The mission of Community Campus Engage Canada (CCEC) is to contribute to thriving, just, and
sustainable societies by growing connections, capacity, and infrastructure for community-driven
collaboration with post-secondary institutions across Canada. CCEC emerges from a seven-year
SSHRC-funded pan-Canadian participatory action research project that investigates how community-campus partnerships can be designed and implemented to maximize the value created for non-profit, community-based organizations. Beginning May 1, 2019, CCCE will operate as a project under the TrentÌęCentre for Community-Based Education (TCCBE).

CCEC Steering Committee members will oversee CCEC staff, provide necessary reporting to the
TCCBE’s Board of Directors, and participate on one of three CCEC working groups focused on
Organizational Development, Community of Practice and Network Platform Development, and Funding and Policy.

CCEC seeks Steering Committee members who are committed to realizing CCEC’s Strategic Plan, and who have the capacity to build CCEC collaboratively over the course of a year starting May 1, 2019. We aspire to a diverse Steering Committee inclusive of community, post-secondary and boundary spanning CCE champions, as well as geographic, gender, ethnic, and sectoral/disciplinary diversity. We welcome members with patience for the often ambiguous, messy, and exciting stage of organizational start-up.

Prospective Steering Committee members will be assessed according to the following criteria:

• Knowledge of community-first approaches to community-campus engagement;
• Enthusiasm for the future of CCE in Canada;
• Experience with governance, policy development, evaluation, financial oversight, grant writing, and
  fundraising; and
• Connections to diverse local, regional, provincial/territorial, national, and/or international networks.

It is expected that Steering Committee members will participate for the full Phase I term of CCEC (to MayÌę31, 2020). Members will participate remotely across this pan-Canadian committee. Committee membersÌęwill typically meet once a month (by video conference), with additional meetings for working groups.

Members can expect to spend approximately a half-day per week in Steering Committee involvement including attending/preparing for meetings, reviewing documents, and contributing to other items related to specific working groups. Interested individuals with limited capacity for participation are invited toÌędescribe within their application letter how they may effectively contribute to the committee.

There is no remuneration paid to Steering Committee members, but members will:

• Enjoy access to a vast national-scale CCE network;
• Have a prominent voice in CCEC initiatives for CCE practitioners and stakeholders; and
• Shape the diversity of contributions to significant conversations regarding advancement of CCE efforts in Canada.

Individuals interested in serving as CCEC Steering Committee members are asked to submit a letter (no longer than one page) outlining their interest in CCEC leadership and alignment with the criteria andÌęaspirations detailed above to Lisa Erickson at curtis.sanderson@usask.ca. Review of applications willÌębegin on April 22, 2019. Candidates may be contacted to discuss their interest. Individuals that have beenÌępart of the Interim Executive Committee, the Interim Steering Committee, or CFICE, that have convenedÌęor participated in CCEC Roundtables, and/or that have a passion for and deep interest in CCE are invitedÌęto apply to serve on the CCEC Steering Committee.

Note: Upon applying to this Committee, your application may be shared with current Interim ExecutiveÌęand Steering Committee members as part of the review process.

Please contact Lisa Erickson at lisa.erickson@usask.ca if you have any questions regarding the
nomination process.

On the heels of the “Understanding our Food Systems” gathering held in January 2019, Charles and colleague Jessica McLaughlin (co-ordinator of the Indigenous Food Circle), penned this article to help spread awareness of food sovereignty issues in Canada. Click on the image below to increase the size for easier reading or click here to access a PDF version.

In this lively podcast, CFICE team members Kristina Reed, Kawsar Mohamed, and Nicole Bedford have a frank conversation about the challenges and rewards of being open to sharing, listening, and working together to make workplaces more accessible to all.

Access a PDF version of the podcast transcript here.

Since its inception in 2001, Food Secure Canada (FSC) has been a strong voice for food security and sovereignty advancements in Canada. Through partnerships with projects like Community First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CFICE), FSC has brought their advocacy game to new heights.

In contrast with other community-based organizations that often lack capacity to conduct independent research, FSC has capitalized on partnering with organizations rooted in both academia and the community to conduct and produce unique, targeted research. The organization’s community-campus engagement (CCE) work has led to many pivotal wins including grants to conduct research on and . This recognition of FSC as a research-capable organization exhibits an important shift in Canadian culture towards valuing local research expertise and its contribution towards informing all levels of government during policy development.

So, who is FSC and what do they do?

