Budd Hall Community Based Research Symposium PRIA India
•
1 j'aime•448 vues
Presentation made at the Symposium on “Mainstreaming University-Community Research Partnerships” at Indian Habitat Center on 9th Apri 2015, Organized by PRIA.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (19)
Similaire à Budd Hall Community Based Research Symposium PRIA India
Similaire à Budd Hall Community Based Research Symposium PRIA India (20)
Plus de PRIA (Society for Participatory Research In Asia)
Plus de PRIA (Society for Participatory Research In Asia) (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Budd Hall Community Based Research Symposium PRIA India
- 1. THE WORLD OF COMMUNITY BASED RESEARCH: INTERNATIONAL STUDIES ON KNOWLEDGE, DEMOCRACY AND ACTION Budd Hall, Rajesh Tandon and Crystal Tremblay PRIA and the University of Victoria
- 2. Our Network Partners International Development Research Council of Canada (IDRC) Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Community-based Research Canada (CBRC) Global Alliance for Community Engaged Research (GACER) Talloires Network The Research University Civic Engagement Network (TRUCEN) PASCAL International Observatory Global Univeristy Network for Innovation (GUNi) Centro latinoamericano de aprendizaje y servicios solidario (CLAYSS) Centro Boliviano de Estudios Multidisciplinarios (CEBEM) Better Futures Network, North-South Network Living Knowledge Network, Europe
- 3. Global Study on Organizational Structures of Community-University Research Partnerships (IDRC) Methods and Outputs: • Global web based survey - 336 responses from 53 countries, covering each region of the world, administered in 4 languages. • Respondents from HEI, CSO, funding agencies, and policy makers. • 12 Country case studies • Products: an e-book and a set of practical guidelines • Open Access policies The project aims to: 1) develop an understanding of how research partnerships are initiated, supported, and evaluated through a comparative study of different types of institutional arrangements; 2) promote awareness of the significance and appropriateness of creating and/or supporting such enabling structures amongst decision-makers; and 3) mobilize knowledge for practitioner and policy actions in creating appropriate structures in different countries through the identification of best practices and recommendations.
- 4. Key Findings (Survey) • Data from the Global South difficult to obtain. • Strong need for institutional investment in structures to support and facilitate community and academic interests. • Large variation in the language, conceptualization and practice of these engagements, from ‘extension’ to ‘co-creation’ of knowledge. • The ‘knowledge cultures’ of CSOs and HEIs are very different. • An emerging contradiction between professed commitment to co- construction of knowledge and partnerships with communities and the actual practice of doing CBR (i.e. origins of research, sharing of resources) • Expressed need for building community capacity to play equitable roles in the research partnerships
- 5. Survey Highlights Institutional supports • Just over 60% of HEIs identified have some form of structure created to support CURPs within the last 10 years. • Over 60% of CSOs do not have access to library and academic funding opportunities. There is a need for capacity at CSO level. • CSOs rely heavily on volunteers. More then 65% of CSOs have between 1-20 volunteers. Table. Support structures for CURPs at HEIs
- 6. Survey Highlights Role and Process of Partnership • Over 95% of all respondents believe that the co-creation of knowledge is a primary goal in CURP. • Less then 15% of CURPs originate in the community. These partnerships are still very much top down, initiated at the HEI level. • Active participation in decision-making and distribution of funds in research projects is predominantly controlled by HEIs. • We see increased involvement of CSOs in the decision-making process as the life-span of the research partnership increases. • CSOs have higher active participation in networking and framing research agenda, and much less so when it comes to
- 7. Survey Highlights Challenges and Recommendations • The most common challenges indicated by respondents are differences in timeline expectations (43.7%), and the participation of members (42.9%). • It is clear from these results that there is a different nature of knowledge cultures and diverse institutional processes that shape how research partnerships function, and ideally, flourish. Training in CBR • Over half (52.4%) the respondents have not had training in CBR. • The most common training need identified in this survey is ‘methodology for participatory research’, including the philosophy and practice of co-created knowledge and ways of increasing equity in partnerships, methods and tools in participatory research, research design, data collection and
- 8. Country Case studies Two categories of countries: 1. Those where a clear national/provincial policy for such engagements and partnerships already exist. • Canada, South Africa, United Kingdom, Indonesia, Argentina, Netherlands, United States, Brazil 2. Those countries where such policies are in the making and potential for institutionalization of such policies is very high. • India, Uganda, Ireland, Jordan • Existing policies and funding mechanisms reviewed in each country • 2 HEI and 2 CSO selected for institutional review
- 9. ComparativeAnalysis of Country Policies, Institutional Structures, and Networks 1. When overall policy framework at national/provincial levels positions Higher Education (HE) as contribution to socio- economic transformation, there is greater readiness to accept Community Engagement (CE) as an integral part of the mandate. • Argentina's education policy explicitly recognize S-L as an innovative approach • Brazil’s ‘Citizen Constitution’, promoted the right to education, work/decent wage and social security. • Indonesia ‘Tri Darma Perguruan Tinggi” (three virtues of HE) • India’s Kothari Commission Report called for ‘expansion of higher education to meet the requirements of the nation • Post apartheid South African policies ‘committed higher education to a process of transformation in the spirit of an open and democratic
