding and Shaping Capacity for CBR

53

ask the question, “What are the institutional challenges that may be encountered?” These are the larger issues that constitute the environment within which academic research takes place. Most of this section is oriented toward engaging in academic work (or cbr with university or college partners); however, we also address more general challenges associated with funding for cbr. Faculty Challenges Faculty can encounter several conflicting commitments associated with teaching, service, and research responsibilities that limit the time they are able to commit toward cbr-type activities. The most frequently cited barrier in the literature is the disconnect between the demands of cbr and the criteria for evaluation used to secure tenure and promotion at universities. In general, universities try to balance three factors when considering an application for tenure and promotion: research, teaching, and service. It is an unwritten (though sometimes it is written) rule that the most important component of this triad is the ability to publish articles in (high-impact) academic journals – the more the better. This prioritization places tremendous pressure on academics to use their valuable time away from teaching and service to structure their research and writing to suit the demands of academic journals (Calleson, Jordan, and Seifer 2005). The pressure to publish presents three important barriers to cbr. First, given the constraints of time, professors will have limited opportunity to engage with potential community partners. Time in the field must be focused and efficient in order to quickly generate the different types of data needed in such a treadmill of academic writing. Time is perhaps the most critical institutional constraint facing researchers. The structure of academic life limits the amount of time faculty and even students can be in the field – faculty are often limited to perhaps a few short trips during teaching terms and one longer stint during a research term (if such a term exists). It is very difficult to conduct respectful cbr during such short and sparse community visits. The solution under these constraints is to elongate the development of the research relationship; however, this then dramatically impedes the potential and timeliness of producing both academic and community-relevant outputs. Second, high-impact journals demand theoretically rich research. This does not necessarily limit the ability of researchers to use cbr; however, it does change the dynamics of the language being used to

54

Getting to Know One Another

structure the research questions and communicate findings. The constraint emerges with the necessity to translate academic inquiry into community-relevant information, which again simply takes more time. This challenge exists in all professions and specializations. The challenge for community partners, of course, is that they are more interested in solving a problem than discussing, at length and in complicated terms, the roots and interplay of different theoretical frameworks. This does not mean that community partners are incapable of understanding these issues and debates, or that theoretical findings, when presented correctly, might not have important revelatory power (e.g. surrounding structural economic forces or gender issues); however, there are opportunities for theoretical inquiry and debate within an academic setting that communities might not have time or capacity to access. Similarly, academic journals are not inherently averse to presenting findings from cbr, and there are a number of journals that are dedicated specifically to issues of community-university engagement and engaged learning scholarship. The main point here is that extra effort and skill is required to balance the demands of academic sophistication and community relevance – even if these demands need not be mutually exclusive. Third, the shared control associated with cbr may hinder timely production of research results.

Lesson Learned: CBR Risks for Academic Production One of the operating tenets of cbr is that researchers share control of the research process. This increases the level of risk within the project for the researcher. For example, consider the experiences of one new researcher working hard to establish a track record of production and productivity to advance under university tenure and promotion procedures while at the same time trying to develop an honest cbr track record in a region where he felt there was opportunity to make a contribution to both applied and basic science research. This new researcher established a working relationship with an Aboriginal community, invested more than two years of time and considerable research monies in support of graduate students and fieldwork, all in support of topics that the community felt were

Understanding and Shaping Capacity for CBR

55

important and which could have lasting benefit. Everyone worked earnestly within a nicely developing cbr framework. Late in the project, community Elders became troubled by the ongoing legal disputes the Nation was having with the provincial government regarding issues related to rights and title. They had become worried that information from the research project, while potentially very valuable for local community development, might be misinterpreted in the judicial process to the detriment of the community. At a community feast, the Elders decided that the project would be put on hold. In the run-up to his promotion meeting, the new researcher had no tangible “traditional” academic products to show from the several years of research investment. Giving up control to the cbr process has a variety of risks, and these risks are especially acute for vulnerable communities as well as early career researchers.

A second institutional barrier to the use of cbr concerns the limited amount of training or experience that faculty may have in the technique. Unless professors (and other researchers) were directly exposed to cbr project experience during their undergraduate or graduate studies, it is unlikely they encountered a course that dealt specifically with how to do cbr (Klein et al. 2011). The lack of training creates three problems. The first is a hesitancy to engage in cbr and a default decision to use more traditional methods of research engagement – the added challenge being, as stated above, that there are other pressures at work that would dissuade researchers from choosing cbr. Second, and more damaging, is that researchers may assume that cbr can be done easily, or perhaps as a quick offshoot of traditional research. If researchers do not have the time, capacity, or budget to understand and conduct cbr properly, they should not raise community members’ expectations that they will be both partners and direct beneficiaries of the work. As we mentioned in the introduction, there is nothing wrong with using traditional research techniques – communities are very used to these approaches. It is also a more respectful approach if the conditions are not correct for engaging in an authentic cbr relationship. We would add one proviso here: researchers must still make an effort to report back, in appropriate ways, to the places

56

Getting to Know One Another

where they conducted their work, whether or not the research was cbr designed. Third, cbr is expensive. It is expensive because of the longer time frame associated with developing and conducting the research, and the need for more time in the field. In an era of reduced funding, more splintered funding (i.e. smaller amounts of funding being dispersed among a higher number of research collaborators), and reduced institutional support, the ability of researchers to conduct quality cbr is limited. If every long-distance call and photocopy must be registered to a specific research grant, the in-between forms of community engagement that are so critical to successful cbr become more difficult to maintain. Continuity of contact and engagement is critical to cbr, and it requires both budget and creativity. We will pick up this theme further below. Finally, using cbr requires that researchers shed the protective veil of “distance” from their research subjects and places. This is very different from calls made during the 1960s so-called “quantitative revolution” in the social sciences for researchers to be unbiased, objective, and neutral recorders of data (Gregory 1994; Livingstone 1992). As we explained above, there are vigorous debates about whether this kind of objectivity is even possible (Collins and Pinch 1998; Dowling 2010; Kobayashi and Mackenzie 1989; Winchester and Rofe 2005). Nevertheless, the outcome of this distance is that researchers are not directly engaged with, or accountable for, the dynamics that unfold on the ground. Researchers do not have to live with the consequences of their work to community life, even if their research is contributing to turbulence. The researcher can claim neutrality and objectivity and retreat to the safe confines of the university. This factor can lead to some troubling research practices and disturbing stories of community frustration with the “ivory tower” detachment of university researchers. For those who engage with cbr, attention to bias at this stage refers to the need to maintain open communications and relations with a cross-section of the community. Lowry and Ford-Paz (2013) combine many of these issues in their examination of early career faculty members who work in academic medical training centres. The authors identify some of the usual challenges around understanding funding agency expectations, resolving ethical considerations, and navigating power differentials. They also identify a suite of seven specific challenges, including a lack of role models; multiple and divergent demands on time; a lack of familiarity with both re-

Understanding and Shaping Capacity for CBR

57

search and research protocols among community partners; a lack of familiarity with cbr among institutional research ethics review committees; limited funding opportunities and venues; the challenge of publishing, including that not all journals are receptive to cbr; and the potential lack of understanding of cbr within institutional promotion processes. These challenges reflect the risks for researchers and faculty (but especially for new researchers and faculty) raised throughout this book as well. Outside of the potential for unintended maltreatment of communities, the lack of direct control (which is, as we have described, debatably present in every research approach) means that cbr may become very emotionally challenging and draining for the researcher. This is particularly the case for researchers who are conducting cbr in their home communities, where they may face the repercussions of their work on a daily basis, even outside of the formal parameters of their work. Becoming directly involved in community issues is an inherently politicized process. Navigating community relationships and power dynamics is very delicate. Researchers themselves may become targets of politically motivated attacks or be implicated in messy community dynamics (a concern for all researchers, regardless of the distance between their home and place of research). These issues not only represent challenges to the integrity of the research process but can also result in personal burdens for the researcher. Seeking to avoid even the possibility of conflict may cause researchers to choose more traditional techniques to conducting their inquiry. A vignette by Maura Hanrahan shares some of her concerns and doubts associated with her research on water insecurity in Canada’s North.

Love and Loss: Community-Based Research in Northern Canada Maura Hanrahan, Memorial University I’ll always remember the night the sky filled with the dancing northern lights and my friend Veronica said, “Whistle and they’ll come down.” I did and aurora borealis obliged. It was one of many magical moments I have had in fifteen years of doing on and off community-based research, mainly on water insecurity, in a remote Indigenous community with no piped water.

58

Getting to Know One Another

I recall those moments when the doubts crowd in around me. And they do – anyone doing community-based research has this experience. I have felt guilt for raising expectations as we did our research. I have worried a lot. One of the worst aspects of community-based research has been seeing so few rewards for the remarkable resilience the people have shown as they tried to achieve a small measure of water security. Most people would have given up long ago, but the people of this tiny village have lobbied, advocated, taken part in research, and carried out the back-breaking and expensive task of fetching water every day. If only water access was as easy as getting the northern lights to cooperate. This community is one of over sixty Indigenous communities in Canada that suffer from water insecurity. Here, water insecurity is extreme and persistent despite long-time community efforts at improvements. When I first travelled here in 1999, the only sources of drinking water were several shallow community water pits and a couple of brooks between nine and twenty-five kilometres away. The main brook used was accessible only in winter, as reaching it entailed a long journey over ice. Another water source, at an even further distance, was once a winter station favoured for its ready access to water and fur-bearing animals. In the late 1960s, the community, formerly a summer fishing station, became year round; this was part of the assimilationist thrust of the time and coincided with resettlement programs in various parts of Canada. But the community into which people moved permanently contains no potable or running water; all its small bodies of water are shallow and still, and therefore susceptible to contamination. None of the water sources were tested and monitored. By 2004, the Concerned Citizens Committee had succeeded in getting the provincial government to fund and install a Potable Water Dispensing Unit (pwdu). Due to a lack of meaningful consultation with community members, however, the pwdu was situated more than a kilometre away from most homes. This put residents’ health risk between high and very high, according to World Health Organization (who) standards (who 2008). In addition, the pwdu was not and is still not consistently funded. This community has slipped through jurisdictional cracks as the federal government has not yet accepted for negotiation the land

Understanding and Shaping Capacity for CBR

59

claim of the people of the region. Thus, by default, the province is responsible for infrastructure here, but it has provided funding for pwdu maintenance on an inconsistent basis (the unit costs approximately $35,000 per year to operate). Our research is done in concert with the volunteer-run local government. We have identified a range of impacts and issues associated with water insecurity including negative effects on household economies, food security, men’s musculoskeletal health, chronic disease management, and mental health. In addition, the Indigenous relationship to the natural world of which they are part has been significantly interrupted. Last spring, I had a phone call from a community member who was sitting at her kitchen table staring at her last glass of water. The pwdu was out of order, the province had failed to offer assistance, and the local stores had run out of bottled water (although the cost is beyond the means of most households anyway). This situation lasted two weeks. The phone call caused me stress and I could only imagine the level of stress being experienced in the community. My own stress was compounded by a sense of powerlessness that is a regular feature of life for community members with so few outside allies and with governments that seem not to care. This spring, after another pwdu breakdown, regional leaders met with the province’s minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs, who offered a one-time grant to get the unit repaired. The minister also offered approximately $20,000 for maintenance on condition that the community raise another $8,000 – an amount impossible for a village this size. In this and similar cases, governments seem to have no understanding of potable drinking water as a human right, a right that was formally affirmed by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2010, making it equal to all other human rights, legally binding, and enforceable in existing human rights treaties (Gerlak and Wilder 2012). Twelve-year-old children in this community have taught me about water and other human rights. Here in the Fourth World, children grow up with a sense of their rights and how these rights are not respected. They become politicized as they watch their dads struggle through constant back pain to fetch water. I have

60

Getting to Know One Another

seen their anger and taken it on as my own – it is impossible not to. For Julian of Norwich, Rumi, and Hegel, love is about unity. Each stay here brought me (and my daughter) into a union with the people and into love for the community. It is hard to see the object of your love struggle and suffer. Now, with the water problem unresolved, unemployment widespread since the fish plant closure two years ago, and commercial flights cancelled for the past few years, I am seeing something I love decline and possibly die. I may offend remaining residents by saying this but I am speaking from a place of love. In 1999, there were 250 people here; now there are just over 100. There are only fifteen children left in the school. The story is not over. We have just received a small grant to do some engineering work aimed at finding ways to bring drinking water closer to homes. So, following the example of Indigenous people here and in so many places, we have not given up. And the lights still dance above the northern sky.

Stevens (2001, 66) makes arguments similar to Hanrahan’s (in her vignette on Newfoundland and Labrador) when describing the demands of cbr based on years of fieldwork in Nepal with Indigenous communities. In a powerful statement, he reminds us all of the “rewards and responsibilities of long-term fieldwork with indigenous peoples that involves many rounds of returning to communities over many years.” He writes: Such fieldwork is based on a continuing commitment to people and places. It is built on relationships and reciprocity, requiring a dedication to research that is as relevant to indigenous peoples’ concerns as to academic ones. It demands time, sensitivity, and an involvement as much emotional as intellectual. In return, it makes possible research that differs fundamentally from short-term studies in depth and breadth of inquiry. The best fieldwork reflects a level of local knowledge, indigenous insight, and regional understanding attainable only through long relationships with a particular people and particular places. With this come new obligations and responsibilities that may reshape the direction of your career and the goals of your research.

Understanding and Shaping Capacity for CBR

61

Student Challenges The challenges associated with engaging in cbr extend to students as well. Halpain et al. (2005) found that the provision of early intensive research experiences can attract students into an academic career. However, faculty across institutions and departments may have very different teaching and service loads that affect the time they have to engage in collaborative research, research training, and student mentoring. Collaborative research can also expand faculty workloads with additional time required for interaction, dialogue, and coordination (Lattuca 2001), while student training and mentoring can be more difficult when disciplines bring very different norms and expectations. Despite the important role that students play in supporting research, the literature has paid limited attention to opportunities and constraints that institutional resources, infrastructure, policies, and procedures can have on student research training (Ryser and Halseth 2009). These factors can affect the type of research training and experiences afforded to students and may ultimately affect if and how students pursue cbr. A range of institutional barriers limits opportunities for student researchers: the design of programs and research institutes; competing teaching, service commitments, and research responsibilities among supervising faculty members; and policies and financial constraints can all affect student participation in cbr projects. Each of these barriers has implications for project leaders, universities, and government funding agencies deciding whether to engage in or support cbr. We will highlight four particular barriers. First, as identified above, the policies, actions, and pressures associated with tenure and promotion systems can direct faculty attention away from long-term investments in student research pedagogy in favour of short-term “product” creation that can be linked directly to faculty career security. These distractions become more complicated in an interdisciplinary research team, where faculty members and practitioners work under different norms and cultures. Tenure and reward systems that value both collaborative research products and student research training would help facilitate the use of cbr. Second, granting agencies and universities may also inadvertently emphasize products rather than the process of training the next generation of researchers. Drawing upon the experiences of a national Canadian research network called the New Rural Economy project, Ryser and Halseth (2009) argue that gaps in funding support during a

62

Getting to Know One Another

student’s academic career, or during transition periods between degrees, highlight the need for a range of mechanisms to support, attract, and retain the best potential candidates as new researchers. While funding agencies call for research proposals to include student training and development (and some funding agencies even label this as developing “talent”), there is also an important and critical need for support during transition periods between undergraduate and graduate degrees, and between student programs and public/private sector careers. More general support for “new researchers” during this transition will also pay dividends through peer mentoring of less experienced student research assistants. Funding agencies will also need to incorporate a broader view of university models in their evaluation processes to recognize the barriers that may limit training of the next generation of researchers. Third, attention needs to be directed at mechanisms for sharing resources across educational institutions to facilitate student engagement and mobility across multiple universities and community organizations. The absence of courses or graduate programs can affect faculty access to students with the interest, skills, and expertise to engage in cbr. While it may not be feasible to create courses or programs in every research topic area, universities could build upon institutional agreements for sharing students in areas that require attention. One solution to this problem in Canada is the “Western Deans’ Agreement,” which allows students greater mobility for courses and research experiences in universities across western Canada without having to enrol at other institutions. Such flexible support platforms for building student capacity can also facilitate the sharing of resources and the harmonization of policies across educational institutions. Internal university support should also enable faculty to allocate more time toward training student researchers (and be rewarded for it). Finally, heavy traditional course loads limit the ability of students to participate in research projects. Degree structures that pile on coursework and complicated prerequisite requirements limit student flexibility and time. Much like professors operating within traditional constraints, students who engage in cbr work do so at a personal cost in terms of time, grades, or the ability to do outside work to support their studies. Exciting changes are underway within universities, who are seeking innovative ways to enhance the student experience through co-op opportunities, “engaged classrooms,” and community-based

Understanding and Shaping Capacity for CBR

63

learning. However, these new experiences continue to be the exception rather than the norm, and where such opportunities do exist, they are often not offered in a coordinated way with course-related criteria and expectations. Kelly Vodden shares her experiences constructing cbr projects in her teaching at Memorial University. (We advance these themes further in chapter 4, where we discuss student participation in cbr in more detail.)

Community-Based Research in the Classroom Kelly Vodden, Memorial University A third-year undergraduate course in the Department of Geography at Memorial University of Newfoundland (mun) has provided a platform for orienting students to cbr in Newfoundland and Labrador (nl). From 2009 to 2012, cbr was an integral component of the third-year undergraduate course “Geography 3350: Community Regional Planning and Development.” The course combined content related to the theory and practice of community planning and development, and introduced students to topics such as community assessment and public participation techniques using an applied, experiential approach. Each year, students worked to address questions raised by community partners and relevant to the course objectives. Working with regional planners and citizen advisory councils from the Government of nl’s Rural Secretariat and with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, an association representing municipalities across the province, the course also introduced students to provincial policy and decision-making processes. Developed by the instructor and community and government partners, projects were designed to enhance student learning while also producing research outputs that contributed to future community and regional development planning and policy processes. Students were introduced to the cbr project on their first day of class. Instructors explained that the project was central to the course’s learning objectives and that its successful completion would require effort and commitment throughout the semester. Within the first two weeks, the instructor introduced cbr principles and benefits for community development as

64

Getting to Know One Another

well as cbr methods and challenges. Guest speakers joined the class early in the semester as students began to learn about the communities and processes they were studying. Groups of four to six students tackled specific aspects of each project and later shared their findings with classmates and representatives of collaborating organizations. One project – “Economic and Socio-economic Planning Processes: Beyond the Document” – provides an example of how students were engaged in cbr through the course. In July 2009, Regional Partnership Planner Tanya Noble approached Professor Kelly Vodden about the need to examine the difficulties that communities in the Gander/New-Wes-Valley region were having around implementing their plans and projects despite making significant investments in planning. Local volunteers working on implementation were overburdened. Noble and Vodden established a steering committee of government and non-government representatives that would work with community and university partners to identify critical success factors and barriers for small communities in moving from planning to plan implementation; recommend steps that could be taken to maximize benefits and minimize challenges associated with these processes; and share lessons on effective socio-economic planning processes regionally and provincially. During the fall semester, the Geography 3350 project undertook the first of a two-phase effort to achieve these objectives. cbr teams were formed; they prepared a profile and overview assessment of seven study areas. During mid-term break in October, a workshop was held in Gander (3.5 hours north of mun’s St. John’s campus); community partners presented on their planning efforts and students led focus group discussions with representatives from each area. The students gathered additional data through interviews and document and website review, considering questions such as barriers faced and factors that aided communities in moving from planning to implementation. As the semester came to a close, students presented their work orally and in a written report. Community and regional participants were on hand to hear the results, either in the classroom or via videoconferencing technology. Planner Tanya Noble commented, “I have been impressed by the enthusiasm, dedication, and involvement of the students

Understanding and Shaping Capacity for CBR

65

throughout the term,” explaining that the “presentations from the groups were well thought out, covered a great deal of material, and were presented quite professionally.” During phase two of the project, three students from the fall class became research assistants. They completed a comparative analysis of the case studies and provided recommendations based on their findings, in consultation with the project steering committee. They then presented their work at a final workshop in Gander. The workshops and the overall project allowed local community leaders and planners to learn from one another but also to share their experiences with provincial and federal actors. The results informed provincial and federal planning programs, including Atlantic Canada Opportunity Agency’s efforts to review and evaluate their funding support for planning. Students gained meaningful experience learning by doing through cbr. Several went on to work in the community development field and/or undertake related studies. Student Brian Woodford explained in a post-class media story: “This project definitely helps to promote cultural awareness. I’m from a rural area myself (Avondale) but I didn’t know anything at all about the unique challenges faced by Fogo and the Change Islands.” Another student (who was also one of the research assistants) added in a presentation about cbr in the classroom: “Through my experiences in this course, I have come to understand that being engaged with members of communities, as well as government and non-governmental organizations grappling with issues related to rural development, is critical to understanding not only how various policies affect these communities, but also to help in uncovering and discussing strategies in which communities themselves are dealing with these issues … Research itself is best if it reflects a balance between community and researcher voices.” This student, Jennifer Daniels, completed her undergraduate and subsequently her master’s degree in regional and place-based development in central Newfoundland, building on contacts and knowledge gained during the Geography 3350 cbr project. Yet cbr in the classroom presents challenges for all involved. Students, faculty, and collaborators must be prepared to invest significant time to make the most of the experience. They must be prepared to accept a degree of ambiguity and to let the project

66

Getting to Know One Another

evolve, requiring flexibility in scheduling research activities. Variability in the quality of class outputs can also be expected. This variability was dealt with, in part, by hiring teaching and research assistants to help organize the project and work with students to ensure all group papers were brought to at least some minimal quality, helping to address gaps in weaker teams’ work. Increasing recognition of the benefits of experiential and service learning promises to increase institutional support within the university for such efforts.

Funding Challenges The ability to raise funds is a universal challenge for researchers, particularly during this time of budgetary restraint and a narrowing of research priorities by governments and universities. Efforts to gain support for cbr, however, face some additional challenges. cbr researchers need to raise funds that allow for continuity in the development and implementation of cbr processes and to be able to target funds directly to community priorities. These challenges affect various potential sources of funding – be they academic, government, or private/corporate – in different ways. The continuity of funding to support relationship building represents perhaps the greatest challenge to community-based researchers. While seed grants and smaller institutional grants offer great assistance in this type of work, the vast majority of funding agencies maintain traditional application processes that require a fully fledged research proposal at the time of submission. This requirement places the burden of developing community-based relationships and negotiating the parameters of possible research entirely on the researcher and community partners. In cases where great distances separate researchers and communities from each other, these challenges are heightened. Asking communities for a letter of support is a fine minimum threshold for all researchers to meet when applying for funding; however, project development that includes co-designing projects and adopting methods that directly involve community partners requires more lengthy timelines. In the absence of these seed funds, the default is for researchers to simply adopt traditional research approaches and submit

Understanding and Shaping Capacity for CBR

67

fully formed research proposals in the absence of any detailed community collaboration. Funding agencies also increasingly demand the identification and delivery of both cash and in-kind contributions from community partners. This requirement has produced complex issues for researchers, local leaders, and other community stakeholders. The cyclical nature of many resource- and tourism-related economies has made it difficult for local leaders to justify substantial multi-year cash contributions for research that may not be perceived as a local government responsibility or as part of the mandate of organizations that have themselves experienced successive rounds of funding cutbacks. While it is often easier to provide in-kind contributions, such as access to accommodations, office space, and equipment and supplies, it can be difficult to track legitimate in-kind contributions by staff as they broker relationships and support various aspects of the research process. Once the research is underway, cbr again heightens the demand for constant communications and direct community contact. This places additional pressure on research budgets that may not be directly tied to a specific output (e.g. a visit to conduct focus groups). Funding agencies have limited tolerance for the unspecified. The most explicit forms of this limitation are the stringent invoicing and budget criteria used for the disbursement of funds. The control of research dollars and budgeting is at the core of power relations in the research process (Stoecker 2008). Researchers are often unable to use funds to support practitioners and non-student research assistants (i.e. for some reason community participation is always de facto “voluntary”), and funders often require levels of fiduciary responsibility that exceed the capacity of community organizations. Ongoing communication with communities is also made difficult by funding agencies’ use of conventional systems for tracking and evaluating outcomes. Israel et al. (1998) indicate that using cbr may present challenges to standard metrics of evaluation, noting that “such interventions are often conducted in communities with multiple concurrent interventions, and it is difficult to tease out the effects of the particular intervention being evaluated” (Israel et al. 1998, 129). This challenge of discerning outcomes presents an issue to researchers who are trying to fulfill the narrow parameters provided by granting agencies for recording project deliverables. Those engaged in this type of research will relate to “cringing” when completing an evaluation form

68

Getting to Know One Another

and documenting that fifteen “units” (i.e. people!) were involved in a particular community event. While precious and often public research funds should never be used casually or irresponsibly, cbr demands some latitude and individual judgment in the use of funds and the counting of deliverables. cbr operates best when there is a degree of flexibility in the use and control of funds such that researchers can share power with, and fully involve, community partners. Beyond the dangers of stifling community participation (and putting at risk the most fundamental principle of cbr), bureaucratically stringent funding may also have a negative impact on the production of knowledge itself. As Menzies (2004, 18) states, “the lack of funding certainty and then the rush to complete project deliverables on time in accordance with a business cycle mentally compels researchers to focus on results readily producible, that do not challenge funding agencies, and that rarely advance the state of knowledge.” cbr extends beyond collaboration as a form of respect to collaboration as a critical ingredient in the production of advanced knowledge and innovation – both practically and theoretically. There are also the challenges associated with the timelines for unexpected funding. Various levels of government will often identify that they have unspent budget funding available, which must be moved by the end of the fiscal year. Contacting researchers or communities to “dispose” of that fiscal surplus may distract a community-based project from its goals and purpose but will most certainly interject a series of timeline constraints that may just not be workable for an academicbased research team. cbr practitioners have a responsibility to promote the value and specific needs of cbr to funding bodies. Opportunities to access funding using a cbr approach are emerging. Recent changes in research funding criteria and growing awareness of the concept and benefits of university-community engagement are beginning to transform the way in which academic institutions interact with the larger community. For example, Canada’s three research councils, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, now have funding that specifically targets community-university research projects. Hall (2009) notes that universities across Canada are adopting, and in some cases, institutionalizing community engagement, in part due to the availability of funding support. Hall adds that although en-

Understanding and Shaping Capacity for CBR

69

gagement may not be the only trend in Canada’s higher education, it appears to be increasingly significant and it is revitalizing enthusiasm in the concept of universities as a force for “public good.” These themes resonate strongly with the use of cbr. Beyond calls for more engaged campuses and researchers, community-based researchers may also leverage public demands for relevance. While defining what is relevant research is a difficult practice (and even potentially dangerous to the advancement of knowledge and innovation), asking researchers to engage with pressing issues and problems – and to translate their findings into publicly and policy consumable formats – is a healthy challenge for research institutions. A NSWERING THE

“ SO

WHAT ? ” QUESTION

Within the call for increased research relevance, potential exists for cbr to directly meet the needs of communities and community organizations to address development questions or knowledge gaps. Given the more limited capacity of rural communities, the opportunities for outside researchers to engage in important and relevant research are plentiful. Community-based researchers strive for research to meet a meaningful threshold of relevance; however, Reason (2006, 192) warns, “But does this mean that action research is simply about what works?” Herein lies the complexity of conducting cbr within an academic setting: researchers are not driven simply by “what works,” by what will solve a problem; they are also motivated to place their research within a broader theoretical discourse that advances a body of general knowledge. This is the essence of the “So what?” question that researchers must ask themselves before beginning any research endeavour. This question is posed to reflect upon the practical relevance and also the theoretical sophistication and originality of the potential work. This dual test of practical relevance and theoretical contribution encapsulates the challenges presented in this chapter and posed by the “So what?” question.

NOTE

1 The Community Development Institute was formed at unbc in 2004. Its mission is to support the research, information, education, and development

70

Getting to Know One Another

needs of Northern British Columbia’s communities as they adjust to change in the new economy. The cdi is interested in two fundamental issues for Northern bc communities: community capacity and community development. By undertaking research, sharing information, and supporting community outreach, the cdi has been a partner to communities interested in making informed decisions about their own futures.

Building Projects

71

4

Building Projects With vignette contributions from Rachel Winterton and Kieran Walsh

Once researchers have made the decision to proceed with some form of

cbr, the next step is to organize and structure the research framework. This early work in the process is all about setting up the researcher, the partnership, and the project for success. Researchers will need to organize, to the best of their ability, all the various issues, scenarios, and needs before engaging in field research. Working through these topics is necessary to foster flexibility once researchers are in the field. If changes need to be made at any point, those decisions can be made in a thoughtful and reflective manner that will not jeopardize the reliability of the project or its results. In the following section, we discuss strategies for building relationships with community partners, describe how to design cbr that is ethically sound, and offer some thoughts on team composition, with a specific focus on student participation. During the early stages of the research process, it is important to keep in mind a fundamental difference between researchers and communities in their motivation for engaging in cbr: communities want answers and researchers ask questions. Understanding this simple difference in motivation will help researchers to sort through some of the normal challenges and problems of the cbr process. BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS

The first phase of the research process sets the stage for community engagement. cbr requires an extended lead time prior to fieldwork (Israel et al. 1998). The early steps in the research process form the foundation of the relationships that will shape and influence the cbr experience.

72

Getting to Know One Another

The following reflections are intended to help ensure that the research process makes efficient use of time both in and out of the field and is both respectful of and sensitive to the demands being placed on community capacity. To start, researchers and their potential community partners must determine the nature and form of the research relationship. In some cases, this relationship may be well developed and any proposed new work (whether initiated by the community or by the researcher) will nurture an existing relationship and pattern of work. In other cases, there may not yet be a research relationship in place. In this latter situation, preliminary engagement is crucial. Introductions, meetings, and informal discussions during early community visits to talk about issues and goals around topics of mutual interest may start to build a comfort level that will support the upcoming work. Scheduling early community visits prior to more formal research engagement will familiarize researchers with community people, groups, and conditions, allow for document searches at the local library or town office, and build a respectful foundation for introducing the researcher and research process to the community. This is particularly relevant for Aboriginal communities, which often have specific protocols for research and research partnerships (Reed and Peters 2004). For example, a preliminary visit provides an opportunity to identify whether or not the research process requires an agreement or memorandum of understanding, or whether the community has a specific research protocol. In the context of Aboriginal communities, it is important to recognize that there may or may not be protocol arrangements in place, and that there may be differences between arrangements or protocols among various Inuit, Métis, and First Nations communities. Research protocols can also reflect the fact that some community-based research approaches remain insufficient to address the long-term impacts of colonialism since partnerships and various forms of collaboration have been viewed as a “euphemism for a relationship of individuals with unequal amounts of power and an uncertain balance of risks and benefits that most often favors external researchers” (Mitchell and Baker 2005, 42). Through the following sections, we discuss important issues associated with the First Nations principles of “ocap®.”1 As developed by the First Nations Information Governance Centre (2004, 2014, 2016), ocap® is conceptually rooted in the context of research in First Nations communities. ocap® refers to the key principles of ownership (of information through collective community ownership and stewardship), control (of funding and other resources, as well as project and data management, by the com-

Building Projects

73

munity), access (to information through community protocols), and possession (of information by the community to protect its use). When these First Nations principles of ocap® are discussed and used to help frame decision-making, community partners and participants can become more actively engaged in understanding their rights within the research relationship. Attention to formal community rights through processes such as ocap® has produced a difference in the way that research is conducted (Bull 2010). The principles of ocap® now exist in many First Nations research protocols and procedures for navigating and negotiating these issues. Proponents of an ocap® approach prescribe community approvals for research projects as a whole, but also to inform where research activities in the community take place (Boffa et al. 2011). Allowance for this step must be made in research budgets and timelines. The pathway to integrate First Nations principles of ocap® into cbr practice is not easy. In some cases, the ability to implement ocap® principles can be limited by the small size of communities, many of whom face limited access to financial, human, and political resources (The First Nations Information Governance Centre 2004). With a small staff complement, communities can be overwhelmed not only by research projects but also by the many other day-to-day demands, which can include monitoring resource development projects within their traditional territories or participating in various externally managed environmental and social impact processes. It would be a mistake for any researcher, however, to assume that all Inuit, Métis, and First Nations communities are vulnerable or have limited capacity – a stereotype that has only reinforced paternalistic and colonial paradigms where researchers have failed to fully develop relationships or understand communities and their protocols (Haalboom and Natcher 2012). Researchers may also fail to consider the diversity and conflicting interpretations of traditions, values, and protocols across and within Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities (Boffa et al. 2011). A note of caution is needed regarding community visits and the building of the research relationship. During the early stages, the researcher will enter the field with limited knowledge of community political and power dynamics. Neutrality and consistency of approach in the research process are critical at this stage. Aligning with one faction or another will not help researchers develop a broad perspective about the research topics under study, and may even blind them to information that groups or individuals may be able to contribute. Mapping power dynamics and informing different factions of the community about the intentions of

74

Getting to Know One Another

the research will help to construct a more balanced research design and a more robust long-term set of research relationships. Building a reputation for fairness and openness is a particular asset in the rural and small-town context where, as Fitchen (1991, chapters 12 and 14) describes it, the politics are often very “personal.” Part of early community discussions will involve negotiations about the nature of the cbr process and participant roles. Comfort levels, the topic of the research, and the depth of developing research relationships may play large roles in how much time the communities or local representatives choose to commit. cbr benefits from a participatory research tradition of front-end negotiations with community representatives (Bailey 1996; Markey et al. 2005). Early discussions will help to shape the parameters of the research, determine roles and levels of community participation, and manage both community and researcher expectations about the potential outcomes from the research process (Israel et al. 1998). The dynamics of the two-way nature of the research process are made explicit during front-end negotiations. Participatory research assumes that primary research has much to learn from people in the community. In all communities, researchers must carefully consider the matter of “ownership” of the information and “oversight” of results produced through the research. The demands of academic traditions (academic freedom, publishing requirements, etc.) may very well be challenged in negotiations over ownership and oversight. The decision to involve people in the research process represents the most fundamental part of fostering community change through the capacity-building potential of the research itself. However, it is important to determine the level and form of community participation that will influence all aspects of the research process. For example, researchers might construct a community advisory committee to help guide the research process (i.e. to construct research questions, tools, and strategies) and potentially heighten prospects for community engagement and the mobilization of results, while not necessarily involving community members in the specific tasks of generating data. If community members are involved in the collection of data (a useful capacity-building exercise), researchers may conduct training sessions that also include members of the research team, such as graduate students who might be less familiar with cbr or other research techniques. The key to this stage of the process is for researchers to position themselves as honest brokers within the research relationship, who are able to work across a range of contexts and talk with all participants or stake-

Building Projects

75

holders. Researchers should be aware that people associated with, or seeking to be associated with, the project will have their own agendas. By being consistent in the purpose, message, and relations with various community actors and agencies, researchers will gradually build levels of trust. This consistency will enable researchers not only to be respectful of community and relationships, but also to get closer to the “real” story over time as levels of trust increase. We will discuss these issues further below in our analysis of the ethics of cbr. Another critical message for this part of the research process is to highlight the importance of “showing up.” Communities will recognize the effort, and the opportunity to see conditions on the ground will vastly improve the awareness of researchers about local conditions. In her vignette, Rachel Winterton shares a story about the challenges of understanding local power dynamics and trying to incorporate multiple voices during the early stages of a research project in Australia.

Lesson Learned: Managing and Incorporating Multiple Voices Rachel Winterton, La Trobe University In a small agricultural service centre, researchers were looking for older community residents to take part in focus groups exploring barriers and enablers to social participation. As part of the recruitment process, a story was run in the local newspaper, giving details about the study and asking older people to contact the research team if they wanted to participate. Shortly after the story was run, a leader of a community group phoned and suggested that the research team come out and run a focus group with some of their participants who had expressed interest. The researcher thought this sounded suitable, and a date was organized. On the day of the focus group, the research team came out and spoke with members of the community group regarding community barriers and enablers to social participation. The focus group was hosted in the organization’s club rooms, with approximately ten members in attendance. As anticipated by the researchers, the focus group found that the activities hosted by that particular organization were highlighted as beneficial to social participation. All progressed well; however, a number of older members dropped into the premises while the focus group was being held and seemed surprised that the event was occurring.

76

Getting to Know One Another

Over the next week, a number of older community residents approached the research team in community settings (e.g. the local grocery store, the senior citizens’ centre) and confided that this particular organization was “not as it seemed,” but would not elaborate further. Over subsequent weeks, the research team was contacted by some members from the aforementioned organization who indicated that they had not been informed about, or invited to, the focus group. They suggested that this was because they had been vocal in criticizing some of the practices within the group and did not “fit the mould”; they felt they had been excluded from participation because of this. Further, a number of community members who no longer participated in this organization for similar reasons also contacted the researchers to voice their concerns. Given that these older residents were keen to have their say, the researchers invited them to attend some of the broader focus groups that had been organized. These participants then presented an alternative view of that particular organization, where they felt they were excluded by certain practices and attitudes within the group. In particular, they emphasized that local government –which had funded both the group and the research project – should be informed that this group was not fulfilling its mandate. It soon became clear to the researchers that they were embroiled in an issue of community concern. While they were satisfied that they had gained representative views from across the community through their consultation process, the researchers felt tension in relation to how they could adequately represent these views within the constraints of reporting and satisfy both groups. In particular, the people who were disenfranchised from the relevant organization were placing considerable pressure on the research team to highlight their views at the expense of the others’. As a result, within the final report, the research team devoted considerable time to ensuring that both viewpoints were acknowledged, but remained neutral.

MANAGING EXPECTATIONS

As communities prepare for, and respond to, economic, social, and political change, they need timely and useful information to help them

Building Projects

77

make decisions. Post-secondary research institutions can be an important source of this type of information. These institutions can provide – as part of an “engaged campus” strategy – knowledge that supports innovation and competitiveness, informs strategic planning exercises and community development initiatives, mobilizes resources, builds local capacity, facilitates local and regional networks, empowers community engagement, and improves the quality of life in communities and neighbourhoods (Halseth 2002; Ostrander 2004). They can provide credible information to inform and support debates. Universities and colleges can also act, as stated above, as honest brokers of arrangements and agreements between communities, community service groups, industries, and various levels of government (Feld 1998). Unfortunately, as we described in the previous chapter, tenure and promotion committees still do not accord enough consideration to the benefits to faculty development of long-term university-community relationships and partnerships. Institutional policies and pressures can direct faculty attention away from these long-term relationship investments in favour of short-term “products” that can be linked directly to faculty career security. Negotiating these structures becomes more complicated where faculty work under different norms and cultures with respect to the role, process, and supports for research (Ryser and Halseth 2009). Due to tenure and promotion pressures, as well as organization and training constraints, academics enter research tasks seeking to build theory and improve questions for future research (Sá, Li, and Faubert 2011). The result, as noted, is a mismatch of expectations as communities want answers while academics want better questions. In some cases, by the time research results become available, they may no longer be relevant to the community context or be a key priority for policy-makers (Williams et al. 2005). With a mismatch of expectations, researchers must consider how knowledge will be mobilized (Cooper and Levin 2010) or incorporated into the day-to-day operations of community groups. These pressures also exist for student researchers. The window of time within a graduate degree structure for fieldwork is very limited. Constructing authentic community-based relationships as part of undergraduate and graduate research presents a real challenge. Options available to students to engage in cbr include entering programs with existing relationships (i.e. doing all of the early phase process work before beginning their studies) or becoming integrated into a research

78

Getting to Know One Another

Figure 4.1 Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation. Arnstein (1969, 217). CITIZEN POWER

Citizen control Delegated power Partnership TOKENISM

Placation Consultation Informing NONPARTICIPATION

Therapy Manipulation

team with established community contacts. We will discuss the second option and the potential for experiential learning opportunities in more detail below. University and community partners may have different expectations about their roles throughout the collaborative process. Some community partners may be frustrated by limited input into the design of research questions (Ostrander 2004). Others may lack an understanding of the capacity that universities can contribute to community development efforts (Le Gates and Robinson 1998). Rather than adopting a community-driven approach that builds local capacity and guides implementation, researchers may pursue community work as short-term consulting contracts (Feld 1998). As a result, communities may be skeptical about the commitment of universities to support community renewal efforts (Rubin 2000). The opposite issue may also appear: communities may expect researchers to have all of the answers. Community members may perceive researchers as experts and expect them to simply provide a model for dealing with any given situation. Challenges can come from both real and perceived differences in knowledge and “power” in the cbr relationship. Dowling (2010) explores such questions of power before, during, and after fieldwork. The purpose of highlighting questions of power is to challenge researchers to continue their self-reflection on how their participation and perspectives are shaping the research process and how the research process is changing their own perspec-

Building Projects

79

tives. Dowling (2010, 32) warns researchers to be mindful of the three typical sets of research power relations: reciprocal relationships, which include those “in comparable social positions and have relatively equal benefits and costs from participating in the research”; asymmetrical relationships, which result from “significant differences in the social positions of researcher and those being researched”; and potentially exploitive relationships where “the researcher may be in a position of greater power than the research participant.” The crux of managing expectations and power relationships is to be very clear on the forms and levels of participation within the research process. Participation is an issue with a long history of debate within the literatures of both community development and research methods. Building from the work of Arnstein’s (1969) well-known Ladder of Participation, which presents an eight-stage evaluative framework for assessing participation, community developers and planners have identified various frameworks and continuums to measure participation (figure 4.1). Community development work is particularly concerned with the meaningful participation of groups (differentiated by gender, ethnicity, or socio-economic status) that are traditionally excluded from decisionmaking processes. In constructing cbr projects or relationships, levels of involvement and participation are affected by many constraints. Learning more about these constraints and their potential impact on meaningful participation are normal aspects of the “getting to know one another” stages of cbr. The active involvement of diverse actors and interests serves as an indicator of the success of the participatory ideal within community development processes. Similar to Arnstein, Biggs (1989) provides a clear description of these various levels of community participation within a project: •

•

•

•

Contractual: Researchers contract for services or resources from local people who agree to take part in the research, inquiry, or experiment. Consultative: Local people are asked for their opinions and advice before the intervention is designed. Collaborative: Researchers and local people work together on a study that is designed, initiated, and managed by researchers. Collegiate: Researchers and local people work together as colleagues, each with different skills to offer for mutual learning, to develop a system for independent research among local people.

80

Getting to Know One Another

Feminist research and (participatory) action research literatures also hold participation (and power) at the centre of their research traditions. Here again, a variety of authors highlight various continuums of engagement. For example, Reid, Brief, and LeDrew (2009, 22) offer a framework similar to the one above, but with slightly stronger emphasis placed on power relationships within different research arrangements: •

•

•

•

Unilateral: The researcher identifies the research question, collects and analyzes the data, and disseminates the results without input from the community. Collaborative: The initial idea for a project comes from a non-local, often academic researcher, but the researcher includes local actors and other community partners in some of the stages of the research from development to analysis. Participatory: The project is driven by a convergence of community need and the researcher’s interest/expertise. The researcher and community participants share decision-making, compensation, and the labour for the project. Democratic: Community researchers have decision-making roles in the project alongside other members of the academic research team.

Different scales and hierarchies of participation thus exist across multiple literatures. In contrast, Midgley et al. (1986) provides a simple framework for evaluating community involvement as either authentic participation or pseudo participation. In the end, the goal of cbr should be to structure involvement in the research in such a way that it is meaningful and satisfactory to all participants and meets their goals, aspirations, and capacity to be engaged. However, participation can be fluid at different times during the research process as a by-product of the length of the research relationship and shifting availability (and/or capacity) of participants to engage in the process. Participation can also be a layered phenomenon, such that even during times when researchers are doing more of the heavy lifting in the process without much direct community participation, this work is built upon earlier dialogical or democratic foundations, which established the parameters for the process in the beginning. During certain types of data collection, for example, researchers might involve community participants less. As Williams et al. (2005, 299) state: “Actual data collection and analysis resembles ‘traditional’ research processes more than any other

Building Projects

81

stage. Beyond the university-based researchers with sufficient training in data collection and analysis, it is simply not feasible to involve all participants of a partnership in this stage.” Another critical component of early stage negotiations and discussions is to clarify the overall governance of the research process. How are decisions going to be made? What does the leadership team look like? Will there be an advisory committee or council that will oversee the implementation of the project? These are important questions that will help to manage expectations about the research process and the various roles and responsibilities of the research team, including both non-local and community representatives. Two other important issues for researchers and their community partners to discuss early in the process are conflict resolution and budget management. Researchers need to establish a clear mechanism for conflict resolution (Andrews et al. 2012). It is important that some form of communication process is established to deal with potential differences of opinion about how to proceed in the project. A second key point of discussion is to clearly articulate how the budget will be managed and by whom. Transparency about the research budget will help to generate higher levels of trust between researchers and communities. To reiterate our key point in this section: identifying these issues and creating mechanisms for dealing with them before undertaking the formal research process will make the process better, allow for flexibility in the field, and ultimately help to generate better findings. ETHICS

It should be clear at this point that cbr is situated at the centre of a complex, reflexive, and long-term working relationship between people, organizations, and communities; as such, research ethics are a crucial concern. In this section, we discuss various dimensions of conducting ethical cbr. Our experience is derived from operating within the requirements for ethical research at our universities and more broadly within the parameters established for ethical research by various academic funding bodies in Canada. Aside from theoretical debates, the application of research ethics protocols has been codified in Canada since 1998 with the publication of the Tri-Council policy statement Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (isre 2014). Since its original publication, the policy has been amended and modified as a result of experience, practice, and debate.

82

Getting to Know One Another

After an extensive consultation, the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research released in 2014 a new edition of the Tri-Council policy statement (isre 2014). While the core principles of a concern for welfare, justice, and respect for all persons remain, existing provisions for research involving women (isre 2014, 50–1), vulnerable persons (51–2), those who lack the capacity to consent to research participation (52–4), and others have been confirmed, augmented, and expanded. The inclusion of vulnerable or at-risk populations is often a focus of cbr, with its desire to be more inclusive of the voices constructing and being heard through research. But the application of ethics guidelines is a complex and “human” affair. Universities have research ethics boards (rebs) that review proposed research projects in order to guide the implementation of policies for ethical and safely conducted research established by the Tri-Council. Through these processes, researchers must describe their proposed research methods and apply for approval prior to conducting their fieldwork. rebs are instructed to “view the Policy’s guidelines, not as rules to be applied, but as principles to be interpreted. This requires a thorough understanding of the principles in this Policy. It also requires the exercise of sound judgment in deciding how to apply those principles” (iapre 2008, 5). The result can be a good deal of uncertainty and institutional unevenness with respect to the execution of cbr. Four questions highlight some of the challenges for the interpretation and application of research ethics to cbr. A first question for cbr is, “When does the research ethics process begin?” This is especially important in light of a key lesson from our work that shows the value of informal opportunities to meet people and get to know the community. The 2014 edition of the Tri-Council policy statement offers more guidance in this area and does allow some exemptions to the need for reb review/approval. Most importantly, there are sometimes long periods of preliminary negotiations, discussions, and dialogue with people and communities about research topics and projects. The new draft policy considers the issue of actions that “are not themselves the focus of the research,” such as discussions to develop the research project (isre 2014, 14), as exempt from reb review/approval. Despite this clarification, however, individual rebs may interpret the policy differently and, due to the complexity of cbr relationships and projects, there can be no clear dividing line between what does and does not constitute the start of “research with human participants.” Whether an interaction is considered “research” will depend

Building Projects

83

upon a myriad of issues such as the pre-existing depth of knowledge/research relationships among the parties, the research approach and methods being supported in the relationship, the characteristics of the participants, the type of information sought, and the research process. Just as researchers need to work with communities to frame the structure and goals of projects, so too do researchers need to work with their institutional structures to set the foundation for supporting those same projects. Attention to research ethics within cbr is complex and can be challenged by fuzzy definitions and blurred lines. For example, Banks et al. (2013, 263) explore research ethics in community-based participatory research (cbpr). They write: “Whilst many of the ethical challenges in cbpr are common to social research generally (informed consent, anonymity, issues of ownership of data and findings), the dynamic, complex and value-based nature of cbpr gives them particular prominence. There are also specific issues relating to the ethics of partnership working, collaboration, blurring of boundaries between researchers and researched, community rights, community conflict and democratic participation that are more frequently encountered in cbpr.” Once the research process has successfully engaged participants, researchers must carefully consider additional ethical questions. A second question involves the process for obtaining informed consent, which can raise interesting challenges (see Dowling 2010). Increasingly, university rebs are requiring more detailed and formalized consent forms. These typically cover a range of participation and data protection, storage, and disposal issues, and must be reviewed and signed prior to beginning an interview, survey, or some other form of interaction for the purposes of collecting primary information. Even though verbal (usually video or audio recorded) consent has long been an option, and the 2014 edition of the Tri-Council policy statement supports more options for obtaining consent, the policy still states that while “there are valid reasons for not recording consent in writing, the procedures used to seek consent must be documented” (isre 2014, 46). Potential research participants or partners can be quite intimidated by the legalsounding language, forms, and processes associated with informed consent. As such, the onus is on researchers to clearly explain the ethical standards governing the research process. Providing an information sheet that introduces (in brief) the purpose of the research and defines critical research ethics standards (e.g. confidentiality, anonymity, volunteer participation, use of data, etc.) is a useful way to ease the inac-

84

Getting to Know One Another

cessibility of research ethics legalese. These debates regarding the timing and form of consent continue to evolve within various research ethics forums. A third challenging ethics question, especially important in rural places or small communities (i.e. a small sample) concerns how one ensures participant anonymity and/or confidentiality. The promise of anonymity/confidentiality is a common feature of research ethics and requirement of university rebs. In a small-town or rural place, standard techniques (such as using pseudonyms instead of people’s real names in publications or findings) can become more complicated given that the perspectives of certain individuals may be well-known in the community and that attribution of specific comments or language may be difficult to mask, given the small local population. These ethical concerns become heightened when the pool of participants is focused upon an even smaller and more visible subset of the local population such as those who may hold formal positions (e.g. town councillor, planner, small business operator, ngo representative, etc.). Attention to the anonymity/confidentiality problem raises questions regarding vulnerability and harm. The more vulnerable the participant population, the more intense attention researchers should pay to the ethics of research practices. Research participation should not put the participants in jeopardy of more harm than they would otherwise encounter through their normal lives (see Dowling 2010). cbr is about openness and partnerships in the research relationship and process; researchers must be very clear with participants about the conditions of anonymity and confidentiality that will form part of informed consent. In a vignette, Kieran Walsh shares his experiences navigating the ethics of research when it comes to involving community members.

An Iterative and Reciprocal Process: Involving Community Members in Research Kieran Walsh, Irish Centre for Social Gerontology Community members are frequently involved in communitybased research studies conducted at the Irish Centre for Social Gerontology. This might entail taking part in local consultations to contextualize economic and socio-cultural aspects of community life, acting as gatekeepers to assist participant recruitment, discussing emerging research findings in feedback panels, or

Building Projects

being part of more formal participatory research methods. In general, such involvement not only strengthens the relationships between the research team and local communities but also adds validity and rigour to research findings. Involving community members in community-based research has clear advantages in relation to facilitating access and establishing trust. Arguably of more worth is the value of insights that community members can bring to a research project. In all community-based contexts, such insight can help to unpack the dynamics of everyday life. In rural settings, where there are often less formal and less obvious social structures (e.g. in terms of how people work and socialize together, and how status and power are assigned and operationalized), this insight is crucial to begin to answer community-focused research questions. Incorporating community member perspectives helps to orient the research team to the subjective and relative elements of local contexts, revealing how these elements can influence and challenge the different social constructs that many of us investigate. Ideas like well-being, quality of life, community cohesion, belonging, and social capital can look very different after being explored through the lives of residents in particular communities. More objective general measures habitually fail to capture this highly local but very real positioning. Even in terms of rurality itself, community member perspectives are integral to providing a more nuanced view of what “rural” means in these contexts and how rural places are perceived and constructed and play out locally. For example, in one of our studies that looked at social exclusion and aging in diverse rural communities, there always seemed to be difficulty in finding the “remote” community despite our use of standard categorizations to identify these communities. And, even if we did find such a setting, there were often clear differences in relation to ideas of remoteness within communities. This was in many cases largely independent of geographic distance and other seemingly objective characterizing factors. Paraphrasing one local resident: “This isn’t remote, but one mile down that way – now that’s remote!” And for all intents and purposes, they were right. However, involving community members in the research process is not without its challenges. Depending on the form of

85

86

Getting to Know One Another

involvement and the sensitivity of the research topic, additional methodological and ethical issues can arise. The difficulty of preserving confidentiality and anonymity is one such issue, particularly in small communities where everybody really does know everybody else. Preserving the confidentiality of group discussions and consultations that include a number of community members and illuminate opposing perspectives can be a challenge even where informed consent and privacy procedures have been agreed upon. Confidentiality is especially relevant when community members act as gatekeepers to assist in the recruitment of research participants. In the social exclusion and aging study, local gatekeepers were asked to distribute, discreetly and confidentially, information sheets and consent forms to potential participants who met the criteria for participation, and to ask the form recipients, after a time, if they would like to participate in the research. In many cases, this is what happened. In other cases, it became apparent that the “community way” of doing things gradually supplanted official research processes of anonymity; phrases like “Mary is taking part, so do you want to?” or “Bridget says she will go, if you will” might have been more common in the gatekeeper-led recruitment procedure than we would have liked. Such deviations from study protocols, which of course have to be addressed, could have potentially created serious issues for the research team. Yet, they were perhaps more reflective of local socio-cultural processes that potential participants themselves were more familiar and comfortable with. Another potential issue in involving community members in the research process concerns the particular views that individuals can bring into the study. Therefore, while community member perspectives are important for capturing subjective and relative elements of local contexts, they may also be derived from their own personal viewpoints. Just as we need to acknowledge our own positioning as members of a research team, we must also acknowledge the positioning of community members and how together these can produce a double lens of interpretation through which the community and research findings can be viewed/distorted. For instance, in one community involved in the social exclusion and aging study, with a population of 200 people, our

Building Projects

87

local gatekeeper felt there were very few older people in the locality who could take part in the research. While this idea seemed contrary to official statistics for the settlement, and contrary to the number of apparently “older” residents we passed as we walked around the community, we assumed that our gatekeeper would perhaps know best. Then we realized that our gatekeeper was focusing just on older people aged eighty years and over, and had failed to equate our age criterion (sixty-five years and over) and the social label of being “older” with his local older adult neighbours. Dealing with ambiguous and complex scientific concepts, such as social exclusion, further complicates such matters. In our study, some local gatekeepers made binary judgements on who was and who was not excluded in their locality, and therefore who we would need to talk to and who we could avoid. Other community members appeared initially to believe it best to recruit only the most talkative older people, regardless of the representative recruitment strategy the research team had discussed. Involving community members in the research process is both a complex and rewarding endeavour. Even with the support of suitable materials and tutoring, it requires researchers and community members in each and every site to engage in an iterative process of refinement and reciprocal learning. As demonstrated by this (paraphrased) statement from a gatekeeper in a predominantly Catholic community, who was notably proud of all the diverse groupings that were fulfilled by one interviewee, co-produced communitybased research can lead to a more efficient and effective research process: “Oh, you’re going to love this! I have the perfect person for you: an old woman, living alone, two miles off the road, no phone, no electricity, and … she’s Protestant!”

A fourth ethics question concerns differences between research in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities. The legacy of colonial practices (including deterritorialization and the creation of the reserve system, new forms of governance, ongoing policy control, and research) means that research may require special protocols when working with Aboriginal communities. The 2014 edition of the Tri-Council policy statement in Canada dedicates a specific chapter to issues of research with Aboriginal peoples (isre 2014, chapter 9). While much of the chapter focuses on

88

Getting to Know One Another

interpretations, as well as special considerations and research protocols, there is one section that highlights an emerging issue of importance – protocols for consultation when research is conducted on First Nations, Inuit, or Métis territory2 (isre 2014). Fondahl et al. (2009) describe the evolution of a First Nations community–university research relationship as being about co-creating and co-managing a research agenda across complex historical, political, institutional, and cultural contexts. Underscored in each of these sources of advice is the time and effort needed to build relationships and establish trust (see also the appendix). RESEA RCH TEAM COMPOSITION AND TRAINING

Within the participatory research and cbr literatures, there is a robust discourse on the dynamics of effective partnerships. This focus makes sense given the added pressures placed on working together – as academic team members, with community partners, between community organizations, with other levels of government, or with corporate interests – when using a cbr approach. Each of the above combinations contains different relational dynamics and expectations; however, each also ultimately involves the need to work well together. McNall et al. (2009, 321) provide a list of characteristics that help to define effective partnerships: •

• • • •

• • • •

•

Shared leadership, including task and maintenance leadership behaviours; Two-way open communication; Recognition of conflicts and constructive conflict resolution; Cooperative development of goals and shared vision; Participatory decision-making processes that are flexible and use consensus for important decisions; Agreed-upon problem-solving processes; Shared power, influence, and resources; Development of mutual trust; Collaborative evaluation of both task/goal and process objectives; and Well-organized meetings with collaboratively developed agendas and facilitation consistent with management characteristics.

Characteristics such as those in this list also serve to remind members of the cbr relationship about the breadth of issues important for not only building but also maintaining effective cbr partnerships.

Building Projects

89

For academics, educational institutions and government funding agencies have increasingly supported collaborative research. These programs create useful platforms to engage in cbr because of the potential to bring together different sources of expertise and more labour to address complex and interdependent issues. While the merits of these initiatives are open to debate (for example, they may also be interpreted as an effort to spread fewer research dollars across a greater number of people and institutions), they are nonetheless reinforced by efforts such as those used to assemble support for funding proposals to secure costly research tools and equipment (Cech and Rubin 2004; Healey 2005). Katz and Martin (1997) report on the numerous perceptions of what collaborative work entails: from researchers simply offering advice to engaging in multiple research activities. For Kezar (2005), collaborative work must involve the cooperation of individuals through interactive processes over time; the sharing of a common purpose; and the pooling of financial capital, human resources, skills, and expertise. Collaborators may include individuals whose names appear on the research proposal, who are responsible for components of the research, and who have contributed to the design, fundraising, and management of the project. Regardless of the range of views about collaborative research, it is an increasingly common feature of the research funding environment (Ryser, Halseth, and Thien 2009). Although collaborative research work may take multiple forms, two popular forms include multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research. Multidisciplinary research teams incorporate diverse disciplinary goals, concepts, models, methods, and findings from different team members in an effort to solve a common problem (Jones and Macdonald 2007; Uiterkamp and Vlek 2007). These teams bring together different, and separate, pieces of a research “jigsaw puzzle” which can be set alongside other pieces. Diversity among these teams may also be represented through different geographic locations, status, organizational memberships, occupations, cultures, and genders (McDowell 1994; Ryser, Halseth, and Thien 2009). By comparison, interdisciplinary research teams draw together researchers who use a common “conceptual framework to synthesize two or more disciplinary approaches” (Graybill et al. 2006, 757). These teams work collaboratively to generate a methodological approach to researching a common problem (Jones and Macdonald 2007). Responsibilities for research projects and common facilities and/or research tools may be shared in order to facilitate group interaction and the generation of ideas (Qin, Lancaster, and Allen 1997).

