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 TrentÌýCentre 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 MayÌý31, 2020). Members will participate remotely across this pan-Canadian committee. Committee membersÌýwill 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 toÌýdescribe 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 andÌýaspirations detailed above to Lisa Erickson at curtis.sanderson@usask.ca. Review of applications willÌýbegin on April 22, 2019. Candidates may be contacted to discuss their interest. Individuals that have beenÌýpart of the Interim Executive Committee, the Interim Steering Committee, or CFICE, that have convenedÌýor participated in CCEC Roundtables, and/or that have a passion for and deep interest in CCE are invitedÌýto apply to serve on the CCEC Steering Committee.

Note: Upon applying to this Committee, your application may be shared with current Interim ExecutiveÌýand 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.

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.

As researchers, we overcome countless hurdles to answer important questions. We care – passionately – about our methods, our data and our findings. We do it because we want to contribute to a better world.

We »å´Ç²Ô’t do it just to talk with other academics.

Your work is not irrelevant. But your efforts to communicate beyond your own discipline might be. Face it, as academics we’re trained to master the art of talking to ourselves, with our own language, our own journals, at our own conferences.

How can we contribute to that better world if we stay inside our box?

Don’t lose hope. Your reach into the real world can be smart, thoughtful and way more effective, even without heaps of time and money.

So here’s how to get started on your world-changing journey.

1. Know your purpose

Sounds simple, but sometimes we get busy planning infographics and webinars without really thinking this out. What problem do you want to help solve? What would change if you were successful?

2. Map out the problem environment and know who’s in it

Who else is working on this problem? (Yes, that’s right, outside of academia). Talk to them. Educate yourself.

Learn about:

• Who makes decisions in the problem area. How? When?
• Who (or what) influences these decisions.

You could do some full-on systems mapping here. There are plenty of outstanding step-by-step resources to help, like from FSG.

If you’re not quite ready for that, here’s a simple little worksheet:

You can find other worksheets and more advice in this great from the Institute for Work & Health.

3. Ask yourself: how is your research relevant to their decisions?

Are you sharing facts and/or data points (like prevalence data)? Do you want to draw attention to an emerging problem or counter a myth?
Do you have actionable information? Something that can be applied directly to a decision?

Or do you have more complex insights from your research? Not directive but important to how people frame the problem or possible solutions?

4. What does each actor need to use your research?

Think about what kind of change you’re asking them to make. Asking someone to pay attention to something, or to lend their support to an issue they already care about is different from asking them to alter their assumptions or beliefs. It’s a whole other ballgame from asking to people to change the way they do things.

Ask yourself: how big a change is this for them? Are there major barriers for them to overcome? How can you help them over these barriers?

Some frameworks, such as one from group barriers into categories, such as lack of awareness, lack of agreement and external barriers (lack of time, legal risks, policies in the organization).

Check out this by Greenhalgh et al. (2004) for a primer on what helps and what gets in the way of the use of research in practice.

Try journey mapping. Journey mapping can help you step into the shoes of each actor and trace how, when and where key decisions are made, and what influences these decisions. Here’s a how-to from Stephanie Evergreen’s blog.

• Is the change high cost or high risk for this actor? Can you guide them to a lower-risk/lower-cost way to try it out?
• Does the change require specialized skills or resources? Can you point them to where these can be found?
• Who might be advantaged or disadvantaged by the change? Consider interests at play. Give people context they need to avoid potential harm.
• What do actors see as credible information? People »å´Ç²Ô’t act on information they »å´Ç²Ô’t trust. Do you need to provide numbers? Rich description of lived experience? Local data (such as from their own region, or from a rural perspective)?

Photo by Nathan Dumlao on Unsplash

If you remember one thing, remember this: information is not knowledge. More specifically, your information is not their knowledge. If you’re not sure about the difference, check out by Contandriopoulos and colleagues (2010)Ìýand by Greenhalgh (2011).