- 10. ComparativeAnalysis of Country Policies, Institutional Structures, and Networks 2. From the analysis of HE policies across countries, it has also been seen that explicit inclusion of CE in national policy is a more recent phenomenon in most countries, and it encourages HEIs to institutionalize CE. • Argentina’s enactment of the National Educational Act in 2006 • Brazilian Educational Law (1996) states that ‘for any HEI to be called a University, it has to develop extension activities alongside teaching and research. • The institutionalization era for CBR in Canada ranges from the year 1998 to 2012 (e.g.SSHRC CURA;CuExpo; UVic, UQUAM, Guelph) • By 2000, Indonesia’s Kuliah Kerja Nyata (KKN; Students’ Community Engagement) narrowed to programs that initiate or drive social change • India’s 12th plan guidelines (2012-2017), the Planning Commission rolled out a scheme for establishment of a Centre for Fostering Social Responsibility and Community Engagement (CFSRCE) in
- 11. ComparativeAnalysis of Country Policies, Institutional Structures, and Networks 3. Policy statements on CE in HE do not mention research explicitly; in its absence, other forms of engagement are more common. • Argentina’s S-L is course based, credit bearing form of experiential education • UK’s 2008 ‘Beacons for Public Engagement’ initiative was a major culture change in HEI • CE activities in Canada are broadly manifested under the umbrella term of ‘CBR’, which explicitly provides for joint research with the communities for achieving mutual benefits. • Indonesian case presents one of the few examples wherein CE explicitly includes the term ‘research’ (LPPM; Institute of Research and Community Engagement). • India’s overarching framework includes experiential learning (such as
- 12. ComparativeAnalysis of Country Policies, Institutional Structures, and Networks 4. Where explicit focus on research in CE is encouraged through funding councils/schemes, HEIs engage in building research as a part of community engagement plans/activities. • Brazil has substantially increased programs and investments in innovation. As a result, ‘there has been greater interaction between universities, private industry and civil society’ - ‘incubators’ • ‘In the year 2014, SSHRC made $337 million worth of grants to 8674 projects. Of this, $12o million went to Aboriginal research grants. In addition, PDG’s are also building research partnerships. • National Research Foundation established a number of funded South African Research Chairs (SARChI) dealing with matters of social responsibility in higher education • UK’s Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) and the Catalysts for Public Engagement (2011) fund (8 universities)
- 13. ComparativeAnalysis of Country Policies, Institutional Structures, and Networks 5. Principles of mutuality and co-construction of knowledge with community (and valuing indigenous and practical knowledge) is not explicitly incentivized in such funding mechanisms. Some examples where it is explicit: • Canada SSHRC CURA ‘co-construction of knowledge as a product of the alliances’, ‘focus of research to be ‘partnership’. • Netherlands, the CE carried out in research is mostly done as commissioned or co-operative research – Science Shop model • UK’s Connected Communities funding program gives importance to the crucial parameter of mutuality in CBR projects
- 14. ComparativeAnalysis of Country Policies, Institutional Structures, and Networks 6. National platforms for knowledge sharing and regular monitoring of CE with focus on research generate greater momentum at national/provincial levels. • Canada has five national networks that support CBR • Indonesia has five Regional FlipMas (Forum Layanan Ipteks bagi Masyarakat) - forum for community engagement practitioners. • India’s National University Rankings for the HEIs, with an objective to incentivize the respective HEIs includes social responsibility • SA university councils to report on ‘how a public higher education institution has both positively and negatively impacted on the economic life of the community in which it operated” (2011)
- 15. ComparativeAnalysis of Country Policies, Institutional Structures, and Networks 7. When government asks for annual reports and creates a focal office on CE to support and collect progress on this aspect, HEIs take it seriously and practices get institutionalized. • Indonesian government has instituted a full-fledged directorate of research and community engagement, provisioned under Community Engagement Grants (CEGs). • India’s new CE scheme has provided for the establishment of a focal Centre which will oversee all the community engagement activities in the University in an inter-dependent manner. • SA introduced new regulations for annual institutional reporting to the Ministry include explicit requirement for university councils to report on community impact
- 16. ComparativeAnalysis of Country Policies, Institutional Structures, and Networks 8. Separate and explicit funding schemes for CE in research enable use of resources in building CURPs at institutional levels. • SSHRCs focused funding support has resulted in use of stipulated resources for building CURPs at the institutional level in Canada (e.g. OCBR (Uvic), (SAC) at UQAM) • UK Research Councils and the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) have helped to consolidate engagement activities across the HEIs • Ireland’s Higher Education Authority awards statutory funding for community based research and other areas aligned to civic engagement.
