The 杏吧原创 University Research Achievement Awards are administered by the Office of the Vice-President (Research and International). The purpose of these awards is to recognize outstanding research achievements. The awards were established in 1989 to enhance the quality of research and to recognize research excellence.

Peter has been recognized for this award as both the PI of the CFICE project, but also for his research project Civil Society Engagement in Food System Co-governance. This聽project builds on CFICE connections and will examine the growing role of civil society organizations in creating and guiding an integrated National Food Policy for Canada.

In this webinar, presenters shared some of their experiences and strategies for bringing community voices more fully into the post-secondary sphere.

The webinar touched on:

• How Abbey Gardens has advocated for community voices at Trent University
• How, as a faculty member, Peter has advocated for community voices at 杏吧原创 University
• How the Harris Centre at Memorial University works to connect the Newfoundland and Labrador communities with the people and resources at Memorial University

Video Link

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

You can also access the presenters’ PowerPoint presentations:

A community organization’s perspective advocating for community voices

A professor’s perspective advocating for community voices

An engagement centre’s perspective advocating for community voices

Presenters

Heather Reid works as the Operations Director of Abbey Gardens, a not-for profit charity providing economic and recreational opportunities for Haliburton County.聽Heather has a background in Recreation Management, Outdoor Education, Small Business, and Community-Based Research. She gained experience brokering projects between the university and community in Nova Scotia at Acadia University. Upon moving to Haliburton, she was the program coordinator and then director at the U-Links Centre for Community Based Research. In 2013 Heather took on the role of Operations Director at Abbey Gardens and continues to foster relationships with the university through her current position.

Peter Andr茅e is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science. His research focuses on international and Canadian environmental politics, the political economy of agri-food systems, and community-based responses to the challenges of food security and agricultural sustainability. He is co-editor of 鈥淕lobalization and Food Sovereignty: Global and Local Change in the New Politics of Food,鈥� to be published by University of Toronto Press in March 2014. He is also author of 鈥淕enetically Modified Diplomacy,鈥� on the global politics of regulating genetically-modified crops and foods, published by University of British Columbia Press.

Amy Jones is the knowledge mobilization coordinator with the Leslie Harris Centre of Regional Policy and Development at Memorial University of Newfoundland. Amy helps make research, teaching and public engagement at Memorial relevant to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through creating connections and facilitating effective partnerships. Amy delivers the Thriving Regions Partnership Process, which engages communities and provides funding and supports to faculty, staff and students to build meaningful research partnerships for thriving social and economic regions.

Moderator: Dr. Michelle Nilson is an associate professor with the Faculty of Education at SFU, where she teaches in the Educational Leadership programs. Her research and scholarship is inspired by questions concerning the nexus between postsecondary institutions, their environment, and the social, physical, and political. Her current work is a critical examination of student financial aid and teacher education policies and their implications for access, equity, and postsecondary student participation. Her research draws on her previous experience as an administrator of several large National Science Foundation and Ford Foundation grants that fostered opportunities for building networks and communication between various stakeholder groups. Her early days were spent in Detroit, Michigan, where she taught high school mathematics and middle school science.

When it comes to making community-campus engagement (CCE) more equitable, a small policy change by a college or university can make a huge difference. This was the experience of the Community First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CFICE) project when their host institution, 杏吧原创 University, decided to change how it interpreted and implemented its travel policy.

Listen to the podcast below, or continue scrolling to read the full story! Download a PDF of the podcast transcript.

Prior to 2016, CFICE participants were expected to pay up front for their travel costs. Travelers could then submit their receipts for reimbursement after their travel took place. While 杏吧原创鈥檚 travel policy allowed for other means of travel funding to be distributed, having travelers submit expense claims after travel was a way of ensuring the university remained accountable to its grant funders.

鈥淭he university as a Public Institution is obligated to account for every dollar spent for any grants it receives. Government funding often carries additional restrictions,鈥� explains Genevieve Harrison, CFICE Project Administrator. 鈥淭he easiest way for an institution to do this is to only release money after proof can be provided for how that money has been spent. This puts the burden of financial accountability on the traveler.鈥�

CFICE Principal Investigator, Peter Andree.

Depending on the travel requirements, the costs to CFICE participants could sometimes be well over $1,500. For CFICE members with limited financial flexibility, like students and some community partners, carrying this expense burden for weeks or even months after travelling was extremely challenging, and perpetuated a power imbalance that went against CFICE鈥檚 community-first focus.

