Research partnerships: a feminist approach to communities and universities working together 1110428092

Citation preview

rlM

131

.R46 7 1997

RESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS:

A Feminist Approach to Communities and Universities Working Together

Edited by Barbara Cottrell, Stella Lord Lise Martin, Susan Prentice December 1996

\ I

•

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Case Studies from British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Jan Barnsley, Debra LewisWomen's Research Centre Case Studies in Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Yuk-Lin Renita WONG Rapport concernant la region du Quebec et de l 'Ontario francophone

45

Relais-femmes - Chercheure: Suzanne Deguire Case Studies from Nova Scotia ......... .. . .. ... ...... .. 63

Peggy Mahon CONCLUSIONS ......... .. . ........ . . ... ....... . . 99 AFTERWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . 108

I

I

i

INTRODUCTION

As an organization that initiates , promotes and publishes feminist research, CRIA W has been interested by the recent creation of "formal" partnerships between universities and community groups . Bridging the gap between university-based research and researchers and community-based research and researchers is one of CRIAW's main objectives. At first glance the concept of partnership appears to be an ideal means to meet this objective. Numerous discussions with researchers situated in both locations have, however , revealed that the activities associated with the creating and ongoing functioning of these formal partnerships are in many instances not bridging the gap but perhaps even widening it.

Although we believe that research partnerships can offer exciting possibilities of linking theory to practice , and research to policy development and social change, we also know that they can fail to achieve their potential , either by not developing any real interaction or, worse still , by developing into conflictual and even hostile relations. In light of CRIA W's interests in linking researchers and in light of the increasing pressures to carry out research initiatives in partnership , we wanted to better understand the obstacles encountered in more difficult partnerships and the strategies developed in more successful ones . We felt it important to reflect on partnerships in the area of women's equality and what they mean to academics and community-based women. The reason for focusing on projects related to women's equality relates both to CRIA W's mandate and to our feeling that for this project to develop positive dialogue and concrete recommendations , a focused approach would be more effective. Our purpose is not to come up with one position but rather to bring together information about different experiences from multiple perspectives. Partnership is used so frequently now that it is in danger of losing any precise meaning. The term "partnership" generally evokes the principles of trust, equality , honesty and transparency. However, its use in so many contexts and its recent imposition by funders have resulted in very different definitions. In fact, the definition of partnership is often the initial source of conflict amongst the various partners involved. The case studies in this project as •

CRIA W/ICREf _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

1

well as a quick overview of the literature indicate that there is little agreement on what entails a "true pannership." Although it is possible that partnerships can take on different meanings in different circumstances, funders tend to assume homogeneity in the interpretation, development and implementation of the concept.

Partnerships can occur in a number of contexts. The ones that come to mind the most readily are north-south partnerships in the international development communities, partnerships between public and private sector, and partnerships between the public and/or private sector and non-profit organizations such as NGOs and educational or health facilities. As indicated, this study focuses on research partnerships between universities and communitybased \vomen' s groups.

Goal and Objectives

The goal of this project is to examine the conditions that facilitate or hinder the development of successful research partnerships between community-based and universitybased researchers. Its specific objectives are:

•

To define what produces successful and positive partnerships in research contributing to change for women's equality.

•

To identify barriers to successful partnerships .

•

To identify strategies used to maximise the likelihood of pan being successful in pursuit of successful partnerships .

Research Methodology

In carrying out research CRIAW has often opted for a collaborative model which includes multiple researchers. Being a national organization sensitive to the complexity of regional particularities, we want to work in ways that are consistent with our vision. This particular project emerged as an issue in research about community groups in Nova Scotia

a

CRJAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

2

conducted by CRIA W members, Barbara Cottrell and Stella Lord . CRIA W was aware that this was an issue in other parts of the country and its belief that it would be a worthwhile project was supported by SSHRCC who agreed to fund this study.

Our approach is not to locate the research in one region and to look at other regions from that vantage point, but rather to locate the research in the various regions. We believe that it is important to have research carried out by individuals who are not only knowledgable of the issues but also of the physical and social environment in which the research is taking place. For this reason this particular research project was carried out by feminist researchers and research organizations from across the country; the Women's Research Centre in British Columbia, Yuk-Lin Renita Wong in Ontario, Relais-Femmes in Montreal and Peggy Mahon in Nova Scotia.

As in other CRIAW research projects, the work began with a meeting between the researchers and a volunteer advisory committee drawn from both the university and the community. The objective of this two-day meeting was to develop the parameters of the study and to identify the issues which we wanted to look at more closely. A discussion of our understanding and definition of the concept of partnership was an important part of this meeting and the project.

The following questions were collectively developed by the researchers to guide their interviews and data gathering:

•

•

What motivated the partnership? Provide a brief history of the relationship between the various "partners ."

•

How do the following factors play out in the partnership (in terms of the conditions , barriers and strategies): money, control, decision-making, staff?

•

Where was there satisfaction/ dissatisfaction?

•

What type of process was used? What means of communications were adopted? How was information circulated?

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

3

•

What were the expectations and outcomes of the partnership I) in terms of the relationship and 2) in terms of the outcome?

As a group it was agreed that each of the researchers would produce a report which would include two case studies from the following types of partnerships: •

state imposed or funder imposed

•

fund ed research initiated by the university

•

funded research initiated by the community

•

unfunded collaboration

This report has been organized in sections. Each of the researcher's two case studies are presented in a separate section. The authors have located themselves in terms of their perspective and definition of partnership . Two researchers were employed by women 's research organizations, and have included the organization's view and definition of partnership. The report's conclusion draws together the common themes that emerge from the case studies and identifies the major structural and systemic issues that need to be addressed in university/ community partnerships .

•

CRIAW/ICREf _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

4

Case Studies from British Columbia

•

Jan Banisley, Debra Lewis Women's Research Centre

INTRODUCTION

The term "partnerships" has a nice ring to it. It implies cooperation, collectivity and working together -- many of the things we strive for as feminists and in feminist organizations. At the same time, however, words do not always mean what they say, and we have learned that state institutions can easily take the most positive sounding words and apply them in ways we did not anticipate.

In recent years, partnership has become one of those words. We have seen governments and other institutions, and in particular both governmental and non-governmental funding agencies, promote the idea of partnerships as a condition of their approval and support. Various forms of partnership have been promoted . One particular form is that between academic institutions and community-based organizations. These partnerships are discussed in terms of the mutual benefits to be gained by both sides of the partnership , but seldom are the pitfalls and tradeoffs that can develop made clear.

We cannot look at collaborations between institutions and community-based organizations in isolation from our general view of social change. As feminists, we begin from the starting point that women are an oppressed group, and that radical changes are needed in the structures of society to overturn that oppression. At the same time, we recognize the need for more immediate changes that will address the consequences of women's oppression in our daily lives .

•

CRIAW/ICREf _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

5

We believe that both types of change -- the short term changes that can ameliorate the worst consequences of women's oppression and the longer term changes that can ultimately eliminate it -- are motivated and driven by women as a group. Change is a bottom up process. We must recognize that the organizations which are closest to the day to day lives of the majority of women are best placed to define the changes that women need and the strategies that are necessary to realize those changes. It follows, then, that in working for social change we give primacy to the perspectives of community-based organizations.

This does not mean, of course, that grassrootS organizations are always right, or that they cannot be challenged on their analysis and strategies. Indeed, community-based organizations themselves question how they are making the tradeoffs between short term objectives and long range goals. They struggle to stay firmly rooted in the experiences of the women they work with and for, while striving to make that experience visible and to be ta.ken seriously by those in a position to deliver the changes that will make some difference in women's lives. We expect others working for change to do the same.

Who We Are and What We Believe

The Women's Research Centre is an autonomous, community-based feminist research group. We work jointly with women's groups to do research on issues they identify; we undertake research projects of our own; and we produce publications on how to do research, evaluation and strategy development.

Our overall perspective on research and social change leads us to a series of assumptions that are at the base of our analysis of research partnerships . These assumptions also reflect the lessons we've learned from working with women from academia and our analysis of what we see as the constraints they face working in academic institutions.

•

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

6

•

1.

Research can take place in a variety of settings and can be successfully carried out by individuals and groups with different backgrounds. Put simply, research is not the exclusive terrain of academics.

2.

In practical terms, the objective of research is its application in making both immediate and fundamental changes in women's lives. Research is a tool , and not an end in itself.

3.