90

Getting to Know One Another

Figure 4.2 Competencies for effective cbr. Adapted from Andrews et al. (2012, 564). SKILLS OR ABILITIES

Navigating the community Navigating the organization Issue selection / needs identification Conducting community assessments Literature searches / evidence-based data Grant writing state/foundation level Grant writing federal/national institutes level Obtaining institutional review board approval Obtaining community consent Technical/it skills Organizational skills Political skills Theoretical frameworks Project planning and design Research methods proposed (i.e. focus groups, key informant interviews, experimental design, etc.) Project implementation Data analysis Project evaluation Dissemination (media and local) Dissemination (journals) Experience maintaining databases Recruitment and retention of participants into research Instrumentation/measures Managing budgets Managing personnel Federal grant management and operations Training others Networking Translating findings into action Effecting policy change Working with advisory boards and/or steering committees BEHAVIOURS

Flexible Culturally competent Cultural humility Willing to share power Self-reflective Humble Collaborative Good communicator Good negotiator Transparent

Building Projects

91

Figure 4.2 (continued) Honest Good listener KNOWLEDGE

Community stakeholders Community preferences Community culture and context Organizational culture and context cbpr principles and processes

Collaborative research teams may involve researchers from multiple educational institutions; such situations are increasingly common. Researchers at different geographic locations may meet in a common place periodically or communicate through emails, teleconferencing, or the many forms of live chat (text to visual) software. Interdisciplinary research requires a significant investment of time and effort; interdisciplinary research where the team is widely dispersed requires even more. Identifying potential community partners involves an extension of understanding community capacity (addressed above) to finding team members who understand the research process and are aligned with the basic parameters of using a cbr approach. Andrews et al. (2012) identify three factors that influence partnership readiness for community-based participatory research: fit (shared values, mutual benefit, and commitment), capacity (effective leadership, inclusive membership, complementary competencies, and adequate resources), and operations (congruent goals, transparent communication, conflict resolution, and equal power). As we explained above, front-end discussion and negotiation about the research process are central to cbr; understanding the motivations and capacity of community partners is critical. If the researcher does not find a good fit with potential community partners, it is worth considering abandoning the project or selecting a different methodology through which to do the work. Andrews et al. (2012) provide another helpful checklist of potential competencies that researchers may wish to consider when approaching and selecting community partners (figure 4.2). For communities, Ferman and Hill (2004) identify four different motivations that may underlie the decision to work with academic part-

92

Getting to Know One Another

ners: obtaining project-related resources, leveraging further resources, gaining access to networks, and increasing legitimacy. In the same way that academics must vet potential community partners, it is equally important for communities to vet the research team – and researchers should encourage this process and be as transparent as possible about motivations and the capacity to do the work. Past experiences with poor research ethics or hollow commitments to community needs will likely colour the perspective of community partners and affect their willingness to engage in team research. As Ferman and Hill (2004, 248) state, communities will likely have experience with “arrogant faculty, unprepared students requiring more oversight than their work was worth, incomplete projects, and lack of data sharing.” Community protocol agreements can help to institutionalize quality partnership dynamics and enable communities to remove some of the guesswork of assessing potential partners and chasing them for their commitments to community work and information sharing. ST UDENTS : FI NDING PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES

Students today have a wide range of opportunities to gain experience with cbr, with some of the best being within their course or thesis work. Many university courses today, at both lower and senior levels, provide flexibility for term papers and class projects, which students can steer toward community-based inquiry (see also Ibáñez-Carrasco and Riaño-Alcalá 2011). Such opportunities were the focus of the cbr training course delivered by Kelly Vodden and described in chapter 3. An increasing number of departments have modified courses specifically to accommodate individual or class-wide cbr projects as part of broader engaged campus or service learning initiatives (Halseth 2002; Lopatto 2010; Weber and Sleeper 2003). In addition, many academic departments offer various forms of independent study and directed readings course options as part of their undergraduate degrees; students may have opportunity to undertake cbr projects in these courses. Experiential learning has been described as a “social process” whereby “learning occurs through participation in the social practice of the community” (Pearson and Brew 2002, 142). Similarly, service learning is generally understood as the balance between reciprocal learning and service outcomes (Rice and Walsh 2014). It has been described as a “teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experi-

Building Projects

93

ence, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities” (Keen and Hall 2009, 59). While service and experiential learning opportunities can provide opportunities to integrate education and cbr activities (Bodorkós and Pataki 2009), they may also provide opportunities for students to support community partners in their daily activities. Service and experiential learning can be particularly beneficial to student learning and research, exposing a cbr team to tacit knowledge, jargon, undocumented stories, and hidden community assets, and enhancing understanding of professional and organizational operations, boundaries, processes, cultural protocols, and different ways of understanding problems (Henry and Mackenzie 2012). Service or experiential learning programs may be offered through volunteering programs, co-op or work-study terms, internships, or experiential learning courses. When using service or experiential learning programs to engage in cbr, researchers should work with their community partners to develop an appropriate curriculum and a time frame to engage with organizations as these intense forms of interactions can require considerable investments of time and resources for both the research team and the community partner. Experiential learning is not a new phenomenon among faculty and universities interested in engaging their classrooms with real-world problems and with local communities to enhance the learning experience for students and to provide a valuable contribution to the community on the topic area under investigation. There are a number of literatures developed around this notion. These focus on topics such as the engaged university, the engaged classroom, community-university relationships, experiential learning, service learning, and applied learning. These literatures can support those interested in pursuing experiential learning. Experiential learning courses, because they are different from typical university courses and because they link university students with local communities, come with a number of both risks and benefits. The benefits are wide-ranging: •

•

Students are often more engaged when they are addressing realworld issues. The “pressure” of having to deliver a report to a community audience, rather than simply to a professor for a grade, will provide additional motivation for students.

94 •

•

•

•

•

• •

•

Getting to Know One Another

A connection between the university and various communities is developed and can be reinforced. Connections are forged and can be expanded among students and various communities, community groups, and organizations. Students gain valuable real-world experience when the course models the sort of working environment that they will encounter after graduation. Students gain valuable contacts that may be useful in future job applications. Students are exposed to many more facets of local communities and activities in the topic area. In some cases, this exposure may open career ideas for the students; in others, it may identify future opportunities for work placements once they graduate. Students learn more about the systems that support research. In an interdisciplinary setting, students obtain knowledge of broader academic and policy literatures, expand their critical and analytical skills, and expand their exposure to different methodological approaches. Students may use experiential learning courses to inform and bridge the transition between undergraduate and graduate student research careers.

At the same time, delivery of experiential learning courses comes with inherent risks: •

•

•

Not all student projects will be of the same quality. Competing course loads, different levels of financial support, access to transportation or daycare, competing family obligations, and other job tasks can affect the student’s time or level of commitment to the project. Community groups should be informed that – when interacting with students – they may receive some labour and some creative thinking, but that the reports may vary in quality. The experience exposes the university-community relationship to stresses. In some cases, these may be detrimental to the development of a long-term relationship. Students may feel a tremendous amount of stress in experiential learning courses. Some of the stress comes from the fact that the course is “outside of the box” of typical university courses. If it is a third- or fourth-year class (and we recommend the use of senior-

Building Projects

•

•

95

level classes and students), students may be worried about any potential effects on their transcripts when thinking of registering for an experiential learning course. In a university setting that increasingly seems to put students into single cohort and discipline-bounded silos, working and learning in an interdisciplinary experiential learning class is often unsettling for students. Experiential learning courses require a great deal of work on the part of the instructor. This may lead to stress and burnout.

For anyone engaging in experiential learning, supports need to be made available. As with anything, doing the task right means taking it seriously and properly supporting it through training, preparation, and mentorship. Faculty can benefit from: •

•

•

•

Access to resources (online and otherwise) about experiential learning. Access to a half-semester TAship to help with preparing the background data and information that is necessary for an effective onesemester experiential learning course. Access to experienced faculty who can act as role models and mentors. The creation of a concise training module for those instructors who have not yet delivered an experiential learning course. The module should outline the full extent of the commitment and expectations, and provide a clear description of the process (including a contact list of appropriate departments) for creating and executing the course.

Community partners can benefit from: •

•

•

Access to information and resources (online and otherwise) about experiential learning so that they know better what activities and commitments they may be entering into. Access to experienced community members who can provide advice and mentorship about experiential learning and working with universities. The provision of conflict resolution mechanisms for matters concerning faculty, students, and community partners.

96 •

Getting to Know One Another

Information to help community groups understand university constraints and processes such as semester schedules and research ethics board requirements.

Students can benefit from: •

• •

•

•

•

An online guide and description of experiential learning courses. This is important so that students know the implications and expectations for these sorts of classes before they enrol. An “faqs” guide about experiential learning courses. An opportunity to work with the university support services for learning, writing, and academic success. Given the importance of “products” from the course – in the form of reports back to the community and so forth – it is recommended that course designers work with these support services so students are able to produce high-quality communication outputs, including in forms that might be new to them (e.g. briefing notes). Access to course mentors. Students feel a great deal of risk in these courses, and course mentors can help advise students and connect them with appropriate resources, information, or bodies of literature. Well-informed student advisors. All university student advisors should be fully briefed on the expectations and implications of experiential learning courses so that they can better counsel students regarding their choices. A research methods course (in some cases). Depending upon the nature of the research work involved in the course, it may be advisable for students to take a research methods course as a prerequisite. A one-semester experiential learning course, however, faces a very compressed time frame within which to cover all the needed theory, experience, and methods skills.

By its nature, experiential learning connects university classrooms and students with real-world issues. To make this connection, the university experience needs to be anchored in a “community” (place based or interest based) or with an organization (or perhaps a suite of organizations). As such, the relationship between the university and the community runs throughout the experiential learning process. The university and the community partners need to take the time to understand the process and to identify their comfort zones in an experiential learn-

Building Projects

97

ing process. At a minimum, university faculty must remember that most communities do not follow or understand the maniacal thirteen-week rush through each of the teaching semesters. Not only is the time short, but demands on faculty time are unequal across the semester. These time demands can be especially high at the start of the semester, during midterm exam time, and during the last two to three weeks of the semester when student assignments come in and final exams all need grading. Students must also understand clearly the parameters of their relationships with community partners. Most community partners are eager for students to meet with them and learn about the work; most are eager to provide help to students. However, students can wear out their welcome by continuously requesting information or support from the community organization – the community organization will expect the student to “do their own work.” Beyond covering the material delivered by the course, the goal of an experiential learning class is to help build positive long-term university-community relationships.

Example from the Field: A Community Housing Course In the spring of 2012, our dean was participating in a series of community meetings associated with a local housing strategy steering committee. A person at the meeting suggested that there might be opportunities to include university students and student research in the development of the community’s new housing strategy. This conversation developed into a decision to offer – in fall 2012 – an experiential learning course where students would spend a semester focused upon topics related to local housing issues. Ten students participated after being admitted through a screening program. They were provided with a tuition waiver for their participation in the course. The course was supported with five mentors from the university and the community. There were also twenty-eight guest speakers from a host of local, provincial, and national organizations. Speakers came from the private, public, and non-profit sectors. The course also included a series of offcampus classes and tours with local service agencies. The class met routinely with the housing strategy steering committee to identify an appropriate scope of project work, to provide updates, to deliver oral presentations, and to submit final reports. At the end of the course, the students were invited to a civic luncheon

98

Getting to Know One Another

held on National Housing Day that was coordinated by the city and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It was clear that the course made a big impression on community groups who were eager for a connection to the university. Many were also pleased that the university was interested in exposing students to “their world.”

Outside of the classroom experience, a second way by which students can gain experience with cbr is through volunteering on faculty research projects, graduate student research projects, and with projects run by community organizations, local governments, ngos, and others (Mohan 1995; Morrill 2009). In addition to volunteer opportunities, students may also look for opportunities that may include funding: paid work or internships within projects. These internship opportunities are important to help undergraduate students assess their interests and develop early professional experiences and protocols for engaging with community groups. As O’Neill (2010) argues, internships provide students with high-impact experiences that expose them to and challenge them with new ways of thinking in a variety of complex contexts. A third way students can develop awareness about cbr is through networking. Students should take advantage of opportunities for networking among the faculty members with whom they have taken courses, through orientation talks and presentations that are routinely given to incoming students, through research colloquiums, through interactions with fellow students as well as graduate students in their department or program, as well as with community-based groups and organizations (Ryser and Halseth 2009). Some institutions have searchable databases of research and funding opportunities (Snow, De Cosmo, and Shokair 2010). More formalized mechanisms that can arise from these networking opportunities include research assistantships as well as a limited number of teaching assistantships that may be available within university methodology courses. Finally, students can find cbr opportunities by liaising with established research units on campus. Since the 1980s, the development of stand-alone research centres, institutes, and other types of organizations has been commonplace across North America campuses. In addition to formal research centres and institutes, cbr projects may also be

Building Projects

99

under the direction of other university-based groups and student-run organizations like pirgs (Public Interest Research Groups).3 Many of these units can help students identify and participate in opportunities for cbr experience. STUDE NTS : FUN DING UNDERGRADUATE PARTICIPATION

One of the most significant barriers to engaging in cbr, as articulated above, is its cost, particularly in more remote settings. Unlike working in a lab or library, or with an already developed database, cbr entails travelling to a locality (ideally multiple times) and spending an often considerable amount of time there. This sort of field-based work can be very expensive and difficult on student budgets and course timelines. Fortunately, there is a wide range of funding mechanisms increasingly targeted toward student research training generally and to cbr experiences specifically. Funding opportunities come from organizations internal to the university, external funding organizations and agencies, and some newer mechanisms increasingly built around funding and supporting the development of research partnerships. Internal university funding opportunities to support cbr experiences include institutional grants, student research grants, and student travel grants. These may be available at the departmental, faculty, and university level, depending upon the size and structure of the institution. They can be used for student projects and for undergraduate and graduate thesis research. Faculty members may also obtain small grants from internal sources including seed grants, development grants, and research grants, which can be used to provide funding for travel, accommodation, and field costs, and sometimes stipend or salary support for students. A second key source of funding comes from major external funding sources. Many provincial/state and federal agencies and offices offer various forms of internships through which students can gain experience. Many of these agencies and offices also have field offices through which more cbr experiences may be available. These organizations often offer grants or support research with direct contracts. In Canada, national funding agencies such as the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council are important sources of support for academics involved in cbr. Both offer funding support to both faculty and graduate students through which support for undergraduate research assistantships may be included.

100

Getting to Know One Another

Both of these organizations have been active in promoting the growth of cbr and have a stated mandate to assist in the development of the next generation of research talent. Research assistantships, however, remain predominantly a source of funding to support graduate (rather than undergraduate) student engagement in research. There has been an increase in funding programs for undergraduate students that could support cbr and related learning experiences. For example, the Royal Canadian Geographical Society provides awards to support undergraduate research (rcgs 2015). In the United Kingdom, the Higher Education Active Community Fund provides financial support for students to undertake voluntary work with community-based projects (Yarwood 2005). In the United States, organizations such as the National Institutes of Health provide summer research opportunities for undergraduate students (nih 2009). As many granting agencies continue to target their award programs to graduate students and faculty (Ryser and Halseth 2009), however, more work needs to be done to provide undergraduate students with opportunities to develop cbr skills. A third suite of funding opportunities comes from community-based partners themselves. In some cases, they may be able to offer stipends, salaries, and internship possibilities. In other cases, they can simply provide a platform upon which volunteer work can be based. While many community groups and organizations are strapped for cash and may not be able to contribute dollars, they are often very well placed to provide in-kind assistance. Typical forms of such in-kind supports include accommodations (especially being placed in a community member’s home in order to save on campground or motel costs); free use of a desk, computer, and Internet access through a local government or community organization office; local logistical assistance in finding interviewees; and connections with various forms of information. This last piece can save a great deal of expensive fieldwork time, especially when the information is not otherwise widely available. There are, however, some challenging trends that confront students searching for support to undertake cbr. In Canada and the United Kingdom, there is an increasing level of competition given both relative and absolute declines in funding support (Mohan 1995). For example, in 2009, the Government of Canada’s federal budget indicated that Canada’s three main granting institutions (the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council) needed to cut roughly $148 million from their budgets over the subsequent three

Building Projects

101

years (Laucius 2009). More recently, changes with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (cihr) have reduced the pool of funds for individual researchers (Crowe 2014). This means that for students seeking funding, their grades, quality of application, and quality of various forms of support letters (by faculty, community groups, and others) are more important than ever. Competition for funding puts an added emphasis on the nature and quality of community collaboration and engagement – both as described within the application for funding itself and as evidenced by the track record of the applicant (especially where the applicant is a university/college faculty member). Granting agencies are looking to support collaboration while also underscoring the importance of direct community relevance and knowledge mobilization (Sá, Li, and Faubert 2011). STU DE NTS : FITTING INTO THE RESEARCH TEAM

To get the most out of a collaborative cbr experience, undergraduate and graduate students need to optimize how they work within a research team. To accomplish this goal, the first and most important lesson for students is to do their homework about the research team and project. After a student joins a project, they need to ensure that they receive a proper orientation that includes, among other things, obtaining a copy of the project proposal to help them understand the purpose and goals of the research. The project proposal will also contain background literature and theoretical concepts that students will need to be familiar with in order to fully participate in all aspects of the research process. If students fail to understand the context or theoretical framework, it can limit opportunities for them to engage in the research design, analysis, or writing tasks. The time that students invest at the beginning of their project involvement will pay dividends later. Students should also identify key dates and timelines that need to be met. This is important not just to build their reputation as a competent team member, but also to build respectful relationships with community partners who need access to timely information in order to support decisions and investments. Second, students need to expand their opportunities to obtain a good learning experience. They can do this by getting to know all the researchers and community partners identified in the proposal – learning their research background, their roles and responsibilities in the project, and their contact information. By having a comprehensive under-

102

Getting to Know One Another

standing of the entire research team, students may be able to create opportunities to work with other experienced research team members or to facilitate exchanges with other project partners. Perhaps most importantly, students need to identify and understand their roles and responsibilities and those of the rest of the team as a basis for developing good working and learning relationships and opportunities. Third, students need to make sure that they are part of the communications “loop” of the research project. If they are not included in regular communications, they may feel that they are not up to date or that they are lost during team discussions, and this can impact their ability to participate in research activities and take advantage of emerging opportunities. In order to get connected with the research team’s communication network, students may need to attend meetings, team events, workshops, and conferences; be included in email lists; and access or participate in project websites, blogs, or social media tools. While space can be limited in community and university settings, obtaining a workspace can help students to be privy to ongoing formal and informal discussions about the research. Above all, maintaining routine communication is key. Students should also identify and develop a good network of mentoring supports. Mentoring supports can provide them with tacit knowledge, awareness of etiquette, and understandings (not easily acquired in a classroom) of working in both a research team and in specific communities. These mentoring supports can include not just other faculty or students, but also recommended contacts with government agencies, as well as people, organizations, and groups actively engaged in community development and community economic development work. The advice and experience obtained from engaging with networks of mentors and partners in cbr can help students understand the intricacies of day-to-day operations and can inform their future career decisions (Dorsey 2001; Yarwood 2005). As one student told us: “It’s been so valuable having been able to talk to policy-makers and getting various degrees of advice. It’s been a wonderful experience. I would say it hasn’t changed my career path, but has reinforced what I want to do.” In terms of peer student support, some undergraduate research offices in the United States have developed student advisory bodies that consist of student volunteers who are available to help undergraduate students throughout the research process (Snow, De Cosmo, and

Building Projects

103

Shokair 2010). In terms of faculty support, students should also select mentors who have experience and are not over-committed with too many projects or other students. To further maximize benefits from mentoring supports, undergraduate students should have routine meetings with their mentors to monitor progress and address any issues (Ryser and Halseth 2009). In some cases, learning agreements can be developed by undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty to clearly identify assigned roles, responsibilities, and research tasks that are to be completed by the student; to determine student and faculty commitments to routine meetings; to outline expectations for student participation; and to determine a final product (e.g. a peer-reviewed journal article or conference presentation) that is due before the end of the semester (Kaul and Pratt 2010). It is not uncommon for cbr research teams to be involved in large collaborative projects that will be undertaken over long time periods of up to seven or more years. Due to the collaborative and long-term nature of such research, these projects require a coordinated approach to student training. It is generally helpful to use multiple mechanisms to ensure high-quality student participation. First, students should gain insights into the role of the literature and theoretical models in advancing knowledge and formulating appropriate policy and practice. This aspect of training can be facilitated through directed readings, with different co-investigators working with different graduate students on literature reviews in their respective areas. Second, the students can gain valuable skills in conducting policyrelated work and community-based field research. Students might build upon literature review work by conducting case research, reviewing the grey literature such as local reports and newspaper articles, and conducting interviews. As part of preparation for immersion in their case study, such research assistants (ras) would be required to review methods literatures related to field research, participate in the production of organizational and regional profiles, practice interview techniques, and work in conjunction with their faculty advisors and the rest of the research team. Third, the students can gain experience in analysis techniques. This might entail transcription and coding of interview and case document material (now remember, students should be learning during this process as well, not just doing the repetitive heavy lifting!). Students can also be involved in the production of working papers and journal

104

Getting to Know One Another

articles based upon the research. It is generally hoped that such projects will present student thesis research opportunities. Finally, student researchers for each sub-component of the project can be linked together through a process of peer support. Student researchers can collaborate on reviewing methods literature, practising using research instruments, and participating in cbr roundtables that link investigators with students prior to case immersion. Student peer support represents a particularly useful and exciting opportunity during a longitudinal study as more experienced students move into mentoring roles with newly recruited students. Once students have a good understanding of the purpose of the research project and their roles and responsibilities within it, they need to purposefully develop a plan to get the most out of their research experience. To start, students need to set some clear goals about what they want to learn. What is the breadth of research experience that students are looking for? What are their career goals? Do they want a career in academia doing research? If so, they should design a series of research experiences that will enable them to acquire research skills. If a student’s career goals are more oriented toward government, private, or the non-profit sectors, they may prefer to design a research experience that will enable them to have a better understanding of policy and of the research process (which will enable them to be a better consumer of research). Once students have established some learning goals, they will want to work with their mentors and networks to maximize opportunities for learning and to ensure that they are more than just data collectors. In general, there are eight key skill sets that students need to develop: writing, communicating, research design and ethics, data collecting, analyzing, organizational skills, project management and administration, and human resource development. Each of these skill sets can be expanded with a variety of research tasks. For example, writing skills can be developed within the different stages of the research process and with different types of audiences. To engage in cbr activities, there are different communication tasks that are important for building cohesion within the research team, for negotiating and engaging with community partners, for dealing with political and personality conflicts that may arise over time in collaborative research, for checking the quality of the research produced, and for mobilizing knowledge and brokering relationships to support community change (Buchbinder et al. 2005; Twale et al. 2002). One student told us: “I feel I’ve learned so many

Building Projects

105

research skills, and also I think I’m learning how to work on a team, dealing with conflicts, dealing with professionalism, and having to interact with this really diverse group of people. A lot of us have really different interests and it’s not always smooth and easy and watching how people handle that. I’ve coordinated numerous projects and that’s a skill I’m really taking away from this.” Students may undertake research design, data collection, analysis, and organizational tasks that support the research process itself. Through community engagement activities, there are also opportunities for students to expand their understanding of how organizations work (Bednarz et al. 2008). Students who are interested in a career in academia should become familiar with administrative processes and requirements within academic and funding institutions. There are also intangible skills that need to be nurtured, such as an understanding of how different cultural settings impact cbr (McDonald 2004; Menzies 2004). Again, we acknowledge that opportunities for undergraduate students to develop management, budgeting, or administrative skills may be more limited and short term (Gilroy 2005); however, students can use experiential or service learning opportunities (Dorsey 2001; Mohan 1995) in cbr settings to engage with other researchers and community partners to enhance their understanding of the processes and breadth of activities that they will need to develop as the next generation of community-based researchers. When working to get the most out of any research experience, students need to recognize that their learning experiences may be affected by project time constraints, their own anticipated length of involvement with the project, and their level of studies. For example, students may have more opportunities for learning and development in longerterm (i.e. more than four year) projects as compared to a short summer project. It is important to acknowledge, however, that it is the quality of the cbr experience that is important (Bednarz et al. 2008). Creating high-quality cbr learning experiences can be a challenge as both students and faculty have many competing commitments and obligations throughout the year (Ryser and Halseth 2009). Furthermore, an undergraduate student beginning their first research job will need to build a solid foundation of basic research skills before developing a broader range of writing or management skills. As such, students may want to connect with cbr teams early in their academic careers to maximize time and opportunities for growth and development. Having said this, students need to be ready to take advantage of their assets and previous

106

Getting to Know One Another

work or personal experiences that can give them unique insights and perspectives on a research area. Students should also be monitoring opportunities to link to a broader range of resources, expertise, and opportunities for learning. Such opportunities may include seminars that provide training on specific methodologies, technologies, or software programs; language programs; conferences or other events; and meetings and other exchanges with project partners. Finally, students need to become familiar with the full range of institutional supports that are available. In this respect, social science disciplines have typically offered fewer undergraduate research opportunities compared to their natural science counterparts (Ryser and Halseth 2009). The gap between natural science and social science research opportunities and institutional supports is closing, however, with the expansion of undergraduate research offices (Snow, De Cosmo, and Shokair 2010). These offices can provide undergraduate students with advice on how to obtain funding, to complete ethics review processes, and to enhance their understanding of tasks throughout the research process. If universities are serious about developing the next generation of community-based researchers, however, they need to implement appropriate ethics review protocols that will allow young researchers to conduct and test flexible cbr approaches (Boser 2006; Stoecker 2008). Other important institutional supports may include statistical and analytical supports (often offered through libraries or other specific departments), gis and social science research labs, or other technology and equipment supports. Perhaps most importantly, students need to take the initiative to learn from not only their faculty supervisors and student peers, but also from their community partners. These individuals can offer incredible insights and practical knowledge about the complex processes that affect community change. CONCLUSION

Two fundamental characteristics underlie efforts to build cbr projects: humility and respect. If all project partners adhere to these as principles then the “devil in the details” work associated with research design and implementation will follow, not necessarily in an orderly fashion given the complexities and uncertainties of cbr, but at least in an intentional, ethical, and open manner. For researchers approaching communities to engage in cbr projects, we are reminded of Chambers’s (2008) advice

Building Projects

107

to be “unimportant.” This involves checking the ego of expertise and status, seeking to treat people as the teachers, and seeing one’s role, particularly initially as part of getting to know a place, as their student. This adherence to the inverse norm of the formal relationship (i.e. outsider as “expert”) requires that researchers listen, learn, and recognize that community people hold valid and valuable knowledge.

NOTES

1 ocap® is a registered trademark of The First Nations Information Governance Centre that can only be used under licence or used with permission. http://fnigc.ca/ocap.html. First Nations Information Governance Centre (2016). 2 In Canada, the term “Aboriginal peoples” refers to the original inhabitants of the land. The Canadian Constitution recognizes three groups of Aboriginal peoples: Indians, Métis, and Inuit. The term “Indian” is recognized in the Indian Act and provides a foundation for distinguishing specific rights with respect to Status and Non-Status Indians. Since the 1970s, the term “Indian” has been more commonly replaced with “First Nations,” although no legal definition of this newer term exists. Métis are people of First Nation and European descent who identify themselves as part of a distinct culture separate from First Nations, Inuit, or non-Aboriginal people. Recent federal court rulings have recognized Métis as Indian people with unique rights under the Canadian Constitution. Inuit refers to Aboriginal people in Northern Canada (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada 2012). 3 pirgs are “autonomous, non-profit, university student-funded and directed organizations that conduct research, education, and action on social and environmental justice issues” (opirg 2011).

108

Introduction to CBR

5

Research Design With a vignette contribution from Rachel Winterton

Research design is a complex matter. The approach for conceptualizing and understanding research, including the more specific theoretical and methodological issues of research work, needs to be carefully considered when designing research projects. While standard research methods texts cover these issues well, our concern in this chapter is with the less frequently described issues that are important to consider when evaluating frameworks, theory, and methods in cbr projects. This means being careful about adopting technique “fads” that may not contribute relevant information to the project. Other issues are more focused on the cbr context. Included here is the need for communication among partners – especially at the start of the project or relationship – to discuss the time commitments, costs, investments, in-kind contributions, roles, values, and other elements that the different partnering groups will bring. Another related topic in this process of discussion and negotiation is the focus and purpose of the cbr. What do communities need to know relative to what they think they need to know? Discussion of these issues is an important part of developing not only useful research questions but also successful cbr projects. The chapter also includes some practical comments to guide field logistics, safety, and communication in the research design. We conclude with a discussion around understanding the community, as well as supporting both the community and local economy through the research. THE GENERAL ISSUE

As a process of exploration and discovery unfolds, the need to revisit and refine the research process is a central part of cbr. Throughout the

Research Design

109

research design and resulting work, researchers should maintain contact with community partners and engage in a dialogue regarding research questions and the unfolding research process. Linking what communities want to know with the interests of the researcher and the local context, all through the lens of the cbr partnership, presents a host of opportunities and challenges that researchers should consider when selecting research methods, tools, and approaches. First, in even the most basic of research design questions, it is important to consider how the community context may influence the relevance and utility of different methods. Community members may resist some methods or they may not respond as expected to data collection instruments. Take, for example, the commonly used mail-out survey tool. Simple questions of contact turn out, sometimes, to be not so simple in terms of how mail is addressed and delivered in small places – for example, using electronic databases to generate address lists for a potential sample may or may not recognize the fact that in many places mail is not delivered to houses, but only delivered via post boxes, a practice that may now be extended into urban areas. However, even if surveys do make it to potential respondents, people might resist participation; they may feel they have been, to echo the book’s opening quote, “surveyed to death.” More challenging is that mean levels of literacy across target populations may vary,1 as will relative comfort levels with written responses. These literacy-related issues may create multiple barriers to accessing information and potentially skew results. A second simple example is that a door-to-door survey may produce low response rates among seniors at home who are uncomfortable opening the door to people they do not know. A second issue has to do with issues of scale and technology that may limit the use of specific tools. For example, the statistical validity of certain information may be poor in small communities, necessitating the use of qualitative methods. Certain economic development and analysis tools may be unreliable at the small community scale due to the lack of data, the quality of the data, or any data suppression or interpolation rules statistical agencies may impose (Bendavid-Val 1991). The availability of a wide range of data is also much more limited in small places relative to larger centres. Similarly, web-based research and survey tools may be unsuitable given people’s variable access to or proficiency with the necessary technology. On the positive side, a legacy of community research (some recent, some from older research traditions) is that the methodological literature now includes a wide range of appropriate and innovative research

110

Getting to Know One Another

tools to suit specific community contexts. As we explain in chapter 8, methods such as transect walks, oral histories, and participatory mapping may help to bridge differences (cultural and otherwise) between researchers and community members and enhance findings by accommodating different ways of knowing (Wright et al. 2009). There is also a useful and growing literature on community and culturally appropriate methods for working with Aboriginal communities (cihr 2007; Schnarch 2004). As cbr often involves the use of different methods, the challenge for researchers is to ensure the reliability and crosscomparability of data. SCOPE AND APPROACH

This section of the chapter deals with issues of scope and approach. Critical here are the development of bottom-up research ideas, the approach to developing those ideas into research questions and projects, and the relationship building that needs to occur throughout this early part of the research design process. This is an important part of the cbr project as it not only contributes to the development of the relationship but also sets the stage for how individuals and researchers move through that process. Getting off on the right foot, in other words, is very important. The Development of Research Ideas Perhaps the most important lesson for developing cbr projects and partnerships is the need to clearly identify and communicate the degree to which the research will be collaborative and community driven (Viswanathan et al. 2004). It has been our experience that the more the research ideas come from the community and are developed in a truly collaborative way, the more successful the community-researcher relationship will be over the longer term and the more likely that it will continue to grow and develop past any first projects. The more the research is built from community ideas, the more there is a requirement to ensure that the resulting research is relevant to local decisions and actions. This approach does not mean simply executing community ideas as originally presented. The process entails a conversation that starts with the questions or ideas that the community has in mind. The conversation then needs to probe underlying issues and motivations to help sort out the necessary focus of the research project.

Research Design

111

Communities often ask for research to address visible “outcomes” when the work really needs to be directed at the underlying causes. The conversation then needs to consider the courses of action available to local decision-makers so that they can help form the research ideas into questions that will provide relevant and practical information. For example, the research team received an inquiry from a Northern bc community regarding seniors’ housing. The question from the town administrator seemed simple enough: “Council has had an inquiry from residents and wants to know if the team could calculate for them the number of seniors’ beds a new care facility might need.” The community did not have any specific seniors’ housing at the time. Given that the community in question had developed with a resource-based economy and historically had a relatively young population profile, a conversation ensued between the team and the local government administration about what it meant to become a “senior friendly” town. After working through all of the areas of community, business, and local government operations that might be affected by housing the older population of local residents, it was decided that the team would instead undertake a much broader and more general study on how the community might transition more generally to support demographic aging. The subsequent project involved community meetings, a household questionnaire, a review of city operations with the local government staff, and a number of focus groups with local organizations interested in services for older residents. The result was the development of a broad platform of awareness and information with respect to population aging, as well as a comprehensive strategy to address a broad range of seniors’ needs in the community. About four years after that initial project, the community felt it was in a much better position to begin developing the first of its seniors’ housing projects. This first project involved several independent living units. This example highlights how the issue at the top of mind for communities may be only a starting point for a conversation about what the community needs to prepare for if it wishes to go down a particular community development or economic development pathway. The example of a Northern bc senior study not only provided a wealth of applied work that a community could mobilize over time, but it also contributed to a range of academic outcomes. To start, our journal contributions added to the rural development literature by providing a more comprehensive treatment of the scope of issues important when rural and small localities begin thinking about developing

112

Getting to Know One Another

a “retirement” industry as part of local economic diversification strategies (Ryser and Halseth 2013). Our work was also able to highlight issues for particular segments of the older population. For example, one paper highlighted the challenges of resolving mobility constraints for older residents and connecting with the literature on keeping seniors connected within their community (Ryser and Halseth 2012). Another paper highlighted the need to augment formal services in rural and small-town places with a range of informal supports targeted specifically at low-income single women living alone (Ryser and Halseth 2011b). These services papers were complemented by a more theoretical discussion of the need to “recognize the rural” in debates within the literature around service provision under a neoliberal policy framework (Sullivan et al. 2014). A second aspect to the development of research ideas is to know the context within which the community or the community partner operates. Nothing leads to more frustration or disappointment than research that is well done but has results that cannot be implemented because they fall outside the scope or jurisdiction of the partner. When developing cbr partnerships or relationships, it is critical that all parties understand one another’s scope, authority, and operating environment. Only when this is clear to everyone involved will the conversation stay focused on creating projects that contribute needed and relevant information. A common outcome of these “getting to know one another” conversations is that lists of issues and projects are developed. Such lists are a very productive outcome because they demonstrate both the complexity and interrelatedness of the issues at hand. List-making is also an outcome that needs to be managed and harnessed. It needs to be managed because of the logistics of not being able to do all projects at one time, and it needs to be harnessed through creation of order and priorities so that all partners know what is being done first and why. Research Design Should be Driven by Community Partners Once research and community partners have identified relevant questions and priorities, it is important to continue to collaborate in the design and execution of the research project. During the design phase, for example, it is important to clearly and collectively define the problem since many of the partnering groups may have different interests and perspectives on what the problem actually is (Monk, Manning, and

Research Design

113

Denman 2003). The value of this ongoing process of communication cannot be underestimated (as per our discussion in chapter 4 around managing expectations). During the course of community-based projects, issues and pressures may arise or differences of opinion may develop such that people or groups may seek to turn the project in different directions. While flexibility is key for cbr, one needs to be careful that the work is not being constantly derailed. Clearly, cbr design must be understood as more of a recursive process than a simple set of linear steps. The design of the research project should fit with community goals as well as the larger processes of relationship and capacity building needed to address ongoing processes of change (Maiter et al. 2008). In terms of community goals, researchers should work with community partners to ensure that everyone understands the purpose of the project, each of the questions being investigated, and how the results can be used in the daily activities and decision-making processes of community partners. Openness around these issues can help cbr collaborations obtain a greater response or involvement from residents and capture more authentic representations of key issues under investigation (Roche 2008). Research design conversations can also contribute to building the cbr relationship. One avenue for relationship building involves conversations about how the research can best fit into the community. In most projects, there are a number of possible options for collecting the needed information; choosing the most appropriate option can be critical to the success of the project. Discussion around the various matters associated with different methods, and even the timing of the methods in a multi-methods project, helps each partner in the project continue the process of getting to know one another. Having the community partners contribute their local knowledge, and seeing the research team listen to and value this local knowledge, helps to reinforce the idea that everyone has something to contribute. In terms of building community capacity, it is important at the research design stage to identify the tasks and roles for community partners. A common element or motivation within cbr relationships is the desire to build research skills and capacity among community partners. This has a number of benefits including that communities increase their understanding of the research process, become better consumers of research and research information, and are better able to

114

Getting to Know One Another

undertake future projects (including the ongoing monitoring of past projects’ impacts, which is critical) on their own. At a very practical level for any immediate project work at hand, building community research capacity also develops a greater degree of buy-in to project results because the work is co-created and the reports and recommendations are co-generated.

Example from the Field: Working with Communities over the Long Term The research team has worked with one community for many years. Our work with local residents in community development was done at the level of community organizations. In this area, there are many community organizations working for social and economic renewal. Our work with the community included participation in local meetings and conferences, and talks in the community during the debates and processes surrounding the move toward forming a new municipality within a rural area. It also included working closely with community groups, the first local government staff, and the first elected local council, to talk through the steps the newly incorporated municipality might take towards community development. With its new local government in place, the community was required to develop a host of official plans and policies that could guide its future work, debates, and investments. In 2011, a research partnership between the community and the research team reviewed past community and economic development plans and talked to a wide cross-section of local residents and groups so as to create a new community economic development plan for the community and for the surrounding rural area. The ease with which the partnership was able to move through this complex undertaking was partly a result of the many times we had already worked together. As a model community economic development plan for small localities, the report included three main sections. The first section set out the context and purpose for the plan. This included describing the community’s vision and assets and showing how the vision and assets connected with the principles of community

Research Design

115

development to support a renewed economic vision for the area. The second section of the report identified some core economic development areas that had been identified through discussions and background research. Included in these “action areas” were topics related to agriculture, arts and culture, education and training, energy, footloose businesses, forestry, local services, mining, retirement, tourism, and transportation. For each of the action areas, it was important that the report not only reflect what was happening but also provide steps forward for the council and community. In each of the action areas, there were separate discussions on strengths and assets, areas of significant opportunity, connected action areas, groups and organizations that will be important to work and collaborate with, issues, and planning assets. As well, each of the action areas was followed by a series of concrete activities that could take place over the short-, medium-, and (where appropriate) long-term time frames. The report emphasized that these action items were just the first steps and that other ideas and actions would flow from the work. The third part of the report highlighted some critical issues regarding how the community would move forward into the future. This part was titled “The New Normal” and described the tasks local governments and community and economic development planning needed to keep top of mind in the twenty-first century. It also highlighted the importance of working collaboratively with neighbours and senior levels of government as well as with the private and non-profit sectors to accomplish the goals identified in each of the action areas. In the time since the community economic development plan was undertaken, council has made it a requirement that there be a standing community economic development item on their council agenda. Elected officials as well as senior staff have been assigned individual responsibilities within the plan, and there has been considerable progress made on each of the identified action areas. With a clear framework, linked to local assets and aspirations and building upon the good work of existing groups and organizations, the town is moving on a very successful path toward economic diversification and renewal across a host of sectors.

116

Getting to Know One Another

Involve Community Partners in the Execution of Research Projects Community participation in the execution of research projects is important to build local capacity, strengthen trust and the working relationship within the cbr team, and educate community groups about these aspects of the research process. There are numerous ways by which such involvement may be understood and operationalized. As with most aspects of cbr projects and relationships, it is necessary to have conversations about expectations and capacity among all partners with respect to involvement in the execution of the work.

Example from the Field: Working with Communities on Projects In April 2003, one of the small communities we were working with was challenged by the closure of several local offices of the provincial government. This economic stress compounded pressures of an ongoing downturn in the forest industry. Community members formed a local task force and shortly thereafter a partnership between the community and our research team was formed to conduct a survey to assess employment skills and capabilities of area residents. Building on pre-existing personal relationships, meetings, telephone calls, and video conferencing allowed the research team to meet regularly with the task force and other local groups to talk about the underlying issues, local information needs, and the goals of the project. After these discussions, the process moved to drafting and reviewing a survey. The survey design discussions focused not only on developing questions but also on the mode of application. For a variety of reasons, the community partners felt that the best approach was a door-to-door survey administered face to face, with responses recorded by a student assistant. The research team also provided feedback and guidance to the committee for a funding proposal submitted to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.2 It is important to note that during this funding application exercise, the main applicant on the proposal (and subsequently the holder of funds) was the local task force. This approach of officially putting a local group at the centre of the project was criti-

Research Design

117

cal to empowering community groups as fully engaged partners in the collaboration (c.f. Wolff and Maurana 2001) and to building the capacity of local groups to work with senior government agencies. Through this capacity-building exercise, local leaders and groups attained a greater understanding of the funding and research design process. Community partners also provided dropoff locations and boxes for completed surveys, promoted the project’s purpose and ongoing research activities, wrote the final report based on data compiled by the team, and promoted the results. Community involvement in every aspect of the research – from idea and design to the writing of the final report – led to a greater sense of ownership of the project and its report. Although the degree of community involvement may vary from place to place, we have found that these lessons from successful collaborative research can be replicated in other research initiatives.

Planning meaningful involvement in the execution of research projects can allow local groups to become more invested in mobilizing research results (Viswanathan et al. 2004). This is not only because they better understand the results; they have also invested their time and sweat equity in creating those results. A further support for the mobilization of research results is that more and more people and groups in the community know that the project was done and know who participated. This community awareness creates not only expectations for action, but also a ready body of people and groups who will routinely ask, “So what is happening with that project you were working on?” Community partners can also contribute considerable research support by providing logistical support (i.e. access to records, office space, and equipment). This is one of the key continuing benefits of cbr – access to information or resources that might not otherwise be known. Community partners can also play an important role brokering relationships with other residents and community groups, making the research process more efficient and smoother and reducing the time and costs of the project as a whole. Community partners can also contribute valuable in-kind support to alleviate field and accommodation costs (Gearheard and Shirley 2007). In any project, work in the community is an expensive proposition. The costs for meals and accommodation can quickly add up –

118

Getting to Know One Another

especially in regions where economic activity is high and hotel/motel costs have been inflated by demand. Connecting researchers with people in the community who may be able to provide self-catering accommodation can allow limited funds to be better spent. Another area of valuable in-kind support and community involvement is participation by local groups and residents in the data collection processes. One example of how local groups can provide such in-kind support comes from a project that explored the impacts of long-distance labour commuting. In the significant economic downturn of 2008–10, many local forestry mills across Northern bc closed. Many residents then had to commute long distances for work. We partnered with local leaders and community stakeholders in one community who were interested to understand the impact long-distance labour commuting was having on various aspects of their community. Data was collected through a community household survey. By working with the local government, the research team distributed this survey to residents along with the local government tax notices. In addition to radio ads and newspaper stories, posters were distributed to the public library, community college, recreation centre, gas station, arts centre, post office, and many local businesses to promote the survey as widely as possible. Residents were also provided with an opportunity to complete the survey online. Drop-off boxes were placed at the local government and community recreation centre. The local shopping mall also provided the research team with a booth so that residents could talk with the research team about the project and have another opportunity to obtain, complete, and return a survey. Given the importance of this issue to the community, as well as the long extended periods of time that people were out of town, it was important to provide as many opportunities for participation as possible. Another important part of the research process is data entry. Community partners may be able to contribute time and labour to the data entry process. In many cases, data entry is a relatively straightforward activity that does not require much training. On the other hand, it is a critical stage of the research project; data entry errors can effectively destroy the entire purpose of the exercise and investment. Following the maxim that we want to do data entry only once – carefully – it is sometimes of great benefit to have more help available to this time-consuming and (let’s face it) often tedious task. Typically, the next part of the research process after data entry is data review and analysis. At this stage, the involvement of community partners is especially valuable. Local input and information about how to

Research Design

119

interpret certain results and responses is a valuable addition to the cbr process. Sometimes, the results make sense only when interpreted against a much longer and deeper body of local knowledge. This is one of the strengths of the cbr relationship: the ability for developing better and more locally nuanced interpretation. In many cases, we have read the research results of academic, non-profit, or public sector organizations and found that their interpretation has no relationship to what is actually happening in the communities we know. This disjuncture occurs because the study authors are interpreting the research or data “results” against their own knowledge base and through the lens of their own experiences. To avoid interpretations that are off the mark, the involvement of community partners in the review and analysis for results is a key and valuable part of any cbr project. For each of the data entry and data review/analysis processes, there is one potential area of challenge. Today, it is the norm that “research with human subjects” – meaning almost all social science–type studies carried out by or involving participation of people – must be submitted to the appropriate university research ethics boards or committees for review and approval. There are many good reasons that projects should be reviewed by research ethics boards and we support their role wholeheartedly. Our reason for bringing the matter up is that some boards may not be especially familiar with cbr and may request changes to the study design that push it to look more like traditional researcher-led projects. Should this be the case, there is an educational role for the community-based researcher in working with research ethics boards to make sure that their issues are attended to in a way that remains true to the needs of the cbr process. A final important area of community involvement is in the creation of the research report and recommendations. As noted in the examples above, this collaborative approach to report writing can be a valuable aspect of the cbr project’s goal of building local capacity. Time and commitment is needed for purposes of training and creating an understanding of how to review and interpret research results. Time will also be needed to help edit the final report and recommendations so that they link well to both the project and its results. RE SEARCH DESIGN AND BUDGETS

Once a discussion is underway with respect to research design and research questions, a next set of discussions should focus upon the de-

120

Getting to Know One Another

velopment of research budgets. In this section, we identify several issues that are important in creating and managing the budget process within community-based projects and relationships. One of the first issues that must be kept in mind while working on a cbr project or relationship is the need to wisely use all budgetary resources. This includes the time and effort of participants, as well as direct financial resources. People are always pressed for time. Many of those who will be involved in a cbr project or relationship will already be active in the community and thus are already committing their time to a variety of tasks. Many small local government offices, for example, have had to take on increasing responsibilities downloaded by senior governments in spite of the fact that they have a limited number of staff (Halseth, Sullivan, and Ryser 2003; McMillan 2006; Smith and Stewart 2006). One must be respectful at all times of those other tasks and use the time of these community participants as effectively and wisely as possible. A second issue has to do with fiscal resources. Here, the same principles apply: one must be very careful with the allocation of financial resources. Community members may not know a great deal about universities or university researchers. They may also have their own norms and expectations with respect to the “value of a dollar.” If the research team is seen to be spending extravagantly, it will reflect poorly on the research relationship and will call into question any in-kind or direct financial support that the local community or organizations might be willing to contribute to the process. An effective strategy for making wise and efficient use of financial resources is to ensure that the research team accomplishes multiple tasks whenever working in a community. While salary costs often consume the largest part of any research project budget, the practicalities and time required to work in the field will typically make fieldwork the second-largest budget concern. In this case, one needs to look for options with respect to travel and to search for accommodation options that will be both supportive of the research project and safe for the research team. In terms of supportive accommodation, access to Internet and telephone are especially important. Whenever the research team is working in the field, it is important to identify the tasks that one might accomplish during that work period, such that researchers can undertake a variety of different tasks (everything from data collection through to sharing information and continuing to touch base with advisory or steering committees as well as key informants).

Research Design

121

A third important budget issue is that the research process is at its very heart a human process. The budget has to allocate funds to support students and to support activities with community partners and outside organizations and agencies that might be playing a role. In these cases, one has to sort out early in the cbr relationship how various institutional supports view the mechanisms for working with various external organizations. For example, how do university research or finance offices manage their paperwork for moving funding to community-based partners? Or in the reverse, how do university-based offices manage the receipt of funds from community contributors? Knowing the mechanics of how moneys are transferred, accounted for, and reported on can make the budget design process more transparent and can make budget management much easier. Similarly, there is a need to understand any costs that may be associated with research ethics, design, equipment, overhead, or management fees. Regarding student and research staff salaries, and stipends for participants or community volunteers, it is important to know the institutional requirements and salary/support levels that are required. In a world where it seems there is always pressure on research funding, more and more constraints are appearing. A common element of university research involves the participation of student research assistants and, as also noted in chapter 4, a fourth budget issue focuses on the need to balance student support with sound budget management. Student research assistance can typically come from graduate students, but can also come from undergraduate students and post-doctoral researchers. In fact, the increasing dialogue around engaged classrooms may increase the participation of undergraduate students in cbr. One issue to keep in mind when bringing students onto research projects is the familiarity that the research team has with the student and the quality of work that this person produces. When research team members are working with a new student colleague, they will often manage the student contract length and payment mechanisms more closely. Where team members are working with a student colleague with whom they have experience and comfort, the contract length and mechanism for payment can be rather different. Mode of payment can generally be through biweekly time sheets such that only the hours actually worked are paid out. A second mode of payment might be through a term-limited contract, where a salary is paid out over a period of time. The first option allows a closer tracking of work and productivity while the second significantly re-

122

Getting to Know One Another

duces paperwork and allows the research team to focus more time on the project. The length of a student’s contract is also important to consider. In most university settings, one of the shortest typical student contract lengths falls within a four-month “semester.” In other cases, one might wish to string together a longer timeline of support, particularly when attracting graduate students to the project. In this case, it is possible to go with a one-, two-, or a three-semester (year) long contract. Depending on the department, faculty, and university, there may be rules and regulations in place regarding contract length and level of support for students. A word of warning is warranted, however, in the competitive world of hiring quality graduate students. It seems from postings on academic listservs that faculty are increasingly advertising fully funded graduate student programs if the student comes to work on their projects. While the need for assistance and the training of graduate students are part of the funding game, if the student hired is not well suited to the project, does not deliver (or, worse, says that they will deliver each day as their two-year master’s program seems to grow into a six-year master’s program), it is very difficult to remove the student from the project. Even if the student can be removed, the money is spent. Another issue is the need to pay close attention to appropriate community protocols with respect to acknowledging research participants and research assistants. In cases where community people are participating in different ways, this participation should always be appropriately recognized. If they are on the research design team or are part of the data collection and analysis process, these specific contributions need to be acknowledged in any public presentations or written reports. More generally, the participation and involvement of community voices in the various data collection exercises should also be acknowledged in both public presentations and written reports. In some cases, the local protocol for respect may include the provision of an honorarium for participation. This is particularly common in cases where Aboriginal leaders or Elders are asked to participate. In these cases, it would be appropriate to find out from local contacts what might constitute an appropriate honorarium in order to show a due measure of respect for the level of involvement. Again, this should be an important part of the early “getting to know you” stages of the research discussion and design process. Finding out about local expectations, norms, and protocols is very important. This information is best sought early on in the research process because there may be, depend-

Research Design

123

ing on the funding source, various budget challenges with claiming expenses for outlays such as honorariums. While cash honorariums may create some questions among particular funding agencies, other honorariums, such as tobacco, may raise even more questions. A caution is warranted in the practice of using cash payments. At times, this can cause conflicts in the community (such as over who should be hired) or with the sampling design (as people who need money will step forward to participate more readily). An important protocol issue in establishing a successful cbr project is to understand community norms and expectations and perhaps even habits. This sensitivity and awareness takes on special importance for those expectations that are also culturally relevant and appropriate. For example, when working in Aboriginal communities, it is very common for meetings and gatherings, especially those involving Elders, to include food. This offering is even better received when it can be a selection of traditional foods. Not only is this food helpful in recognizing and reinforcing the culturally relevant process of exchange and sharing – it also has other benefits. For example, it provides opportunities to bring in other members of the community who may be known for preparing and providing traditional foods. In one community, Aboriginal students working through the local college on their chef training courses were asked to cater many research project meals. This arrangement fit with local norms and expectations, and the community was pleased to see these young people contributing. In turn, these students gained community validation and personal esteem through their contributions. Graduation from the first cohort of this particular chef training course was 100 per cent, and several of the students went on to higher culinary training programs. Unfortunately, many funding agencies find it difficult to understand the importance of these kinds of research expenses. In cbr work, many activities seem to fall outside of the “normal” expectations of funders and funding programs. Another key issue identified through our research experience is the need to pay keen attention to tracking and reviewing project timelines, budget management, and product creation. Each of these tracking processes should be designed early in the research project and design phase and maintained throughout the project. This ongoing tracking can sometimes be a challenge if adequate time, staff resources, and funding support are not put in place to support this function. It is important to follow the progress of various project components, including especially the reporting or dialogue commitments with local

124

Getting to Know One Another

groups, the design team, and any local government or representatives. It is very important to keep up to date with budget recording. Many universities provide a budget management function; however, posting or recording expenses in various budget-tracking templates may not coincide with the timing of the expenses themselves or may not be clear to the research team. In these cases, the research project should maintain a budget-tracking exercise of their own so that they know at any given moment exactly where their money has been spent, where it is currently being spent, and where allocations for future expenses are already committed. In addition to the mechanical values of tracking and reviewing project development, budget expenditures, and product development, it is also important to stay on these tracking and review exercises because they show attention to a respect and responsibility for both fiscal commitments as well as the commitments of time that people, groups, and organizations are contributing to the project. Many funding agencies now include “mid-term” reviews if the project is more than two or three years in length. In those cases, attention to tracking throughout the project lifespan makes compiling a mid-term review a relatively easy task. The third aspect of tracking and reviewing project, budget, and product development is that it is very difficult to revisit or track these sorts of activities after the fact, especially as projects get larger and more complicated. In cases where there are multiple team members and products being generated and/or shared in multiple venues and for multiple audiences, it is far easier to track these activities as they occur than to try to recreate the details later for any sort of reporting or monitoring exercise. Each of the three types of tracking and reviewing processes also provides an opportunity for meeting with the cbr partners and updating them on the current status of activities. Again, this sort of routine reporting and updating builds trust and a sense of common cause. A related aspect of budget tracking is the need to ensure prompt reimbursement for community partners as they participate in the research relationship. Such reimbursement is especially important for groups that do not have the financial capacity to pay costs upfront for activities such as conference/meeting travel or research materials. Many community groups or individuals cannot afford to wait the four to eight weeks that some university finance offices take to process reimbursement cheques. These community partners will also

Research Design

125

need to be informed about the items contained within (and changes to) any paperwork for research/travel reimbursement claims in order to avoid delays. A final issue that can be built into a cbr project approach concerns the need, at all times, to be flexible and responsible. As projects unfold, community involvement develops, and more is learned about the community and the research project, it is quite reasonable to expect there will be a need for adjustment and change. The challenge of any form of adjustment and change is to remain true to the overall goals of the cbr project, to continue to develop the cbr relationship, and to continue to meet the needs that the research project was designed to address so that the final products are worth the investment of time and money by all involved. This principle of being flexible and responsive needs to be balanced against earlier cautions that over the course of projects, various sorts of pressures and interests may try to redirect the exercise to their own ends. With this caution in mind, one needs to pay close attention to how flexibility and responsiveness play out. These sorts of ongoing pressures also provide a good excuse for further discussion among the project design and management team. METHODOLOGY FLEXIBILIT Y

As we noted in the previous section, cbr must be both flexible and responsive to changing research circumstances, and this flexibility and responsiveness applies as well to research methods. In particular, we wish to raise four issues of methodological flexibility: the ongoing and recursive relationship between different forms of quantitative and qualitative research techniques and analysis; remaining attentive to the learning that goes on in the field; routinely checking back with both research participants and the cbr project team; and making use of the classic first step in research methodology: the pre-test. Quantitative and Qualitative Research A good deal of social science inquiry falls somewhere within the general categories of quantitative and qualitative analysis. Any standard methodology text typically provides very good descriptions of the different techniques, as well as arguments regarding when they can be the most appropriate in any particular exercise. It is important to know

126

Getting to Know One Another

the methodological literature so as to be able to evaluate the use, usefulness, validity, and reliability of a range of qualitative and quantitative research techniques in various community settings. It is also important to understand these issues relative to various forms of research questions. In general terms, qualitative research techniques work best in cbr projects where little is known about the topic and a general level of understanding needs to be developed. Quantitative techniques often work very well when researchers are looking for broad opinions and views across a community. As well, quantitative and qualitative techniques have been found to very effective working in concert with one another. Depending on the question and the community, steps may be structured so that a qualitative research analysis is all that is required, or a quantitative analysis is all that is required, or a qualitative study is done first and then is followed up by a quantitative analysis. Researchers may do other combinations. The key point about the methodological flexibility inherent in both managing quantitative and qualitative research analysis is the opportunity for one process to inform the other. Learning from the Field There is considerable value in learning from field research. Working in communities is always different than expected. This unpredictability is also one of the reasons for the early research design steps that we outline in the following chapter. Any extensive work in the field will yield new insights and understandings. These are important to recognize and build into the research design to support the opportunity for adjustment early in the process. While change is a natural process of any fieldwork, the active engagement and reliance on local participation within cbr makes the connection between theoretical design and on-the-ground implementation particularly prone to change. Factors of distance, ease of communication, and access to materials and resources in rural places may also make adapting to shifts in the process more difficult. No matter how much preparation goes into advanced planning and the selection of suitable methods, it is all but certain that the research process will encounter obstacles and change in the field. The first two rules of Nietschmann’s (2001, 177) “golden rules for the field” are: “(1) Prior to

Research Design

127

leaving for the field, carefully draw up a plot plan, list of materials, etc.” and “(2) Immediately upon arriving at the field, throw away item No. 1 above. Now that you’ve seen the field, it obviously won’t work anyway.” As Parker (2001, 168) advises, “expect the unexpected.” Being “in” the field is widely recognized as a critical stage of the research process. In their introduction to fifty-six commissioned essays examining the role of scholarly fieldwork, DeLyser and Starrs (2001) make two arguments: “fieldwork is a process of investigation, vital for learning” (vii), and “fieldwork is not innate but learned – and those lessons can and should be shared” (vi). Within that body of work, Duncan and Duncan (2001) explore some of the theoretical, methodological, and ethical complexity that is embodied within the choices we need to make when deciding on, and engaging in, fieldwork. Within the feminist critique, Nast (1994, 54) argues that early interest in “incorporating ‘the everyday’ worlds of women” into social science inquiry “commonly resulted in smaller-scale research projects and more interactive kinds of research methods and methodologies … Critical field-based research has therefore from the beginning been the mainstay.” When faced with adversity, community-based researchers have two factors in their favour. First, cbr is by design a flexible and iterative process (Israel et al. 1998; Wright et al. 2009). This methodological flexibility anticipates that the research process will shift and evolve as it becomes more embedded in the community context. Researchers need not worry that they have ruined their carefully crafted research design and/or research budget with efforts that did not go as planned. Second, by being prepared, researchers are better able to adapt to change (Reed and Peters 2004). Having well-constructed field logistics will help. Even something as simple as a regularly scheduled call each day between field researchers and home-based supervisory members of the research team can enable quick decision-making and maintain communication to facilitate reflective adaptation. As Bailey (1996) indicates, however, there are elements of the cbr process that cannot be taught, including good social skills and patience, which influence the capacity of researchers to cope with uncertainty and maintain both a coherent research design and positive relations with community members. Rachel Winterton shares her experience with adapting her research instruments to suit the context and needs of a local community.