鈥淭he original policy interpretation impacted our ability to equitably include community voices in our project planning,鈥� states Peter Andr茅e, CFICE Principal Investigator (PI). 鈥淲hile we ensured community voices were present at meetings through technology like Skype, it wasn鈥檛 ideal. For a community-first CCE project, we can鈥檛 afford to not have community partners at the table.鈥�

Changing how 杏吧原创 University implemented its travel policy didn鈥檛 happen overnight. Instead, it took months of deliberation by a special committee of university representatives. In late 2016, 杏吧原创鈥檚 Research Accounting office updated its interpretation of the travel policy, granting 杏吧原创 and associated individuals the ability to apply for travel bursaries under select circumstances.

Unlike travel expense claims, travel bursaries are granted based on travel estimates. They can therefore be provided to individuals in advance of travel to cover costs up front. This change has had a big impact on the ability of CFICE to remain true to their mandate of being community-first. For example, the bursary has meant a stronger presence of community partners at CFICE events where project decision-making takes place.

鈥淭he bursary [available for the CFICE Community Impact Symposium] meant more of our community partners could actually attend to help us interpret the data and shape the recommendations. That event changed how we planned to share our research results, which will help us reach more people in the long-run,鈥� says Andr茅e. The impacts of this policy change haven鈥檛 just been felt at a project level. CFICE individuals have benefitted too.

Patricia Ballamingie and Natasha Pei at the CFICE Community Impact Symposium, January 2017.

鈥淪upport through the travel bursary created an opportunity for me to participate in a national conversation about CCE,鈥� explains Colleen Christopherson-Cote, Community Co-lead of CFICE鈥檚 Evaluation and Analysis Working Group. 鈥淲ithout this support I would never be able to manage travel and participation in multiple events in Ottawa. In return, my expertise and community voice would not be included as easily in the dialogue at the CFICE table. Including, and resourcing, opportunities for equitable community participation is at the heart of the Community First approach.鈥�

This bursary is a start in addressing the costs to community partners of participating in CCE, but one significant downside is that the bursary is taxable, reducing the full amount of reimbursement that participants receive. Moving forward, it is important to keep trying to find even better resource solutions for communities. As Andr茅e notes, it鈥檚 often the little changes that can have far-reaching impacts on community-campus engagement work.

As Andr茅e reflects, 鈥淭his experience with 杏吧原创 University鈥檚 travel policy is a reminder that when institutions are more community first in their policies and practices, even in small ways, this can have a big impact on how they serve their communities.鈥�

Become more community-first!

To learn more about how to make your work more community-first, check out our list of actions for all community-campus engagement practitioners!

There are many things to consider in advance of preparing and submitting your application for a SSHRC Partnership Grant. This month, CFICE has taken a look back at its own SSHRC application process and we have attempted to share some of the lessons we鈥檝e learned along the way. This is the fourth article in our SYWASPG (So You Want to Apply for a SSHRC Partnership Grant) series. See our other stories on whether or not the SSHRC Partnership Grant is right for you, how to respectfully involve your community partners in the application process, and the ins and outs of Project Work Plans and Budgets.

Heather Reid chats with other CFICE members.

It鈥檚 no secret that with at least a dozen university partners and more than 60 community partners, spanning the course of seven years and across the country, the CFICE project has been鈥攁nd continues to be鈥攁 pretty massive undertaking.

That鈥檚 not to say that it鈥檚 in any way better than a smaller partnership project that might have one or two or even three partners. Determining the size and scope of your research project really depends on your objective. Think of a bow and arrow. Your research question is the bow; your answers are the target. How many arrows will it take for you to hit your target? Repeatedly? In such a way that you can then pass what you have learned about your target onto the next archer? (Don鈥檛 forget, at the end of the day, a SSHRC Partnership Grant is indeed about funding the production of academic knowledge.)

CFICE鈥檚 current Principal Investigator (PI), Peter Andr茅e, says that CFICE 鈥渨as appropriately-sized for its long-term objective, which was to identify ways to maximize the value of community-campus partnerships for the non-profit sector, and to further efforts to institutionalize what we鈥檝e learned.鈥� In other words, CFICE aimed to strengthen the Community-Campus Engagement movement as a whole in Canada. In order to do so, including partners from across a range of sectors and across the country was an appropriate鈥攊f lofty鈥攇oal.