Academia bas traditionally bad an authority in society to define knowledge. As an institution that both supports and gains benefits from existing societal structures and relationships, it bas different interests and a different basis on which it defines knowledge than those outside the institution, in particular activists and advocates who seek to change those structures and relationships .

4.

Individuals have their roles defined in large part by their relationship to institutions. This applies whether the individual is inside and therefore accountable to the institution, or outside of it. For women academics, this accountability to the college or university may be hard to see, masked as it is by their relative powerlessness within the institution, by notions of academic independence, and perhaps by the individual woman' s participation in or support of community-based groups . Individuals can push the limits of their roles according to their analysis and commitment. However, there is a limit beyond which anyone working within such a structure cannot go without challenging her relationship to the institution.

5.

In developing a collaboration between feminists from community-based organizations and those from academia, each side faces a dilemma. From the perspective of grassroots groups, there is the struggle to be accountable to the women they work with and for , while achieving "legitimacy " and "credibility." From the perspective of academics, there is the struggle to do the individual research that academia prizes and to advance their careers or keep their jobs, but also contribute to change in women's lives.

6.

What we do about these dilemmas depends on what we believe about how change happens . Since we believe that the initiative for change happens at the grassroots level , then the extent to which a collaboration supports women working at this level is the primary measure of its success.

7.

While there are clearly differences between women from community-based groups and academia, there are other, even more fundamental differences (such as class, race , income, and education) that must also be addressed in developing any collaboration. Addressing the fundamental issue of diversity respectfully

CRIAW/I C R E F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

7

and avoiding tokenism is a critical challenge in developing any strategy for change. 8.

Whatever the differences confronting us, they can only be addressed when they are explicitly recognized and respected . The only way to address the problems that arise from difference is to put them on the table .

9.

Part of what people bring to the table in developing a collaboration is the culture and practice of the organizations or institutions they work within. These differences , too, must be acknowledged and addressed.

Feminist research, as any other feminist strategy, means challenging traditional power relationships . Consequently, the methods we use and the way we work together must also recognize and address power differences .

For the purposes of this discussion, we have considered two examples of research collaborations in British Columbia. The first is an example of an unsuccessful attempt to bring together individuals from several community-based organizations and two universities in a formal partnership, motivated by the availability of funding. The second provides an example of a more successful process of developing a series of collaborative relationships between a team of university based researchers and a community-based organization. In both cases, a community-academic partnership was required by the funders.

FARV AW: THE B.C./YUKON CENTRE FOR ACTION RESEARCH ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

In November 1991 , SSHRC and the Family Violence Prevention Division announced funding for three (later to become five) research centres on family violence and violence against women . These centres were to be established as partnerships between academic institutions and community-based organizations, and would be funded for a five year period.

a

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

8

In Vancouver , funding was awarded to FARVA W, the B.C./Yukon Centre for Feminist Action Research on Violence Against Women. From the time of the announcement of the programme, to the dissolution of the original FARVAW Steering Committee in April 1994, "partnership " took a tremendous toll on all of the women involved.

The Women's Research Centre itself was a part of F ARV AW from the outset 1 • This involvement has played a major role in informing the description of the project we present here . In addition, a WRC member who was away from Vancouver during the period of the project collected additional information and brought a "fresh eye" to considering how the project had developed. For this paper, she reviewed all documentation relating to the project in the files and interviewed four women who had been involved in the project, including two

women from the universities, one community member, and the project's original staff person.

Through the first half of 1992, a series of meetings was held to establish a project Steering Committee and to develop a proposal for submission to the funder. The first meeting was initiated by an individual connected with one of Vancouver' s two universities. While '

some of the women from both the community and academic side had had previous contact, most had not worked together before . Some women came and left when it became clear that their view of a potential centre was not shared by the group. Eventually , a Steering Comminee remained that included women from both the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, the Women's Research Centre and several other community-based organizations working in the area of violence against women .

From the outset, some of the community representatives were sceptical about the project. In some cases , this scepticism arose from an analysis of how programmes such as this often drain energy from women's groups and contribute to the co-optation of women' s issues

The Women 's Research Centre's book listening 10 1he Thunder: Advoca1es Talk abour 1he Bat1ered Women's Movemen1 includes an anicle that describes and analyses our experience and how it relates to other kinds of pannerships. 1

•

CRIAW/ICREf _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

9

by state institutions. Others were unclear about how the project would unfold. One woman reported that in early meetings she bad difficulty determining the motives of the university representatives:

I felt baffled. Whm did they really wanI to accomplish ? The academic milieu was hard to understand. It was too fractured. There was too much jargon. lf [another community group] hadn't been there, I would not have gone back. I didn 't have a really clear idea of what [the academics] wanted to accomplish. At the same time, this individual reported that she had hoped that the project might produce "useful research, stuff that did relate to women's experience and that we could really use. " An informant from the university said that the scepticism felt and expressed by some of the community representatives made the situation impossible from the outset, and that it was impossible for her to gain the trust of other women on the Steering Committee.

[One woman] said in the beginning that this [pannership] probably isn't going to work. [I think] there were too many political poinis to be made, and that's what it's about . . . . lf you are looking for something, anything that happens is whm you are looking for. This woman felt that, as a woman from an academic institution, there was little she could have done to gain the trust of the Steering Committee.

While there are differences among informants about how the initial scepticism on the part of some participants grew into distrust and suspicion, everyone agrees that this lack of trust was a major issue in the Steering Committee.

As the composition of the Steering Committee became set, the pressure was on to produce a proposal for submission before the deadline . The participants agreed that the focus of work during the first year of the project would be to develop a process for working together and a model for how the centre would operate. Community groups wanted to insure that the needs and priorities of front line groups were reflected in the project, and that the operation of the centre and any research it produced would be truly participatory. So the proposal outlined •

CRlAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

10

an open process for facilitating participation by a range of grassroots groups. At the same time, it was necessary to satisfy the funder by identifying specific issues that might become the focus of the research the project would do.

This tension between the need to provide funders with specific plans and time needed to develop working relationships and plans at a more deliberate pace caused difficulties throughout the project. One of academics involved said:

Many of the concrete themes in the proposal came from my input. This later became problematic. There were specific topics in the proposal that we were to address, but then }Vhen things got going, [one of the community groups] said, "Yes, but these ideas didn't come from the community. " This was a problem for me, but I still had no problems committing to the project. The lack of common understanding and agreement about what the proposal really meant and how it would be implemented would also be a recurring theme throughout the project. Despite these problems , however , the proposal was agreed to (at least formally) and in November 1992 the committee received confirmation that they had been successful.

The months immediately after the announcement saw several issues disrupt the work of the Steering Committee. First, the two universities involved had to sort out problems with the perception that FARVAW was a "UBC project" and ensure that SFU also got credit for the initiative. Second , plans to hire the first staff members were put on bold when further federal government cuts to women's groups led to a well founded concern that groups would resent being asked to participate in consultations for FARVAW when their own resources were being diminished . This concern, coupled with the Steering Committee's inability to develop respectful process, led a key community member to resign from both FARV AW and her own organization.

In addition, tensions about whether F ARV AW was a community or a university project surfaced when the first staff person was finally hired in the late spring of 1993. Conflict

•

CRIAW/ICREf _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

11

developed in the committee concerning the location of the project office. The committee finally reaffirmed what the proposal had stated and what the staff person had recommended, and agreed that the office would be located at the community-based Women's Research Centre rather than at one of the universities.

Problems around lack of trust and lack of agreement on the project proposal continued to escalate now that the project was getting under way. An important issue related to both of these was the relative power and privilege of the academic and community-based women. Several of the community-based representatives expressed the view that the academic women were, for the most part, unwilling to acknowledge that their connection with the institutions did carry privilege and power in their dealings with the outside world, regardless of the fact that their feminism may marginalize them within the institution. One of our academic informants found that the focus on privilege within the Steering Committee was excessive. She said: I've always had a foot in the community and a foot in the academy. I've done front line work . ... [I think] the community/academic split is a complete load of bull. Which am I? I work in a university but also in the community. I didn 'r change who I was. Another informant conceded that, as an academic woman, she did have privilege, but she, too, felt that this had been overemphasized in the committee. She pointed out that there were also differences in both status and communication style among the academic women on the Steering Committee, but that this and other issues had been obscured by the emphasis on the division between academic women and community women. From her perspective:

For some of us who rose from similar circumstances [to many women in the community], only emphasizing difference obscures other pans. Role labels weren 't overcome to deal with [the women on the committee as] individuals. . One thing I do agree is thac the university is a place of sra1us and privilege and thac has ro be acknowledged. You can 'r come to the cable as equal panners if you don't have equal power relative to wha1 you 're doing there. This informant felt that the funder in this case had been completely unwilling to recognize the implications of funding a "partnership" while insisting that funds be channelled •

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

12

through the partner with the greater power. She thought that the academics on the ti

ti

committee were not given credit for attempting to challenge the funder on these issues. She also felt that some of the community women didn't appreciate that academic women were involved in this type of project in part to get away from the setting of the university with its emphasis on hierarchical structures and ways of working .