- 17. ComparativeAnalysis of Country Policies, Institutional Structures, and Networks 9. Very few such CE structures within HEIs are co- governed with community representatives, and mostly remain within the unilateral control of HEI administration • In Brazil, at the University of Sao Paulo, representation of community groups (recycling coops) in the Management Council of the PWSM project has been ensured. • Canada, at the University of Victoria, ISICUE is jointly steered by university and community leaders. • UQAM, SAC mandates the execution of joint research projects with the NGOs. • South Africa, at the Rhodes University, the Community Engagement Management Committee, also witnesses representation of external CE
- 18. ComparativeAnalysis of Country Policies, Institutional Structures, and Networks 10. Provision of awards, recognitions and accreditations of universities for engaging in CE activities further incentivizes CUE. • Argentina, National Ministry of Education (NME) created Presidential prize ‘Solidarity School’, which awards sustainable & quality S-L practices. • The Brazilian government uses tax exemption to motivate universities with philanthropic status to play a civic role in society. • Uvic’s Engaged Scholar awards for distinguished professorship to recognize excellence in community engaged research and scholarship. • Indonesia and India, CE is an important element in National
- 19. Some Conclusions • When national policy creates formal expectations to promote CE, HEIs tend to show greater readiness; earmarked funding for CE further facilitates CE by HEIs • Top leadership of Ministries and HEIs can have huge impacts on promotion of CE in general, and CURPs in particular; by prioritising CE in research functions of HEIs, such leaders can push co-creation of knowledge • Middle level leadership—Deans, Centre Directors, Professors—and student leaders can nurture and operationalise CE (and CURP) by championing these in their faculty, centre, association • Even when reporting and monitoring mechanisms exist within HEIs, accountability to communities and reporting to civil society is not a common practice at all.
- 20. Some Conclusions • Long term commitment to CE and CURP is required to institutionalise such practice; support for such 5-10 year partnerships is critical • Investing in CB of students and faculty at HEIs (and in community and civil society) to learn about partnerships and CBPR methodologies is critically missing • In general, civil society has shied away from demanding greater responsiveness and accountability from HEIs and the system of higher education in various countries around the world • The mind-set in HEIs continues to negate community knowledge and practitioner expertise; widespread systematisation of practitioner knowledge and sensitisation of next generation of researchers can make a difference
Notes de l'éditeur
- There is much more work needed and more creative and effective ways to be found to dig deeper into these parts of the world. We have been surprised that at least amongst the respondents to this survey, that some kinds of facilitative research partnership structures have been in place for a longer time and across a wider range of HEIs than we had previously thought. However uneven the distribution of models of community university research structures might be there seems to be consensus that if CBR or CBPR is to be mainstreamed, institutional investment in structures to support and facilitate community interests and academic research interests is a key step forward. Support is needed to allow for brokering of interests, visibility of community based work, bridging across disciplines and credit for academic career development for this kind of work. While there is obviously no common term for research which originates in the community and flows back to the community across all languages, it is noteworthy that the terms community based research (CBR) and community based participatory research (CBPR) have emerged as the most common way of naming these kinds of knowledge partnerships. Our survey also underscores the strong interest in the provision of training for these research approaches. There is strong evidence suggesting that the ‘knowledge cultures’ of civil society organisations and HEIs are very different. The uses of knowledge, the kinds of knowledge needed, methods used, links to social change and advocacy are understood and practiced very differently. CSOs are looking for answers to concrete issues in the community. They are not interested in nuanced and subtle ‘maybe this or maybe that’ kind of results that academics often favour. There is, we suggest, an emerging or a continuing contradiction between professed commitment to co-construction of knowledge and partnerships with communities on the part of university based scholars, and the actual practice of doing CBR which has to do with the origins of projects, sharing of resources and building of community capacities. Linked to this is perception of relative apathy in CSO and Community organisations about continued efforts to partner with HEIs taking into account the difficulties entailed, and the frustrations of past experiences in moving the practice beyond the rhetoric. Finally, in part because our survey did not contain language around these dimensions, the lack of a discourse around what some call knowledge democracy, attention to excluded or marginalized knowledge leaves us with further work to do in this critical area.
