Trent University invites applications for a tenure-track position in the Department of Gender & Women’s Studies at the rank of Assistant Professor to start July 1, 2019, or January 1, 2020, subject to budgetary approval.

The successful candidate must possess a PhD in an area of feminist scholarship, have an active research program with potential for external funding, and demonstrate superior ability and commitment to teaching at the undergraduate level. Applicants whose research deals with Critical Race and Gender Studies, Black Feminist Thought and/or History, Transnational Feminisms, and/or Gender, Migration and Borders will be given priority. An ability to teach interdisciplinary feminist theory and methodology courses will be considered an asset, as well.

A complete application package should include a cover letter, a statement of teaching experience and course evaluations, a curriculum vitae (including confirmation that you can legally work in Canada), a summary statement of current and prospective research interests, and copies of relevant recent publications. In addition, three letters of reference should be sent on your behalf.Ěý Applications and references are to be addressed to Dr. Kelly McGuire (Chair of the Department) and submitted by email to wmstjobs@trentu.ca. Please note that applications will only be accepted in PDF format via email.

The deadline for applications is May 5, 2019.

Gender & Women’s Studies is a dynamic and growing department in the Faculty of Arts & Science (Humanities Division). We offer a BA in Gender & Women’s Studies and a collaborative specialization in Feminist and Gender Studies at the graduate level. Applicants can learn more about the Department at

Trent University is actively committed to creating a diverse and inclusive campus community and encourages applications from all qualified candidates. Trent University offers accommodation for applicants with disabilities in its recruitment processes. If you require accommodation during the recruitment process or require an accessible version of a document/publication, please contact kellymcguire@trentu.ca.

All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply; however, Canadian citizens and permanent residents will be given priority.

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 TrentĚýCentre 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 MayĚý31, 2020). Members will participate remotely across this pan-Canadian committee. Committee membersĚýwill 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 toĚýdescribe 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 andĚýaspirations detailed above to Lisa Erickson at curtis.sanderson@usask.ca. Review of applications willĚýbegin on April 22, 2019. Candidates may be contacted to discuss their interest. Individuals that have beenĚýpart of the Interim Executive Committee, the Interim Steering Committee, or CFICE, that have convenedĚýor participated in CCEC Roundtables, and/or that have a passion for and deep interest in CCE are invitedĚýto apply to serve on the CCEC Steering Committee.

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

Bonnie Brayton has been the National Executive Director of the DisAbled Women’s Network of Canada (DAWN) since 2007 when she established a national head office in Montreal. This national, cross-disability feminist organization has focused on advancing the rights of women with disabilities and deaf women in Canada and Internationally for the past 30 years. In this piece, Bonnie shares her thoughts on the intersections of Disability, violence against women, and community-campus engagement.

Tell me about what Dawn Canada does and your involvement with them.

DAWN Canada is a feminist disability organization founded in 1985, so we’ve been around for 33 years. We’re, as far as I know, one of the first national women with disability organizations.

In 2007, I became DAWN’s first national executive director…So that’s when we really established a national head office inside this feminist collective in Quebec as a very important gesture towards really trying to become the most inclusive women’s organization we could be… The decision to make the head office in Quebec was a really good one, because it’s actually made us probably one of the most bilingual national women’s organizations in the country…

We’ve actually been located really strongly as one of the national women’s organizations that the current government really is working with in a very meaningful way. It’s taken a while but like I said, it’s begun to bear fruit. For example, I sit on Minister Monsef’s advising council on violence and I’ve been on that council for three years. And I can see the results of being at the table…

So what are the connections between disability and violence against women?

So, I’ll start with something that I’ve been saying for years which is that women become disabled through violence. And really pause to think about what I’m saying, right? “Women become disabled through violence,” and what the implications of that are.

Because the policy implications are huge, so people don’t want to hear that. They don’t want to hear that women become disabled through violence, but that’s the truth! If you look at even trafficking, every person who’s trafficked, ever, whether they start with a disability or not, will end with a disability. You know, I have a briefing note I can send you on human trafficking and disability and we’re the only people in the country, and almost the only people in the world talking about this issue…

Did you see the new disability data survey results from 2017?Ěý24% of women in Canada have a disability. One quarter. Because we’re doing better data collection, we’re asking the right questions. One quarter. And you and I both know there’s a stigma attached to disability. Many women are still not disclosing to a statistical survey if they have a disability. They’re not saying “yes” to that question. But the newest data has it at 24% so one quarter of women in this country said “yes” this time when they were asked.

So, the World Health Organization, Kristina, okay? The largest minority group in the world today are people with disabilities at a billion. And the majority of those are women. In Canada, the new data shows there’s a five-point difference between men and women.

So, what that tells you is that disability is a gendered issue. It is absolutely a gendered issue.

What is DAWN doing to help women with disabilities escape violence?

It’s pretty clear to DAWN, deep into the research now, that some women are harder to accommodate [by shelters] than others because they’re not identified as having a disability. The question of access for women with physical disabilities to shelters is a frustrating one, and a really simple one to fix because all you have to do is look at labour.

And you know it is not necessarily disabilities that might be her first barrier. It might be that she is an immigrant, or a refugee, or she’s indigenous. These kinds of things, like I said, you know, need to be taken in terms of the big picture. And the big picture one is: you start from the most marginalized women and then you work your way in, and then you don’t leave anyone out.

So, I guess what I’m trying to say, Kristina, is that [accommodating] physical disabilities needs to be thought through as something that can be done and is very fixable. The other big piece though, we need to move beyond [the fact that] women with physical disabilities are not being served and are being victimized at higher rates. We need this whole cohort of women who are actually becoming disabled, become part of this larger problem we have: which is this whole displacement of women who experience violence. Where do they end up after they leave the shelter or transition house? I’m telling you: some of them end up in human trafficking, some of them end up in the homeless population, and some of them end up in prison.

Varvara Olson and Maren Mentor, International Visitor Liaisons with members of the Canadian delegation of Healing the Wounds of Trafficking: A Project for Canada hosted by the U.S. State Department – Anthony Morissette, Peter Moriera, Bonnie Brayton and Larissa Maxwell. (Missing: Isabelle Nelis)ĚýŠ Bonnie Brayton

What do you think needs to be done to create change for women with disabilities?

It’s going to change in time, you know? This data, the 24% of women with disabilities in Canada is the biggest statistic I’ve ever had, Kristina, and this just came out two weeks ago. That’s going to have a huge impact on policy…

This requires people, politicians, policy makers to take up what is now irrefutable data. Which is that you have this very important population that has the highest rates of poverty, the highest rates of unemployment, the rightest rates of violence, and we’ve left them in this policy vacuum…

Some of what DAWN really is very focused on, is the intersectional approach because it’s through this intersectional approach that you begin to get everybody to understand it’s not an “us and them” thing… Amongst all women in Canada, the one thing that all of them could have in common… the one thing in common that all women can share is disability.

I will say this, and this is an important point to make … 47% of all violent victimization, (so violent victimization is physical assault, sexual assault, and robbery), 47% of all violent victimization in Canada was against a woman with a disability. So nearly half. That’s the best data we have.

And I just told you 24% of women in this country live with a disability… [A] shift has started to take place though, and that’s why the new buzzword everywhere is intersectionality. And it’s moving beyond buzz, to people being like: “this is not a buzzword, this is the only way we’re going to fix this stuff”.

I’m curious as to the CCE approach that DAWN has taken. Because I know that you have worked with a lot of community-based researchers and academic partners. What have those experiences been like and how has the CCE approach helped when looking at violence against women?

Well, I think I told you before, the community and community research is what should inform campus research, to be really clear. You cannot do good academic research unless you connect it to people who have lived experience…

[Community-campus partnerships] that have worked for DAWN have been ones that have respected our expertise…You’re not going to get me to trust you if you think that you’re bigger and more important than I am, and that’s because I know that I represent the most underserved population. I am very clear on the fact that I am the one that holds the power, because I represent this community that you don’t serve… Humble yourselves, humble yourselves and figure out how you support that. And that is exactly how you do this right…

What advice you would have for other community-campus partnerships that want to include that disability lens in their work?

Well the first advice, is you’d bloody well include a disability lens, because if you don’t, you’re not credible.

If you want to be helpful the first thing to do is align yourself with organizations that are working from that place, so disability organizations, organizations that talk about social justice, or socio-economic justice…So, the first thing you might need to do is say “well, we can call and work with you, but the first thing we need to do is get the table set up, so let’s set the table.” …so set the table, and then bring people to the table. And pay them to come to the table…And like I said: there is no not including. That’s the most important thing…

Further to this,Ěýhow we can keep those lived experiences at the forefront?

And how do you do that? … Like think about it: imagine how powerful it is for women with disabilities who have had the lived experience of violence to have somebody in front of them whose biggest concern is about getting it right, and reflecting what it is you want us to tell, what needs to change. And you know, it’s very much about trust and the ability to empower somebody by saying: “this is for you.”