128

Getting to Know One Another

The Importance of Organizational Alignment Rachel Winterton, La Trobe University In a study conducted in one agricultural community in Australia, researchers were looking to engage with older residents and community leaders to determine how older people utilized local community supports and services. The local government authority had funded the study, with representatives from the local government providing assistance with publicity and recruitment. As a result, within initial promotion and publicity for the project, local government logos were presented prominently and the role of local government in the project was emphasized. However, the initial recruitment of participants – both older residents and community groups providing service to older residents – was relatively unsuccessful, with little interest or engagement demonstrated for the project. After a number of weeks, the research team were able to secure a meeting with “Robert,” the leader of the local health service, who had been out of town for an extended period. In the discussion with Robert about the project and its recruitment issues, the problem soon became clear. As a result of wider local government restructuring that had occurred in the region in the 1990s, a large number of community residents – particularly older residents – were highly distrustful of the new, centralized local government structure and did not identify with it in any way. Within this restructuring process, the community had lost their local town council and were now subsumed under a larger regional council, which had its offices in the regional centre approximately 40 kilometres away. The community identified much more strongly with the local health service as a leadership structure, due to its local presence and focus. Thus, Robert suggested that the project would resonate much more strongly with the community if it were jointly supported by the local health service. The health service was happy to support the initiative, and its logo was added to all promotional material along with a statement indicating their support. Information about the project was also included in the weekly column that the local health service wrote for the local newspaper. This approach was successful from two perspectives. First, the local health service acted as champions for the project, which

Research Design

129

heightened the project’s credibility with local residents. Second, the research team’s efforts to engage with the local health services also increased its personal credibility with local residents. As a result, the researchers were able to recruit sufficient participants to complete their project, and the local community was happy with how the community engagement process had been conducted.

Check-Backs The opportunities for learning from the field reinforce the need to constantly engage in a series of check-backs within the cbr project. Some of these check-backs will be with the research design or management group in order to see whether the early findings and insights from the field are the kind that were expected or whether there are adjustments needed in both the design and execution of the project. Another key check-back is with the original intent and purpose of the research project to make sure that it is staying on track and accessing the kinds of issues and answers that were originally driving the community-based relationship. A third is with the broader group of community partners to make sure that the project is unfolding in ways that they are comfortable with. Adjustments can then be made if needed. Pre-test One of the standard steps described in most methodology textbooks is to pre-test data collection tools or instruments. In this case, the general argument is that no matter how well-designed the project is or how many people might have been involved in that design, researchers only know if they are going to get back the information needed if they actually start trying to collect the data with a sample group. Researchers can learn a great deal from pre-testing data collection instruments. In a cbr context, the process of pre-testing can be very valuable and is highly recommended in the design of all projects. These data tool testing first steps can be part of a more general process of building team relationships among all research partners. Pre-testing also helps researchers to become familiar with the tools and to be better able to execute the tool efficiently when in the field. This helps to respectfully use the participants’ time and avoid frustra-

130

Getting to Know One Another

tion (i.e. understanding when people cover topics early in the interview that were intended to be covered later on). Pre-testing practice can also help the interviewers prepare to anticipate participant questions and to develop appropriate follow-up questions that will be needed to collect the data. One aspect of building the research team and ensuring that the data collection tools go after the information that is being sought comes from the discussions that can be shared collectively about aspects of the data collection process: the types of questions, who should be asked different types of questions, and the range of tools that might be available and might be suitable to certain groups and organizations. During this discussion, the research team can also identify volunteers for early data tool pre-testing. This dialogue about data gathering is a process rather than a stage in the research; it is something that will have to be revisited as pre-testing unfolds and then as full data collection unfolds. It is important in all cbr projects and relationships to build in both time and money to cover this sort of activity. Not all data collection tools will be effective in all circumstances. To start, some of the standard statistical data sources available for research projects have some limitations that affect their value and viability in rural research. Some of these issues are more general. For example, the Canadian census has historically underestimated the size of First Nations populations. Markey, Halseth, and Manson (2012, 37–9) note: First, while the census records and presents population data for geographic communities like those found on Indian reserve lands, Statistics Canada recognizes that there are “undercounting issues” due to a range of valid personal and political statements that are made through lack of participation. A second challenge concerns the more general question of how to count “community members.” This can include people who are not living on-reserve, those who are temporarily away from the community, as well as those added to or taken off band and tribal council lists of community members because of changing definitions under the Indian Act or band and/or tribal council governance documents. A third challenge as in how to enumerate the urban Aboriginal population under the evolving structure of federal, tribal council, and band jurisdictional frameworks. Finally, there is the underlying question of how to define and understand the Aboriginal population in order to be inclusive of métis, nonstatus, and other individuals with Aboriginal

Research Design

131

identity. These large issues remain unresolved even by those very organizations whose sole interest is with enumerating populations. The lack of reliable population and demographic information is a key impediment during the early stages of cbr. Researchers increasingly turn to special tabulations and products such as Statistics Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples Survey. Others issues related to statistical unreliability are rather more specific and have to do with the size of the community and the impact of standard census or agency data processes such as rounding and the preservation of confidentiality. SA MPLING IN A CBR CONTEXT

This section of the chapter looks at a series of issues with respect to sampling and sample development in a cbr context. It starts off by describing the need to have an in-depth understanding of the community and its diversity, and then reminds us of the value of finding voices not often heard in the standard research project or process. We then identify some of the challenges in executing standard sampling processes that call for categorical or matrix sampling processes, and add in the importance of monitoring the effectiveness of the sample coverage as the project unfolds. We then make some observations about the “fallacy” of data saturation, the challenging process of drawing boundaries on sampling frameworks, issues, and communities, and some of the challenges with processes such as snowball sampling and institutional record use. The section ends with general comments about scale in the cbr setting. Understanding Community Politics and Diversity One of the key aspects to sampling in any cbr context is that one must understand the diversity of the community. This may seem self-evident, but in most cases, it is more complex and nuanced than expected. A simple example comes from the political science literature and debate around the concept of “who governs.” Sometimes it would appear that the answer would be elected officials and leaders of local organizations, while in many cases, the decision-making structure may actually exist outside of formal organizations; there may be informal structures of power and decision-making that are far more important. Getting to know communities and getting to understand the politics, the socio-

132

Getting to Know One Another

economic characteristics, the history, and the inherent diversity is an important foundation from which to be able to effectively support discussions on how to sample within that community. Finding Unheard Voices Given that communities are diverse and complex, cbr projects are often designed around a goal to bring previously unheard voices into the mix. In some cases, we have had discussions with communities about the idea that unless they think broadly about the types of voices that need to be included in the research project, they are really only creating a project that will replicate either their own views or the views of those who are commonly heard in community debates. In matters of community development, these sorts of contributions typically do not build toward a more effective future or body of knowledge for discussion and decision-making. Much of the cbr literature, in fact, highlights that this sort of research undertaking is valuable particularly because of its ability to bring in voices not typically heard in other research processes. Sampling Matrix Versus Multiple Hats Common research methodology texts will highlight the importance of constructing a sampling framework, a suite of sampling categories, or even a sampling matrix in order to design and track the coverage of the research project across the sorts of community groups, organizations, or socio-economic categories that are deemed important for the research exercise. One of the challenges in working with small communities (place based and interest based) is that individuals often wear multiple hats. They may be involved in local government, community sports organizations, community advocacy organizations, community service organizations, and other groups. In some of our past cbr projects, the running joke during the research design exercise was that community-based researchers could fill out virtually an entire sampling matrix with only two people because of the number of perspectives they might legitimately contribute into the typical sampling matrix we had in mind. We highlight this not only because it can present a particular challenge, but also because we have found that it makes for much more effective research participation if we can identify, at the start of an engagement with a person who is actively involved

Research Design

133

across the community, that we are interacting with them at that moment with respect to their specific role in a particular group, organization, or activity. A researcher who is clear about the context from which views and opinions are sought will generate a much more effective discussion or contribution of information. Furthermore, individuals who are very active across a number of community sectors may be able to provide a range of information perspectives – perhaps during an early qualitative stage in the research process – that will help the research team to understand how the individual components of the community fit and work together. Monitor Sampling Matrix Once a sampling category or matrix is created, the research team must track that sampling matrix over the course of the fieldwork. Flexibility and responsiveness – key once fieldwork gets underway – also apply to the sampling matrix. In some cases, individuals who were expected to participate might not be able to participate and substitutes need to be found. In other cases, individuals who might have been expected to represent particular views or socio-economic categories are actually not representative, or participants in those areas, and substitutes need to be found. In still other cases is the more common outcome that new categories are “discovered” as more is learned about the community and the research topic. More challenging is when researchers become comfortable working with particular segments of the community and tend to overrepresent interviews from that particular segment. In order to maintain a balance across the sampling matrix, the sample coverage should be tracked on an ongoing basis. The “Fallacy” of Data Saturation One of the particularly troublesome areas for researchers is the common research design concept of achieving “data saturation”: the point at which no new information is being received from within the sample group. While there is no doubt that in some types of research and circumstances one can perhaps achieve data saturation, our experience has been that even when we feel as though the messages are being repeated and we are achieving something akin to data saturation, the next person we talk to provides a particular glimpse of insight or will pull together information in a particularly unique way such that whole new

134

Getting to Know One Another

avenues of knowledge and future investigation are open. While researchers should not be dissuaded from adopting research techniques or theoretical frameworks that draw upon notions of data saturation, they should be wary and careful in the applications of these concepts. Drawing Boundaries on Communities or Issues One of the first challenges encountered in any cbr project is the immediate concern with where one draws boundaries to define the “community.” Such boundaries can be conceptual or spatial, but the discussion of their delineation is a critical part of the research design process. The same applies with drawing boundaries around “issues.” Take, for example, the investigation into some local concerns about water quality and water treatment in a river system. A local community may have legitimate concerns, and a cbr project may be created to look at those concerns. At the same time, does a topic area such as “water in a river system” automatically extend the boundaries of the project to those activities and communities that are upstream and downstream from the starting point in question? A similar boundary-drawing challenge relates to “interest-based” communities, as researchers must decide which people to include. Drawing boundaries is no easy matter. Making well-informed choices can help make the project unfold more smoothly and can make the results more readily applicable. Choosing unwisely can invalidate the research or create animosity between different groups and communities. We advise having full and frank discussions on what the boundaries are in a project as part of the early discussion of research design. Bust the Snowball (Inside Cadre) Our experience highlights the need to be wary of certain sampling techniques. In particular, there is a need to be cautious about using the common social science methodology of “snowball” sampling. Again, the methodology texts offer very good descriptions of this sampling technique; they describe when it is applicable and useful and when it should be used with caution. While it is always helpful to ask interviewees who else in the community they think might be helpful in the research project, one has to be careful that such suggestions are not “fencing in” the research project by keeping the supplied knowledge within a particular sector or cadre of the community. At the end, the

Research Design

135

level of community knowledge and awareness, as well as the candid discussion of these sorts of issues in the research design process, can help avoid some of the challenges that might arise when a process such as snowball sampling is misused. FIELD LOGISTICS

This section of the chapter provides an introduction to some of the issues important in developing and managing effective logistics plans for working in communities. We highlight the need to formally schedule appointments, recognize the seasonality of community life and how time in communities can be affected by these rhythms, and manage time effectively when working in the field. We have found that attention to these three core elements can help in cbr design work and assist in developing community relationships. Appointments Part of dealing with the ebbs and flows of the research process is having a well-prepared field logistics plan. We have experimented with a number of useful techniques that are broadly relevant to all researchers, but particularly well-suited to the cbr projects in rural and small-town settings. First, despite the relatively easy access to community members and leaders (that may impart a less formal atmosphere than meeting with similar urban-based counterparts), scheduling appointments is just as important as in any other setting. The appointment conveys respect and a seriousness of purpose, and allows the researcher to make efficient use of time in the field. The caveat to these logistics is that residents may be forced to miss scheduled meetings or events due to weather or some other community demand. While the booking of appointments is important in making fieldwork as efficient as possible, we have had more than one meeting cancelled during hunting season when reports of moose sightings mean that people who depend upon this supply of meat for their family must attend to this important task. Such is part of the rural way of life. The “burden” of missed appointments must be carried by the researcher (despite time and distance) as they are requesting consideration from community members and must seek at all times to limit inconveniences created by various research requests.

136

Getting to Know One Another

Seasonality and Timing Attention to the timing of research tasks is important, especially when activities or economics are tied to seasonal cycles. Researchers need to be respectful of people’s time within those seasonal cycles. An example is with respect to research on the tourism industry in places like the Yukon. As people in the tourism industry may only have about an eightweek window of time to make their money, researchers should not disturb them at the height of their tourist season. As part of the northern hospitality, they will still agree to talk with the research project in July. It is more respectful, though, to arrange to talk with them outside of the height of the local tourist season. The same principle applies to industry cycles. For example, in the forest industry of northern communities, there are annual disruptions in forest harvest activity during “freeze-up” and “break-up” periods – times when the ground is not suited to heavy equipment use and when harvesting and hauling activity typically halts. Cycles in the agricultural sector also revolve around planting and harvest times, as do cycles associated with fishing openings for various fleets in coastal areas. For each industrial cycle, there are more suitable and less suitable times for interacting with researchers depending, of course, on the topic and the research design. Fieldwork must be planned with consideration to the rhythm of community events. It is incumbent on the research team to know ahead of time the beginning and end of school years that can mark vacation periods for many residents. Researchers should also know of any community festivals or scheduling conflicts with other processes, and realize how these events may positively or negatively affect the availability of community participants. Sometimes, these community “events” cannot be predicted. For example, on one research trip, our timing in the community coincided with two other large consultative processes: an oil and gas commission hearing and an inquiry into fish farming. Our interviews and work would have placed an undue burden on community representatives and we rescheduled our visits.

Example from the Field: “Drive-by Research” When one of the research team members arrived for an interview in a small and isolated community in Northern bc, he met a rather surprised individual. The individual had been expecting

Research Design

137

him, but remarked, “How did you get here? I didn’t hear an airplane.” When the research team member reported that he had driven to the community, and that he would be staying a number of days to talk with a number of groups, the individual was again surprised. “No one drives here,” he said. “The folks from the government who come out always charter an airplane, then talk to us for a couple of hours, and then they fly back home to be back in the city for dinner.” Unless researchers can understand something of the true nature and context of communities and places, they will not be able to reasonably understand how policies, programs, and actions might operate in the real world. So much of the misunderstanding created through research and policy action comes from a failure to spend time in communities and really understand the transitions, capacities, assets, and aspirations that they possess. It is a very common circumstance that urban researchers, policymakers, or program delivery agents lack an understanding of non-metropolitan places that are affected by their activities. In Northern bc, for example, a potential crisis arose around the need to recertify members of the volunteer fire department so that the community will be able to maintain insurance coverage for commercial buildings. There is an organization in the province that assists with this recertification of volunteer firefighters. The service delivery agent contracted to deliver the recertification was city based and had made arrangements with the community to fly up to deliver the training. The contractor flew to the community in the morning, set up shop in a community gymnasium, and waited. Unfortunately, not one individual from the volunteer fire department showed up. About two in the afternoon, the contractor packed up the equipment, returned to the airport, and went back to the metropolitan area on a chartered aircraft. While the contractor had made a terrific effort to come to the community and deliver training locally (which is much better than requiring individuals in non-metropolitan places to continuously travel to metropolitan areas for training that can be delivered through a host of other media and mechanisms), not enough attention had been given to the seasonal rhythms of the community or the daily demands placed on households. In this circumstance, exceptionally cold weather and considerable snowfall

138

Getting to Know One Another

preceding the day of the training events meant that no individuals in the community were able to take time off; instead, they were restoring power, digging individuals out of their houses so people could access schools, shopping, and other services, and bringing food to shut-in seniors. The realities of rural and smalltown places, in this case with a northern winter climate, do have an impact on the way even the most mundane activities, such as the delivery of routine training, can be accomplished.

Academic and Community Timelines One of the challenges for the fieldwork schedule, as well as other aspects of the cbr relationship and process, concerns the fit with the annual academic timeline. Depending on the particular institution, the academic calendar typically follows either three or four terms. Most routinely in North America, there is a fall term beginning in September and running through to December, a winter term beginning in January and running through to April, and then either a summer term or a pair of compressed spring and summer terms that cover the periods from May to the end of August. The academic timeline has also been coordinated with a research timeline that includes the schedules of funding organizations. This annual research timeline includes periods when grant applications are to be prepared and submitted, when the results of those research competitions are typically announced, and when the funding for any successful research application becomes available for actual use following the associated paperwork and administrative requirements. These funding timelines can have a significant effect upon when cbr fieldwork can get underway. They tend to have less impact upon the building of a cbr relationship because much of this funding-related work requires an investment of the research team’s time rather than significant cost in terms of money. There may be, however, some very real relationshipbuilding costs if the community is at a significant distance from the researcher’s institution. A third element of the academic timeline that is important to bear in mind when planning cbr projects involves the schedule of student availability. Undergraduate students very typically follow the semesters or terms listed above. Graduate students, however, follow a rather

Research Design

139

different schedule. In their first year, graduate students may be tied to a semester schedule as they complete various course requirements for their degree; however, once graduate students have prepared their thesis proposal (and perhaps defended it, depending upon the institution), their schedule becomes much more flexible, and they can more easily become involved with community-based projects that require long times in the field over periods that do not align well with the academic calendar. The involvement of both graduate and undergraduate students requires an investment in training so that they understand their responsibilities in cbr (see chapters 3 and 4) and it requires attention to the goals that students may wish to achieve through their participation. A fourth area of attention with respect to academic timelines concerns any teaching schedules that may be in place for academic team partners. It is not uncommon for different faculty members to have terms with heavier or lighter teaching loads, which affect the amount of time that one can devote to cbr projects. In addition, there are always the opportunities of non-teaching semesters, sabbaticals, and other forms of leave that can make more time available for community-based work. Therefore, in designing cbr projects, it is important to recognize the difficulties in fitting community timelines with academic timelines. If a project must come up with its results in a very short period of time, it is often the case that cbr is not an appropriate approach to undertake. The main message coming out from the literature on cbr design is that the logistics plan cannot be about what is quick or easy for the researcher. The schedule and plan needs to be developed collaboratively in order to accommodate all members in the research partnership. This negotiation is helpful not only in creating an effective logistics plan to support the cbr, but also in developing a better understanding among all parties of the various constraints that each works under. Better understanding of where each party is coming from can then help in the conversations that move forward through the research. FIELD SAFET Y

Doing cbr raises a number of complex logistical issues, above and beyond more conventional research approaches. In this section, we raise a number of issues related to field safety; attention to safety issues for the field team is an essential part of the research design process.

140

Getting to Know One Another

One of the activities that we undertake as part of student training is a conversation and training program on field safety. Today, most universities and colleges have safety protocols that must be followed. When reviewing these protocols with the students, we remind them that there are two key rules to fieldwork safety. Rule number one is that the safety and well-being of the research team is paramount. Should researchers ever be in a circumstance where they feel uncomfortable or unsafe, they are to cease that activity immediately and change the circumstances so that they no longer feel concerned. Rule number two is that when in doubt, rule number one applies. Safety can be shaped by the personal characteristics of both the researcher and the participant. Sometimes, younger researchers and/or female researchers can feel intimidated by others during a conflict situation. It can be intimidating for a young woman to communicate with an older, taller, and larger individual than herself, particularly if that individual is angry. Women may also feel that physical advances or questions about their personal relationships or lives can compromise their safety (see Arendell 1997). If researchers are sitting down on a couch with someone, they may purposefully place their bag between themselves and the participant to provide some separation. Ross (2015, 180) notes: “It is rare to hear about the gendered risks of field work. My experiences with sexual violence with key informants forced me to assume a variety of defensive behaviors, which ran counter to the ways that scholarly discussions of methods tend to emphasize the importance of reducing distance and shifting power away from the researcher in a cross-cultural context.” Attention to these matters is starting to increase within the literature. Kaspar and Landolt (2016, 107), for example, also “argue that sexuality is underrepresented” in various methodological debates and from various theoretical stances as they start to explore “how flirtation as a part of the participantresearcher relation has re-shaped the research encounters in our respective research projects.” A recent volume of the journal of Gender, Place and Culture dealt specifically with some of the research methodology issues concerned with intimacy, emotions, and sexual relations while doing fieldwork. In their introductory editorial for that special volume, Laliberté and Schurr (2016) argue that more attention is needed to these topics. Their starting point is that “emotional entanglements in research pose critical questions with regard to power relations, research ethics and the well-being of research participants and researchers alike. They also make visible how the power relations of sexism, racism, capitalism, national-

Research Design

141

ism and imperialism permeate and constitute the emotional spaces of the field” (72). Schurr and Abdo (2016, 120) go on to add specifically how the impact for researchers is that “constant negotiation of emotions and ethics is crucial to access, assess, and do fieldwork in research settings that do not adhere to feminist ideals, but nevertheless have gendered effects on women’s and men’s lives.” Two additional papers in that special volume consider more deeply the topic of intimacy and fieldwork. Smith (2016) undertakes a very personal exploration of the topic of intimacy and the angst this exploration can generate as she reflects upon her own positionality within a complex personal and research environment. In turn, Cuomo and Massaro (2016) turn their attention to doing research in the very challenging setting of one’s “home” community. They “discuss the complex negotiation of doing research in the places where [they] have created personal lives and [their] sense of community”: “We often found ourselves struggling to define the physical and emotional boundaries of ‘the field’ on the outside for the sake of our participants and ourselves” (94). The safety of male researchers can also be at risk during fieldwork. In resource towns, there are many households where men work in industry while their female partners take care of the home. As such, researchers are more likely to encounter the female partner during interview or survey work. Under these circumstances, the male researcher should be mindful of relationship dynamics. Some cultures may also find this kind of two-person meeting to be inappropriate (see Craig et al. 2000). It is important to keep in mind that fieldwork safety is about the safety and well-being of the research worker, as well as the safety and well-being of the participant in the research. There are a number of issues that can affect fieldwork safety. These can include weather, terrain, distance, people, animals, and access to various types of communications or emergency assistance. One of the routine activities in fieldwork safety for teams is to report to the local police or emergency services office so that these local services know that the research team is in the area, and everyone is clear on how best how to access police, fire, ambulance, or rescue assistance. This connection also enables the police to reassure residents who call about “strangers” lurking in town writing down information about local businesses, etc. While this is less the case than even ten years ago, rural and smalltown areas may be affected by limited or disjointed communications. In urban areas, safety is enhanced by the fact that researchers now routinely carry mobile phones for logistical and safety reasons. In North-

142

Getting to Know One Another

Figure 5.1 Sample checklist for planning safe community-based fieldwork

checklist Have hazards and risks associated with community-based research been identified and discussed?

l Yes l No

Are you visiting any institutional or industrial sites?

l Yes l No

Have you confirmed if there are any safety protocols for visiting those sites?

l Yes l No

Has the appropriate safety gear been obtained?

l Yes l No

Have procedures for emergency evacuation been reviewed for off-campus work environments?

l Yes l No

Have communication and check-in protocols been reviewed?

l Yes l No

Have the researcher/supervisor reviewed the communication options that are available in the community?

l Yes l No

Have the researcher/supervisor reviewed the transportation options that are available in the community?

l Yes l No

Have the researcher/supervisor reviewed the accommodation options that are available in the community? l Yes l No Have procedures for violence in the workplace been reviewed?

l Yes l No

Are there clear procedures in place to report violence or safety concerns?

l Yes l No

Does the employer/supervisor have incident investigation report forms on file?

l Yes l No

Does the researcher/employee have incident report forms included in their field gear?

l Yes l No

Describe any environment where the researcher may be working alone (i.e. isolated area, in private homes, in a building after hours, etc.):

Has the research team identified any dietary needs of participants that may be related to a participant’s underlying health condition? l Yes l No Has the research team identified any transportation needs of participants?

l Yes l No

Is the research team aware of any health conditions that may impact the participation of residents in the research?

l Yes l No

If travelling outside of the province, has the researcher reviewed the policies of their travel insurance coverage?

l Yes l No

Research Design

143

ern bc, some communities still have rather limited networks, and available networks often do not serve the long road distances in between towns. If the researcher will be out of communication range for long periods, then mobile phones or other devices are replaced with satellite phones. We have also found that available training at universities for “field safety” often does not address the needs and circumstances of researchers in rural and remote places. As a result, cbr teams may have to implement their own field training and methods instruction to inform the team about issues, hazards, and safety protocols (figure 5.1 shows a sample safety checklist). Included is the need in winter to carry shovels, blankets, candles, flares, food, and water in an emergency kit in case of being stranded in the snow. “Bear Aware” and “Personal Safety” type courses are also of value. A wide range of contacts and offices can be helpful in the support of cbr work, and some of these institutions may work as a logistics base for researchers when they are working in the community. These logistics bases may also be extended to play a point of local contact for community members as the cbr work unfolds over time. The campuses of regional colleges or universities, for example, can be logistics bases for cbr projects. In some cases, these institutions may be part of the research team’s own institution, thus making the introductions and arrangements somewhat easier. In other cases, they may be companion institutions with whom relationships have to be developed in order to more effectively advance the mandate of the cbr project as well as the mandate of the regional college or university to assist with educational and research outreach in their area of application. The advantage of a regional college or university office as a logistics base is that they are generally well-connected with the communications, service, and other infrastructure requirements of the larger university or college system; access to email, library services, and a host of other supports may be available to the research team. Should no regional college or university office be available in the community, there are also other local offices that can serve as a logistics base: the local government office, a related local administrative office (for various levels of government), or the public library, for example. The relationship building that can occur when a researcher sets up a base at one of these community offices may be a valuable part of the cbr project. Again, the benefits are similar to those of university or college bases: these local offices or organizations often provide access to

144

Getting to Know One Another

high-quality communication services (phone, fax, Internet, email, etc.) and can act as a point of reference for the project in collecting or sharing information. Another aspect of field safety planning is to implement a system for routinely checking in. In some cases, these check-ins are done before and after field team travel to ensure safe arrivals. In other cases, they are arranged on a nightly basis in order to catch up on the day’s work. Such routine check-in procedures serve a number of purposes. The first is the responsibility of the research team for ensuring the safety of the researchers. Being able to have a routine schedule for checking in means that any potential problem can be identified quickly. If such routines are not put in place, a long period of time can elapse before the university-based research team realizes that there may be any issues or concerns with the fieldwork and the field team’s safety. The setting up of check-in times will need to be adapted to the nature of the project and rhythm of the fieldwork itself (the need for routine check-ins to ensure team safety is another case where fieldwork in the natural sciences mirrors that of fieldwork in the social sciences). Changing technology now provides a range of ways by which check-in conversations can occur. A second valuable outcome of routine field team check-ins is that they allow the research to be responsive and reflexive to the work that goes on in the field. In some cases, the findings from the field necessitate conversations about the research design and potential adjustments in that design or in particular data collection processes. All cbr must be flexible to circumstances as things change and knowledge of circumstances grows. Such routine check-ins provide the ideal mechanism for ongoing evaluation of the research design and the research data collection methods. Topics in this evaluation can include simple tracking of how the sampling process is going, gaps in sampling, and whether the instruments being used appear to be collecting the needed information. A third valuable outcome of routine check-ins is to allow the university-based research team to maintain attention to the well-being of the field team. Fieldwork is intense and can involve long days. Questions of field team burnout and exhaustion need to be constantly considered. If the topics under investigation are emotionally laden, then one must be especially attentive to the well-being of the field team as they hear difficult story after difficult story. In addition, even for a field team that looks as though it will work together successfully, differences in personalities and working styles can create the potential for conflict among

Research Design

145

research team members during an extended period of living and working in the field. Again, it is important that a university-based research team be able to monitor such situations and adjust accordingly. U NDERSTANDING COMMUNIT Y

How do you identify, sort, and understand community issues when you are not familiar with the community, its politics, its formal and informal networks of power, past conflicts, and cliques? As we discuss in the following chapter, there is considerable value in doing preliminary visits or scoping missions. These support not only awareness about community issues on the part of the research team, but also awareness of the research team on the part of the community. Such visits can also add to the foundation of conversations that are leading toward the cbr relationship and the design of the work. It is an investment in time that will pay dividends throughout the rest of the work and relationship. Some simple ways to find out more about a community before engaging in direct research activities include spending time in local coffee shops chatting with people, as well as attending local events and activities. Also helpful is reading the local newspapers or reviewing the various types of community bulletin boards that may be found across different parts of the community. Local history books may also provide insights. All of these sources of community information will help to schedule research activities. More time is needed to understand some of the more complicated (and more hidden) issues such as community power or political dynamics (clans, families, etc.). During the time it takes to put together cbr projects and relationships, some change within communities will naturally occur. Sometimes the changes wrought over time can seriously affect that project or relationship. An example that highlights something common in many communities is the clan divisions in First Nations communities. In one case, an invitation from a community to a research team to work on a cbr project was set up with the community’s elected chief and council. The project timeline exceeded the (then) two-year band council election cycle. The degree of clan division between the hereditary chiefs and sitting council was deeper than expected. Despite a general openness about the problem and progress that was made during the first year and a half, the project was completely undone through an election cycle that required a reconsideration of the project purpose.

146

Getting to Know One Another

Conflicts and power struggles in small towns are more exposed given the scale of the community and the likelihood of personal interaction. Conflicting interests in larger cities may become personal, but individuals or interest groups are less likely to have to interact with opposing representatives in everyday activities. Researchers must be cautious regarding research topics that could involve tense community issues. Community conflict that is either initiated or agitated by the research process may linger well beyond the parameters of the research process and can affect individuals outside of their professional lives. Understanding the power dynamics within the community prior to more intensive research will help researchers to construct a respectful process that is aware of community dynamics and the potential impacts of the research itself on those dynamics. Researchers need not shy away from such topics or controversial issues, but should remain aware of how their research choices may affect the community. During difficult economic times, communities may not understand the need for support funding for planning and research activities. Research, however, can provide important information to support the legitimacy of actions and investments, as well as to broaden local awareness of key issues identified in the community. It is important that researchers “walk the talk” and make the most efficient use of the limited economic resources available in a community. This should include careful attention to the costs associated with group research techniques by, where possible, supporting local caterers and merchants to recirculate dollars locally (e.g. materials from local stores, honorariums paid to community halls for use of the space). Gift certificates for research participants, to acknowledge their participation, should be purchased from local stores rather than big box retailers that would otherwise drain wealth from the community. CONCLUSION

This chapter has focused on providing tips that should be kept in mind while co-creating the research design within a cbr partnership. The development of the research idea and the research questions can itself be part of a team- or relationship-building process that can lead to a better cbr project. Included in these discussions are the more difficult topics of setting up timelines and budgets. This is especially important because it will help all members not only to get to know everyone, but also to get to know the kinds of constraints under which each works.

Research Design

147

This will be very important to set in place early on so as to avoid misunderstandings and disappointment as the research unfolds. Also included is the need to be mindful of methodological flexibility within the research project. Having a good relationship in the communitybased project partnership will allow for ongoing discussion of the approach, the questions, and the findings so as to refine the cbr over time.

NOTES

1 Literacy levels have historically been lower in resource-based towns where residents have been able to acquire high-paying jobs with relatively low levels of education, but this has been changing (Ryser and Halseth 2011a). 2 Another key element to the success of this application was Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (hrsdc)’s knowledge of the prior success the research team had working with hrsdc and other communities. Developing and sustaining a relationship with funders is another key component to successful cbr partnerships.

148

Introduction to CBR

6

First Steps

As the cbr process and relationship start to develop, there are a number of easy first steps that can help to build a foundation for more specific research and relationship-building activities later. In this chapter we review some of those first steps: the collection of information about the community; the organization of that information into a coherent tool such as a community profile; the establishment of the key community contacts and support people or processes for the research; and the careful consideration of ethical and political issues involved with working with Aboriginal communities and organizations. L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W A N D I N FO R M AT I O N G AT H E R I N G

At the early stages of any research process, it is important to ground the upcoming work in a deep understanding of relevant literatures. In cbr, that body of relevant “literatures” includes getting to know the community and learning about the local context through the reports of local organizations and governments, local histories, and other documents. Given that the proposed research is part of a community-based process where part of the task is building the research relationship, it is important for researchers to begin the varied tasks of collecting information (past and present) about the community. Knowledge of the historic and contemporary context of the community will enable researchers to ask better questions throughout the development of the research relationship and during the research itself. Being up to date on relevant community history and context also means that researchers will be demonstrating good preparation as well as respect for those with whom they will be working. This review of local context and literatures will also ensure that researchers do not

First Steps

149

waste people’s time by asking for answers that could have been found from easily accessible sources. The investment made in this background research will go a long way toward demonstrating capacity, as well as to building a positive reputation in the community. The goals of this work are to enhance the collective understanding of the community, to situate the research and the research relationship within that understanding of the community, and to assemble information that can be used in the critical evaluation to the current research. In the remainder of this section, we review the role and value of local histories, local newspapers, and grey literatures in building a background understanding of the community and its key issues. Local Histories One common initial source of information for cbr teams is local histories. Places very often have one or multiple local community or regional histories that have been published over time. Sometimes these local histories are “general” in nature and cover timelines and key dates. In other cases, they may be very specific and focus on particular issues or time periods. They may also be a blend of both. Sometimes these local histories are officially bound and printed into a formal publication; other times, they may be rather more informal photocopies of stories and records or oral histories. Some local histories are collections or recollections from “pioneer” families, others are collections of photos and anecdotes, while others are carefully researched and presented chronicles of the community over time. These community or regional histories are often supplemented by particular family, business, or organizational/institutional histories. When using any local information and collections, the research team will have to be mindful of the need for protocols and agreements on the use of information. This includes being aware of the specifics of any borrowing and/or copying arrangements and ensuring that local materials are properly respected, cared for, and returned in a timely manner. The style, quality, and purpose of local histories are quite varied, and their value in the cbr process is, therefore, also varied. While it is important to be critical of the data sources when reviewing their contribution to background knowledge, it is also important to be aware that many people put such records together in an earnest attempt to share with future generations what those of the past have tried to accomplish. It is also important to recognize that such histories are written with a

150

Getting to Know One Another

viewpoint and can have an agenda or case that the author wants to put forward. They may contain inherent biases about what was said and included. They will, as well, be a product of the choices made about what was not mentioned or included. Researchers should be both open and critical as readers; they should also avoid making assumptions about where the key insights about a community might be found. Local histories can be used for many purposes including getting to know the community, obtaining a general portrait of past formative events, and identifying important people, families, and economic actors. They can be useful tools in triangulating other information or timelines. They can assist in identifying the extent of the community’s local and regional networks, as well as identifying any important local norms and protocols. Such contextual information is important not only for considering how to define the community for the purpose of the research and relationship, but also for weighing how to use limited time and resources. The value of local histories to any particular community-based project will, of course, depend upon the research topic and question – but for the cbr relationship, these local histories are generally invaluable. For example, in one project, as part of the background preparation for starting a research relationship with a northern forest-dependent town, the research team read all of the local histories that had been written on the community. It became very clear from those local histories that there were very different understandings of the community’s growth and development – these histories varied as a result of the authors’ associations with companies, with unions, and with community groups. In fact, some of these community histories were written in such a way as to directly contradict the other community histories. Not only did the review of local histories allow us to produce a valuable timeline of critical events and critical issues, but it also helped us to understand some of the critical social and political fractures within the community, to understand the “lens” that people and groups may bring to the research and their interpretation of issues and events. Developing a sound understanding of local histories and historical events can help researchers to understand the impacts of past events that continue to linger in communities. One notable item with respect to lingering impacts concerns the legacy of residential schools for Aboriginal children in Canada. In operation for many decades, residential schools were part of an assimilationist agenda that purposefully removed Aboriginal children from their communities and

First Steps

151

traditional territories. They were not allowed to speak their traditional languages or use their traditional ways of life. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996) identified a number of abuses in that residential school system and the need for a national healing process. In 2008, a national Truth and Reconciliation Commission was appointed in Canada. Over its eight years of work, the commission combed through the historical record and heard testimony from over 6,000 people – most of whom were residential school survivors. The preface of their final report was blunt: Canada’s residential school system for Aboriginal children was an education system in name only for much of its existence. These residential schools were created for the purpose of separating Aboriginal children from their families, in order to minimize and weaken family ties and cultural linkages, and to indoctrinate children into a new culture – the culture of the legally dominant Euro-Christian Canadian society, led by Canada’s first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. The schools were in existence for well over 100 years, and many successive generations of children from the same communities and families endured the experience of them. That experience was hidden for most of Canada’s history, until Survivors of the system were finally able to find the strength, courage, and support to bring their experiences to light in several thousand court cases that ultimately led to the largest class-action lawsuit in Canada’s history. (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015, v) In working to understand communities and then to develop working relationships with communities, it is important to understand how past events can shape the capacity of the community both at present and also into the future. Local Newspapers A valuable source of information for building cbr projects, relationships, and understandings is local newspapers. Many places have had daily, biweekly, or weekly newspapers. Some of these serve just the locality, but many serve also the surrounding region. Through their pages, important local events and activities are chronicled. In places without other forms of local histories, past editions of the local newspaper can serve as the memory and archive of both the people and the place.

152

Getting to Know One Another

Changes in communications technologies have greatly affected the newspaper industry. More community newspapers have gone online. Many publish their current editions online; some are also creating archives of their past editions. This can make the process of creating historical timelines as well as the process of staying in touch with local activities through the daily or weekly newspaper much easier. Once a newspaper archive is online, it generally also becomes searchable by keyword. This is a nice complement to other content analysis sampling techniques that might systematically target a particular sequence of newspaper editions over time. A more challenging effect for researchers of shifts in communications technologies has been the consolidation of newspapers and the fact that some local newspapers, particularly in smaller places, have ceased operation in recent years with a resulting loss of community voice and this form of community record. Such changes have an impact on the planning of research work and the time and resources needed to access information. Unless a community newspaper has created systems of archiving information prior to closing down, valuable community records can be lost. One common use of newspapers early in the research process is to create a historical timeline relative to the research topic. A timeline is valuable because it can put into sequence important events, activities, or “triggers” that may help to explain general pathways or trajectories. It thus creates a source of chronological information that can be a reference or triangulation check for interview, focus group, or other forms of qualitative data. In terms of their value to research of current phenomena, newspapers can help researchers identify local leaders or activists on different issues – people and groups who might be important to include in a project. Newspapers can also help researchers identify the language and terminology that people are using to understand events and actions. This terminology is also helpful in recognizing the frame of reference that a local debate is creating around particular issues. Newspapers are, of course, biased in their choice of content and expression of views. Newspapers are private enterprises and as such they will showcase (implicitly or explicitly) the social, political, and economic beliefs of the publisher and editor. They may also showcase the views of particular elites. As such, researchers will need to read newspapers critically and with attention to these broader patterns of bias. Local newspapers also act as local “boosters.” This tendency may not only colour what is included and how it is represented, but it may also limit the value of

First Steps

153

this information source for certain types of projects and questions. As with local histories, researchers should be open but critical readers. There is a large literature on the use and analysis of newspapers as a “data” source. Much of this work builds upon pioneering content analysis methodologies developed by the 1967–68 Kerner Commission in the United States. This commission was created to examine rising civil unrest in the United States that led to a number of urban riots in cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and Newark. The purpose was to identify in the newspaper coverage of the time whether there were warning signals that could be tracked and might be useful in showing how social and community pressures accelerated over time (Bryson 1964; Holsti 1969; Lasswell 1964). Since that pioneering work, the review and analysis of topics or events by using newspaper coverage has become a commonly used research tool. As well, standard social science methodology texts now typically contain good coverage of content analysis techniques and the use of various forms of media as sources of data (Babbie 2013). Local newspapers may also form an important communications venue for cbr. They are one way by which the broader community can receive updates regarding research activities, invitations to different research events, and reports on the project’s results and findings. Academic writers often have a difficult time writing newspaper copy because the style is so different from their usual writing world. In such instances, a community partner skilled in newspaper writing and communication is a valuable member of the team. Grey Literature One of the most difficult bodies of past research to access and employ is the generically labelled “grey literature.” This includes material that has been produced but not formally published for general public use. It covers a vast array of reports and studies – such as consulting reports and in-house studies – conducted for local and non-local government and non-governmental organizations. Because this literature is produced for a specific client and not otherwise published, it may be difficult to locate (i.e. it is not routinely placed in libraries or archives) or may be difficult to use (i.e. it can be restricted due to proprietary ownership by the clients). There are some other real challenges with grey literature. One issue is that such works are often not dated or attributed to authors/pub-

154

Getting to Know One Another

lishers. Findings from local newspapers can assist in clarifying some of the technical and contextual details around grey literature publications. A second issue is that no matter the source of this material, researchers need to be careful and critical in their reading and evaluation. Sometimes there is a tendency to read government publications, for example, as factual and unbiased. In some cases, they may indeed convey factual information (although “factual” is a problematic term no matter how one views it), but they are also produced in a public policy setting linked to governments and government agendas. Understanding the perspectives and biases inherent in the grey literature will allow cbr teams and projects to make better use of this type of information. A third challenge around grey literature is that this material has a tendency to disappear much more often than other information. In part, this is because it often does not have a “normal” route into common archiving locations such as local libraries. More typical today is that people, groups, and organizations put these sorts of reports online, and then in a year or two, when debate or interest has moved on to something else, the web page is taken down and the information disappears. One example of such lost grey literature involves some good-quality work around the analysis of resource supply issues in British Columbia. The provincial ministry responsible for one particular resource had initiated a series of review reports that were supposed to be undertaken on a cyclical basis (approximately every five years). These documents included not only a status report on the resource itself but also recommendations around what might happen with respect to maintained, increased, or decreased extraction levels. A companion report was prepared that also analyzed the socio-economic impacts of various management choices and decisions. The socio-economic impact reports also contained a wide array of background information that was very helpful to understanding the context of particular communities at points in time. For many years, the ministry responsible for this resource maintained those review reports on their website. Our research group had been using these reports for years; however, during one project, the team found this process had been largely discontinued, and that all of the reports had been removed. While it was possible to obtain copies of the reports by contacting various local management offices directly, this data source quickly moved from being readily accessible to difficult to access. Many researchers unfamiliar with these reports would not necessarily even be aware that these valuable documents had ever existed and would not know where to look for them. Interestingly, two years

First Steps

155

after that particular project, as part of another government information initiative, these same reports reappeared deep within the ministry website. The Internet is an unstable venue for valuable documents – it may make available rare documents that would otherwise be impossible to find or access, but materials can also disappear with ease when mandates or agendas change. Another dramatic example of how fleeting various forms of information can be comes from one of our early research projects. At the time, we were researching the various ways that resource-based communities were responding to stresses of change driven by the global economy. Early in the project, the provincial government had announced a major initiative around resource land-use planning (one of several times over the past forty years that such major initiatives on the same topic had been undertaken). Significant funds were allocated for this planning exercise in several regions across the province. In support of these planning exercises, a large centralized secretariat was also created. That secretariat assembled a library of information on topics such as resource development, multi-use land-use planning, public involvement and consultation, Aboriginal and First Nations land title and rights issues, and other issues. A member of our research team went to the offices of the secretariat and was shown access to a wide range of research products being created within the different planning exercises, as well as the information resources gathered to support the work of the secretariat from other jurisdictions and sources. Six months later, the same research team member again visited the offices. In the intervening period, however, the provincial government had abandoned that particular exercise. On his visit, the research team member found that not only were the secretariat’s offices closed, but they also had been completely cleared of furniture and documents. One of the issues that always confronts rural and small-town researchers is that of data availability. Due to the size of communities, some data is just not collected or made available at a relevant local scale. In addition, data or information that researchers might routinely find for urban areas is not published for smaller areas due to the costs for the institutional data provider (e.g. housing statistics published by national agencies such as the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation). A related data-availability issue that cbr practitioners can encounter when working with other institutional partners is that of confidentiality. Even though they may become partners in a collaborative research under-

156

Getting to Know One Another

taking, some organizations are limited by law or policy (e.g. freedom of information legislation) in terms of the information that they collect and manage. The capacity to share data and information (both from legal and capacity limitations) needs to be recognized among partners in a cbr project and relationship so as to avoid later tensions and misunderstandings. While researchers must recognize its limitations, the grey literature can provide exceptionally valuable and crucial sources of information for cbr. A good deal of the grey literature, especially government publications, contains data that might otherwise be difficult to locate. It can be useful in answering many early questions that the research team has and thus allow the research to focus on areas of new knowledge. It can also inform the research team so that they are better able to interact with the community in the design and execution of the research. The grey literature, in both of these circumstances, can save the research process a good deal of time and money. A thorough review of this literature can help the research team build up its timeline of events within the community (i.e. through local government records and council minutes), identify important local players and interests, and learn more about debates and conflicts (both in terms of issue areas and the alignment of people/groups). Grey literature is also a very useful tool for triangulation of key events and perspectives discerned from local interviews and focus groups. COND UCTING COMMUNIT Y OR REGIONAL PROFILES

Once researchers have begun the preparatory stage of gathering useful information about the community from a variety of readily accessible sources, the team needs to organize as much of this secondary data as possible to begin the process of constructing a historical portrait of the community and the issues central to the research (Baxter 2010; Yin 2009). This portrait informs the researcher about the local context and ensures that once primary data collection begins, researchers are either clarifying old data or generating new information. Collected background information also needs to be organized. As noted above, organizational tools can include timelines of local/regional events, summaries of past debates and conflicts, the compilation of data tables, and other similar summaries of collected information. One especially useful and valuable technique for collating and organizing secondary data during the formative stages of a cbr project or re-

First Steps

157

lationship is to produce or augment an existing “community profile.” Such a profile may contain standard socio-economic data, community or regional comparisons, information about local infrastructure and capacities, and information that may be more pertinent to the specific research topic (e.g. cultural information, state of the environment, etc.). Producing a profile also forces researchers to conduct a wide search for previous research reports. In addition to informing and equipping the research team, an updated profile can be a useful “give back” to the partnering community as an early product of the research exercise. Most communities make use of such documents for their own community or economic development and management purposes, but they sometimes lack the resources to keep them up to date and so are generally appreciative of the assistance. Many residents have been active participants in various forms of resource management and community development planning or decision-making processes over the years. In many cases, these participants maintain their own personal copies of process documents and final reports. These personal copies are sometimes more valuable than even the contributing individuals may have ever expected. After many years, residents may find that they have the only surviving copies of important resource management and community development initiative documents. It is easy for both electronic and paper copies of such reports to be misplaced, lost, recycled, “cleaned” out of offices or basements, deleted, or saved in now unreadable electronic formats. When researchers are working in communities and people offer copies of reports for scanning or photocopying, it is generally wise to take up their offers since there may be no other locations where this information could be accessed. Another reason why community-based reports are so important to retrieve and archive for research purposes is that institutional memory in many small communities is easily lost when individuals change jobs or leave organizations altogether. When such offers of information are extended and taken up, it is incumbent upon the research team to ensure that materials are returned to the individual making the loan in as timely a fashion as possible. An added feature of producing a community profile is that it will help to facilitate the logistics of fieldwork (Bailey 1996). Researchers may learn about different cultural practices or specific protocol expectations through secondary searches. In addition, a community profile might address more rudimentary logistics including site conditions, accommodation options, and communication options (e.g. access to high-

158

Getting to Know One Another

speed Internet, mobile phone coverage) that will help to make the research process more efficient and effective. The compilation of available data into a community profile (or any other form of data summary tool for that matter) is not always a straightforward task. Limits in the availability of data (and the form by which it might be available) can mean gaps and inconsistencies that need to be reconciled. While a great deal of background information can be collected at a distance, the collection of background information will invariably involve fieldwork time. Local museums, libraries, government and other organizational offices, and the local newspapers are all likely to contain information that can be accessed only via site visits. The local collection of information not only supports the comprehensiveness of the data gathering effort but also allows opportunities for the research team to clarify issues being raised by that information, sometimes with the very people who created the information in the first place. It also provides an easy way by which members of the research team can meet other members of the community and build relations that will almost always help the later stages of the work, as well as increase the awareness of and support for the community-based project.

Example from the Field: Different Ways of Finding Information One of the most interesting elements of working with a team that includes students, researchers, and community members involves the different ways by which people look for information. In one case, a community asked for a good quality map that could be included in the project report. They asked that the map include all of the communities in British Columbia that are relatively similar to their own so that it could function as part of a context piece for the remainder of the report. We asked one of the young students who was working on the project to pull up a base map of British Columbia and add the names and locations of a large number of communities. We supplied the names of the communities. The student came back about a week later with a map that was largely empty but did have some of the community names on it. His response at the research team meeting was that when he looked on the mapping websites, most of the names we had given him (which were for very small communities) did

First Steps

159

not come up. In his mind, if the community was not “in” the computer, it did not exist. We assured the young student that indeed all the communities on the list did exist, and that if he had pulled out an old-fashioned paper copy of an atlas of British Columbia, he would have identified exactly the location of each of the communities on the list. Again, it is always curious how different generations of people look for information in different ways. When putting together any cbr team, it is important to know and understand the extent and limitations of the skill levels being brought to the table.

It is very common to add census data into these community profiles. In Canada, the census has been the most reliable source of community data. The fact that census data is collected every five years means that it can be used to generate time-series portraits of local and regional change. But there are challenges in using census data. A first challenge is that definitions and data categories can change over time, making comparisons difficult. Another challenge has to do with the data collection boundaries. For many small places, it is not uncommon for large shares of the local population to live just outside of the local government boundaries. Since the census uses local government boundaries as a basic unit (a census subdivision) in its census geography, the accuracy of local population data is always an issue. Another key challenge when using census data in a rural and smalltown context is the practice of “rounding” to protect confidentiality of respondents. The process in small populations is to assign a value of either “0” or “5” whenever the actual count on a particular census characteristic is 5 or less. The idea is that readers cannot identify the “1” person with that characteristic. Unfortunately, rural and small-town places have small populations and so the number of times and places that the rounding process intrudes is quite frequent. As well, the census does not do a good job of tracking mobile or transient workforces. This is a problem for small-town jurisdictions that must add infrastructure to cope with these populations but which do not receive adequate support from provincial and federal governments since the federal population data only records a much smaller number. Community-based researchers must also consider the challenges with using data sources, such as the census that is only conducted every five

160

Getting to Know One Another

years. In some communities, an entire range of social and economic processes may occur within that five-year period. In more than one of the communities with which we work there have been significant swings up or down in the local economy and these can happen over very short time frames. Between census periods, one community experienced the closure of its largest employer, significant population outmigration, a successful revitalization campaign, and the in-migration of large numbers of new residents. The data for the two census periods (before and after this transition) show not just a relatively small drop in population numbers but also a relatively dramatic transformation in the age distribution of that population. Just including the census data without going into detail about the context and circumstances can create a significant research project limitation. There is another very important caution with regard to looking at recent Canadian census data or constructing longitudinal data series that include census data. In 2011, the Government of Canada through Statistics Canada introduced a new National Household Survey (nhs) to replace the long-form census. The long-form census was that part of the census that had been distributed to only 20 per cent of households and which contained all of the detailed socio-demographic questions. There are some very important differences between the nhs and the long-form census that researchers must consider when using data from these sources. First, the nhs became a voluntary survey distributed to 33 per cent of households. As a result, the response rates for the nhs are much more variable than the long-form census and can affect the viability of the results, particularly for smaller communities. In some cases, where the non-response rate for the nhs was 50 per cent or more (or greater than 25 per cent of the census population), no data is reported. In general, a smaller non-response rate lowers the risk of non-response bias and inaccuracy of the data. For the 2016 census, the Government of Canada is returning to the previous long-form census process. However, the disruption in data created by the 2011 census process will be a problem for longitudinal research for many years to come.

First Steps

161

Example from the Field: Looking Beyond Census Subdivision Boundaries to Understand “Community” Another small town provides an example and illustration of how data discrepancies in the construction of “community” affect perceptions of local issues. In a debate about local health care funding, the provincial ministry of health suggested the closure of the obstetrics ward at the local hospital. It made this argument based on the demographic profile of the municipality’s population. What the provincial health care planners had failed to notice or take into account is that the small town was adjacent to four First Nation reserves and two Mennonite communities, and is the regional service centre for several smaller towns in the area, all of which had higher birth rates and more youthful populations than did the town itself. When the local functional population (and its demographics) was taken into account, there was a clear need to not only keep the obstetrics ward open, but also to look at the need to expand it.

The creation of a comprehensive community profile can also allow the team to bring together the threads of an otherwise more complicated set of stories in order to increase understanding and better contextualize the information they will be encountering. This kind of synthesis is especially important in cases where some outcomes or events may be the by-product of much larger structural forces of change. These larger forces may be related to public policy shifts, international economic agreements or global economic trends, or the restructuring of individual companies as a result of corporate board decision-making. It is very important to understand not only the situation of place relative to global economic forces (e.g. resource sectors, economic dynamics, trends) but also the trajectories of pressures that shape the capacity of such places to respond to those forces.

162

Getting to Know One Another

Lesson Learned: Public Policy Impacts on Community Change Some years ago, a community in Northern bc was included in a presentation by a consulting team to the provincial government. The topic was population decline in non-metropolitan bc. The presentation showed census figures that highlighted how the population had declined by a small number during a successive set of census periods. In the presentation, this decline was linked to information about the ongoing restructuring of the forest sector (as a result of the invisible hand of the market), and the consultants suggested that there was little that public policy could do to affect such “natural and inevitable” market forces underscoring population decline. While there was in fact restructuring, closure, and change in the region’s forest industry, the story being shared was simply not accurate. In fact, population decline as highlighted in that presentation could be tied specifically to overt public policy change and decision-making. In this case, it was the closure of the district forest office that was a key trigger. When this office was closed, most of the workers and their families relocated out of the community to take on jobs elsewhere in the provincial government, resulting in a population loss. Over the following couple of years, the loss of those children in the elementary school meant that a couple of local elementary and secondary school teachers had lost their jobs, so they and their families also relocated out of the community. The total population loss meant that one of the rcmp officer positions was identified as being redundant and that person was relocated together with their family. Taken together, these relocations out of the community meant that some of the local food and retail stores could not maintain viability, and thus there was a loss of economic activity, a loss of employment, and another couple of families left the community. These indirect and direct impacts of a very specific public policy choice were very clear contributors to the population loss presented in the report to the provincial government. But this part of the analysis was completely missing because the report creators had never visited the town or worked to weave all the threads of impact together into a more complete story. Information must be embedded within a more complete and contextually nuanced understanding of the community.