(FSC) is a national network of organizations and individuals working together to bring food and farming issues to the forefront of Canadian policy. Throughout its existence, FSC has championed dialogue domestically and internationally regarding its three main goals: zero hunger, healthy and safe food, and sustainable food systems for all.

As a multi-faceted organization, FSC expedites conversation and action for a more equitable and community-driven food movement. Key components of FSC’s foci of action include: increasing access to food research and knowledge, supporting the development of food research and food-related projects, advocating for food policies at the federal level, and most notably, ensuring all Canadians are given a platform to engage with what a national food policy would do for the millions it intends to serve.

What is FSC’s relationship with CFICE?

In 2012, FSC partnered with CFICE to create the — a network of academics, non-profits and community organizers dedicated to strengthening partnerships between community and academic sectors. The Collaborative helps to increase the quantity and quality of sharp, progressive research that directly impacts the evolution of a more equitable and just food system.

Amanda Wilson, Assistant Professor at Saint Paul University

Amanda Wilson, Assistant Professor in the School of Social Innovation at Saint Paul University and former Post-Doctoral research fellow at FSC, says this collaborative effort between stakeholders isn’t a new phenomenon within food system work in Canada. “There has always been a close and collective relationship between academia and community work, both of which are supportive of each other within the food movement and between agri-food scholars,” Wilson says. While community-campus collaborations have been part of food security work for a while, the Collaborative represents a formal network dedicated to sharing knowledge. Within this knowledge base, FSC and Collaborative members can facilitate relationships between community and campus researchers and collaboratively create and mobilize food research for more informed policy.

Through the Collaborative, FSC has effectively bridged the relationship between front line service work and research faculties. This merger provides various food organizations with a wealth of knowledge, undoubtedly contributing to their advocacy and program facilitation across the country. In addition, the research produced is indispensable since it is driven and informed by community needs and expertise.

Attendees at the Ottawa Food Summit. ©Food Secure Canada

How doesÌęthe Collaborative, andÌęFSC’s relationship with CFICE, strengthen their advocacy work?

FSC’s partnership with CFICE through the Community Academic Collaborative, has supported FSC in claiming their rightful seat at the table when working with government officials. By bolstering its policy recommendations with comprehensive evidence-based reports, FSC is creating a Canada to be proud of in regards to accessing safe and nutritious food for all.

According to Wilson, FSC’s work has a direct impact on communities across the country: “The partnerships between the community and academic institutions builds a more collective and effective community. It gives [FSC] the chance to engage in research that we wouldn’t normally call research, like town halls or focus groups. We then use this research to create greater engagement for policy change, facilitate conferences and build the complex web of relationships and projects that hopefully moves towards building a better food system for everyone.”

Undeniably, the Collaborative has led to big wins for FSC and the rest of the food community in Canada.

For example, the Collaborative has given FSC the support it needs to continue to fight for a National Food Policy for Canada. This work is important; Despite Canada’s commitments to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,ÌęFSC estimates that at leastÌę.

The capacity FSC has gained through the Collaborative has given them the ability to produce policy reports, conduct presentations and events, host conferences, and organize to present their research to those who can create change in Canada. FSC’sÌęcollaborative CCE efforts were recently rewarded as the release of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food’s report,Ìę, thoroughly encompassed several of FSC’s key recommendations including recognizing food as a human right, and the importance of implementing a Food Policy Advisory Body.

FSC’s efforts have even led to recognition by international food organizations also working on national food policy initiatives, as well as anotherÌęgovernment research contract further increasing its recognition and legitimacy as a leader in food policy work.

Food Secure Canada presents with CFICE as part of a panel on Food Policy Council models at the Common Food Policy Conference in Brussels.

The need for capacity to create opportunity

Community-based organizations like FSC evolving to become leaders in advocacy and research is a feat worthy of recognition. As Wilson notes, many organizations face aÌęcontinuous struggle to nurture their advocacy and research work in the absence of support from strong community-campus partnerships. “In some ways it’s like a chicken and the egg debate. You need a strong baseline of capacity that allows you to go out and look for contracts and grants to begin with. Once you have that base, you are able to tackle the core concepts of our work, which is making sure the community is in the driver’s seat.”

Through FSC’s ability to capitalize on the support gained through community-campus partnerships like the one with CFICE, FSC has been able to produce research that brings to the table the importance of vibrant food systems. The impact they have had as a result spans from improved access to food in the North, increased environmental stewardship and more widespread sustainable production and harvesting practices, to improved health and safety, and more innovative food initiatives and governance.