Now, and only now, start thinking about formats, modes and channels to engage with actors

Way too often we jump to this first. We want infographics before we even know who we want to talk to. Don’t do this. Please. This is a quick path to being ignored.

As a researcher, would you choose a method for data collection without knowing what you want to collect, why, and from where?

Think about how you will reach the actors you need to reach, for this purpose, with this kind of information, considering their constraints, barriers and opportunities.

There’s an abundance of possibilities. Be smart. You can connect with communities of practice or opinion leaders, hold small-group workshops that encourage dialogue and exchange on more complex ideas. You can create digital storyboards (online, for free, here’s just ), host a webinar, write a trade journal article…the options are endless!

Photo by Antenna on Unsplash

Ok, that might seem overwhelming. Take a look at Melanie Barwick’s (2008, 2013) . You’ll find a list of possibilities ranked by what research suggests is effective. Rules of thumb: multiple modes are likely to be more effective than a single mode. Distributing materials to actors hoping they’ll read them (passively, without interaction) is considered ineffective on its own.

But – in the end, it’s about the people you want to speak with. How will you help them change the world?

Resources:

Barwick, M. (2008, 2013). Knowledge Translation Planning Template. Ontario: The Hospital for Sick Children. Available at: http://www.melaniebarwick.com/KTTemplate_dl.php

Contandriopoulos, D., Lemire, M., Denis, J. L., & Tremblay, É. (2010). Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature.ÌýThe Milbank Quarterly,Ìý88(4), 444-483.

Gopal, S. & Clark, T. (n.d.). Guide to actor mapping. FSG. Available at: https://www.fsg.org/tools-and-resources/guide-actor-mapping

Greenhalgh, T. (2010). What is this knowledge that we seek to “exchangeâ€�?ÌýThe Milbank Quarterly,Ìý88(4), 492-499.

Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations.ÌýThe Milbank Quarterly,Ìý82(4), 581-629.

Lang, E., Wyer, P., & Haynes, R. (2007). Knowledge translation: closing the evidence-to-practice gap. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 49(3), 355-363.

Lyons, J. (2018). Journey maps. Evergreen Data. Available at:

Reardon, R., Lavis, J. & Gibson, J. (2006). From research to practice: a knowledge transfer planning guide. Institute for Work & Health. Available at: https://www.iwh.on.ca/tools-and-guides/from-research-to-practice-kte-planning-guide

Taking a community first approach to community-campus engagement (CCE) is a cornerstone to the work CFICE does, but it’s impossible to be community first without the input and participation of community organizations.

Community-based organizations (CBOs) such as non-profit, non-governmental, or charitable organizations, representing either the community-at-large, or a particular concern or segment of the community, are vital to community first research, learning, and fostering positive change.

CCE occurs when members of academic institutions and members of the community come together with a shared goal and the intention of accomplishing more together. Shared resources, such as funding, time, space, and labour, are an added benefit of CCE.

If you are a CBO considering a CCE partnership with an academic institution, here are a couple different types of CCE partnerships you might pursue.

Symbiotic partnerships: Community-service learning

(CSL), also known as service-learning or community-based learning, is a practical educational tool involving students in community service work as a part of rounding out their education. By making connections between what they’re learning in the classroom and their practical experience in the community, the goal is for students to develop a stronger sense of social responsibility, improve their critical thinking skills, and actively reflect on their connection with the community.

ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´â€™s definition of community service-learning points out that this model differs from volunteerism in that volunteerism suggests a “charity model,â€� whereas “service is about mutual learning…[and] a reciprocal relationship between participants and the community members they work with.â€�

Members of the GottaGo! team, including students ©GottaGo!

The premise is that while students get the added benefit of learning practical skills, networking with potential future employers, and further self-reflection, community organizations receive extra helping hands where they are needed. That said, community service-learning requires a lot of collaboration on the part of academic faculty, community partners, and students themselves.