First Steps

163

Researchers must also carefully understand nuances in census and other government-related data. A good example is the use of data to understand poverty in Canada. While Canada has no defined poverty line, many have used Statistics Canada’s low income cut-offs (licos) as a de facto measure of poverty. First, there has been considerable debate about the use of before-tax versus after-tax lico measures. As disposable income is based on after-tax dollars, after-tax licos have been used to assess overall economic well-being (Statistics Canada 2006). A key concern for lico measures is that they are restricted to food, clothing, and shelter, and do not take into account other expenses such as transportation (Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry 2008). Such poverty measures also typically assume that rural and small-town places have lower housing costs (Bruce 2007). This assumption no longer reflects the diversity of the rural landscape where booming resource towns – particularly oil and gas towns, tourism towns, and bedroom communities located close to metropolitan centres – can result in higher housing costs (Bruce 2003). A second issue is that in rural and small-town places, small numbers can sometimes have significant local impact. For example, population aging is a relatively new phenomenon in many resource-based towns in western Canada. While a small increase in the number of seniors may not stimulate senior government into action, it can introduce significant pressures to provide services and housing in communities that have no previous experience with seniors and seniors’ issues. Given small numbers, it is easy for the demand for seniors’ services to double and triple in short periods of time. Background research does not make up for time in the field. Hardwick (2001, 335) describes the new insights she gained after she completed her analysis of official records and went to the field in Galveston, Texas: “the relatively clear-cut data I had so meticulously gathered from census records and other government documents, I discovered, were far more complex and nuanced once I was on the ground and engaged in ‘up close and personal’ fieldwork with local residents.” ESTABLISHING CONTACTS

A further set of first steps involves the development of key community contacts and support people. How these connections will develop will depend upon several things: any prior research relationship, the range of partners coming to the initial cbr project table, the degree of com-

164

Getting to Know One Another

munity and university involvement in defining the cbr relationship, and the genesis of the current relationship-building exercise. Starting points for contacts can come from either the researcher or the community side of the equation. These initial points of contact frequently then spread out to include the institutions associated with the connecting individuals. If a research team is approaching the situation “cold,” we recommend starting with the leads of the most likely partner organizations. Another successful approach is to connect with people in leadership positions (formal or informal leaders are both valuable) and ask for their thoughts and recommendations in working toward a possible future cbr relationship. From there, it is all about conversations and the development of working relationships and networks. Regardless of the starting point, there are a number of ways by which people can become involved in supporting the cbr. Some people may become part of the cbr team, others may join an advisory group, others may be participants in the various research processes, and still others may simply support the work of the project – such differences affect the time and effort that must be contributed to the community-based relationship. One of the more intense levels of support is participation in an advisory or steering committee. At their inception, these bodies often include co-leadership positions (usually a representative from the research team and from the community); they then expand to include a small number of people in the formation of a support group that provides advice and guidance on the development of the relationship, project, and protocols. Depending upon the formulation of such groups (as the role of advisory committees is to provide guidance and advice while steering committees generally are more directly involved in project management), they often will assist across the three general stages of the research process: formulating the research itself, monitoring the research process and providing feedback on findings and reports, and assisting with processes of implementation. Beyond the matters of research design and execution, the value of a community advisory or steering committee is often multi-faceted. To be clear, an advisory committee does just that – it advises. It does not have a decision-making or a management role in the research project. In contrast, a steering committee does have a management role and must have mechanisms in place to support decision-making around that role. When establishing an advisory or steering committee, the research team must pay great attention to clarity in the terminology and

First Steps

165

definitions used, and to the terms of reference created to frame and support the committee’s work. Confusion regarding roles and authority among committee members can create disappointment and ill feeling in cbr projects. To start, advisory or steering committees can provide connections to individuals or groups that might be helpful to the research work. Drawing in respected people can provide a measure of legitimacy to the developing relationship and can recruit yet more people into the cbr circle. One of the hallmarks of most research, and of cbr in particular, is that things evolve as the process unfolds. A community advisory or steering committee can be of real assistance during discussions around adjustments or refinements in the research work. Finally, a community advisory or steering committee can be a very helpful multi-direction communications tool between the project and various constituencies in the community. Included among considerations in setting up advisory or steering committees is the need for both depth and breadth. While searching for a range of community representatives or participants, one needs to be attentive to the breadth of social and economic actors or organizations present in the community. This goal of broad representation needs to be balanced with consideration of whether those representatives will be able to work effectively together. As described earlier in the book, lingering community debates and conflicts may simply move into the cbr process and continue to act out their dynamic. Similarly, researchers need to be aware as much as possible of power hierarchies in the community where certain groups or individuals might seek to be involved in order to move forward an agenda that is different from that designed in the cbr project. When managing a community advisory or steering committee, it is especially important to preserve the integrity of the process. These sorts of committees can provide communications back to key groups and organizations, and they can also provide a measure of legitimacy. However, one needs to be mindful that discussions in the advisory or steering process need to stay reasonably focused on the project rather than deviating into other subject areas. This is a fine balance as some conversations can lead to fruitful supplements to the existing research project concept, while others suggest that the research partnership is losing control of the advisory or steering committee. As a researcher, it is important to listen to the community and pay close attention to how the community relationships are being affected by

166

Getting to Know One Another

the cbr project and by support processes such as community advisory or steering committees. Even while maintaining a community advisory or steering committee, it is important to stay in touch with key informants. This is done through routine contacts through both formal and informal mechanisms. The cbr project should maintain relatively open avenues of communication with these informants as they can often provide early warning when there are potential troubles with the project, or at least with the community’s perception of the project. Routine contact can be maintained through meetings in local coffee shops or offices of individuals when researchers are in the community, but also can be maintained from a distance through routine phone calls or forms of social media. Email exchanges can be effective but people are often reluctant to put difficult issues into written form since they have no control over where that written form may go. Skype conversations and similar audio/video technology media are also very effective in maintaining contact. The issues with respect to managing a community advisory or a steering committee and with maintaining routine contact with key informants reinforce the need to provide a sound orientation for the field team. All members must be aware of who is participating and how so as to continue supporting effective knowledge exchange and relationship building. WO RKING WITH ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES

cbr with Aboriginal groups or communities is becoming a more widely recognized and increasingly better-described aspect of various research traditions (Kovach 2010; Tobias, Richmond, and Luginnah 2013; Wilson 2008). Whether Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal, or from a university or community setting, the researcher must undertake considerable background work of analysis and self-reflection. In this section, we introduce such topics as researcher position, colonialism, first steps, relationships, and honouring commitments. Each of these topic areas has a robust and much-debated literature from which interested researchers can draw further insight. The introductory steps of getting to know one another are particularly relevant for research with Aboriginal communities, where the informal process of developing relationships and understandings often must yield to the more formal mechanisms required to gain commu-

First Steps

167

nity participation and support. For researchers interested in undertaking cbr with Aboriginal groups or communities, right at the start there are several “places” of initial self-reflection that are required. The first of these involves looking inwardly toward one’s own position in approaching the research. Kovach (2010) identifies several questions researchers should ask themselves: Who are we, why are we undertaking this research? How do we connect with it both personally and professionally? Who will gain benefit? How do we and our research fit into the legacies of colonial relationships that still affect Aboriginal communities and lives? A second place of self-reflection is around understanding and structuring the words “research” and “knowledge.” Any research that is structured via “Western scientific” ways of knowing must work through its relationship with Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal cbr. Several authors describe just how different are Aboriginal ways of knowing (Cargo and Mercer 2008; Castleden, Morgan, and Lamb 2012; Kovach 2010). cbr projects need to consider how learning will accommodate these different ways of knowing and how these ways of knowing will inform ways of sharing knowledge. Koster, Baccar, and Lemelin (2012) expand on these questions of Western research paradigms and the decolonization of research; they explore “the connection between Indigenous research paradigms and the western construct of community-based participatory research” (195). Their critical reflections highlight how, through a true partnership relationship, the co-creation of cbr projects can benefit all parties by, among other things, bridging different ways of knowing. A third place for self-reflection is within the context of time and the Aboriginal experience. As cbr projects work through questions of position and an understanding of different ways of knowing, the entire discussion must also recognize that much research rests upon the foundations of a continuing settler relationship through colonialism (Kovach 2010). As noted above, this colonial relationship still permeates the contexts into which cbr will play itself out. As Castleden, Morgan, and Lamb (2012, 161) highlight: “Canada remains replete with sociopolitical and physical landmarks of colonization … These geographies of power are still apparent in the contemporary Canadian context with Indigenous peoples deeply harmed by marginalizing governmental policies and practices.” To this end, there are writers exploring the notion of “decolonizing” research wherein all facets of a university or Western scientific model of research are open to debate and reinterpretation

168

Getting to Know One Another

(Smith 1999; Wilson 2008). We are not speaking here just of data ownership or mode of data collection (some examples of such research protocols were profiled in chapter 4), but about the role of values, beliefs, worldviews, and principles (Wilson 2008). Authors de Leeuw, Cameron, and Greenwood (2012) remind us that the process of decolonizing research, and the role of cbr as an emergent best practice for engaging with Aboriginal communities, is neither easy nor straightforward. Despite the best intentions of practitioners and within the literature, they note that their “concern is not so much that participatory projects sometimes fail to live up to the ideals they are based on, but rather with the potential for such projects to actually reinscribe and retrench unjust relations in the very pursuit of opposite aims” (de Leeuw, Cameron, and Greenwood 2012, 185). They highlight “four potential means by which such reinscriptions and retrenchments may occur” (185). The first has to do with the intention and purpose of the researcher who might find it difficult to interrogate their own (unintended) biases or (potential) role in perpetuating racist or colonial reconstructions of research and research relationships. The second is that no matter how easy it might seem to relabel a “key informant” an “equal partner,” the very act of such relabelling conceals power relations and reinforces distance in the research relationship. The third is drawn from the normalization of cbr as a best or expected practice in particular types of circumstances, a normalization that “risks closing down necessary and ongoing critique” (de Leeuw, Cameron, and Greenwood 2012, 180) of both cbr and the contexts within which it may be applied. The final critique offered is one found woven throughout this book: institutional structures (be they community based or university based) are at odds with the need within cbr to develop and maintain long-term relationships that are both meaningful and accountable. Such “institutional pressures work against the development and maintenance of meaningful, accountable, and non-extractive relations with Indigenous communities” (180). The challenging conversations and topics described above are encountered in cbr via the process of relationship development. As highlighted throughout this book, cbr is really about relationships, understandings, openings, and the giving up of control by the researchers so as to achieve a more equitable partnership within which all parties are engaged. Constructing and honouring relationships is even more important in an Aboriginal context (Castleden, Garvin, and Huuay-aht 2008; Fletcher 2003; Smith 2007).

First Steps

169

In Grimwood et al. (2012), the early getting-to-know-you process is described as “immersion” or “engaged acclimatization.” The authors go on to explore engaged acclimatization through four aspects of “crafting relations, learning, immersion, and activism” (211). They advise that researchers need to “situate engaged acclimatization in their own research and further develop it as a process” (211). Each party in the cbr relationship needs to be comfortable with where the work or project(s) may be going. Once parties agree to a general research direction, the next stage is to develop a set of agreements around how the team will work together. Many First Nations communities now have detailed protocols for forming research relationships. These protocols can help the cbr relationship because they usually raise important issues such as oversight, ownership of information or data, and processes of accessing community members or information. Where a community does not have a protocol for research relationships, then there is the opportunity, through community-university research partnerships, to include the creation of such a protocol document as one of the products of the collaborative partnership. For a range of reasons, historical and contemporary, Aboriginal communities and organizations are increasingly careful when entering into research relationships (Gearheard and Shirley 2007; Mooney-Somers and Maher 2009). As one community partner explained: We entered this process with caution, having just been exposed to a study by a large academic institution that had selected us as their test case. The lead flew in and met with us once, which is an extravagant way to travel. Their work lasted several years; we never met the lead again and are still waiting for the final product. In other words, the exercise was about them and their goals and not about [the community]. The cdi [Community Development Institute] team arrived by van. Our contact lived on the reserve for the next eighteen months right in [the community] … They asked us what we wanted and from the start we were always the ones that called the shots. The cdi provided guidance and advice but never imposed their will or authority. They helped us craft the plan, but it was always our plan. A preliminary visit provides an opportunity to identify whether the research process requires an agreement or memorandum of under-

170

Getting to Know One Another

standing, or whether a community has a specific research protocol (McDonald 2004). In addition to expecting researchers to follow established protocols, many Aboriginal communities now require researchers working within their traditional territory to sign contracts that specify ownership of the data and results, long-term storage/disposition of the research (see discussion of the First Nations principles of ocap® in chapter 4), levels of community engagement for sharing findings, and scale of community benefits through employment and other training connections to the project (Fondahl et al. 2009; Menzies 2004; Reed and Peters 2004). A range of research literatures and approaches support the direction of attention toward effective working relationships and/or the development of protocols. For example, other researchers in North America have promoted feminist protocols to draw attention to how gender shapes research agendas, inclusivity, and empowerment throughout the research process, data collection, and the interpretation of results in cbr (McDowell 1994; Monk, Manning, and Denman 2003; Reid, Brief, and LeDrew 2009). In addition to feminist approaches to cbr, specific cbr protocols have also been developed to empower and address the needs of vulnerable groups, such as those living in poverty. Due to the potential vulnerability of such participants and the sensitive nature of issues that may arise, researchers have advocated for a collaborative, community-based protocol that can build trust and openness, and generate more authentic representations of specific issues or contexts, and which may ultimately help to strengthen the interpretation of research outcomes (Cloke, Milbourne, and Widdowfield 2000; Johnsen, Cloke, and May 2005; Roche 2008). Castleden, Morgan, and Lamb (2012) spoke with a number of university-based researchers who had experience engaging in cbr with Aboriginal communities. Topics explored in these conversations cover the “creation and nurturing of researcher-community relationships, from design to dissemination and beyond” (Castleden, Morgan, and Lamb 2012, 167). On the matter of getting to know one another and building toward cbr relationships, the authors include a beautiful quote from one of their respondents that highlights the tensions inherent for university-based cbr practitioners: “My dean asked me two years into my project why I hadn’t published yet out of it and he had no idea what I was talking about when I told him I spent the first year drinking tea [in order to build a trusting relationship]” (Castleden, Morgan, and Lamb 2012, 168). Throughout the relationship-designdissemination-beyond process, the experienced respondents identify

First Steps

171

a range of opportunities and constraints. These speak to the fundamentals of cbr and the complexity added in an Aboriginal context. In design, issues of original ideas and local needs must be explored. In the research work, the hiring and training of community members or research trainees needs to be balanced and weighed. In analysis, the role of the community, and any community advisory group, can be incorporated in numerous different ways. Data analysis is one area in which researchers seem often to have a real challenge “letting go.” Choices around information sharing are also wide in scope and need to fit the context and goals of the community and the cbr project for all partners. Christensen (2012) adds to this discussion through her consideration of cbr that seeks to communicate with audiences beyond the “usual suspects” of academics and policy-makers. Drawing upon her own participatory research with homeless populations in Canada’s Northwest Territories, she sought ways to better connect with her community. The research itself drew upon powerful emotional narratives about people and their lives. For a more culturally rooted method of dissemination, she turned to “research storytelling.” She reports on the better fit, in an Aboriginal context, between storytelling and traditional ways of knowledge sharing. She reports on how “research storytelling also offers promise as a form of research dissemination within the academy,” and suggests that despite debate around such matters as validity, reliability, and authenticity, further exploration is underway as “questions around what makes a good research story continue to be explored as interest in arts-based methods of research dissemination rises” (Christensen 2012, 238). For community-based researchers, appropriate cultural or contextual fit for knowledge dissemination is important, as is an honest understanding of the skills to communicate in forms beyond those in which researchers are trained. Linking many of the issues noted above, Castleden, Morgan, and Lamb (2012, 163) also spend time considering the “relational power structures” that impact cbr dynamics and Aboriginal communities. They review some of the growing bodies of “advice” offered to both communities and researchers (see also acuns 1998; cihr 2007), but return to the challenges posed by a university and institutional research support architecture that is conflicted and ill equipped to assist in cbr undertakings, to help build research and community capacity, and support the further decolonization of research and knowledge (see also Ball and Janyst 2008).

172

Getting to Know One Another

CONCLUSION

This chapter has explored some of the first steps that might help a cbr process or relationship to develop. These steps begin with the need for the research team to be as thorough as possible in their background work so as not to waste the limited time or resources of community partners. The cbr process and relationship also demands active involvement and meaningful acts of reciprocity by all partners early on and throughout the project. The chapter also describes the importance of building a set of research relationships that begins with connecting with key informants who can shape the research team’s understanding of the initial context and eventually includes developing the research partnership through advisory or steering committees. The chapter concludes with some advice to guide working with Aboriginal communities in cbr projects.

Introduction

173

PART THREE

Working in the Field

In part 3, we build upon part 2 by highlighting tips and strategies for working with cbr stakeholders in the field in order to foster longterm working relationships. Researchers must understand and accept the role that they have in this important relationship. Years can be spent developing a strong cbr relationship with community partners only to have it ruined or damaged by one ill-advised action. The repercussions of these situations may have consequences not only for the university-based team but also for any researcher from any institution that attempts to work in that community in the future. In part 3, we also provide tips and strategies for collecting highquality data that can support community development initiatives. We also highlight the importance of mutual learning and flexibility, which together help create fieldwork as a mechanism to build the capacity of community partners and the research team. Different research topics, individual capacities, and even community stresses will require the cbr team to be ready to use different methods for collecting information and encouraging participation. Attention to these issues will affect not only the success of the project but also the ability of the cbr team to produce appropriate and useable knowledge, as well as capacities that are capable of mobilizing that knowledge into action.

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

175

7

In the Field With a vignette contribution from Catherine Nolin

Conducting fieldwork in communities not only enhances the visibility of the research, but also provides an opportunity for the research team to continue to enhance relationships with community partners. Being engaged within the community can also allow the researcher to be privy to new and emerging opportunities. Communities are experiencing constant change, however, and there is a need to be flexible and adaptable to local conditions and circumstances while maintaining the integrity of the research and the research team. When working within communities that are undergoing significant and rapid restructuring, research teams need to consider the possibility that their research designs may no longer fit the local context, and they should be prepared to make adjustments. Given the additional costs that can be incurred while conducting research in more rural and remote places, time can be a particularly precious commodity for researchers. This makes the ability to be flexible and adaptable particularly important when conducting cbr. Remember, in rapidly changing environments, researchers are working at the convenience of the community. RESEARCHER INTEGRIT Y

An important part of research integrity is to maintain consistency across all forms of research and community engagement activities. In a community-based research context, this means that a consistent message is delivered to all community partners; the same type of information is communicated to all community members at the same time; and equal opportunities to participate are provided for all community members, sectors, and interest groups throughout the research process as appropriate.

176

Working in the Field

It is important for the research team to be “open” to all community members and partners before, during, and after the research. By maintaining open lines of communication across the different facets and sectors within the community, the research team can be privy to emerging issues. The openness of the research team will be measured by the degree of objectivity and inclusion that can be maintained. Conflicts may arise during town hall meetings, focus groups, and other group meetings, particularly in the stressful times following industry closures or announcements of cutbacks. It is critical that the research team maintain the highest degree of professionalism under such tense circumstances. The multiples stresses associated with community restructuring mean that it is very easy for the research team, particularly less experienced researchers, to become entwined in community conflict. This accidental involvement often occurs when a member of the research team unwittingly agrees with the needs presented by one community member or group without gathering information or understanding the larger context of the community member’s complaints. The researcher may become embroiled in local debate and power struggles. Researchers need to be trained on how to establish boundaries and maintain researcher distance, although this type of training may result in a false sense of neutrality. In places that have limited human and financial capital, there will be pressure on researchers as “educated experts” to offer advice or comments. People will also be disproportionately inclined to listen to researchers or to seek their counsel. Researchers may dangerously offer advice on topics with which they are unfamiliar, but those comments will carry weight. Despite the pressures that can be placed on researchers, they must learn not to operate outside of the boundaries of their expertise. There are opportunities, however, to act as a “broker” and connect people with information, other researchers, or other communities with similar experiences. By establishing and maintaining boundaries of expertise, and by providing the value-added role as a broker, the researcher will establish a reputation for “fair dealing” and convey that they are committed to building a long-term relationship with the community. These operating principles should be maintained even if the ongoing relationship with the community partner(s) is uncertain. The honesty, relevance, and helpfulness of support that is provided will build researcher integrity and strengthen the community-researcher relationship. A longstanding problem for communities has been the failure of the academic community to provide any feedback about research activities

In the Field

177

undertaken. The research ethics review process supports researcher integrity and helps to protect community interests and needs throughout the research process. Most academic institutions have an ethics review process to ensure that research participants in the community understand the purpose of the research; how participants will be recruited; the confidentiality and anonymity agreement for participants; the voluntary nature of their participation; how the collected data will be recorded, stored, and secured; any compensation that will be provided to participants; contact information where any complaints about the project can be directed; and mechanisms that will be put in place to communicate results back to the community. Research questions are also reviewed to ensure that they are not harmful to participants. Questions of anonymity and confidentiality are also more complex in Aboriginal communities. Many communities are small with complex interpersonal and interfamily relationships. When people wish to remain anonymous or provide information in confidence, the risk of divulging information that might accidentally identify people can be high. There are also two other important aspects to this complex issue of confidentiality in Aboriginal communities. First, there is a general desire within Aboriginal communities to be involved with and to retain the knowledge from original research conducted in their territory (Mitchell and Baker 2005). Just as with oral histories and other records, such research can help with the reconstruction of memory, community, and identity. For First Nations communities, The First Nations Information Governance Centre (2014, 2016) has developed the First Nations principles of “ownership, control, access, and possession” (ocap®) (see chapter 4). Second, confidentiality and anonymity concerns may also extend to protecting specific locations that are culturally significant to Aboriginal groups (Menzies 2004). Also, individuals may also demand the retention of names or deliberate substitution of traditional names in any published work as part of ongoing reclamation of identity and history. This adds to the complexity of cbr work in Aboriginal communities. In recent years, cbr projects are under greater scrutiny as health agencies, First Nations, and other communities have adopted their own ethics review processes for research (Castellano 2004; McDonald 2004). Researchers who undertake data collection, interviewing, transcribing, and data analysis tasks also support research integrity when they concentrate on accurately recording and reflecting the “intended” messages research participants put forth. Sending research transcripts and meeting notes back to participants is not only an important task that

178

Working in the Field

can enhance accuracy; it also supports the ongoing openness and communication between the researcher and the community. Furthermore, researcher integrity is derived from fiscal responsibility. Smaller or more impoverished communities that have lost much of their industrial tax base and have limited financial capacity are likely to have struggled to justify research investments to support community change and economic development. In this context, researchers must learn to work smarter and harder in order to demonstrate that local financial contributions are being used effectively. Position Local logistics benefit from the “small-town friendliness” of rural communities. We have found on many occasions that expensive and distant hotel accommodation could be cancelled thanks to local residents’ willingness to share their houses with the research team. Unfortunately, there are times when research teams do not seek out information about the availability of local supplies, amenities, or in-kind sources of support (Gearheard and Shirley 2007). Participation at community dinners and similar events provides opportunity for gathering additional perspectives, information, and new respondents, in addition to exploring the generosity of rural hospitality. Attending community events such as feasts and potlucks can be particularly important in Aboriginal communities where knowledge is transmitted through traditional mechanisms (McDonald 2004). Within the cbr frame, these types of social interactions are a legitimate part of research; they are seen to enhance rather than jeopardize reliability. cbr thus also creates an ongoing need for critical self-reflection on a researcher’s position and subjectivity within the project. In addition to debates in the literature about “insider versus outsider” benefits and costs, there are specific concerns here about becoming too closely linked to a particular group(s) in the community and thus limiting access to other views and insights (Stringer 1996). RESE ARCHER IN THE COMMUNIT Y

When working with communities there is a need to be flexible, as research activities may require new protocols or a different set of permissions (Menzies 2004). Attention to such requirements or permissions can be complicated by working with institutions that have overlapping mandates. As Strand et al. (2003, 12) argue, cbr

In the Field

179

research approaches that are particularly sensitive to discerning the voice and perspective of participants, such as informal interviews or open-ended questions, might be chosen over more structured, researcher-controlled data collection methods. Generally, cbr also requires a willingness on the part of researchers to be flexible and adaptable: to be willing to rely on a variety and multiplicity of data collection methods and instruments, work to develop unconventional ones, ignore discipline-bound methodologies, and even change methodological direction in the middle of the study if it will enhance community participation and empowerment or enhance the usefulness of data collected. Listening is key to building mutual respect among researchers, community partners, and research participants. Residents, including people from marginalized communities, may value the opportunity to speak with researchers in order to voice their concerns, especially if they feel that their concerns are rarely heard or considered by leaders or decision-makers in distant urban centres. Listening helps the research team to build trust and rapport for future dialogue and engagement. Once residents have a strong comfort level with the type and quality of routine interaction with researchers, they may become more comfortable sharing valuable insights into community dynamics and processes. Building comfortable working relationships can help researchers to be privy to information that can help with designing and planning various research activities, including the timing of such initiatives. Fieldwork has to be grounded in respect for the communities and for the individuals involved. Flexibility is a key way to demonstrate this respect: it involves learning to change things on the fly and to have patience. Throughout all stages of the process, researchers must be flexible and responsive to the community’s needs and priorities (Viswanathan et al. 2004; Whitlock 2001). This flexibility is most important during fieldwork when events such as industrial closures, accidents, or illnesses can quickly change the availability of participants or venues, or produce new and additional areas of inquiry. As Holkup et al. (2004, 4) further argue, there is a need for researchers to have “tolerance for discouragement, particularly when things do not go according to plan.” For example, upon entering the local union office, one of our researchers was informed that he was only one of many researchers to ask to talk with the staff that day. There had been several others over the previous month. In the end, the researcher decided that the person

180

Working in the Field

had reached their overload point, and by mutual agreement, to the great relief of that person, the researcher decided to put off the interview for another time. In small communities, people in positions of authority or those in visible positions are often on the so-called “checklist” of researchers, consultants, media, and government. It is better to appreciate the pressures that come with their position – an understanding that pays off over time. It can be all too easy to express frustrations in an inappropriate manner, but sudden bursts of emotions or frustrations can have negative impacts on relationships that have taken years of time and investment to develop. Furthermore, exciting developments in the field can bring wonderful additions, but they may also cause researchers to become distracted and miss some of the basic and original intentions of the research. It is important to track research activities on an ongoing basis in order to ensure that they remain consistent with the original research plan.

Lesson Learned: Think on Your Feet One of our researchers drove into an isolated region to interview a rancher. As he approached the house, it became clear that the rancher was agitated and not very interested in being interviewed or providing any in-depth information. Understanding that it was calving season, the researcher knew that the rancher would have been on the property for an extended period of time. Knowing this, the researcher needed to quickly find a way to gain trust and demonstrate that he was not an “ivory tower” academic. The researcher had passed many mule deer on the way to the ranch. On the way up the stairs to the house, the researcher talked about the deer, deer hunting, and asked about potential problems maintaining the fields. The rancher was surprised that a researcher would know about mule deer or hunting. He explained that he had not been off the ranch for several weeks due to calving season and that he was not interested in talking to an academic. After talking for an hour about deer, calving, and ranching, the two individuals then spent several hours talking about land-use issues (the focus of the project). To this day, it was one of the most informative and enjoyable interviews for the researcher. The lesson is about being able to think on your feet. While the project is likely not the most important thing in other people’s lives,

In the Field

181

researchers need to understand and appreciate the situation of the interviewees. Connecting with them in a meaningful way can help researchers put them at ease and win their trust. Researchers might even gain a friend. A cautionary note: people will see through contrived attempts at connection very quickly.

In small communities, people can be intimidated by researchers. Intimidation can be reduced by avoiding formal business attire when conducting fieldwork, as well as by avoiding the use of academic jargon or excessively formal forms of communication. As part of the process of building respectful community relationships, it is important to promote the value of lived job and life experiences. This can not only contribute to the research and build rapport between the researcher and the community, but it can also contribute to people’s sense of self-worth when they find that their personal experiences can contribute to, and inform, a community’s future. This helps to strengthen the sense that both parties share and have power over the knowledge that is produced. As part of their data collection, researchers will also have to spend time developing relationships with people and making observations in order to acquire the tacit knowledge or informal ways of knowing that can be such an integral part of community life. Simplifying knowledge about the research process and sharing this knowledge with all community partners and research participants will also help to reduce intimidation in the research process. Taking notes and recording information that is provided by research participants is another important way to show respect. This not only shows that the researcher is listening attentively to what people have to say, but it also demonstrates respect for the time that they are providing to engage with the research project. Remember, many residents in smaller places assume multiple roles with various groups in the community. They may already have limited time to spare and may be experiencing burnout from their commitments. Another aspect of showing respect is through the way research information is used. For example, there is a growing body of literature around respecting and valuing traditional ecological knowledge of Aboriginal peoples. The ways in which traditional Aboriginal knowledge is used or communicated can affect not only land claim processes, but also community members’ trust in the research process. Holkup et

182

Working in the Field

al. (2004) further argue that the accuracy of information obtained from Aboriginal communities will be influenced in part by the time a researcher spends in the community, as well as the ability of the researcher to engage with various social circumstances, understand the language, develop working relationships with participants, and obtain consensus about community findings. Demonstrating respect for traditional Aboriginal knowledge will also require careful consideration of emerging regulations to address ownership, copyright, patents, intellectual property rights, and other related licensing procedures (Castellano 2004). Researchers should give careful consideration to the design and ongoing modifications of their sampling in order to obtain information and to avoid emerging conflicts or power struggles within the community. Researchers may prefer to speak with well-known contacts in the community. However, some contacts may no longer be the best representative of a community group if they have become less engaged in leadership and organizational activities over time; they may no longer be privy to emerging issues for their organization or their clients. Careful consideration must also be given to who is going to participate. It is important to engage with people who are not normally heard. In some local development work, there may be a tendency to talk with the economic development officer or a member of council. It is equally important, however, to talk with non-profits or service agencies because they will be the front-line workers to respond to the needs of residents whether the economy booms or struggles. It is also important to talk with a broad range of community members in order to develop a comprehensive view. Conflicts and power struggles are going to emerge in any community. Researchers need to think about strategies to avoid conflicts or power struggles that could jeopardize long-term working relationships. Researchers need to position themselves to be able to work with any leader or organizational representative in the community as the people fulfilling these roles can change over time. Interviewing broadly and engaging with people who are not normally interviewed can help to insulate researchers from internal community conflicts and enable them to be seen as unbiased and non-partisan (at least as much as that might ever be possible). As mentioned, a smaller sample size can have certain advantages, such as cost savings and simpler logistics, but it can also make anonymity and confidentiality more challenging to honour (Markey, Halseth, and Manson 2010). Again, making every effort to interview broadly can help to fulfill ethical commitments, as well as to ob-

In the Field

183

tain multiple perspectives that can help to capture a more accurate and comprehensive account of community issues. Furthermore, strong social networks in rural and small-town places can be tremendous assets to researchers to support local sampling methods. Researchers must be mindful, however, of community power dynamics in order to ensure that balanced, comprehensive viewpoints are obtained.

Lesson Learned: Anonymity in a Small Community It is important to understand that members of the research team will never be anonymous in a small community and that confidentiality is also very difficult to maintain. One of our researchers arrived in a community where there were sharp divisions over the future direction of the town. After having completed their first interview in the morning, they went to their second interview. The researcher was met at the door by the interviewee who was very upset. He said that he no longer wanted to participate since the researcher had talked to that “son of a bitch” before him (as he was gesturing his arm toward the location of the first interviewee) and that it meant the researcher was biased to the other position. The researcher assured him that interviews were set up by availability and not by priority of somebody’s position. The lesson is that in a small community, everyone will know who the researchers are talking to and, probably more important, who the researchers are not talking to. It is important to be as thorough as possible in setting up interviews, making sure to identify and talk with different people and perspectives. The second lesson is about the need to be flexible and think on one’s feet. If someone suggests a need to talk to person X because that person knows the “real story,” then researchers should take the opportunity to arrange that interview.

As researchers plan to honour participation and provide givebacks from the project to the community, it is important to use the opportunity while in the field to confirm the most appropriate communication method(s) for participants. While it is very common for researchers to provide research products or resources electronically, others may prefer to have the report (especially longer reports) printed and mailed to

184

Working in the Field

them. Even in an era where rural or remote places have ever-improving access to the Internet, printing costs can consume the limited resources available to people and organizations. Participant checking – i.e. asking participants to review materials before they are shared publicly – provides people with the opportunity to correct misinterpretations, as well as to fill in gaps that may have been missed. Caution should be taken, however, to avoid making changes that are driven by alternative political or personal motives. It also provides people with the opportunity to recommend other future directions of inquiry. Furthermore, givebacks can facilitate ongoing community commitment to the project and personal investment in mobilizing the results. RESEARCHER DEMEANOUR

The demeanour of the researcher is important both for communicating the professionalism of the research process and for showing respect toward residents. In the rural setting, this factor is heightened by the persistent local gaze and informal communication networks of small towns (Markey, Halseth, and Manson 2010). In many ways, researcher demeanour supports researcher integrity by maintaining a high degree of professionalism throughout the research process. As suggested earlier, it is important that researchers work within their research boundaries. Particularly in a small-town context where “everyone knows everyone else,” researchers should be wary of any unguarded conversations. It may seem harmless for researchers to talk about their “opinions” of local issues at a local restaurant, but these opinions will be quickly reported back throughout the community and will diminish researcher integrity. Another important dimension of demeanour concerns dress code and how researchers present themselves within a community. A researcher’s dress code can affect their interactions with local leaders, community groups, and residents. Some residents may be intimidated or uncomfortable interacting with formally dressed researchers. Equally, researchers that are underdressed (or inappropriately dressed) may influence local opinion in a negative way. While nice, casual, or professional clothing is usually preferred, researchers may consult with local partners about a preferable dress code. Researchers can show respect through proper behaviour in the community. Whether one is in an affluent community or a place with high levels of poverty, it is important to show the same level of care and re-

In the Field

185

spect toward residents and community property. Designated paths and walkways should be used at all times rather than walking through newly seeded grass areas or through gardens. Researchers should demonstrate lawful driving by avoiding speeding on highways, roads, and school or playground areas, by parking appropriately in designated areas, and by avoiding inappropriate driving behaviour. Researcher integrity is about building trust with a broad range of community groups and interests. Researchers can build this trust and integrity by being consistent with messages they use throughout the community. Furthermore, researchers should make every effort to remain visible in the community. Residents will want to see that research dollars are being spent wisely. Attending community meetings and events during the evenings and weekends can help the research team to maintain a high degree of visibility and to demonstrate a diligent work ethic. It will also go a long way toward demonstrating a researcher’s interest in many aspects of the community, to broaden their local networks, to collect additional observations, and to become privy to emerging issues. We mention these important issues about researcher demeanour not to create paranoia about visiting neighbourhoods or small communities to conduct research, but to remind researchers to act responsibly and respectfully as a visitor. Researchers will be representatives not only of themselves, the research team, and the university, but in many ways they will be seen in the community as representatives of “every researcher at every university.” Above all, the sincerity and consistency of researchers is most important for being treated with equal respect by community members. Researchers need to take a humble approach when engaging with residents as, in many cases, residents already perceive that researchers are from a position of greater power and authority. RESEARCHERS IN THE FIELD

Due to the costly nature of conducting research in smaller communities and the limited resources available within these places, researchers should strive to optimize the time that is spent in the community. For this to take place, it is not possible for researchers to maintain “nine-tofive” work habits. Access to individuals will be affected by when offices are open, the nature of shift work, local meetings and events, and a host of other factors. In order to move the research forward, it is important that researchers be available when they are in the field, no matter the

186

Working in the Field

time or day of the week. cbr projects are demanding the time, effort, and commitment of community members, and thus researchers must also be at the convenience of those community members. This may mean working in the evenings or weekends if this is the time when people are available. Similarly, the attention to community activities, norms, and behaviour also means respecting times that may be important to individuals, groups, or the community; researchers may need to avoid conducting research at certain times of the day or days of the week. Another element to consider in optimizing fieldwork time is the need for researchers to go where it is convenient to collect the information. Sometimes this means meeting with people at the hockey rink, the soccer field, the football game, or other locations in the community. For a variety of reasons, areas in the community where people naturally congregate are often the most common places for arranging meetings or collecting various types of information. Common meeting places include recreation centres, public libraries, post offices, and shopping malls. Wherever one meets, attention to commitments around confidentiality remains important, as does attention to safety. FIE LD TIME MANAGEMENT

Our experience suggests it is beneficial to have one person on the research team schedule all meetings. This is good practice for any research setting; however, it is particularly important in cbr, given the complex, dynamic, and multi-site nature of the research. Centralizing this task allows for routine follow-up calls to check on pending appointments, avoids double-bookings, creates a cleaner map of community contacts, and gives the field team a consistent point of reference for checking schedule changes. New scheduling applications and software also help researchers to stay up to date on their work schedules. One strategy for overcoming the challenges of distance and variability is to hire local assistants. This approach raises a number of potentially positive and negative issues that require consideration during research design and execution. The benefits of local hires include reduced field costs, the incorporation of local knowledge, and increased availability, as well as capacity building through research training. Potential difficulties associated with the use of local researchers, however, can include varying levels of commitment to research tasks (that may be difficult to monitor from a distance), the potential to inadvertently privilege some factions of the community, and possible respondent con-

In the Field

187

cerns with confidentiality in a survey or interview (for example, if a neighbour or other local resident is asking questions about sensitive topics such as income and education). WOR K WITH COMMUNIT Y PARTNERS

While cbr is grounded in various forms of partnerships with community groups, best practices to develop and maintain community partnerships are rarely taught in classroom settings (Andrews et al. 2012). Working in the field can provide learning opportunities to build and strengthen relationships with community leaders and organizations. In this section, we explore the topic of working with community partners. The goal is not only to strengthen long-term working relationships, but also to provide a foundation for building the capacity of community partners as well as the next generation of researchers. Before fieldwork begins, it is always important to take stock of the readiness of both researchers and community partners to engage in this stage of the research process. The degree of readiness can be determined by assessing the compatibility between researchers and the community partners in terms of shared values and goals; their capacity in terms of leadership, the allocation of staff time, equipment, infrastructure, and resources; their complementary competencies and knowledge about the issue at hand; and their respective abilities to have operating and governance structures in place to facilitate transparent communication, conflict management, and the sharing of power and decision-making responsibilities (Andrews et al. 2012). It is important to keep the demands on community partners manageable. Local governments and organizations in smaller communities may already be operating under stress, with limited financial and human resources, facing increased responsibilities downloaded by senior levels of government. By developing partnerships with researchers and other community groups, however, local organizations can become engaged in issues without overburdening their staff by asking them to explore complex community development issues on their own (Green, Daniel, and Novick 2001). Other key issues that can affect community engagement with such partnerships include other work, family life, and volunteer demands, particularly for individuals who are engaged with multiple groups in the community (Williams et al. 2005). Conflict or competition between local organizations can also affect the degree of readiness to participate in cbr.

188

Working in the Field

In the academic arena, some researchers may acquire too many research projects or have administrative duties that can affect their engagement with cbr. Students may have little experience working with community partners or have a limited understanding of the constraints that face community partners. Providing a proper on-the-ground field orientation for new researchers through introductions with community contacts and groups, tours, and appropriate background information will help them to better understand the community context before they start their fieldwork. In terms of more active forms of training and mentoring, students can obtain quick and positive feedback during the early phases of fieldwork when faculty/supervisors accompany them to the community and observe them during their initial efforts at interviewing residents (Ryser, Halseth, and Thien 2009). At the beginning of each field season, one of our colleagues at a university in Canada’s Maritime provinces accompanies his students to various small towns where he has research relationships. In each town, the faculty member introduces the students to his key contacts in the community. This introduction allows both the students and the community members to get to know each other. Some students lack the confidence to contact people they do not know to set up interviews or request information. Facilitating face-to-face introductions not only helps the students to get to know community contacts, but it also helps them to develop their own researcher demeanour as they can observe proper field etiquette from the faculty member or lead researcher. All of this takes place before the students begin their fieldwork. As students, faculty, and community partners interact and share experiences, their collective understanding of issues can improve. Students can become more comfortable adopting a wider range of research approaches. Students, however, may also have multiple competing academic and personal commitments that can affect their ability to engage in cbr. The inability for either the research team or the community partner to deliver on their share of the project’s work can challenge project operations, affect the quality of data collected, lead to conflict, and undermine long-term working relationships (Ferman and Hill 2004). It is important for all partners to monitor their capacities and commitments throughout the research process. Ongoing dialogue about people’s capacities to fulfill their obligations is most important during the fieldwork stage because the costs (time and money) of working in the field means that there may be only one chance to get it right.

In the Field

189

Throughout the chapter, we have talked about the importance of trust, respect, building networks and relationships, and the ability to deliver support when needed. All of these are important elements of social capital that support cooperation and instill confidence in long-term working relationships (Ibáñez-Carrasco and Riaño-Alcalá 2011). Fieldwork can provide opportunities for building social capital with community partners through interviews, focus groups, community forums and meetings, steering committees, arrangement of logistics, and social learning mechanisms. Through such activities, researchers and community partners can engage in reciprocal relationships by learning about each other’s strengths, exchanging knowledge, enhancing each other’s understanding of academic and community environments and processes, and building each other’s skills and capacities. Reciprocity, however, can be affected by personnel changes in key leadership or operational roles that can disrupt relationships and commitments (Maiter et al. 2008). A further challenge for researchers is to maintain a balance of objectivity with the types of advocacy work that sometimes accompanies fieldwork. Researchers should strive to build community capacity while allowing the community to chart its own path. They should be careful not to overpower or impose their personal philosophies on local groups. Instead, fieldwork should provide another important opportunity to build local capacities and foster empowerment to implement actions and decisions (Holte-McKenzie, Forde, and Theobald 2006). In the following vignette, Catherine Nolin shares her experience of working with communities in Guatemala. Her story illustrates a range of dynamics associated with the cbr process, from being invited by communities, assembling capacity, and remaining committed to a long-term relationship with the issues and the communities where she is working.

Advocacy and Community-Based Research Catherine Nolin, University of Northern British Columbia As part of my research on memory, truth, and justice in post-war Guatemala, I spend a fair bit of time in rural and remote Indigenous communities talking with Maya community members and human rights defenders. Key to understanding their contemporary struggles over memory, justice, and rights is the need to explore the many faces of the unjust economic development model

190

Working in the Field

which enriches the very few at the expense of the many. Guatemala is a Central American country rich in natural and human resources and yet, by almost any measure, struggling with high rates of violence, crime, hunger, malnutrition, survival migration, and displacement. Along with my research partner, Grahame Russell, we enter communities at their invitation to explore and document on-theground realities of “development” connected to Canadian mining operations on disputed Indigenous lands. Our community-based research is almost completely driven by the communities’ needs and requests. I do not ask them to enter into my research project. Rather, they ask me to enter into their communities’ struggles, and collaboration, research, and advocacy emerge. It was during our joint field school / delegation in May 2010 that the women of Lote 8 first shared their allegations of violent displacement and rape at the hands of the security forces of the Canadian-owned HudBay Minerals and the Guatemalan police and military. All community members – men, women, and young children – gathered in an open community shelter on the side of the mountain. They waited for our arrival; we were travelling by pickup truck and a one-hour hike along the dirt path that led through the forest to their mountain hideout. The men arranged a long wood-plank table at one end of the shelter for our delegation to use to gather testimonies, and ten or twelve rows of wood benches held the community members waiting to share their experiences of violence, despair, and rage. One by one they shared their testimonies in Q’eqchi’ which our colleague Maria Choc translated to Spanish, which was then translated into English by Grahame. They wanted their words and voices to be recorded on audio and video. They asked for photos to be taken. They asked for their own names to be used. They demanded that we “get these monsters out of here.” Our team took that request seriously. As a follow-up to that meeting, we developed a formal human rights violation complaint and met with Canadian Embassy staff to submit that document personally. The document was based on intensive research immediately after the community meeting, the words of community members which were transcribed from Q’eqchi’ to Spanish to English, and select photographs. The embassy’s response was silence.

In the Field

191

Committed community-based research could not end there, with no action, no response. My sense was that we needed to surround ourselves with people with a range of talents. We assembled a team, and I returned several months later with Grahame, lawyer Cory Wanless (from Toronto-based Klippensteins Barristers and Solicitors), documentary photographer James Rodríguez, and several graduate students. Based on this follow-up research and driven by the community members themselves, the women, and others hurt by the actions of the company, we launched three precedent-setting civil lawsuits in Canadian courts against HudBay Minerals, Inc., asking for $55 million in general and punitive damages for corporate negligence. Ontario Superior Court Justice Carole Brown ruled in 2013 that Canadian company HudBay Minerals could potentially be held legally responsible in Canada for rapes and murder at the mining project (now formerly) owned by HudBay’s subsidiary in Guatemala. This ruling has national and international implications, and we remain committed to the women and men who entrusted us with their memories, experiences, and search for justice. Followup includes returning at least once a year, sharing with community members each and every published photograph and written piece, bringing more people into the circle to support the people “on the ground,” and assisting with fundraising to bring the community members to Canada for the pre-trial legal proceedings. Community-based research, grounded in the principles of solidarity, must be long term and driven by the community members themselves in their search for positive social change. Therefore, we continue to return, publish, advocate, and of course, connect with other mining-affected communities in Guatemala.

To improve the mobilization of knowledge, researchers need to grow knowledge mobilization venues and receptor capacity – the capacity to receive and use the new knowledge and information coming from the research – during fieldwork in order to enable community leaders to be better consumers of knowledge in their daily activities. Relationship development is an instrumental part of developing such opportunities. Whether research projects are designed to be short-term or longitudinal, researchers need to engage in routine interaction throughout the

192

Working in the Field

fieldwork to strengthen long-term relationships and trust with community stakeholders. Baxter (2010) argues that a longitudinal research approach can enhance the value of case study research through repeated interaction over time – this is one of the bases of cbr. Routine interaction will help to strengthen communication mechanisms in order to deliver consistent messages, foster working relationships, and transfer knowledge, skills, and capacities (Savan and Sider 2003). Allocating time for networking activities in the field will also help researchers feed into existing networks to support research work. Researchers need to recognize, however, that community-university partnerships take time to nurture and develop (Halseth 2002; Wolff and Maurana 2001). The creation of robust relationships requires an investment of time and resources from the multiple stakeholders who are involved. Through routine interaction, long-term working relationships can be developed that will enable universities and community partners to build trust and credibility; share power, responsibility, and accountability; and facilitate mutual learning (Le Gates and Robinson 1998; Rubin 2000; Wiewel and Lieber 1998). As a part of this routine interaction, researchers can use local media, newsletters, emails, radio interviews, and postings on both community and university websites to promote updates to local leaders, policy-makers, businesses and industry, service agencies, community groups, and residents. Conferences, workshops, town hall meetings, and other gatherings can also help to provide updates about the research, as well as to broker relationships with key stakeholders both within and outside of the community in order to strengthen the mobilization of key findings. Through routine interaction and communication throughout the project, local partners and community groups will become more invested in, and receptive to, the recommendations for action (Maiter et al. 2008). As Green, Daniel, and Novick (2001) argue, when several community groups are working together with researchers on a particular issue, local leaders will realize that the initiative has broader appeal and support across the community. By routinely communicating with local media and providing updates, researchers can help to maintain a high level of visibility about the research project, as well as to promote ongoing opportunities for community participation. Preferred communication methods may vary from place to place, so it will be important to consult with local partners about the most appropriate communication venues. For example, some residents prefer to learn about new programs and events through community television channels or the Internet, while others prefer to

In the Field

193

hear of these activities via local newspapers and community radio stations. Consideration of the research participants may influence choices concerning communication mechanisms in other ways. For example, low-income residents may not have easy access to a computer or the Internet. Other residents may not have strong computer literacy skills. For example, in one project we completed with a small community, a number of people, especially seniors, privately asked if we could give them a copy of the project report because they could not print it out. Some of these people did not want other people to know that they could not use a computer. This experience was a good lesson for us, and we then made sure that the local government office had copies of the project reports to hand out. A common communications challenge during fieldwork concerns requests for early results. Researchers should always use caution, however, to avoid communicating “gut reactions” or preliminary results. It can be easy for an inexperienced researcher to be drawn into an emotional issue or a point raised by a vocal resident that may not be representative of the predominant issues that were raised across the community. Instead, the focus should be on communicating the goals of the research, the importance of the issues under consideration, and most importantly, when the results will be completed. TIPS ON ADDING VALUE

Community-based researchers can add value to their research projects by building community capacity in several ways. Community participation in the execution of fieldwork is important because it can build local capacity, strengthen trust and the working relationship with researchers, and educate community groups about the research process. Meaningful involvement in the execution of research projects can also allow local groups to become more invested in mobilizing research results (Viswanathan et al. 2004). As noted earlier, however, community partners can contribute considerable research support by providing logistical support (i.e. access to records, office space, and equipment) and in-kind support to alleviate field and accommodation costs (Gearheard and Shirley 2007). During fieldwork, local groups may promote the project’s purpose and ongoing research activities, as well as provide drop-off locations and boxes for completed surveys. Their involvement in every aspect of the fieldwork, from project management to data work and beyond, can lead to a greater sense of ownership of the project and its results.

194

Working in the Field

A concern with cbr, however, has been the tendency to oversimplify details concerning the methodology of the fieldwork. Community groups and organizations want to learn more about how to conduct high-quality research that will produce robust results that can be forwarded to their board or organizational leadership, to decision-makers in local and senior levels of government, or to various donors and industries that may support investments in community development. They want research and research partners who can withstand critical scrutiny. Community partners not only consume information and advice; in many ways, they may apply their new skills and understanding to community contexts. Routine engagement with partners, however, can provide mentorship and also strengthen citizenship among students who may be eager to continue their work after their studies. Again, cbr provides a good opportunity for both researchers and the community to work together to share and transfer capacities. Through cbr, our community partners have gained exposure to new literatures and best practices in other communities. They have obtained a greater understanding of the logistics involved with fieldwork, the etiquette required in research interviews, and the issues surrounding confidentiality and consent. Some residents have been involved with recruiting interview and focus group participants, co-facilitating workshops and conferences, and co-presenting conference presentations. Community partners have also gained a greater appreciation for how to collect more complete data and how to solve problems during fieldwork; they have also gained exposure to a greater breadth of community perspectives. Local residents have written press releases, newspaper articles, and reports to communicate key findings to local residents and other stakeholders. Community partners have also taken the lead to write journal articles to share cbr findings with their professional communities. At the end of fieldwork, it is important to provide detailed methodology reports so that the community has the tools to undertake research on their own next time.

Example from the Field: Building Community Capacity The research team was working with a local government’s task force to develop a comprehensive seniors’ needs strategy for the community. Following several closures in its primary industry, the

In the Field

195

town had seen a change in its demographics that included an influx of many older residents. Like many resource towns that are equipped with infrastructure and programs to attract young labour and their families, this community was not prepared to accommodate some of the needs of these new older residents. While the project was designed in partnership with the task force, several initiatives were also undertaken to strengthen relationships with local groups and build local capacity by involving several seniors from the Lion’s Club and the garden club, as well as high school students with the door-to-door survey work. This involvement of residents from a range of backgrounds helped to promote the project throughout the community, generate wide support for the project, and obtain higher response rates. At the beginning of the fieldwork, seniors and high school students were provided with training about survey work, including issues around confidentiality and collection of quality data. They were provided with opportunities to ask questions about the survey (which also provided an opportunity to test the survey questions). This training allowed them to understand why questions were being asked and how the responses could be used to support decisions and investments for infrastructure and programs. These older and younger residents then worked closely with each other and with the research team to execute the fieldwork. They gained research skills and a greater appreciation of survey work. In fact, after hearing other community members talk about the long hours that the research team spent going door to door in the cold winter days, a number of seniors talked about how much they appreciated the research team’s efforts to work on their behalf and how it motivated them to become more involved. Many of these seniors had the opportunity to meet other residents in the community. A broader range of residents gained an appreciation of seniors’ needs in the community. There were also a number of residents who realized they had many needs in common with seniors (i.e. young mothers with strollers, those with disabilities, etc.). These residents not only developed a greater understanding of the research process, but they also became more invested in the knowledge that was produced. They could now understand the value of investing in both research and in strategic infrastructure to support an expanding seniors’ population.

196

Working in the Field

Researchers should also allocate extra time during fieldwork to invest in building the capacity of marginalized groups that might include youth, women, seniors, low-income households, or Aboriginal residents (Flicker et al. 2008b; Minkler 2005). One must avoid capturing the views of only the most vocal in the community. Due to the potential vulnerability of such participants and the sensitive nature of issues that may arise, researchers should advocate for a collaborative, communitybased protocol that can build trust and openness and generate more authentic representations of specific issues or contexts, and which may ultimately help to strengthen the interpretation of research outcomes (Cloke et al. 2000; Johnsen, Cloke and May 2005; Roche 2008). Researchers can encounter a number of challenges to engaging and building the capacity of marginalized groups, including limited access to appropriate venues, technology, or daycare and transportation needs (Reid, Brief, and LeDrew 2009). Researchers should work with community partners to ensure that – where needed – child care supports are in place to support the inclusion of parents and other caregivers. Transportation costs can be particularly prohibitive for marginalized residents in regions where there may be large distances to travel (Caine, Davison, and Stewart 2009). Members of marginalized groups may have limited literacy skills, language barriers, or low self-esteem. Furthermore, some marginalized residents or groups may have strained relationships with other residents or organizations in the community. In such circumstances, it is important for researchers to meet one on one with marginalized residents early on to determine how these people might comfortably engage in the project. Building leadership and capacity among a breadth of community groups can only strengthen comprehensive and long-term community development capacity.

Example from the Field: Developing Self-Confidence and Building Capacity The research team held a meeting with approximately fourteen male youth in a small First Nations community to obtain youth input into a community economic development plan. It would be the most recent of several meetings. Snacks and juice were provided. Initially, the youth were very reluctant to speak due to the presence of council members at meetings. This produced an important lesson for the fieldwork: it is important to understand

In the Field

197

power hierarchies within communities. Eventually, the youth expressed that they had long desired a place where they could play basketball. Unfortunately, the band had been under third-party management and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada requested a high fee to rent the local gym. This was devastating news for youth in a community that experiences high unemployment and has limited infrastructure to support youth activities. As a result of these conversations during the research process, the economic development officer and the public health nurse obtained some funding to support teen fitness and were able to cover the costs of renting the hall. This initiative became known as the “Basketball Project.” During a follow-up trip to the community, a mother stopped a researcher to announce that her son had not come home until one in the morning because he was playing basketball at the gym. The mother soon smiled widely because she knew that while he was playing basketball, he would not be involved in less healthy or less productive activities. The next day, one of the youth approached the researcher and asked when the next meeting would be held. The youth had learned if you want something, you just need to speak up. The researchers also learned an important lesson: it is critical to build confidence while also building capacity.

LEAR NING AS A T WO - WAY STREET

Perhaps one of the most important, but often neglected, aspects of cbr concerns mutual learning. A commitment to the process of two-way learning is a central tenet of cbr. Unfortunately, some researchers are driven by such a narrow focus or curiosity about issues that have been raised in academic literature that they fail to expose themselves to new nuances and changes in the community. Mutual learning cannot happen by accident. Strategic and purposeful investments must be made to allocate time and resources to support sharing and learning opportunities during fieldwork activities. Mechanisms that may support mutual or peer learning processes among researchers and community partners may include routine shadowing or mentoring in order to facilitate the immediate transfer of skills and knowledge (Christopher et al. 2008). Mutual learning can deliver considerable rewards: it can not

198

Working in the Field

only build capacity among all of those involved, but it can also enhance the quality of information that is produced to support local decisionmaking. All parties achieve a greater understanding of the academic and community contexts and processes. For researchers, being open to learning from community partners can help to unveil unexpected learning that can inform the interpretation of results or even to adapt data collection approaches in order to achieve broader, more inclusive participation across the community. It can also broaden the researcher’s perspectives or understanding of community cultures and protocols. Perhaps most importantly, it can help to build trust and strengthen long-term working relationships as community partners can feel that they can make valuable contributions to community renewal processes. As Topping (2005, 633) argues, “Structured switching of roles at strategic moments (reciprocal peer learning) can have the advantage of involving greater novelty and a wider boost to self-esteem in that all participants get to be helpers.” Evaluation and feedback mechanisms should be built into the fieldwork in order to assess the value and success of mutual learning processes. Demonstration of the ability to learn from community partners can also show that researchers truly have an interest in what happens in the community. CONCLUSION

This chapter explores fieldwork etiquette and protocols that can support cbr and strengthen long-term working relationships with communities. Fieldwork also provides an ideal framework for building community capacity by facilitating opportunities for routine interaction where both researchers and community partners can share experiences and transfer knowledge. As we develop the next generation of community-based researchers, it will be important to pay attention to helping students build new skills such as flexibility in the field, problem-solving skills for fieldwork, the development and maintenance of partnerships, and the ability to communicate with a range of stakeholders. Perhaps most importantly, researchers need to take the initiative to learn from their community partners during fieldwork. These individuals can offer valuable insights and practical knowledge about the complex processes that affect community change.