As we patiently wait for a Canada with zero hunger, our job has to be supporting organizations and partnerships that fight for a safer, more equitable country for all.

This article shares some of the knowledge gained in Phase I of CFICE through on-the-ground research projects in the food sector. Check out the abstract below, or .

Abstract

This article is situated within nascent debates on the role of academics within food sovereignty movements. Drawing on insights from a collective autoethnography, we report on our experiences conducting three food sovereignty research projects in different contexts and at different scales. We suggest that that the principles and practices of food sovereignty translate into a food sovereignty research praxis. This consists of three pillars focusing on people (humanizing research relationships), power (equalizing power relations) and change (pursuing transformative orientations). This article discusses these pillars and analyzes the extent to which we were able to embody them within our projects.

Post-secondary institutions have specific timelines, long processes for things like ethics approval or grant applications, and generally speaking, a complex power structure that can involve some firm top-down governance.

These factors can easily complicate a campus-community partnership, particularly if the community partner is unsure or unfamiliar with how the academic environment functions. In CFICE’s year four summary reports, community partners from multiple hubs expressed their frustration with the “mismatched timelines between academic and community partnerships.”

Charles Levkoe, an academic co-lead with the CFICE project, said that his community counterpart often talked about how everything changed once they understood how the academic cycle worked.

It’s important for academic and community partners to be on the same page as much as possible in order to ensure an effective and fruitful partnership. For community organizations who have limited experience working with academic institutions, here are some things to expect when entering a partnership with a post-secondary institution.

First steps when working with a post-secondary institution

Dr. Charles Levkoe, academic co-lead with the CFICE project.

For those that have never partnered with an academic institution before and are completely unsure of what to expect, Dr. Levkoe suggests finding a broker organization as a first step. Broker organizations can sometimes be housed within post-secondary institutions themselves, and it is their job to be well-connected with the institution and with community organizations.

Additionally, ensuring that your community organization finds the right person or people to work with is all about doing the research ahead of time, something Dr. Levkoe said a broker organization can be really helpful with.Ìę

However, if you have your own relationships with people within a post-secondary institution, it might be best to start there instead. “A lot of the best community-campus engagement work I’ve seen goes through people,” Dr. Levkoe said. “They know how I work, I know how they work, we have a trust that’s built up. And those things don’t come overnight,” he added.

Similarly, CFICE’s year four summary reports echoed the importance of previously existing personal relationships as being important building blocks for any partnership.

Have realistic expectations about timelines

One academic partner in CFICE’s Violence Against Women hub said that often, community organizations have “fairly unrealistic views of how quickly it can happen
They don’t know how long it takes to get ethics approval and they are frustrated by the delays. From their point of view it is just ‘why don’t you just get on with [it] and just do it!” The academic partner here echoed concerns of a “timeline mismatch” between the community and academic partners, but also acknowledged the unique time limitations that community partners experience, where “people are so busy, so overwhelmed” that the slow pace of academic research “makes them less interested in the actual research.”

Figuring out expectations and timelines are part of any good project.

When discussing how community partners can manage their expectations when entering into a partnership with an academic institution, Dr. Levkoe said that understanding the university structure is a good place to start.

“The university can be a very top-down institution that has a certain way of doing things. Faculty have some freedom within that structure but most are already involved in a range of work. For example, if someone asked me to do research with them, even if I love the project, I have classes I teach, I have students I’m supervising and it’s not something I can easily add to my plate. I need to plan ahead, I need to make time, make space, sometimes I need to apply for grants, and that can take up to a year.”

Academic timelines and community-campus engagement (CCE) projects

In most universities, the academic timeline consists of two main semesters of teaching, the first being from September through December, and the second from January through the end of May. Often, academics have more time to conduct research, or participate in CCE projects, during the summer months, when their teaching schedule is much less demanding.

There are additional factors in academic timing that could impact when a grad student is hired for a research assistantship, for instance. And when it comes to sharing CCE project work, academic articles undergo a peer review process that makes publishing a lengthy process—often up to two years of editing and revising before an article makes it to print.

Exactly how these timelines could impact a project will vary depending on the institution and the academic partner, but being aware of the possibility that this four-month semester schedule could affect the flow and speed of a project can help to manage expectations.

Ethics = longer CCE timelines but enhance research quality

All projects are beholden to the project management triple constraint triangle. Projects can only adhere to two sides of the triangle at any given time.