While the view of the academic women was that the differences between them and the community women were either overemphasized or irrelevant, the community women on the Steering Committee believed that it was essential to deal with these issues directly . One community member on the committee told us that she believes that academic privilege was invisible to the university women and that they simply couldn't see the advantage they hold due to their position. In her opinion , the committee made a mistake in not confronting the issue earlier. She indicated :

By the time we started verbalizing what was going on it was too late, hostility had developed. It taught me to get clear and look for those power imbalances, and to bring them out in the open so they can be analyzed and discussed. Another informant acknowledged that the "camps were set before people met ", but that :

As the differences became more apparent, the university women were unwilling to acknowledge their different location. This fuelled the community groups ' already existing mistrust. One of the academic women pointed out that bridging this gap was even more difficult because an academic on the committee, who had assumed a role of authority and responsibility for the project, was nonetheless only an occasional participant:

She kept saying that [violence against women] was not a substantive area for her. She would stay away until she perceived a problem, then drop in [to sort it out]. The committee could not set standards for participation in the Steering Committee because of the way the funding was vested in this person's institution. This essentially gave

•

CRIAW/ICREF--- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -

13

her the right to attend meetings as she pleased, and to challenge decisions after the fact. This caused considerable frustration in the committee, and not just for the community members .

However, issues of trust, power and privilege did not only exist within the Steering Committee. While the committee itself was struggling to come to terms with differences within, the project itself faced considerable scepticism from the broader community. In the period before the project, women's groups in B.C. had participated in hearings for the federal panel on violence against women as well as provincial consultations on women' s issues . As one informant said, "People felt consulted to death and very mistrustful " of how seriously their input would be taken. There was also considerable resentment that substantial funding had been given to another large research project when front line groups were struggling co survive and many faced budget cuts.

Furthermore, although the women on the Steering Committee were committed to developing connections with First Nations women and women of colour, women from organizations in these communities often viewed the project as dominated by white, middle class women. Indeed, there was only one woman of colour on the Steering Committee . One community member said:

Although we tried to put into place a structure that was deliberately open to whatever involvement and direction First Nations women and women of colour would want, it was seen by them as something that had been developed and controlled by a committee of white women. It's clear to me that ir 's a nzistake to develop a project that needs to be inclusive of diversity without having everyone involved from the beginning. According to one informant, the inability of the project to tackle the issue of privilege related to race and class was even greater than the difficulty in dealing with differences between academic and community-based women. The project's staff person pointed out that for the community women on the Steering Committee , the focus was mostly on academic privilege, because this was what they were experiencing in their work on the committee .

a

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __

14

However, as the person who was attempting to build linkages with groups in the community, she was hearing criticisms from a broader range of community women.

As the staff person, I often saw the other forms of oppression in the world as being more significant. Women of colour and First Nations women didn 't make the disrincrion between academic women and community-based women on rhe committee. For them, the issue was a white, middle class committee, not academics versus community-based members. For this informant, the inability of the committee to deal with the issue of academic privilege got in the way of dealing with these more fundamental manifestations of privilege.

ln addition to raising the issue of differences in privilege both within the committee and in the broader community, several informants indicated that it was important for communitybased women to have the opportunity to discuss and define their common interests before entering into a collaboration and to continue that discussion while the project is being carried out. Community women did communicate with each other outside of project meetings, but as one informant said :

It was so underground. We never talked about the need to caucus. It always felt sort of sneaky that we were analyzing the meetings and giving each other support outside. ... If you don't have contact outside the meetings, it's crazy making, bur if it's not done in an official way, it feels disloyal. The whole group needs to understand why it's necessary. The need for community women to have a space to discuss their common interests became a problem both within the Steering Committee and in the work that the project was trying to accomplish. One piece of the project's work was to be the establishment of a Consultation Advisory Group which would provide the opportunity for women in the community to set direction for the project. Although it bad been written into the staff person's job description that the Advisory Group would have the opportunity to meet separately from the Steering Committee, when the time came there was considerable disagreement about the plan.

a

CRIAW/ICREF - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

--

15

This lack of agreement on the meaning of the proposal and job description came up repeatedly in the committee. The project's staff person told us:

Right off the bat, I realized that either some people hadn't read the proposal, or if chey had read it, they had really different understandings. But as the staff person, the proposal was what I had co go with. Eventually , the differing interpretations of both the proposal and job description made for an intolerable situation. The staff person found it "harder and harder to move" as different directions uncovered disagreements among committee members. The Steering Committee agreed that it was impossible for her to continue the struggle.

The lack of agreement on the project proposal, the inability of the Steering Committee to agree on issues of power and privilege, and the general atmosphere of mistrust that developed on the committee all masked an essential problem that went largely unaddressed during the course of the project. It is clear that there were significant differences among committee members in political analysis about how to make change, about research as a strategy, and about the roots of violence against women . This was acknowledged in one way or another by most of our informants. As one woman said, "Just because you are interested in the same thing, doesn't make you natural partners." And another informant pointed out that while these political differences may have been greatest between academic and community women, differences also existed among women within these groups and these differences too went unacknowledged .

Furthermore, this informant also pointed out that both language and an unwillingness to address disagreements directly often obscured political difference within the group. She noted that people would use terms like "community-based action research" as if there was a common definition of what this meant. When differences became apparent:

There was a real resistance to saying "I think we disagree here. " People saw and fell this as a personal attack rather than as a polilical difference. Somezimes people [seemed to feel] their professional integrity was being

•

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

16

challenged or discredited . ... {And there was] a lot abouz legitimacy, "Who's the real feminist?"

Evenrually the Steering Committee self-destructed. The inability to acknowledge political differences, and hence to determine whether these differences were too wide to work across, appears to have been at the base of the collapse. The community women decided to leave the Steering Committee in the spring of 1994, and the academic women went on to find new community partners. In spite of the time and effort spent by all involved , it had been impossible to successfully complete even the developmental phase of building a working relationship, let alone undertake the hoped for initiatives that would benefit front line workers and battered women.

Two years later, reactions of the participants from the early days of the project range from anger to sadness to frustration -- and it is clear that emotions still run strong when women discuss their experience. On the positive side, and as the comments we've noted here from participants illustrate , the experience has helped some women develop a deeper understanding of collaborations and the preconditions necessary for a useful working relationships. We have taken these learning into account in our analysis and in the conclusions we present at the end of this paper.

WESTCOAST CHILD CARE RESOURCES CENTRE/UBC BASED RESEARCH TEAM

Over the past few years, a working relationship has been developed between a team of researchers at UBC and the Westcoast Child Care Resources Centre in Vancouver. As background to gathering information about this particular case , we read several articles by Allison Tom, the principal investigator for the project. We then interviewed her as well as Gyda Chud. Chud has played several different roles in the development of the project, including as an external member of the project research team and as a member of the Board of Westcoast. We also carried out a focus group with members of the project research team : Allison Tom; research staff member Shauna Butterwick; and Lynette Wright Smith, Shu Ning, •

C R I A W / I C R E F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17

and Jeanette Villeneuve, three graduate students who had worked on different aspects of the research. 2

Westcoast is both a resource centre and an umbrella organization of groups and individuals concerned with child care. It provides a range of services including a library/resource centre, early childhood multicultural services, support to the administrative structures of non-profit centres, and more. Recently , they have also begun to take a more active role in advancing issues important to those concerned with child care. The organization welcomes participation from anyone who has an interest in the field , and has included participation by child care unions, early childhood educators , parents, etc.

