In this webinar, presenters provided an overview of a self assessment tool, designed specifically for community organizations, that provides information and resources about community-based research with academic partners. Presenters outlined the process of creating the tool, and then gave a live demonstration of how the tool can be used to guide community organizations through the process of working with an academic partner.

Video Link

If you missed out on the day-of presentation, not to worry. We鈥檝e made it accessible below.

Toolkit

You can access the full online version of the tool here!

Presenters

Tara McWhinney is currently enrolled in the PhD program at the School of Social Work at 杏吧原创 University. She works as a Research Assistant for the Centre for Studies on Poverty and Social Citizenship and works on research projects with community-based agencies. She has a keen interest and background in critical research methods and social policy analysis.聽 Working in the community for many years she also has front line experience assisting individuals accessing social assistance programs. With a Masters in geography Tara approaches social justice issues from a unique perspective using online participatory mapping platforms. Her PhD research focuses on how online mapping technologies can be employed in feminist research to explore women鈥檚 experiences of social policy.

Adje van de Sande聽is the academic co-lead of the Tools for Community-First Community Campus Partnerships聽Working Group. He is an Associate Professor at the School of Social Work at 杏吧原创 University. He is the principal author of Statistics for Social Justice: A Structural Approach, published in 2015, and Research for Social Justice: A Community-Based Participatory Approach聽published by Fernwood in 2017.聽He is the Chair of the Centre for Studies on Poverty and Social Citizenship, the Research Centre for the School of Social Work. He teaches Research Methods and Statistics at the undergraduate and graduate levels with a focus on community-based participatory research. Over the past 10 years, he has supervised over 60-student led research projects in Eastern Ontario as part of the graduate social work research course. He has presented at numerous national and international conferences on the topic of community-based participatory research. In 2009, he worked on the analysis of the data from the Ontario First Nations Public Health Project. In 2004, he collaborated as a researcher on the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice: The Civil Justice System and the Public, a SSHRC funded research study. He was the principal investigator on the Study of Child and Youth Poverty in Sudbury, funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Institutional Grants.

Zoey Feder聽is the Administrative Assistant for the (CSPSC). Zoey is a recent graduate from 杏吧原创鈥檚 BSW program. Before joining CSPSC, she was involved with anti-poverty organizations like Canada Without Poverty (CWP) and ACORN Canada. As the Admin Assistant for CSPSC, she assists the Tools for Community-First Community Campus Partnerships聽Working Group with administrative support.

This is part one of a three-part series on the ABC鈥檚 of CCE Partnerships, where we share some of the most important things to keep in mind when engaging in a CCE Partnership. Here, we鈥檝e identified some of the main things we鈥檝e 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 颁贵滨颁贰鈥檚 year 4 project evaluation, and includes common themes from across 颁贵滨颁贰鈥檚 five Phase I hubs.聽

Community-first CCE partnerships require a lot of time and commitment from both parties. As one academic partner puts it, 鈥淚 don鈥檛 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.鈥�

Clearly defining roles and responsibilities and keeping channels of communication open about what鈥檚 working and what鈥檚 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 颁贵滨颁贰鈥檚 Midterm Review Report, the PR Hub 鈥渃onsciously equalized power by making all decisions together, including the co-creation of measurement instruments.鈥�

鈥淓veryone has taken part in collaboration in community involvement,鈥� said one participant, adding that 鈥渇eedback was sought from [the] larger group鈥� 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.

颁贵滨颁贰鈥檚 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 鈥渕ight be left reacting to a proposal maybe you don鈥檛 agree with.鈥�

Having frank and honest discussions amongst partners is key to ensuring that everyone鈥檚 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 鈥淩As enjoyed ongoing access to community participants and ensured the development, over time, of meaningful relationships鈥� with community participants. In the CES (Peterborough) Hub, the effect of embedded RAs was similar in that they 鈥減rovided the kind of relationship building required when working with a vulnerable population that has been marginalized by traditional planning processes and academic engagement.鈥�

(Left to right) 杏吧原创 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 鈥渁 better understanding of the enablers and barriers鈥� 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 鈥渁s connector all around, at times project manager, [which] prevents [us] from dropping the ball鈥� 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鈥檛? 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 used聽by 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鈥檚 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, .