What is ultimately important to remember is that the reason a lot of things move slowly through academia is because there are high standards of rigor and ethics.

“I think ethics is a good thing,” Dr. Levkoe said. “It’s not perfect; there’s lots of challenges
but it helps to ensure there are checks and balances”.

As someone who has also worked in the non-profit sector for many years, Dr. Levkoe said in that sector, “you write a grant, you often find out relatively quickly [if you were successful], and then the program goes ahead or it doesn’t. But academia works a bit differently.”

One way to effectively manage expectations is through outlining limitations and potential restrictions right off the bat. Partners in the Violence Against Women hub said that the first step in the partnership needed to be coming to a consensus about the structure, process, and goals for the hub. In this particular instance, because the CFICE project is funded by SSHRC, there were certain guidelines and pre-determined parameters on the process of the project that needed to be met. Clearly identifying these factors in advance was important to the community partners in this hub.

Community organizations partnering with an academic institution should keep in mind that depending on where the grant or funding is coming from, asking questions and having a clear idea of any limitations the grant might have on the project can be very helpful to do in advance.

Partnerships often extend beyond the ‘community-campus’ dichotomy

The Food Secure Canada team poses for a picture. ©Abra Brynne

“We have to be careful about talking about communities and academics as being two separate things,”ÌęDr. Levkoe said. “As academics, we are also community members.”

He said his engagement with the community involves sitting on boards, working with organizations “not necessarily as part of my research program, but as part of my service to the community, as part of my application of the stuff I’m reading and writing.” And, often times, he said he is the one who approaches community organizations to engage in a partnership.

“This relationship is really dynamic and evolving, it’s not straight forward at all,” Dr. Levkoe said. But being “realistic about what can happen” is a good place to start.

We recently had an extraordinary opportunity to discuss what is happening on food policy with European experts and organizations, as well as colleagues from around the world, in events in Brussels (29-30 May), Budapest (30 May-1 June) and Brighton (June 4-5). Here are some of the highlights of those events with some of the resources for people who are interested in knowing more.

EU Food and Farming Forum by IPES-Food Explores a Food Policy Council Model

Peter Andree and Diana Bronson participate in a panel at the EU Food and Farming Forum in Brussels.

The first event was theÌęÌęin Brussels, organized by IPES-Food—the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food.ÌęÌęis, in some ways, the international counterpart of Canada’s (FLEdGE) research group, and one FLEdGE co-investigator, Molly Anderson from Middlebury College in Vermont, is an active member of both groups. IPES-Food has published a number ofÌęÌęsince 2015 on the role of international governance mechanisms in the transition towards sustainable food systems.

Designed as ‘participatory democracy in action,’ the EU Food and Farming Forum attracted over 250 representatives of civil society organizations, social movements and governments from across Europe. Participants prepared a series of proposals designed to form the basis of a Common Food Policy for Europe. Launched in 1962, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been criticized by food analysts and activists alike for being expensive—almost 40% of the EU’s total budget—unsustainable and highly damaging to developing countries where subsidized exports are dumped below their real costs. Replacing the CAP with a Common European Food Policy is being championed by, amongst others, Olivier de Schutter (former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food and Co-chair of IPES-Food). Much like the conversation in Canada around the proposed Food Policy for Canada, the EU’s Common Food Policy is proposed as a way to break down policy silos and build a more healthy and sustainable food system that is equitable, especially to the people involved in growing or otherwise making the food we eat.

The room was full for Peter Andree and Diana Bronson’s panel on Building Integrated Food Policies at the National Level.

Sustainable food system advocates in Europe are watching Canadian developments in food policy with interest. We were invited to speak on the opening plenary, along with organizations working on food policy and food system transitions from England and the Netherlands. It was striking to see the similarities in the issues we are facing, and to see the same debates among civil society actors that we have: How can we ensure sustainable food is accessible? What issues should be tackled first? How can we get more traction for a joined-up food policy and bring more actors around the policy-making table? How, as civil society organizations, can we have better access to decision-making and reform governance of our food system? How do food sovereignty, the right to food, and the sustainable development goals fit into food system reform? At the end of two days of discussion, many organizations endorsed a proposed European Food Policy Council, drawing from theÌęÌęthat Food Secure Canada (FSC), alongside many other stakeholders, endorsed for Canada.