Stephen Hill, an academic co-lead with °ä¹ó±õ°ä·¡â€™s Student Pathways for Community Impact Working Group, sees the value of community service-learning, even when it means a lot of extra work for himself: Every year he organizes service-learning placements for more than 300 students in his first year environmental science course.

In a blog post for CFICE Stephen wrote that the partnerships “emerged organically over the years with different partners gradually joining the mix.� The benefit for the students, he said, is having “the opportunity to learn about and work with the community in their first month of university…[which] is so important for building student engagement in the course and with the material.� As the partnerships progressed, he also stressed that “the community partners absolutely depend on the students in their projects.� In addition to providing needed human resources to different community partners, students can also contribute new and innovative ideas. This sort of symbiotic partnership is exactly what CCE is meant to be about.

Community service-learning vs Work-integrated learning

To clarify some terminology (since it can get confusing in the CCE world), community service-learning also falls under what the Ontario government is calling work-integrated learning (WIL). Work-integrated learning, also known as experiential learning, involves the integration of academic curriculums with workplace experience.

Recently, the Ontario government has recommended that all postsecondary students engage in at least one work-integrated learning opportunity before graduation, as part of . Work-integrated learning encompasses all experiential learning, whether that be through systemic training such as apprenticeships, a structured work experience like a co-op placement or internship, or institutional partnership, like community service-learning.

Community-based research: With the community and for the community

In addition to working with students through programs that facilitate community service-learning, community-based organizations can also enter into a CCE partnership by participating in community consultations, or community-based research.

, also known as participatory research, is conducted in the community with active participation from community partners. The end-goal is to benefit community partners and have a positive impact on the community. While community service-learning can be primarily about improving and enhancing student education, community-based research provides a space for community-based organizations to speak directly to academics on issues that are practically relevant to the community.

In the context of community-based research, community members actively participate in all parts of the research process, from defining the research question to interpreting and writing up the research results. While their level of involvement can be negotiated to meet the community’s needs, this type of deep engagement ensures the most beneficial outcome for the community can be achieved. Additionally, embedded research assistants, working closely with the community partner, can often act as liaisons between the community and academic partners in community-based research. Ultimately, this approach is collaborative rather than unilateral.

Collaboration is a constant at the Trent Community Research Centre! ©Elizabeth Thipphawong

Some community partners might be wary of being the subject of academic research due to previous experiences where power dynamics damaged relations between the academic and the community members. However, if both academic and community partners prioritize community first engagement, then power differentials in the research process can be discussed and negotiated in a respectful manner.

One example of community-based research within °ä¹ó±õ°ä·¡â€™s Poverty Hub occurred with the CCE partnership between the and McMaster University. This research project assessed barriers to implementing a living wage experienced by small- to medium-sized business. By conducting the research in a community first way, this partnership successfully developed strategies for encouraging businesses to pay a living wage, and even had some research subjects already committing to being living wage employers by the end of the study.

Students engaged in community service-learning might contribute ideas to ongoing projects with CBOs, but within community-based research, the intention from start to finish is to develop practical and action-oriented results for positive social change in the community.

A positive result of CCE: Mobilized knowledge and enhanced networks

An important aspect of any CCE partnership’s success is sharing the knowledge that was learned through the process. Knowledge Mobilization is the process of creating knowledge that is useful and used by the public, communities, and policy makers. Within the context of CCE projects, knowledge mobilization is the process of sharing the results in ways that benefit the community—even if it’s a matter of learning what not to do in the future. This can include making sure the research findings are curated into final products that can be shared with new and existing partners.

Knowledge mobilization is key to the ongoing success of partnerships because it provides a foundation of knowledge that future community partnerships can then build and improve upon. As well, it helps ensure that community-generated knowledge is shared with other stakeholders, including governments, local businesses, and other institutions. Having access to this knowledge helps stakeholders and networks respond to community needs more effectively.

Ultimately, CFICE has found that engaging in community first CCE can bring out the strengths of all participants, particularly when considering how the skills and capabilities of academic partners and community partners can be different, but complimentary. These partnerships also build lasting networks that extend beyond the partnership itself, which ultimately has the added benefit of connecting knowledge with practice and vice versa.