• Skills employers seek
• Resume tips and pointers
• Interview tips and pointers
• Skills gained through teaching and research assistantships
• A case study for how to translate scholastic skills in to jobspeak

If you missed out on the day-of presentation, not to worry. We’ve made it accessible below. You can聽also check out the PowerPoint presentation and associated resources below!

Resources:

The following items were shared by the presenters:

• Post-Secondary Jobspeak: How to translate your student experiences into job skills employers desire Presentation PPT (PDF document) –Includes list of additional resources
• Translating Your Skills Workbook (MS Word Document)

Presenters:

Anna Przednowek is a PhD candidate in 杏吧原创 University鈥檚 School of Social Work and a research assistant with CFICE’s Violence Against Women hub. Prior to pursuing her PhD, she worked for over 14 years in South-Western Ontario including the Six Nations Reserve, with children and youth labelled with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, and adults and seniors with a label of dual diagnosis of Developmental Disability and mental health concerns. In 2008, Anna began her clinical work in a community based setting, providing supportive counselling and behavioural interventions to individuals with complex behavioural needs and their paid and unpaid caregivers. Her passion for this work, and the complex problems faced by these individuals and their families, led her to complete a Master of Applied Disability Studies degree (2010) and a Master of Social Work degree (2012). During her years of practice, she has conducted many training workshops and consultations on positive interventions to familial caregivers, foster parents, volunteers and professionals in daycare settings, primary and secondary schools, community residential settings, hospitals, treatment facilities and nursing homes.

Ashoka Patel is a Co-op Consultant with Algonquin College Cooperative Education and is responsible for all the co-op programs in the School of Business. In this role, Ashoka develops co-op job opportunities that are full-time, paid, at least four months in duration and related to Algonquin’s co-op programs of study. He also helps students prepare for the workplace in advance of their placements. Ashoka joins Algonquin College from the Pinecrest Queensway Employment Ontario office. He brings 10 years of experience providing employment counselling to multi-barriered youth, engaging in employer recruitment, and securing job placements for youth and adults. Ashoka has a Masters of Educational Counselling Degree from the University of Ottawa.

Magda Goemans (moderator)聽is a PhD candidate in the Department of Geography & Environmental Studies. Her research interests include studies of urban nature, disaster mitigation, and climate change adaptation in Canadian cities. Magda鈥檚 doctoral work involves a critical analysis of urban ecological sustainability policy discourses in Halifax and Ottawa in the current era of climate change adaptation.聽Magda has previously worked in the field of sustainability consulting, and has contributed to two federal reports on neighbourhood-scale efforts in Ottawa to reduce household greenhouse gas emissions.

• How faculty can assist in the development of equitable CCE principles and practices
• How faculty can support students in developing long-term CCE relationships and projects
• How faculty can support strengthened institutionalization of community-driven CCE
• Community partner reflections on these community-first recommendations

If you missed out on the day-of presentation, have no fear. We’ve made it accessible below. You can聽also check out the resources our presenters shared below!

Note: Audio is excellent. Video feed is rough due to connection issues during recording.

Resources:

The following reports and publications highlight our learnings from specific CFICE community-campus engagement projects or are resources that were mentioned in the webinar:

• Read about the results of our partnership work with Station 20 West in Saskatoon in their report, Impacting Community Strength and Sustainability
• Towards a critical service learning in geography education: Exploring challenges and possibilities through testimonio
• Collaboration for Transformation: Community鈥� Campus Engagement for Just and Sustainable Food Systems
• Building effective relationships for community-engaged scholarship in Canadian food studies
• Engaged Pedagogy and Transformative Learning in Graduate Education: A Service-Learning Case Study

Presenters:

Nadine Changfoot, Associate Professor in Political Studies at Trent University and graduate faculty in Sustainability Studies, Canadian and Indigenous Studies, and Theory, Culture, and Politics. She engages in collaborative, participatory research with arts, environmental, disability, and healthcare communities. Her research includes: 1) methods and ethics of arts-based research creation for multimedia storytelling to tackle negative representations of disability and improve accessibility and inclusion; and 2) complex cross-sectoral partnerships that include the state, non-profit sector, and aggrieved communities for neighbourhood influence and environmental stewardship. She was Academic Co-lead of the CFICE Community Environmental Sustainability (Peterborough-Haliburton) hub in Phase I of the project, collaborating with Abbey Gardens, Haliburton Highlands Land Trust, and GreenUP, and continues to participate as part of the Evaluation and Analysis working group.