Introduction

199

8

CBR: Methods and Techniques

As articulated in the introduction, it is not our intention to provide a “methods” book. Many high-quality general and discipline-specific guidebooks exist that describe social science methods and research techniques (Babbie 2013; Corbin and Strauss 2015; Patton 1990; SavinBaden and Howell-Major 2012). Our purpose in this chapter is to offer insights on how cbr changes and challenges the application of social science techniques for collecting and analyzing information. The key goals to keep in mind when executing community-based fieldwork are to maintain respect, to build community capacity, to use data collection tools that will successfully collect the needed information, and to use these techniques to build relationships and facilitate mutual learning. Part of building community capacity is encouraging community partners to ask questions and demand more from their research partners. This can be a challenge where community groups may just be appreciative of the support provided by researchers, and in some cases may be intimidated by researchers such that they may not feel comfortable questioning or challenging them. To strengthen community capacity, as Stoecker (2008, 61) argues, “community organizations need to develop their own lists of research and volunteer needs, their own lists of criteria, and their own interview procedures to use in deciding whether offers from students or faculty will be of benefit to them.” A key component of respect is to draw upon the experience and knowledge of community partners to select data collection techniques that will be appropriate for target populations. In addition to methods books focused upon research tools or techniques, there are now also cbr-specific methods books being published. Health research is one area in which cbr approaches have been fre-

200

Working in the Field

quently adopted, and an edited volume by Israel et al. (2005) explores a range of methodological issues. As in our book, considerable time is spent highlighting the importance of partnership formation and maintenance, as well as the need to understand the capacity of each partner. Also as in our book, the authors’ emphasis on relationship building extends from the early stages through to the post-research stages of cbr. Through most of their book, however, Israel et al. (2005) explore the application of specific methods in a cbr context, including survey research, interviewing, focus groups, field observation, community mapping, and ethnography. In the field of community psychology, Jason et al. (2004) have assembled an edited volume that explores approaches to, and tools for, community-based participatory research. Building from an argument that “Participatory approaches to research, characterized by the active participation of community members in the planning, implementation, or evaluation of research, is an understudied topic in psychology,” Jason et al. (2004, 3) have constructed their book around five key questions, including how collaboration affects the research, the challenges that affect both collaboration and the research, the particular research methods and tools that can facilitate collaborative research, and the implications for improving the training of participatory researchers. Their interests in the ability of the research to support effective change and include communities and future researchers in research projects mirror our own interests. They are also interested – as we are – in defining the important principles affecting participatory research practices, the importance of building strong and resilient partnerships, the challenge and the opportunity that comes from sharing power in participatory research, and the continuing importance of inclusivity. Methods texts directed at cbr also now include attention to “teaching and learning” cbr. For example, Etmanski, Hall, and Dawson (2014, 3) explore “the challenges that lie at the intersection of teaching and learning community-based research.” Their edited volume seeks “to link pedagogy to practice,” suggesting that “just as the practice of cbr advances respectful, ethically sound working relationships, the co-construction of new, useful knowledge, and socially just, action-oriented outcomes, so too does its pedagogy. What is more, the ethical challenges and dimensions of power encountered in research processes or community-university partnerships are often reflected in the microcosm of teaching and learning spaces, faculty meetings, project teams, and so on, turning each of these into sites in which to deepen the scholarship

CBR: Methods and Techniques

201

and practice of cbr” (Etmanski, Hall, and Dawson 2014, 4; italics in original). The collected essays explore (as does our book) both the complexities and contradictions of cbr, with a special focus in this case upon university-based challenges. ESTA BLISH CO MFORT WITH THE RESEARCH PROJECT

In order to nurture and strengthen community engagement during fieldwork, researchers should work with community partners to develop a good level of “comfort” with the research process. As such, it is important to understand the community and its past experiences with research. This effort to understand should include early visits to the community to discuss factors that have influenced the comfort levels that people have with different research tools, techniques, and technologies. For example, some participants may request to have a friend or family member present during their interviews (Menzies 2004). Such courtesies are important to building rapport and trust with residents. These early discussions will be instrumental to empowering community partners to choose data collection and engagement methods that are most appropriate for the topic being studied and for the participants. A key problem for cbr fieldwork with vulnerable or marginalized residents is that the researchers may be viewed as outsiders. This perception can affect their ability to recruit participants and collect reliable information. In some studies, researchers have volunteered at local drop-in centres or other service agencies targeting marginalized groups in order to build trust and familiarity with potential participants (Cloke et al. 2000). Such placements enabled researchers to be privy to emerging issues (with organizational consent), to be able to take observational notes, and to recruit potential participants. Depending on the research topic, it will be important to involve a broad range of residents and perspectives in order to ensure that the project is as inclusive as possible (Staeheli and Lawson 1995). Researchers working toward this inclusivity should pay careful attention to the perspectives and participation of youth, different genders, marginalized or dependent populations, different ethnic groups, and so forth. For example, youth may be invited to engage with the project as peer researchers in order to enhance their awareness of community issues, develop confidence and self-esteem, expand networks, and build their capacity (Mooney-Somers and Maher 2009). Even if the focus of

202

Working in the Field

the research is on a particular segment of the population, such as seniors, it is important to recognize that not all members of that segment are the same. The needs and concerns of seniors, for example, can vary significantly across gender, income, education, ethnicity, personal health, and so on. We have encountered seniors in small communities who have sought high levels of care, while others were seeking a broad range of recreational opportunities, from snowboarding to birding. They will all have very different viewpoints. Obtaining different perspectives will not happen by accident, but will need strategic and purposeful attention. EMOTIONAL ISSUES

Researchers can encounter difficult situations when speaking with emotional or stressed residents (Monk, Manning, and Denman 2003). Some examples of difficult situations that may be encountered include the loss of a loved one, emotional or physical abuse, a sudden health crisis, the loss of a job, the loss of friends due to out-migration, labour mobility, or stress caused from burnout. Before fieldwork begins, the cbr team should receive a reminder or debriefing about any critical events (e.g. industry closures, fires, accidents) and learn about available community supports that they might be able to recommend to residents. As this information should already be well-known to the research team as part of the “getting to know the community” exercise, it should not add any additional work to the field preparation activities. In conducting fieldwork, researchers may never know when or why a question may spark emotions. For example, a question as simple as asking someone to indicate their marital status can be difficult if someone has recently become widowed. Other questions that may explore residents’ experiences with community services can easily reveal that someone has a terminal illness or has experienced the loss of a loved one through suicide. If researchers do encounter an emotional or stressed community member, the most important thing is to pause and assess if the participant is okay. At this point, it may be appropriate for the researcher to recommend supports. If needed, it is always respectful to discontinue the interview and express appreciation for the information that the interviewee has already provided. There may also be occasions where people want to continue the interview and appreciate being able to discuss their problems with someone who is not from the community. In a small-town setting, the exchange may be perceived as

CBR: Methods and Techniques

203

their only venue to release and deal with their emotions. In such cases, researchers may find that they need to spend additional time with the person. A researcher should never leave someone in a situation of distress, especially if the research itself has raised sensitive issues. The next appointment can always be rescheduled if need be. The individual will appreciate time spent with them. This gesture will show care and respect, and it will pay dividends when engaging with the community again. Word gets around quickly about how the team handles such situations. ROLES FOR COMMUNIT Y MEMBERS IN FIELDWORK

Engaging community members in fieldwork and fieldwork decisions can raise the profile of the research, garner broader community participation, and enhance data quality as residents use their insights and experiences to analyze and interpret specific issues (Maiter et al. 2008). Researchers will need to gauge whether it is appropriate to include community members in data collection activities. In dialogue with a community member, residents may be less likely to answer questions about income, education levels, or any sensitive issues that they may fear could be used later for community gossip. Orientation sessions to review confidentiality and ethical issues, as well as interview or survey techniques with community partners, should be an important part of building community capacity. LANGUAGE

In cbr, it is important to use clear and appropriate language in order to avoid barriers to participation (Klein et al. 2011). Some residents, such as those who have engaged in labour-intensive resource-based activities or those considered to be marginalized, may have more limited formal education, and this may impact how they engage with, and experience, cbr activities (Boser 2006). Lower levels of education should not be construed as lower levels of knowledge, as such residents will be able to draw upon a wealth of life experiences. Providing these participants with the opportunity to use their lived experiences to influence the research process will help to add value to the project (Mooney-Somers and Maher 2009; Wright et al. 2009). When engaging with these participants, it is important to avoid the use of academic jargon (Mitton et al. 2007; Shields and Evans 2008). In conversations with

204

Working in the Field

different generations, meanwhile, researchers should also carefully consider the language they use. Older seniors may not understand all the terms that are used today. In all cases, it will be important to define key terms so everyone is clear on the topic and to avoid the use of slang. Furthermore, researchers themselves may not understand all the terms that older or younger generations have used to describe certain contexts, equipment, or technology. A researcher can demonstrate interest and show respect by asking participants to clarify any terms used. Different organizations (non-profits, government, business, or industry) may use specific and at times calculated language as a part of their organizational culture. Language can provide clues to basic assumptions, values, or priorities (Belkhodja et al. 2007). A key component of data collection is to understand not just what participants say, but also what they do not say. Words may be chosen for a reason. It is important to question what message is being communicated, as well as the motivations behind that message. Flyvbjerg (1998) describes how knowledge and language are used to manipulate perception and meaning in order to rationalize messages and strengthen one’s position or power within the community. Within cbr, we must be attentive to how communities are negotiated and made through the use of language and knowledge (Massey 2005; Woods 2007). During initial engagement with the community during fieldwork, researchers will need to ensure that promotional materials used to solicit and encourage participation have clear and inclusive language. The intention of any meeting or event must be included in order to avoid participant frustration that may be harmful to the trust and relationships that have already been established. All relevant details, such as the duration of the project, where and when people may be able to participate, and contact information for the research team and community partner(s) should also be included. Furthermore, it is important to strategically locate promotional materials in “high traffic” areas in the community, such as grocery stores, post offices, recreational facilities, local government offices, health centres, and social drop-in centres. Strategic promotional messages may also be provided to local newspapers or radio stations. Posting promotional materials on websites alone will not work. Misunderstandings that are linked to language, and in some cases culture, can affect communication and long-term relationships among cbr stakeholders (Gearheard and Shirley 2007). Whenever engaging with community participants, it is important to strive whenever possi-

CBR: Methods and Techniques

205

ble to speak with people in a language that is comfortable for them. As Holkup et al. (2004) argue, the more comfortable the participant is with the researcher’s language, and the more familiar the researcher is with the participant’s language, the more accurate the interpretation and analysis will be with the data collected. Communication with different ethnic or Aboriginal communities, however, can quickly become complex as different words can be used to mean different things. Learning by all parties in the cbr project is needed not just for the language that researchers use with community participants, but also for the language or words used by participants to express ideas or assign meaning to different things. Encouraging community participants to express their ideas and thoughts in their own words empowers them as they make their contributions. Their voices must not be lost in the analysis or final product. Using a language that is comfortable for the participant will also help the interviewer to develop a greater degree of intimacy. In some cases, it may be necessary to have a community-based translator (Menzies 2004). In other circumstances, community members may agree to teach the researcher their language as part of the mutual learning experience throughout the research process (Caine, Davison, and Stewart 2009). The style of language used when writing will also have to be carefully considered in order to ensure a fit with the appropriate audiences (Reid, Brief, and LeDrew 2009; Shields and Evans 2008). Failure to use plain language to convey both qualitative and quantitative findings and key recommendations can be a substantial barrier to knowledge mobilization (Levin 2011). As mentioned, when working in rural and small-town settings, researchers should use carefully constructed language to protect the anonymity of participants. Even when researchers use techniques such as pseudonyms in their written materials, it can still be difficult to mask the identity of participants given the unique perspectives or language used by certain well-known individuals in the community (Markey, Halseth, and Manson 2010). CONSENT

When a researcher first engages with residents to collect information, they will often need to begin by reviewing a consent form with the participant in order to ensure that this person understands the purpose of the study, their rights as a participant, how the information will be stored and used, the confidential nature of their participation,

206

Working in the Field

and how findings will be communicated back to them. Some consent forms may fit a standard template used by academics and universities. The legalese that is common in such standard consent forms, however, can be quite intimidating to potential participants. When reviewing the consent form with participants, it is often helpful to supplement such legal language with a more common explanation of what a given clause means for the participant. When discussing the voluntary nature of participation, for example, one approach would be to simply state that if they are asked a question and they do not want to answer it, they don’t have to. If something comes up, and they need to stop the interview and leave, that’s okay too. More straightforward language is much more conducive to establishing an open rapport with participants, as opposed to stating that they have “the right to end their participation” at any time and have all the information provided withdrawn from the study and “destroyed.” The language of consent forms may also be difficult for participants with poor eyesight, lower literacy levels, and a lack of fluency in the language of the research. Marginalized populations may also be willing to participate in a study, but may refuse to sign a consent form due to injustices or other negative experiences in their past (Davis and Reid 1999; Gordon 2000). In Aboriginal communities, participants may refuse to sign consent forms since they associate the experience of signing legal forms with the signing of past documents that resulted in lost rights (Davison, Brown, and Moffitt 2006). There may be considerable mistrust and suspicion with such processes. In the case of Aboriginal communities, the use of oral consent may be more appropriate as it aligns better with their oral traditions. Other researchers have obtained oral consent through audio or video recordings and this is now a standard practice within many research ethics settings (Benitez, Devaux, and Dausset 2002). Researchers also need to be aware of the different levels of consent that may be required. In most cases, research in Aboriginal communities will require consent at both the individual and community level (Lavelle, Larsen, and Gundersen 2009). As a part of this process, the researcher must also determine the proper protocol to approach Elders, clans, or families. It is equally important to understand who can give consent in the community. If a researcher is exploring, for example, partnerships between the First Nation government and industry, it is proper protocol to first obtain consent from the chief and council to engage in

CBR: Methods and Techniques

207

the research before talking to the economic development officer. But if one wants to talk about land use across traditional territory, then it is more likely that clan, family, or hereditary leaders are the ones from whom one must seek out permission and approval. One must always strike a delicate balance by starting carefully and building trust and relationships with communities. PLACE TO WORK

Researchers will need to establish a place to work in the community throughout the fieldwork period. Given the long hours that often accompany fieldwork, this space needs to be accessible to researchers both during and after business hours. This space will need to be secure and able to provide storage of confidential materials. As always, it is important not only to consider the careful storage of materials, but also to ensure that all files are backed up on multiple password-protected hard drives. One caveat concerns the storage of data and materials collected in Aboriginal communities. Both during and after fieldwork, it is common for materials, such as video, photographs, and transcribed interviews, to be stored in a place identified as suitable by the community (Menzies 2004). Decisions on this matter need to be part of the earlier relationship-building protocols around data ownership and archiving. Perhaps most importantly, the space may need to be accessible to participants and other community members who wish to interact with the research team. The provision of workspace is often an excellent contribution that community partners can provide to the cbr project. It is important, however, to ensure that the research team’s use of this space is not burdensome on community partners that may already be struggling with limited resources. During fieldwork, an issue at the core of cbr is that researchers will need to pay attention to the balance of doing good cbr and maintaining reliable research. When many researchers and community members are involved in the execution of research activities, it is always important to ensure that the first interview or survey collected receives the same level of attention to detail as the last. This consistency is important; it enables researchers not only to collect good quality data, but to also show respect for the time and contributions provided by participants. Workshops with researchers, community partners, and volunteers that provide training about research ethics, research etiquette,

208

Working in the Field

interviewing techniques, recording observations and field notes, and analysis of data can help to strengthen the internal validity of the research (Dowling 2010; Mooney-Somers and Maher 2009). Monitoring the quality of data collected, and reviewing ways to improve interview or surveying techniques, will also help to improve the quality of the data over the course of the project. ANALYSIS

A key concern in any research is ensuring rigour and reliability. For example, the transcription of interviews, oral histories, and focus groups, and the use of manifest (i.e. words on the page) and latent (i.e. broader themes conveyed by the words) content analysis, will help to improve the rigour and reliability of qualitative studies (Massey 2011). Content analysis typically involves searching for specific manifest or latent content in textual data. The specific content (or “codes”) being searched for is done over several rounds of reviewing the text of interest. For multiple rounds of coding for manifest or latent content, it is often recommended that coding be undertaken by at least two researchers, with each round further scrutinized by a lead researcher. This can help to counter the potential for individual coder error and can enhance rigour and reliability. Themes from previous studies can provide the basis for latent content analysis to enable the research team to explore deeper meanings within transcripts (Robinson 1998). To be able to identify these deeper issues in the research, students and research assistants need to be familiar with some of the theoretical issues raised in the literature and in previous studies. Without a solid theoretical background, analysts may find it challenging to assess what is important within each interview (Ryser, Halseth, and Thien 2009). The involvement of community partners in analysis can also allow the research team to develop a richer or better informed list of codes and enhance the understanding of the findings that emerge (Minkler 2005), because community partners can draw upon their “insider” knowledge or particular expertise (Roche 2008). Senior researchers will need to work with student and community-based researchers throughout the analysis process in order to provide the sufficient guidance and feedback that will allow experiential learning to take place. Triangulation to improve the validity of content analysis findings can be done via comparison with the researcher’s own field observation notes, the responses of other research participants, and with previous literature (Hycner 1999).

CBR: Methods and Techniques

209

GROUP TECHNIQUES

Some communities can experience tremendous pressures from multiple research requests. The research burden can be particularly troublesome for places that receive broad media coverage around industry closures, disasters, and other events that put them on everyone’s list to study. Under such circumstances, community partners may recommend the use of group techniques as a less intrusive mechanism as people only need to get together for the one research conversation (Viswanathan et al. 2004). As with all research methods and techniques, it is important to select a group technique that will be appropriate for the stage of research and the issue under investigation. Group techniques may not be appropriate for every cbr project. Due to the mobility of some participants and the sensitive nature of some issues, alternative research approaches may be needed. As with any research technique, if researchers work closely with community partners, these group techniques can provide a good foundation to generate momentum for mobilizing knowledge into action; it can help fuel and sustain the wider conversation in the community about “whatever happened to that project …” Relationship Building Group techniques are also particularly well-suited for cbr when the goal is to broker relationships and build rapport across residents, groups, and various stakeholders (Cristancho et al. 2008; Henry and Mackenzie 2012). As Anderson and Heyne (2000, 17) argue, group techniques can increase “the likelihood of forming spontaneous community partnerships and networks, which is especially critical in rural areas” that have more limited resources and infrastructure. In one small community, for example, during a roundtable discussion, our research team found out the key issue for residents of this small town was the pending loss of insurance for the local volunteer fire department. Representatives of the local First Nations were also at the roundtable. The town residents and the First Nation did not regularly communicate, but during this discussion, all participants saw the need to continue fire services for both communities, and the First Nation was able to identify an opportunity to continue the insurance of the volunteer fire department. Community-based partners can also provide researchers with considerable support for group techniques. Through their routine en-

210

Working in the Field

gagement, community partners can enhance the legitimacy of the research and the researchers by introducing them to participants at events (Daley et al. 2010). If researchers have worked with the community partners before, it can be very beneficial to have the community partners communicate this past experience to event participants, as it helps to demonstrate the commitment that researchers have to the community. Logistics Some of the challenges for cbr derive from the nature of communities. As in any group setting, it is important to consider relationships and interpersonal dynamics when selecting and inviting potential participants. Relationships between participants could nurture or impede knowledge mobilization later on depending on the levels of trust, the legacy of past conflicts, the stability of local relationships over time, and the ability of participants and partners to champion processes of change (Henry and Mackenzie 2012). Navigating relationships and interpersonal dynamics in small communities requires a careful balance on the part of the researcher and an important role for community partners to act as brokers to connect all those with an interest in the key issues at hand. In rural and small-town places, it can be difficult to recruit an adequate number of people to meet the purpose of a focus group due to the small local population. In some circumstances, for example, it may not be possible to avoid having family members in the same group meeting (Daley et al. 2010). Ethical Concerns When cbr researchers are using group techniques, they need to consider a number of special ethical concerns. First, assurance of confidentiality is not possible within a group setting. While researchers or facilitators may request that all participants refrain from discussing issues shared outside the group setting, everyone hears the discussion and there is no guarantee that participants will adhere to these protocols (Webb and Doman 2008). These concerns can be particularly pronounced in rural and small-town places where “everyone knows everyone” (Goodsell, Ward, and Stovall 2009, 67). Unfortunately, concerns

CBR: Methods and Techniques

211

about gossip or the exposure of personal experiences or viewpoints in a tight-knit community can inhibit engagement. While feminist and cbr advocates value focus groups for their ability to empower participants to raise awareness, build connections, and take action in their community, these same literatures have also raised concerns about unanticipated consequences of such approaches. For example, participants may be compromised by revealing more than they are later comfortable with. This is a concern that may be more prominent when conducting cbr in small, close-knit communities where there is a greater likelihood that focus group participants will know each other. Traditions and Norms Cultural norms and traditions may influence the logistics, organization, and delivery of group events. For example, in meetings with Aboriginal groups, it may be common practice to include traditional opening rites and to provide Elders with the first opportunity to speak before opening up the floor to others (Huntington et al. 2006). Potluck meals, prayers, dances, or other cultural traditions should also be respected and incorporated into the logistics of events. In many places, for example, it is common practice and respectful at the beginning of an event to pay tribute to the Aboriginal peoples on whose lands or territory the event is being held. In some cases, the research team may be able to “piggyback” on community or cultural events in order to hold group sessions. For example, researchers have been invited to potlucks, feasts, potlatch ceremonies, chamber of commerce meetings, inter-agency meetings, and multi-cultural dinners. Researchers have also incorporated fieldtrips as a way to build rapport with participants and to engage with their community in a meaningful way (Huntington et al. 2006). Researchers should also respect the time commitment and participation of residents by providing food and refreshments, incorporating cultural traditions, or providing gifts. Most rural and small-town places have a strong sense of community. A great way to develop a rapport with residents is to provide a meal or snacks at the beginning of the meeting. This will allow the research team and participants to get to know and become comfortable with one another (Daley et al. 2010).

212

Working in the Field

Example from the Field: Homeless Shelter On one seniors’ needs assessment project, we conducted a number of meetings with seniors, family members, service providers, businesses, and government representatives. A particularly rewarding experience occurred when we worked with the local homeless shelter. We wanted to reach out and incorporate the needs and perspectives of homeless seniors. For this event, our community partner provided pizza and refreshments for participants at the shelter. The research team wanted to find an additional way to express our appreciation, and before the event, we went to the local grocery store and put together a hamper of supplies for the shelter. A representative from the shelter who knew the participants very well was present to help them feel at ease. Having the pizza at the beginning of the meeting was fun for the participants and helped them to get to know the research team. These homeless seniors were extremely open, honest, and candid about their unique experiences and needs. It turned out to be one of the best group sessions that we ever had. The result of the event was that our community partner wrote a letter in the local newspaper demonstrating how pleased she was that the team took the time to reach out and incorporate these hidden voices in the community.

ALTERNATIV E AND EMERGENT TECHNIQUES

The breadth of research tools and methodological approaches has expanded considerably over the past three decades. The emergence of new technologies and new opportunities reflects the diversity of participants and issues being explored. It also reflects the capacity of contemporary social sciences to adapt to a wide range of research methodologies. This increased freedom has supported creativity in how we generate questions, engage with research, and collect information. It also reflects the fact that not everyone is comfortable with traditional research techniques. Some people can be intimidated by one-on-one interviews or may feel uncomfortable speaking in front of others in group settings. People know, learn, and communicate in different ways. Also, not every topic lends itself well to allowing

CBR: Methods and Techniques

213

the researcher to obtain useful information through traditional research techniques. Many alternative and emergent techniques are now available for use on their own or to support more standard research approaches. Below we describe several of these techniques, including photovoice; video and film; general mapping, geographic information systems, mental maps, and kids’ maps; community walks; social media and websites; video conferencing; community presentations; and performance and visual arts. Some of these techniques are widely used and the list is by no means exhaustive of the broader range of tools available to cbr teams. People who live in rural and small-town places, or in marginalized communities, are used to the need to be resourceful and creative. When working with communities, it is always important to remain open to new innovative approaches to support cbr work. General Issues Alternative and emergent techniques are often used when traditional data collection methods alone would not be successful. For example, community walkabouts can be useful to “place” participants in urban design contexts so that they may “show” things that may be difficult to describe in a traditional closed-room interview, focus group, or design charrette. As such, alternative and emergent techniques can be used on their own or to support information obtained through more traditional methods of inquiry. As with any research approach, one must situate the methods within cbr questions, the needs and preferences of the target population, and the desired results. For example, considerable flexibility and creativity may be needed with cbr approaches when interacting with children (Hart 1997). There are a number of issues that cbr teams should keep in mind when selecting and using any research approach. First, researchers and community partners should be cautious about experimenting with “fads” as part of their method of inquiry. These techniques may only be useful for part of the targeted population who may be comfortable engaging with that particular alternative technique (e.g. various online platforms). The challenge is that some emergent techniques can fade away quickly (or cease to be supported by a host organization), and there is a danger that the time and work invested in the cbr project may not be durable over the longer term. It is important to select an approach that can engage the appropriate group or audience. It is also im-

214

Working in the Field

portant to select a technique that is economical and is likely to be used again for other cbr projects. Investing in training, software, equipment, and infrastructure that will be used only once is not conducive to building long-term community capacity. cbr teams must also consider the value that the research project and community partners will receive from investing in alternative techniques in order to obtain relevant and useful information. Alternative techniques can be strategically used to enhance community buy-in and strengthen larger collective interest and commitment to the project that can pay dividends later on when new knowledge and recommendations are being mobilized into action. These approaches can get people to think differently, to view issues and their community differently. A final caution for researchers is that they must still consider how alternative and emergent techniques can be used for academic purposes, including publication. These techniques can exhibit as much rigour as other research methods, but they must also be carefully and extensively documented in order to enhance the reliability of the data and the research method. Alternative techniques may also raise new questions concerning ethical protocols or considerations that may not have been considered previously by research ethics boards. Images There are a wide range of techniques that employ images and the construction of images to assist cbr projects in reaching different populations or uncovering different information or perspectives. For example, photovoice empowers participants to collect data through photographs and engage in meaningful dialogue about complex personal and community issues with their peers, academics, various stakeholders, and policy-makers in order to nurture change (Moore et al. 2008; Teti et al. 2012). Created as a feminist research tool (McIntyre 2003), photovoice has also been used to engage participants with limited reading skills (Cooper and Yarbrough 2010). Photo- and image-based techniques have also been found to be culturally appropriate when working with Aboriginal communities as the practice of sharing stories about photographs is more similar to the recounting of oral histories and storytelling (Jones et al. 2013). As part of a multi-year study examining settlement and social and economic integration experiences of immigrants and refugees in a northern town, the project team used photovoice to explore the hidden avenues and migration experiences of foreign brides and live-in

CBR: Methods and Techniques

215

caregivers. This technique allowed these women to give voice to their experiences by providing qualitative information about the photographs they had taken about their lives. By using the photovoice materials, the project then provided a venue for these women to come together with community stakeholders to facilitate a dialogue about how these women perceive the community and how community supports could be improved to address barriers that impede the settlement, integration, and retention of immigrants. Video-based techniques also have the ability to help researchers understand and deconstruct the complex behaviours, relationships, dynamics, and constraints of particular contexts (Kindon 2003). They have also been used to bridge cross-cultural understandings, as well as to build and strengthen networks and collaborations to address key community development issues (Garrett 2011).

Example from the Field: Using Video How do researchers engage youth in a community economic development process so that they feel that their time and opinions are valued? A cbr project in one small First Nations community used the production of videos as a way to better engage youth. As it turned out, the youth then played an instrumental role in engaging other residents. Six youth, including three males and three females, participated in a one-week training session about how to record and edit videos into short movies. The project strategically selected six at-risk youth who were provided with a stipend and received lunch each day. Each individual was provided with their own camera to record two videos: one that specifically related to the community economic development project and one that represented what was important to them in their community. As a result, youth interviewed residents and produced videos about community economic development aspirations, but they also produced videos about such topics as traditional carving and the importance of having Elders teaching children to speak the traditional language. The video technique proved highly effective in eliciting meaningful information from the youth. The unforeseen benefits were the impact that it had on the general community and how it helped raise awareness and buy-in around the process.

216

Working in the Field

Like photographs, video also requires attention to issues such as clear guidelines about privacy, confidentiality, ownership, access, and storage of video footage and related materials for long-term memory. For example, in Aboriginal communities, it may be appropriate to donate youth interviews with Elders to the local oral history library. In any context, video-based projects may require negotiations concerning veto rights over the recording and use of recorded materials from various activities and events (Kindon 2003). Video-based projects can require considerable investments in training. By investing strategically in training, researchers can build the capacity of residents and groups to undertake collective problem solving (Cumming and Norwood 2012). People also need to be aware of potential risks that may emerge from image-based research techniques. Informed consent must be obtained for any person appearing in the images (Mitchell and de Lange 2011). Responses to confidentiality concerns have involved blurring faces/ identities, but not all researchers use such technology when editing (Mackenzie and Xiao 2003). Some pictures may reveal embarrassing or even unlawful actions and activities (Novak 2010). As Clark, Prosser, and Wiles (2010) further note, consent to use photos or video to document issues related to sensitive topics, such as drug and alcohol addictions or abuse, raises much more complex ethical issues. Some participants may be further stigmatized and marginalized by the way research is used or released (Cooper and Yarbrough 2010). Finally, we also wish to note the importance of performing and visual arts as another body of alternative techniques used in cbr; materials have included drawings, artefacts, paintings, murals, posters, photographs, video, and film (Guillemin 2004; Harrison 2002; Mitchell 2006). Many small communities have used community theatre to portray or engage with important community issues. Visual materials have been used, for example, to address poverty and to pursue sensitive topics through therapeutic art, as well as to empower and incorporate the views of a wider range of residents (i.e. seniors, youth, women, people with disabilities, and so forth) in development projects (Margolin, Pierce, and Wiley 2011). Visual arts can also help to bridge communication and power gaps between residents, researchers, and policymakers (Lorenz and Kolb 2009). They can provide a stress-free way for researchers and participants to get to know each other (Mitchell 2006). Through symbolism and dialogue, visual arts approaches can provide a venue for participants to talk about their own experiences, as well as how they feel about the experiences of others (Harrison 2002). These

CBR: Methods and Techniques

217

techniques can also help to depict emotions that may not emerge during verbal or transcribed interviews (Lorenz and Kolb 2009). In terms of cbr activities, performance and visual arts methods have been used not only to collect data, but also to provide supplementary information and triangulation for data gathered through more traditional means (Guillemin 2004). Mapping and “Placing”

cbr is a community-based undertaking. Techniques that situate the researcher, and also the research participant, within local places are especially popular. Community mapping and all of the related mental mapping techniques provide quick and affordable tools for cbr projects. There are a number of important issues that must be considered when designing and executing mapping projects (Kindon 2010). Mapping is affected by different cultural approaches and historical ties to place. Aboriginal communities, for example, map differently, by drawing upon oral histories and resources such as culturally modified trees. Halseth and Doddridge (2000) also highlight some of the unique challenges of mapping exercises involving children, including the question of “scale,” the level of detail and quality of information that might be obtained, and the types of bias or influence that can be introduced. Researchers need to understand the context of place and how it influences the mapping exercise. In rural mapping exercises, roads can dominate maps almost as much as features such as homes, workplaces, or recreation grounds. The predominance of roads in these rural mapping images demonstrates the perceptions of longer distances and travel that people must engage in with their daily lives (Darbyshire, MacDougall, and Schiller 2005). Walking interviews are becoming increasingly popular due to their ability not only to empower participants, but also to generate collaborative knowledge as both the researcher and participant explore the landscape together (Brown and Durrheim 2009; Hay 2010). Participants can more easily express their thoughts when they experience the environment around them (Ricketts Hein, Evans, and Jones 2008); specific features of the landscape can function as prompts or cues to personal experiences. While researchers have conducted walkabouts one on one with participants, this technique has also been used in conjunction with other group-based methods, such as community forums, as a part of cbr (Bodorkós and Pataki 2009). For example, researchers

218

Working in the Field

have used walkabouts to explore mobility and accessibility issues, health and safety issues, homelessness, oral histories, outdoor recreation, social interaction, and the overall quality of pedestrian environments (Carpiano 2009; Hodgson 2012). Walking can also exhibit important aspects of participants’ culture as they connect and reconnect with the landscape. Internet Researchers have used the Internet and its various tools for a range of cbr activities (Kindon 2010). For example, some have used list groups to recruit participants, to share findings, and to promote conferences, workshops, town hall meetings, and other opportunities to engage with the research team (Lakeman 1997). Others have used websites to disseminate information (e.g. through an official project website) and act as web-based project management systems. They may also be used to support specific research tasks. Web-based survey companies can be used to conduct surveys and support analysis. Social bookmarking sites may also provide a central networking space where people can bookmark and tag items of interest (Barsky and Purdon 2006). There are always challenges and limitations associated with using the Internet and websites in cbr activities. Access to technology, the speed and bandwidth of Internet service, and the availability of technical support are all typical concerns. Rural technology often does not have the redundancy that is commonplace in larger urban areas. cbr projects reliant upon these technologies must be aware of a particular system’s potential fragility. In one project, the research team provided a link to a local government partner to post an online survey on the main page of their website. The local government contracted out their website development and maintenance to a company in a distant urban centre. Posting the link for a rural survey was not a top priority for this urban company, and the link was not posted on the local government website for almost a week. During this time, residents were unable to complete the online survey. In response, the research team and the local government collected contact information for those requesting to complete the survey online and the link was sent directly to them by email. Residents were also provided with other opportunities to participate as the survey had been distributed to all households in the community.

CBR: Methods and Techniques

219

Another related issue is data security – a key research and research ethics concern. It has become more common for researchers and cbr teams to use various types of file sharing or “cloud” data storage tools. With any storage media based in the United States, all the information is subject to surveillance under the Patriot Act. Due to privacy concerns, researchers may not wish to use such media. Software is available that can allow researchers to form their own “cloud” so their home computer, work computer, and laptop can connect to each other. However, in some cases information may not be backed up – if something disappears from one computer, it disappears from all three. Data hacking of cloud storage sites is also becoming increasingly common. Finally, there is the issue of “control.” When images are posted online, they become “accessible” and may be used in unintended ways by participants or researchers, and they may even cause stress or damage to subjects in the image. Once the image is online, researchers and community members will have no control over how it is used or interpreted (Clark, Prosser, and Wiles 2010). As well, in cbr some participants or partners may be granted veto power over the inclusion of an image in project-based books, presentations, or commercial products (Lorenz and Kolb 2009). Social Media Many forms of social media have been used in research. As with any research tool, researchers need to understand how and why they would use social media. Some have used social media to broaden community participation, particularly for individuals who may otherwise be immobile or intimidated to participate in group settings (Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe 2007). Others have used social media as a network tool in order to broker relationships between community groups, researchers, local and senior government staff, and other decision-makers (Lewis et al. 2008; Waters et al. 2009). It can also support outreach activities with community partners, stakeholders, and participants (Chu and Meulemans 2008). Social media sites have also been used as communications tools to promote cbr events, workshops, or presentations, as well as to provide updates about activities (Chu and Meulemans 2008). Social media can also be used as a tool to demonstrate greater openness and transparency for both the operations of community organizations and for research projects (Waters et al. 2009).

220

Working in the Field

Social media is increasingly where people “live.” cbr work must take it into account. But the use of social media as a cbr tool for researchers and various community groups will not happen by accident. cbr teams need to make sure that adequate resources are planned to support the incorporation of social media in research projects, including adequate staff resources to create and maintain the social media sites so that they nurture interaction and support the development of relationships with stakeholders (Waters et al. 2009). For example, attention must be paid to the design of the social media site to include a sufficient profile, connections, contact information, and other key details that can help community members and stakeholders assess the credibility of the site (Papacharissi 2009). Researchers may also wish to get community partners or volunteers involved to support the development and maintenance of social media sites. Despite the potential applications of social media within cbr, there are a number of issues that need to be considered when using this tool to support long-term relationships between researchers and communities. First, privacy and security concerns have limited the use of social media among some residents. The extent of privacy and security concerns can vary depending upon the social media tool that is being used. Educational institutions are also starting to establish ethical guidelines for using social media. This is particularly important as researchers, community partners, and residents can lose control over content and may not understand the potential for unintended consequences. Even when dealing with social media sites, informed consent must still be obtained (Hum et al. 2011). Social media handbooks (Waters et al. 2009) may need to be created to support the education and engagement of researchers, community partners, and participants in cbr activities. MULTIPLE METHODS

A wide range of methods and tools are available to community-based researchers. Contemporary methodology debates now countenance a wide plurality of approaches and techniques for research. Around the concept of plurality, Wynne-Jones, North, and Routledge (2015, 219) add that “Maintaining respect for plurality is vital in the light of the rich and diverse history of participatory praxis worldwide” and call for more opportunities to “celebrate the increasing reach and diversity of work within our field, but also to reflect on the complexities, tensions

CBR: Methods and Techniques

221

and difficulties that are caught up with the potentials and politics for participatory ways of working and thinking.” Within the field of cbr, researchers are increasingly relying on multiple methods to facilitate broader, inclusive, and long-term engagement in cbr initiatives (Darbyshire, MacDougall, and Schiller 2005). As Smith (2003, 341) argues, “different methodologies will have different degrees of effectiveness and acceptability in different cultural contexts.” There are many examples of how researchers are using multiple methods. These can range from combining walking interviews with gis to combining visual arts or photovoice with more traditional individual or group research techniques. The key is to honour people’s contributions and to represent those contributions in a way that is suitable to the participants themselves. As with any approach, this will require engaging targeted participants early on in the process in order to select appropriate methods of inquiry. The use of multiple methods is also helpful to capture a broader range of experiences, as well as to obtain “complementary insights and understandings that may be difficult to access through reliance on a single method of data collection” (Darbyshire, MacDougall, and Schiller 2005, 417). As such, multiple methods can enhance the credibility of information that is provided to community partners and government policy-makers. In fact, using multiple methods is a normal approach to triangulation. TRAIN TH E TRA INERS AND THEN TRAIN THEM AG AIN

One of the problems with capacity building around research techniques concerns the ability to train the trainers. Problems can arise for cbr projects when alternative techniques are delivered out of context and in inappropriate settings. There can also be challenges if researchers, community partners, or participants are not interested in or comfortable with using different types of techniques. As a result, some techniques may not be properly pre-tested or used to their fullest potential. In some cases, the empowerment of participants through alternative approaches will depend upon the ability of researchers to relinquish control and to be open to mutual learning, not just about the information provided but also about ways to improve cbr methodologies (Mitchell 2006). Through cbr, trainers can learn from the experience of a broad range of researchers, community partners, and participants in order to refine research techniques and methods and to become better at basic training tasks.

222

Working in the Field

CONCLUSION

Communities of all types are diverse and complex; so too are the many ways in which cbr can play out. In our research, many traditional approaches to individual research techniques no longer reflect the opportunities and constraints imposed by the new relationships, infrastructure, and geographies that shape the lived experiences of many communities. Despite the complex nature of community development, high costs associated with conducting either short-term or longitudinal research projects can result in the application of inappropriate and insensitive qualitative and quantitative approaches. Due to the vulnerability of some potential participants and the sensitive nature of issues raised in cbr, a more ethical and personal approach is needed. When engaging with community partners and residents, researchers must always be mindful of the constraints facing the people they are working with. At all times, the cbr project should pay particular attention to developing a comfortable, flexible, and respectful environment to support broad participation and the kinds of interactions that will contribute to building long-term working relationships. A key lesson is to draw upon the experience and knowledge of community partners to select data collection techniques that will be respectful and appropriate for target populations. As with any research technique, unless researchers have a good understanding of the community, they will not be able to evaluate the success of the work, nor the reliability of the research tools. Many techniques, however, have great potential to strengthen the empowerment and inclusiveness of cbr projects for a broad range of residents and stakeholders, particularly youth who can be excited and intrigued by new technologies and approaches. There are no de facto right or wrong methodological decisions, but communitybased researchers need to know why they are using particular techniques in order to ensure their approach fits with the research objectives, and with community expectations and capacity, as the chosen techniques must still produce relevant information.

Introduction

223

PART FOUR

After the Fieldwork

The final section of the book deals with the period “after the fieldwork.” Throughout the preceding chapters, we have emphasized the role of various activities in cbr that build toward long-term research relationships. Each of these preceding stages and activities has the potential to enhance the research understanding and relationship between all partners; however, each also has numbers of potential challenges that can affect that research relationship after fieldwork. At this post-fieldwork stage, there is a potential to continue growing the cbr relationship with community and other partners, but there are also challenges that can arise and impede that further development. Indeed, there can be a real danger that the behaviour and activities after the fieldwork may ultimately determine the fate of the research relationship and whether the entire process can be described as cbr.

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

225

9

Staying in Touch: Analysis

This first chapter of the “after the fieldwork” section focuses upon the period during which research analysis is typically undertaken. Tasks in this immediate post-fieldwork period include following through on any commitments and promises made to the community or to the research partners, and activities associated with “participant/member checking.” A widely discussed issue in the research literature, participant checking involves having preliminary research findings checked and “confirmed” by research participants and is an important step in analysis to make sure that researchers have gathered correct data and are interpreting it appropriately. In this chapter, we also explore opportunities to collaborate with community partners during the analysis and reporting stage of the project. Following a feminist methodological critique, we argue for the use of communications tools that will allow researchers to convincingly win an argument in support of the changes identified as necessary in the cbr project. The chapter concludes with a discussion of challenges involved in maintaining contact and communication with communities and research partners in the period following fieldwork. Unfortunately, many funding sources do not adequately support these periods of analysis and reporting back to communities. In addition, the stresses of other responsibilities on the part of researchers can very often distract them from the need to stay connected throughout the emergent cbr relationship. IMMEDIATE RESPONSE : HONO URING PARTICIPATION AND COMMITMENTS

Once the fieldwork is completed, it is the responsibility of the research team to undertake a number of activities immediately upon returning

226

After the Fieldwork

to their home base. Two ethical commitments are critical at this stage. The first is to respect the people and community working within the cbr and to honour any commitments made to them. The second message is to be wary of the passing of time. These two items will be discussed in more detail below, but they should be kept in mind so as to guide all activities during researchers’ initial return to home base. Researchers tend to be very busy. For many of them, research is only one part of a complex array of activities for which they are responsible. When returning to a university base, for example, it is very common that competing challenges intrude upon the time and workload of researchers. These may include commitments to various service activities, teaching requirements, graduate training and education, demands from multiple competing research projects, the increasing burden of paperwork that university administration requires, and a host of other demands. It is important, therefore, that researchers working in a cbr framework pay attention to their immediate commitments back to communities and research partners. Ccompeting demands may mean that time can pass relatively quickly before the researcher is able to return to cbr responsibilities. For community members and research partners, the delay in getting back to them with respect to critical information, for example, will affect their understanding of the researcher’s commitment to them and the project/relationship. One of the first things we often give back to the community following any fieldwork is a series of thank-you notes. In general, these take two forms. While in the field, we often have the research team complete, on an ongoing basis, a series of informal handwritten thank-you cards, which are distributed to the people we spoke with or interacted with. These can lend a very personal touch. They can also be a very good reminder to the research team of the time and commitment that community members have put in. They are also a reminder to team members that they are participating in a human exercise and as a result must honour and reinforce aspects of the relationship. For those in the community who might receive these handwritten thank-you cards, it is a signal of the respect that the research team shows to the community and the emergent cbr relationship. These cards can sit on their desks or tables as reminders that the research team will be back, deliver what it has promised, and be an ongoing partner through the remainder of the cbr exercise. Researchers complete a second set of thank-you notes immediately upon returning to home base. In this case, we often use university letterhead and create a series of formal thank-you letters that

Staying in Touch: Analysis

227

are signed by the research leads. These are then mailed back to individuals and organizations in the community. Email correspondence is becoming more common but hard copies that bear original signatures still carry greater value and meaning. The letters typically include recognition for what the individuals or organizations have contributed in terms of information or material. Again, this is a reinforcement of the researcher’s commitment to these individuals and organizations, and it provides a formal and official thank you on behalf of the research team. The fact that it takes a couple of days to complete all the thankyou letters, and then some time to mail them out, also means that the community is receiving feedback from the research team at a point one to two weeks after the team has left the community. These letters thus act as reminders of the research connection and reinforce the communications aspect of the cbr relationship. As noted earlier in this book, it is not unusual that cbr teams will gain access to documents that are relatively rare or of which few copies exist. If it is not possible to obtain copies of these materials in the field, individuals may loan the research team their collections or their records in order that they might be copied or scanned. Another important activity for researchers to undertake immediately upon returning home is to deal quickly, carefully, and efficiently with any loaned product from community members or cbr partners. Complete the scanning, recording, imaging, or copying in a timely fashion, and as per copyright stipulations, and return the materials in a safe and secure fashion to those who loaned them. Returning this material may simply reinforce good manners on the part of everyone involved. Failing to return this information in a timely fashion, or returning it with some form of easily avoided damage, can cause harm to an emerging cbr relationship. Another issue discussed in earlier chapters is that individuals may ask for certain types of information that they might otherwise not have access to. Early methodological critiques of social science work by feminist researchers suggested that people are often asking research teams for information and “answers” to questions that they might have about the topic areas that brought them together. Any time the research team makes a commitment to find information and supply it to the community, it is very important that this promise be recorded. It is then equally important that, after returning to a research base, the team focuses attention on obtaining that information, packaging it in a manageable or understandable fashion, and forwarding it to those who made the request. Again, this responsiveness to community requests

228

After the Fieldwork

shows respect and contributes to relationship building. Researchers must be very careful what information they promise to find and supply back to communities. Sometimes the urge to assist can overwhelm the practical ability of the researcher to deliver information in a timely or affordable fashion. Again, it is better to tell a research partner or community member that the research team simply may not be able to help them with a topic rather than to agree to find something and then have to apologize later. Each of the items listed in this section is relatively straightforward. Each can be acted upon quickly and can reinforce ongoing communications between the research team and the community or research partners even while the researcher is no longer in the field. While the commitment and cost may be relatively limited, the benefits to the emerging cbr relationship have been shown to be significant. Again, through these actions, one is showing a simple exercise of respect as long as one pays attention to the challenge of time. PARTICIPANT CHECKING

This section addresses data analysis, reporting, and other issues associated with the close of the formal research process. These issues represent challenging and problematic aspects of cbr (Savan and Sider 2003). Issues of capacity and access to expertise again influence various steps associated with this final stage of the research process. Even labelling this as the “final stage” of a simplified research process challenges our understanding of the need for a longer-term commitment to building cbr relationships – one that will connect the researcher and the community beyond the parameters of a single specified (and funded) project. We highly recommend budgeting time and money for a thorough member or participant checking process (i.e. the presentation of research materials to community members for review) once the research team has produced transcripts, research notes, a draft of the analysis, or draft results. This review is a critical step in preserving the relationship beyond data gathering. As a bonus, presenting early findings to community members will help to reduce interpretive errors and serve to reinforce the knowledge mobilization process associated with cbr (Huntington et al. 2006). It is also a respectful practice. A potential complication associated with participant checking processes may arise when community members react to research findings that they believe reflect negatively on their town or specific com-

Staying in Touch: Analysis

229

munity initiatives (or lack thereof). All researchers must deal with these expectations and determine how the research process speaks to certain results. Participant checking may alter or refine findings, or the research team (which likely includes community members) may have to agree to disagree with local feedback. In the latter case, front-end discussions that clearly identify the purpose of the research and the research process will produce less volatile discussions at the end of the research period. Also, if community members are involved throughout the research process, they are more likely to anticipate the emerging results. As many qualitative research articles note, member or participant checking is often a standard element of various research techniques. It allows individuals the opportunity to check raw material as well as preliminary research findings. Raw data material may include copies of an individual’s transcript or notes from their interview or focus group participation. In this case, individuals can review the material and make corrections and edits. Be mindful, however, with the format of shared materials. For example, sharing a research transcript with the interviewee that includes every “um,” “ah,” long break, and such not only impedes the flow of the transcript and information being communicated, but it can also, in many cases, embarrass the participant by highlighting in the black and white of the printed page how they may have spoken during the focus group or interview. When sending information back for people to check, be very careful that it includes the pertinent information and that it is shared in a form and framework that people can receive, read, understand, and, if they choose, edit or change. The benefits of member or participant checking are many. To start, if individuals initially contribute information “off the top of their head,” they may or may not recall the information quite correctly. In addition, they may say things that were perhaps a reflection of their feelings at the time or a result of participation in the research exercise. With time for reflection, individuals can add and refine information to better capture what they wish to contribute to the research information database. Many forms of qualitative research will enter a longer-term repository (such as community archives); in these cases, the opportunity for member or participant checking to improve the quality of the record is even more important. It also allows individuals to add in detail that they might not have thought relevant during the initial interview or focus group. In this case, they may be able to add details from their own records or files with respect to dates, events, activities, people, etc. All of this data review and feedback allows for

230

After the Fieldwork

potential improvement of the validity and reliability of the contributed information. When moving beyond the raw data, there is also an opportunity for participant and member checking with respect to preliminary or interim research findings. In this case, the researcher or the research team may be interpreting the raw information and conducting various forms of content analysis or other work. In doing so, the research team may be importing some of their own perspectives, understandings, and biases into analysis as they read through the raw material. Sometimes, this can be as simple as the research team interpreting a particular local event or turn of phrase with one analytical lens while the community tends to view the event or turn of phrase much differently. Providing early or interim analysis to participants provides a way for early cross-checking and “ground truthing” research findings. It is much better to receive advice on needed research analysis refinements earlier in the process rather than later. Early in the process, such refinements from communities can help guide all of the next steps in the research analysis exercise. Conversely, if a research team takes a completed project back to the community and gives a presentation, and no one in the audience really identifies any connection between that presentation and what is happening on the ground in their community, all of the time and effort will have been wasted. When preparing to share back with participants or community partners various forms of information or analysis from the cbr project, it is important to use mechanisms for exchange that are comfortable and appropriate for the audiences. In some cases, it may be completely acceptable to email a pdf file to an individual who will undertake their edits with a stylus on a tablet computer and email back the edited file. A researcher who is emailing files to participants and community partners must be careful to send compatible files. In some cases, this may mean converting files to older versions of popular software, particularly for residents who may not update their software as frequently as organizations. In other cases, the researcher may have to print (with double-spaced lines) a paper copy of an interview transcript or preliminary research finding, send those through the mail to an individual, and invite that individual to proofread the document and make any editing or change suggestions direct on that document with a pen. In this case, it would be polite and respectful for the researcher to send along a postage-paid envelope with a return address. A more challenging aspect of participant or member checking comes for those individuals who are rather more challenged with is-

Staying in Touch: Analysis

231

sues of literacy and/or who may be intimidated by receiving large documents of dense text and simply cannot bring themselves to confront the challenge of reading and editing these documents. Researchers must remember that while research teams frequently read massive amounts of printed text and write and edit textual material, many individuals go through their daily lives without those same habits; thus, confronting them with the need to read and edit large volumes of information can create a barrier that discourages participation and degrades not only the value of the research information but also the emergent cbr relationship. In cases where individuals have been challenged by issues around literacy, we have gone back in person to review their transcript with them or discuss with them individually what appear to be the emergent themes and issues from our research analysis. In this case, we engage them in a follow-up conversation about what they think might need to be refined or edited. Fortunately, the research literature today includes many discussions of techniques for conducting multiple engagements with research participants or research partners in order to facilitate a more carefully constructed information base or research analysis. One of the issues noted above needs further elaboration: the topic of how to deal with conflict over emergent findings. Perhaps one of the underlying challenges in any cbr process is that the research exercise itself may identify issues of concern that may be uncomfortable to the local community. Research may also uncover and bring to the surface tensions or worries that may heighten concern and conflict among individuals and groups. These tensions need to be seen as a normal and natural product of any research exercise. If there is a challenge that warrants a research investigation, it is likely that it has elements of both opportunity and conflict embedded within it. Recognizing that divergent views appear in any cbr project, the research team needs to create, from the very beginning, processes through which to resolve issues of conflict and divergent opinions. As we described in some of the book’s early chapters, working through those issues ahead of time can make the latter stages of the cbr exercise much more productive. In addition to working out protocols at the beginning of a cbr project, discussions early in the analysis stage can prepare all people in the cbr relationship for issues that may inflame local conflicts or tensions. The more that people are themselves involved in the analysis, the more that they may be willing to recognize that these findings are providing some clarity and guidance toward resolving issues, challenges, and conflicts.

232

After the Fieldwork

Sometimes nascent conflict is exacerbated by how the information is presented. If there is a significant negative challenge in a community, community members often find the identification of that challenge as an honest reflection of what emerged in the research project. Furthermore, research that explores how that challenge is embedded in a broader suite of changes affecting communities helps with increased understanding. In these cases, researchers should also explain how the cbr project’s findings suggest next steps that can be taken toward working through and moving beyond a particular challenge. Issues of anonymity are very important to keep in mind while undertaking initial analysis and participant or member checking. As described earlier, most researchers are bound by some form of institutional research ethics process. As a result of those processes, researchers need to make clear to participants the degree to which their information or contribution might remain confidential and/or anonymous. Depending on the choices made early in the cbr project and its negotiations with local partners, the decisions made around anonymity and confidentiality then must be carefully executed during the creation of the research databases and the analysis that flows from these sources. It is important to scour any information that may be headed for publication (whether locally or for policy or academic audiences) for breaches in promises made regarding ethical behaviour, confidentiality, and anonymity. There may be cases where community partners will put pressure on researchers to hand over raw data so that they can “see the results for themselves” or conduct additional analysis personally. Again, by having early discussions about the ethical policies that researchers are bound by within their institutions, as well as by promoting an understanding of the need for such ethical approaches, researchers can reduce the likeliness of such events later in the analysis and knowledge mobilization process. There are also important questions about where the data is stored and who owns the data after it is collected. To abide by ethical policies at university-based institutions, researchers are often required to store confidential data in a locked location. When community-based researchers engage in cbr projects with Aboriginal communities, however, it is more often agreed that the data is owned by the community and stored within the community in order to protect their interests and avoid exploitation of traditional or cultural knowledge (Potvin et al. 2003). Aboriginal partners may also have important considerations about where the information is published or shared, as well as the format or language in which it is published or presented.

Staying in Touch: Analysis

233

As noted earlier, the broader methodological literature offers guidance that suggests using pseudonyms or something similar in order to “disguise” the identity of participants. Unfortunately, we have found far too often in rural and small-town research settings that community members simply know each other too well for this tactic to be effective. Simply using a pseudonym and then providing a lengthy quotation from that individual means that everyone in the community knows, based on language, exactly who is speaking. In other cases, researchers have gone to what seems an extraordinary length to identify, with detailed descriptors, the community and/or the individuals. They do that while feigning anonymity by not naming those communities or individuals. Far too often, the details provided by the researcher give the reader an easy opportunity to identify that individual or community. Attention to what is promised relative to anonymity and confidentiality is of the utmost importance. That said, there are just too many ways by which individuals or communities can be readily identified. Researchers have to make very difficult choices and decisions with respect to what can and cannot be included. Sometimes, no matter how good the quote, it simply cannot be used because it would be all too clear who offered that information in a context where anonymity had been promised. In summary, participant checking has become an increasingly common and standard aspect of many qualitative research techniques. It can contribute a great deal to cbr projects: it can refine information and data from interviews or focus groups, while at other times, it assists in the refinement of preliminary or interim analysis. That said, participant checking is not always an easy task, and one must be mindful of how it is executed and watch for any breaches in the promises made or ethics requirements relative to information collection, storage, retrieval, analysis, and sharing. ANALYSIS

The extent to which cbr projects are truly community based is debatable if the collaboration ends once the fieldwork is completed. To enhance the validity of the analysis, there must be synergy between the contextual wisdom of community partners and the in-depth understanding that researchers have of the broader issues identified in the literature. However, while community-based researchers engage with

234

After the Fieldwork

community partners to design projects, recruit participants, execute fieldwork, and obtain in-kind support, community partners are often underutilized during the analysis stage (Flicker et al. 2008a). By ensuring that the research is grounded in the contextual nuances provided by community partners, cbr teams can provide an important foundation for subsequent knowledge mobilization activities as new knowledge is viewed to be directly relevant to support local efforts to produce change (Wilmsen et al. 2008). As Viswanathan et al. (2004) argue, community partners who are involved in the analysis are more likely to feel that the findings are accurate. Involving community partners in the analysis can make the difference from a cbr project being “community-placed” versus “community-based” (Minkler 2005, ii3). Pursuing collaborative analysis with community partners will require training in qualitative and quantitative techniques. Workshops may be held with community partners to remind or strengthen their collective understanding about why certain types of data were collected (Felt, Rowe, and Curlew 2004). Workshops are also useful as a two-way learning process for both researchers and community partners with respect to the breadth of social, economic, cultural, political, and environmental issues that may be considered during the analysis. Such discussions can provide a foundation for coding – especially as it relates to the development of broader themes for the analysis. Important conversations must also be had about removing identifying information that may otherwise compromise the confidentiality and anonymity agreements made with participants. As part of these workshops, researchers should work closely with community partners to tackle a variety of issues that may arise during the analysis. Researchers may decide to start with some tentative steps by engaging community partners in more simple analysis procedures (Williams et al. 2005) in order to build their capacity and confidence with analysis skills. What is clear, however, is that there should be routine and close engagement as the cbr team and community partners work through the analysis. As Felt, Rowe, and Curlew (2004, 30) argue: “It is unrealistic to expect seamless collaboration from a single such effort. It is probably better to have several workshops on different parts of the research process.” The analysis, however, can consume a considerable amount of time that community partners may not have. Researchers must be respectful of the pressures and time constraints under which community partners operate, especially if these partners have invested considerable time and

Staying in Touch: Analysis

235

resources to support fieldwork. If this is the case, community partners can still make considerable contributions by providing feedback on preliminary and completed analysis. REPORTING BACK

At its simplest, there are two important considerations with respect to sharing and reporting back research findings: the first involves the processes by which one might communicate findings or results; the second involves the form and format of that communication. One of the hallmarks of cbr is that it is an engaged research process. Processes such as the loading of a research report onto some deeply embedded page of a university research team website (which itself is deeply embedded within a complex university website) do not constitute effective reporting back. To start, researchers need to recognize that there are multiple ways by which information and findings can be reported back to communities and partners. They need to recognize that information must be suitable for different audiences. In this respect, researchers can build upon the feminist critique of standard social science research methods that has challenged researchers to use communications or knowledge mobilization tools that are appropriate for the types of changes one wishes to achieve. This idea grew from the recognition that different audiences access, understand, validate, and use information in different ways. A second challenge brought to standard social science methodology by the feminist critique focuses upon a need to engage audiences and readers in the production of knowledge. In this respect too, the fit with cbr intentions toward encouraging discussion and dialogue toward change is very good. Researchers should also recognize that there are different audiences even within communities themselves. Therefore, researchers need to create a variety of mechanisms by which to communicate information. For example, if information is distributed through different facilities (i.e. public library, post office, doctor’s office, seniors’ centre, local government office, and so forth), it is important to ensure that the facility is accessible for people of all ages and for people with different mobility needs. Stairs, heavy doors, narrow aisles, and limited signage are just a few examples of building elements that can make information centres inaccessible. As mentioned, we have found that some residents prefer to have printed materials (e.g. newsletters, brochures, one-page sum-

236

After the Fieldwork

maries) that they can refer to (Ryser and Halseth 2011a). Some groups may prefer the oral communication of information. Another approach may involve dovetailing promotional efforts with the other routine activities of community partners. Together, cbr partners can use their intimate understandings of organizations, people, processes, and information in order to bridge the timely and relevant use of information to support decisions and daily operations. There are a range of processes by which information can be shared back with communities and community partners. The methodological literatures are filled with guidance on different techniques; some of the ones that we have found important are described below, along with lessons that we have learned from executing those methods in rural and small-town places. DELIVERY OF COMPLETED PROJECTS

Reports, complete with executive summaries, are products researchers typically produce for communities and research participants. Delivery of these products fulfills at least one promise of the cbr project: sharing the fruits of the research exercise. As suggested above, it is important that the language and style of the report fit with what is expected among cbr partners and with the audiences in question. We have often found that it is important not just to deliver these reports or put them onto websites for easy access; there must also be wide awareness-raising activity and distribution. First distributions are, of course, to participants. Additional distributions are to those normal information repositories that are found in communities. These include the public library, local government offices, local service organizations, local archives, and sometimes even local schools and shopping areas that have common meeting points or places where information is stored for community access. To strengthen the researcher’s role as a neutral and objective partner, it is important to ensure that all stakeholders receive this information at the same time. We have found it important to make public presentations at the time that any research reports are released. This may involve an open house or community gathering of some form. The exact mechanism will vary according to what might be appropriate for individual communities. For example, with some Aboriginal communities, we have made report presentations during community feasts and other already planned social events. But it is important that the report not simply arrive in an envelope or through an email inbox. It needs to be explained and made

Staying in Touch: Analysis

237

animated in the community itself. Within cbr projects, this animation of research reports can be an important step toward implementing change or transformation. In addition to making sure that research-sharing mechanisms fit with the norms of the community and are scheduled within the rhythms of local activity, it is also important that researchers devote adequate time to the research presentation itself. One approach is to invite community partners to events that showcase the partnership. Supported with appropriate resources to facilitate the participation of community partners, these events might be at the university, at a senior government policy summit, a meeting or summit of municipalities, or other venues. In some cases, communities may have routine events and would invite the researcher to present at the end. Such events can sometimes, however, consume a good deal of activity and time. Adding on five to ten minutes at the end of an already lengthy evening of activity in order to publicize critical findings from a major cbr project may not do adequate justice to the knowledge mobilization goals that the cbr partners had identified at the beginning of the relationship. Thus, one needs to always balance the opportunities and forms of communications with the expectations and intent of the cbr project itself with respect to getting the information out and mobilizing action toward change. The mobilization of awareness around research projects fits well with rural and small-town expectations around receiving information in a face-to-face forum. Other mechanisms that work well in these settings involve making use of local communications networks. Oftentimes, there is a local newspaper (perhaps published daily or weekly); there may also be local or regional radio stations, and many groups and organizations also have newsletters that they put out on a weekly or monthly basis. It may be advantageous for the research team to put together sample newspaper articles, sample radio spots, and sample newsletter items that would fit within the parameters of these different communications means. Increasing awareness through as many mechanisms as possible will create more points of contact where individuals and groups will talk about the cbr project and its findings. These are vital steps not only for moving information into people’s hands, but also for moving that information into action and implementation. Our research team worked closely with many stakeholders in one small town over an eight-year project. At various stages throughout the project, we hired community partners to transform key research find-

238

After the Fieldwork

ings into newspaper articles in order to make the information more accessible to residents. An important benefit of using a community partner to create the newspaper articles was the contextual insights that they were able to bring to the articles. Another aspect of this collaboration included providing support for the community partner to travel to the university to work closely with the research team to understand how the analysis was completed and to address any questions about the research findings. Working space was provided so that the community partner became part of the research team. The collaboration provided learning and capacity-building opportunities for both the research team and the community partner. One additional tactic we have found particularly helpful is for the researcher to set up an information table at a local shopping hub. Many small towns or neighbourhoods have a shopping mall or a shopping street where people pass on a regular basis. In some communities, mail is delivered through centralized post boxes and everyone comes through that post box facility on a daily basis. Such locations are natural hubs for the exchange of information. The information table has material (often newspaper-style summaries or executive summaries) that can be taken away. Also, the individuals staffing the table are knowledgeable about the project and can talk at length about the issues and applications. Oftentimes, those sitting at the information table include not only members of the research team but also members of the community partner organizations. People who wish to talk further about the research project and its findings can submit their names and contact information so as to be contacted later. Communities are complex, and mechanisms by which one can increase awareness about the products from cbr projects can take advantage of this complexity. By paying attention to multiple forms and layers of information-sharing opportunities, cbr projects can have a much greater reach. In rural and small-town places, do not be fooled that a smaller population means that contact will be easier. Researchers still need to use a range of tools and techniques by which to communicate awareness. The second reporting-back issue that requires attention concerns the type of report or product that might be created; here we offer additional observations about the benefits of different product forms. The creation of documents for posting on websites or placing into libraries and into the hands of practitioners is of course an important tool. Similarly, it is important to create additional background documents around research projects. Two of the most common of these background projects are

Staying in Touch: Analysis

239

wider literature reviews and also methodological summary documents. The wider literature reviews are helpful for those groups and organizations working with senior governments or other policy levels. In this case, if those policy-makers ask for additional justification, the community partners have in their hands not only the research results (which contain the recommendations for action), but also a lengthy and detailed analysis of the current literature on the topic. Knowing that there is a robust background of research to support the findings can often help community groups be more successful in persuading policy and program delivery agents to be of assistance. A second useful background product is a methodological guidebook. In this case, the development of the methodological report or guidebook serves two purposes. First, it is a record of the project. When our research team has produced such a guidebook, we not only describe the steps and process itself, but also very often append the research tools such as consent forms and interview protocols. We often also include a guide to how various aspects of the qualitative or quantitative data analysis were undertaken. Again, this information can be of assistance to community groups who are arguing with senior policy and program organizations to support particular directions or recommendations. Evidence demonstrating that the research was critical, careful, and robust can often help support arguments for action. Second, the research guide is also a valuable tool in capacity building. By involving individuals in the cbr process, by involving them in facets of data collection and analysis, we are building local research capacity. In many communities, by repeating this kind of involvement once or twice, local people can carry out future research projects and exercises on their own with relatively limited additional outside guidance. The methodological reports or guidebooks provide a tool for the next time community groups might want to undertake projects.