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 °ä¹ó±õ°ä·¡â€™s year 4 project evaluation, and includes common themes from across °ä¹ó±õ°ä·¡â€™s five Phase I hubs.Ìý

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 °ä¹ó±õ°ä·¡â€™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 tensionâ€�, 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

°ä¹ó±õ°ä·¡â€™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

°ä¹ó±õ°ä·¡â€™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 °ä¹ó±õ°ä·¡â€™s Midterm Review Report, which was posted publicly to our website in February, 2016.

This is part two 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 resources in a way that empowers the community partner. This article draws from interviews and focus groups conducted in 2015-2016 as part of °ä¹ó±õ°ä·¡â€™s year 4 project evaluation, and includes common themes from across °ä¹ó±õ°ä·¡â€™s five Phase I hubs. Ìý

A successful community-campus engagement (CCE) partnership requires adequate resources for all participants to be able to do their best work. However, access to resources such as funding, literature, and space typically lies with academic partners and institutions. One CFICE community partner acknowledged this imbalance, speaking to how much community partners rely “on academics with access to resources…We have to hope that they would be amenable to our involvement and inclusion.�

This article outlines three different resources that are important to CCE partnerships: funding, knowledge, and space. Using the results from °ä¹ó±õ°ä·¡â€™s year 4 project reports, we explore different challenges with, and approaches to, sharing these resources.

Sharing access to financial resources Ìý

°ä¹ó±õ°ä·¡â€™s year 4 evaluation reports found that, in general, community partners are wary of the external control that institutional funders might exercise over a given project. When funding is coming from academic institutions within a CCE partnership, this power dynamic must be acknowledged and mindfully managed.

Even if funding is coming from an academic institution or from a government agency such as SSHRC, academic partners can take steps to ensure that funding is being effectively mobilized to community partners in a variety of ways.

Some CFICE hubs, such as the Community Environmental Sustainability hub in Ottawa, found a need for “greater support and ease of access to funds,� as the administration of funds fell to one faculty member, simultaneously becoming a logistical burden for them as well as creating an unequal balance of power in the partnership. Similarly, within the Poverty Reduction Hub, financial resources were found to be difficult to access by some community partners, because the “academic manages [the] purse.�

Conversely, the Community Food Security Hub found that leaving the community partner to manage how funds were used burdened the community partner with “too much responsibility and not enough resources� to effectively disseminate funding. This hub found a more collaborative approach to sharing funds was more effective.

While some community partners within the Poverty Reduction hub might have found access to financial resources to be a challenge, funding was mobilized through the employment of research assistants (RAs) whose roles were essential to keeping the project focused and on track.

The Community Environmental Sustainability Hub in Peterborough similarly found CFICE funding enabled them to increase overall capacity through hiring more RAs, expanding on fundraising activities, and increasing faculty and community capacity for knowledge mobilization.

The Community Environmental Sustainability Hub in Ottawa identified a need for adequate resources for all those involved in the partnership. They found acknowledging the “significant in-kind volunteer contributions of time, expertise and mentorship� by way of a financial stipend, for instance, was important for maintaining relationships.

Within °ä¹ó±õ°ä·¡â€™s Community Food Security Hub, community partners identified a need for a more efficient reimbursement process for expenses incurred by the community partner. The lengthy process for reimbursement was identified as a “bureaucratic barrierâ€�, which particularly impacted those frontline organizations that “cannot carry the overhead of those expenses for long periods of time.â€�

When managing shared funds, a collaborative approach that includes both community and academic input can mitigate the perception that the academic partner has unilateral control over the funds. As well, prioritizing and being transparent about expense reimbursement processes and timelines can help manage expectations. Finally, increasing community capacity through embedded RAships and by collaboratively budgeting for honouraria or stipends for community work, can contribute to balancing financial power in CCE partnership work.