The relationship between the team at UBC and Westcoast began in a small and informal way in the early 1990s. It started with a series of interviews with child care workers. No formal relationship with the organization existed at that time, but a series of projects has developed a closer , and in one subproject more formalized, relationship between the university based researchers and this community-based group . Despite the fact that this relationship has been developing for several years, principal researcher Tom was careful with her description of the connection. She believes that so far this relationship has been neither a partnership or a collaboration, but rather :

I would use the word "alliance. " This is imponant for me because I don 'r think we've gouen to collaboration yet. I'm developing a theory that you move into an orbit where that relationship gets closer. ... I think we' re getting to the point now where developing a collaboration would be possible. From the initial undertaking, the project has implemented a number of different subprojects. These have included an ethnography of one child care centre and other subprojects focusing on an early childhood education programme ; on the Board of Directors o f Westcoast itself; and on a group of mothers originally from mainland China . Scheduling

2

a

For this case study. our informants requesied tha1 they be identified by name.

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

18

conflicts forced the team to end another subproject which was being carried out at a child care centre organized by the First Nations House of Learning at UBC.

All of these subprojects were determined by the general interests of the principal investigator, the individual concerns of graduate students interested in becoming involved in the project, and the willingness of Westcoast, child care centres, or individuals to participate.

Throughout the project, the team of researchers has met every two weeks to discuss directions, specific aspects of the project, or problems that have arisen. These team meetings included Gyda Chud, who attended when her time permitted. All of the informants agreed that these meetings were essential to the success of the overall project and its subprojects.

An example of one of these subprojects was a study of the Board of Directors of

Westcoast. This particular subproject developed when graduate student Linette Wright Smith expressed interest in considering what has happened to the boards of non-profit organizations in the light of funding pressures, the dangers of co-optation and related issues. In particular, she was interested in understanding the everyday lives of women as "organizational creators and sustainers." Tom and Wright Smith determined that situating this research at Westcoast would provide a more interesting and useful information than at a single child care centre. After negotiating with Westcoast to set the parameters of the research relationship, collection of data for the project began in March 1994. Wright Smith attended 26 meetings of the Westcoast's Board of Directors and Advisory Committee, and interviewed nine members of the Board.

This member of the research team spoke of the importance of respectful collaboration within the research team, as well as with the community group. She said:

[I came to the project] through the research I wanted 10 do for my Master 's thesis. Working in isolation isn't good -- this project provided the gift of a support group. I wanted to work with a group of women, and because I knew {the principal researcher and the project staffperson], I knew it would be a rich •

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

19

experience, especially concerning what it is to do ethnography and looking at ourselves and inventing a relationship of collaboration. The other members of the research team agreed that the process of collaboration within the teaID was extremely significant. Indeed, it is this part of the collaboration that was most developed and successful. Furthermore, although the collaborative relationship with the community has yet to reach this level, without this respectful and egalitarian process among those involved in the research teaID, we believe that it is very unlikely that similarly respectful relationships could be developed with individuals and groups outside the university.

Tom described the project as a whole as "a gradually growing set of opportunities for collaboration to begin" rather than a particular project being presented as an actual collaboration. The fact that the research team and Westcoast developed their relationship gradually played a fundamentally important part in developing trust between the players. Everyone involved in the project agreed that this trust was essential to developing a successful working relationship. One informant said that Westcoast "watched us until they decided they could trust us" and emphasized that allowing space for that trust to develop was key to the relationship. The research team as a whole also placed great importance on developing and respecting the trust that bad been placed in them. Wright Smith stated:

I was always overwhelmed by that trust. So that's why we were always talking about the research relationship. Project staff person Shauna Butterwick expanded the description of the team's discussion around trust and the research relationship . She said:

This is one of the biggest struggles: What does equality and respect mean in the research relationship? We were constantly talking about it. What do you do when there is unequal power? When some have the resources of the academy and others have less? While there are no easy answers, team members agreed that these questions must constantly be on the table for discussion.

•

Furthermore , individual informants agreed that as

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

20

academic women, they need to be conscious of the power they have and find the ways to bridge differences created as a result. Tom described it this way: [As an academic woman,} I have power. How do I carry it? Do I pretend it's not there? Do I do things that enhance that ? [I belive that you should} carry yourself in a way that expresses that others have the right to ask questions challenge you. Chud, who is a member of Westcoast' s board, echoed the importance of these issues. She remembers the organization's willingness to be involved at the early stages had been mainly because "we just wanted to be helpful." But as the project developed, she learned to appreciate the researchers' concern for developing respectful relationships with the community. She said: [The researchers] were proactive in ensuring protection for Westcoast 's interests. They respected the group in the process. Chud now recognizes that groups themselves need to protect their own interests rather than rely on the good will of the researchers. She continued: Now I'd say, "Talk to the researchers and ensure that what they 're planning for concerning confidentialiry and reciprociry and so on will work for your group and communiry. "... Ongoing links of communication are critical. ... It's a good idea to define it in a letter of agreement that everyone can understand, that is, roles responsibilities, expectations, and anticipated outcomes. In this case, the research team worked from a policy on how the project will be carried out. It includes specific protections for the group concerning issues such as the ultimate ownership of interview notes, sufficient time for the group to review drafts, and the right to have their perspective or analysis included in the document where it differs from the researchers' . These conditions make it clear that the group who agrees to participate in the research project does not relinquish its right to the ownership of their own experience.

Tom stressed the importance of Westcoast's "incredible openness and self confidence" as a significant factor in negotiating a working relationship. She noted that groups like Westcoast demonstrate that they are both "strong enough to set their own terms and strong enough to be open" to developing this relationship .

a

CRIAW/ ICREf _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

21

The fact that the organization and the researchers shared many areas of commonality in their political analysis was also important to developing the research relationship. An awareness of, and trust in, this commonality also talces time to develop. Furthermore, this trust underlay the ability of different actors to express and address areas of difference. Several informants pointed out that there had been considerable informal contact among the players before they entered into any formal arrangement. This meant that there had been opporrunities for discussion of the issues and establishing common ground. Westcoast saw the way that the researchers framed the research and developed their questions as consistent with the organization's analysis and orientation.

All of our respondents agreed that time is essential in working through all of these issues. Time is needed to develop trust, to develop the ways to work through issues of power and privilege, to identify common politics and goals. Tom said that "if you don't have time, the strength of the collaboration is immediately lessened." Or , put more simply, "shotgun weddings don't work. "

Taking time to develop a relationship also means taking the chance that either side may decide that the connection is not what they are looking for . As the project's principal researcher, Tom spoke of needing time to "go for coffee" without the constraints of a formal, predetermined structure. She says:

You have to spend a lot of time talking to people in informal, exploratory ways. This means you're not necessarily looking for a project. There has to be a willingness to have a lot of conversations thaJ don't go anywhere. Tom also pointed out, however, that this essential work is not credited by either the university , or the funders who claim to support "collaboration."

The experience of Westcoast demonstrates that it is possible to have a respectful working relationship between academics and the community. But, as Tom pointed out, it is not a "partnership" or even a "collaboration" because, for one thing, the funding and ultimate •

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

22

control over the project still rests with the university researchers. Yet the alliance has worked for these reasons: Time has been taken to develop trust. Issues of power and privilege have been acknowledged. Each side bas been clear about their politics and about what they bring to the relationship and what they want to achieve from it. Therefore an honest negotiation of each side's interests can take place.

REFLECTIONS ON PARTNERSIIlPS

The objective of any feminist strategy is to contribute to change that will improve the lives of women. Neither research as a specific strategy, nor partnerships as a way to carry out that strategy, is an end in itself. Too often, this recognition gets lost in our struggle to listen to women's experience and address the issues that emerge in the process. When we feel powerless to change the reality, we may come to believe that it is because we just don't know enough.

Funders and other institutions can take advantage of this to deflect our energies into

channels that will not "rock the boat" or fundamentally challenge the values of the world we live in.

We admit to continued scepticism concerning the role of partnerships and collaborations between academics and community-based groups. The word partnership itself implies an equality between partners that obscures the differences in privilege and resources that different groups bring to the table. And while we do not claim that mutually useful working relationships are impossible, we do believe that they seldom happen in practice. When they do, they bear little resemblance to the models of partnership promoted by funders and institutions.

The experiences of FARVA Wand the Westcoast research process teach us some significant lessons:

•

Partnerships that are required as a condition of funding are not conducive to real collaboration. Funders use the language of partnership, but do not provide the

•

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

23

resources necessary to take the time to develop a truly egalitarian, respectful process. In addition, funding is most often controlled by the "partner" with the greater power and authority, especially in the eyes of the funder itself. Such funding programmes push academics and community groups alike into relationships that do not develop as the result of mutually agreed on goals, but on the requirement that either side acquire a partner in order to access resources 3 .