But, that doesn鈥檛 mean that CFICE鈥檚 large size did not present some challenges.

The challenges of a multi-partner and large-scale research project

Within a multi-partner project with limited funds, there is only so much money to go around. Of course, the more partners you include, the thinner those funds must be spread.

鈥淥ur degree of engagement with specific partners really varied,鈥� said Andr茅e of CFICE, which led to some community partners noting that the partnership ultimately had 鈥渓imited impact鈥� on their capacity or projects. In some instances, partners might have only received five thousand dollars, and limited follow-through.

If having many partners suits your project, then having open and honest communication about your project鈥檚 capacity and priorities can help to ensure that everyone has reasonable expectations for the project.

The CFICE team included community partners in a participatory budgeting process, which helped facilitate this communication in a more structured setting. Additionally, CFICE expanded its secretariat, because, as Andr茅e said, 鈥減roject management, administration, and communications need to be especially strong in a large project that seeks to communicate with a broad network.鈥�

The allocation of more time and resources into funding-related decision making can also be a downfall of a larger partnership project, as it means more costs are allocated to central administration. As Genevieve Harrison, CFICE’s Project Administrator, puts it, the process of allocating resources among many partners can also be 鈥渢ime consuming and contentious.鈥�

鈥淧artnerships that are smaller in scope can be more efficient in terms of communication and decision making,鈥� said Harrison, though smaller partnerships can be subject to different constraints. For example, Harrison mentioned that, 鈥淥rganizing a group with fewer players often is easier, unless those players have restricted time available to participate.鈥�

Harrison spoke to how the issue of resources is generally a challenge regardless of the size of the partnership. The issue of insufficient compensation for community partners 鈥渋s felt by both community partners and their academic counterparts,鈥� Harrison said. 鈥淭his is in part due to the fact that SSHRC funds opportunities for academics and students, and although it is aware of the need to fund community partners in research, does not see it as part of their mandate.鈥�

While a larger research project generally presents the hurdle of coordinating and clearly communicating with many partners that are potentially spread across the country, that same large network can provide unique benefits, too.

The benefits of a multi-partner, large-scale research project

Large partnerships offer a wide network, which can then 鈥渙ffer exposure to a larger pool of participants that ultimately develops priorities for research that meet the needs of a larger community,鈥� said Harrison.

As a result of having a larger research network, your project might create more 鈥渘oise as partners assist in spreading the word about the research to a larger audience,鈥澛爏aid Harrison. This noise or increased attention to your project can help to generate 鈥渓arger in-kind contributions to the work and they can offer a greater variety of project resources,鈥� Harrison added.

For CFICE, its large size meant it was able to engage a wide range of partners, including academics, institutions, students, and community organizations. Andr茅e attributes the large scale and scope of the project to the project’s ability to help 鈥渆xpand and extend the reach of thinking about community-campus partnerships.鈥�

To make the most of a large-scale research project like CFICE, Andr茅e says its important to 鈥渄o it with eyes wide open,鈥� and be realistic about what you can promise your partners. 鈥淔ind a partnership direction that fits the aspirations and needs of your wide partnership,鈥� he said, and develop your project governance structure early on, and with input from with your partners.

Regardless of how many partners you have, or the physical distance that separates you, there are unique challenges and benefits that come with having both smaller and larger CCE partnership projects. Mindfully managing expectations, communicating thoroughly and openly, and being realistic about the resources you have available are important to addressing some of these challenges.

Being ‘community first’ means engaging and involving community partners at all stages of the partnership, even the application process. When the CFICE team was putting together its SSHRC application several years ago, the application process presented one of the first opportunities to put the 鈥榗ommunity first鈥� ethos into action.

With so many partners involved in CFICE, (at least a dozen universities and 60+ community-based organizations), finding a project design, structure, and common goals across the project posed a challenge, but over the course of the six years of this project, CFICE leaders have learned to put community first through practice.

CFICE spoke to its current Principal Investigator, Peter Andr茅e, and one of the community partners from the Poverty Reduction Hub, Liz Weaver of Tamarack Institute in Waterloo, to gain their insight into how best to formulate a SSHRC partnership grant application while respectfully involving your community-based organization (CBO) partners.