- National policies for higher education in most countries do not necessarily situate the contribution of higher education within the framework of socio-economic transformation of the country. Where public policies embed HEIs in the national reconstruction efforts, readiness to accept CE as an integral part of the functioning of HEIs is demonstrated. CE is then viewed as one of the vehicles through which such roles of HEIs can be realized. Primarily national policies of this scale are coming from Global South
- While several national policies on HE have included a general reference to societal good, explicit inclusion of mandates for CE is a relatively recent phenomenon, spanning last decade or so. As international recognition for CE has been gaining momentum during the past five years or so, many countries and HEIs have begun to formalize policies for CE as well.
- Indonensia has a nationwide institutionalized structure for community engagement, known as Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat (LPPM; Institute of Research and Community Engagement). As can be seen from above, CE is being prioritized differently in different contexts. Most CE efforts focus on students’ learning opportunities, sometimes with credit, many a times without credit. A common practice in CE is extending the knowledge and expertise of HEIs to nearby villages and slums, based on the assumption that such extension efforts will ‘benefit’ the community. Unless explicitly mandated and resourced, research activities do not readily become a part of CE efforts in most HEIs; HEIs assume that knowledge production is entirely an ‘in-house’ domain activity.
- In the above cases, therefore, research-based community engagement is encouraged as a distinctive part of CE in HEIs. In some cases, community-based participatory research methodology, as driver of such CE, is explicitly recognized. This approach then legitimizes use of CBPR methodology in such research partnership between community and HEI.
- While most granting agencies tend to encourage community based participatory research, it does not explicitly incentivize the mutuality or the co-creation of knowledge which should ideally be inbuilt in such processes. . The critical question in all research engagements with communities is the actual practice of co-construction of knowledge. The principle of mutuality is not necessarily required or adhered to in practice in most such examples. It is here that greater attention needs to be paid in making research partnerships mutually beneficial and co-constructed.
- In Canada, there are five national networks that support CBR efforts. They are: ‘Research Impact, (founded by York University and the University of Victoria); the Community Engaged Scholarship Partnership (based at Guelph University), which works on university policies such as career advancement, credit for work in the community; the Canadian Alliance for Community Service Learning (based at Carleton University linking community and university groups working with student’s experiential learning in community; and Community Based Research Canada(CBRC) (based at the University of Victoria and the Centre for CBR in Kitchener Waterloo) It is clear that national or provincial networks on research partnerships and promotion of CBPR methodology in research can stimulate greater mutuality between communities and HEIs in designing and conducting research. Such networks act as platforms for influencing the practices of individual HEIs, thereby generating a pressure for, and providing exemplars of, good practices in co-construction of knowledge in research partnerships.
- If Ministry of Higher Education at national (or provincial) level has a nodal unit and/or officer focusing on CE, the institutional responses from HEIs are more direct and timely. If such a nodal officer and/or unit demands an annual (or periodical) report from HEIs ( at least from those supported by the government), then there is greater likelihood of production of documents related to CE, and its results. In the absence of such a requirement and structure in the Ministry, HEIs do not necessarily produce annual reports and responsive documentation.
- Incentivising CURPs requires targeted funding in this regard. Research funding to HEIs can be an effective vehicle for promotion of CURP, if so required. Even inclusion of CBPR methodology as an approach to research by HEIs can support emergence of CURPs.
- The separately mandated structures in universities do facilitate interface with community. However, most such structures are managed from within the HEI administration. In order to build and nurture CURPs, it is perhaps important that such interface structures are c-governed and co-managed with active representation and voice of the community and civil society.
- Therefore, it has been seen that provision of awards and recognitions greatly encourages CE efforts, along with generating enthusiasm and interest in the faculty and the students alike. Additionally, its contribution towards accreditation of universities proves to be a bonus, which greatly results in the universities which facilitates the integration of such activities in the regular curriculum.