Ways to share knowledge Ìý

Liz Weaver*, a community partner with Tamarack in the Poverty Reduction Hub, said that “when communities are trying to work and shift more complex issues like poverty, homelessness, the environment, etc., they require the shared wisdom of a wide-variety of diverse partners.� As she suggests through this observation, shared knowledge gives CCE partners power for change. Cultivating this knowledge base is important in achieving results in CCE partnerships.

Sharing knowledge effectively depends in part on the development of a shared language between community and academic partners.

Within the Community Environmental Sustainability Hub in Peterborough, developing a shared language was discussed frequently. The use of academic language was found to be a barrier that often resulted in “the culture of academia substantively driv[ing] or unduly influenc[ing]� the nature of the project. Academic partners in this context found a need for a “slow encouragement of a more common language� amongst partners, which helped shift power and control over project direction to community partners.

Of course, the necessity of a shared language is context-specific, as different community partners have differing levels of academic experience and vice versa. However, this example points to a need for partners to be aware of how jargon, academic or community-generated, can be an impediment to sharing knowledge.

Another knowledge resource that academic partners might take for granted in CCE partnerships is their unlimited access to library resources.

For instance, the Violence Against Women Hub found that full access to library resources, in particular the online resources, was desired by community partners, though effecting this access proved to be difficult. Having such access can be a significant benefit to community partners, as it can help facilitate fulsome contributions to the research at hand. One community partner saw a lack of access to library resources as a barrier erected by the university “in saying who can and cannot have access to knowledge.�

Libraries are an important resource that can be shared in CCE partnerships.

Taking the time to negotiate access to library resources for community partners during either the grant application stage or initial project meetings is a good way of showing commitment to a community-first ethos in CCE partnerships.While it might take extra time and work, academic partners can also benefit community partners by sharing their personal knowledge and skills. As one community partner said, “When the academic is really willing to put in the work, we get enormous benefits. I’ve learned a lot…but it takes real concession on the part of the academic. It takes extra effort on their part.�

Sharing personal knowledge and skills can mean sharing research knowledge and data, helping partners understand the inner-workings of the institution, or connecting community partners to key resources (people and papers!). Conversely, the academic partner can add benefit to CCE projects by committing to listening and learning from their community partners as well.

Sharing access to space

Access to something like library resources can also be synonymous with access to space. Academic institutions generally have much more (free or cheap) space available for things like meetings and events, which means that CCE meetings often get organized on university campuses.

This was true in the CFICE project as well. The Poverty Reduction Hub and the Violence Against Women Hub both identified face-to-face meetings to be crucial to the success of the project. One partner within the Violence Against Women Hub said that in-person meetings provided a space for “great information sharing� as well as a venue where concerns could be voiced that might not have come to light otherwise.

However, as found within the Poverty Reduction hub’s report, something as simple as campus parking costs and availability had the potential to create a “huge power imbalance� for community partners.

Conversely, “in-kind donations ([such as] meeting space, meals for focus group participants) greatly facilitated the work of the project,� said one community partner of the ways in which hosting on-campus events helped increase community capacity.

Balancing power and enhancing community capacity

Overall, the ongoing challenge in sharing resources is how access to resources—including funding, knowledge, and space—is managed by academic institutions. Within the context of large academic institutions, community partners are wary of academic knowledge being seen as ‘above’ community knowledge, and how this dynamic is reflected in things like funding decisions, access to space and other resources, like libraries.

As Leighann Burns*, a community partner in the Violence Against Women Hub, emphasized, participating in CCE projects “provid[es] resources and possibilities for those of us on the front lines to implement things we would like to do but »å´Ç²Ô’t have the resources to do.â€�

By mobilizing funding, allowing access to institutional knowledge sources such as libraries, and being mindful of sharing space in a way that is convenient and accessible to all partners, academic partners can help balance power in CCE partnerships and enhance community capacity.

The attributed quotes used in this article came from °ä¹ó±õ°ä·¡â€™s Midterm Review Report, which was posted publicly to our website in February, 2016.