Sharing ideas at the Ottawa CCE Regional Roundtable.

Start with existing relationships

Before you can think about submitting a SSHRC partnership grant application, you need to know who your partners will be. In CFICE鈥檚 case, most community partnerships arose out of pre-existing relationships and networks. CFICE鈥檚 original Principal Investigator (PI) Ted Jackson approached the Tamarack Institute, for instance, because he already had a relationship with them from his work in the community development sector.

CFICE Principal Investigator, Peter Andree.

Peter Andr茅e, the current PI for CFICE, was originally involved in the project as the academic co-lead for the Community Food Security hub. Through his academic research on food security, Andr茅e had an established network of contacts in that field, and it was through this network that he recruited to be a part of CFICE. Andr茅e said in an interview that connecting with partners in the early stages of the project 鈥渨as a bit of an organic process鈥� involving the lead academics and the Canadian Alliance for Community Service Learning (CACSL) drawing on their networks.

While you might begin with relationships you鈥檝e already built, that does not mean that those you first approach will necessarily be the right fit. 鈥淭he question then becomes how much you can ask of [the community partner],鈥� Andr茅e says. 鈥淚t鈥檚 often about your networks, but then don鈥檛 take that relationship for granted…really try and figure out if this is going to be of value [for them] or not.鈥�

Community partners are often asked to write letters of support in the context of a partnership grant application, but Andr茅e says this isn鈥檛 something you want to ask them for right away. 鈥淩ather, you first have to have a conversation about what would be in this for you, and what would be in this for me, and how can we make sure that your time is valued and how can this be reciprocal?鈥� he says.

Those initial conversations, of which there might be several, are the key to hashing out things like the responsibilities involved in the project and the potential benefits for each partner. If it鈥檚 a SSHRC partnership grant you鈥檙e applying for, don鈥檛 forget that the project is a research project at the end of the day.

鈥淲hile it can serve other ends for community organizations, it ultimately needs to be this knowledge generation, synthesis project, so if that is not of interest to them, then you have to have those conversations early on鈥� in order to determine if the partnership will be a good fit, says Andr茅e.

Consult partners from the get-go

Liz Weaver, the Co-CEO of the community-based organization the , was a community co-lead in CFICE鈥檚 Poverty Reduction hub in Phase I of the project. She says CFICE helped the folks at the Tamarack Institute feel respected and included in the application process by involving them in the initial design of the project.

鈥淚 think what was really important was the whole notion of community-first,鈥� Weaver told CFICE in a recent interview. For CFICE, 鈥渃ommunity-first鈥� means fostering equitable partnerships to co-create knowledge that can then be applied to benefit the community context.

鈥淚 felt I was informed at every stage of how the process was moving forward鈥here were lots of emails back and forth with community partners about where the proposal was at,鈥� Weaver said. Then, when the CFICE project got to the interview stage of the SSHRC proposal, community partners were invited to be a part of that process as well.

As a community partner outside of the academic sphere, Weaver said the SSHRC application itself can be a bit 鈥渄aunting,鈥� but that 鈥渢he people at 杏吧原创 [University] were quite helpful in terms of navigating [that].鈥�

Exchanging as much information as possible and providing assistance with the application process when needed can make your CBO feel included and involved without feeling overwhelmed.

Align shared goals

As part of those early conversations, ensuring that partners are on the same page as to the broader goals of the project, and what they hope to get out of the project for their individual organization or research, is an important step in ensuring that expectations are aligned.

鈥淪ome of what鈥檚 implicit in how we work needs to be made explicit, so that everybody understands the parameters that everybody鈥檚 working with,鈥� says Andr茅e. For instance, if an academic partner is looking to get tenure in the next five years, 鈥渢hat鈥檚 got to be on the table,鈥� Andr茅e says. 鈥淲hat do you need to get tenure? If that鈥檚 a certain number of publications, how does that fit in with what you鈥檙e planning to do with your community partners?鈥� Expectations that might seem like they are outside of the partnership, but that could influence one鈥檚 involvement in the project, need to be acknowledged.

Weaver said 鈥渢he group has to buy into the shared agenda鈥� of the research project, and thought maybe that was something that was lacking within CFICE鈥檚 Phase I. 鈥淚 think we circled around the shared agenda a lot, and then each of the hubs did their own thing,鈥� she said.

Both Weaver and Andr茅e identified the need to be in partnership with an organization as a whole, rather than just one person within that organization.

鈥淐hances are people who are still doing the work five years later are not the people who started, and so there needs to be an institutional commitment to the value of the work for that organization,鈥� Andr茅e says.

And, if you do have organizational or institutional support, and you have aligned goals and expectations, Weaver adds that something else to consider is your partners鈥� state of readiness. 鈥淚f you want [the project] to get off the ground quickly, then you want to have groups that have good relationships and people who make decisions relatively quickly,鈥� she said.

Negotiate power and governance

Over the course of CFICE, face-to-face meetings have been found to be integral to the success of partnership projects. These meetings allow honest and frank discussions to take place and can be helpful to address more difficult topics such as power imbalances. Weaver says the first face-to-face meeting for all CFICE partners did not happen until after the funding was secured and the logistics and structure of the project was already in place. She suggests that in hindsight, this might have been done differently, so that the main 鈥榟ub鈥� structure of the CFICE project could have been better communicated to community partners.

While Weaver said community partners might have been more involved in deciding the overall project structure, when it came to the individual hubs, 鈥渨e were able鈥攂oth community and academic鈥攖o make decisions fairly quickly with the design of that project.鈥� Weaver said the independence that was afforded to the hubs, in her case the Poverty Reduction hub, was helpful to the community partners and allowed them to have a driving voice behind the work.

Identifying areas where community partners will take the lead in terms of decision making and governance, and outlining areas that fall into the academic purview is important to ensure power dynamics are addressed and relationships are as equitable as possible.

For instance, within the SSHRC partnership grant, the PI, an academic, is ultimately responsible for budgeting and management of funds. That means that they will hold a certain degree of power and governance in the project. It is important to acknowledge this role and how it may impact the partnership in the context of these early conversations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Living Knowledge Network Examines Partnership Power Dynamics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presenters:

Poss茅dant une ma卯trise en droit international, Jos茅e-Anne Riverin agit 脿 titre d鈥檃gente de d茅veloppement au domaine communautaire du Service aux collectivit茅s depuis 2011. S鈥檌nt茅ressant particuli猫rement aux enjeux de promotion et de d茅fense des droits humains ainsi qu鈥檃ux probl茅matiques relatives aux peuples et femmes autochtones, Jos茅e-Anne a cumul茅 plusieurs exp茅riences li茅es aux luttes des femmes autochtones au Qu茅bec mais 茅galement dans les Am茅riques ainsi qu鈥檈n Asie. Elle accompagne aujourd鈥檋ui diff茅rents projets partenariaux de recherche, de formation et de diffusion touchant ces enjeux ainsi que ceux relatifs 脿 la participation citoyenne, 脿 la lutte 脿 l鈥檈xclusion, etc. |聽Masters in International Law graduate Jos茅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. Jos茅e-Anne鈥檚 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鈥檚 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. |聽Jill Wyatt est ancienne 茅ducatrice et directrice d鈥櫭ヽole secondaire en plus d鈥檃voir si茅g茅 en tant que PDG du YWCA de Calgary et vice-directrice du projet de Collaboration et engagement communautaire de la r茅gion de Calgary, un programme men茅 par United Way. Jill, qui est motiv茅e par sa passion pour le renforcement communautaire, a pour objectif d鈥檃border les conditions sociales changeantes et de cr茅er des occasions pour non seulement les individus, mais aussi les familles et les communaut茅s en entier. Gr芒ce 脿 ses comp茅tences et exp茅riences professionnelles en gestion, Jill a su faire preuve de qualit茅s de leadership pendant les p茅riodes difficiles 脿 changements impr茅visibles. 脌 ces moments, elle n鈥檃 jamais perdu de vue son but ultime d鈥檃ider les individus 脿 r茅aliser pleinement leur potentiel et d鈥檌nt茅grer d鈥檌mportantes innovations ayant des impacts 脿 grande 茅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 鈥� 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. |聽Liz Weaver occupe actuellement la poste de co-PDG 脿 l鈥橧nstitut Tamarack o霉 elle dirige le Centre d鈥檃pprentissage de Tamarack. Le Centre d鈥檃pprentissage de Tamarack se donne pour objectif l鈥檌nt茅gration des innovations avantageuses dans les communaut茅s. Pour ce faire, l鈥檃dministration s鈥檃ppuie sur cinq principes strat茅giques: l鈥檌mpact collectif, le leadership en collaboration, l鈥檈ngagement communautaire, l鈥檌nnovation communautaire et l鈥櫭﹙aluation de l鈥檌mpact sur les communaut茅s. Liz est connue pour ses id茅es concernant le leadership et l鈥檌mpact collectif et a r茅dig茅 plusieurs dissertations scolaires de renomm茅e 脿 ce sujet. Liz s鈥檌mplique aussi en tant que partenaire au sein du Forum sur l鈥檌mpact collectif. En plus, elle dirige le projet portant sur les strat茅gies d鈥檃m茅lioration des comp茅tences en impact collectif au sein de la Fondation Trillium de l鈥橭ntario. Liz s鈥檌nt茅resse 脿 la capacit茅 qu’茅prouvent les membres de diff茅rentes communaut茅s d鈥檌nfluer les probl茅matiques complexes. Avant d鈥櫭猼re engag茅e au sein de l鈥橧nstitut Tamarack, Liz a dirig茅 l鈥櫭﹒uipe de communaut茅s vibrantes du Canada. En outre, elle a donn茅 un coup de main aux panels de collaboration adapt茅s au milieu 脿 茅laborer leurs cadres de changement, et elle a incarn茅 le r么le de guide et d鈥檃ppui du d茅but 脿 la fin de la r茅alisation de leur projet. De 2006 脿 2009, Liz 茅tait directrice de la Table ronde de Hamilton pour la r茅duction de la pauvret茅: le Prix de leadership David Crombie lui a 茅t茅 conf茅r茅 par l鈥橧nstitut urbain canadien. Pendant sa carri猫re, Liz a occup茅 des postes de direction au sein du YWCA de Hamilton, de B茅n茅voles Hamilton et de B茅n茅voles Canada. En 2002, Liz d茅tient une Ma卯trise en gestion de l鈥橴niversit茅 de McGill. En 2002 et en 2012, Liz s鈥檈st m茅rit茅 la M茅daille du jubil茅 d鈥檕r pour ses contributions 脿 l鈥檈ngagement 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. |聽Chad Lubelsky travaille au sein de la Fondation McConnell o霉 il est directeur de programmation pour le journalisme d鈥檌nt茅r锚t public et pour RECODE. RECODE est une initiative pancanadienne qui cherche 脿 approvisionner les coll猫ges et les universit茅s en mati猫re d鈥檕utils et d鈥檕ccasions en innovation sociale afin que ces deux acteurs puissent solliciter de vrais changements et avancements dans la communaut茅. Avant, Chad 茅tait chef de la direction au sein de Santropol Roulant. De plus, il a cr茅茅 des projets d鈥檈ngagement communautaire et de leadership au sein de la Fondation canadienne des bourses d鈥櫭﹖udes du mill茅naire. 脌 San Francisco, il 茅tait 茅diteur de projets pour le r茅seau de t茅l茅vision NBC. Au sein de l鈥橝ssociation pour la communication progressive stationn茅e en Afrique du Sud, Chad a g茅r茅 le mouvement de revendication pour l鈥檃cc猫s 脿 internet comme droit de la personne. Finalement, il 茅tait administrateur au moment de la mise sur pied de la Fondation formidable Montr茅al. Chad聽 d茅tient un baccalaur茅at 猫s arts en communication, une Ma卯trise en communication et une deuxi猫me Ma卯trise 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 d茅partement de g茅ographie et conseill猫re sp茅cialis茅e en engagement communautaire de l鈥橴niversit茅 de Victoria. Elle est g茅ographe sociale et militante 茅rudite adapt茅e aux milieux communautaires. Elle d茅tient plus d鈥檜ne d茅cennie d鈥檈xp茅rience internationale en soutien de la gestion collaborative des ressources et en am茅lioration des moyens de subsistance. Elle se sp茅cialise dans l鈥檈mploi de l鈥檈nregistrement vid茅o participatif, dans l鈥櫭﹙aluation des programmes et dans le d茅veloppement des comp茅tences 脿 travers les organisations issues de la vie civile et des secteurs gouvernementaux et d鈥櫭﹖udes postsecondaires. Elle s鈥檃ppuie sur des m茅thodes inspir茅es des sciences humaines pour promouvoir l鈥檈ngagement communautaire. Elle est passionn茅e par les initiatives d鈥檃m茅nagement de nouveaux espaces qui sont d茅vou茅s aux projets d鈥檈ngagement communautaire dynamique et par la d茅couverte collaborative des connaissances qui abordent l鈥檃m茅lioration de l鈥櫭﹒uit茅 environnementale et sociale. Crystal a effectu茅 des 茅tudes approfondies sur le financement, l鈥檌mpact et la politique du CCE au Canada. Elle d茅sire s鈥檈ngager pleinement dans la construction de l鈥檌nfrastructure 脿 changement durable et dans le d茅veloppement d鈥檜n mouvement 脿 long terme qui b茅n茅ficient aux communaut茅s et qui encouragent la recherche acad茅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. |聽Isabelle Kim est directrice du Centre pour partenariats communautaires 脿 l鈥橴niversit茅 de Toronto. Elle donne aussi des cours d鈥櫭﹖udes sup茅rieures appartenant au D茅partement du curriculum, de l鈥檈nseignement et de l鈥檃pprentissage. Isabelle s鈥檌nt茅resse aux opportunit茅s d鈥檃pprentissage et de changement social qui existent lorsque l鈥檕n 茅tablit des liens avec des 茅tudiants, des membres facultaires et des partenaires communautaires. Elle est fi猫re de faire partie de l鈥櫭﹒uipe de travail du CCEC. Cette 茅quipe joue un r么le en promotion de la culture et de la recherche en apprentissage par engagement communautaire 脿 travers les institutions d鈥櫭﹖udes postsecondaires au Canada.