Charles Levkoe, Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Food Systems at Lakehead University, has been involved in community food security and food sovereignty efforts for over 15 years and has worked as a community-based researcher, operated an organic farm and led programming with non-profit organizations across Canada and in the Middle East. His research uses a food systems lens to better understand the importance of, and connections between social justice, ecological regeneration, regional economies and active democratic engagement. Working directly with a range of scholars and community-based practitioners across North America and Europe, he studies the evolution of the broader collective of social movement networks which views the right to food as a central component of more sustainable futures. Charles Levkoe integrates his research and teaching through community engaged learning pedagogies and supporting students, community partners and scholars to be actively involved in knowledge cogeneration. In Phase I of CFICE, he worked as the Academic Co-lead of the Community Food Security hub and has continued his work as the Academic Co-lead of 颁贵滨颁贰鈥檚 Community-Campus Engagement Brokering (food sovereignty) working group.

Colleen Christopherson-Cote聽is the coordinator for the Saskatoon Poverty Reduction Partnership, Saskatoon Early Years Partnership and the community co-lead for the Evaluation and Analysis working group of CFICE. She lives and works within Saskatoon, Treaty 6 territory and the homeland of the M茅tis. The interconnect between all three partnerships provides her with the opportunity to catalyze, convene and coordinate community-based work to drive change and build capacity around improving the lives of vulnerable people in Saskatoon. Fostering new and existing community-campus relationships is a core priority of her work, understanding that engaging community throughout research processes is integral to successfully reducing poverty. Colleen is committed to the implementation of UNDRIP and聽the TRC Calls to Action in both her professional and personal life, recognizing that reconciliation is essential for an equitable, just society.

Peter Andr茅e聽joined the political science department in January, 2007, after a meandering educational journey from the natural sciences, through philosophy and community development, to environmental studies, geography, and now political science. Prior to arriving at 杏吧原创, he was based in the School of Geography and Environmental Sciences at Monash University in Melbourne, undertaking post-doctoral research on rural and food system sustainability in Australia. He completed his PhD in the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University in Toronto in 2004. He is currently Associate Professor and Associate Chair in the Department of Political Science at 杏吧原创 University. He is also cross-appointed in the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies and in the Institute of Political Economy. Prof Andr茅e鈥檚 research focuses on the politics of food and the environment. He practices, and teaches, community-based participatory research methods, and is also the Principal Investigator of CFICE.

One of the first projects I became involved in when I joined CFICE was developing a peer review process for a series of discussion papers mapping the food policy landscape in Canada. It was part of a research collaboration between Food Secure Canada and another research project鈥� FLEdGE (Food: Locally Embedded, Globally Engaged). The Discussion Papers, along with Policy Maps and Summary Tables, had been developed by a Masters student working as an RA on the project; the thought was that they should go through some sort of review process before being shared publicly.

A traditional academic peer review process did not seem appropriate, as this research was very much informed by the priorities and experiences of community food organizations and NGOs. However, at the same time, the project leads wanted to ensure the Discussion Papers had a level of academic rigour.

Because the objective of our CFICE Working Group (the Food Sovereignty Brokering Working Group) is to strengthen and support community-academic collaborations in the food movement, this was an ideal project for our Working Group to tackle.

What is Peer Review?

Peer review is a long standing process of evaluating and assessing material submitted for publication within the academic community. One of the unique features is that this review is undertaken by fellow academics, usually peers who are experts, or well-versed in the topic area under discussion.

The reviewer will either recommend the manuscript for publication, reject it, or propose a series of revisions for the author to undertake.聽 Reviewers are sometimes given a short list of questions to answer in completing their review, and provide general comments for the author.

Designing a Community-Academic Peer Review

In establishing a community-academic peer review process, we did several things a bit differently. To start, we sought ‘peers’ from both the community and academia, aiming for one academic and one community reviewer for each of the 6 Discussion Papers. In the end we ended up identifying many reviewers who fit both the community and academic profile, having one foot in both worlds.

As with any review process, it can be a challenge to get people to agree to act as referees, particularly for community-practitioners. However, most people who were contacted agreed, and several commented that they believed in the importance of the project and thus wanted to support it.

One of the key differences in designing a community-academic peer review process was the desire to provide as much context and information as possible. In a typical peer review, the identity of the author is unknown to the reviewer, and the identity of the reviewer is usually anonymous (though in some cases academic publications have started using an ). All you have to go on is the paper itself.