•

True collaboration can only take place on the basis of a common analysis and common goals. A working relationship that is not based on a common purpose will inevitably be contrived. Too often, funders have promoted programmes in which it 's not what you do, but that you do it with a partner that is important. While those involved in a collaboration will not, of course, agree on everything, it is essential that they have a clear set of political agreements and common understandings on the issues around which they will collaborate. It is also necessary to clarify and negotiate on issues of accountability. This includes making explicit the responsibilities all parties have to each other, to their own organization, to the funder , and to the women whose lives they aim to improve.

•

Time is a key resource in the development of a collaboration . The availability of time affects the process of collaboration in many different ways. It takes time to go through the process of "going for coffee" which will allow potential allies to determine if they have enough in common for an authentic working relationship. It is essential for the process of building a respectful research process that safeguards the interests of everyone involved.

3

UBC members of I.he child care project felt that in their case SSHRC's formal endorsement of collaboration supported their desire to work collaboratively. They believe that it was therefore an important tool for them to use in arguing for the importance of collaboration in the university environment. We do not believe, however , that lhis outweighs the dangers implicit in the partnership model.

•

CRIAW/ICREf _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __

24

Furthermore, it must be recognized that time is a particularly precious commodity for those working in community-based organizations. Not only are they frequently working within organizations that have few resources to carry out their work, but they also have a different relationship to the research process than do academic women. For women in the academy, research is at the core of their work, it is what they get credit for, and they can prioritize it accordingly. For women in community-based groups, research is generally something they do "on top of' the core of their work. This reality must be reflected in any respectful research process and in the resources allocated to facilitate the participation of frontline workers.

Only collaborations that are authentic, that are based on shared politics, and that take the time and space to negotiate objectives and process have the hope of being mutually beneficial to those involved 4 • And the ultimate test of any research collaboration will be the contribution that they make to transforming the lives of women.

• The Women' s Researcb Centre plans to publish a broadsheet for community groups on research pannerships or collaborations, e,wnining such issues as representation, accountability, and what to look for at the start. For more information, contact the Women's Research Centre at 101-2245 West Broadway, Vancouver . B.C. V6K 2E4 or by fax at (604) 734-0484.

a

CRIA W/ICREF - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

25

Case Studies in Ontario

•

Yuk-Lin Renita WONG

INTRODUCTION

Over the last decade, partnership has become a significant issue between feminist academics and community activists. Despite a shared vision of working towards improving women's lives, community women's groups and feminist university researchers do not automatically become good partners. To establish a partnership which is equally satisfying to both groups, feminist academics and community activists must be aware of how their relationship is organized by the structures in which they are embedded, and they need to commit themselves to setting up processes to overcome these structural hurdles. The following two case studies in Ontario are examples of how two groups of feminist academics and community activists consciously developed strategies to make their partnerships successful.

The two research projects in this study -- the Metro-Toronto Clerical Workers Labour Adjustment Study and a children's preventive program in City A 5 -- were both funded by the government. In both projects, funding went directly to the community groups for their participation. While the involvement of university researchers was not a funding requirement in the former project, it was mandatory in the latter. Presenting the two projects separately , I will address these questions respectively in both case studies: What motivated the community groups in the labour adjustment study to involve academics? How did funding shape the relationships between community groups and university researchers in the two projects? And,

sit is the request of lhe informants that this project be as anonymous as possible.

•

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

26

what strategies were adopted to facilitate the collaboration? Lessons learned from both projects will be discussed.

In carrying out this qualitative study on research partnerships, I considered it my task to begin the analysis from the informants ' own interpretation of their experiences. I made no assumptions of what constituted a partnership and my informants' interpretations of partnership were where I began. I did, however, bring to this study my history of community activism and my present academic pursuit. Beginning my career as a community activist in Hong Kong in the late 1980s , I had been researching ways that social movements benefit from the knowledge and skills of academics. When I decided to pursue my doctoral study, I intended to locate myself as a bridge between academics and community activists. In the following discussion, in order to stay as closely as possible to my informants' world view, I present extensive direct quotations from their interviews. I will move beyond the local and the personal to explore the processes which shaped their experiences.

METRO-TORONTO CLERICAL LABOUR ADnJSTMENT PROJECT There were a number of different perspectives of what constituted a partnership in this project: I hate the word 'partnership ', cause I think it's messy and it's usually used in ways that I find are pretty manipulative. ... I have the tendency to use the word collaboration. It means there is a number of people who decide that there is something that they want to work on for a whole bunch of different reasons, and they figure out how to do it. (Community-based partner) What I define a partnership as being: 'You've got an area of knowledge, we want to continue doing that kind of research, we would like to know what you 've found, and we ' IL tell you what we find, and also let 's sit down and decide what the research is going to be. What are you interested in looking at, what we're interested in looking at, how can we put those two together, so you exchange your information, but you 're also co-designing or co-developing the research plan . ... And also what the research agenda is, what you're looking at in the first place and how you're looking at it.' And then the other piece is how the results get used, which is another part of the partnership. (Community-based partner)

a

CRIAW/IC R E F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 27

Partnership to me would be when academics use their skills for the sake of community groups and community needs as get defined by those community groups. (University-based partner) I wouldn 't see this project as a partnership, because to me a partnership would be, say, this committee getting together, decided they wanted to get some help, and they went to ask an academic to sit on the committee and help them organize this project. They may somehow jointly apply for funding. To me, in order for a project co be real partnership, participation on both sides should be ar the formal and official level. (University-based partner) Altogether four active participants of the project from different constituencies were interviewed in this case study. They included a labour council representative, a university researcher, the research coordinator hired by the governing Committee, and an independent researcher. Although I was also employed as one of the independent researchers in this project , I was not fully aware of the collaboration among university academics, labour unions , and community groups at the time of my involvement, and the following discussion will mainly be based on the four interviews. In fact, it was enlightening for me to explore the untold stories behind the project when I was conducting the interviews. In addition, I also referred to the project report.

Organizing the project

Initiated by a group of community and university-based activists in the labour movement, this project was a study on the training and adjustment strategies for clerical workers in Metro Toronto in the process of restructuring. To begin with, a member of the Canadian Labour Force Development Board (CLFDB), who described herself as "partly an activist and partly an academic," had been looking for ways to raise women's issues in the labour agenda. Noticing the emerging employment problems faced by clerical workers, she discussed the problem with some local labour academics/activists in Metro Toronto. Meanwhile, some local community-based labour activists wanted to get more information about the labour adjustment process and organize to change policy. Being feminists in labour, •

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

28

many of them were also keen to focus the anention of labour unions on the kinds of research they thought were important for women workers. Out of those discussions and a subsequent year of organizing and negotiation, the Metro-Toronto Clerical Workers Labour Adjustment Committee (MCWLAC) was established in 1993. This was the overall governing body. It was composed of fourteen representatives from organized labour, colleges, community-based agencies, and businesses across Metro Toronto , and five active government resource people. The Committee was funded by the Industrial Adjustment Service and the Office of Labour Adjustment, Ministry of Education and Training. It operated with three working groups on employment patterns, training and adjustment. The Committee hired one research coordinator and eight independent researchers who were responsible for the case studies in different work sites. In fact, altogether there were eleven case study researchers, including two university researchers who volunteered to do one case study and a graduate assistant of a local university who was seconded to do another case study.

The organizational structure of the project

labour

government

community agencies

university academics reference group

Research coordinator

Case study researchers

~

employment patterns

.l.

~d'

tra1n1ng

a JUStment

Realizing the need to complete an enormous amount of work within a short time span, several labour members and community agency representatives on the Committee, as well as a

a

CRIAW/I C R E F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29

university researcher, put together a reference group of university feminist researchers from which the research coordinator could immediately seek advice. Given the potential conflicting interests among different members of the Committee, especially between labour and community agencies on the one hand and business and government representatives on the other, they decided to make this reference group an informal "shadow committee." Parallel to the Committee , this ad hoc group met several times at the beeinning to help frame the design, approach and methodology of the research. Out of this reference group, one university researcher volunteered to do one case study together with another university researcher who was not in the group . A formal agreement was made to allow them to use the data of that case study for their own research and publication after the Committee report was released. Another university academic seconded her graduate assistant to do a third case study. A third academic helped out with assisting and analyzing some focus group interviews of one case study. The report was finally released in July 1995.