Catherine Graham,聽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 M茅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 杏吧原创 University and she hopes to return to 杏吧原创 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. |聽Catherine Graham travaille pr茅sentement avec l鈥橝ssociation nationale des centres d鈥檃miti茅 (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 r茅gionaux sur des probl茅matiques li茅es au d茅veloppement organisationnel; aux d茅terminants sociaux de la sant茅, tels que l鈥檌nclusion sociale; et 脿 l鈥櫭﹒uit茅 dans le domaine de la sant茅. Elle 茅tait notamment Directrice du Centre des M茅tis de l鈥橭rganisation nationale de la sant茅 autochtone pendant quatre ans. Ses int茅r锚ts de recherche comprennent les m茅thodologies et l鈥櫭﹖hique de recherche autochtones, les d茅terminants sociaux de la sant茅, l鈥檃nalyse culturelle li茅e au genre, la sant茅 mentale, l鈥檌dentit茅 autochtone, et la gouvernance et la politique autochtones. Catherine est d茅tentrice d鈥檜ne Ma卯trise 猫s arts en 茅tudes juridiques de l鈥橴niversit茅 杏吧原创. Elle compte faire un retour aux 茅tudes pour continuer sa recherche doctorale en anthropologie, o霉, en utilisant une perspective postcoloniale, elle examinera les fa莽ons 脿 travers lesquelles les chercheuses et chercheurs autochtones et non autochtones abordent le complexe de recherche en sant茅 autochtone afin d鈥櫭﹖ablir et de maintenir une dimension 茅thique.

Chaired by: Peter Andr茅e, PhD, is Associate Professor and Associate Chair in the Department of Political Science at 杏吧原创 University. Prof Andr茅e鈥檚 research focuses on the politics of food and the environment. He practices, and teaches, community-based participatory research methods. |聽脡v茅nement pr茅sid茅 par: Peter Andr茅e, d茅tenteur d鈥檜n doctorat, est professeur et pr茅sident associ茅 du d茅partement des sciences politiques de l鈥橴niversit茅 de 杏吧原创. Sa recherche porte principalement sur les politiques agroalimentaires et sur l鈥檈nvironnement. Il pratique et il enseigne les m茅thodes de recherche participatives au niveau communautaire.

Community-Campus Engage Canada (CCEC), the legacy of the CFICE project, is a national network of community engagement practitioners. CCEC works with CFICE to host national and regional roundtables to bring together a wide range of community-minded stakeholders, including grassroots partners, engagement practitioners, post-secondary institutions, policy makers, and funders, with the overarching goal to expand on community-campus engagement in Canada.

Toronto CCE regional roundtable participants deep in conversation.