In contrast, we created a short for reviewers who may not be familiar with the academic peer review process, as well as a backgrounder on the broader research project behind the Discussion Papers. The names of the reviewers were also available to the author, as we thought the context of the reviewers would help the author appreciate their comments more fully.

We created a with a list of questions for the reviewers to answer, and gave them the option of filling in the table and/or providing comments directly in the document. The intention was to provide as much information and flexibility to the reviewers to aid them in the process of providing feedback.

Even with this detail it was interesting to see the different ways the reviewers evaluated the papers. If I were to do this process again, I would provide even more specific questions for the reviewers to answer, and more detail about the intention and intended use of the papers under review.

The process also really hit home the importance of fully thinking through the capacity to collaborate. When we talk about community-academic collaborations and partnership, both parties need to consider not only the ability to complete the research together, but who is going to edit the final outputs, who is going to do the layout, how are they going to be shared, and how will the data be stored and accessed? These questions often don’t get discussed till the very end, when both parties are gearing up for new projects and have already exhausted the available funding.

漏LazyB farms

This challenge highlights the value of brokering mechanisms, something that our Working Group, along with the Ottawa Environmental Brokerage Working Group, is exploring. A broker can help to ensure these questions are addressed at the beginning of the collaboration, and if necessary, help provide that support and capacity to complete the 鈥渂ookends鈥� of research collaborations.

You can check-out the Mapping the Food Policy Landscape Discussion Papers, Policy Maps and Tables .

by Ash Coutu, CFICE Communications Research Assistant

You’ve probably heard the term “research ethics” before, especially if you’ve been involved in community-campus partnerships. But do you know what it’s all about?

While the faculty member involved in a research partnership is ultimately responsible for submitting an ethics application for review, all partners should understand what research ethics is about and why it matters. This quick guide is intended to demystify research ethics for you!

What is meant by ‘research ethics’?

Since research frequently steps into uncharted territory, it can present certain risks for those involved.

Research ethics聽are a set of policies that equip researchers with principles to help navigate ethical issues that arise in their research work.

By having policies in place to protect those involved, we are able to take into consideration both the rights of the research participants and the benefit of the research itself.

Canadian universities must follow the guidelines outlined by the

Why is a research ethics clearance necessary?

A research ethics clearance is a requirement if you want to engage in research. You have to do it! However, the significance goes beyond the mundane task of filling out paperwork. A research ethics clearance:

Keeps everyone safe and respected

From a social justice perspective, a pre-determined code of ethics will ensure that the rights of all individuals involved in the research are intact.

Helps you get funding

Grant applications聽require ethics approval certificates. In most cases funding will not be released until the ethics approvals are in place.

Ensures potentially difficult conversations are had early on

Learning from existing confidentiality agreements, consent forms, and previously established codes of ethics in your area of research will provide you with tools to build on. This can help you avoid potential conflicts among research partners down the road.

Gets you published

When reporting and publishing the results of your research, future publications may require proof that you meet ethical principles.

Who needs research ethics clearance?

Regardless of whether the researcher is a student, faculty member or adjunct, all researchers affiliated with a Canadian University must obtain an ethics clearance when working with human participants, including data about them.

According to 杏吧原创 University, all research proposals must be cleared by the appropriate Research Ethics Board (REB) before the work can be carried out.

Examples of research methods that require ethics clearance include:

• Interviews
• Focus Groups
• Surveys

Where does ‘Research Ethics’ apply?

All research conducted anywhere, including at the following places, must be approved by the appropriate REB:

• 杏吧原创 University
• Off-Campus
• Businesses
• Hospitals
• Prisons
• Schools
• A location approved by another academic institution

Some of these locations, such as hospitals, prisons or schools, may have their own research ethics boards that must also clear proposals before the research can begin.

There are two Research Ethics Boards at 杏吧原创 who oversee all of the research ethics applications.

CUREB-A

This Board reviews all聽ethics applications where the lead 杏吧原创 University researcher is in the:

• Faculty of Public Affairs
• Sprott School of Business, or
• Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences.

CUREB-B

This Board reviews research ethics applications where the lead 杏吧原创 University researcher is in the:

• Faculty of Engineering and Design
• Faculty of Science
• Department of Psychology, or
• Institute of Cognitive Science.