Living Knowledge Network Examines Partnership Power Dynamics

We then went on to the beautiful city of Budapest for the 8^thÌębiennial conference of the Living Knowledge Network (LKN). The LKN is a gathering of academics and civil society organizations committed to community-based research. Three days of discussions, poster sessions, and workshops examined the power dynamics between researchers and community groups. We heard many examples of innovative partnership models where communities are truly equal partners in research. For the past six years, Food Secure Canada (FSC) has been a core partner in theÌęCFICE Project, so we shared how we have been working through this partnership to support knowledge co-creation and policy change towards a more socially and ecologically just food system. The CFICE project is now launching a permanent network of academics and practitioners who are committed to working together to improve research practices and evidence-based interventions. In Budapest, we were able to share details on this emerging network, calledÌęCommunity-Campus Engage Canada, with colleagues who have developed similar networks in Europe and around the world.

Institute for Development Studies and IPES-Food Discussed Political Economies of Sustainable Food Systems

The Institute for Development Studies and IPES-Food host discussions on the political economies of sustainable food systems.

Our last stop was the beautiful sea-side town of Brighton, UK where the Institute for Development Studies and IPES-Food co-hosted two days of academic discussions on the political economies of sustainable food systems. This workshop provided an opportunity to examine the complexities of food system reform with some of the world’s top thinkers. It was heartening to see that this list included a disproportionate number of Canadians, many of whom are connected with the FLEdGE and CFICE networks, among them Cecilia Rocha (Ryerson), Charles Levkoe (Lakehead), Harriet Friedman (University of Toronto), and Paul Uys (Guelph). The goal of the workshop was to help IPES-Food further their analysis of the political ‘lock-ins’ that inhibit movement towards sustainable food systems, and to explore various approaches for identifying the levers that can bring about change. Discussions were wide-ranging and included topics such as food riots, agroecology, alternative food cooperatives in China,Ìę, and resilience theory.

Central to the discussions at all three events were questions of power and practice: How can we best work together across our own silos, disciplines, professions, and geographies to redesign food systems badly in need of reform? We learned that the work we are doing in Canada to address these questions – both what we do and how we do it – is being watched closely by allies in Europe and beyond. Thanks to the support of CFICE, FLEdGE, and IPES-Food we were able to share the important food policy work of FSC Canada and others to meaningfully contribute to sustainable food systems dialogues in Europe and beyond.

KEY FINDINGS

• There is no single definition for food hubs.
• The different goals and objectives exist on a continuum that describes pathways to change, from enhancing food supply chains to challenging the negative outcomes of the dominant food system through social and ecological justice.
• The tensions that emerge between and within food hubs and the mainstream food system are often productive, helping food hubs to see new ways of being food hubs.

SOURCE DETAILS

Based on: “” in the Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, volume 8, issue 2 (summer 2018), advance online publication.

Date published: June 1, 2018

Lead Author: Charles Z. Levkoe

Co-authors: Colleen Hammelman, Luke Craven, Gavin Dandy, Jeff Farbman, James Harrison, and Phil Mount

Affiliations: Lakehead University (Levkoe), University of North Carolina Charlotte (Hammelman), The University of New South Wales (Craven), Everdale; The SEED Community Food Hub; University of Guelph; and Fleming College (Dandy), Wallace Center at Winrock International (Farbman), The Food Project (Harrison), and Wilfrid Laurier University (Mount)

Author contact: Charles Z. Levkoe: clevkoe@lakeheadu.ca

Keywords: Academic, Food Movements, Food Systems, Practitioner, Social Justice, Sustainability

Permanent link to abstract and full PDF:

Publisher: Lyson Center for Civic Agriculture and Food Systems, Ithaca, New York

KEY LESSONS FROM THE ROUNDTABLE

Food hubs often struggle with complex logistics and accounting systems that can accommodate the diverse needs and capacities of suppliers and consumers and adapting these systems to their own needs. A commons-based peer production platform for hub technology could provide adaptable solutions that build on previous experiences shared by others—without having to repeat their mistakes.

There is a need to fund the social and community-based services provided by food hubs. A supply chain coordinator captures the many functions performed by those who facilitate food hub work. These functions, including matchmaker, educator, relationship-builder, policy thought-leader, and catalyst, are not easily reflected on a balance sheet. Investment in these functions will produce long-term economic and community development benefits. Academics and practitioners working together must find a way to clearly communicate the value of investment in the many functions performed by supply chain coordinators.