Example from the Field: CBR and the Benefits of Capacity Building The research team has worked in several communities experiencing rapid economic and social transformation. During such transition, communities require timely information on the needs of local residents in order to inform investments and make changes to programs and infrastructure. In one community, our research

240

After the Fieldwork

team worked with several provincial agencies, local leaders, and local and regional service providers to develop a household survey to be carried out in the midst of the changes. The information produced from the study was instrumental in dispelling myths that may have otherwise resulted in the closure of some programs and services. For example, prior to the survey, some wondered if the community was on a path to becoming a sleepy retirement town. However, the study revealed a broad cross-section of household types. While many efforts have since been made to address the needs of older residents in the community, the result of the study also meant that many programs targeted toward youth were not eliminated. In addition to developing the survey and working with community partners throughout the research process, an important component to the final products was the inclusion of the survey instruments and details concerning the methodology used to successfully administer the survey so that the community could do it on their own next time. A few years later, after the community felt that the population had stabilized, a local resident coordinated implementation of the survey again, drawing upon the tools that had been developed (which also helped to provide consistency in the data). Throughout the process, the research team offered advice and feedback.

Attention to multiple audiences also means attention to multiple forms of research communication and communications products. In addition to the ones already mentioned, we want to highlight the creation of brochures. Depending on the topic and the audience, building awareness can often be done through sharing information in a quick and digestible form. Putting such information into a brochure can allow individuals a mechanism by which they can find out more about the particular topic and project if they are interested. It is also an opportunity to build broader awareness as local governance or service groups might be moving into action on various forms of knowledge or project mobilization. One often overlooked facet of product development focuses upon educational or curriculum components. We have undertaken a number of projects over the years where some of the key findings point to the need for a broader understanding or the building of awareness around particular issues and topics. In this case, recommendations often

Staying in Touch: Analysis

241

suggest development of research project products that can be used for training or educational purposes. Sometimes these might be modules for use in school settings; in other cases, they might be workshops created for delivery with groups that have been brought together for that specific purpose. No matter what the undertaking, it is important that various forms of these educational tools be created. For example, some working with a hard copy of the material would deliver workshops or educational experiences “live,” while in other cases it might become important to create a webinar, a streaming video presentation, or other form of electronic and retrievable recording so that individuals could go through the training or educational topic at their convenience and learn, or refresh their learning, on that matter. One of the most important issues running through everything discussed in this section is enhancing awareness and communication about the cbr partnership and its research products. It is important to be in communication with communities and cbr partners about the form, content, and mechanisms for various forms of knowledge mobilization and awareness building. The cbr exercise is a partnership; every facet of it is devoted to building toward a more robust cbr relationship, and the discussion and decision-making around awareness campaigns and knowledge product sharing must be part of that relationship building process as well. Finally, one of the aspects of knowledge sharing and information awareness building through cbr that is too often undervalued is the need to celebrate what has been achieved. This celebration can recognize many different types of accomplishments. Together, a relationship has been formed, a project has been undertaken, and results that can assist the communities or the organizations have been created. In working through the project, no doubt many challenges were overcome. In creating the information and tools, there is now a new platform for the community to build toward something in the future. New friendships and new relationships have been formed. All of these are things to celebrate. Celebration should happen through all of the knowledge mobilization and information awareness building processes. CH ALLENGES WITH MAINTAINING CONTACT AFTER THE FIELDWORK

A final section in this chapter addresses challenges around staying in touch after the cbr project is completed. In preceding sections, we have discussed many challenges related to the analysis stage of a project; here

242

After the Fieldwork

we focus on two of particular significance: challenges around time (and timing) and funding. The undertaking of any cbr process creates a series of expectations among all parties with respect to a level of engagement. Not only does the engagement itself take time, but the work to talk through expectations and the development of the tools for engagement also takes time. The single most important indicator of success in cbr projects is the amount of time devoted to all facets of the relationship process. This remains true in the analysis stage as well. While there are competing demands on researcher time, and few funding agencies recognize the amount of time required for continuing the cbr relationship through the analysis stage, we have found that analysis is as engaged with communities as any other facet. cbr engagement requires time and research teams must find ways to set aside that time. cbr analysis also requires time on the part of community members and research partners. As with university-based researchers, these partners have other duties and responsibilities intruding upon the cbr relationship. In many cases, these intrusions are more acute and more important for those community members and partners than they are for university-based researchers. Jobs, family responsibilities, community responsibilities, and a host of other demands are parts of the very real worlds within which cbr participants and partners live. Many are participating in a cbr project in their spare time or “off the side of their desk.” Again, cbr funding often does not recognize the complexity of partners’ lives and does not allow for the time or supports necessary for community partners and participants to devote appropriate energies to the analysis stage. In addition to these timing-related concerns, fiscal and funding supports face serious limitations. Far too often, cbr projects find that the funding supports hold out during the development and the execution of the fieldwork but evaporate at the time of analysis and reporting back. In cbr projects, the analysis and reporting-back stages are just as critical. Finding ways to maintain the relationship means finding ways to use the fiscal supports that are available to continue nurturing the cbr partnership. The challenges of maintaining cbr relationships through the analysis stage after the fieldwork are important and must be confronted, and where possible, solutions need to be found. The success with which we are able to continue using the analysis and reporting-back stages to continue building a partnership relationship through cbr is the litmus test of the ability to continue with future cbr projects.

Staying in Touch: Analysis

243

Time Frames of Student Involvement Finally, one of the particular challenges with longer-term cbr projects where students are actively involved concerns the fact that students move on. Communities and individual student researchers may develop bonds, connections, and links. Students may also develop a great deal of local knowledge. Both the relationships and the local knowledge are difficult to “pass along” to incoming students. Changing student research assistants in the middle of a research project is always difficult, but in cbr projects, that difficulty can be magnified. While the availability of long-term grants may provide support and multi-year engagement opportunities for students, the opportunity to expose undergraduate students to a breadth of cbr activities is often restricted to short summer periods that are bound between their intense semesters of coursework. At this stage in their academic development, undergraduate students may have limited theoretical and practical knowledge of community development policies or processes, and this can also limit meaningful participation in certain cbr tasks, such as analysis and knowledge mobilization activities. With a greater emphasis on research activities at the graduate level, there are more opportunities for graduate students and post-docs to deploy their accumulated relationships and knowledge, and play a greater role in cbr initiatives. A critical challenge, however, is that students (and their supervisors) often run out of funding before the final reports and publications are produced. This issue also prompts graduate students to leave the university in search of work before their thesis is completed, thereby further complicating the process of knowledge mobilization. A more concerted effort is needed to plan how students of all levels may be engaged in a breadth of cbr tasks, such as knowledge mobilization, during all stages of the project – student engagement and succession planning cannot be an afterthought. Academic institutions can strengthen the planning and awareness of these opportunities for students by ensuring cbr tasks after fieldwork are more strongly incorporated into methodology and community development courses (Qi and Levin 2011). CONCLUSION

Staying in touch with community partners after the fieldwork is critical to supporting the development of cbr relationships. The actions undertaken by the cbr team and their community partners during this

244

After the Fieldwork

period will reinforce lines of communication and strengthen best practices for collaboration and the accuracy of cbr findings. In this chapter, we have provided some advice for honouring the participation, commitments, and support provided by the community throughout the earlier stages of the cbr project. While standard research projects may typically exclude community members from the analysis stage of research, the cbr approach uses community involvement as a way to enhance the quality and relevance of the information that is ultimately produced to support community actions of change. This chapter also explores a number of issues and challenges with respect to staying in touch with communities after the fieldwork. Even after the fieldwork period, cbr relationships require routine communication and multiple communication tools in multiple compatible formats as different people access, use, and understand information in different ways. As researchers and community partners work closely together after the fieldwork, there may be a need to deploy the conflict resolution mechanisms created in earlier stages of the process to address differences in opinions concerning details in the analysis stage and the creation of final products. It may also require the mobilization of agreements concerning the ownership and storage of data. Given the considerable work that remains during this stage of the process, these cbr partnerships must also be equipped with financial support that is commensurate to the task. The actions undertaken after the fieldwork are a direct reflection of the respect that is shown for the participation and support provided by community participants and partners. Community-based researchers must work to manage expectations and ensure that they do not overwhelm community partners. While both researchers and community partners will have many competing demands, it is the role of the community-based researcher to ensure that they work within the constraints of their cbr partners. Most importantly, researchers should use postfieldwork activities to continue to support mutual learning and build collective capacity. They can also use these activities as an opportunity to develop actionable messages that are grounded in the nuances, assets, and aspirations of the community in order to provide a foundation for knowledge mobilization and action. When people are engaged and can see themselves accurately reflected in the analysis, they are more likely to see the potential of the information to support future actions for change.

Introduction

245

10

Staying in Touch: Change With a vignette contribution from Kelly Vodden

The elements connected to the cbr relationship after the fieldwork is completed are just as important as any other to cbr. In this chapter, we specifically examine some of the issues associated with the cbr relationship after the research process and work itself has been completed. What follows are comments about knowledge mobilization, research implementation, support of relationships through change, and attention to the long-term cbr relationship. MA INTAINING COMMUNIT Y CONTACT

We wrote in earlier chapters about the critical role that the notion of relationship plays in successful cbr projects. One aspect of that relationship is that it extends beyond times where researchers might actually be funded to conduct research. If people only show up when there is money on the table, they will be seen in many circumstances as simply mercenary researchers who are not committed to long-term relationships. cbr is about relationships, and continuing contact between research projects is unquestionably a part of the relationship equation. In this section of the chapter, we look at a variety of ways by which researchers and communities might stay in more frequent contact with one another outside of any project-based activity. The idea is to find modes of communication that fit with the time and fiscal resources of the partners, and the expectations and norms around communications that researchers and communities might hold both individually and together, and which can bring continuing value and benefit.

246

After the Fieldwork

Electronic media offer many easy mechanisms by which to maintain community contact. Sharing newsletters through email lists keeps communities connected with research teams and research institutes. Sending messages to individuals and organizations over electronic media is relatively inexpensive (the cost is the time to write the message) and can be quite timely. Providing such updates keeps the community connected with researchers, lets them know what researchers are up to, and also makes them feel part of a broader community. Researchers may also create and maintain effective websites. These then can be places where community members go on a routine basis to look for new information or reports. If researchers are successful in a broad number of cbr projects, then there can be an opportunity for sharing resources and findings more widely via the website. If websites are selected as a mechanism, it is absolutely critical that they be maintained. People often underestimate the costs of designing and updating websites and keeping them relevant. The Internet is a very fluid environment and links are constantly being created and broken. Nothing is worse than going to a website and finding that it is out of date and the links have not been maintained. This creates a negative impression of those who created the website. There may also be opportunities to connect in person with individuals or organizations in communities. One of the important mechanisms in working with communities is that whenever we go out to work on projects with one region or set of communities, if we have an opportunity to be passing through another community where we have worked, we will make arrangements to stop and say hello. Sometimes being able to stop for a cup of coffee or a lunch or dinner can provide time for a quick update between research partners. Similarly, we often find that in travelling between research sites, researchers are often travelling on weekends. Sometimes, this provides an opportunity to stop in at other communities’ civic events. Farmers’ markets, fairs, rodeos, potlatches, and a host of other community events can prove to be great occasions for stopping on a weekend day to catch up with people about how things are going in that community. In rural and small-town places, these informal mechanisms are often very valued as people like to have a quick chat and know that the researcher is taking the time to come to their community. There may be more formal mechanisms by which these in-person visits can also be facilitated. One mechanism that works well is to cre-

Staying in Touch: Change

247

ate a formal set of community visits. Often during the fall and spring periods when travel is less hazardous due to winter or inclement weather conditions, we will undertake a several-week tour of communities where we have worked, sharing insights and findings by doing presentations. These visits provide a good opportunity for more general knowledge mobilization, and they also provide an opportunity to personally reconnect with people with whom our research team has worked over the years. There are also mechanisms by which it can be possible to reach many community members at existing events. For instance, many regions have associations of non-profits and local government organizations (sometimes for both elected representatives and senior staff), and regional meetings of these representatives can provide opportunities during which research team members can chat quickly with people from many communities. Sometimes presentations at these types of events can be an effective way to share new knowledge insights and also to gain updates from individuals on how things are developing within their own communities. Beyond these in-person connection processes, there are also a variety of remote opportunities, including sending cards to individuals or organizations to commemorate particular times of the year or significant community events. These cards may seem like small gestures, but they are often some of the things that have the biggest meaning for individuals. This informal outreach takes on more importance when there is a community loss or tragedy. If community partners are well-known, the research team will also be aware of any regional organizations to which they belong. Often such regional organizations will have meetings in centres where research teams are located. cbr researchers and community partners can use these opportune moments when community stakeholders visit regional centres to connect face to face. To support community partner visits to campus, researchers may inquire about obtaining special parking passes (Lafrenière et al. 2005), providing guided tours of research facilities and administrative departments, brokering introductions with other researchers or networks, or providing access to working space while they are on campus. In the following vignette, Kelly Vodden shares her experiences of maintaining long-term research relationships in Newfoundland.

248

After the Fieldwork

Research Relationships that Last Kelly Vodden, Memorial University In chapter 1, the authors of this volume point out that research and related development interventions are often short-term, as governments change, funding timelines expire, and researchers and partnering agencies move on to the next project before seeing any real durable change from current and previous work. As a researcher in rural Newfoundland and Labrador (nl), I typically collaborate with community groups who aim to represent, or at least serve the interests of, those who would be considered “subjects” in traditional research approaches. In this work, the mismatch between the timelines required to make meaningful change and the timelines allowed by undergraduate or master’s level research projects and funding timelines is an ever-present challenge. With the advent of programs such as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (sshrc) Community-University Research Alliances (cura) grants1 (up to five years of funding) and, now, Partnership Grants (up to seven years), federal research programs have supported longer-term research efforts and community-university partnerships across the country. These programs are, however, highly competitive and not always well aligned with the research needs of a particular community or group of communities. Two important alternative funders of cbr in nl are Memorial University’s Leslie Harris Centre for Regional Policy and Development (the Harris Centre) and the Province of nl’s Office of Public Engagement, Rural Secretariat. Both organizations provide project funding for a period of one year. Oneyear funding timelines make it very difficult to conduct projects that explore complex issues or are action oriented, as these projects often involve background research but also ongoing research and monitoring as plans are implemented and activities take place. Two key ways Memorial University’s Rural Resilience research group has addressed this challenge are, first, by making a commitment to particular regions and, second, by viewing individual projects as part of a longer-term, multi-phase effort wherein individual research projects and questions contribute to a broader understanding of development dynamics over time.

Staying in Touch: Change

249

With 527,000 people spread across over 400,000 square kilometres, it is extremely difficult for a researcher to have meaningful, long-term research relationships province-wide in nl. As the initiator and lead of our research group, I have made a conscious decision to concentrate my research efforts over the past decade, and consequently that of many of my students, in three rural regions of our province: Kittiwake/Gander/New-Wes-Valley in central nl, the Isthmus of the Avalon, and the Great Northern Peninsula. By conducting multiple projects related to community and regional development in these areas, university researchers have developed personal relationships with community representatives, including municipal leaders, regional staff of provincial agencies, and individuals from the non-profit sector. Having worked together in some cases for over a decade, I hope it is clear, at least to those I have worked with, that our interests in these regions extend beyond a particular often one-year grant and its specific objectives. In some cases, projects in these regions have been community driven. In others we have approached community partners to participate in a larger university-initiated research project. In the latter circumstance, past experience, relationships, and cbr principles help to ensure that community partners are engaged early on to discuss how the benefits of research can be maximized for both the region and the larger scholarly community; community members also provide input and support throughout the process. Despite its location over 700 kilometres from Memorial University’s main campus and nl’s capital city of St. John’s, the Great Northern Peninsula has been a site for research since the institution’s early beginnings. Over the past decade, the region was a study area for Coasts Under Stress, a five-year sshrc-funded bicoastal study from 2000 to 2005, and then a cura from 2007 to 2014. Led by Barbara Neis, many of the researchers and community and government partners involved in Coasts Under Stress again came together to undertake the second major research initiative in the region. Based on the Northern Peninsula, the project aimed to help communities and organizations along Newfoundland’s west coast develop strategies for the recovery of fish stocks and fishery communities. Since this time, I, several students, and other researchers involved in Coasts Under Stress and the subsequent cura have con-

250

After the Fieldwork

tinued to be engaged in the region through various projects funded through a sshrc multi-year Standard Research Grant, a series of one-year research initiatives funded by the Office of Public Engagement’s Rural Secretariat, Mitacs (a federal internship program), and other sources. These have included locally initiated projects on topics ranging from fisheries to traditional crafts, as well as a series of university-initiated, collaborative projects exploring ways of enhancing development networks through technology and other means and thus contributing to regional development and innovation. The networks for innovation initiatives have increased the use of technology in the region for development work, with time and cost savings as well as safety benefits for volunteers and staff in a region where it can take up to four hours to travel to a meeting and winter driving can be treacherous. Technology adoption has also made it easier to connect not only with each other but also with resource people and policy-makers based in urban centres when (still-preferable) face-to-face communications are not feasible. Centres such as the Harris Centre and, most recently, Grenfell Campus’s Office of Engagement also play a role as a brokers, ensuring community partners have mechanisms for sharing their research ideas and the university has a vehicle for engaging researchers in these topics, providing the region with access to researchers who may not (or not yet) have made the commitment to work with community partners in this rural, remote, and culturally and natural resource rich region of the province.

One of the issues we have found to be quite important in communities is the continuing role of a researcher as a relatively impartial third party. Researchers can receive fairly routine invitations to return to mediate events or discussions. Facilitating local conferences also continues the notion that a reputable organization is overseeing the process and guiding it through a legitimate regime of activity. These kinds of contributions have a relatively light workload for the university research teams but can contribute considerably to cbr relationships. In particular, moderating or facilitating exchanges or meetings when communities are moving to implement research findings or consolidate changes is an important way in which to assist. An important opportunity to broker relationships across communities, senior governments, industry, and other academic researchers is

Staying in Touch: Change

251

missed, however, when conferences on rural development are held in urban centres. There is a need to “bring the university to the community” through conference or meeting opportunities. Few people from rural and small-town places will be able to afford the costs of registration, time, travel, and accommodations associated with conferences in urban centres. While more cbr projects are providing much-needed funding to support conference travel for community partners, there is, at the same time, a missed opportunity: bringing conferences to communities can expose organizations and entire places to new networks, processes, and best practices that are showcased at conferences and workshop events. Even more importantly, there is a missed opportunity to expose city-based researchers and policy-makers to the lived experiences and perspectives of rural and small-town places that can enhance their contextual understanding of the cbr research that was produced to inform change. This exposure can be particularly important when both community and policy changes are needed. When conferences are routinely held in urban centres, rural infrastructure is underutilized by research teams, and there is a missed opportunity to build rural capacity.

Example from the Field: CRRF Conferences Each year, the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation (crrf) (www.crrf.ca) holds a rural development conference in a small community. An important aspect of the conference is to encourage rural leaders to not only participate in presentations, but to also connect with other rural leaders, government agencies, industry, and researchers from across Canada. At times, small discussion tables have been organized. Each of these tables has been specifically designed to broker connections across senior government agency representatives, researchers, and representatives from rural communities. Fieldtrips are also used to allow government, industry, researcher, and stakeholder participants to experience best practices and lessons learned in rural communities.

One mechanism by which to stay informed with issues in a community is through routine subscription to local newspapers. This has become easier in recent years as more newspapers publish an online version. Some communities have lost their newspapers, but others have

252

After the Fieldwork

replaced them with alternative online mechanisms for sharing local news. Staying up to date with the community shows a level of interest and awareness that residents appreciate. It also provides an opportunity for the research team to track changes, events, or debates in the community that that could be important for researchers to contact their cbr partners about, and may facilitate new research ideas. Another mechanism is the increasingly popular array of new information technologies that support computer-based video-conference and chat mechanisms at no or relatively low cost. Again, one must be attentive to the fact that not all places have sufficient infrastructure capacity to support large amounts of video conferencing, but where available, these technologies can be easy for the researcher and the community participants to use. They do not entail travel time or costs, and can be a way by which individuals can routinely touch base. One of the continuing advantages of video-conference technologies is that they allow for face-to-face exchange. As many have remarked, information exchange is still very much a personal matter, and face-to-face conversations can assist with picking up a variety of non-verbal cues and clues to the success of the communication. KNOWLEDGE MO BILIZATION AND THE CHANGE PROCESS

The last decade has witnessed a rise in interest in how to effectively put research knowledge to use in society. In Canada, federal funding agencies have increasingly called for knowledge mobilization activities that link research with policy and practice as a part of their mandates (Sá, Li, and Faubert 2011). There are many different terms, definitions, and models associated, or sometimes used interchangeably, with knowledge mobilization (Landry, Lamari, and Amara 2003; Levesque 2007). These may include knowledge exchange, knowledge transfer, knowledge brokering, and knowledge translation (cihr 2004; Kitson 2009; msfhr 2010; Smylie et al. 2004). cbr practitioners argue, however, that some of these terms do not cover the full breadth or scope of activities needed to mobilize knowledge into action or change (Cooper and Levin 2010). Knowledge mobilization is generally understood as an ongoing and iterative process that creates “linkages and exchanges between producers and users of data, information, and knowledge to produce value-added outputs – products, perspective changes, policies, programs, professional practice, organization/institutional/community procedures, and people skills” (Levesque 2007, 19). It is strengthened through broad and

Staying in Touch: Change

253

strategic dissemination, interaction between knowledge producers and end users, social and political influence, resources and support to guide the use and implementation of research, support through periods and processes of change, and incentives to reinforce knowledge mobilization activities (Sá, Li, and Faubert 2011). While previous works highlight a range of knowledge mobilization strategies (e.g. Jacobson et al. 2007), many of these are rarely more than a diverse range of communication tools used to promote research results. To be effective, researchers need to play a greater role in facilitating and guiding the implementation of knowledge. This is where the cbr process and relationships can play a role in modifying how we do knowledge mobilization. Knowledge must be mobilized by producing new processes, policies, products, and skills (Belkhodja et al. 2007). In other words, knowledge mobilization must produce some form of change. As such, to explore knowledge mobilization in communities, there needs to be a greater understanding of how to achieve change (Morris 2010). There is literature that discusses various stages of the organizational change process (Argyris 1997; Ward, House, and Hamer 2009). Researchers’ analysis of this literature on change can help cbr partners to understand how change is possible and why it may fail. While there are many models of the organizational change process (Graham, Tetroe, and the kt Theories Research Group 2007), there are some basic issues we wish to highlight that can arise once the research stage has been completed. There can be barriers to initiating, implementing, and evaluating change. Initiating change begins by identifying the problem, as well as the change required to resolve that problem. During this phase, different stakeholders may have different understandings of the problem based on their own personal, social, economic, or political interests. It is important to ensure that community stakeholders agree on the problem that requires attention. As Dunn (1997, 281) notes, “We seem to fail more often because we solve the wrong problem than because we get the wrong solution to the right problem.” In some cases, managers and leaders may not feel that organizational learning is a part of their responsibility or office culture. While earlier stages of the cbr process are strategically designed to mitigate these issues, it is important that the partnership team continue to monitor any shifts in how people perceive issues as these changes can affect knowledge mobilization activities later on.

254

After the Fieldwork

Change can be difficult to accomplish in any organization or community where people operate under the stress of multiple and conflicting demands on limited resources and time (Argyris 1997). Therefore, a conducive learning environment may not be in place. It is important that the cbr team identify not only the issues that require attention but also the benefits of change. Otherwise, change may be stalled due to fears of the unknown or uncertainty. There may be denial of the legitimacy of the case put forward for change, as well as a refusal to recognize responsibility to address change. For knowledge mobilization initiatives to proceed, there must be a “commitment to cooperation that leaves little room for the view that ‘it is not really my problem’” (Kettner, Daley, and Nichols 1985, 8). In other cases, change may be stalled if people argue that they are too busy (Somerville and McConnell-Imbriotis 2004). People may also be reluctant to share quality information, or they may wish to release only parts of new information; they may also seek to influence the timing of information provision or to “spin” information in order to support specific viewpoints (Flyvbjerg 1998; Taylor and Wright 2004). Knowledge mobilization initiatives may also become stuck if there is a lack of shared understanding regarding how stakeholders may actually use and access knowledge that is collected and stored (Smith, McKeen, and Singh 2006). Momentum may also be affected when someone leaves an organization, resulting in the loss of institutional memory. The implementation phase of any project focuses upon efforts to apply what has been learned through cbr. Implementing change can only be done when there has been sufficient attention to defining goals and objectives, as well as ensuring appropriate regulations, guidelines, programs, and policies are in place to support the implementation of defined goals and objectives (Kettner, Daley, and Nichols 1985). Sometimes the community may not have the capacity to mobilize change. This may be due to a number of things, including inadequate staffing levels, a lack of expertise, or limited equipment and infrastructure (German, Urquhart, and Wilson 2008). At times, knowledge mobilization can be impeded by actions that treat all organizations as if they were the same, regardless of their size or status in the private, public, or nonprofit sectors (Somerville and McConnell-Imbriotis 2004). There can also be significant financial challenges around knowledge mobilization issues. The first, which has been discussed previously, concerns the fact that many funding agencies either do not support knowledge mobilization processes toward change after the research exercise or

Staying in Touch: Change

255

they undervalue the time and cost of those activities. cbr partners must be clear about what can and cannot be achieved with respect to knowledge and change mobilization after research projects. cbr partners may need to identify new funding sources for activities beyond research and dissemination. We have found that in many contexts, the local partners are very good at identifying those next funding opportunities. They typically need support from the university-based research team in the form of letter writing support and advice on focusing the application appropriately. Conflicting personalities or different management or leadership styles can affect the momentum to sustain change (Berkes 2009; Levesque 2007). Some leaders may work to delay the mobilization of knowledge until there is a time when greater political benefits can be realized (Bax, Elvik, and Veisten 2009). If knowledge mobilization efforts are being impeded by limited capacity, another response has been to scale the project from the community to the regional level in order to broaden the resources and capacity available to support change (Bodorkós and Pataki 2009). Regardless, it is also important to monitor early implementation activities to ensure that they are completed as anticipated and to allow for early adjustments to be made. A number of challenges can arise during knowledge mobilization activities. There may be a tendency to support actions without considering what will be required to implement them, including who will pay for them and what specific activities need to be undertaken (Moore 1997). Overly ambiguous goals may be a sign that the problem was not well understood or there is no clear understanding of what action is needed. It may be difficult to establish clear boundaries for allocating resources and responsibilities through the change process. Local leadership or political actors may also stall change due to fears of losing constituent support and fear of losing control or power (Filion 1997). In efforts to derail knowledge mobilization, there may be arguments that change would be too costly. Furthermore, the evaluation and adjustment phase is critical to ensure that knowledge mobilization initiatives are being implemented. As such, it is important to ensure that there are adequate guidelines or criteria in place to guide the evaluation efforts. Attention must also be paid to how knowledge is being used in order to ensure that it can adequately support the intended goals and actions (Smith, McKeen, and Singh 2006). Once a knowledge mobilization gap is recognized, the research team must work with its community partners to incorporate new knowledge as a part of ongoing learning to support future initiatives.

256

After the Fieldwork

TOWARD MOBILIZING CHANGE

One of the first ways by which cbr can assist with change mobilization at the local level is simply to ensure that the cbr relationship continues. Within any cbr project, there is always a range of activities and processes that are initiated. Change mobilization can make use of these to continue the involvement of those who contributed through the research project. At a minimum, participation in cbr can encourage those other members of the community to continue asking questions about how the findings of a project are being used and what actions are being taken. Once a project is completed, a key element to mobilizing knowledge is to widely communicate the research results and identify their importance for informing community actions to broaden community support for change (Jacobson et al. 2007). Incorporating a diversity of community partners throughout the research process helps to generate wide interest in the results and a broad network through which to promote action for change. As noted, multiple methods have been used to reach a diversity of audiences: letters, newspaper articles, radio interviews, posters in community centres, copies of research products in public libraries, websites, emails, community forums, and presentations. Social media, such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and others, have also been used to promote research products, create and support partnerships, and enhance knowledge mobilization. The key point is that posting research results on a university website alone does not work. Two additional issues can be raised with respect to communication and knowledge mobilization issues. Throughout the process of implementation or management of change in communities, research teams must continue to assist with the identification of appropriate audiences for different dissemination materials. Sometimes this entails creating new dissemination materials for particular audiences and particular purposes. Choosing appropriate products, vehicles, and audiences is an activity in which both university and community partners must be engaged. Another aspect of dissemination to appropriate audiences is evaluation of the dissemination processes – to find ways to record the knowledge exchange events, assess their effectiveness, and support wherever possible the critical next steps in achieving action for change. Effective change management is not simply about bringing groups together or providing information; it is also about fostering understanding and then building support through dialogue and conversation

Staying in Touch: Change

257

for next steps. As Mitton et al. (2007) note, knowledge mobilization can fail due to information overload or the absence of actionable messages. When mobilizing knowledge, there is a need for clear language that is devoid of academic jargon in order to make that knowledge is accessible to a broader range of stakeholders (Shields and Evans 2008). Projects should budget for return community visits during which researchers can present and discuss findings. Our practice is usually to convene a roundtable discussion of local partners or to combine the presentation of results within an existing community event or forum. Presentations to local government, councils, committees, local groups, and agencies all facilitate the face-to-face sharing of information that remains important in communities. For university-based researchers, this may represent a strain on limited budgets and time. However, drawing upon the resources of the research team (including community members) can help to divide the workload – and also the credit – surrounding research products. Knowledge mobilization, however, is about more than just using a diverse range of communication tools to promote results. It is about sharing decision-making and project responsibilities in order to increase ownership, understanding, and mobilization of new knowledge, new relationships, or new processes (Cargo and Mercer 2008; Mitton et al. 2007). Throughout the change process, the research team may need to budget additional time to support further community visits. Again, the key cbr activity is to continue to touch base with community members and partners about how activities may be moving forward. By incorporating a diversity of local stakeholders throughout the process, these participants may feel a greater sense of ownership of the knowledge that is produced to support change activities. The creation of a research relationship with communities must have at its core a sense of respect, patience, and flexibility in assisting communities to reach their goals. Most of all, researchers must follow up with communities on a regular and routine basis to assist local leaders to bridge the results with short-, medium-, and long-term actions as may be required to mobilize new knowledge into practice. There are always questions and the need for interpretation; it is important, therefore, to maintain mechanisms for dialogue. In this respect, cbr is about dialogue among partners during, after, and between research projects. These actions are critical to strengthen relationships and trust with community partners and to build momentum for change in order to ensure that this will not be just another study that sits on the shelf. Small immediate

258

After the Fieldwork

success breeds further success as it can generate wider community support and participation as people see the benefits of deliverables. We have been told repeatedly that our standing as representatives of a university research team influences how we are perceived in the communities. Our lack of direct political affiliation and lack of direct profit motivation for engaging in the projects mean that the research team may serve as a valuable neutral party for various community processes throughout the change period. We make ourselves available to communities for such events or meetings. These activities require our involvement long after research processes have been completed. Such involvement can entail assistance in preparing funding applications to move a local issue forward, mediation of local debates and conflicts, and support for (and sometimes facilitation of) local visioning and planning processes that research has identified as being needed or may arise from external events and pressures. To further mobilize resources and action, university partners can broker dialogue and relationship building among various groups in communities, industries, and senior levels of government (Holmes and Harris 2010). The goal in most cases is to foster interaction among multiple stakeholders so as to identify and prioritize key actions to address the particular issue under consideration (Dobbins et al. 2009). As a critical element to support the cbr process from the time partnerships are formed to when organizational change and new initiatives are being undertaken, effective knowledge brokers need to have an intimate understanding of the research undertaken, the potential applications of new knowledge produced, and the capacity, working culture, and operations of community groups (Cooper 2010). They must also be viewed as credible knowledge brokers (Bowen and Martens 2005), as people who are objective and able to work with, and bridge, many different individuals and organizations.

Example from the Field: Responding to Economic Closure In 2008, one small town, with which we had an ongoing research relationship, experienced a series of indefinite closures involving all of the industrial mills in the community. The day after these closures were announced, the unbc Community Development Institute (cdi) met with the local government and their staff to create a strategic framework for moving forward.

Staying in Touch: Change

259

One week later, the cdi was able to arrange and host a meeting of local, regional, and provincial agencies in order to develop a series of short-, medium-, and long-term responses. Participants at that meeting were able to identify themselves as key contact points for different local organizations. Participants included the town, the regional district, the local First Nations band administration, regional Aboriginal business development groups, the provincial government (as represented by four ministries), the federal government (as represented by three departments), educational groups (the school board and two post-secondary institutions), three regional development organizations, and two additional community and economic development groups. The lasting impact of this event included key policy and operational changes for the participating agencies that responded to the needs of both those in the affected town, as well as in other communities as a result of the global economic recession that continued through 2010–11. This initiative also led to the development of a community transition toolkit that was later adapted for use in other communities.

As cbr researchers continue to work with community partners after the research has been completed, they must be careful to manage expectations. There can be considerable delay between the completion of the research and the implementation of change (German, Urquhart, and Wilson 2008; Metcalfe and Fenwick 2009). Working with community groups to establish and monitor short-, medium-, and long-term actions can go a long way to both maintaining momentum for change and monitoring ongoing pressures and expectations. In our research on community development and economic transformation, we have worked closely with many groups and organizations to identify why they have not been able to achieve sustained or transformational change. In spite of the tremendous investments that go into economic and community development planning processes, these processes too often result in reports that simply sit on people’s shelves and collect dust. In our analysis of such processes, we concluded that the process of developing, producing, and then executing these community and economic development plans often becomes stuck at the stage of enumerating and listing potential action areas (Markey,

260

After the Fieldwork

Halseth, and Manson 2008b). We call this being “stuck in the middle.” Such lists of possibilities have no beginning points and they have no mechanism for concrete implementation. When we worked with community and economic development stakeholders to address the implementation gap, these experienced people argued that we needed to rethink our approaches to the development strategy process. They argued that we needed to “reorient to readiness” by understanding more clearly the role of the region in the world while also grounding our strategies in an honest and in-depth analysis of local and regional aspirations. We needed, in other words, to build foundations upon which a realistic sense of what can be achieved in community or economic development strategies can be put forward. It makes no sense to imagine possibilities that are just not workable given the infrastructure or other circumstances of a community or region. Phase one in thinking about projects and future implementation is, therefore, to build a solid place-based foundation and understanding of the community and region. Once this solid foundation has been developed, the second phase involves imagining potential options and possibilities. In the world of economic development consulting, this is called “blue-sky” creative imagining or the “re-bundling” of ideas. It may generate lists of potential opportunities and possibilities, but it is now built from the solid foundation of phase one that understands the context of place and the role and function of community goals and aspirations, and thus creates a sound and practical business case for moving forward. Unfortunately, many community and economic development strategies focus only upon this middle piece and thus do not have a good grounding in the realities and possibilities of place. The next phase of mobilizing strategies involves organizing a mechanism for ongoing implementation and monitoring of the knowledge mobilization initiatives. This mechanism must involve clear lines of communication, a strong sense of responsibility and accountability, and clear decision-making roles. There is a need to ensure not only that implementation proceeds, but that it remains responsive and flexible to the accelerating pace of change of the global economy. Only by paying attention to each of these three phases will any knowledge mobilization process be successful. The first two phases will create momentum and a set of expectations regarding implementation; the initiative will not be allowed to just fade away as there will be multiple groups and organizations that will continually be asking about its progress.

Staying in Touch: Change

261

Another way by which the cbr process can assist with change mobilization is to facilitate community learning. cbr partnerships create many learning opportunities by building awareness around particular challenges, situating those challenges within a context of change at multiple scales, and identifying ways to mitigate those issues and move forward with recommendations. cbr partnerships can also identify various mechanisms by which change was achieved in other communities. Knowing that change is possible and that others have achieved change toward positive community goals can support communities in taking initial steps in directions that may be new to them. Once these steps are initiated, ongoing cbr partnership relationships can be supportive. One mechanism that we have employed in cbr projects is to include a wide number of community groups and members as leaders in various facets of the research process. Sometimes, such leadership may be focused on particular topic areas or on particular types of processes. This focus on local leadership creates a series of “champions” across the community who can ensure that the initiative continues forward. When local governments are involved as cbr partners, we have also found ways in which to embed routine updates about the cbr project into council agendas and meetings. Having a local government staff and elected leader on cbr partnership teams also creates points from which information can flow back to local decision-makers. By embedding various facets of the cbr project process in the work of community groups, or on the agendas of local decision-making bodies, we ensure that the topic continues to be raised and people continue to have a venue to ask questions about what is happening relative to the work and time that they have invested. During implementation efforts, university-based cbr partners can also be as active as community members. A good deal of the division of implementation-related responsibility will depend on how the cbr partnership was conceptualized early on, but in many cases communities are pleased to have university-based research teams continue to be involved in monitoring the conversation around change mobilization. One reason why we have found this researcher participation to be very important stems from the turnover that can occur in local organizations. In particular, local government senior staff may be particularly prone to turnover over short periods of time. With staff turnover can come a loss of institutional memory. In addition to changes in senior staff, local governments can have significant changes in institutional memory as a result of election cycles. People who may have been inti-

262

After the Fieldwork

mately involved in a cbr project may leave and a new senior administrator may be brought in from outside. This loss of experience means that the momentum around change mobilization is easily disrupted. By staying in touch with the research partnership, researchers may be able to continue the educational process for any group or organization that has turnover. For researchers, a critical challenge around knowledge mobilization comes from the time that must be invested and the fact that typical university “reward” mechanisms still have difficulty with these activities (Holmes and Harris 2010). In processes such as review for tenure and promotion, reviewers and committees are searching for the “hard” evidence that has long been associated with university faculty positions. These typically include measurable outputs such as research dollars granted, graduate students completed, peer-reviewed journal articles published, and the like. The fact that a researcher has worked with, and perhaps successfully assisted, a community to transform its approach to a particular issue is a difficult metric to fit into these older evaluation processes. This undervaluing of community contributions is slowly changing as more universities are using knowledge mobilization as a criterion for assessing tenure and promotion applications (Qi and Levin 2011). For faculty, an effective mechanism for mobilizing change that does fit with established reward metrics is available through specialized teaching programs (Etmanski, Hall, and Dawson 2014). Many colleges and universities have specialized degrees, programs, certificates, or other venues by which cbr knowledge may be shared directly with people who will soon be in a position to mobilize change. In other cases, community research platforms such as continuing education and extension offices are similarly in a position to communicate cbr knowledge directly to practitioners engaged in change efforts. As faculty recruit practitioners into their programs and projects, the engagement of these “practitioner-researchers” also ideally situates them to be intermediary agents in the process of knowledge mobilization and change. As Cooper and Levin (2010, 361) point out, “Graduate students in education are predominantly administrators and practitioners working full time in the field; hence, they could serve as bridges between research and practice because they are immersed in both contexts simultaneously.” As cbr projects move into the knowledge mobilization phase, students can gain valuable experience that will help in their transition to

Staying in Touch: Change

263

new careers. In some cases, cbr projects have specifically employed students as knowledge mobilization interns (Phipps and Shapson 2009) to create knowledge dissemination tools, forums, or products, including academic publications, press releases, and presentations to community stakeholders, policy-makers, and academic audiences. Our research team has also worked with colleagues to employ students who have organized “Aboriginal learning circles” through the Urban Aboriginal Economic Development (uaed) national network (http://abdc.bc.ca/uaed/learning-circles). Rooted in Aboriginal approaches to mobilizing knowledge for community economic development, learning circles consist of small groups that engage in reciprocal learning, sharing of knowledge, and collective problem solving (McBride and Good 2015). This approach enables new knowledge to be joined with experiential learning and provides a mechanism to continue to foster open dialogue and to build trust and relationships as learning circle members work together to produce change. KN OWLE DGE MOBILIZATION AND POLICY

Much of this chapter has focused on knowledge mobilization at the community level. A second level that requires knowledge mobilization concerns attention to policy development. This type of knowledge mobilization is more difficult but often necessary in order to nurture change that is beyond the jurisdiction or capacity of any individual community. It can also be difficult to determine that new knowledge, as opposed to competing influences, has in fact influenced new policy (Cooper and Levin 2010). There are several challenges to mobilizing knowledge to affect policy development. Perhaps the most important challenge is that policy audiences may not always be interested in, or understand, the importance of assistive public policy or the relevance of diverse rural and urban contexts in the Canadian policy landscape (Halseth and Ryser 2012). Policy-makers may be disconnected from rural and small-town places, and policy supports can become ineffective if they fail to understand the diversity of these communities or the limitations with accessing services and supports in rural regions. It is these forms of disconnect, however, that can create an opportunity for rural cbr to inform public policy debates. Because cbr projects are often focused on a single community, policy-makers may argue that the findings are too limited to reflect the

264

After the Fieldwork

needs of broader community landscapes (Davis and Howden-Chapman 1996). Researchers may also lack the skills to condense findings into actionable policy recommendations for government staff (Ness 2010). Researchers may also be dealing with an ever-changing policy context, as “shifting political priorities,” “changes in government,” and the “rotation of senior ministers can result in hot issues suddenly either being added to or falling off the agenda” (Shields and Evans 2008, 22). Moreover, those engaged in moving research into the policy arena must be aware that there can be very real political and personal agendas at work at different times. As well, communities, universities, and senior levels of government may lack the infrastructure to maintain momentum for knowledge mobilization activities. In response, some universities and governments in Canada, Korea, Australia, and other countries have established specific programs and departments that are responsible for knowledge mobilization initiatives (Landry, Amara, and Ouimet 2007; Lavis 2006; msfhr 2010; Phipps and Shapson 2009; Qi and Levin 2011). These have included initiatives such as establishing knowledge mobilization units, running training in research application, and even developing knowledge mobilization accreditation programs. In recent years, policy forums have also been organized to connect researchers with senior government staff. While the impact of these endeavours is unclear, these types of interactions remain an important opportunity to bring visibility to diverse community issues and corresponding research. What is clear is that community-based researchers must not only learn to develop trust and long-term working relationships with communities, but they must also learn to develop close working relationships with policy partners (Holmes and Harris 2010). As academic researchers, it is important to maintain political independence and to supply research and policymaking information to all levels of government. Maintaining independence can help cbr teams to develop a level of credibility that is critical to being able to influence policy change and to act as an honest broker of new knowledge and networks (Halseth and Ryser 2012). The last point we wish to highlight is that cbr projects may not coincide with the timelines and competing pressures associated with senior government policy-makers (Lavis 2006). Policy-makers may also have a difficult time determining their knowledge needs both for the short and long term (Holmes and Harris 2010). As a result, there can be a great deal of lag time between the completion of cbr projects and the time when the policy world may be ready to adopt change.

Staying in Touch: Change

265

Example from the Field: The Northern BC Economic Development Vision and Strategy Project The experiences of the Northern bc Economic Development Vision and Strategy Project (2001–04) provide a clear example of lag time between project completion and policy uptake. The purpose of the project was to undertake a community-driven process to provide an analysis of the key challenges and opportunities relative to the economic development and diversification of Northern bc communities. This analysis would then produce a strategy outlining a series of actionable recommendations aimed at creating the mechanisms necessary to engage, mobilize, and coordinate key resources and stakeholders for northern economic development. The project produced several recommendations, including the need to complete the power grid across Northern bc, to create and support functional working relationships between the provincial government and Aboriginal groups, to create a northern economic forum, and to enhance and expand resource revenue sharing arrangements to ensure that revenue generated in the north stays in the north. When the report was first released, the research team received some heavy criticism from within the provincial government. This response was a surprise to the research team as the findings were based on an extensive process of involvement and consultation with groups and organizations (including the same provincial government ministries and agencies who criticized the findings) active in more than thirty communities across Northern bc. Today, we find that a great deal has changed with those areas of recommendations. The completion of a Northern bc power grid is now a provincial priority and new power lines are being constructed. Since 2005, the bc government and bc’s First Nations leadership have worked together to create a more effective framework for interaction. In terms of the northern economic forum, the key activity has been the provincial government’s creation of the Northern Development Initiative Trust in 2004. In addition, the provincial government has established three “beetle action coalitions” who are responsible for creating regional economic development strategies to respond to the eco-

266

After the Fieldwork

nomic and community implications of the mountain pine beetle epidemic in the forest industry. The provincial government has also greatly expanded the number of resource revenue sharing arrangements with communities, including the community forest program and timber and range agreements for northern First Nations. For us, this illustrates the important lesson that researchers feeding into processes of change must not be discouraged if policy results do not seem to come in the short term. The question of timing is important in any evaluation of success in research-policy knowledge mobilization activity.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has explored some key lessons that should be considered as a cbr team seeks to mobilize knowledge and facilitate change in communities. The cbr process does not end once the research report has been completed. We have talked about the importance of supporting relationships through change, as well as investing in developing and maintaining long-term cbr relationships. We also reviewed some of the challenges that can impede knowledge mobilization issues both at a community and policy level. These actions are critical to strengthening relationships and trust with and among community partners. They can also help to build momentum for change to ensure that cbr projects are not just producing more dust-gathering studies. Small and immediate success can breed further success and participation, particularly when community partners and participants see that involvement can generate wider community support, participation, and benefits. The benefit of such research and experiential learning mechanisms over the long term is that through this sharing of ongoing mutual experiences, all parties can develop capacity and understanding. Knowledge mobilization will not happen by accident simply because a study has been completed. It requires purposeful and strategically planned actions. It typically requires long-term commitments from university-based partners, community partners, and other stakeholders. Furthermore, knowledge mobilization initiatives must also be grounded in the assets and aspirations of communities. There must be, in other

Staying in Touch: Change

267

words, a realistic foundation of what can be achieved as these communities move forward.

NOTE

1 sshrc launched the Community-University Research Alliances grant program in 1999 (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council 2009). The last cura competition was delivered in 2010–11; the program has been replaced by the new Partnership Grants and Partnership Development Grants programs (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council 2011).

268

Conclusion

11

Conclusion

For our research, and for the research of the many people who have contributed to this volume, there is a wide range of choices available for engaging with communities. This book has been about one way by which to conduct research: through cbr. The book pulls together lessons from the literature and from our many years of experience working with many varied communities and projects. The book has been organized into four parts. The first part provided background context for understanding cbr. It set the stage by examining some of the different models and frameworks of cbr and recognizing that cbr and its cousins of action research and participatory action research can all occur along a continuum when it comes to involvement of communities. The introductory part also provided a framework for understanding rural and small-town places. A clear definition of rural and small-town communities sets a foundation for understanding the complexity of groups and organizations that may be involved in any particular cbr project. Again, many of the lessons and practices within the book are relevant also to urban and neighbourhood research. Certainly, however, the inherent pragmatism of rural communities infuses our own understandings of, and approach to, cbr. The next three parts of the book were divided according to the categories “before fieldwork,” “during fieldwork,” and “after fieldwork.” The before fieldwork part was labelled “getting to know one another.” In this case, the discussion and chapters focused upon the identification of projects and communities within a cbr framework. They described issues around research design and collaboration, and around creating and maintaining the research relationship. These elements are difficult and involve many challenges for all partners in the cbr relationship.

Conclusion

269

This part then discussed a number of tips on how to take the first steps toward building research relationships and cbr projects. We presented advice on how to develop preliminary protocols and how to involve individuals ranging from students to community members in the cbr project. This part also included observations on specific research design issues, such as sampling and confidentiality, relative to rural and small-town places. The issue of context affects not just matters of research design, but a host of related issues including budgets, logistics, field safety, and others. We also discussed the opportunities and challenges associated with the availability of data for, and within, rural and small-town places. The third part of the book focused on the “during fieldwork” period. As described in this book, “It’s a people process.” Chapters described some of the early stages involved in developing cbr projects – including initial research exercises and data tool testing – and provided suggestions on how to work successfully in the field. We emphasized the importance of the integrity of the research team and the relationship among all partners in the cbr project. cbr is about encouraging mutual learning while adding value to the project by building the capacity of both researchers and community partners. It is also about being flexible so as to operate within the constraints and rhythms of the community. This part ended with a chapter where we drew attention to cbr issues and the pros and cons of using different techniques. Issues included finding different ways for people to engage in the process, working with sensitive topics and vulnerable populations, managing issues related to language and dialogue, addressing dynamics of power and conflict, and respecting participation. The book’s final part explored the critical aspects of cbr that happen after the excitement and enthusiasm of fieldwork engagement is completed. In this case, two stages were specifically explored. In the first, we talked about how to stay in touch with project partners during the analysis stage. This addressed everything from honouring commitments made by the research team while in the field, to how to undertake member checking, to optimizing the benefits of mutual learning between researchers and community partners throughout the analysis, to ways by which reporting back results may be undertaken. The final chapter in this part focused upon the period after the initial analysis and reporting. It talked about mobilizing connections, resources, and expertise in order to translate new knowledge into short-, medium-, and long-term actions that can support change. In many respects, this post-fieldwork era is the

270

Conclusion

more challenging time; it is important for members of the cbr partnership to remain in (at least partial) contact with one another. However, challenges around funding and competing time demands can create impediments to successfully staying in touch during processes of knowledge mobilization, community change, or action implementation. KEY MESSAGES

Throughout the book, we repeatedly highlighted key messages about cbr – both in practice and in the literature. These messages focus upon issues related to respect, flexibility, and patience. They also include the concept of time – the need to work “over time” with communities and research partners and to dedicate sufficient time “in” communities in order to enhance understanding. However, the first most important message is that cbr is a “human process.” Throughout the book, we have reminded the reader that anyone who ventures down the cbr pathway must be mindful that at its heart, cbr is about relationships and people. In the face of time pressures and competing demands, we need to keep that thought clear in our minds. We engage with communities, and with cbr research, as people. We come with all of our hopes, dreams, trainings, skills, faults, and foibles. Those with whom we engage are also participating as people, and they import similar sets of traits. How we navigate the relationship building and the relationship maintenance processes within cbr are fundamental to where our research rests on the cbr continuum. Ultimately, our actions will help us to locate where our work is situated relative to the ideals of cbr (Fletcher, Hammer, and Hibbert 2014). Building on this notion of cbr as a people process, researchers must pay attention to their personal engagement with cbr. As we repeated throughout the book, cbr is not an easy or quick research approach to undertake. It requires an investment of time toward building broader relationships and understanding. There are significant challenges that are allied against a cbr approach, and these must be addressed. To build and then maintain an effective cbr relationship requires a good deal of commitment. This commitment is required not only on the part of the researcher or research team, but of all the many research partners within the cbr project. It is also about managing expectations through all stages of the research process and grounding and building upon efforts that are reflective of the context, assets, and aspirations of communities.

Conclusion

271

A further element related to cbr as a people process is around the notion of “honour.” In short, all members of the cbr relationship should honour the commitments that they make. For cbr teams, this may be as simple as supplying the information that one had promised to locate during one of the project meetings. There are also components to the notion of honour that involve how members of the cbr relationship interact with and respect one another, how they contribute even when the contribution might not be a necessity. Within a cbr relationship, all participants must work earnestly to develop and then to execute the relationship framework. Once the structure of the relationship is decided, all people involved should see cbr as an iterative process where the learning comes from our failures as well as from our successes. Researchers and communities build experience and knowledge about cbr by engaging in the research process itself. If the work is done to establish trust and functional working relationships, lessons learned along the way will reinforce the strength of the research relationship, yield interesting findings, and enable both partners to be better prepared for future research initiatives. Another key message from the book we wish to highlight is that of “respect.” Within the cbr relationship, there must be a practised respect for the process. Respect must also be demonstrated for the community and those participants from the community who have stepped forward to assist. Once the cbr relationship has been developed, there must be respect shown to that relationship and the individuals who are contributing to it. An additional key message is about the importance of flexibility. cbr is, after all, a community-based process, and as in all community-based processes, situations can be prone to change. Researchers must recognize that not every place is the same, and unique approaches may be needed in places ranging from Aboriginal communities to places that are experiencing significant events that will affect their basic social and economic makeup. cbr in communities experiencing significant events requires a certain degree of resilience and adaptability on the part of all members of the cbr partnership. University-based research teams face both opportunity and challenge with respect to flexibility. In many cases, community-based researchers have in their methodological toolkit a wide array of ways by which they might gather the requisite types of information for any particular project. Similarly, they may be able to be flexible in terms of the timing and time “in” communities that is required to be successful. On the other hand, there are some very

272

Conclusion

specific constraints on university-based research. There are oversight and approval processes (such as around research ethics approval boards), there are annual seasons and rhythms in the university calendar that structure activities such as teaching, and then there is the changing availability of additional research “labour” of undergraduate students, graduate students, and community partners. Not all of these academic structures always align with the needs of cbr projects. Thus, flexibility is one of the key factors to success. Flexibility also entails the idea that researchers recognize that they will not have sole control of the project. Researchers have to recognize that they are not the only ones with interests in a cbr exercise. Communities have interests and issues that they want to explore. There may be strong and effective leadership and capacity in communities that can be employed. In a cbr relationship, a university-based researcher is only one member of that partnership. Thus, flexibility in roles, expectations, and behaviours is a natural part of building and maintaining effective cbr relationships. Another key message running through the book is that of patience. In our discussions about developing cbr partnerships and nurturing those partnerships over time – from the discussions about initial “getting to know you” research protocols right through to our discussions on maintaining contact and the cbr relationship long after the research reports have been completed and change is now being implemented – all suggest that patience will be a necessary quality of successful community-based social science researchers. Sometimes delays or other impediments can add costs and time to a cbr project. As mentioned at the beginning of the book, if a researcher is looking for a quick-toexecute project with deliverable results in order to support a tenure or promotion process, it is likely that cbr is not the correct approach. Instead, if one has the patience to develop effective cbr relationships and allow them to nurture over time a deeper understanding of the issues within a community, then a cbr approach has much to recommend it; it can contribute significantly to our general understanding of issues in diverse places. The final key message that runs through the book is that cbr requires an investment of time. This need for time is organized around three topics. The first is the need to allow sufficient time for a cbr relationship to be formed and to develop. Relationship development is not the sort of thing that can be rushed. The more time that researchers spend working out aspects of the relationship and the various research protocols, the more successful latter stages of the project will be; there will

Conclusion

273

also be fewer conflicts. A second aspect is the requirement for spending time in communities. As we have mentioned several times, the more time researchers spend working in communities with the cbr partners, the more robust will be the research findings. The third aspect of time is simply the need to reconcile the time required to carry out cbr research against some of the other demands in participants’ lives. We all have various calls on our time; families and children, commitments to community or professional organizations, and our jobs and roles in other facets of life all compete for the hours in our days. cbr can consume a great deal of time, and can require additional time as the process unfolds and changes are required. Taken together, these key messages reinforce our opening comments about how cbr is a particular form of engagement and that all researchers must critically evaluate for themselves whether it is the right approach for them at any particular time and for any particular topic. These messages reinforce our conclusion that there is a need for ongoing professional training and the development of cbr techniques in order to support those who do choose these approaches for their work. In the face of rapid changes in communities and rural and small-town places, we have found that community members now expect to engage with research as more equal partners and to have reciprocal value-added researcher-community relationships. CLOSING

Our purpose in this book has been to discuss some of our experiences in relation to the methodological ideals of cbr. Our reflections come from working in rural and small-town places. We hope, however, that the principles and lessons will resonate with all community-based researchers, be they urban or rural. Communities are diverse; issues of capacity, scale, and place influence the research process, and both complicate and elevate the importance of cbr. cbr directly engages with the complexities of places while connecting these details to broader processes of change (and to academic theories about these processes of change). The past several decades have witnessed the increasing academic acceptance of cbr and discussion of its methods are now found in many academic journals. All of this suggests that cbr may have overcome earlier concerns regarding its rigour and reliability as it is integrated into the plurality of research methods and methodologies available to social science researchers.