How do I prepare for getting research ethics clearance?

The actual ethics application is normally submitted by the faculty member overseeing a research project or supervising a student鈥檚 research project. To understand more about research ethics and the applications that will need to be submitted, check out:

• how-to guide for preparing and planning joint research.
• Apply for an Ethics Application: How to submit an ethics application?
• Get to know 杏吧原创鈥檚 Policy on Conduct of Research

Additional Resources

If you have any addition questions, check out the great resources on 杏吧原创鈥檚 Human Research Ethics FAQ page or contact the 杏吧原创 Research Office at ethics@carleton.ca.

Have an idea for a community-campus partnership but don’t know where to start to make it happen? Then this post is for you! In 颁贵滨颁贰鈥檚 7-step guide, you will be directed to resources that will equip you with the tools to develop meaningful community-campus engagement (CCE) partnerships, and help you make a positive changes in your community.

Step 1: Ask the hard questions

Conduct a needs and resource assessment聽

The March of Dimes Foundation’s step-by-step guide asks the question, 鈥淎re we ready for community-based participatory research?鈥� Their extensive manual provides 鈥楻eadiness Assessments,鈥� great definitions, and case studies.

• The March of Dimes Foundation, 鈥�.鈥�

You can also check out this simple worksheet which can help your community-based organization (CBO) brainstorm how resources can result in future partnerships.

• Hands On Network’s ““

Step 2: Consider the Context

Be practical

Beacons for Public Engagement鈥檚, 鈥淕uide to Working with Universities on Research Projects,鈥� lays out practical things to consider in a succinct brochure with links to other useful toolkits.

• Beacons for Public Engagement, 鈥�.鈥�

Step 3: Make the Connections

Reach out to universities

This short informative guide by the UK Community Partner Network includes practical suggestions and recommendations for how get your organization involved with universities.

• UK Community Partner Network, ““

In addition to the guide above, here are twelve tips for how to make contact with potential university partners.

• UK Community Partner Network, ““

Ready to set the project course together?

Step 4: Set a Direction

Plan your CCE Research Project

This easy-to-use guide by ULCA offers great examples of community-campus engagement (CCE) research, and a glossary of terms to help you effectively plan your CCE research project. It also provides links to additional resources to assist your CBO in defining a specific research problem.

• UCLA, 鈥�.鈥�

Shasta College has put together a great manual with practical tips on what to expect when working on a CCE research project. This guide also describes how to design a service-learning experience, includes checklists for orientation between students and CBOs, and great examples of Risk and Liability release forms.

• Shasta College, ““

The Pace Society’s guide on research ethics will help ensure that everyone involved in your CCE research project is treated ethically. It includes a guide to ethics in community-campus partnerships, and provides links to additional resources.

• Pace Society in collaboration with The Research Development Team, 鈥�.鈥�

Step 5: Build your Relationships

Cultivate meaningful partnerships 聽聽

In this resource, you will learn how to forge strong community-campus partnerships by strategically planning for both the day-to-day and future management of your community-campus engagement (CCE) research project. This guide also includes information on how to cultivate leadership and introduces practical ways to effectively communicate between research teams.

• America鈥檚 Promise, The Alliance for Youth: 鈥�.鈥�

This short document defines what it means to have a meaningful research partnership. It explains what an equitable relationships between post-secondary institutions and community-based organizations looks like.

• Portland State University, “.”

Step 6: Evaluate the Project

Make sure your work is making an impact

You鈥檝e done the work, now it is time to evaluate. Here is a comprehensive step-by-step guide for evaluating the effectiveness of your community-campus engagement (CCE) research partnership.

• Community Tool Box, ““

Step 7: Go above and beyond

Maintain Quality Assurance

Now that you have successfully created a community-campus engagement (CCE) partnership what do you do? Check out this link for tips on how to maintain quality performance, so your project stands the test of time.

• Community Tool Box, ““

What other resources do you use for setting up and maintaining your CCE partnerships? Let us know in the comments!

Does the thought of including community engagement in your courses sound intimidating? Don’t fret. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel when there’s already a wealth of resources out there waiting to be used!

Our team at CFICE has combed through the internet and put together a list of excellent web-based resources to help kick off your future community-engaged curriculum. Check it out!