This is part one 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 of the main things we’ve found important to consider when taking on the challenge of sharing responsibilities in a way that empowers the community partner. This article draws from interviews and focus groups conducted in 2015-2016 as part of °ä¹ó±õ°ä·¡â€™s year 4 project evaluation, and includes common themes from across °ä¹ó±õ°ä·¡â€™s five Phase I hubs.Ìý

Community-first CCE partnerships require a lot of time and commitment from both parties. As one academic partner puts it, “I »å´Ç²Ô’t think you can pick up a community-university partnership the way you pick up another research question that you can quickly answer. I think it does require your whole self.â€�

Clearly defining roles and responsibilities and keeping channels of communication open about what’s working and what’s not are crucial elements of a successful community-campus engagement (CCE) project. A collaborative and supportive approach to sharing responsibilities is part of how these CCE partnerships function.

Here we highlight three different ways CFICE partners divided responsibilities, with some thoughts on the outcomes of each strategy:

Sharing responsibilities equally

The Poverty Reduction (PR) Hub found that sharing responsibilities equally between partners worked best. According to °ä¹ó±õ°ä·¡â€™s Midterm Review Report, the PR Hub “consciously equalized power by making all decisions together, including the co-creation of measurement instruments.â€�

“Everyone has taken part in collaboration in community involvement,� said one participant, adding that “feedback was sought from [the] larger group� allowing the group to have a collective sense of its needs.

Furthering this collaborative approach to sharing responsibilities, partners within the PR Hub also identified the principles they were adopting in an attempt to equalize power, including communication, relationship building, and ensuring that the community partner was setting the agenda.

Participants in the Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) Hub also indicated that they appreciated having academic and community co-leads share responsibilities. However, other hubs took different approaches to divvying up responsibilities between co-leads.

Academic-lead on administrative responsibilities, and community-lead on project progress

Often times, community partner resources and time are stretched thin, and taking on extra work like drafting funding requests and other administrative duties can actually be an impediment, despite the fact that their voice and perspective is often invaluable for these types of endeavours.

°ä¹ó±õ°ä·¡â€™s Violence Against Women Hub operated with the academic co-lead taking on the administrative duties, thereby relieving the community partners of this burden and freeing up their time and energy for hub projects. The senior academic partner on this project was not constrained by publishing pressures and had more flexibility with their time than the community partner, whose time was already stretched thin due to a lack of resources.

However, academic partners must also be mindful of how the division of responsibilities impacts the perception of power. If an academic co-lead does decide to take on the administrative responsibilities, it is still important that they communicate and update the community partner as much as possible. One of the community partners in this hub reported that while it was overall beneficial for them to have the academic co-lead take on the administrative duties, that dynamic required a high degree of trust. If the academic co-lead is the one drafting proposals and soliciting them, the community partner “might be left reacting to a proposal maybe you »å´Ç²Ô’t agree with.â€�

Having frank and honest discussions amongst partners is key to ensuring that everyone’s voice feels heard and included in decision making processes.

Embedded graduate-level research assistants as enhancing community capacity

Within the Community Environmental Sustainability (CES) Hubs, the role and responsibilities of research assistants (RAs) were integral to relationship building with community partners and participants, providing applied research support, and facilitating project evaluations.

Embedding RAs within the CES (Ottawa) Hub in particular meant that “RAs enjoyed ongoing access to community participants and ensured the development, over time, of meaningful relationships� with community participants. In the CES (Peterborough) Hub, the effect of embedded RAs was similar in that they “provided the kind of relationship building required when working with a vulnerable population that has been marginalized by traditional planning processes and academic engagement.�

(Left to right) ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ professor Patricia Ballamingie, Jason Garlough of the Ottawa Eco-Talent Network, and doctoral research assistant Michael Lait are an example of a successful CCE partnership with an embedded RA. (Justin Tang Photo)

The reports RAs were able to produce as a result of their relationship-building efforts also provided academic partners with “a better understanding of the enablers and barriers� faculty might encounter when engaging in Community Based Research (CBR).