There were a number of different aspects of collaboration between university-based researchers and community activists. Except for the agreement made between the two university researchers and the Committee with regard to the specific case study they conducted, the collaboration was mainly carried out on an informal and ad hoc basis. The questions I try to answer here are: Were the participants satisfied with this 'informal ' collaboration? To what extent did they consider this as a partnership? What were the barriers in the collaboration?

Informal collaboration and complementary roles

Looking at the whole project, three out of the four informants considered the collaboration as one form of partnership which was successful in terms of both the relationship and the outcome. The one informant who had problems identifying this project as a partnership between uruversity researchers and community activists found the collaboration too informal to be a "real partnership." The informality , however, turned out to contribute to the

a

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

30

success of the collaboration. What this informal collaboration involved was a conscious gathering of like-minded femi nists active in labour issues who had been working in different locations "behind the scenes":

We were in locations where we were quire isolated and we contacted each other and puI together an informal network where we were able to support each other in doing this kind of research. I situate this in Ihat continuum as part of the larger picture. (Community-based partner) It isn't any group of academics. This is a group of academics who are also politically engaged in this area of workplace policies and workforce analysis. (Community-based partner) There was an agreement by both parties to identify problems which were considered important and needed to be addressed, and to bring a feminist analysis into the labour agenda . They also shared a sense of urgency to get access to information about the labour adjustment process. More important, there was a mutual understanding of the different roles each would play in this project. One informant expressed the view that many previous bad research experiences between academics and labour unions were mostly due to "a veil of expertise" that academics carried. In this project, the "veil" was lifted by a clear understanding on both sides that the priority of the research was to answer some practical and urgent questions in the labour movement. In labour terms, the goal was "action research" in which the research process was very much part of an organizing and collective bargaining process . The research results would be used by people the research was about, and could have a "transformative effect. "

The university researcher who was among the group initiating the academic "shadow committee" shared the community-based labour activists' view that this project was a good opportunity to do research in such a way that the community drove, with support from academics. This researcher also drew more like-minded academics into the reference group. What later motivated on other academic researcher to participate in the project was also the idea that her skills could be used more directly to effect social change:

a CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

31

I'm interested in doing research that may be contributing tiny bits of change. I'm very frusrrated with the fact that mostly what I do politically these days is to teach. Thar doesn't seem like enough to me. So the fact that trade unions were calling for this, zhat 1hey felt it was imponant led me to think that I could use my skills in a slightly more socially useful project than I usually do . ... Because I'm an academic, I assume that I don't Jcnow as well as other people who are more involved in the community . ... I think I have particular abilities. We're researchers. We did the things that we're best at. (University-based panner) This researcher also drew more like-minded academics into the referenc.e group. Although university researchers were not in the spotlight in this project, their support was definitely recognized by the community-based activists as significant in contributing to its success:

We were able to bring a lot of legitimacy to the process, meaning the calibre of the work that was done, because of what the reference academic group has done. With the advice of the academic reference group, !felt secure that the research was solid both in its design and approach . ... That's ihe sirength of academics, thai's what they know how 10 do . ... I zhink this collaboration is essential for the credibility of community-based research, and it's also essential for the growth offeminist theories that it is based in what is actually going on. (Community-based partner) Acknowledging their mutually complimentary roles , the academics and community activists contributed their respective resources to the project, including their knowledge, skills, and networks.

The development of this like-mindedness was also partly due to the cross-over between the academic realm and community activism. Both a labour representative on the Comrninee and the research coordinator inhabited these two \vorlds. While the research coordinator was accepted as one of the community members because of her years of community activism, her academic training and experiences in being an independent researcher also brought her in close contact with the academic community. On the other hand, the labour activist who was doing

a

CRIA W/ICREf _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __

32

her doctoral study also identified herself as an academic. These two members of the project were active in bringing these two worlds together.

The research fmdings must "get used"

The usefulness of the research findings was emphasized by several informants from the various constituencies who considered this a successful partnership. Taking this project as action research, the labour and community agency members tried to make sure that the findings would "inform the people what the analysis was supposed to be about." It was used as an organizing tool for their intervention into the labour adjustment policy. The problem of non-accessibility of research was considered one reason for the failure of previous collaboration between university researchers and labour unions, so, in order to ensure that the research was "accessible to the majority of labour workers" , the group of community-based labour activists who initiated the project tried to recruit union staff who were well positioned to contact union members and attract "rank and file" union members onto the Committee.

As the process went along, the research shifted part of the programming of a labour education centre from concentrating on plant workers to clerical workers. A public service representative on the Committee was able to use the project as an organizing opportunity to involve her co-workers in what the research was studying. The report was also very useful for the feminist community-based labour activists on the Committee to show their colleagues what they had uncovered about the clerical labour adjustment process which had been kept in the dark. For some of them who hoped to connect academic pursuit with community activism, this project also demonstrated how community-based labour activists, community agency members, and academics could work together to produce results that benefited everyone. As well as being of benefit to the people the research was about, both the research coordinator and a labour representative on the Committee were very conscious of making the research findings available and useful to university researchers. Case summaries were written in a way

a

CRIAW/ICREf _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

33

that was useful to both academics and labour, and copies were sent to university libraries and resource centres.

With the participation of some large private corporations on the Committee, this project also gave university researchers a rare opportunity to access those work sites:

It really gave me an 'in' to Company X, which so many researchers got in through the back door . .. . fl gave me a rare opportunity to both do a project that wasn't just academics and to get access to Company X. I feel very grateful for the whole thing. (University-based partner) The university researcher who volunteered to do one case study gained a better understanding of the technological restructuring and labour adjustment process in the field , which she then used in her teaching. With the other university researcher in that case study , she is now writing an article for an academic journal.

Contradictions

The partnership between university and community was very successful , bur other pannerships in the project were not without tension. While the informality of the collaboration contributed to its success, it was also a constraint built into the funding protocol:

The funding that we had didn't require the participation of academics and so their participation was voluntary. But the funding did require collaboration among three different sectors: business, labour, and community groups. So the funding had built into it a situation where we had to figure out how to answer a set of questions that were in some ways not completely to anybody's satisfaction, and we all knew that we wouldn't come up with an analysis that would be to any one group's satisfaction. So we were finding some middle ground. Those were the terms in which academics participated. (Communitybased partner) According to one informant, the fact that the Committee also included business and government representatives was one reason for the informal and slightly "covert" partnership between labour and community activists on the one hand and feminist university researchers on the other. Trying to carry out their feminist and labour agenda implicitly, the labour and •

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

34

community agency representatives did not want to alert the business member to the collaboration. As business members were also considered representatives from the community , the contradictory interests within the community were obvious in this project. In fact, this kind of collaboration required a recognition of "the need to coordinate a number of different interests" that were sometimes conflicting : The idea that mUJual interest could be served was a problem for some of the feminists who were doing the research. You want to be critical in what you 're saying, but you don't want to jeopardize the working of the Committee. If you're totally critical about the whole restructuring, you may not be guaranteed to have access to the work sites. I don 't think feminist academics and corporate management see themselves having the same interest. (University-based partner)

It was these sometimes clashing agendas that brought about tensions in the collaboration between university and community-based researchers, especially at the level of conducting the case studies . At the same time, having a common antagonist may have contributed to the success of the aliance of the university and community. Shaken by what they found in Company X about how badly workers were treated during restructuring, the two university researchers wanted to publicize this situation and openly support the workers. Nevertheless , with the presence of both management and workers in the report-back session to the Committee, the reporting back was done in a way so "abstract" and "mild", the university researchers did not find it truly represented the situation. The case summary in the final report was also different from what they wrote because the research coordinator had to mediate the diverse interestS among members of the Committee -- including government, business, labour , and community agency representatives -- when she compiled the final report. Basically, all case study researchers were supposed to work for the Committee. Academics' and community activists' understanding of the inherent constraints of the project and the strategy of having multiple "outlets" of research findings were key to resolving this tension . I wanted to be useful to the project. . .. I didn't mind if what I had to say sfwwed up in that report, because we could take whar we had and write an article. So we had our own outlet, our own voice (University-based partner)

•

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __

35

A Summary Note

This project illustrated a successful informal partnership among labour unions, community agencies, and university researchers. It also represented a situation of cross-over between community activists and university academics and challenges our dichotomization of university academics and community activists into two distinct groups in our understanding of research partnerships. Separating them into two distinct groups would be too simple and inadequate for us to capture the dynamics of the research partnership . Despite the potential contradictory interests in this project, participants managed to come to a middle ground and achieve their own agendas. One of the key reasons the project was successful is the community and university-based partners bad a political purpose in opposition to business and government people on the committee: a common adversary goes a long way to helping a group work well together. What also made their success possible involved the following strategies: •

a gathering of a group of like-minded people

•

a recognition of the complementary roles that each could play

•

respect for each other's skills, expertise and experience

•

a clear understanding of what could be expected from the research

•

research findings accessible and applicable to both university researchers and community activists

•

mutual benefits from the project

•

multiple outlets of research findings

Given the funding protocol, the partnership in this project was constructed on an informal basis . In contrast, the partnership in the next case study was a funding requirement: it was formally organized and instituted.

a

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

36

A CIDLDREN'S PREVENTIVE PROGRAM IN CITY A

If you want this partnership to work, I think you have to mean it, that is, it's not only writing it in paper, but to be sure that you set up all the processes to ensure community participation. At every stage and every level, you have to ensure community participation. That's something I think the university has to learn. It also has to bring down the level of intimidation by going to the people first, by speaking people 's language. (University-based partner) This is another case of how successful research collaboration can be possible when both university researchers and community groups make efforts to overcome structural obstacles of the project and build in processes to ensure participation of all parties. The following discussion is based on the experiences and interpretations of project participants in City A. Interviews with eight people were conducted, including three local university-based researchers, four community program staff, and one non-paid community member. Written materials such as program interim reports, program research reports, project guidelines, and a published article were also important references.

Background

The City A project officially began in 1991 when it was funded by three provincial Ministries and two federal Departments as part of a provincial multi-site research project. It was a long-term primary prevention policy research demonstration project which provided a longitudinal study of the effects of community planned programming for children and their families. These communities were funded for seven years to develop and implement prevention and promotion programs tailored to local circumstances. Community involvement -- that is, the involvement of members of the community having key responsibilities for decision-making about the program design, implementation and evaluation -- was a key goal of the project. To determine the long term effects of these programs, the progress of children, their families and their neighbourhoods were being followed in a longitudinal study until the children reached their mid-twenties. In addition, during the first several years of the project,

a

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

37

the research also investigated the structures, activities, and organization of the program which were associated with positive outcomes for children at the local project level in different individual communities. The organizational structure of the project

Government Committee

Central Research Team

Site Researchers

Community Research Site (Research Caucus)

Provincially, the project was comprised of eleven community research sites across Ontario, a government committee, and a central research team (CRT). City A was one of the research sites . Given this organizational structure, there were two levels of research collaboration in this project: the relationship between the CRT and the local research site; and the relationship between the local university-based researchers and the community groups within the site. These two levels were connected through the site researcher. The discussion in this paper will focus on the collaboration within the local site.

The CRT consisted of a core research team, site research team, central suppon staff and advisors. A multidisciplinary consonium of researchers sponsored by three universities in Ontario outside City A was awarded the funding co organize the core research team in 1990, and was responsible for the design, measurement plans, and implementation of comparable research across the eleven sites.

a

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __

38

In City A, the site research team included a site researcher who was affiliated with the local university, a research consultant and several academics from that university, and a research caucus of community residents and service providers . The research funding came from the government through the CRT to the local university which in turn paid for the site researcher's salary and other research administrative costs. The program funding, on the other hand, was received directly from the government. While children were the target group of this project, women comprised a major group of participants as care-givers, both in the longitudinal research and the programs. Programs such as parent support and drop-in centres were developed to help relieve their stress. Two multicultural neighbourhoods in City A, which included First Nations , francophone, English speaking and multicultural (visible minorities) communities, were chosen as the specific research site.

Cultivating a Common Vision

The way I interpret partnership is when more than two people get together and benefit from the same amount of power.

(University-based partner)

There is definitely a partnership between the local researchers and us. ... They really consult us, they make things open to us, they advocate for us with the CRT, they give us excellent feedback on what they are finding out and help us reflect it. ... I know we provide them with opportunities to learn things, to do the research that they're passionate in doing, to be useful in the community. (Community-based partner)

Seven out of the eight informants considered the partnership between the local university researchers and community members very successful. The one informant who regarded this local relationship a "non-relationship" was referring to the "stand-back" role of the university researcher who resisted being involved in the projects in an attempt to avoid influencing the findings. This informant nonetheless acknowledged that the researchers were committed to the vision of improving the neighbourhood. In fact, most community members •

CRIAW/ICREf _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

39

considered the local university researchers "part of the community." What brought the local university researchers and community groups together as one group was a common vision of action research and community development:

We felt that research, especially those of us who were involved in community development, was important because it can be such a part of the community development process itself, that is, by finding out what it is that people want to know and getting them involved. This is in itself a community development process. (Community-based partner) The people that you're researching are not only subjects that you're studying, but are also participants in the whole process, that they participate in developing the questionnaires. ... You bring back information to them, so you 're not only coming and taking information and going, you will bring back reports and discuss it with them. (University-based partner) The development of a common vision of community development and action research in this local project was deliberately cultivated at the beginning of the proposal stage and throughout the whole project. It involved a careful selection of people who were team workers and who believed in action research -- who took community very seriously and gave voice to those who might not otherwise be beard -- and sought out each other at the proposal stage. Although some informants expressed their frustration that the research after funding was not as community-driven as they expected, the processes of consulting with and bringing information back to the community were strongly guarded in City A. Process was emphasized as being both a means and an end. One of the most important processes to promote community participation was the "back and forth" consultation which I will discuss in the following section. Consensus was used in the decision-making process to ensure that people took time to talk, and to find areas that they could work together. Community development was built into the job description of the site researcher, and research was built into the job description of the program staff. Moreover, there was an insistence on hiring people living in the community. Not only was this a commitment to bring income back to the community , it also promoted a sense of working together for "our" community among all the participants, community program staff and researchers alike. The development of this common vision of •

CRIAW/ICREf _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __

40

serving the community was definitely significant in enhancing the joint effort of the local university researchers and the community to negotiate with the CRT when the local community disagreed with some of their decisions.

The local university researchers' vision of talcing the community seriously and respecting the skills and expertise of the community-based partners was obviously a key factor in this successful partnership: They respect what we're doing . And they're committed to letting us know what they 're doing. They 're very open. There is no son of secret study going on somewhere 1ha1 we don't have access to . .. they bring that information for review, and they cake feedback well ... they really do make an effon to try and pul stuff in language that people understand ... they do the best they can to make it accessible ... and they really advoca1e for the interest of the community with their funders. (Community-based panner) Out of this vision was their willingness to make all information about the research known to the community groups and to seek their opinions . All reports were first given to the research caucus for review and approval before being sent out to any other bodies, including the CRT and the government. While this process definitely took more time , the researchers considered it very important for the promotion of community ownership and participation. In fact , the accessibility of research information, the openness of the research process, and the availability of the researchers were the first remarks in most informants' elaboration on the successful partnership within the site.

Accessibility was not simply the availability of information, it also involved the demystification of research. Efforts were made to avoid unnecessarily complex words and to speak and write in plain language . To further make research non-intimidating, the researchers introduced a fun component in research meetings: We make it fun ... that you can just sit down and chat: "Can we j ust think about two questions that we can use to do a survey? . .. OK, let 's ask this, let's ask that. And people who never have any research background will come up with something that will end up in the questionnaire . ... That was also one of 11

•

CRIAW/I C R E F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - 41

the key factors, rhe fact that we make it very easy, very accessible to people. (University-based partner)

It should be noted that the effort to demystify the research was initially made by the first researcher involved in the proposal stage before funding was granted. The university researchers, conscious of considering community opinion, tried to get community people to drive the process.

An Independent Research Caucus

Realizing how the notion of research expertise could impede the development of an equal relationship between university researchers and community groups, the City A project established an independent research caucus to "buffer expert knowledge." It met once a month to discuss all research-related matters. Membership was open and there were always more community people than academics. The strategy of having more community people in the local research was also employed in the hiring process of the site researcher: the hiring comminee consisted of seven community members and only one university researcher. The interviews were held in a community centre, rather than in the university. The hiring arrangement inculcated a sense of accountability in the site researcher not only to the CRT, but also to the community. Although paid by the CRT, the site researcher was hired by the community and evaluated by the local research caucus. This practice instituted a delicately balanced relationship among the local research team, the community, and the CRT.