Kristina: There needs to be a concerted effort to distinguish between, like you were saying, equity before equality…

Bonnie: And like I said Kristina, if you’re doing research that you can’t give back to the people that it’s about, then you’re not doing good research. If it doesn’t provide women with disabilities with something, then you don’t get it right. I guess I’d say, follow Samuel Beckett’s advice: [“Ever tried, ever failed. No matter. Fail again. Fail better.”]

If you get it wrong, then you just go back to the people who can get it right, and the people who can get it right are the people you’re doing this for. You know? You’re not doing it for yourself and your academic career, you’re doing it because it’s important. And stay grounded in that.

To learn more about DAWN Canada, visit their website .

“But why human rights?” I am often asked this question when I say that I work for an anti-poverty organization that champions ending poverty through a human rights framework.

Why are human rights so important when we talk about ending poverty in Canada? And who are we talking about when we say there are an estimated people in this country who live in poverty?

In recent years, Gender Based Violence (GBV), gender equality and poverty reduction have become a major focal point for policy initiatives and government mandates alike. As we know, poverty is multi-layered and complex making it hard to even truly define the term, let alone how it overtly impacts our communities, and gender based violence too. It gets even more complicated when take into consideration the diversity found in a country like Canada. But looking at poverty from a human rights framework is a step towards clarity.

Poverty is a human rights issue

, and using a human rights framework allows us to address the root causes of poverty, rather than merely addressing the “symptoms” of it. Through our international obligations found in various treaties, accords, and covenants, Canada is required to create an environment where all people can access an adequate standard of living – and with that, eliminate poverty. Our human rights centre around theĚý, which means that everyone possesses the same rights regardless of who they are, where they are from, their income, or other conditions.

Despite this principle of non-discrimination, there is a stark overrepresentation of women who experience poverty in Canada. A recent Ěýfrom 2011 found that the median employment income in female lone-parent families with children under 6 was $21,200, which was found to be 50% less than the average income in equivalent male lone-parent families ($43,300.30).

Poverty is also a women’s rights issue

The reality is that, in Canada, not only are more women impacted by poverty, making up , but poverty is directly connected to increased rates of gender-based violence (GBV). For example, on any given night, there areĚý and children sleeping in shelters due to unsafe living conditions at home and a lack of access to other options.ĚýAnd certain female demographics experience the intersection of poverty and violence at higher rates than others. For example, rates of violence for indigenous women are more than than non-indigenous women.

In their report on Poverty and gender-based violence (GBV), the Government of Canada states: “”. The combined effect of poverty and violence increases a woman’s risk of victimization, isolates women and steals their ability to participate meaningfully within their homes and throughout their communities. There is a clear connection between women’s economic dependence and violence, creating an even larger gap for women living in rural areas where jobs often have low wages and there is a significant lack of resources such as social supports. Services that are often lacking in rural communities include shelters or counselling services. The discrepancy in service provision is a blatant disregard to our government’s rudimentary human rights obligations.

Poverty traps women in unsafe conditions

Poverty also continues to greatly impact the ability for women to leave violent, abusive and unsafe living situations. In a policy brief released by the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses (OAITH), they report that are undeniably the two top challenges for women and children leaving abusive relationships. Because of their increased levels of poverty, women fleeing violent situations face impossible choices. For example, escaping the situation at home might mean choosing homelessness, hunger, and unsafe living conditions for themselves and their children. Without an adequate income, women often live on the margins of society, constantly struggling to survive

Khayman Wood, a Victim Support worker at Ottawa Victim Services (OVS), says that he sees this parallel between poverty and staying in a bad situation far too often. “I have seen first-hand people staying in abusive relationships because they have nowhere else to go,” he says. Wood’s clients often make initial contact during a time of crisis, recounting that his first case was a woman trying to leave a 10 year-long abusive marriage. From there, Wood tries to connect his clients to services such asĚýemotional supports, practical assistance, and advocacy.

According to Wood, advocacy is a key part to addressing the systemic barriers his clients face: “It isn’t just about income; it is about lack of supports with prescription medications, with childcare, with housing. The biggest issue right now is a lack of affordable housing…Ottawa is facing a crisis.”

Wood also notes that when supports such as shelters (or other various accommodations provisions) become full, there is an increase in women staying in unsafe situations for lack of alternative options.

Poverty’s intersection with GBV is complex, and has severe consequences that affect millions of women and children firsthand.

A Canada without Poverty and GBV?

The relief of poverty or GBV, even within our international obligations and human rights frameworks, will be an ongoing process for governments and civil society. ĚýBut by addressing the root causes of systemic marginalization and the various aspects of GBV, we will help reduce poverty for all Canada’s citizens.

So, what should our governments and civil society be doing next?

Moving forward with the national housing strategy, gender pay equity legislation, and a national childcare program will help give women better stability and more options when facing poverty and violent situations. By implementing equal pay for equal work, relinquishing certain caregiver responsibilities through national childcare, and having a safe place to return to at the end of the day for women and their families, we will see not only poverty reduction, but a stronger and more cohesive Canada. Lifting up all women is a win socially and economically.

Eliminating poverty and GBV is up to us

It is the responsibility of all of us to hold our governments to account for clear and inclusive approaches to addressing poverty and GBV. Making sure your elected representatives know that you support policies that aim to eliminate poverty, and champion women’s rights, are the first steps in mobilizing our voices to see greater support from parliament on these issues.

It is also imperative to remember why we must work collectively to end such egregious human rights violations: it is on all of us to ensure no one has to make the choice between staying in an unsafe, or violent situation and being able to afford medications, food or rent.

Take the time this December, and into the new year, to make conscious choices about supporting initiatives that work to end poverty and give women the fundamental options they so desperately deserve, because in a country as plentiful as Canada, we can no longer be idle on commitments to end poverty, particularly for women and their families.

Although the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence may have come to a close, the fight against gender-based violence must continue year-round.

A key first step that each and every one of us can take is to listen. Listen to the 1 in 3 women affected by gender-based violence. Listen to the marginalized women who are at a much greater risk of being targeted. Listen to those who are taking action against gender-based violence and ask how you can support.

Listening is precisely what we did at the recent December 1st march toĚýEnd Gender-Based Violence hosted by the Grandmothers Advocacy Network (), the Ottawa Coalition to end Violence Against Women (), and Women In International Security Canada ().

The march began at the Canadian Tribute to Human Rights monument at Minto Park. While participants mingled, GRAN handed out homemade signs and flameless candles for participants to carry on the march to City Hall. At City Hall, participants were welcomed to sit and listen to the evening’s presenters.

The theme of this year’s event was End Violence Against Women in the World of Work.

Opening the evening’s remarks was Algonquin elder Annie Smith St. Georges. She spoke of the ten years she spent on Parliament Hill making inquiries for missing and murdered indigenous women. Although an was finally opened in 2016, Annie commented that many cases still go unchecked every year. Annie also touched on her work withĚývictims of residential schools.ĚýShe concluded her speech by reminding the audience that: “we are all the caregivers of human kind” and we must look out for each other. She also noted that Mother Earth is suffering because we have failed to love, care for, and respect her. She likened the world’s treatment of Mother Earth to the treatment of women in society and stated definitively that we must say “no”, “non”, or “ka” to ongoing violence and injustice against women and Mother Earth.

Roua Aljied joined the event in the form of a prerecorded video. The Ottawa spoken word poet was unable to make the event in person, but sent a video of her original slam poem, “Primary Colours”, which narrated the story of a young artist who would paint everything, including herself, and who would later become painted in bruises by the man she loved. The video ended with a powerful message to support the UN policy to end domestic violence.

The keynote speaker of the evening was Mercy Lawluvi, ofĚýImmigrant Women Services Ottawa (IWSO). Mercy spoke of immigrant and refugee women experiencing violence, and reminded the audience that “gender-based violence exists across cultures.” On this note, she spoke to the root cause of gender-based violence: inequality. She reminded the audience that racism, poverty, sexism, sexual orientation discrimination, and ableism perpetuate this inequality.

Mercy then discussed the #MeToo movement that sparked in 2016 when women joined together in publicly speaking out about their assaults. She believes this to be the first step in a paradigm shift regarding societal reactions to violence against women. She said that more women are finding the confidence and courage to speak out. And women’s organizations are keeping the movement alive on social media in Ottawa by using the hashtag #WhatNowOttawa.

Mercy continued, saying that despite this encouragement, a significant amount of violence continues to go unreported. She said that immigrant and refugee women are particularly hesitant to come forward. She emphasized the need to create conditions where survivors are treated well, and are supported.

Mercy ended her keynote speech with a message that men and boys need to be included in the conversation as well. She encouraged the audience to challenge stereotypes, and apply a gender equality lens to all public policies: “Let’s not forget that together we can make a difference in the eradication of this societal scourge, particularly in other parts of the world where women and girls are most vulnerable.”

City councillor for Somerset ward, Catherine McKenney took the stage in lieu of mayor, Jim Watson (who did not make it to the event).