274

Conclusion

Territorial policy and place-based development approaches are increasingly being adopted by governments as strategies for dealing with economic, social, political, and environmental change. As such, the demand for cbr – as an approach that engages local actors in critical dialogue about community challenges and capacities – is likely to increase. It is incumbent upon the research community to understand these wider processes of policy shift and connect that understanding to cbr practice. This means continuing to share information about cbr and improving general training opportunities for researchers and students alike. We agree with Bailey (1996), however, that learning about cbr requires a blend of principles that may be taught and practices that must be experienced. People understand the research process and also understand that as academics, we need to gather information for publication. Communities now simply want to also benefit from the experience and effort. This community desire for benefit and social learning serves as a strong impetus for perhaps our most important recommendation: to visit and engage with places as part of the research process. Spending time in communities facilitates an understanding of how generalized processes shape and are shaped by the nuances of place. A commitment of time in community also helps build constructive cbr relationships, where both communities and researchers are learning from each other. The key is that at each stage of the cbr process, researchers and community partners are working together to continuously build and expand the foundations to support the mobilization of knowledge and build momentum for positive change. cbr has enabled us to participate actively in the development process shaping Northern bc, while at the same time sharing our experiences with other researchers, both nationally and internationally. The pressures of restructuring and the pace of change affecting communities create a shared experience of impact and a common search for appropriate strategies to understand and sustain thriving communities. Only by embracing a cbr approach – and then allowing sufficient time for the benefits of the deep cbr partnerships and relationships to bear fruit – are we are able to achieve a more robust understanding and a more useful contribution to both academic debate and local community development. Many of the issues we have raised are not unique to the rural setting. However, the rural context does lend a different set of considerations to how researchers will deal with these various issues within the research process. We know that the book’s discussions are not com-

Conclusion

275

plete, but it is our hope that they stimulate additional thinking and writing about cbr methods, tools, and approaches. A message that recurs in this book, and one that we wish to reiterate in our closing, is that cbr reinforces a simple lesson that is relevant to all research: patience and commitments of time are the cornerstones of good relationships and good research.

This page intentionally left blank

Research Design

277

APPENDIX

Sampling of Research Protocol Agreements

AURORA RESEARCH INSTITUTE

The Aurora Research Institute (ari) in Inuvik, Northwest Territories, Canada, is responsible for licensing and coordinating research in the territory (see http://www.nwtresearch.com/default.aspx). Continuing a process of engagement with researchers that began in 1984, they issue “Scientific Research Licences” in accordance with the nwt Scientists Act. Well aligned with the principles of cbr, some of the key goals of the Scientific Research Licences are to: •

•

•

•

•

Promote communication between researchers and the people and communities of the land in which they work; Increase public awareness of the importance of science, technology, and Indigenous knowledge; Increase awareness of the traditional knowledge of northern Aboriginal peoples; Make sure that research knowledge is made available to the people and communities of the territory; and Make sure that research work carried out in the territory contributes to the social, economic, and cultural well-being of the people of the nwt.

At its heart, the Aurora Research Institute’s focus is on appropriate communication with the affected or involved community through all phases of the research process. The level of involvement is flexible and needs to be appropriate to the size, type, scope, location, and potential impact of the research. Before the ari issues a Scientific Research Li-

278

Appendix

cence, “the researcher must effectively communicate with the appropriate community organizations and address any concerns, comments and suggestions regarding their proposed research” (Aurora Research Institute 2011). Other aspects of community involvement can include participation in the research, consultation regarding of all research actions, ownership of data issues, reporting of results and sharing of findings, etc. Communication that is culturally and contextually appropriate is also highlighted as important and fits with the literature on Indigenous cbr. The Aurora Research Institute has created a clear guide for researchers. Included in the guide are definitions of research; guidelines for what does and does not need research licensing; descriptions of basic and applied forms of research; observations about the connections between Western scientific knowledge and traditional, Indigenous, and local knowledge; guidelines on how to take into consideration the social context of the proposed research; a review of ethical principles to help guide northern research; and assistance on how to improve communication and understanding through the research process (from formulation, to research and analysis, to sharing of findings). The Aurora Research Institute guide for researchers also provides a great deal of information about the different land claims areas across the territories, community contacts, and the supports available for researchers. The institute’s guide also includes links to other forms of research support in the north and to other bodies that may have jurisdiction over research licensing for different topics or types of inquiry. R ESEARCH PRINCIPLES : UNBC COMMU NIT Y DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE

The unbc Community Development Institute (cdi) has a number of long-standing cbr relationships with Aboriginal communities across Northern bc. In one of those communities, we conducted a multi-year community development study. Through that study, people began to speak about a wide range of capacity-building issues. Among those issues was the potential to create a local research centre. The Nation and its communities wanted to be more involved and gain more knowledge and benefit from the research work that was to be conducted on its traditional territories. The Nation and its people and communities wanted to become more

Sampling of Research Protocol Agreements

279

involved with the various forms of research being conducted on their territory to ensure that: •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Research work is conducted in ways respectful to traditional culture and the land; The Nation, its people, communities, and governments are aware of all the research work being done in the territory so that opportunities for collaboration can be explored; Collaboration through research may create ways by which needed information or knowledge of use to the Nation can be generated; The results from any research work are made available to the people and communities so that they can contribute to their collective future; The economic aspects of research work and projects is realized through the potential to generate incomes and revenues for local people and businesses (such as through direct employment or by providing support services for external researchers); Research opportunities provide a foundation for skills training and employment for those interested in pursuing everything from student summer jobs to future career opportunities in a range of fields; More people from the Nation are involved in research, especially where it involves traditional land uses; and By building research capacity, it will not only create employment opportunities, but will also support the community’s own work to protect their culture, heritage, land, and water.

At the same time, it became clear that the researchers also learned and benefited from their relationship with the Nation and its communities. Through their work, the researchers acquired a better understanding of the traditional knowledge and ways that have guided Aboriginal people from time immemorial. This knowledge and wisdom was transmitted in a variety of formal and informal ways, including stories, songs, dances, and demonstrations. The sharing of traditional knowledge and wisdom requires that researchers be open to and accepting of non-Western knowledge and understanding. Sharing also requires that the relationship between the researchers and the community be grounded in mutual respect and trust, which take time and patience to build.

280

Appendix

The willingness of the Nation and community to share their traditional knowledge contributed to enhancing understanding and building capacity in the academic community by: •

•

• •

•

Passing on the cultural worldview and history of the Nation, and in so doing, providing an overall context for the research project; Increasing awareness of the community’s values, so that oral and written communications and research design could be more sensitive to, and inclusive of, these values; Enhancing inclusiveness; Providing a foundation for developing research recommendations that are grounded in the culture and values of the community, enhancing the chance that they will be accepted and implemented by the community; and Building a strong foundation for enduring relationships and ongoing dialogue that will continue to benefit both researchers and the Nation.

Some Aboriginal peoples and regions have already initiated mechanisms to manage and be involved with the research work being carried out in their territories. If the conversation develops further, the nation has already identified a clear purpose and set of goals to support a more community-based approach to research within their traditional territory. Purpose To provide a central organization and infrastructure for researchers to access while doing research. Goals •

•

•

To develop internal capacity to support and participate in research on their traditional territory; To exercise sovereignty over research conducted on their traditional territory; and To act as a repository for all research results so that they can benefit the Nation, and its people and communities, in the future.

Sampling of Research Protocol Agreements

281

TL’ A ZT ’ EN NATION GUIDELINES FOR R ESEARCH IN TL’ AZT ’ EN TERRITORY

The Tl’azt’en Nation is located in north-central bc. Its members have been engaged with research and researchers for many years. Through this engagement they have developed guidelines to help ensure that, in all research sponsored and supported by the Tl’azt’en chief and council, appropriate respect is given to culture, language, knowledge, and values of the Tl’azt’enne and to the standards used by Tl’azt’enne to legitimate knowledge. These guidelines represent the standard of “best practice” adopted by the Tl’azt’en chief and council (Fondahl et al. 2009); see http://cura.unbc.ca/governance/CEM-Tlazten%20Guidelines.pdf. We reproduce here these guidelines in their entirety. Principles A As Tl’azt’enne we have distinctive perspectives and understandings, deriving from our culture and history and, embodied in Tl’azt’en language. Research that has Tl’azt’en experience as its subject matter must reflect these perspectives and understandings. B In the past, research concerning Aboriginal Peoples has usually been initiated outside the Aboriginal community and carried out by non-Aboriginal personnel. Aboriginal people have had almost no opportunity to correct misinformation or to challenge ethnocentric and racist interpretations. Consequently, the existing body of research, which normally provides a reference point for new research, must be open to reassessment. C Knowledge that is transmitted orally in the cultures of Aboriginal Peoples must be acknowledged as a valuable research resource along with documentary and other sources. The means of validating knowledge in the particular traditions under study should normally by applied to establish authenticity of orally transmitted knowledge. D In research portraying community life, the multiplicity of viewpoints present within Tl’azt’en communities should be represented fairly, including viewpoints specific to age and gender groups. E Researchers have an obligation to understand and observe the protocol concerning communications within any Tl’azt’en community.

282

Appendix

F Researchers have an obligation to observe ethical and professional practices relevant to their respective disciplines. Guidelines

aboriginal knowledge A In all research sponsored and/or supported by the Chief and Council, researchers shall conscientiously address themselves to the following questions: B Are there perspectives on the subject of inquiry that are distinctively Aboriginal? C What Aboriginal sources are appropriate to shed light on those perspectives? D Is proficiency in Dakelh required to explore these perspectives and sources? E Are there particular protocols or approaches required to access the relevant knowledge? F Does Aboriginal knowledge challenge in any way assumptions brought to the subject from previous research? G How will Aboriginal knowledge or perspectives be portrayed in research products and/or how will these be validated?

consent A Informed consent shall be obtained from all persons and groups participating in research. Such consent may be given by individuals whose personal experience is being portrayed, by groups in assembly, or by authorized representatives of communities or organizations. B Consent should ordinarily be obtained in writing. Where this is not practical, the procedures used in obtaining consent should be recorded. C Individuals or groups participating in research shall be provided with information about the purpose and nature of the research activities, including expected benefits and risks. D No pressure shall be applied to induce participation in research. E Participants should be informed of the degree of confidentiality that will be maintained in the study. F Informed consent of parents or guardian and, where practical, of children should be obtained in research involving children.

Sampling of Research Protocol Agreements

283

collaborative research A In the studies located principally in Tl’azt’en communities, researchers shall establish procedures to enable community representatives to participate in the planning, execution and evaluation of research results. B In studies that are carried out in the general community and that are likely to affect particular Tl’azt’en communities, consultation on planning, execution and evaluation of results shall be sought through appropriate Tl’azt’en committees. C In community-based studies, researchers shall ensure that a representative cross-section of community experiences and perceptions is included.

review procedures A Review of research results shall be solicited both in the Tl’azt’en community and in the scholarly community prior to publication or dissemination of research findings.

access to research results A Tl’azt’en Chief and Council shall maintain a policy of open public access to final reports of research activities except in cases involving information deemed to be confidential and/or sensitive. Reports may be circulated in draft form, where scholarly and Tl’azt’en community response is deemed useful. B Research reports or parts thereof shall not be made public where there are reasonable grounds for thinking that publication will violate the privacy of individuals or cause significant harm to Tl’azt’en communities or organizations. C Results of community research shall be distributed as widely as possible within participating communities, and reasonable efforts shall be made to present results in non-technical language and in Dakelh languages where appropriate.

acknowledgments A All Tl’azt’enne who contribute to the research must be acknowledged during and after project.

284

Appendix

B Due credit must be given to Tl’azt’en Nation and Tl’azt’enne in the dissemination of research results.

ownership/copyright A Tl’azt’en Nation reserves the right to be the sole beneficiary of all commercial gains that may be attained through the dissemination of all research results and/or the marketing and sale of products that may be derived from research results.

community benefit A In setting research priorities and objectives for community-based research, the investigators shall give serious and due consideration to the benefit of Tl’azt’en communities. B In assessing community benefit, regard shall be given to the widest possible range of community interests, whether groups in question be Tl’azt’en or non-Tl’azt’en, and also to the impact of research at the local, regional or national level. Wherever possible, conflicts between interests within the community should be identified and resolved in advance of commencing the project. Researchers should be equipped to draw on a range of problem-solving strategies to resolve such conflicts as may arise in the course of research. C Whenever possible research should support the transfer of skills to individuals and increase the capacity of the community to manage its own research projects.

implementation of guidelines A These guidelines shall guide the activities of all individuals, groups, funding agencies, organizations, and communities conducting research sponsored and supported by Tl’azt’en Chief and Council. B It shall be the responsibility, in the first instance, of all the researchers to observe these guidelines conscientiously. It shall be the responsibility, in ascending order, of investigators/researchers, Tl’azt’en Administration, and Tl’azt’en Chief and Council itself to monitor the implementation of the guidelines and to make decisions regarding their interpretation and application.

Sampling of Research Protocol Agreements

285

C Where, in the opinion of the researcher or the research manager, local circumstances make these guidelines or any part of them inapplicable, such exception shall be reported to Chief and Council through the appropriate Tl’azt’en administrative branch, and the exception shall be noted in the research contract or contract amendments as well as in any subsequent publication(s).

research contract A Once an agreement is developed between Tl’azt’en Nation and a particular group of researchers about the nature, duration and purpose of research activities, the researchers will be expected to state (in writing) their agreement to follow Tl’azt’en Nation guidelines. B Depending on the nature and scope of the particular research activity, Tl’azt’en Nation and the researcher(s) may develop a detailed research contract which addresses the specifics of the particular research project at hand.

This page intentionally left blank

Research Design

287

References

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. 2012. “Terminology.” Accessed 10 July 2015. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014642 /1100100014643. acuns (Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies). 1998. Ethical Principles for the Conduct of Research in the North. 2nd ed. Ottawa: acuns. Aguinis, Herman. 1993. “Action Research and Scientific Method: Presumed Discrepancies and Actual Similarities.” Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 29 (4): 416–31. Anderson, Lynn, and Linda Heyne. 2000. “A Statewide Needs Assessment Using Focus Groups: Perceived Challenges and Goals in Providing Inclusive Recreation Services in Rural Communities.” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 18 (4): 17–37. Andrews, Jeannette, Susan Newman, Otha Meadows, Melissa Cox, and Shelia Bunting. 2012. “Partnership Readiness for Community-Based Participatory Research.” Health Education Research 27 (4): 555–71. apecs (Association of Polar Early Career Scientists). 2012. “Canadian Community Collaborative Research Resources.” Accessed 16 February 2015. http://apecs.is/get-involved/national-committees/apecs-canada/resources /ccr-resources.html. Arendell, Terry. 1997. “Reflections on the Researcher-Researched Relationship: A Woman Interviewing Men.” Qualitative Sociology 20 (3): 341–68. Argyris, Chris. 1997. “Initiating Change that Perseveres.” American Behavioral Scientist 40 (3): 299–309. Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4): 216–24. Aurora Research Institute. 2011. “Aurora Research Institute.” Accessed 16 February 2015.http://www.nwtresearch.com/default.aspx.

288

References

Babbie, Earl. 2013. The Practice of Social Research. 13th ed. Belmont, ca: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Bailey, Carol. 1996. A Guide to Field Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Ball, Jessica, and Pauline Janyst. 2008. “Enacting Research Ethics in Partnerships with Indigenous Communities in Canada: ‘Do it in a Good Way.’” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 3 (2): 33–51. Banks, Sarah, Andrea Armstrong, Kathleen Carter, Helen Graham, Peter Hayward, Alex Henry, Tessa Holland, Claire Holmes, Amelia Lee, Ann McNulty, Niamh Moore, Nigel Nayling, Ann Stokoe, and Aileen Strachan. 2013. “Everyday Ethics in Community-Based Participatory Research.” Contemporary Social Science 8 (3): 263–77. Barsky, Eugene, and Michelle Purdon. 2006. “Introducing Web 2.0: Social Networking and Social Bookmarking for Health Librarians.” Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association 27 (3): 65–7. Bax, Charlotte, Rune Elvik, and Knut Veisten. 2009. “Knowledge Utilization in Road Safety Policy: Barriers to the Use of Knowledge from Economic Analysis.” Knowledge, Technology, and Policy 22 (4): 275–85. Baxter, Jamie. 2010. “Case Studies in Qualitative Research.” In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, 3rd ed., edited by Iain Hay, 81–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bednarz, Sarah, Brian Chalkley, Stephen Fletcher, Iain Hay, Erena Le Heron, Audrey Mohan, and Julie Trafford. 2008. “Community Engagement for Student Learning in Geography.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education 32 (1): 87–100. Belkhodja, Omar, Nabil Amara, Réjean Landry, and Mathieu Ouimet. 2007. “The Extent and Organizational Determinants of Research Utilization in Canadian Health Services Organizations.” Science Communication 28 (3): 377–417. Bendavid-Val, Avrom. 1991. Regional and Local Economic Analysis for Practitioners. New York: Praeger. Benitez, Oscar, Dominique Devaux, and Jean Dausset. 2002. “Audiovisual Documentation of Oral Consent: A New Method of Informed Consent for Illiterate Populations.” The Lancet 359 (9315): 1406–7. Berkes, Fikret. 2009. “Evolution of Co-management: Role of Knowledge Generation, Bridging Organizations and Social Learning.” Journal of Environmental Management 90 (5): 1692–02. Biggs, Stephen. 1989. Resource-Poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of Experiences from Nine National Agricultural Research Systems, ofcor Comparative Study Paper 3. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.

References

289

Blair, Thomas, and Meredith Minkler. 2009. “Participatory Action Research with Older Adults: Key Principles in Practice.” The Gerontologist 49 (5): 651–62. Blumenthal, Daniel, and Elleen Yancey. 2004. “Community-Based Research: An Introduction.” In Community-Based Health Research: Issues and Methods, edited by Daniel S. Blumenthal and Ralph J. DiClemente, 3–24. New York: Springer Publishing. Bocarro, Jason, and Monika Stodolska. 2013. “Researcher and Advocate: Using Research to Promote Social Justice Change.” Journal of Leisure Research 46 (1): 2–6. Bodorkós, Barbara, and György Pataki. 2009. “Linking Academic and Local Knowledge: Community-Based Research and Service Learning for Sustainable Rural Development in Hungary.” Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (12): 1123–31. Boffa, Jody, Malcolm King, Kathleen McMullin, and Richard Long. 2011. “A Process for the Inclusion of Aboriginal People in Health Research: Lessons from the Determinants of TB Transmission Project.” Social Science and Medicine 72 (5): 733–38. Bollman, Ray, and Heather Clemenson. 2008. “Structure and Change in Canada’s Rural Demography: An Update to 2006.” Rural and Small Town Analysis Bulletin 7 (7): 1–29. Boser, Susan. 2006. “Ethics and Power in Community-Campus Partnerships for Research.” Action Research 4 (1): 9–21. Bowen, Sarah, and Patricia Martens. 2005. “Demystifying Knowledge Translation: Learning from the Community.” Journal of Health Services and Research Policy 10 (4): 203–11. Bracken, Louise, Harriet Bulkeley, and Geoff Whitman. 2015. “Transdisciplinary Research: Understanding the Stakeholder Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 58 (7): 1291–1308. Brown, L. David, and Rajesh Tandon. 1983. “Ideology and Political Economy in Inquiry: Action Research and Participatory Research.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 19 (3): 277–94. Brown, Lyndsay, and Kevin Durrheim. 2009. “Different Kinds of Knowing: Generating Qualitative Data through Mobile Interviewing.” Qualitative Inquiry 15 (5): 911–30. Bruce, David. 2003. Housing Needs of Low-Income People Living in Rural Areas. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Bruce, David. 2007. Overview of Rural Poverty in Cumberland County: Background Paper. Sackville, nb: Rural and Small Town Programme, Mount Allison University. Brunet, Nicolas D., Gordon M. Hickey, and Murray M. Humphries. 2014.

290

References

“The Evolution of Local Participation and the Mode of Knowledge Production in Arctic Research.” Ecology and Society 19 (2): 69. Bryson, Lyman. 1964. “Problems of Communication.” In The Communication of Ideas, edited by Lyman Bryson, 1–8. New York: Cooper Square Publishing Inc. Buchanan, David, Franklin Miller, and Nina Wallerstein. 2007. “Ethical Issues in Community-Based Participatory Research: Balancing Rigorous Research with Community Participation in Community Intervention Studies.” Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action 1 (2): 153–60. Buchbinder, Sharon, Patricia Alt, Karen Eskow, William Forbes, Eva Hester, Miriam Struck, and Dianne Taylor. 2005. “Creating Learning Prisms with an Interdisciplinary Case Study Workshop.” Innovative Higher Education 29 (4): 257–74. Bull, Julie. 2010. “Research with Aboriginal Peoples: Authentic Relationships as a Precursor to Ethical Research.” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 5 (4): 13–22. Caine, Ken, Colleen Davison, and Emma Stewart. 2009. “Preliminary FieldWork: Methodological Reflections from Northern Canadian Research.” Qualitative Research 9 (4): 489–513. Calleson, Diane, Catherine Jordan, and Sarena Seifer. 2005. “Community-Engaged Scholarship: Is Faculty Work in Communities a True Academic Enterprise?” Academic Medicine 80 (4): 317–21. Cameron, Jenny, and Katherine Gibson. 2005. “Participatory Action Research in a Poststructuralist Vein.” Geoforum 36 (3): 315–31. Cargo, Margaret, and Shawna Mercer. 2008. “The Value and Challenges of Participatory Research: Strengthening Its Practice.” Annual Review of Public Health 29: 325–50. Carpiano, Richard. 2009. “Come Take a Walk with Me: The ‘Go-Along’ Interview as a Novel Method for Studying the Implications of Place for Health and Well-Being.” Health and Place 15 (1): 263–72. Castellano, Marlene. 2004. “Ethics of Aboriginal Research.” Journal of Aboriginal Health 1 (1): 98–114. Castleden, Heather, Theresa Garvin, and Huu-ay-aht. 2008. “Modifying Photovoice for Community-Based Participatory Indigenous Research.” Social Science & Medicine 66 (6): 1393–405. Castleden, Heather, Vanessa Morgan, and Christopher Lamb. 2012. “‘I Spent The First Year Drinking Tea’: Exploring Canadian University Researchers’ Perspectives on Community-Based Participatory Research Involving Indigenous Peoples.” The Canadian Geographer 56 (2): 160–79.

References

291

Cech, Thomas, and Gerald Rubin. 2004. “Nurturing Interdisciplinary Research.” Nature Structural and Molecular Biology 11 (12): 1166–9. Chambers, Robert. 1994. “The Origins and Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal.” World Development 22 (7): 953–69. Chambers, Robert. 2008. Revolutions in Development Inquiry. London: Earthscan. Cheshire, Lynda, Jo-Anne Everingham, and Geoffrey Lawrence. 2014. “Governing the Impacts of Mining and the Impacts of Mining Governance: Challenges for Rural and Regional Local Governments in Australia.” Journal of Rural Studies 36: 330–9. Christensen, Julia. 2012. “Telling Stories: Exploring Research Storytelling as a Meaningful Approach to Knowledge Mobilization with Indigenous Research Collaborators and Diverse Audiences in Community-Based Participatory Research.” The Canadian Geographer 56 (2): 231–42. Christopher, Suzanne, Vanessa Watts, Alma Knows His Gun McCormick, and Sara Young. 2008. “Building and Maintaining Trust in a CommunityBased Participatory Research Partnership.” American Journal of Public Health 98 (8): 1398–406. Chu, Melanie, and Yvonne Nalani Meulemans. 2008. “The Problems and Potential of MySpace and Facebook Usage in Academic Libraries.” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 13 (1): 69–85. cihr (Canadian Institutes of Health Research). 2004. Innovation in Action: Knowledge Translation Strategy 2004–2009. Ottawa: cihr. – 2007. cihr Guidelines for Health Research Involving Aboriginal People. Ottawa: cihr. Clark, Andrew, Jon Prosser, and Rose Wiles. 2010. “Ethical Issues in ImageBased Research.” Arts & Health 2 (1): 81–93. Cloke, Paul, Paul Milbourne, and Rebekah Widdowfield. 2000. “Homelessness and Rurality: Out of Place in Purified Space?” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18 (6): 715–36. Cloke, Paul, Phil Cooke, Jerry Cursons, Paul Milbourne, and Rebekah Widdowfield. 2000. “Ethics, Reflexivity, and Research: Encounters with Homeless People.” Ethics, Place, and Environment 3 (2): 133–54. Cloke, Paul. 1977. “An Index of Rurality for England and Wales.” Regional Studies 11 (1): 31–46. – 1989. “Rural Geography and Political Economy.” In New Models in Geography, Volume 1: The Political-Economy Perspective, edited by Richard Peet and Nigel Thrift, 164–97. London: Unwin Hyman Ltd. Collins, Harry, and Trevor Pinch. 1998. The Golem: What You Should Know About Science. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

292

References

Cooper, Amanda. 2010. Knowledge Brokers: A Promising Knowledge Mobilization Strategy to Increase Research Use and Its Impact in Education. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Cooper, Amanda, and Ben Levin. 2010. “Some Canadian Contributions to Understanding Knowledge Mobilization.” Evidence & Policy 6 (3): 351–69. Cooper, Cheryl, and Susan Yarbrough. 2010. “Tell Me – Show Me: Using Combined Focus Group and Photovoice Methods to Gain Understanding of Health Issues in Rural Guatemala.” Qualitative Health Research 20 (5): 644–53. Corbin, Juliet, and Anselm Strauss. 2015. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Craig, Gary, Anne Corden, and Patricia Thornton. 2000. “Safety in Social Research.” Social Research Update 29: 68–72. Creswell, John. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cristancho, Sergio, Marcela Garces, Karen Peters, and Benjamin Mueller. 2008. “Listening to Rural Hispanic Immigrants in the Midwest: A Community-Based Participatory Assessment of Major Barriers to Health Care Access and Use.” Qualitative Health Research 18 (5): 633–46. Crowe, Kelly. 2014. “Scientists Will Be Forced to Knock on Doors under Health Research Grant Changes.” CBC News, 3 December 2014. Accessed 25 November 2015. http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/scientists-will-beforced-to-knock-on-doors-under-health-research-grant-changes-1.2858862. Cumming, Gabriel, and Carla Norwood. 2012. “The Community Voice Method: Using Participatory Research and Filmmaking to Foster Dialog About Changing Landscapes”. Landscape and Urban Planning 105 (4): 434–44. Cuomo, Dana, and Vanessa A. Massaro. 2016. “Boundary-making in Feminist Research: New Methodologies for ‘Intimate Insiders.’” Gender, Place and Culture 23 (1): 94–106. Daley, Christine, Aimee James, Ezekiel Ulrey, Stephanie Joseph, Angelia Talawyma, Won Choi, Allen Greiner, and Kathryn Coe. 2010. “Using Focus Groups in Community-Based Participatory Research: Challenges and Resolutions.” Qualitative Health Research 20 (5): 697–706. Darbyshire, Philip, Colin MacDougall, and Wendy Schiller. 2005. “Multiple Methods in Qualitative Research with Children: More Insight or Just More?” Qualitative Research 5 (4): 417–36. Darroch, Francine, and Audrey Giles. 2014. “Decolonizing Health Research: Community-based Participatory Research and Postcolonial Feminist Theory.” Canadian Journal of Action Research 15 (3): 22–36.

References

293

Davis, Peter, and Philippa Howden-Chapman. 1996. “Translating Research Findings into Health Policy.” Social Science and Medicine 43 (5): 865–72. Davis, Sally, and Raymond Reid. 1999. “Practicing Participatory Research in American Indian Communities.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 69 (4): S755–9. Davison, Colleen, Micaela Brown, and Pertice Moffitt. 2006. “Student Researchers Negotiating Consent in Northern Aboriginal Communities.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (2): 28–39. de Leeuw, Sarah, Emilie Cameron, and Margo Greenwood. 2012. “Participatory and Community-Based Research, Indigenous Geographies, and the Spaces of Friendship: A Critical Engagement.” The Canadian Geographer 56 (2): 180–94. De Loë, Rob, Sandra Di Giantomasso, and Reid Kreutzwiser. 2002. “Local Capacity for Groundwater Protection in Ontario.” Environmental Management 29 (2): 217–33. Delemos, Jamie. 2006. “Community-Based Participatory Research: Changing Scientific Practice from Research on Communities to Research with and for Communities.” Local Environment 11 (3): 329–38. DeLyser, Dydia and Paul Starrs. 2001. “Doing Fieldwork: Editors’ Introduction.” The Geographical Review 91 (1–2): iv–viii. Dobbins, Maureen, Paula Robeson, Donna Ciliska, Steve Hanna, Roy Cameron, Linda O’Mara, Kara DeCorby, and Shawna Mercer. 2009. “A Description of a Knowledge Broker Role Implemented as Part of a Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating Three Knowledge Translation Strategies.” Implementation Science 4 (23): 1–9. Dorsey, Bryan. 2001. “Linking Theories of Service-Learning and Undergraduate Geography Education.” Journal of Geography 100 (3): 124–32. Dowling, Robyn. 2010. “Power, Subjectivity, and Ethics in Qualitative Research. In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, 3rd ed., edited by Iain Hay, 23–36. Don Mills: Oxford University Press. du Plessis, Valerie, Roland Beshiri, Ray Bollman, and Heather Clemenson. 2002. Definitions of Rural. Ottawa: Minister of Industry and Statistics Canada. – 2004. “Definitions of Rural.” In Building for Success: Explorations of Rural Community and Rural Development, edited by Greg Halseth and Regine Halseth, 51–79. Brandon, mb: Rural Development Institute, Brandon University. Duncan, James, and Nancy Duncan. 2001. “Theory in the Field.” The Geographical Review 91 (1–2): 399–406. Dunn, William N. 1997. “Probing the Boundaries of Ignorance in Policy Analysis.” American Behavioral Scientist 40 (3): 277–98.

294

References

Dyck, Isabel. 1993. “Ethnography: A Feminist Method.” The Canadian Geographer 37 (1): 52–7. Ellison, Nicole B., Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe. 2007. “The Benefits of Facebook ‘Friends’: Social Capital and College Students’ Use of On-line Social Network Sites.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12 (4): 1143–68. England, Kim. 1994. “Getting Personal: Reflexivity, Positionality, and Feminist Research.” Professional Geographer 46 (1): 80–9. Essex, Stephen J., Andrew W. Gilg, Richard B. Yarwood, John Smithers, and Randall Wilson, eds. 2005. Rural Change and Sustainability: Agriculture, the Environment and Communities. Oxford: cabi Publishing. Etmanski, Catherine, Budd L. Hall, and Teresa Dawson, eds. 2014. Learning and Teaching Community-Based Research: Linking Pedagogy to Practice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Feld, Marcia. 1998. “Community Outreach Partnership Centers: Forging New Relationships Between University and Community.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 17 (4): 285–90. Felt, Lawrence, Penelope Rowe, and Kenneth Curlew. 2004. “Teaching Academic Dogs and Cats New Tricks: ‘Re-tooling’ Senior Academics.” Paper presented at the Researching the Voluntary Sector Conference, Sheffield Hallam University, England, 1–2 September 2004. Accessed 10 May 2011. http://www.envision.ca/pdf/cura/DogsCats.pdf. Ferman, Barbara, and Theodore L. Hill. 2004. “The Challenges of Agenda Conflict in Higher Education-Community Research Partnerships: Views from the Community Side.” Journal of Urban Affairs 26 (2): 241–57. Filion, Pierre. 1997. “The Weight of the System: The Effects of Institutional Structures on Planners’ Creativity and Flexibility.” Plan Canada 37 (1): 11–15. First Nations Information Governance Centre, The. 2004. “Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession (ocap) or Self-Determination Applied to Research: A Critical Analysis of Contemporary First Nations Research and Some Options for First Nations Communities.” Brian Schnarch. Journal of Aboriginal Health 1 (1): 80–95. – 2014. Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (ocap®): The Path to First Nations Information Governance. Ottawa, on: The First Nations Information Governance Centre. Accessed 15 January 2016. http://fnigc.ca/sites /default/files/docs/ocap_path_to_fn_information_governance_en _final.pdf. – 2016. The First Nations Principles of ocap®. Akwesasne, on: The First Nations Information Governance Centre. Accessed 15 January 2016. http://fnigc.ca/ocap.html.

References

295

Fitchen, Janet. M. 1991. Endangered Spaces, Enduring Places: Change, Identity, and Survival in Rural America. Boulder, CO: Westview. Fletcher, Christopher. 2003. “Community-Based Participatory Research Relationships with Aboriginal Communities in Canada: An Overview of the Context and Process.” Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health 1 (1): 27–61. Fletcher, Fay, Brent Hammer, and Alicia Hibbert. 2014. “‘We Know We Are Doing Something Good, But What Is It?’: The Challenge of Negotiating Between Service Delivery and Research in a cbpr Project.” Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship 7 (2). Accessed 25 November 2015. http://jces.ua.edu/we-know-we-are-doing-something-good-but-what-is-itthe-challenge-of-negotiating-between-service-delivery-and-research-in-acbpr-project/. Flicker, Sarah, Beth Savan, Brian Kolenda, and Matto Mildenberger. 2008a. “A Snapshot of Community-Based Research in Canada: Who? What? Why? How?” Health Education Research 23 (1): 106–14. Flicker, Sarah, Beth Savan, Mary McGrath, Brian Kolenda, and Matto Mildenberger. 2008b. “If You Could Change One Thing…: What CommunityBased Researchers Wish They Could Have Done Differently.” Community Development Journal 43 (2): 239–53. Flyvbjerg, Bent. 1998. Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fondahl, Gail, Pamela Wright, Deanna Yim, Erin Sherry, Beverly Leon, Wayne Bulmer, Sue Grainger, and Jane Young. 2009. Co-Managing Research: Building and Sustaining a First Nation – University Partnership. Prince George: Community Development Institute, University of Northern British Columbia. Fonow, Mary, and Judith Cook. 2005. “Feminist Methodology: New Applications in the Academy and Public Policy.” Signs 30 (4): 2211–36. Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press. Garrett, Bradley. 2011. “Videographic Geographies: Using Digital Video for Geographic Research.” Progress in Human Geography 35 (4): 521–41. Garvin, Theresa G. 1995. “‘We’re Strong Women’ Building a CommunityUniversity Research Partnership.” Geoforum 26 (3): 273–86. Gearheard, Shari, and Jamal Shirley. 2007. “Challenges in Community-Research Relationships: Learning from Natural Science in Nunavut.” Arctic 60 (1): 62–74. Gerlak, Andrea K., and Margaret Wilder. 2012. “Exploring the Textured Landscape of Water Insecurity and the Human Right to Water.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 54 (2): 4–17. German, Erica, Dianne Urquhart, and Christopher Wilson. 2008. Best

296

Appendix

Practices for Knowledge Mobilization. Ottawa: Social Planning Council of Ottawa. Gilbert, Melissa. 1994. “The Politics of Location: Doing Feminist Research at ‘Home.’” Professional Geographer 46 (1): 90–6. Gilroy, Goss. 2005. Student Training in sshrc-Funded Research: Final Report. Prepared for Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Ottawa: Goss Gilroy Inc. Management Consultants. Gjertsen, Tor, and Greg Halseth, eds. 2015. Sustainable Development in the Circumpolar North: From Tana, Norway to Oktemtsy, Yakutia, Russia. The Gargia Conferences for Local and Regional Development from 2004–14. Prince George: The unbc Community Development Institute Publications Series and the UArctic Thematic Network on Local and Regional Development. Goodsell, Todd, Carol Ward, and Joshua Stovall. 2009. “Adapting Focus Groups to a Rural Context: Challenges and Strategies.” Community Development 40 (1): 64–79. Gordon, Elisa. 2000. “When Oral Consent Will Do.” Field Methods 12 (3): 235–38. Graham, Ian D., Jacqueline Tetroe, and the kt Theories Research Group. 2007. “Some Theoretical Underpinnings of Knowledge Translation.” Academic Emergency Medicine 14 (11): 936–41. Graham, Katherine A.H. 2014. “Beyond All in the Family: Community-Based Research in Canada.” Academic Matters: ocufa’s Journal of Higher Education, June 2014. Accessed 25 November 2015. http://www.academicmatters .ca/2014/06/beyond-all-in-the-family-community-based-research-incanada/. Graybill, Jessica, Sarah Dooling, Vivek Shandas, John Withey, Adrienne Greve, and Gregory Simon. 2006. “A Rough Guide to Interdisciplinary: Graduate Student Perspectives.” BioScience 56 (9): 757–63. Green, Lawrence, Mark Daniel, and Lloyd Novick. 2001. “Partnerships and Coalitions for Community-Based Research.” Public Health Report 116 (Suppl.1): 20–31. Gregory, Derek. 1994. “Positivism.” In The Dictionary of Human Geography, edited by Ron Johnston, Derek Gregory, and David Marshall Smith, 455–7. Oxford: Blackwell. Grenier, Louise. 1998. Working with Indigenous Knowledge: A Guide for Researchers. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. Grimwood, Bryan S. R., Nancy Doubleday, Gita Ljubicic, Shawn Donaldson, and Sylvie Blangy. 2012. “Engaged Acclimatization: Towards Responsible Community-Based Participatory Research in Nunavut.” The Canadian Geographer 56 (2): 211–30.

References

297

Guillemin, Marilys. 2004. “Understanding Illness: Using Drawings as a Research Method.” Qualitative Health Research 14 (2): 272–89. Gunton, Thomas. 2003. “Natural Resources and Regional Development: An Assessment of Dependency and Comparative Advantage Paradigms.” Economic Geography 79 (1): 67–94. Gustafson, Diana, and Fern Brunger. 2014. “Ethics, Vulnerability, and Feminist Participatory Action Research With a Disability Community.” Qualitative Health Research 24 (7): 997–1005. Guta, Adrian, Carol Strike, Sarah Flicker, Stuart Murray, Ross Upshur, and Ted Myers. 2014. “Governing Through Community-Based Research: Lessons from the Canadian hiv Research Sector.” Social Science and Medicine 123: 250–61. Haalboom, Bethany, and David Natcher. 2012. “The Power and Peril of ‘Vulnerability’: Approaching Community Labels with Caution in Climate Change Research.” Arctic 65 (3): 319–27. Hall, Tom. 2009. “Footwork: Moving and Knowing in Local Space(s).” Qualitative Research 9 (5): 571–85. Halpain, Maureen, Dilip Jeste, Geraldine Trinidad, Julie Wetherell, and Barry Lebowitz. 2005. “Intensive Short-Term Research Training for Undergraduate, Graduate, and Medical Students: Early Experience with a New National-Level Approach in Geriatric Mental Health.” Academic Psychiatry 29 (1): 58–65. Halseth, Greg, and Joanne Doddridge. 2000. “Children’s Cognitive Mapping: A Potential Tool for Neighbourhood Planning.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 27 (4): 565–82. Halseth, Greg, and Laura Ryser. 2012. “‘From Policy to Research and Back Again’: Experiences from a Rural Research Institute.” Journal of Rural and Community Development 7(3): 31–9. Halseth, Greg, Lana Sullivan, and Laura Ryser. 2003. “Service Provision as Part of Resource Town Transition Planning: A Case from Northern British Columbia.” In Opportunities and Actions in the New Rural Economy, edited by David Bruce and Gwen Lister, 19–46. Sackville, nb: Rural and Small Town Programme. Halseth, Greg, Laura Ryser, Sean Markey, and Alex Martin. 2014. “Emergence, Transition, and Continuity: Resource Commodity Production Pathways in Northeastern British Columbia, Canada.” Journal of Rural Studies 36: 350– 61. doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.03.010. Halseth, Greg. 2002. “Practical Steps for Community-University Links.” The Bulletin of the Association of Commonwealth Universities 151 (May): 20–1.

298

References

Hardwick, Susan. 2001. “Identity, Place, and Locale in Galveston.” The Geographical Review 91 (1–2): 335–41. Harris, Glenn. 2004. “Lessons for Service Learning in Rural Areas.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 24 (1): 41–50. Harrison, Barbara. 2002. “Seeing Health and Illness Worlds – Using Visual Methodologies in a Sociology of Health and Illness: A Methodological Review.” Sociology of Health and Illness 24 (6): 856–72. Hart, Roger A. 1997. Children’s Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citizens in Community Development and Environmental Care. London: Earthscan. Hay, Iain, ed. 2010. Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Healey, Mick. 2005. “Linking Research and Teaching to Benefit Student Learning.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education 29 (2): 183–201. Henry, Alistair, and Simon Mackenzie. 2012. “Brokering Communities of Practice: A Model of Knowledge Exchange and Academic-Practitioner Collaboration Developed in the Context of Community Policing.” Police Practice and Research 13 (4): 315–28. Herbert, Steve. 2001. “From Spy to Okay Guy: Trust and Validity in Fieldwork with the Police.” The Geographical Review 91 (1–2): 304–10. Hodgson, Frances. 2012. “Everyday Connectivity: Equity, Technologies, Competencies, and Walking.” Journal of Transport Geography 21: 17–23. Holkup, Patricia, Toni Tripp-Reimer, Emily Salois, and Clarann Weinert. 2004. “Community-Based Participatory Research: An Approach to Intervention Research with a Native American Community.” Advanced Nursing Science 27 (3): 162–75. Holland, Barbara A. 2001. “Exploring the Challenge of Documenting and Measuring Civic Engagement Endeavours of Colleges and Universities: Purposes, Issues, and Ideas.” Prepared for Campus Compact, Advanced Institute on Classifications for Civic Engagement, 23 March 2001. – 2005. “Reflections on Community-Campus Partnerships: What has Been Learned? What are the Next Challenges?” In Higher Education Collaboratives for Community Engagement and Improvement, edited by Penny A. Pasque, Ryan E. Smerek, Brighid Dwyer, Nick Bowman and Bruce L. Mallory, 10–17. Ann Arbor, mi: National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good. Hollander, Justin B. 2011. “Keeping Control: The Paradox of Scholarly Community-Based Research in Community Development.” Community Development Journal 46 (2): 265–72. Holmes, John, and Bob Harris. 2010. “Enhancing the Contribution of Re-

References

299

search Councils to the Generation of Evidence to Inform Policy Making.” Evidence & Policy 6 (3): 391–409. Holsti, Ole R. 1969. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, ma: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc. Holte-McKenzie, Merydth, Sarah Forde, and Sally Theobald. 2006. “Development of a Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy.” Evaluation and Program Planning 29 (4): 365–76. hooks, bell. 1989. Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black. Boston, ma: South End Press. Howitt, Richie, and Stan Stevens. 2010. “Cross-Cultural Research: Ethics, Methods, and Relationships.” In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, 3rd ed., edited by Iain Hay, 40–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hum, Noelle J., Perrin E. Chamberlin, Brittany L. Hambright, Anne C. Portwood, Amanda C. Schat, and Jennifer L. Bevan. 2011. “A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: A Content Analysis of Facebook Profile Photographs.” Computers in Human Behaviour 27 (5): 1828–33. Huntington, Henry, Sarah Trainor, David Natcher, Orville Huntington, La’ona DeWilde, and Stuart Chapin III. 2006. “The Significance of Context in Community-Based Research: Understanding Discussions about Wildfire in Huslia, Alaska.” Ecology and Society 11 (1): 40–52. Hycner, Richard. 1999. “Some Guidelines for the Phenomenological Analysis of Interview Data.” In Qualitative Research: Volume One, edited by A. Bryman, R. Burgess, 143–64. London: Sage. Ibáñez-Carrasco, Francisco, and Pilar Riaño-Alcalá. 2011. “Organizing Community-Based Research Knowledge Between Universities and Communities: Lessons Learned.” Community Development Journal 46 (1): 72–88. Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. 2008. “Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans.” Ottawa: Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. Accessed 29 March 2009. http://pre.ethics.gc.ca/policy-politique/docs/TCPS-Draft2-eng.pdf. Israel, Barbara A., Amy J. Schulz, Edith A. Parker, and Adam B. Becker. 1998. “Review of Community-Based Research: Assessing Partnership Approaches to Improve Public Health.” Annual Review of Public Health 19 (1): 173–202. Israel, Barbara A., Eugenia Eng, Amy J. Schulz, and Edith A. Parker, eds. 2005. Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. isre (Interagency Secretariat on Research Ethics). 2014. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Prepared on be-

300

References

half of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Ottawa: Interagency Secretariat on Research Ethics. Jackson, Winston. 1999. Methods: Doing Social Research. 2nd ed. Scarborough, on: Prentice Hall Allyn and Bacon Canada. Jacobson, Nora, Joanna Ochocka, Julie Wise, and Rich Janzen. 2007. “Inspiring Knowledge Mobilization through a Communications Policy: The Case of a Community University Research Alliance.” Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action 1 (1): 99–104. Jason, Leonard A., Christopher B. Keys, Yolanda Suarez-Balcazar, Renée R. Taylor, Margaret I. Davis, Joseph A. Durlak, and Daryl Holtz Isenberg, eds. 2004. Participatory Community Research: Theories and Methods in Action. Washington, dc: American Psychological Association. Johnsen, Sarah, Paul Cloke, and Jon May. 2005. “Transitory Spaces of Care: Serving the Homeless People on the Street.” Health and Place 11 (4): 323–36. Jones, Bernadette, Tristam R. Ingham, Fiona Cram, Sarah Dean, and Cheryl Davies. 2013. “An Indigenous Approach to Explore Health-Related Experiences Among Māori Parents: The Pukapuka Hauora Asthma Study.” bmc Public Health 13: 228. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-228. Jones, Phil, and Neil Macdonald. 2007. “Getting It Wrong First Time: Building an Interdisciplinary Research Relationship.” Area 39 (4): 490–98. Jupp, Eleanor. 2007. “Participation, Local Knowledge and Empowerment: Researching Public Space with Young People.” Environmental and Planning A 39 (12): 2832–44. Kaspar, Heidi, and Sara Landolt. 2016. “Flirting in the Field: Shifting Positionalities and Power Relations in Innocuous Sexualisations of Research Encounters.” Gender, Place and Culture 23 (1): 107–19. Katz, Sylvan, and Ben Martin. 1997. “What is Research Collaboration?” Research Policy 26 (1): 1–18. Kaul, Gitanjali, and Charleyse Pratt. 2010. “Undergraduate Research Learning Communities for First-Year and Lower-Division Students.” Peer Review, aac&u 12 (2): 20–1. Keen, Cheryl, and Kelly Hall. 2009. “Engaging with Difference Matters: Longitudinal Student Outcomes of Co-Curricular Service-Learning Programs.” The Journal of Higher Education 80 (1): 59–79. Kettner, Peter M., John M. Daley, and Ann Weaver Nichols. 1985. Initiating Change in Organizations and Communities: A Macro Practice Model. Monterey, CA: Brooks / Cole Publishing Company. Kezar, Adrianna. 2005. “Redesigning for Collaboration within Higher Educa-

References

301

tion Institutions: An Exploration into the Developmental Process.” Research in Higher Education 46 (7): 831–60. Kindon, Sara. 2003. “Participatory Video in Geographic Research: A Feminist Practice of Looking?” Area 35 (2): 142–53. – 2010. “Participatory Action Research.” In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, 3rd ed., edited by Iain Hay, 259–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kingsley, Bethan, and Sherry Chapman. 2013. “Questioning the Meaningfulness of Rigour in Community-Based Research: Navigating a Dilemma.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 12: 551–69. Kitson, Alison L. 2009. “The Need for Systems Change: Reflections on Knowledge Translation and Organizational Change.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 65 (1): 217–28. Kitson, Michael, Ronald Martin, and Peter Tyler. 2004. “Regional Competitiveness: An Elusive yet Key Concept.” Regional Studies 38 (9): 991–99. Klein, Phil, Munazza Fatima, Lindsey McEwen, Susanne Moser, Deanna Schmidt, and Sandra Zupan. 2011. “Dismantling the Ivory Tower: Engaging Geographers in University-Community Partnerships.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education 35 (3): 425–44. Klodawsky, Fran, and Caroline Andrew. 1998. Strategic Local Action: What Are the Progressive Possibilities? Ottawa: Carleton University. Kobayashi, Audrey. 1994. “Coloring the Field: Gender, ‘Race,’ and the Politics of Fieldwork.” Professional Geographer 46 (1): 73–80. Kobayashi, Audrey, and Suzanne Mackenzie. 1989. “Introduction: Humanism and Historical Materialism in Contemporary Geography.” In Remaking Human Geography, edited by Audrey Kobayashi and Suzanne Mackenzie, 1–14. London: Unwin Hyman. Koster, Rhonda, Kirstine Baccar, and R. Harvey Lemelin. 2012. “Moving from Research on, to Research with and for Indigenous Communities: A Critical Reflection on Community-Based Participatory Research.” The Canadian Geographer 56 (2): 195–210. Kovach, Margaret. 2010. Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Lackey, Steven, David Freshwater, and Anil Rupasingha. 2002. “Factors Influencing Local Government Cooperation in Rural Areas: Evidence From The Tennessee Valley.” Economic Development Quarterly 16 (2): 138–54. Lafrenière, Ginette, Papa Lamine Diallo, Donna Dubie, and Lou Henry. 2005. “Can University/Community Collaboration Create Spaces for Aboriginal Reconciliation?” The First Peoples Child and Family Review 2 (1): 53–66. Lakeman, Richard. 1997. “Using the Internet for Data Collection in Nursing Research.” Computers in Nursing 15 (5): 269–75.

302

References

Laliberté, Nicole, and Carolin Schurr. 2016. “The Stickiness of Emotions in the Field: Complicating Feminist Methodologies.” Gender, Place and Culture 23 (1): 72–8. Landry, Réjean, Moktar Lamari, and Nabil Amara. 2003. “The Extent and Determinants of the Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies.” Public Administration Review 63 (2): 192–205. Landry, Réjean, Nabil Amara, and Mathieu Ouimet. 2007. “Determinants of Knowledge Transfer: Evidence from Canadian University Researchers in Natural Sciences and Engineering.” Journal of Technology Transfer 32 (6): 561–92. Lasswell, Harold D. 1964. “The Structure and Function of Communication in Society.” In The Communication of Ideas, edited by Lyman Bryson, 37–52. New York: Cooper Square Publishing Inc. Lattuca, Lisa. 2001. Creating Interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinarity Research and Teaching Among College and University Faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Laucius, Joanne. 2009. “Scientists Fear End of Brain Gain.” Ottawa Citizen, 30 April 2009. Lavelle, Bridget, Michael Larsen, and Craig Gundersen. 2009. “Strategies for Surveys of American Indians.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73 (2): 385–403. Lavis, John N. 2006. “Research, Public Policymaking, and Knowledge-Translation Processes: Canadian Efforts to Build Bridges.” The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 26 (1): 37–45. Lazarus, Lisa, Ashley Shaw, Sean LeBlanc, Alana Martin, Zack Marshall, Kristen Weersink, Dolly Lin, Kira Mandryk, and Mark Tyndall. 2014. “Establishing a Community-Based Participatory Research Partnership among People who use Drugs in Ottawa: The proud Cohort Study.” Harm Reduction Journal 11 (26). doi: 10.1186/1477-7517-11-26. Le Gates, Richard, and Gib Robinson. 1998. “Institutionalizing UniversityCommunity Partnerships.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 17 (4): 312–22. Levesque, Peter. 2007. Network: The Key to Acting on Knowledge. Unpublished discussion paper on a pan-Canadian network of community-engaged research and learning partnerships. Victoria, bc: University of Victoria. Levin, Ben. 2011. “Mobilising Research Knowledge in Education.” London Review of Education 9 (1): 15–26. Levin, Morten. 2012. “Academic Integrity in Action Research.” Action Research 10 (2): 133–49. Lewin, Kurt. 1946. “Action Research and Minority Problems.” Journal of Social Issues 2 (4): 34–46.

References

303

Lewis, Kevin, Jason Kaufman, Marco Gonzalez, Andreas Wimmer, and Nicholas Christakis. 2008. “Tastes, Ties, and Time: A New Social Network Dataset Using Facebook.com.” Social Networks 30 (4): 330–42. Livingstone, David N. 1992. The Geographical Tradition: Episodes in the History of a Contested Enterprise. Oxford: Blackwell. Lo, Jenny, and Greg Halseth. 2009. “The Practice of Principles: An Examination of ced Groups in Vancouver, bc.” Community Development Journal 44 (1): 80–110. Lopatto, David. 2010. “Undergraduate Research as a High-Impact Student Experience.” Peer Review, aac&u 12 (2): 27–30. Lorenz, Laura S., and Bettina Kolb. 2009. “Involving the Public through Participatory Visual Research Methods.” Health Expectations 12 (3): 262–74. Lowry, Kelly W., and Rebecca Ford-Paz. 2013. “Early Career Academic Researchers and Community-Based Participatory Research: Wrestling Match or Dancing Partners?” Clinical and Translational Science 6 (6): 490–2. Mackenzie, Colin, and Yan Xiao. 2003. “Video Techniques and Data Compared with Observation in Emergency Trauma Care.” Quality and Safety in Health Care 12 (2): ii51–ii57. Maiter, Sara, Laura Simich, Nora Jacobson, and Julie Wise. 2008. “Reciprocity.” Action Research 6 (3): 305–25. Makhoul, Jihad, Rima Nakkash, Trudy Harpham, and Yara Qutteina. 2014. “Community-Based Participatory Research in Complex Settings: Clean Mind – Dirty Hands.” Health Promotion International 29 (3): 510–17. Manson, Don, and Greg Halseth. 2008. North First Initiative: Building Toward a Northern bc Research and Development Cluster. Prince George: University of Northern British Columbia. Margolin, Indrani, Joanna Pierce, and Aislinn Wiley. 2011. “Wellness Through a Creative Lens: Mediation and Visualization.” Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work 30 (3): 234–52. Markey, Sean, Greg Halseth, and Don Manson. 2006. “The Struggle to Compete: From Comparative to Competitive Advantage in Northern British Columbia.” International Planning Studies 11 (1): 19–39. – 2008a. “Challenging the Inevitability of Rural Decline: Advancing the Policy of Place in Northern British Columbia.” Journal of Rural Studies 24 (4): 409–21. – 2008b. “Closing the Implementation Gap: A Framework for Incorporating the Context of Place in Economic Development Planning.” Local Environment 13 (4): 337–51. – 2010. “Capacity, Scale and Place: Pragmatic Lessons for Doing Commu-

304

References

nity-Based Research in the Rural Setting.” The Canadian Geographer 54 (2): 158–76. – 2012. Investing in Place: Economic Renewal in Northern British Columbia. Vancouver: ubc Press. Markey, Sean, John T. Pierce, Kelly Vodden, and Mark Roseland. 2005. Second Growth: Community Economic Development in Rural bc. Vancouver: ubc Press. Massey, Doreen. 1984. “Introduction: Geography Matters.” In Geography Matters! A Reader, edited by Doreen Massey and John Allen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. – 1995. Spatial Divisions of Labour. London: Macmillan. – 2005. For Space. London: Sage. Massey, Oliver. 2011. “A Proposed Model for the Analysis and Interpretation of Focus Groups in Evaluation Research”. Evaluation and Program Planning 34 (1): 21–8. Mather, Alexander, Gary Hill, and Maria Nijnik. 2006. “Post-Productivism and Rural Land Use: Cul De Sac or Challenge for Theorization.” Journal of Rural Studies 22 (4): 441–55. McBride, John, and Julia Good. 2015. “Learning Circles: What is Their Potential in Aboriginal Community Economic Development?” Prince George, bc: Community Development Institute, University of Northern British Columbia. McDonald, James. 2004. “The Tsimshian Protocols: Locating and Empowering Community-Based Research.” Canadian Journal of Native Education 28 (1–2): 80–91. McDowell, Linda. 1994. “Making a Difference: Geography, Feminism and Everyday Life – An Interview with Susan Hanson.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education 18 (1): 19–32. McIntyre, Alice. 2003. “Through the Eyes of Women: Photovoice and Participatory Research as Tools for Reimagining Place.” Gender, Place, and Culture 10 (1): 47–66. McMillan, Melville. 2006. “Municipal Relations with the Federal and Provincial Governments: A Fiscal Perspective.” In Canada: The State of the Federation, Municipal, Federal, and Provincial Relations in Canada, edited by Robert A. Young and Christian Leuprecht, 45–82. Montreal: McGillQueen’s University Press. McNall, Miles, Celeste Sturdevant Reed, Robert Brown, and Angela Allen. 2009. “Brokering Community-University Engagement.” Innovative Higher Education 33 (5): 317–31. Mendis-Millard, Sharmalene, and Maureen Reed. 2007. “Understanding Community Capacity Using Adaptive and Reflexive Research Practices:

References

305

Lessons From Two Canadian Biosphere Reserves.” Society and Natural Resources 20 (6): 543–59. Menzies, Charles. 2004. “Putting Words into Action: Negotiating Collaborative Research in Gitxaala.” Canadian Journal of Native Education 28 (1–2): 15–32. Metcalfe, Amy S., and Tara Fenwick. 2009. “Knowledge for Whose Society? Knowledge Production, Higher Education, and Federal Policy in Canada.” Higher Education 57 (2): 209–25. Midgley, James A., Anthony Hall, Margaret Hardiman, and Dhanpaul Narine. 1986. Community Participation, Social Development and the State. London: Methuen. Minkler, Meredith. 2005. “Community-Based Research Partnerships: Challenges and Opportunities.” Journal of Urban Health 82, no. 2 (Supplement 2): ii3–ii12. Mitchell, Claudia, and Naydene de Lange. 2011. “Community-Based Participatory Video and Social Action in Rural South Africa.” In The Sage Handbook of Visual Research Methods, edited by Eric Margolis and Luc Pauwels, 171–85. London: Sage. Mitchell, Lisa M. 2006. “Child-Centred? Thinking Critically about Children’s Drawings as a Visual Research Method.” Visual Anthropology Review 22 (1): 60–73. Mitchell, Terry, and Emerance Baker. 2005. “Community-Building Versus Career-Building Research: The Challenges, Risks, and Responsibilities of Conducting Research with Aboriginal and Native American Communities.” Journal of Cancer Education 20 (Supplement 1): 41–6. Mitton, Craig, Carol Adair, Emily McKenzie, Scott Patten, and Brenda Perry. 2007. “Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: Review and Synthesis of the Literature.” The Milbank Quarterly 85 (4): 729–68. Mohan, John. 1995. “Thinking Local: Service-Learning, Education for Citizenship and Geography.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education 19 (2): 129–42. Monk, Janice, Patricia Manning, and Catalina Denman. 2003. “Working Together: Feminist Perspectives on Collaborative Research and Action.” acme Journal 2 (1): 91–106. Mooney-Somers, Julie, and Lisa Maher. 2009. “The Indigenous Resilience Project: A Worked Example of Community-Based Participatory Research.” nsw Public Health Bulletin 20 (8): 112–18. Moore, Gemma, Ben Croxford, Mags Adams, Mohamed Refaee, Trevor Cox, and Steve Sharples. 2008. “The Photo-Survey Research Method: Capturing Life in the City.” Visual Studies 23 (1): 49–62. Moore, Jennie. 1997. “Inertia and Resistance on the Path to Healthy Commu-

306

References

nities.” In Eco-City Dimensions: Healthy Communities, Healthy Planet, edited by Mark Roseland, 167–79. New Haven: New Society Publishers. Morrill, Richard. 2009. “The Engaged Geographer: Research in the Wider Community.” Applied Geography 29 (4): 556–60. Morris, Marleen. 2010. Multi-Sectoral Collaboration and Economic Development: Lessons from England’s Regional Development Agencies. Prince George, bc: Community Development Institute, University of Northern British Columbia. Moss, Pamela. 1993. “Focus: Feminism as a Method.” The Canadian Geographer 37 (1): 48–9. msfhr (Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research). 2010. Knowledge Translation / Exchange Discussion Paper. Vancouver: Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. Muhammad, Michael, Nina Wallerstein, Andrew Sussman, Magdalena Avila, Lorenda Belone, and Bonnie Duran. 2015. “Reflections on Researcher Identity and Power: The Impact of Positionality on Community Based Participatory Research (cbpr) Processes and Outcomes.” Critical Sociology 41 (7-8): 1045–63. Nast, Heidi. 1994. “Women in the Field: Critical Feminist Methodologies and Theoretical Perspectives.” Professional Geographer 46 (1): 54–66. Ness, Eric C. 2010. “The Role of Information in the Policy Process: Implications for the Examination of Research Utilization in Higher Education Policy.” Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research 25: 1–49. Nietschmann, Bernard Q. 2001. “The Nietschmann Syllabus: A Vision of the Field.” Geographical Review 91 (1/2): 175–184. nih (National Institutes of Health). 2009. “nih Announces the Availability of Recovery Act Funds for Administrative Supplements Providing Summer Research Experiences for Students and Science Educators.” Accessed 16 February 2015. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od09-060.html. Novak, David. 2010. “Democratizing Qualitative Research: Photovoice and the Study of Human Communication.” Communication Methods and Measures 4 (4): 291–310. Nyden, Philip. 2003. “Academic Incentives for Faculty Participation in Community-Based Participatory Research.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 18 (7): 576–85. O’Fallon, Liam, and Allen Dearry. 2002. “Community-Based Participatory Research as a Tool to Advance Environmental Health Sciences.” Environmental Health Perspectives 110 (Suppl. 2): 155–9. O’Neill, Nancy. 2010. “Internships as a High-Impact Practice: Some Reflections on Quality.” Peer Review, aac&u 12 (4): 4–8.