The strength of the research caucus to assert their views in the research process was enhanced by its independence of funding and of ideas. Since most people connected to the caucus were not paid, they could express their opinions freely. As experienced community activists , many of them were also less intimidated by authorities and expert knowledge.

Given the requirement of "standardization" and cross-site comparability in the provincial multi-site project, some informants expressed their disappointment in losing control

a

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

42

over the research process . Nevertheless , the caucus was definitely more than an advisory body. Over its history , it had successfully asserted the local voices in changing some research plans. Together with other research sites, it pushed through an additional section in the questionnaire for individual communities to ask their own questions about specific community needs. There was another incident where the questionnaire was revised and a stack of revised questionnaires was sent to the site office without giving the research caucus enough time for review. Instead of accepting this arrangement, the caucus negotiated with the CRT, and being committed to the principle of community involvement in the multi-sites project, the CRT agreed to put off the interview deadline until the revised questionnaire was reviewed. The local First Nations group also succeeded in deleting a new revised section which they found culturally inappropriate.

Ownership of the data was another major issue. Despite the principle of community ownership stated in the research guidelines, a contradiction was observed in practice . The release of any site research information had to be approved by the funding body . In order to realize this principle, City A set up their own processes of community ownership within the parameters of the multi-site research. The local research caucus developed its guidelines for accessing the local data. No local reports or findings could be sent out to the CRT or the government prior to the approval of the research caucus. With some exceptions, any researchers who wanted to study the project were required to participate in and contribute to the project so that they were not just going into the community and extracting information. Although the local project was obliged to submit the research reports to the CRT, the community never failed to remind the CRT of the principle of community involvement stated in the project guidelines . It was understood that without the cooperation of the commuruty , the research could not be launched.

On the other hand, the local research team was not completely attached to the research caucus or the community . It also played a "stand-back" role in the local site , which allowed it a space to "witness" and to help "reflect" the project processes from a "distance ." To a •

CRIAW/IC R E F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 43

certain extent, this "distance" was considered helpful in the reflective component of the research -- in the studies of the structure, processes , activities and organization of the programs -- which most community members valued. In other words, there was a "threelegged-stool" relationship among the local university researchers , the community, and the CRT.

A Summary Note

Collaboration in this project was a funding requirement. T o make it successful , it required the joint effort of the local university researchers and the community groups in City A. Working within the parameters given by the funding body , they managed to set up processes to realize the principles of community participation and ownership at the local level. Their strategies included: • • • •

cultivating a common vision making research information accessible and the research process open establishing a community-driven research caucus independent of funding and of expert knowledge securing community ownership of data Given the limitation of compressing a dynamic picture of human interactions into

linear text, I inevitability missed many vivid stories from these two cases. I believe that this paper is but one of the springboards for further reflections on research partnership. Since there is no universal definition of partnership , there is also no conclusion of one set of strategies which can be applied to make any collaboration a successful partnership .

What both cases suggest is the importance of understanding the structural parameters in which a collaboration is situated. Specific strategies can then be developed to overcome the constraints and to realize the potentials, in particular, cultivating a common vision and facilitating the accessibility of research information were key strategies in both cases. Mutual benefits for community groups and university researchers must be ensured. •

CRIAW/ICREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

44

Rapport concernant la region du Quebec et de I' Ontario francophone

• Relais-femmes Chercheure: Suzanne Deguire INTRODUCTION

Le "partenariat" en recherche est devenu, depuis quelques annees, un mot

"a la mode".

Que le partenariat soit choisi ou impose, c'est une realite qui se vit de plus en plus et qui semble fort diversifiee. C'est dans le but de mieux cerner cette realite que l' ICREF a entrepris cette erode. Quelles soot les conditions prealables et essentielles permettant le succes du partenariat en recherche entre les groupes de femmes et les chercheures universitaires? Le partenariat dans une optique feministe serait-il different? Parmi les cinq regions ciblees, l'ICREF a demande a Relais-femmes de faire !'erode de deux recherches "feminisres" faites en partenariat; l'une pour la region du Quebec et I' autre pour la region de l' Ontario francophone. Avant d' indiquer les grandes lignes qui ressortent de notre erode, il nous apparait important de presenter Relais-femmes, de situer son role et son expertise, afin de comprendre d 'ou l'on part.

1. La mission de Relais-femmes Relais-femmes est un organisme feministe sans but lucratif voue a des activites de recherche , de formation et de consultation destinees prioritairement a ses groupes membres. Relais-femmes , qui existe au Quebec depuis 1980, oeuvre dans une perspective de changement social et de promotion des droits des femmes et de leurs organisations. Depuis 1982, il existe un protocole d'entente entre l'Universite du Quebec a Montreal (UQAM) et Relais-femmes qui •

CRIAW/ICREf _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

45

permet aux groupes de femmes un ace.es privilegie aux ressources humaines et materielles de cette universite. Au cours des dernieres annees, des collaborations avec d' autres universites se sont egalement developpees: Universite de Montreal, Universite de Sherbrooke, Universite Laval.

Relais-femrnes offre des possibilites de collaboration avec des personnes ressources issues de groupes de femmes, de groupes populaires et communautaires et d 'organismes a portee nationale et internationale. Ces collaborations se derouJent dans le cadre d 'ententes etablies entre les groupes partenaires. Des sa creation, Relais-femmes et ses groupes membres ont privilegie la recherche-action comme maniere de faire de la recherche. En effet, "ce mode de recherche qui tente d 'allier la theorie et l' experience, qui reconnait que les personnes travaillant sur le terrain developpent un savoir qui peut alirnenter !es enseignements et Jes recherches, a rejoint !'esprit et la culture des groupes de femmes". 6 Dans ce contexte, Relais-femmes est souvent appele a jouer un role de mediateur, un role d' interrnediaire entre !es groupes de femmes et les chercheures universitaires.

Nous voulons preciser, qu'a la lurniere de nos experiences, nous crayons qu ' il ne faut pas necessairement fusionner sous une meme realite la recherche-action et le partenariat. Mais que ces deux realites meriteraient d'etre investiguees davantage.

2. Metbodologie

Relais-femmes travaille en partenariat, depuis pres de trois ans, avec le CRI-Vl FF (Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire sur la violence farniliale et la violence faite aux femmes) qui regroupe plusieurs autres partenaires: la Federation des CLSC, l'Universite de Montreal , l'Universite Laval ainsi que le departement de travail social de l 'Universite McGill.

6

Kunzman Lyne (1993) "La recherche-action existe, et elle souffre!" in Recherche-action er ques1ionnemen1s feminis1es, Montreal, IREF-UQAM , p. 27.

a

CRJAW/lCREF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

46

Ce Centre a des activites de recherche entierement integrees a l 'action des orgarusmes du milieu, et a pour orientation le partenariat comme fonctionnement. Youlant travailler sous le mode partenarial mais constatant le manque de contenu, de modeles, de parametres , le CRI-VIFF a voulu etudier de plus pres le partenariat en recherche afin de pouvoir mieux le definir et cerner les conditions qui permettent d 'en arriver

a un veritable partenariat.

C'est pourquoi le CRI-VIFF a mene un projet qui visait, entre autres,

a rencontrer des

groupes de femmes et des chercheures du milieu universitaire (dont les inten~ts concernent la problematique de la violence faite aux femmes) qui ont deja travaille en partenariat. Le but poursuivi etait d'arriver a etablir les conditions necessaires pour developper et encourager un partenariat positif a partir d'experiences vecues.

Des groupes de femmes, des chercheures universitaires et des professionnelles de recherche travaillant sur des projets de recherche en partenariat ont ete rencontres. Les donnees out ete recueillies par la professionnelle de recherche Caroline Cote. Trois experiences de partenariat de ce projet seront presentees ici. 7 Relais-femmes etant implique depuis le debut au sein du CRI-VIFF, nous presenterons done ces resultats comme une des erodes de cas. Precisons que cette etude menee par le CRI-VIFF a donne lieu a une affiche qui reprend !es parametres, les grandes questions

a se poser avant d'entreprendre une recherche en

partenariat. Relais-femmes trouve important d'elaborer ce genre d'outils de formation.

L ' autre erode dont il sera question concerne une recherche en partenariat qui a ete faite en Ontario. IJ s'agit d 'un projet de recherche mene par la Federation des Femmes Canadiennes-Franfaises de I 'Ontario en collaboration avec l'Instirot franco-Ontarien. Des entrevues telephoniques a trois ont ete effecroees, et certaines personnes ont repon