While research on food hubs has grown dramatically as the field has grown, many important areas for future research were identified during the roundtable. These included the need to better understand primary drivers for food hubs, food hub viability and scale, food safety, food hub responses to market signals, and the effects on community revitalization. Academics and practitioners can work together to convey the interconnected nature of these problems and solutions to policy-makers. Scholars can make valuable contributions to this work by facilitating connections and research.

Another critical area of further research centers around food systems as economic development. These include quantitative studies (e.g., exploring job creation, economic multipliers of a local food system, increases in farm viability) and qualitative measures relating both to the attractiveness of the area for non-geographically bound operations (e.g., technology) and to the impacts of a thriving local food system on quality of life.

STUDY BACKGROUND

This paper brings together the experiences of scholars and practitioners to share the results of sustained food hub research with the practical experiences of food hub operations and advocacy. The discussion presents a food hub continuum that describes different pathways to effect change, from enhancing food supply chains to challenging the negative outcomes of the dominant food system through a social and ecological justice approach. While the mission of particular food hubs may be aligned with one end of the continuum, they are often pulled in different directions by competing economic and social forces. This perspective problematizes typical descriptions by recognizing different goals and objectives as well as resulting opportunities, challenges, and innovations. While the authors do not suggest one end of the continuum is more important than the other, their analysis identifies a series of productive tensions that emerge. The discussion is structured around four central themes from the collaborative conversation: (1) descriptions of food hubs; (2) differing objectives; (3) navigating success; and (4) encountering barriers.

Bringing together the knowledge and experiences of scholars and practitioners can make an important contribution to understanding factors that contribute to a food hub’s impact. This paper, and the roundtable from which it emerged, bring these different perspectives into conversation to better understand ways in which academic research can contribute to addressing food hub challenges, in which practitioners can lend insights to gaps in the literature, and in which new avenues for academic-practitioner collaboration can be identified. This contribution is significant for bridging the overlapping conversation between scholarship and practice to ultimately better inform food hub development.

Entering into a partnership with post-secondary institutions (PSIs) can open a lot of doors for community-based organizations (CBOs), including access to certain funding opportunities, increased capacity, and the creation of new and collaborative networks with shared goals.

CCE partnerships can be mutually beneficial for both academic and community partners, as both entities have the opportunity to learn from each other, share resources, and deepen their respective understandings of the issues. This is particularly true when academic partners approach the partnership from a community-first perspective.

As one academic partner from the Community Food Security hub noted, “Academics can play an important role” in social and community movements. Speaking specifically about the food sovereignty movement, the academic said that “the movement is dependent on partnerships and finding ways to make these stronger and work better.”

CCE partnerships certainly come with their fair share of challenges, but many community partners find them to also be very valuable. For CBOs who haven’t partnered with an academic institution before, here are some of the benefits that come along with partnering with a PSI.

The benefit of a different perspective

Professional researchers like academics, who might bring different knowledge, experiences, and perspectives to the table, can be an asset to a community project. One community partner within CFICE’s Community Food Security Hub said that “having consistent, high level support to look at a challenge/opportunity in the community” in the form of an academic partner was a helpful resource.

For some community partners within this hub, the partnership provided them with an opportunity to better understand how to approach, engage, and partner with academics in general: “Working with the academics helped us think about how to frame questions,” one community partner said.ÌęParticipation also forced reflection on how to “work in ways that are movement-building and legitimate in the eyes of our academic colleagues.”

Community partners noted that the nature of their work is generally very busy, and “the academics involved bring a methodical and rigorous approach to the work, frequently reminding me through their observations and suggestions of the original goals of
[and] lessons learned from the project.”

Participants in CFICE’s Poverty Reduction Hub said the community-campus partnership provided an opportunity to engage in applied research, to “think about the bigger picture, and
ask stimulating questions.” One participant noted that the partnership enabled “opportunities for applied research within the community, and increased research capacity from community perspective,” describing it as a “win/win.” The applied research practice also provided opportunity for “initial evaluation” of “novel social enterprise[s],” enabling projects to move forward more effectively.

Formal evaluation practices

Partners within the Food Security Hub found that the Hub’s evaluation mandate encouraged the regular documentation of processes and experiences.ÌęThrough the more formal research practices adopted within this Hub, partners were able to “capture information that was used to refine their evolving practice.” This process helped projects move beyond the anecdotal evidence they had previously relied on, a practice that was noted as a barrier in translating ideas into action.

Heather Reid chats with other CFICE members about the interpretation of CFICE’s year 4 evaluation data.