These results demonstrate how embedded RAs often act as brokers between academic and community partners. In the Poverty Reduction Hub, for instance, participants said that the responsibilities that RAs were able to take on helped drive the agenda, keep everyone on track, and ultimately, acted “as connector all around, at times project manager, [which] prevents [us] from dropping the ball� said one participant.

Communication and clarification are key

No matter the approach to sharing responsibilities, community and academic partners in all hubs noted the importance of maintaining open channels of communication and clearly defining roles and responsibilities, which helped to foster accountability. Further, if either partner felt the division of responsibilities was not working for whatever reason, partners stressed the importance having frank and open discussions and making adjustments accordingly.

What ways have you and your partners shared responsibilities in your CCE partnerships? What has worked and what hasn’t? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

In January 2018, York University and the KT Core of Kids Brain Health Network partnered to assemble a checklist for assessing the completeness of knowledge mobilization strategies for research projects and grant applications.

This checklist can be usedÌýby individual researchers, project teams, and/or impact practitioners.This checklist can illuminate components of a complete impact strategy by identifying gaps in impact planning. It can be used prospectively along with an impact planning tool to inform the creation of a more complete grant submission and/or to continually evaluate a project’s progression from research to impact as it evolves.

Check it out and let us know what you think!

Also be sure to check out the article, .

The theme for the 2018 Canadian Knowledge Mobilization Forum is:ÌýMobilizing Evidence for Human Rights and the Social Development Goals

Knowledge Mobilization is often described as making the best of what we know, whether from research, assessed practice, or traditional knowledge, ready for others to use so that new value can be created.

The framework created by theÌý, theÌý, theÌý,Ìý, and other social justice declarations are a deeply useful structure to help move knowledge into action.

The theme for 2018 focuses on how to be better together.Ìý The Institute invites participation that will push thinking and engagement of the knowledge mobilization community further. Presenters can present and connect with any other subject matter areas covered by the discussion on human rights and social development goals.Ìý It is recommended that presenters share how their work, for example, in healthcare links to sustainable communities, or economic growth links to clean water, helps end poverty, creates equality etc.

Come and participate in sharing the best of what we practice to improve our collective well-being!

Submissions will be accepted untilÌýMarch 30, 2018. For more information on how to submit, please visit the .

Community First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CFICE) is a project that aims to foster existing community-campus partnerships and identify new ways that post-secondary institutions and community organizations can better work together. Sharing information between these stakeholders is an essential part of the project. Today, we meet Erin Martel, a communications research assistant working with the CFICE Secretariat. Her mission is to share informative and inspiring stories that shine a light on the work CFICE does to benefit communities across the country.

Erin is currently a student at ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University, pursuing a master’s degree in human-computer interaction. She has an interest in making technology more usable and conducts research in the fields of virtual reality and gaming. She is also a graduate of the technical writing post-graduate program at Algonquin College and has worked as a writer for various companies, including Alcatel-Lucent and Open Text Corp.

Erin has a passion for information design and employing the principles of usability when crafting communications. Part of her job with CFICE is to translate the research conducted by °ä¹ó±õ°ä·¡â€™s various working groups into communications products–such as blogs, articles, reports, presentations and videos–that general audiences find useful and entertaining.

Erin feels that CFICE must develop communications that are designed to meet the needs of its various target audiences: “While taking an audience-centered approach is always advised, it has an especially important role to play when we develop communications for CFICE,� she said. “Part of the mandate of the project is to share insights between our academic partners, community partners, funders and students. To be successful, we must demonstrate that we respect the values and needs of our various target audiences.�

Erin is looking forward to spreading the word about CFICE initiatives: “I find it gratifying that as a communications RA, I am helping CFICE to make a difference in communities across Canada. I am excited to start collaborating with the team and getting our message heard!�

To learn more about how usability relates to communications, check out the links below: