CFICE broadly defines being “community-first” as: “engaging in equitable partnerships to co-create knowledge and action plans for addressing pressing community issues.” For us, being community-first is an integral part of community-campus engagement (CCE), but the trick to really being community-first is defining what this looks like to all partners involved. Why? Because everyone has their own definition of “community”, and what it means to be “community-first.” These definitions can vary across the globe, depending on the culture, the individuals involved, and the type of work being completed.

We reached out to several CFICE partners, and Natasha Pei and Crystal Tremblay responded with their unique perspectives on what “community” means for them, and how they ensure they are being “community-first” in their work.

is the Manager of Eastern Cities for Tamarack Institute’s Vibrant Communities Canada. She worked within CFICE’s poverty-reduction hub as both a research assistant and community co-lead, and now operates within a network of 69 cities and community collaboratives that implement local poverty reduction strategies across Canada. Natasha strives to develop one-on-one relationships with local communities in order to hear their goals and challenges, and with their expertise, to develop personalized and group supports towards poverty reduction in Canada.

is an assistant professor in the department of Geography at the University of Victoria. She is also a special advisor on community-engaged scholarships and is the Research Director with the UNESCO Chair in Community-based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education. Crystal is very experienced and has worked with many different communities. She did her PhD in Brazil while working with recycling cooperatives, and worked on with water governance programs for water and sanitation in Cape Town and Ghana for her Post-Doc. Crystal has also co-edited a book on community-campus partnerships around the world.

What does the term “community” mean in your work?

Natasha: We work with community in two contexts: local place-based community and communities of interest. The former comprises our Cities Reducing Poverty membership. Communities are geographic and their scope determined by local collaboratives coming together to reduce poverty. Communities are often synonymous with cities, but also include Regional Municipalities and a cluster of counties. They are multi-sectoral in nature and typically bring together influential nonprofit leaders, municipal and public staff, people with lived/living experience, and the private sector. Through each of their networks and through the collaborative’s activities, residents at-large in that area are engaged in planning and implementing poverty reduction work.

Community is also a term we use to describe our online network for people working or interested in poverty reduction. Because we work nationally, it is our responsibility to create a space where local communities can keep connected to one another throughout the year and learn together. We invite members and their partners to help co-host webinars, communities of practice, co-author publications, etc. It is a collaborative learning community where members are invited to co-generate knowledge as much as they consume.

Crystal: I consider “community” quite broad. Coming from the institutional perspective, I envision community as anyone external to the university when I’m speaking in a [community-campus engagement] CCE research context, so working with nonprofits, for profits, governments, society organizations, [and] first nations
 Most of my work, personally, has mostly been with civil society organizations and government and then from some of my other perspectives of community, it’s people coming together to share a common vision and interests.

But then also thinking of community globally, it’s really hard to land on one way of thinking about community.

What does “community-first” engagement mean in your work?

Natasha: Community-first means developing a relationship with city/community leads, listening deeply to what they say their goals and challenges are, and adapting our network and supports to be useful to our members – delivering tailored supports when and how members need to receive them. Supports that are not used are not useful.

Crystal: It means putting community at the center of what we do. So really coming in thinking about how to work with community where they’re really at the center of what we’re doing throughout the [entire] research process
 From thinking through what the research looks like [and] co creating the design together
Recognizing the different power [dynamics] between different actors, and making sure that community is the driving force behind decision making and funding decisions.

Do you have suggestions for how to be more community-first?

°ä°ùČâČőłÙČč±ô:ÌęWhen we’re working with community, [we need] to actually work in community and not always assume that everyone comes up to the university. When we’re organizing events, we want to have a lot of community there, we don’t just want academics. If we’re working with lots of different community organizations, [we can] support them by going to their place of work…Making sure that there’s always honorariums, that there’s food, [and] that you’re really acknowledging and valuing your community-partner’s time and knowledge in everything we do. And really thinking of how to support the agency of community as much as possible.

Meeting IN community spaces is an important way of being community-first.

Being community-first can have positive impacts

CFICE has been working in community-campus partnerships for 6+ years now, and we’ve tried to embody a community-first ethos in our work. With this focus, we’ve managed to contribute to our CCE partnerships in ways that our community partners have found valuable. Below are some thoughts from our community partners on the benefits they have experienced in working with CFICE.

“[Working with Food Secure Canada has] been a great opportunity to build relationships with community organizations and academics across Canada and to hopefully have a real impact on the government’s policy-building process.” -Amanda Wilson, Community Co-lead, CCE Brokering Food Sovereignty Working Group

“Through the community projects in CFICE, and particularly in the Poverty Reduction hub, we’ve been able to…more intentionally leverage university resources and community resources and I think, in many ways, it’s also raised the profile of poverty in Canada that this work is going on.” -Liz Weaver, VP, Tamarack Institute, Poverty Reduction Hub

“CFICE has meant to me and my organization the opportunity to engage really deliberately and in a way that is more transparent with our academic partners to make sure that our partnerships are as sustainable and impactful as possible.” -Brianna Salmon, Executive Director of GreenUP, Community Environmental Sustainability (Pbto/Halib) Hub Partner

“CFICE has fostered a number of opportunities where the criteria [of project work] was very broad, and this lets a community decide what the initiatives should be.” -Cathy Wright, (Past) Executive Director, Living SJ, Poverty Reduction Hub Partner

“To me, CFICE means opportunity. It’s good to have an organization that supports this kind of research, community-based research. We can’t afford to have lots and lots of research that doesn’t touch peoples’ lives and that’s what CFICE is supporting – research that touches lives and makes change.” -Melissa Johnston, (past) MA candidate, CFICE Community Environmental Sustainability RA

What does being community-first mean to you?

Focusing on three Canadian inter-organizational networks that bring communities and universities together, Community Based Research Canada (CBRC), the Pacific Housing Research Network (PHRN) and the Indigenous Child Well-being Research Network, this paper identifies key criteria for assessing these networks’ outcomes and highlights factors that contribute to these networks’ challenges and successes.

Abstract

Inter-organizational networks are proliferating as a tool for community-university engagement (CUE). Focusing on three Canadian inter-organizational networks that bring communities and universities together, Community Based Research Canada (CBRC), the Pacific Housing Research Network (PHRN) and the Indigenous Child Well-being Research Network, this paper identifies key criteria for assessing these networks’ outcomes and highlights factors that contribute to these networks’ challenges and successes. This work is art of a growing body of scholarship seeking to better understand the role and contribution of networks in society and more specifically how the outcomes of these engagements might benefit and enhance collaborative research partnerships between civil society and higher education institutions. The results illuminate lessons learned from each of these three networks and their members. These findings inform broader research into community-university engagement networks and illustrate how these types of engagements can help build a stronger knowledge democracy in Canada and elsewhere.

This article was first posted by Aimee Coueslan on and is being shared with her permission on the CFICE website.

In their core strategic planning, universities across Canada are now identifying community engagement as a core function of research, teaching, and learning. Universities are also recognizing the power of engagement to enhance learning and research. In terms of learning, community engagement can provide students with a new sense of purpose for their education, as well as a sense of belonging that can transform young lives and support student mental health. Community engagement also allows different types of learners to thrive, while enhancing competencies and confidence. In the case of community-engaged research, benefits include increased research impact, greater opportunities to translate findings into practice, expanded funding opportunities, and increased capacity of both researchers and community groups. Community-engaged research provides an opportunity to positively effect change in one’s own community through the development of research questions that are responsive to community needs.

Community-First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CFICE), a seven-year SSHRC-funded action research project based at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­ŽŽ University, has officially launched a national network and community of practice called Community-Campus Engage Canada (CCEC). To celebrate the launch on June 20, 2018, CFICE convened a panel to discuss how to provide long-term support to the community-campus engagement (CCE) movement and ensure that it maximizes value for all partners. The discussion began with the perspective that community-campus engagement must be community-driven; it must put the priorities of the community first and allow the community to decide how it wants to contribute and how it would like to benefit. The panelists addressed what being community-driven means in practice, and their answer had four parts: establishing participatory, horizontal relationships; developing a shared vision; addressing issues of equity and inclusivity; and the democratic communication of research findings.

Relationships

Catherine Graham of the prioritized the establishment of relationships as a necessary first step. Researchers need to communicate directly with community members, approaching them with the perspective of “What can I do for you?” There are four interrelated concepts integral to the establishment of these relationships: shared power, cultural safety, knowledge democracy, and long-term reciprocity.

1.ÌęSharing Power: At its heart, sharing power means humbling oneself and allowing the community to be the teacher and the academic to be the student. The researcher must know when to step back and follow the community’s lead. Power is not necessarily shared 50/50.

2.ÌęCultural Safety: involves creating a safe respectful welcoming environment with no denial of who people are and what they need. In this environment, people are supported to draw strengths from their identity, culture, and community. Creating this environment requires cultural humility, listening without judgment, and being open to learning from and about others.

3.ÌęKnowledge Democracy: The concept of knowledge democracy is part of a larger discourse on the decolonization of higher education which has disrupted academia’s monopoly on knowledge creation.  of the University of Victoria detailed the principles of knowledge democracy: recognizing multiple epistemologies, including indigenous ways of knowing and being; recognizing multiple ways of representing knowledge, beyond text and statistics, to include arts-based forms of knowledge mobilization; recognizing participatory knowledge as critical to social transformation; and prioritizing open-access publishing and dissemination.

4.ÌęLong-term Reciprocity: When establishing relationships, researchers must be mindful that they need to be in it for the long-term. Parachuting into a community and then appearing to disappear sows mistrust.

A Shared Vision

Once established, these community-campus relationships are deepened as partners align around a shared vision. It is important that all parties agree upon the opportunity or issue to be resolved, a shared understanding of that issue, and an agreed-upon approach for addressing it. A shared framework and strategy creates a sense of common purpose, builds trust amongst participants, and provides coherence to diverse activities. Liz Weaver, co-CEO of the , pointed out that it is only by unlocking our collaborative potential that we can solve the increasingly complex problems that communities face today.

The Tamarack Institute has a  for developing a collective vision for change.

Equity and Inclusivity

Academics and community groups are on an unequal footing in terms of funding and access to technology and other resources. In the interest of fairness, researchers must strive to be transparent about these inequities and power differentials, and, where possible, address them. In their mid-term report, CFICE provides the example that post-secondary institutions should move funds for community-based projects in a timely manner to ensure fair treatment of community partners.

Similarly, those involved in community-campus engagement need to be mindful of reducing barriers — attitudinal, geographical, physical, social, and economic — to participation. CCE must be inclusive, reaching out to marginalized and informal communities and bringing together the rural and the urban, east and west, north and south.

Democratic Communication

Isabelle Kim, director of the University of Toronto’s , spoke about making research findings accessible in terms of both who gets to communicate them and who gets access to them. If community-engaged research results are only communicated via academic language, community partners will be excluded. Story-telling is a vital tool for democratic discourse: all project participants can engage with the results or collaborate in the story-telling itself. The key is to avoid superficial boosterism or university public relations and remain attuned to the complexities of the story and its interpretations.

Community-campus engagement is of growing importance at university campuses around the world. It is also at the heart of what the  at Brandon University does. For all researchers involved in rural issues, developing the capacities to serve in this boundary-spanning CCE role is key. Rural researchers must learn to embrace complexity, conflict, and uncertainty enroute to the realization of shared solutions.

The panel discussion at the heart of this blog post, entitled “Co-Creating the Future of Community-Campus Engagement in Canada,” is available on the CFICEÌę·É±đČúČőŸ±łÙ±đ.

SSRHC provides one-year  for community-campus partnerships that will inform decision-making and serve the needs of one partner outside of the academic sector.

In this webinar, our presenters gave an overview of some diverse approaches to capturing and communicating impact within academic institutions and with their community partners. The webinar touched on:

• What community impact looks like in specific campus-community projects and why measuring it matters to the Government of Ontario;
• How post-secondary institutions can and define and measure community impact in a way that resonates with the needs of local community priorities and encompasses the global reach of the university or college; and
• Some of the promising ‘community-first’ practices related to institutionalizing and sustaining impactful CCE.

Video Link

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

Resources

The following items were shared by the presenters:

Community Impacts: Metrics and methods from the perspectives of: i) Ontario Higher Education Policy and ii) the Community development sector — Slide deck by Dr. Isabelle Kim

Higher Education, Impact, and the United Nations SDG’s — Slide deck by Dr. Crystal Tremblay

What are some promising community-first practices related to institutionalizing and sustaining impactful CCE? — Slide deck by Magda Goemans

• at University of Victoria, developed by Crystal Tremblay.
• on measuring community engaged scholarship
• Recognizing Excellence in Community Engaged Scholarship (PDF)
• Campus Engage’s “” report.
• Embedding an Ethic of Community Engagement in PSIs – Literature Review of Engagement Measurement Tools

As well, one attendee asked the following question, which could not be addressed during the webinar: My experience with CCE impact (bigger picture) is that we need co-governance between community and higher ed partner and govt., funding inside and out and a legal structure(e.g. non-profit) to sustain the effort beyond the dependency on HE admin leaders- comments?

Dr. Isabelle Kim provided the following written response: I 100% agree that co-governance is key. U of T instated a CCP Advisory Council composed of staff, students, faculty and community partners. While this is not a ‘governing body’ as the CCP is not a non-profit organization and the council is not a board of directors, the CCP most definitely takes into consideration the advice of its council members in all aspects of our planning and programming and this council plays a key role in the future developments of the CCP’s work.

Presenters

Crystal Tremblay is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography and Special Advisor on Community Engaged Scholarship at the University of Victoria. She is a social geographer and community-based scholar activist with over a decade of international experience doing research on topics related to resource governance and livelihood enhancement. She specializes in using participatory video and arts-based methods for community engagement, capacity building and program evaluation working across sectors with higher education institutions, government, and civil society organizations. She is passionate about cultivating new spaces for creative citizen engagement and the co-creation of knowledge leading to environmental and social equity. Crystal has done extensive research and projects on CCE funding, impact and policy in Canada and is eager to support building a long-term movement and infrastructure for lasting change, which benefits communities and incentivizes academia. For more information, please visit her website: .

Magda Goemans is a PhD candidate in the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, and a research assistant with the CFICE Evaluation and Analysis Working Group. A current focus of her CFICE efforts includes research on best practices for institutionalizing impactful CCE. Magda’s doctoral work involves a critical analysis of household perspectives of climate change risk and adaptation action in Halifax and Ottawa. Her research interests relate to climate change adaptation, disaster mitigation and citizen engagements with urban ecologies in Canadian cities.

Isabelle Kim, Ph.D, has twenty years of experience working in community-based health, education and research, public engagement and international development in Canada and abroad. She has worked on a wide range of different community development projects, including medical and nursing education; community arts youth projects; mental health and HIV/AIDS education; women’s health and girls’ education in Afghanistan, food security in Pakistan; national advocacy and public education campaigns on climate change, and other global social justice issues. In August 2017, she was appointed Director of the University of Toronto’s Centre for Community Partnerships (CCP). She also teaches graduate courses in educational research methods and cooperative learning at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Isabelle’s involvement with CFICE began in Fall 2017, when she joined the working group on community impacts. In Spring 2018 she chaired a regional roundtable on community-campus engagement, co-hosted by the CCP and CFICE, which brought together over 50 staff and faculty from colleges and universities in Ontario, as well as community partners, and higher education policy perspectives. Her current research is exploring the different ways in which community impacts are conceptualized and measured by academic, community development and policy sectors, and the implications for sustaining reciprocal community-university partnerships.

Moderator: David Peacock, Ph.D, is the Executive Director of Community Service-Learning in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Alberta, Canada. His research encompasses global service-learning, student equity policy and practices in higher education, curriculum theory, community-university engagement and ‘first generation’ university students’ participation in experiential learning programming. David is active in developing Canadian networks for community-engaged learning and research.

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

Presenters:

PossĂ©dant une maĂźtrise en droit international, JosĂ©e-Anne Riverin agit Ă  titre d’agente de dĂ©veloppement au domaine communautaire du Service aux collectivitĂ©s depuis 2011. S’intĂ©ressant particuliĂšrement aux enjeux de promotion et de dĂ©fense des droits humains ainsi qu’aux problĂ©matiques relatives aux peuples et femmes autochtones, JosĂ©e-Anne a cumulĂ© plusieurs expĂ©riences liĂ©es aux luttes des femmes autochtones au QuĂ©bec mais Ă©galement dans les AmĂ©riques ainsi qu’en Asie. Elle accompagne aujourd’hui diffĂ©rents projets partenariaux de recherche, de formation et de diffusion touchant ces enjeux ainsi que ceux relatifs Ă  la participation citoyenne, Ă  la lutte Ă  l’exclusion, etc. | Masters in International Law graduate JosĂ©e-Anne Riverin has been employed as a community development officer within Community Services since 2011. She is especially interested in the challenges of both promoting and defending human rights in addition to those affecting First Nations peoples and Aboriginal women in particular. JosĂ©e-Anne’s career includes numerous experiences associated with the struggles of Aboriginal women in Quebec, Asia and the Americas. She is currently involved in several research, training and outreach partnership projects that address these issues as well as those related to citizen participation, to social exclusion, etc.

Jill Wyatt is a former educator and high school principal, CEO of the YWCA of Calgary and VP, Community Investments and Collaborations with United Way of Calgary and Area. She has served two terms as a senator of the University of Calgary. She is currently serving as the Chair of the Board of Governors of the University of Calgary. Jill’s passion for community building has been a driving force in changing social conditions and creating opportunities for individuals, families and communities. She is a proven leader during times of complex change, working to innovate for greater impact, and helping people develop to reach their potential. | Jill Wyatt est ancienne Ă©ducatrice et directrice d’école secondaire en plus d’avoir siĂ©gĂ© en tant que PDG du YWCA de Calgary et vice-directrice du projet de Collaboration et engagement communautaire de la rĂ©gion de Calgary, un programme menĂ© par United Way. Jill, qui est motivĂ©e par sa passion pour le renforcement communautaire, a pour objectif d’aborder les conditions sociales changeantes et de crĂ©er des occasions pour non seulement les individus, mais aussi les familles et les communautĂ©s en entier. GrĂące Ă  ses compĂ©tences et expĂ©riences professionnelles en gestion, Jill a su faire preuve de qualitĂ©s de leadership pendant les pĂ©riodes difficiles Ă  changements imprĂ©visibles. À ces moments, elle n’a jamais perdu de vue son but ultime d’aider les individus Ă  rĂ©aliser pleinement leur potentiel et d’intĂ©grer d’importantes innovations ayant des impacts Ă  grande Ă©chelle.

Liz Weaver is the Co-CEO of Tamarack Institute where she is leading the Tamarack Learning Centre. The Tamarack Learning Centre has a focus on advancing community change efforts and does this by focusing on five strategic areas including collective impact, collaborative leadership, community engagement, community innovation and evaluating community impact. Liz is well-known for her thought leadership on collective impact and is the author of several popular and academic papers on the topic. She is a co-catalyst partner with the Collective Impact Forum and leads a collective impact capacity building strategy with the Ontario Trillium Foundation. Liz is passionate about the power and potential of communities getting to impact on complex issues. Prior to her current role at Tamarack, Liz led the Vibrant Communities Canada team and assisted place-based collaborative tables develop their frameworks of change, and supported and guided their projects from idea to impact. From 2006 – 2009, Liz was the Director for the Hamilton Roundtable on Poverty Reduction, which was recognized with the Canadian Urban Institute’s David Crombie Leadership Award. In her career, Liz has held leadership positions with YWCA Hamilton, Volunteer Hamilton and Volunteer Canada. In 2002, Liz completed a Masters of Management, McGill University. Liz received Queen’s Jubilee Medals in 2002 and 2012 for her contributions to volunteerism in Canada and in 2004 was awarded the Women in the Workplace award from the City of Hamilton. | Liz Weaver occupe actuellement la poste de co-PDG Ă  l’Institut Tamarack oĂč elle dirige le Centre d’apprentissage de Tamarack. Le Centre d’apprentissage de Tamarack se donne pour objectif l’intĂ©gration des innovations avantageuses dans les communautĂ©s. Pour ce faire, l’administration s’appuie sur cinq principes stratĂ©giques: l’impact collectif, le leadership en collaboration, l’engagement communautaire, l’innovation communautaire et l’évaluation de l’impact sur les communautĂ©s. Liz est connue pour ses idĂ©es concernant le leadership et l’impact collectif et a rĂ©digĂ© plusieurs dissertations scolaires de renommĂ©e Ă  ce sujet. Liz s’implique aussi en tant que partenaire au sein du Forum sur l’impact collectif. En plus, elle dirige le projet portant sur les stratĂ©gies d’amĂ©lioration des compĂ©tences en impact collectif au sein de la Fondation Trillium de l’Ontario. Liz s’intĂ©resse Ă  la capacitĂ© qu’Ă©prouvent les membres de diffĂ©rentes communautĂ©s d’influer les problĂ©matiques complexes. Avant d’ĂȘtre engagĂ©e au sein de l’Institut Tamarack, Liz a dirigĂ© l’équipe de communautĂ©s vibrantes du Canada. En outre, elle a donnĂ© un coup de main aux panels de collaboration adaptĂ©s au milieu Ă  Ă©laborer leurs cadres de changement, et elle a incarnĂ© le rĂŽle de guide et d’appui du dĂ©but Ă  la fin de la rĂ©alisation de leur projet. De 2006 Ă  2009, Liz Ă©tait directrice de la Table ronde de Hamilton pour la rĂ©duction de la pauvretĂ©: le Prix de leadership David Crombie lui a Ă©tĂ© confĂ©rĂ© par l’Institut urbain canadien. Pendant sa carriĂšre, Liz a occupĂ© des postes de direction au sein du YWCA de Hamilton, de BĂ©nĂ©voles Hamilton et de BĂ©nĂ©voles Canada. En 2002, Liz dĂ©tient une MaĂźtrise en gestion de l’UniversitĂ© de McGill. En 2002 et en 2012, Liz s’est mĂ©ritĂ© la MĂ©daille du jubilĂ© d’or pour ses contributions Ă  l’engagement communautaire au Canada, et en 2004 elle a obtenu le Prix des femmes en milieu de travail de la Ville de Hamilton.

Chad Lubelsky works at the McConnell Foundation where he is the program lead for public interest journalism and RECODE – a pan-Canadian initiative to provide Social Innovation tools and opportunities for College and Universities to become drivers of progress and community change. Prior to joining the Foundation, Chad was the Executive Director of Santropol Roulant; developed leadership and community engagement programs for the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation; worked as an Assignment Editor for NBC news in San Francisco; managed global Internet Rights advocacy for the South African based Association for Progressive Communications; and was a Founding Trustee of the Montreal Awesome Foundation. Chad holds a BA in Communications & Master Degrees in Communications and Leadership. | Chad Lubelsky travaille au sein de la Fondation McConnell oĂč il est directeur de programmation pour le journalisme d’intĂ©rĂȘt public et pour RECODE. RECODE est une initiative pancanadienne qui cherche Ă  approvisionner les collĂšges et les universitĂ©s en matiĂšre d’outils et d’occasions en innovation sociale afin que ces deux acteurs puissent solliciter de vrais changements et avancements dans la communautĂ©. Avant, Chad Ă©tait chef de la direction au sein de Santropol Roulant. De plus, il a crĂ©Ă© des projets d’engagement communautaire et de leadership au sein de la Fondation canadienne des bourses d’études du millĂ©naire. À San Francisco, il Ă©tait Ă©diteur de projets pour le rĂ©seau de tĂ©lĂ©vision NBC. Au sein de l’Association pour la communication progressive stationnĂ©e en Afrique du Sud, Chad a gĂ©rĂ© le mouvement de revendication pour l’accĂšs Ă  internet comme droit de la personne. Finalement, il Ă©tait administrateur au moment de la mise sur pied de la Fondation formidable MontrĂ©al. Chad  dĂ©tient un baccalaurĂ©at Ăšs arts en communication, une MaĂźtrise en communication et une deuxiĂšme MaĂźtrise en leadership.

Crystal Tremblay is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography and Special Advisor on Community Engaged Scholarship at the University of Victoria. She is a social geographer and community-based scholar activist with over a decade of international experience supporting resource co-governance and livelihood enhancement. She specializes in using participatory video and arts-based methods for community engagement, capacity building and program evaluation working across sectors with higher education institutions, government, and civil society organizations. She is passionate about cultivating new spaces for creative citizen engagement and the co-creation of knowledge leading to environmental and social equity. Crystal has done extensive research and projects on CCE funding, impact and policy in Canada and is eager to support building a long-term movement and infrastructure for lasting change, which benefits communities and incentivizes academia. For more information, please visit her website: . | Crystal Tremblay est professeure adjointe du dĂ©partement de gĂ©ographie et conseillĂšre spĂ©cialisĂ©e en engagement communautaire de l’UniversitĂ© de Victoria. Elle est gĂ©ographe sociale et militante Ă©rudite adaptĂ©e aux milieux communautaires. Elle dĂ©tient plus d’une dĂ©cennie d’expĂ©rience internationale en soutien de la gestion collaborative des ressources et en amĂ©lioration des moyens de subsistance. Elle se spĂ©cialise dans l’emploi de l’enregistrement vidĂ©o participatif, dans l’évaluation des programmes et dans le dĂ©veloppement des compĂ©tences Ă  travers les organisations issues de la vie civile et des secteurs gouvernementaux et d’études postsecondaires. Elle s’appuie sur des mĂ©thodes inspirĂ©es des sciences humaines pour promouvoir l’engagement communautaire. Elle est passionnĂ©e par les initiatives d’amĂ©nagement de nouveaux espaces qui sont dĂ©vouĂ©s aux projets d’engagement communautaire dynamique et par la dĂ©couverte collaborative des connaissances qui abordent l’amĂ©lioration de l’équitĂ© environnementale et sociale. Crystal a effectuĂ© des Ă©tudes approfondies sur le financement, l’impact et la politique du CCE au Canada. Elle dĂ©sire s’engager pleinement dans la construction de l’infrastructure Ă  changement durable et dans le dĂ©veloppement d’un mouvement Ă  long terme qui bĂ©nĂ©ficient aux communautĂ©s et qui encouragent la recherche acadĂ©mique. Pour de plus amples renseignements, veuillez consulter sa page web:

Isabelle Kim is the director of the Centre for Community Partnerships at the University of Toronto. She also teaches graduate courses in the department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning. Isabelle is passionate about the possibilities for learning and social change when connecting students, faculty and community partners. She is glad to be part of the CCEC working group which can play a role in fostering cultures of community-engaged learning and research across Canadian colleges and universities. | Isabelle Kim est directrice du Centre pour partenariats communautaires Ă  l’UniversitĂ© de Toronto. Elle donne aussi des cours d’études supĂ©rieures appartenant au DĂ©partement du curriculum, de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage. Isabelle s’intĂ©resse aux opportunitĂ©s d’apprentissage et de changement social qui existent lorsque l’on Ă©tablit des liens avec des Ă©tudiants, des membres facultaires et des partenaires communautaires. Elle est fiĂšre de faire partie de l’équipe de travail du CCEC. Cette Ă©quipe joue un rĂŽle en promotion de la culture et de la recherche en apprentissage par engagement communautaire Ă  travers les institutions d’études postsecondaires au Canada.

Catherine Graham, is currently working with the National Association of Friendship Centres (NAFC) as Director of Research and Policy. She has worked with Aboriginal organizations at the national and provincial, community levels for more than 15 years on issues related to organizational development, the social determinants of health including social inclusion, and health equity. Most notably she served for four years as Director of the MĂ©tis Centre of the National Aboriginal Health Organization. Her research interests include Indigenous research methodologies and ethics, the social determinants of health, culturally relevant gender- based analysis, mental wellness, Indigenous identity, and Indigenous governance and policy. Catherine holds a Master of Arts in Legal Studies from ĐÓ°ÉÔ­ŽŽ University and she hopes to return to ĐÓ°ÉÔ­ŽŽ to continue her PhD work in Anthropology where her research will utilize a settler colonial lens to examine the ways in which Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers navigate the Indigenous health research industrial complex in order to establish and maintain ethical space. | Catherine Graham travaille prĂ©sentement avec l’Association nationale des centres d’amitiĂ© (ANCA) comme Directrice de la recherche et de la politique. Depuis plus que quinze ans, Catherine travaille en collaboration avec des organisations autochtones aux niveaux nationaux, provinciaux et rĂ©gionaux sur des problĂ©matiques liĂ©es au dĂ©veloppement organisationnel; aux dĂ©terminants sociaux de la santĂ©, tels que l’inclusion sociale; et Ă  l’équitĂ© dans le domaine de la santĂ©. Elle Ă©tait notamment Directrice du Centre des MĂ©tis de l’Organisation nationale de la santĂ© autochtone pendant quatre ans. Ses intĂ©rĂȘts de recherche comprennent les mĂ©thodologies et l’éthique de recherche autochtones, les dĂ©terminants sociaux de la santĂ©, l’analyse culturelle liĂ©e au genre, la santĂ© mentale, l’identitĂ© autochtone, et la gouvernance et la politique autochtones. Catherine est dĂ©tentrice d’une MaĂźtrise Ăšs arts en Ă©tudes juridiques de l’UniversitĂ© ĐÓ°ÉÔ­ŽŽ. Elle compte faire un retour aux Ă©tudes pour continuer sa recherche doctorale en anthropologie, oĂč, en utilisant une perspective postcoloniale, elle examinera les façons Ă  travers lesquelles les chercheuses et chercheurs autochtones et non autochtones abordent le complexe de recherche en santĂ© autochtone afin d’établir et de maintenir une dimension Ă©thique.

Chaired by: Peter AndrĂ©e, PhD, is Associate Professor and Associate Chair in the Department of Political Science at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­ŽŽ University. Prof AndrĂ©e’s research focuses on the politics of food and the environment. He practices, and teaches, community-based participatory research methods. | ÉvĂ©nement prĂ©sidĂ© par: Peter AndrĂ©e, dĂ©tenteur d’un doctorat, est professeur et prĂ©sident associĂ© du dĂ©partement des sciences politiques de l’UniversitĂ© de ĐÓ°ÉÔ­ŽŽ. Sa recherche porte principalement sur les politiques agroalimentaires et sur l’environnement. Il pratique et il enseigne les mĂ©thodes de recherche participatives au niveau communautaire.

by Kira Locken, CFICE Volunteer

Many PhD and post-doctoral students dream of becoming tenured. They dream of it, because being tenured means having a permanent job at a university. It means job security, benefits, funds for travel to conduct research and share it at conferences, and most importantly, the ability to commit to long-term projects without worrying about where the next paycheque is coming from.

The road to becoming tenured is usually long and hard. There are papers to write and publish, grant applications to complete, committees on which to serve, conference presentations to give, administrative responsibilities to tackle, continuously innovating and renewing teaching practice, and more, usually all while working as an Adjunct or Sessional instructor (i.e. an underpaid, non-tenured professor often with a 60-70hour work week and multiple jobs to cobble together a living income).

But what does tenure have to do with community-campus engagement? A lot, actually. And it largely comes down to the criteria needed to merit tenure.

Main factors in tenure process: Research and teaching successes

To get a sense of why tenure has such a huge impact on a professor’s ability to participate in community-campus engagement work, we need to understand how tenure is achieved, or more specifically, the criteria against which professors are assessed in order to merit tenure.

While universities differ in their review processes for tenure, most processes put an emphasis on a candidate’s contribution to their academic field, both as a teacher and a researcher.

At ĐÓ°ÉÔ­ŽŽ University, professors looking to receive tenure are judged based on five main criteria. These include a review of their credentials, what courses they have taught, their research, and their ‘service’ to the university and the wider community.

These criteria, and others, are outlined by ĐÓ°ÉÔ­ŽŽ University’s Academic Staff Association (CUASA) in their collective agreement with ĐÓ°ÉÔ­ŽŽ.

According to the ‘University Criteria for Tenure and Promotion’ on page 34 of this agreement, “It is generally accepted that contributions to teaching and scholarly studies should receive paramount consideration in any tenure or promotion decision but that recognition must also be given for valuable contributions to the university, for professional achievement, and for contributions to the community.”

What this means is that a professor’s research and teaching work carries the most weight when they are being considered for tenure.

The ‘value’ of community-campus engagement research to tenure committees

Tenure and promotion criteria, while useful in reviewing other forms of research, can often come in conflict when assessing community-campus engagement (CCE) work.

According to Dr. Peter AndrĂ©e, associate professor and principle investigator of CFICE at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­ŽŽ, a candidate’s research is measured by the number of articles they have published in respected journals. Some disciplines, says AndrĂ©e, place highest value on articles authored by one individual.

In comparison, research reports or articles written as part of community-campus engagement projects are often published in lesser-known journals, or shared through websites, and are written by multiple authors.

“That takes a lot of effort to produce, on everyone’s part, but is not really ‘counted’ as a valid academic output by most tenure committees,” says AndrĂ©e.

Community-campus engagement work is collaborative in nature.

For pre-tenure professors who deeply value CCE work (and who want a permanent job!), this may mean extra work writing and publishing additional articles in journals respected by their colleagues in order to merit tenure.

Further, gathering data and publishing research can take more time in community-campus engagement projects. This is because research is dependent on relationships between faculty and community partner organizations that can quickly change due to organizational turn-over, competing priorities, and relational difficulties. The added time it takes to do partnership-based research is not always understood by tenure committees.

Community engagement can count as teaching or service criteria

For professors who want to put their efforts into CCE work that will count towards tenure, teaching a course that requires community engagement can be an option. According to Andrée, these courses are considered quite demanding, particularly for professors who are new to the community. But they can be extremely rewarding for both students and professors.

While this effort is looked on favourably by tenure committees, “it won’t count for much if it means your research lags behind that of your colleagues,” says AndrĂ©e.

“Profs who do community-engaged teaching need to find ways to keep their teaching workload manageable,” he adds. “Some of my strategies have included inviting community partners to give guest lectures, and reducing the reading load in a course to compensate for the community engagement that I, the students, and partners are all involved in.”

Community-campus research can, at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­ŽŽ, qualify as ‘service’, provided it relates to the individual’s area of academic expertise. However, committees will not grant tenure based solely on this service, says AndrĂ©e. The collective agreement explicitly states that teaching and research are more important criteria.

Unfortunately, this emphasis on valuing certain types of research is not exclusive to ĐÓ°ÉÔ­ŽŽ.

Thankfully, tenure criteria is changing

As part of its effort to support community-engaged scholarship (CES), the Community Environmental Sustainability Hub of CFICE in Peterborough-Haliburton, under the leadership of the Trent Community Research Centre, initiated an internal report in 2015 examining the enablers and barriers for faculty wishing to engage in CES.

Some of the potential barriers experienced by faculty included a lack of suitable projects in the area, scheduling issues, the increased workload, and lack of understanding about community engagement and its relationship to research, teaching, and service criteria and tenure.

The three key aspects of CES, according to the Trent report, are community-based research, learning, and teaching, and service. These are similar to the research, teaching, and service criteria for tenure but are practiced and understood differently from non-CES in significant ways.

For example, at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­ŽŽ University, ‘service’ involves a professor providing consultations and/or collaborations that are relevant to the professor’s disciplinary ‘expertise.’ This means that professors may participate in ‘service’ as long as it relates to the academic discipline they are involved in. In comparison, CES is scholarship that results from a professor’s engagement with their local or regional community, regardless of which discipline they belong to.

Nadine Changfoot, associate professor in political studies at Trent University, CFICE investigator, and co-author of the Trent internal report says that another barrier for faculty is university culture and its view of community based research or CES.

“I think the culture of the university, even while it’s improving in valuing community-campus engagement, for untenured professors the value is yet to be fully appreciated,” says Changfoot.

One way these challenges can be overcome, continues Changfoot, is through research into various faculty experiences with tenure and CCE in order to determine how CES can be better understood and more fully valued in a university tenure process.

CFICE Community Environmental Sustainability (PBTO-HALIB) Hub team. L to R, Back Row: David Tough, Stephen Hill, Randy Stoecker. Front Row: Marie Gage, Heather Reid, Nadine Changfoot, Helen Knibb, Jason Hartwick.

An example of this type of research can be seen in the report, “.” Published by the University of Victoria in April 2017, the report was developed to assist in peer review and evaluation of Community Engaged Scholarship. The impact rubric and guidelines contained in the report are based on a comprehensive literature review and empirical research conducted by the Office of Community University Engagement (OCUE) between August-December 2016.

According to Crystal Tremblay, who authored the report, “[It] encourages Faculties and Departments where faculty engage in CES, to consider its content in reviewing standards and policies applicable to hiring practices, merit evaluations, and promotion and tenure consideration.”

“This resource has been shared widely across the campus,” she continues, which speaks to the need for these types of resources at universities. “It is hoped that these resources help inform and strengthen guidelines for recognizing and rewarding engaged scholarship across the disciplines.”

By recognizing the value of community-campus engagement through the tenure and promotion process, universities will be able to make a greater contribution to the communities in which they exist.

As Tremblay notes, “It is time that institutions tackle this tremendous hurdle, if they want to be serious about their commitment to serving the public good.”

How to cite this article: Locken, Kira. (2018). “The Impact of Tenure on Community-Campus Engagement.”CFICE Connections Newsletter. January 29.  /communityfirst/2018/the-impact-of-tenure-on-community-campus-engagement/