References

307

oecd (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2013. Accessed 21 January 2013. “Glossary of Statistical Terms.” Paris: oecd. http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/.

opirg (Ontario Public Interest Research Group). 2011. “Ontario Public Interest Research Groups.” Accessed 16 February 2015. http://www.opirg.org. Ostrander, Susan. 2004. “Democracy, Civic Participation, and the University: A Comparative Study of Civic Engagement on Five Campuses.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 33 (1): 74–93. Pain, Rachel. 2004. “Social Geography: Participatory Research.” Progress in Human Geography 28 (5): 652–63. Pain, Rachel, and Peter Francis. 2003. “Reflections on Participatory Research.” Area 35 (1): 46–54. Papacharissi, Zizi. 2009. “The Virtual Geographies of Social Networks: A Comparative Analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld.” New Media & Society 11 (1–2): 199–220. Park, Robert. 1952. Human Communities: The City and Human Ecology. Glencoe, il: Free Press. Parker, Kathleen. 2001. “Enrichment and Frustration in Fieldwork.” The Geographical Review 91 (1–2): 168–74. Patton, Michael. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. London: Sage. Pearson, Margot, and Angela Brew. 2002. “Research Training and Supervision Development.” Studies in Higher Education 27 (2): 135–50. Petter, A. 2012. “What it Means to be an Engaged University.” Accessed 2 December 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smlloPWT7vk. Pezzini, Mario. 2001. “Rural Policy Lessons from oecd Countries.” International Regional Science Review 24 (1): 134–45. Phipps, David J., and Stan Shapson. 2009. “Knowledge Mobilization Builds Local Research Collaborations for Social Innovation.” Evidence and Policy 5 (3): 211–27. Piper, Martha. 2002. “Building a Civil Society: A New Role for the Human Sciences.” Paper presented at the Killam Annual Lecture, Halifax, ns, 24 October. Polèse, Mario. 1999. “From Regional Development to Local Development: On the Life, Death, and Rebirth (?) Of Regional Science as a Policy Relevant Science.” Canadian Journal of Regional Science 22 (3): 299–314. Potvin Louise, Margaret Cargo, Alex M. McComber, Treena Delormier, and Ann C. Macaulay. 2003. “Implementing Participatory Intervention and Research in Communities: Lessons from the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project in Canada.” Social Science and Medicine 56 (6): 1295–305.

308

References

Qi, Jie, and Ben Levin. 2011. “Research Knowledge Mobilization in Education.” Paper presented at the International Alliance of Leading Education Institutes Annual Meeting and Conference, Toronto, on, 15 June. Qin, Jian, Fredrick Wilfred Lancaster, and Bryce Allen. 1997. “Types and Level of Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research in the Sciences.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48 (10): 893–916. Ramley, Judith. 2014. “The Changing Role of Higher Education: Learning to Deal with Wicked Problems.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 18 (3): 7–22. rcgs (Royal Canadian Geographical Society). 2015. “Research Grants: rcgs Independent Research Grants.” http://www.rcgs.org/programs/research _grants/research_grants.asp. Accessed 16 February 2015. Reason, Peter. 2006. “Choice and Quality in Action Research Practice.” Journal of Management Inquiry 15 (2): 187–203. Reed, Maureen G., and Allison Gill. 1997. “Community Economic Development in a Rapid Growth Setting: A Case Study of Squamish, bc.” In Troubles in the Rainforest, edited by Trevor Barnes and Roger Hayter, 263–85. Victoria, bc: Western Geographical Series, University of Victoria. Reed, Maureen, and Evelyn Peters. 2004. “Using Ecological Metaphors to Build Adaptive and Resilient Research Practices.” acme: An International EJournal for Critical Geographies 3 (1): 18–40. Reid, Colleen, Elana Brief, and Robin LeDrew. 2009. Our Common Ground: Cultivating Women’s Health Through Community-Based Research. Vancouver: Women’s Health Research Network. Reimer, Bill. 2006. “The Rural Context of Community Development in Canada.” Journal of Rural and Community Development 1 (2): 155–75. Reinharz, Shulamit, and Lynn Davidman. 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press. Rice, Karen, and Kathleen Walsh. 2014. “Building University-Community Partnerships in Rural Settings through a Community-Based Learning Assignment.” Contemporary Rural Social Work 6: 126–35. Ricketts Hein, Jane, James Evans, and Phil Jones. 2008. “Mobile Methodologies: Theory, Technology, and Practice.” Geography Compass 2 (5): 1266–85. Robinson, Guy. 1998. Methods and Techniques in Human Geography. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Roche, Brenda. 2008. New Directions in Community-Based Research. Toronto: Wellesley Institute. Ross, Karen. 2015. “‘No Sir, She Was Not a Fool in the Field’: Gendered Risks and Sexual Violence in Immersed Cross-Cultural Fieldwork.” The Professional Geographer 67 (2): 180–6.

References

309

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1996. Chapter 10: The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Volume 1. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Rubin, Victor. 2000. “Evaluating University-Community Partnerships: An Examination of the Evolution of Questions and Approaches.” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 5 (1): 219–30. Ryser, Laura, and Greg Halseth. 2009. “Building Student Research Capacity: Faculty Perceptions about Institutional Barriers in Canadian Universities.” Research Management Review 17 (1): 51–68. – 2011a. “Communication Mechanisms for Delivering Information to Seniors in a Changing Small-Town Context.” Journal of Rural and Community Development 6 (1): 49–69. – 2011b. “Informal Support Networks of Low-Income Senior Women Living Alone: Evidence from Fort St. John, bc.” Journal of Women and Aging 23 (3): 185–202. – 2012. “Resolving Mobility Constraints Impeding Rural Seniors’ Access to Regionalized Services.” Journal of Aging and Social Policy 24 (3): 328–44. – 2013. “So You’re Thinking About a Retirement Industry? Economic and Community Development Lessons from Resource Towns in Northern British Columbia.” Community Development 44 (1): 83–96. Ryser, Laura, Greg Halseth, and Deborah Thien. 2009. “Strategies and Intervening Factors Influencing Student Social Interaction and Experiential Learning in an Interdisciplinary Research Team.” Research in Higher Education 50 (3): 248–67. Sá, Creso, Sharon Li, and Brenton Faubert. 2011. “Faculties of Education and Institutional Strategies for Knowledge Mobilization: An Exploratory Study.” Higher Education 61 (5): 501–12. Savan, Beth. 2004. “Community-University Partnerships: Linking Research and Action for Sustainable Community Development.” Community Development Journal 39 (4): 372–84. Savan, Beth, and David Sider. 2003. “Contrasting Approaches to CommunityBased Research and a Case Study of Community Sustainability in Toronto, Canada.” Local Environment 8 (3): 303–16. Savin-Baden, Maggi, and Claire Howell-Major. 2012. Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge. Schurr, Carolin, and Katharina Abdo. 2016. “Rethinking the Place of Emotions in the Field through Social Laboratories.” Gender, Place and Culture 23 (1): 120–33. Sclove, Richard, Madeleine Scammell, Breena Holland, and Faranaz Alimohamed. 1998. An Introductory Reconnaissance, Including Twelve

310

References

Organizational Case Studies and Comparison with the Dutch Science Shops and the Mainstream American Research System. Amherst, ma: The Loka Institute. Shields, John, and Bryan Evans. 2008. “Building a Policy-Oriented Research Partnership for Knowledge Mobilization and Knowledge Transfer: The case of Metropolis Canada.” Paper presented at the Canadian Political Science Association Annual Conference, Vancouver, bc, 4 June 2008. Accessed 8 December 2014. http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2008/EvansShields.pdf. Shucksmith, Mark. 2010. “Disintegrated Rural Development? Neo-endogenous Rural Development, Planning and Place-Shaping in Diffused Power Contexts.” Sociologia Ruralis 50 (1): 1–14. Smith, Derek A. 2003. “Participatory Mapping of Community Lands and Hunting Yields Among the Buglé of Western Panama.” Human Organization 62 (4): 332–43. Smith, Linda. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research in Indigenous Peoples. London, uk: Zed Books Ltd. – 2007. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. 2nd ed. Dunedin: University of Otago Press. Smith, Heather A., James D. McKeen, and Satyendra Singh. 2006. “Tacit Knowledge Transfer: Making It Happen.” Journal of Information Science and Technology 4 (2): 23–44. Smith, Sara. 2016. “Intimacy and Angst in the Field.” Gender, Place and Culture 23 (1): 134–46. Smith, Patrick, and Kennedy Stewart. 2006. “Local Whole-of-Government Policy Making in Vancouver: Beavers, Cats, and the Mushy Middle Thesis.” In Canada: The State of the Federation, Municipal, Federal, and Provincial Relations in Canada, edited by Robert A. Young and Christian Leuprecht, 251–72. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Smylie, Janet, Carmel Mary Martin, Nili Kaplan-Myrth, Leah Steele, Caroline Tait, and William Hogg. 2004. “Knowledge Translation and Indigenous Knowledge.” International Journal of Circumpolar Health 63 (Supplement 2): 139–43. Snow, Allison, Janice DeCosmo, and Said Shokair. 2010. “Low-Cost Strategies for Promoting Undergraduate Research at Research Universities.” Peer Review, aac&u, Spring: 16–19. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. 2009. sshrc’s Knowledge Mobilization Strategy: 2009–2011. Ottawa: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Accessed 7 July 2015. http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca /about-au_sujet/publications/KMbPI_FinalE.pdf. – 2011. sshrc-crsh 2010–2011 Annual Report. Ottawa: Social Sciences and

References

311

Humanities Research Council. Accessed 7 July 2015. http://www.sshrccrsh.gc.ca/about-au_sujet/publications/SSHRC_Annual_Report_201011_e.pdf. Somerville, Margaret, and Alison McConnell-Imbriotis. 2004. “Applying the Learning Organisation Concept in a Resource Squeezed Service Organisation.” Journal of Workplace Learning 16 (4): 237–48. Staeheli, Lynn, and Victoria Lawson. 1994. “A Discussion of ‘Women in the Field.’” Professional Geographer 46 (1): 96–102. – 1995. “Feminism, Praxis, and Human Geography.” Geographical Analysis 27 (4): 321–38. Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. 2008. Beyond Freefall: Halting Rural Poverty. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Statistics Canada. 2006. Low Income Cut-Offs for 2005 and Low Income Measures for 2004. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Stevens, Stan. 2001. “Fieldwork as Commitment.” The Geographical Review 91 (1–2): 66–73. Stoecker, Randy. 2008. “Challenging Institutional Barriers to CommunityBased Research.” Action Research 6 (1): 49–67. – 2009. “Are We Talking the Walk of Community-Based Research?” Action Research 7 (4): 385–404. Strand, Kerry, Sam Marullo, Nicholas Cutforth, Randy Stoecker, and Patrick Donohue. 2003. Community-Based Research and Higher Education: Principles and Practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stringer, Ernest T. 1996. Action Research: A Handbook for Practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sullivan, Lana, Laura Ryser, and Greg Halseth. 2014. “Recognizing Change, Recognizing Rural: The New Rural Economy and Towards a New Model of Rural Services.” Journal of Rural and Community Development 9 (4): 219–45. Taylor, W. Andrew, and Gillian H. Wright. 2004. “Organizational Readiness for Successful Knowledge Sharing: Challenges for Public Sector Managers.” Information Resources Management Journal 17 (2): 22–37. Teti, Michelle, Cynthia Murray, LaShaune Johnson, and Diane Binson. 2012. “Photovoice as a Community-Based Participatory Research Method among Women Living with hiv/aids: Ethical Opportunities and Challenges.” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 7 (4): 34–43. Tobias, Joshua, Chantelle A.M. Richmond, and Isaac N. Luginaah. 2013. “Community-Based Participatory Research (cbpr) with Indigenous Communities: Producing Respectful and Reciprocal Research.” Journal of Empirical Research and Human Research Ethics 8 (2): 129–40. Tondu, Jana-Marie, Ann Balasubramaniam, Louise Chavarie, Nikolaus Gantner, Jennie Knopp, Jennifer Provencher, Pamela Wong, and Deborah

312

References

Simmons. 2014. “Working with Northern Communities to Build Collaborative Research Partnerships: Perspectives from Early Career Researchers.” arctic 67 (3): 419–29. Topping, Keith. 2005. “Trends in Peer Learning.” Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology 25 (6): 631–45. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015. “Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.” Winnipeg, Manitoba: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Accessed 22 December 2015. http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Exec _Summary_2015_05_31_web_o.pdf Twale, Darla, Molly Schaller, Sawyer Hunley, and Patricia Polanski. 2002. “Creating Collaborative Community in Multidisciplinary Settings.” Innovative Higher Education 27 (2): 113–28. Uiterkamp, Anton, and Charles Vlek. 2007. “Practice and Outcomes of Multidisciplinary Research for Environmental Sustainability.” Journal of Social Issues 63 (1): 175–97. Viswanathan, Meera, Alice Ammerman, Eugenia Eng, Gerald Garlehner, Kathleen Lohr, Derek Griffith, Scott Rhodes, Carmen Samuel-Hodge, Siobhan Maty, Linda Lux, Lucille Webb, Sonya F. Sutton, Tammeka Swinson, Anne Jackman, and Lynn Whitener. 2004. Community-Based Participatory Research: Assessing the Evidence. Rockville, md: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Wadsworth, Yoland. 1998. “What is Participatory Action Research?” Action Research International, Paper 2. Melbourne: Action Research International. Accessed 23 September 2008. http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/pywadsworth98.html. Ward, Vicky, Allan House, and Susan Hamer. 2009. “Developing a Framework for Transferring Knowledge into Action: A Thematic Analysis of the Literature.” Journal of Health Services and Research Policy 14 (3): 156–64. Waters, Richard D., Emily Burnett, Anna Lamm, and Jessica Lucas. 2009. “Engaging Stakeholders through Social Networking: How Nonprofit Organizations are Using Facebook.” Public Relations Review 35 (2): 102–6. Webb, Christine, and Maggie Doman. 2008. “Conducting Focus Groups: Experiences from Nursing Research.” Junctures 10 (June): 51–60. Weber, Paula, and Brad Sleeper. 2003. “Enriching Student Experiences: Multidisciplinary Exercises in Service-Learning.” Teaching Business Ethics 7(4): 417–35. Whitlock, Cathy. 2001. “Doing Fieldwork in the Mud.” The Geographical Review 91 (1-2): 19–25. who (World Health Organization). 2008. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Qual-

References

313

ity, Vol. 1: Recommendations, 3rd ed., incorporating the first and second addenda. Geneva: who. Accessed 25 November 2015. http://www.who.int /water_sanitation_health/dwq/fulltext.pdf. Whyte, William F. 1991. Participatory Action Research. London: Sage. Wiewel, Wim, and Michael Lieber. 1998. “Goal Achievement, Relationship Building, and Incrementalism: The Challenges of University-Community Partnerships.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 17 (4): 294–91. Williams, Allison, Ronald Labonte, James Randall, and Nazeem Muhajarine. 2005. “Establishing and Sustaining Community-University Partnerships: A Case Study of Quality of Life Research.” Critical Public Health 15 (3): 291–302. Wilmsen, Carl, William Elmendorf, Larry Fisher, Jacquelyn Ross, Brinda Sarathy, and Gail Wells, eds. 2008. Partnerships for Empowerment: Participatory Research for Community-Based Natural Resource Management. London: Earthscan. Wilson, Shawn. 2008. Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. Winchester, Hilary P. M., and Mathew Rofe. 2005. “Qualitative Research and its Place in Human Geography.” In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, 2nd ed., edited by Iain Hay, 3–18. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Wolff, Marie, and Cheryl Maurana. 2001. “Building Effective CommunityAcademic Partnerships to Improve Health: A Qualitative Study of Perspectives From Communities.” Academic Medicine 76 (2): 166–72. Woods, Michael. 2007. “Engaging the Global Countryside: Globalization, Hybridity and the Reconstitution of Rural Place.” Progress in Human Geography 31 (4): 485–507. Wright, Michael, Brenda Roche, Hella von Unger, Martina Block, and Bob Gardner. 2009. “A Call for an International Collaboration on Participatory Research for Health.” Health Promotion International 25 (1): 115–22. Wynne-Jones, Sophie, Peter North, and Paul Routledge. 2015. “Practising Participatory Geographies: Potentials, Problems and Politics.” Area 47 (3): 218–21. doi: 10.1111/area.12186. Yarwood, Richard. 2005. “Geography, Citizenship, and Volunteering: Some Uses of the Higher Education Active Community Fund in Geography.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education 29 (3): 355–68. Yin, Robert. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Method. Los Angeles: Sage.

This page intentionally left blank

Research Design

315

Contributors

AU THOR S

greg halseth is a professor in the Geography Program at the University of Northern British Columbia, where he is also the Canada Research Chair in Rural and Small Town Studies and co-director of unbc’s Community Development Institute. His research examines rural and small-town community development, and local and regional strategies for coping with social and economic change.

don manson has spent the last two decades as a researcher and educator. His work has centred on the communities and people of Northern British Columbia.

sean markey is an associate professor with the School of Resource and Environmental Management in the Faculty of Environment at Simon Fraser University. His research concerns issues of local and regional economic development, community sustainability, rural development, and sustainable infrastructure.

laura ryser is the research manager of the Rural and Small Town Studies Program at the University of Northern British Columbia. Her research interests include small-town community change, institutional barriers to change, labour restructuring, and rural poverty.

316

Contributors

V I G N E TTE C ON TR I B U TOR S

nikolaus gantner is currently an adjunct professor in Environmental Science at the University of Northern British Columbia and a visiting fellow at Trent University. His research in the Canadian Arctic is centred around environmental issues and explores the food web transfer of contaminants in aquatic ecosystems, and he strives to explore and find ways to include community needs in research questions and approach.

regine halseth is a research associate with the National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health at the University of Northern British Columbia.

maura hanrahan is chair of the Humanities Program at Memorial University’s Grenfell Campus, where she is also cross-appointed to the Environmental Policy Institute. She has a PhD from the London School of Economics and Political Science and is the author of twelve books in several genres as well as many newspaper, magazine, and journal articles. catherine nolin is an associate professor and chair of the Geography Program at the University of Northern British Columbia. Her research examines the violence of imposed mining development in Guatemala by working closely with several mining-affected Indigenous communities to document crimes and corporate violations. Additionally, Catherine’s research partnership with the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation analyzes the social and spatial dimensions of the country’s genocide and the ensuing search for the “disappeared.” kelly vodden is an associate professor in the Environmental Policy Institute at Grenfell Campus and Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland. Her research examines rural community and regional development, including community involvement in natural resource governance, the development of sustainable local economies, and adaptation to social-ecological change. kieran walsh is senior research fellow on Project Lifecourse and deputy director at the Irish Centre for Social Gerontology at nui Galway. Since joining the icsg in 2006, Kieran has worked primarily in the areas of environmental gerontology and infrastructures of care. This

Contributors

317

has included studies on rural aging and social exclusion, older adult community and voluntary activity, the impact of assistive technology on the lives of older people, and the interaction between elements of place (particularly in rural areas), technology, and community.

rachel winterton is a research fellow with the John Richards Initiative at La Trobe University, Australia. Her research explores issues relating to aging and quality of life in rural and regional areas, with a specific focus on local governance responses to rural population aging.

This page intentionally left blank

Research Design

319

Index

Abdo, Katharina, 141 Aboriginal peoples: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 107n2; Aboriginal Peoples Survey, 131; agreements, protocols, 72–3, 87–8, 169–70, 196, 277–85; building capacity, 196–7; building relationships, 71–6, 209; business development groups, 258–9; confidentiality, anonymity, 177; consent forms, 206, 216; Councils, Elders, leaders, 55, 122– 3, 130, 177, 145, 206, 211, 215–16, 259, 265; definition, in Constitution and Indian Act, 107n2; ethics, Tri-Council policy on Aboriginal research, 87–8; First Nations Information Governance Centre, 107; Indian Act, 107n2; land claims, rights and title, 54–5, 58–9, 155–6, 181, 207, 278; language 151, 281– 3; learning circles, 263; National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health, 26–7; Northern Development Initiative Trust, 265–6; ownership of information, ocap®, 29, 72–3, 107n1, 170, 177, 182, 207,

216, 232, 244, 280; population, census, 130–1; potlatch, 211, 246; research methods, 110, 171; research report presentations, 236; residential schools, 150–1, 312; Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 20, 151; traditional knowledge, 167, 171, 178, 181–2, 277–80; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 151 action research (ar), 1, 27–30, 37, 69, 80, 268 acuns. See Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies aging. See under population; seniors agreements: protocols with communities, 24, 77, 92, 149, 169, 234, 244; sample agreements, 277–85 agriculture, 115, 136, 163 Aguinis, Herman, 27 Allen, Bryce, 89 Amara, Nabil, 252, 264 Anderson, Lynn, 209 Andrew, Caroline, 28 Andrews, Jeannette, 9, 81, 90–1, 187 anonymity. See confidentiality

320

Index

apecs. See Association of Polar Early Career Scientists applied learning. See under learning applied research, 7 ar. See action research archives, 152–3, 158, 229, 236 Arctic region, research, 45–8 Arendell, Terry, 140 Argyris, Chris, 253–4 Arnstein, Sherry R., 78–9 art, 115, 171; arts centre, 118; carving, 215; performance, 213, 217; visual arts, 213, 216–17, 221 asset-based development, 17 Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies (acuns), 171 Association of Polar Early Career Scientists (apecs), 47 Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, 65 audio recording, 83, 166, 190, 206 Aurora Research Institute, 277–8 Australia, 75–6, 128–9, 264 Babbie, Earl, 153, 199 Baccar, Kirstine, 167 Bailey, Carol, 74, 127, 157, 274 Baker, Emerance, 72, 177 Ball, Jessica, 171 Banks, Sara, 83 Barsky, Eugene, 218 Bax, Charlotte, 255 Baxter, Jamie, 29, 156, 192 Bednarz, Sarah, 105 Belkhodja, Omar, 14, 204, 253 Bendavid-Val, Avrom, 109 Benitez, Oscar, 206 Berkes, Fikret, 255 Biggs, Stephen, 79 Blair, Thomas, 25

Blumenthal, Daniel, 26 Bocarro, Jason, 28 Bodorkós, Barbara, 93, 217, 255 Boffa, Jody, 73 Bollman, Ray, 37 Boser, Susan, 21, 106, 203 Bowen, Sarah, 258 Bracken, Louise, 9, 15, 28 Brew, Angela, 92 Brief, Elana, 29, 80, 170, 196, 205 British Columbia. See “North First” Community Dialogue Project; Northern bc Economic Development Vision and Strategy Project; University of Northern British Columbia Community Development Institute; University of Northern British Columbia National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health Brown, Carole, 191 Brown, L. David, 27 Brown, Lyndsay, 217 Brown, Micaela, 206 Bruce, David, 163 Brunet, Nicolas D., 47 Brunger, Fern, 28 Bryson, Lyman, 153 Buchanan, David, 31 Buchbinder, Sharon, 104 budgets. See community-based research: funding Bull, Julie, 73 Caine, Ken, 196, 205 Calleson, Diane, 53 Cameron, Emilie, 168 Cameron, Jenny, 9 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 98, 155

Index

Canadian Collaborative Research (ccr), 47 Canadian Embassy, Guatemala, 190 Canadian Institutes of Health Research (cihr), 20, 68, 99–101, 110, 171, 252 Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation (crrf), 251 Canadian Tri-Council. See TriCouncil capacity, community, 43–70, 194–7, 239–40 capital, 36; financial, 89, 176; human, 50, 176; social, 85, 189 capitalism, 140 Cargo, Margaret, 19, 29, 31, 167, 257 Carpiano, Richard, 218 Castellano, Marlene, 177, 182 Castleden, Heather, 9, 167, 169–71 Catholics, 23, 87 cbr. See community-based research ccr. See Canadian Collaborative Research cdi. See University of Northern British Columbia: Community Development Institute Cech, Thomas, 89 census. See under population Chambers, Robert, 9, 106 change, mobilizing, 256–63 Chapman, Sherry, 17, 31 check-backs, 129 Cheshire, Lynda, 35 Chicago, 153; School of Sociology, 29 Choc, Maria, 190 Christensen, Julia, 171 Christopher, Suzanne, 197 Chu, Melanie, 219

321

cihr. See Canadian Institutes of Health Research Clark, Andrew, 216, 219 Clemenson, Heather, 37 climate studies, Arctic, 45 Cloke, Paul, 37–8, 170, 196, 201 Coasts Under Stress study, 249 colleges, 53, 77, 101, 118, 123, 140, 143, 262 Collins, Harry, 32, 56 colonialism, 25–6, 72–3, 87, 166–7; decolonizing, 168; neocolonialism, 26; post-colonial, 25 communications, 67, 91, 157–8, 192. See also email; fax; film; Internet; phones; photographs; photovoice; radio; social media; video; visual arts community-based participatory research, 9, 20, 83, 91, 167, 200 community-based research (cbr): context, 8–10; definition and terms used for, 9, 16–20; design, 108–47; fieldwork, 175–98; funding, 56, 66– 9, 99–101, 119, 125, 146; postfieldwork, 225–67. See also research; students; university: faculty Community Development Institute. See under University of Northern British Columbia community: regional profiles, 156– 63; timelines, 138–9 Community-University Research Alliances (cura), 20, 248–9, 267n1 conferences, 52, 102, 106, 114, 192, 194, 218, 250–1 confidentiality, 44, 83–4, 86, 131, 155, 159, 177, 182–3, 186–7, 194–5, 203, 205, 207, 210, 216, 232–4, 269, 282–3

322

Index

conflict management, 28, 57, 81, 83, 88, 91, 95, 104–5, 123, 140, 144–6, 156, 165, 176, 182, 187–8, 210, 231–2, 244, 255, 258, 269, 273 Constitution of Canada, 107n2 Cook, Judith, 28 co-op opportunities, 62, 93 Cooper, Amanda, 77, 252, 258, 262–3 Cooper, Cheryl, 214, 216 Corbin, Juliet, 199 Craig, Gary, 141 Cresswell, John, 18 Cristancho, Sergio, 209 Crowe, Kelly, 101 crrf. See Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation Cumming, Gabriel, 216 Cuomo, Dana, 141 cura. See Community-University Research Alliances Curlew, Kenneth, 234 Dakelh language, 282–3 Daley, Christine, 210–11 Daley, John M., 254 Daniel, Mark, 187, 192 Daniels, Jennifer, 65 Darbyshire, Philip, 217, 221 Darroch, Francine, 28 data saturation fallacy, 133–4 Dausset, Jean, 206 Davidman, Lynn, 28 Davis, Peter, 264 Davis, Sally, 206 Davison, Colleen, 196, 205–6 Dawson, Teresa, 9, 200–1, 262 daycare services, 34, 94, 196 Dearry, Allen, 26 decolonizing. See under colonialism DeCosmo, Janice, 98, 102, 106

de Lange, Naydene, 216 de Leeuw, Sarah, 168 Delemos, Jamie, 25 De Loë, Rob, 50 DeLyser, Dydia, 127 demeanour, researcher, 184–5, 188 Denman, Catalina, 113, 170, 202 Devaux, Dominique, 206 development, place-based, 5–6, 10, 35–6. See also economy Di Giantomasso, Sandra, 50 Dobbins, Maureen, 258 Doddridge, Joanne, 217 Doman, Maggie, 210 Dorsey, Bryan, 18, 32, 102, 105 Dowling, Robyn, 56, 78–9, 83–4, 208 drugs. See health care; substance abuse Duncan, James, 127 Duncan, Nancy, 127 Dunn, William N., 253 du Plessis, Valerie, 37–8 Durrheim, Kevin, 217 Dyck, Isabel, 8 early career researchers (ecrs), 45–7, 55 economy: community economic development plans, 114–15, 259; global economy, 36, 155, 161, 260 electoral boundaries, 37 Ellison, Nicole B., 219 Elvik, Rune, 255 email, 45, 91, 102, 143–4, 166, 192, 218, 227, 230, 236, 246, 256 embassy. See Canadian Embassy, Guatemala empowerment, 9, 17, 19–20, 27–8, 170, 179, 189, 221–2

Index

engaged university. See under university England, Kim, 8, 32 Essex, Stephen J., 35 ethics, 81–8, 210–11; protocols, 50; Research Ethics Boards and review committees, 57, 82, 96, 119, 214. See also confidentiality; TriCouncil ethnicity, 79, 202 ethnographic research, 29, 49, 200 Etmanski, Catherine, 9, 200–1, 262 Evans, Bryan, 203, 205, 257, 264 Evans, James, 217 Everingham, Jo-Anne, 35 experiential learning. See under learning Facebook. See under social media faculty. See under university Faubert, Brenton, 77, 101, 252–3 fax, 144 Feld, Marcia, 77–8 Felt, Lawrence, 234 feminist research, 8, 28–9, 32–3, 80, 127, 141, 170, 211, 214, 225, 227, 235 Fenwick, Tara, 259 Ferman, Barbara, 91–2, 188 Filion, Pierre, 255 film, in data collection, 213, 216 fire departments and firefighters, 137, 141, 202, 209 First Nations, defined, 107n2. See also Aboriginal First Nations Information Governance Centre, 107 fishing and fisheries, 58, 60, 136, 249–50

323

Fitchen, Janet M., 74 Fletcher, Christopher, 169 Fletcher, Fay, 270 Flicker, Sarah, 27, 51, 196, 234 Flyvbjerg, Bent, 204, 254 focus groups, 64, 67, 75–6, 90, 111, 152, 156, 176, 189, 194, 200, 208, 210–11, 213, 229, 233 Fogo, Newfoundland, 65 Fondahl, Gail, 32, 88, 170 Fonow, Mary, 28 Forde, Sarah, 189 Ford-Paz, Rebecca, 56 forestry, 52, 115–16, 118, 136, 150, 162–3, 190, 258, 265–6 Francis, Peter, 21, 28 Freire, Paulo, 28 Freshwater, David, 50 funding. See under community-based research Gander, Newfoundland, 64–5, 249 Gantner, Nikolaus, 45–7 Garrett, Bradley, 215 Garvin, Theresa, 31, 169 Gearheard, Shari, 21, 117, 169, 178, 193, 204 gender issues in research, 54, 79, 89, 140–1, 170, 201–2, 281. See also feminist research; women geographic information systems (gis), 106, 213, 221 Gerlak, Andrea K., 59 German, Erica, 254, 259 gerontology. See seniors Gibson, Katherine, 9 Gilbert, Melissa, 32 Giles, Audrey, 28 Gill, Allison, 35 Gilroy, Goss, 105

324

Index

gis. See geographic information systems give backs, 157, 226 Gjertsen, Tor, 34 globalization. See economy Good, Julia, 263 Goodsell, Todd, 210 Gordon, Elisa, 206 government: in economic development strategy, 265–6; policy development, 263–6, 221, 237, 264; pressures on local governments, 50, 67, 111, 114–5, 187, 261. See also Aboriginal peoples: Councils, Elders, leaders; and names of countries, provinces, and territories Graham, Ian D., 253 Graham, Katherine A.H., 18, 20 Graybill, Jessica, 89 Great Northern Peninsula, Newfoundland, 249 Green, Lawrence, 187, 192 Greenwood, Margo, 168 Gregory, Derek, 56 Grenfell Campus, Memorial University, 250 Grenier, Louise, 20 Grimwood, Bryan S.R., 169 Guatemala, 189–91 Guillemin, Marilys, 216–17 Gunderson, Craig, 206 Gunton, Thomas, 36 Gustafson, Diana, 28 Guta, Adrian, 20 Haalboom, Bethany, 73 Hall, Budd L., 9, 200–1, 262 Hall, Kelly, 93 Hall, Tom, 68

Halpain, Maureen, 61 Halseth, Greg, 17, 21, 28, 34–6, 44, 50–1, 61, 77, 89, 92, 98, 100, 103, 105–6, 112, 120, 130, 147n1, 182, 184, 188, 192, 205, 208, 217, 236, 260, 263–4 Halseth, Regine, 26–7 Hamer, Susan, 253 Hammer, Brent, 270 Hanrahan, Maura, 57–60 Hardwick, Susan, 163 Harris, Bob, 258, 262, 264 Harris, Glenn, 34 Harris, Leslie. See Leslie Harris Centre for Regional Policy and Development Harrison, Barbara, 216 Hart, Roger A., 213 Hay, Iain, 217 Healey, Mick, 89 health care, 161, 177, 197; funding, 161; hospitals, 161; research, 20, 199–200. See also Canadian Institutes of Health Research; hiv/aids; substance abuse Henry, Alistair, 93, 209–10 Herbert, Steve, 49 Heyne, Linda, 209 Hibbert, Alicia, 270 Hickey, Gordon M., 47 Hill, Gary, 35 Hill, Theodore L., 91–2, 188 hiv/aids, 20 Hodgson, Frances, 218 Holkup, Patricia, 17, 179, 181, 205 Holland, Barbara A., 18 Hollander, Justin B., 21, 33 Holmes, John, 258, 262, 264 Holsti, Ole R., 153

Index

Holte-McKenzie, Merydth, 189 homelessness, 3, 171, 212, 218. See also poverty honoraria, 122–3, 146 hooks, bell, 28 hospitals. See under health care House, Allan, 253 housing, 97–8, 111, 155, 163, 240 Howden-Chapman, Philippa, 264 Howell-Major, Claire, 199 Howitt, Richie, 25–6 HudBay Minerals, 190–1 Hum, Noelle J., 220 Human Resources and Skills Development Canada 116, 147n2 human rights, 59, 189–91 Humphries, Murray M., 47 Huntington, Henry, 32, 211, 228 Huu-ay-aht, 169 Hycner, Richard, 208

iapre. See Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics Ibáñez-Carrasco, Francisco, 92, 189 icsg. See Irish Centre for Social Gerontology immigrants, 214–5 imperialism, 141 Indian Act, Canada, 107n2, 130 Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 197 in-kind supports, 67, 100, 108, 117–8, 120, 178, 193, 234 institutional barriers, 53–55, 61–3 Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (iapre), 82 Interagency Secretariat on Research Ethics (isre), 82–3, 87–8

325

interdisciplinary research, 89, 91, 94–5 Internet, 34, 51–2, 64, 100, 102, 110, 120, 144, 154–5, 158, 184, 192–3, 204, 213, 218–19, 235–6, 238, 246, 256 internships. See under students interviews, 64, 90, 103, 133, 136, 156, 179–80, 183, 188–9, 192, 194, 201, 207–8, 212, 216–17, 221, 233, 256. See also qualitative research; surveys Inuit, 88, 107n2 Ireland. See Northern Ireland Irish Centre for Social Gerontology, 22–5, 84–7 Israel, Barbara A., 33, 67, 71, 74, 127, 200 isre. See Interagency Secretariat on Research Ethics Jackson, Winston, 48 Jacobson, Nora, 253, 256 Janyst, Pauline, 171 Jason, Leonard A., 9, 200 Johnsen, Sarah, 170, 196 Jones, Bernadette, 214 Jones, Phil, 89, 217 Jordan, Catherine, 53 Jupp, Eleanor, 9 Kaspar, Heidi, 140 Katz, Sylvan, 89 Kaul, Gitanjali, 103 Keen, Cheryl, 92 Kerner Commission. See under United States Kettner, Peter M., 254 Kezar, Adrianna, 89

326

Index

Kindon, Sara, 26, 28, 215–18 Kingsley, Bethan, 17, 31 Kitson, Alison L., 252 Kitson, Michael, 36 Klein, Phil, 55, 203 Klippensteins Barristers and Solicitors, 191 Klodawsky, Fran, 28 knowledge. See Aboriginal peoples: traditional knowledge knowledge mobilization, 14, 17, 25, 50, 74, 77, 101, 104, 117, 173, 184, 191–3, 205, 209–10, 214, 228, 232– 5, 237, 240–1, 243–4, 247, 252–5 Kobayashi, Audrey, 33, 56 Kolb, Bettina, 216–17, 219 Koster, Rhonda, 167 Kovach, Margaret, 166–7 Kreutzwiser, Reid, 50 kt Theories Research Group, 253 Labrador, 60, 63–6, 248–50 Lackey, Steven, 50 Lafrenière, Ginette, 247 Lakeman, Richard, 218 Laliberté, Nicole, 140 Lamari, Moktar, 252 Lamb, Christopher, 9, 167, 170–1 Lampe, Cliff, 219 Lancaster, Frederick Wilfred, 89 Landolt, Sara, 140 Landry, Réjean, 252, 264 language. See Aboriginal peoples: language; literacy Larsen, Michael, 206 Lasswell, Harold D., 153 La Trobe University, 75–6, 128–9 Lattuca, Lisa, 61 Laucius, Joanne, 101 Lavelle, Bridget, 206

Lavis, John N., 264 Lawrence, Geoffrey, 35 Lawson, Victoria, 33, 201 Lazarus, Lisa, 20 learning: agreements, 103; applied, 93; experiential, 78, 92–9, 208, 263, 266 LeDrew, Robin, 29, 80, 170, 196, 205 Le Gates, Richard, 77, 192 Lemelin, R. Harvey, 167 Leslie Harris Centre for Regional Policy and Development, 248, 250 Levesque, Peter, 14, 51, 252, 255 Levin, Ben, 77, 205, 243, 252, 262–4 Levin, Morten, 31–2 Lewin, Kurt, 27 Lewis, Kevin, 219 Li, Sharon, 77, 101, 252–3 libraries, 72, 118, 143, 153–4, 158, 186, 216, 235–6, 238, 256 Lieber, Michael, 192 LinkedIn. See under social media literacy, 109, 147n1, 196, 203–6, 214, 231 literature. See literature reviews; publication and peer review literature reviews, 17, 99, 101, 103–4, 106, 143, 145, 148–56, 194, 208, 225, 239; grey literature, 153–6, 227 Livingstone, David N., 56 Lo, Jenny, 28 logistics, field, 127, 135–45 Lopatto, David, 92 Lorenz, Laura S., 216–7 Los Angeles, 153; police department, 49 Lowry, Kelly W., 56 Luginaah, Isaac N., 166

Index

Macdonald, John A., 151 Macdonald, Neil, 89 MacDougall, Colin, 217, 221 Mackenzie, Colin, 216 Mackenzie, Simon, 93, 209–10 Mackenzie, Suzanne, 56 Maher, Lisa, 169, 201, 203, 208 Maiter, Sara, 21, 113, 189, 192, 203 Makhoul, Jihad, 31 Manning, Patricia, 112, 170, 202 Manson, Don, 21, 34–6, 51, 130, 182, 184, 205, 260 mapping, community, 158–9, 200, 213, 217–18 Margolin, Indrani, 216 Markey, Sean, 21, 34–6, 74, 130, 182, 184, 205, 259, 297 Martens, Patricia, 258 Martin, Ben, 89 Martin, Ronald, 36, 89 Massaro, Vanessa A., 140 Massey, Doreen, 35, 204 Massey, Oliver, 208 Mather, Alexander, 35 Maurana, Cheryl, 50, 117, 192 May, Jon, 170, 196 Maya, 189–191 McBride, John, 263 McConnell-Imbriotis, Alison, 254 McDonald, James, 20, 105, 177–8 McDowell, Linda, 89, 170 McIntyre, Alice, 214 McKeen, James D., 254–5 McMillan, Melville, 50, 120 McNall, Miles, 18, 88 media. See communications Memorial University, 57–60, 63–6, 248–50 Mendis-Millard, Sharmalene, 19, 44 Mennonites, 161

327

mentor / mentoring, 51, 61–2, 95–7, 102–4, 114, 188, 194, 197 Menzies, Charles, 68, 105, 170, 177– 8, 201, 205, 207 Mercer, Shawna, 19, 29, 31, 167, 257 Metcalfe, Amy S., 259 Métis, 88, 107n2, 130 Meulemans, Yvonne Nalani, 219 Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research (msfhr), 52, 252, 264 Midgley, James A., 80 Milbourne, Paul, 170 Miller, Franklin, 31 mining, Guatemala, 190–1 Minkler, Meredith, 9, 18–19, 25–7, 196, 208, 234 Mitchell, Claudia, 216 Mitchell, Lisa M., 216, 221 Mitchell, Terry, 72, 177 Mitton, Craig, 203, 257 Moffitt, Pertice, 206 Mohan, John, 98, 100, 105 Monk, Janice, 112, 170, 202 Mooney-Somers, Julie, 169, 201, 203, 208 Moore, Gemma, 214 Moore, Jennie, 255 Morgan, Vanessa, 9, 167, 170–1 Morrill, Richard, 98 Morris, Marleen, 253 Moss, Pamela, 8 msfhr. See Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Muhammad, Michael, 28 multidisciplinary research, 89 museums. See archives Nast, Heidi, 127 Natcher, David, 73

328

National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. See under University of Northern British Columbia National Housing Survey, Statistics Canada, 160 National Institutes of Health (nih), 100 nationalism, 140–1 Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, 68, 100 Neis, Barbara, 249 neo-colonialism, 26. See also colonialism Ness, Eric C., 264 Newfoundland, 60, 63–6, 248–50 New Rural Economy project, 61 newspapers, 17, 75, 103, 118, 128, 145, 149, 151–4, 158, 193–4, 204, 212, 237–8, 251, 256 New-Wes-Valley, Newfoundland, 64, 249 Nichols, Ann Weaver, 254 Nietschmann, Bernard Q., 126 nih. See National Institutes of Health Nijnik, Maria, 35 Noble, Tanya, 64 Nolin, Catherine, 188–91 North, Peter, 9, 220 Northern BC Economic Development Vision and Strategy Project, 265 Northern Development Initiative Trust, bc, 265 Northern Ireland, 23 “North First” Community Dialogue Project, 51 Northwest Territories, 171, 277 Norwood, Carla, 216

Index

Novak, David, 216 Novick, Lloyd, 187, 192 Nyden, Philip, 31

ocap®(ownership of Aboriginal information, control, access, possession), 29, 72–3, 107n1, 170, 177, 182, 207, 216, 232, 244, 280 oecd. See Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development O’Fallon, Liam, 16 oil and gas industry, 44, 136, 163 O’Neill, Nancy, 98 Ontario Public Interest Research Group (opirg), 107n3 opirg. See Ontario Public Interest Research Group Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (oecd), 7, 37 Ostrander, Susan, 77–8 Ouimet, Mathieu, 264 Pain, Rachel, 21, 28 Papacharissi, Zizi, 220 par. See participatory action research Park, Robert, 29 Parker, Kathleen, 127 participant checking, 184, 225, 228– 33 participation, vulnerable groups, 82, 84, 170, 201 participatory action research (par), 9, 27–30, 37, 80 participatory research (pr), 28, 74, 268 Pataki, György, 93, 217, 255 Patriot Act. See under United States

Index

Patton, Michael, 199 Pearson, Margot, 92 peer review. See publication and peer review Peters, Evelyn, 19, 28, 72, 127, 170 Petter, Andrew, 17–18 Pezzini, Mario, 35 Phipps, David J., 263–4 phones: 11, 24, 59, 75, 87, 116, 120, 141, 143–4, 158, 166; mobile, 141, 143, 158; satellite, 143 photographs, 214–17 photovoice, 213–15, 221 Pierce, Joanna, 216 Pinch, Trevor, 32, 56 Piper, Martha, 18 pirgs. See Public Interest Research Groups place-based development. See development Polèse, Mario, 35, 307 police, 49, 141; Guatemala, 190; rcmp, 162 politics. See government population: aging, 111; census, 159– 62; census, Aboriginal, 130–1; census, long-form, 160; census, rural, 37–8 position / positionality, 8, 21–3, 30, 32, 74, 79, 84–6, 141, 166–7, 178, 180, 182–3, 185, 204 post-colonial, 25. See also colonialism potlatch, 211, 246 Potvin, Louise, 232, 307 poverty, 3, 163, 170, 184, 216. See also homelessness power and relationships, 5, 10, 19, 21–7, 28–30, 33, 48, 54, 56–7, 67–8, 72–3, 75, 78–80, 85, 88, 90–1, 131, 140, 145–6, 165, 167–8, 171, 176,

329

181–3, 187, 192, 197, 200, 204, 216, 219, 255, 269 pr. See participatory research Pratt, Charleyse, 103, 300 Prosser, Jon, 216, 219, 291 publication and peer review, 50, 53– 4, 57, 74, 103, 111, 194, 214, 232, 243, 256, 262–3, 274. See also literature reviews Public Interest Research Groups (pirgs), 99, 107n2 Purdon, Michelle, 218 Qi, Jie, 243, 262, 264 Qin, Jian, 89 qualitative research, 109, 125–6, 133, 152, 205, 208, 215, 222, 229, 233–4, 239. See also interviews; surveys quantitative research, 56, 125–6, 206, 222, 234, 239. See also surveys questionnaires. See interviews; surveys racism, 140, 168, 281 radio, 118, 192–3, 204, 237, 256 Ramley, Judith, 18 rcgs. See Royal Canadian Geographical Society rcmp. See under police Reason, Peter, 8, 69 rebs. See ethics: Research Ethics Boards Reed, Maureen, 19, 28, 35, 44, 72, 127, 170 refugees, 214 Reid, Colleen, 29, 80, 170, 196, 205 Reid, Raymond, 206 Reimer, Bill, 36 Reinharz, Shulamit, 28

330

Index

reliability, 4–5, 32, 126, 131, 171, 178, 208, 214, 222, 230, 273 research. See action research; agreements; applied research; community-based research; community-based participatory research; ethnographic research; interdisciplinary research; multidisciplinary research; participatory action research; participatory research; qualitative research; quantitative research; rural appraisal approach; transdisciplinary research research assistants. See under students residential schools, 150–1 resource-based economies, 36, 67, 111, 147, 155, 161, 163, 195, 203 retirement. See under seniors Riaño-Alcalá, Pilar, 92, 189 Rice, Karen, 92 Richmond, Chantelle A.M., 166 Ricketts Hein, Jane, 217 rigour, 31, 33, 85 Robinson, Gib, 78, 192 Robinson, Guy, 208 Roche, Brenda, 9, 19, 32, 50–1, 113, 170, 196, 208 Rodríguez, James, 191 Rofe, Mathew, 56 Ross, Karen, 140 Routledge, Paul, 9, 220 Rowe, Penelope, 234 Royal Canadian Geographical Society (rcgs), 100 Royal Canadian Mounted Police (rcmp). See under police Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 20, 151 Rubin, Gerald, 89

Rubin, Victor, 78, 192 Rupasingha, Anil, 50 rural appraisal approach, 9 rural areas, focus of communitybased research, 34–8 Rural Resilience research group, Memorial University, 248 Russell, Grahame, 190–1 Ryser, Laura, 17, 44, 50, 61, 77, 89, 98, 100, 103, 105–6, 112, 120, 147n1, 188, 208, 236, 263–4 Sá, Creso, 14, 77, 101, 252–3 safety, in fieldwork, 139–45; safety checklist, 142 Savan, Beth, 51, 192, 228 Savin-Baden, Maggi, 199 Schiller, Wendy, 217, 221 Schnarch, Brian, 72–3, 110 Schurr, Carolin, 140–1 Scientists Act, Northwest Territories, 277 Sclove, Richard, 17 seasonality, 135–8 Seifer, Sarena, 53 senate. See Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry seniors, 22–5, 75–6, 84–7, 109, 111– 12, 128–9, 138, 163, 193–6, 202, 204, 212, 216, 235, 240; retirement, 112, 115, 240 Shapson, Stan, 263–4 Shields, John, 203, 205, 257, 264 Shirley, Jamal, 21, 117, 169, 178, 193, 204 Shokair, Said, 98, 103, 106 Shucksmith, Mark, 35 Sider, David, 51, 192, 228 Singh, Satyendra, 254–5 Skype, 166

Index

Sleeper, Brad, 92 Smith, Derek A., 221 Smith, Heather A., 254–5 Smith, Linda, 168–9 Smith, Michael. See Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Smith, Patrick, 50, 120 Smith, Sara, 141 Smylie, Janet, 252 Snow, Allison, 98, 102, 106 snowball sampling, 134–5 social media, 213, 219–20, 256; Facebook, 256; LinkedIn, 256; Twitter, 256. See also Internet Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (sshrc), 18, 20, 68, 99–100, 248–50, 267n1 socio-economic characteristics in communities, 79, 131–2; data, 157 Somerville, Margaret, 254 sshrc. See Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Staeheli, Lynn, 33, 201 Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 163 Starrs, Paul, 127 Statistics Canada, 37, 130–1, 160, 163 Steinfield, Charles, 219 Stevens, Stan, 25–6, 60 Stewart, Emma, 196, 205 Stewart, Kennedy, 50, 120 St John’s, Newfoundland, 64, 249 Stodolska, Monika, 28 Stoecker, Randy, 21, 67, 106, 199 Stovall, Joshua, 210 Strand, Kerry, 17, 178 Strauss, Anselm, 199 Stringer, Ernest T., 27, 178 students, 61–6, 92–106, 243; academic timelines, 138–9, 243; ap-

331

plied learning, 93; experiential learning, 78, 92–9, 208, 263, 266; graduate, 15n2, 47–8, 51, 54–5, 62, 74, 77, 94, 98–101, 103, 121–2, 191, 226, 262, 272; internships, 93, 98– 100, 250; learning agreements, 103; research assistants, 17, 45, 62, 65–7, 98–100, 103, 116, 121–2, 186, 208, 243; scholarships, 51; teaching assistants, 98; undergraduate, 15n2, 55, 62–3, 65, 77, 92, 94, 98– 103, 105–6, 121, 248, 272 substance abuse, 20, 216 Sullivan, Lana, 44, 50, 112, 120 surveys, 3, 109, 111, 116–8, 141, 187, 193, 195, 203, 207–12, 218; pretesting, 129–31; snowball sampling, 134–5. See also interviews; qualitative research; quantitative research Tandon, Rajesh, 27 Taylor, W. Andrew, 254 telephones. See phones tenure. See university: faculty tenure and promotion Teti, Michelle, 214 Tetroe, Jacqueline, 253 Theobald, Sally, 189 Thien, Deborah, 17, 89, 188, 208 Tl’azt’en Nation, 281–5 Tobias, Joshua, 166 Tondu, Jana-Marie, 47–8 Topping, Keith, 198 tourism, 67, 115, 136, 163 traditional knowledge. See under Aboriginal peoples transdisciplinary research, 9, 15n1, 28 travel costs, 34, 44, 94, 99, 117–18, 120, 196, 250, 252

332

Index

Tri-Council agencies, 18; policy statement on ethics, 20, 81–3, 87 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 151 Twale, Darla, 104 Twitter. See under social media two-way learning, 197–8, 234; colearning, 26–8 Tyler, Peter, 36

uaed. See Urban Aboriginal Economic Development Uiterkamp, Anton, 89 unions, 150, 179 United Nations Human Rights Council, 59 United States: funding for research, 100; Kerner Commission, 153; newspapers, 153; Patriot Act, 219; student advisory bodies, 102 university: engaged campus, 17–8, 39n1, 52, 69, 77, 93; engaged classroom, 62, 93, 121; faculty sabbaticals, 139; faculty tenure and promotion, 50, 53–4, 61, 77, 262, 272; research faculty challenges, 53–60. See also publication; students University of Northern British Columbia: Community Development Institute (cdi), 52, 69n1–70n1, 258, 278–80; National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health, 26–7; “North First” Community Dialogue project, 51 Urban Aboriginal Economic Development (uaed), 263 Urquhart, Dianne, 254, 259 validity, 18, 23, 31–2, 39, 85, 109, 126,

171, 208, 230, 233 Veisten, Knut, 255 video: conferencing, 64, 116, 213, 252; presentations, 215–17; recording, 83, 166, 190, 206–7, 213, 215–16; streaming, 241 visual arts. See under art Viswanathan, Meera, 9, 19, 25–6, 110, 117, 179, 193, 209, 234 Vlek, Charles, 89 Vodden, Kelly, 63–6, 92, 248–50 volunteers, community, 44, 59, 64, 83, 93, 100, 121, 130, 187, 199, 220, 250 Wadsworth, Yoland, 28 Wallerstein, Nina, 31, 290 Walsh, Kathleen, 92 Walsh, Kieran, 22–5, 84–7 Wanless, Cory, 191 Ward, Carol, 210 Ward, Vicky, 253 water quality in Aboriginal communities, 57–60, 134 Waters, Richard D., 219–20 web. See Internet Webb, Christine, 210 Weber, Paula, 92 Western Deans’ Agreement, 62 Whitlock, Cathy, 179 who. See World Health Organization Whyte, William F., 28 Widdowfield, Rebekah, 170, 291 Wiewel, Wim, 192 Wilder, Margaret, 59 Wiles, Rose, 216, 219 Wiley, Aislinn, 216 Williams, Allison, 50–1, 77, 80, 187, 234 Wilmsen, Carl, 9, 234

Index

Wilson, Christopher, 254, 259 Wilson, Shawn, 166, 168 Winchester, Hilary P.M., 56 Winterton, Rachel, 75–6, 128–9 Wolff, Marie, 50, 117, 192 women: field safety, 140–1; foreign brides, 214–15; marginalized, 196; rape, 189–91; single, 112; in Tri– Council ethics policy, 82. See also feminist research; gender issues in research Woodford, Brian, 65 Woods, Michael, 35, 204 workshops. See conferences

333

World Health Organization (who), 58 Wright, Gilliam H., 254 Wright, Michael, 31, 110, 127 Wynne-Jones, Sophie, 9, 220 Xiao, Yan, 216 Yancey, Elleen, 26 Yarbrough, Susan, 214, 216 Yarwood, Richard B., 100, 102 Yin, Robert, 156 youth, 161, 196–7, 201, 215–16, 222, 240