McMaster University鈥檚 guideline for Incorporating Community-Engaged Education into Courses聽is a great place to start building your curriculum. This guide offers definitions of community-campus engagement (CCE) work, details on how to develop learning objectives, and provides examples of in-class projects. It also gives instructions on how to engage students in community-based research.

Michigan State University provides a practical toolkit on how to incorporate CCE into your curriculum. It includes an explanation of a memorandum of understanding (MOU), examples of CCE project contracts, and useful appendices and checklists to get your CCE off to a great start.

Campus Engage offers practical resources and examples on how to create a Community-Based Learning Agreement. This is a useful tool for someone looking to create a generic agreement as it includes active links to seven different example agreements.

Cal State University鈥檚 detailed guide for developing a CCE curriculum begins with theoretical underpinnings and includes chapters on service learning. It also goes over course goals, assessment methods, community-based research, and provides sample syllabi. This guide is a wonderful foundation for any faculty looking to incorporate CCE into their courses.

Campus Compact鈥檚 plain-language guide for preparing a CCE syllabus includes links to sample syllabi. It also provides examples of how the concepts outlined in the guide are integrated into a course. Also of note is this guide鈥檚 interesting way of marking students鈥� work.

The Canadian Alliance for Service Learning offers an extensive list of sample CCE courses with links to additional sample CCE syllabi and course outlines.

McMaster University鈥檚 Community Engagement Project Manual provides examples of engaged courses. It also gives instructions on how to deal with insurance, liability, and security checks, as well as additional responsibilities for the instructor to consider.

The Engaged Faculty Institute鈥檚 detailed guide provides step-by-step instructions on how to create an engaged curriculum. It is a good training course for faculty to try out!

Case Western University has a neat guide that covers insurance, liability, and security checks for engaging students in CCE work. There is also a Risk Management example found on page 28, and good examples of consent forms.

UNESCO has put together a guide for community engagement that includes a theoretical framework for creating a successful curriculum. The guide includes interesting charts that represent pedagogical purposes, i.e.: activism, participation, liberation, and democratization, and a clear path to integrating CCE into a curriculum.

What have you used for creating your community-engaged courses? Let us know in the comments!

• What is plain language writing?
• Why is it important?
• How do I write in plain language?
• Where can I find additional resources?
• Conclusions

If you missed out on the day-of presentation, have no fear. We’ve made it accessible below. You can聽also check out the resources our presenters shared below!

Resources:

Access a PDF copy of the webinar slides.

Access an MS Word copy of聽CFICE’s Plain Language Editing Checklist.

Access an MS Word copy of聽CFICE’s Perfect Blog Post Template.

Access an MS Word copy of聽CFICE’s Target Audience Template.

Access a PDF copy of the webinar resource list.

Check out our How-To Video on Plain Language writing too (includes additional download with Readability Statistics instructions at the bottom of the post).

Presenters:

Nicole Bedford has worked in the field of communications for over 10 years. During this time, she has honed her ability to write clearly for many different audiences. She applies this skill in her role as the Project Manager and Communications Coordinator of Community First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CFICE). In her free time, Nicole enjoys playing improv games, shooting and editing films and promo videos, and solving the world鈥檚 problems over drinks with friends.

Carly Foubert is the Communications Research Assistant for Community First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CFICE). Carly鈥檚 educational training is in Communications and Journalism. For the past two years, she has used her writing skills to share CFICE’s research through stories, podcasts and more. In her spare time, Carly enjoys skiing, reading, and visiting with family.

Katalin Koller has over eight years鈥� experience as a project manager in First Nations education, a sector where securing external funding, managing intricate partnerships, and creatively composing project ideas is not only a matter of success, but also of survival. Keenly interested in social and environmental justice, Katalin embraces a holistic perspective shaped by her time working at the Province of New Brunswick and more recently, as a collaborator to Mi鈥檏maq and Wolastoqey Nations in not-for-profit community development. After coming to Ottawa in 2013 and spurred by her passion for decolonizing education, she joined the Community First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CFICE) project as the Research Associate for the phase 2 working group Aligning Institutions for Community Impact (AICI). AICI鈥檚 mandate is to support institutional culture change in post-secondary education toward enhanced community-campus partnerships in the co-production of knowledge. Katalin is a PhD candidate in geography with a specialization in political economy at 杏吧原创 University, studying the geographies of cross-cultural reconciliation enacted in spaces of solidarity.