Catherine spoke primarily of violence against women and its connection to poverty and a lack of access to affordable housing. She reminded us that we are extremely fortunate here in Ottawa to have access to as many resources that we do (e.g. clean water and education). “However, many of our residents face a very different reality,” she continued, mentioning that trans women, racialized women, and sex workers are particularly vulnerable.

Catherine urged the audience to invest in social services to combat the cycle of poverty that leads to inequality and violence. In this same vein, she reminded the audience to hold our elected officials accountable, at every single level of government, stating that we need to demand that our governmental institutions “invest in the people who need investments.”

The final speaker of the evening was Anita Vandenbeld, MP representing Ottawa West. Anita iterated that, “we need to do this [work] 365 days a year, not just during these 16 days.” She shared her thoughts on political intimidation that is used across the globe in order to keep women out of the decision-making process and urged women everywhere to use the hashtag #HearMeToo.

If you are looking for more information on how to help end gender-based violence, check out the following organizations (who all had booths at the event):

Justice for sexual-assault victims starts with police accountability

by Holly Johnson, CFICE VAW Steering Committee Member

Holly Johnson, associate professor in the department of criminology at the University of Ottawa. ŠThe Globe and Mail

Sexual-assault survivors have a troubled relationship with the police and courts in Canada. Trust has deteriorated to the point where just 5 per cent report to the police. This is not surprising given the poor treatment many receive at the hands of the police and truly abysmal treatment in court.

This is why it is welcome news that after more than two decades, Statistics Canada released unfounded sexual-assault rates.

The data come after aĚýĚýpublished last year which showed that, depending on jurisdiction, between 2 per cent and 51 per cent of sexual-assault allegations are dismissed by police as “unfounded” and do not appear in crime statistics. This sends a powerful message to women that, should they report, there is a very real chance the police will not believe them.

The Globe series has been a game-changer. It has trained a spotlight on this urgent policy issue in a way advocates and researchers, armed with similar data, have not been able to do.

All this attention puts pressure on police to review how they handle sexual-assault cases. Some are partnering with local sexual-assault support centres in a transparent effort to understand and remedy problems while others have committed to closed-door case reviews and others to no review at all. According to The Globe, internal reviews in some police departments with above-average unfounded rates concluded there were no problems with investigation or case classification. Nothing to see here, move along.

Statistics Canada stopped publishing unfounded rates for individual jurisdictions in 1994 because of concerns police were coding inconsistently. Police argue unfounded rates are artificially high because Statistics Canada’s Uniform Crime Reporting Survey is missing certain coding options.

Pressured to revise their data-collection strategy, Statistics Canada investigated and found police often relegate sexual assaults to unfounded when they are reported by someone other than the survivor. Such a scenario occurs when survivors do not want involvement with the police, but want to ensure the police receive a report about it. Research shows that protecting other women is a strong motivator for coming forward. It is also important for establishing patterns and possible serial offenders. Other cases are unfounded when survivors did not want to proceed to court, or when police felt evidence would not stand up in court, even when there was evidence of an assault.

The new and improved coding instructs police to “err on the side of belief” and to adopt a victim-focused approach that is free of judgement and bias. A report is to be considered “founded” if police have reasonable and probable grounds to believe a crime has occurred, or there is no credible evidence to confirm a crime did not occur. Cases where women do not co-operate with police, want charges dropped, or are intoxicated or unconscious are not unfounded.

Police are instructed to follow the recommendations from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which states that all reports should be taken as valid unlessĚý.

This directive is a clear recognition that police may invalidate legitimate sexual-assault complaints unless explicitly instructed not to.

Today, Statistics Canada released unfounded rates for 2017.

To read the full article, please visit .

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.Ěý

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. ŠAbra Brynne

“We have to be careful about talking about communities and academics as being two separate things,”ĚýDr. 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.

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.ĚýParticipation 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.ĚýThrough 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 implementĚýformal 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 legitimacyĚý

We add credibility to each other’s work when we collaborate. ŠJason 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.Ěý

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.

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 CFICE’s year 4 project evaluation, and includes common themes from across CFICE’s five Phase I hubs. Ěý

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 CFICE’s year 4 project reports, we explore different challenges with, and approaches to, sharing these resources.

Sharing access to financial resources Ěý

CFICE’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 CFICE’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 barrier”, which particularly impacted those frontline organizations that “cannot carry the overhead of those expenses for long periods of time.”

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 Ěý

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 don’t have the resources to do.”

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 CFICE’s Midterm Review Report, which was posted publicly to our website in February, 2016.