CFICE’s evaluation support was also a valuable resource for community partners who wanted to implementÌęformal evaluation processes, but who did not have the capacity to do so. This lack of capacity can also be a barrier when community organizations are seeking funding, because, as one participant in the Poverty Reduction Hub noted, “funders demand evaluations: they like outcome based assessments.”

Credibility and legitimacyÌę

We add credibility to each other’s work when we collaborate. ©Jason Garlough

Credibility and legitimacy within CCE partnerships is almost always a two-way street in that community and academic partners bring legitimacy to each other’s work. Academics often gain credibility within their own research through working with community partners as the community partners facilitate access for researchers to collect meaningful data, for instance.

Conversely, academic knowledge comes from a place of privilege, and academics can effectively use that privilege to empower community partners.

Participants in CFICE’s Poverty Reduction Hub noted that a SHHRC-funded grant lent some “legitimacy” to the project and “provides context and weight to the work.”

Within the Community Food Security Hub, participants similarly pointed to the credibility that academic partnerships sometimes lend to community work by “help[ing] the community concretely in making a political case for their work of funding.”

Similarly, in the Violence Against Women Hub, one community partner described how the presence of a supportive academic on the project gave them credibility with a partner whose resistance to the community organization was threatening the overall initiative. The community partner said, “This relationship has allowed us to be able to consolidate such that
academia cannot be used against the frontline, and that is what usually happens
so that was a perfect example of a moment where academic bolstered the front line. That’s a good partnership as far as I’m concerned.”

Leveraging Resources

Academic institutions have access to many resources that can be leveraged in the best interest of the community organization. Funding is perhaps the most obvious resource that academic partners can assist in accessing through, for instance, formal evaluation practices.

But resources that can be leveraged for community partners extends beyond the money. Another resource, for instance, is access to research assistants, student volunteers, etc., who can provide “the extra manpower and person power to get things done,” as one academic partner put it.

The networks that persist as a result of community-campus partnerships provide a resource that can be mined even after the partnership concludes. Such networks expose all parties to new ideas, new strategies, and future opportunities for collaboration.

The attendees of CFICE’s Vancouver CCE Regional Roundtable decided to start a community of practice to extend their networks.

Within the Violence Against Women hub, a community partner said the partnership “rejuvenated our ability to work together” as academics and activists, as it provided tangible means by which to collaborate and focus on shared goals.

A participant from the Poverty Reduction Hub similarly acknowledged the CFICE partnership as having “helped build [a] network across Canada regarding community university collaboration,” giving all partners access to valuable connections in their field.

The networks, shared goals, and potential for future collaboration are the most consistent benefits of CCE partnerships acknowledged across all CFICE hubs. As one community partner from the Violence Against Women Hub put it, “We have a movement that needs to be rejuvenated and academics need to be a part of it.”

This article draws from interviews and focus groups conducted in 2015-2016 as part of CFICE’s year 4 project evaluation, and includes common themes from across CFICE’s five Phase I hubs.

This is part three of a three-part series on the ABC’s of CCE Partnerships, where we share some of the most important things to keep in mind when engaging in a CCE Partnership. Here, we’ve identified some strategies for sharing power. This article draws from interviews and focus groups conducted in 2015-2016 as part of CFICE’s year 4 project evaluation, and includes common themes from across CFICE’s five Phase I hubs.Ìę

In the first two parts of this series, sharing responsibilities and sharing resources, the question of power has been present throughout. Power dynamics in community-campus engagement (CCE) partnerships are important to be aware of, because if left unchecked, they can leave a lasting and damaging impact on community-campus engagement (CCE) partners.

Power dynamics can be managed and mitigated through building an awareness of power imbalances, openly discussing how power might impact the partnership, and by those holding positions of power using their privilege to empower the voices of others.

This article explores how power dynamics were at play within CFICE partnerships, and the strategies that were employed to manage power imbalances with a community first perspective.

Self-awareness of power dynamics

The first step in equalizing power is to develop an awareness of any power imbalances that might exist in a CCE partnership. The power dynamics and how they play out will differ depending on context, but the practice of being conscious of how power dynamics are impacting any given relationship can always apply.

For instance, within CFICE’s Community Environmental Sustainability Hub in Peterborough, “the role and power of the university and the perception of the university’s influence was a source of tension”, according to one community partner. It’s important to note here that the perception of a power imbalance or undue influence can have just as much of an effect on a partnership as an actual power imbalance.

In this instance, the perceived power imbalance was visualized when the number of academics and university affiliates “significantly outnumbered” representation from the community. The university affiliates may have simply been very engaged in the partnership and wanting to demonstrate this enthusiasm through their presence. However, there was discussion about whether or not the strong academic presence affected community members’ comfort in expressing opinions. Whatever the intention of the academic partners, the perception was that there was a power imbalance, and it may have had an impact on community participation in the discussion.

A power imbalance can be real or perceived.

Taking steps to consciously equalize power imbalances is important in developing an effective partnership. For instance, the Poverty Reduction Hub demonstrated a self-awareness of power dynamics by making all decisions with input from both community and academic partners. They also worked to identify and discuss the principles they had been either consciously or unconsciously adopting to equalize power. This type of discussion ensured that efforts to equalize power were front of mind for everyone involved, which naturally lead to a more power-conscious partnership.

Academic institutions and partners, who are often seen to be the players with the power in a CCE partnership, should aim for self-awareness when it comes to their level of participation and representation within a partnership. Too much representation can cause the community partner to feel overpowered. Developing a self-awareness of power dynamics should lead to open and honest discussions between partners to ensure equalizing power becomes a priority for the group.

That said, these sorts of open and honest discussions can only happen when there is a foundation of trust.

The importance of trusting relationships

CFICE’s Violence Against Women Hub found that the success of the partnership was hugely dependent on trust. For partners in this hub, overcoming the inherent distrust that community felt towards academic partners as a result of prior experience with academic research was a slow process, but one that was deemed extremely worthwhile.

One of the academic partners in this hub described the benefit of coming to understand more about “why people in the community might not want partnerships with people in the university,” because it helped the academic partner “think about [her] own interaction.”

Discussing problems that were experienced as part of prior community-academic relationships allowed for the Violence Against Women hub to develop more understanding of potential problematic power dynamics. It also allowed the Violence Against Women academics to approach their partnerships with community in ways that allowed community to re-develop trust.

Similarly, in the Community Environmental Sustainability Hub, community partners made sure that conversations happened as they were needed, because “the need to provide space to air issues, questions, concerns” was a necessary component of a trusting and productive relationship.

Power and control in CCE relationships: Whose voices are heard?

Academic voices are often prioritized. Sharing power is about advancing community voices equally.

Academic knowledge is often privileged: It is usually academics who apply for and receive funding grants, and it is academics whose voices are heeded by institutions like government. As one community partner in the Violence Against Women Hub noted, “when you are talking about a research project, you are talking about who is in control, and it’s not us
ever.”

The feeling that the academic partner is in control of the research project can be amplified if the academic is paying members of the community for their participation. One academic partner in this hub reported how, “once we could pay the participants
then they felt like we were their bosses. Things shifted.” Because they were being paid, the community partners felt that it was ultimately up to the academic whether or not the project proceeded at all.

Therefore, academic partners and community partners engaging in CCE need to be mindful of the potential for “frontline experience [to be] overshadowed by academic expertise in research.”

In the Violence Against Women Hub, one academic partner used their privileged voice to empower the community partner and give them a platform that would traditionally be reserved for academics. When the academic partner was invited to speak at a conference on a topic they knew the community partner had more expertise on, they advocated for a spot for the community partner at the conference. This helped to change the perception that the academic is always the expert, and allows the community partners to have their voices heard.

Additionally, within the context of CCE, it can be important for academics to avoid measuring their work in terms of academic publications. As one academic partner said, keeping a community first mindset means recognizing that “it’s done in this community and it’s sent back to the community.”

Where community power lies

CFICE’s Knowledge Mobilization hub focused primarily on promoting effective communication amongst the other CFICE hubs. As a result, this hub took into account the differences in power held by partners. Ultimately, different models and approaches to CCE provide different ways to approach equalizing power relations. While academic power may hold certain privileges—access to funding and other resources, for instance—it’s important to remember that community partners and communities are not powerless.

Geri Briggs*, former CFICE Co-Director, said, “community power rests in connectedness to networks and individuals, in application of theory. Communities have the power to say ‘no’ thereby decreasing academe’s capacity to fulfill community engagement mandates. Academic power rests in sustainability, multiplicity of resources, research capacity.”

Ultimately, power differentials and imbalances can be corrected by using a community first approach that prioritizes frequent discussions and conscious efforts to equalize power and empower community partners and communities.

*The attributed quotes used in this article came from CFICE’s Midterm Review Report, which was posted publicly to our website in February, 2016.