CCEC鈥檚 first regional roundtable, co-hosted by the University of Toronto, was held at the university鈥榮 Centre for Community Partnerships (CCP) on May 1, 2018.

The day started with a thought-provoking cross-sectoral panel on the community-campus engagement landscape in Ontario from policy, higher education, and community partner perspectives: Cecilia Brain, Economist and Senior Policy and Data Analyst, Council of Ontario Universities; Peter Andree, Principal Investigator, CFICE; and Sarah MacPherson, Director of Philanthropy and Communications, Oakville Community Foundation respectively.

Listening to a guided walking First Story Toronto tour led by Jill Carter at the Toronto CCE Regional Roundtable.

Lunch was followed by a powerful guided walking First Story Toronto tour led by Jill Carter, theatre practitioner and Assistant Professor with the Centre for Drama, Theatre and Performance Studies; the Transitional Year Programme; and Indigenous Studies at the University of Toronto. 聽(First Story Toronto provides public tours that build awareness and pride in Indigenous presence and contributions to the city ).

Over fifty participants representing diverse community, academic and policy stakeholder perspectives worked in groups to identify sector-specific needs and gaps; explore cross-sectoral opportunities and aspirations, and develop recommendations for advancing community-campus engagement in the region. Discussions were lively and fruitful and many connections were made.

The recommendations from this roundtable will be captured in a brief discussion paper and contribute to the national roundtable in Ottawa on June 20.

For more information regarding this event please contact the CCP Director, Isabelle Kim: isabelle.kim@utoronto.ca. For more information on the other regional and national roundtables to come, please contact CFICE at cfice@carleton.ca.

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

Please note: Audio issues were experienced during the start of the recording. The speakers are audible during the first 14 minutes of the video but the audio sounds crunched. The audio stabilizes聽22min into the video and remains stable for the remainder of the video.

Speakers:

Larry McDermott聽A member of Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation, Larry McDermott served as an Ontario municipal politician for 28 years including as the first national rural chair of FCM. He is currently Executive Director of Plenty Canada, a non-profit organization devoted to environmental protection and healthy communities, and Co-chair of the Canadian Environmental Network Biodiversity Caucus. He served as a commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission from 2009-2016.

Pat Mooney has more than four decades experience working in international civil society, first addressing aid and development issues and then focusing on food, agriculture and commodity trade. In 1977 Mooney co-founded RAFI (Rural Advancement Fund International, renamed ETC Group in 2001). He received The Right Livelihood Award (the “Alternative Nobel Prize”) in the Swedish Parliament in 1985 and the Pearson Peace Prize from Canada’s Governor General in 1998. He has also received the American “Giraffe Award” given to people “who stick their necks out.” The author or co-author of several books on the politics of biotechnology and biodiversity, Pat Mooney is widely regarded as an authority on issues of global governance, corporate concentration, and intellectual property monopoly.

Lauren Baker, PhD, has over 20 years of experience working on food systems issues. Her experience ranges from researching agricultural biodiversity in Mexico to negotiating and developing municipal food policy and programs. Lauren has consulted on farm to fork initiatives and food systems policy development across Canada and globally.Lauren鈥檚 expertise lies in sustainable food systems, food systems policy, food security, city-region food policy and planning. Lauren has worked with diverse clients to develop strategic plans, feasibility studies, undertake research, program planning and evaluation, and advise on policy development

Dr. Donald E. Buckingham is the President and CEO of The Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI). He has been a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada since 1988. In his career, he acted as a private lawyer, government lawyer, law professor, author and consultant in the areas of agricultural law, food law and international trade in agricultural products. Dr. Buckingham鈥檚 previous roles include Chair of the Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal. He also worked as Legal Counsel at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). Dr. Buckingham taught courses as a law professor at three universities and conducted research on agriculture law, food law, constitutional law, administrative law, international law and tort law. For the past three decades, Dr. Buckingham also provided legal counsel to both federal ministers and civil servants grappling with legislative and regulatory matters in the industry, as well as being a lawyer with the Halifax firm of Patterson Kitz.

Discussant:

Catherine L. Mah MD FRCPC PhD is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Health at Dalhousie University. She is also appointed at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto. Dr. Mah directs the Food Policy Lab, a multidisciplinary program of research on environmental and policy determinants of healthier consumption, with a focus on health-promoting innovations in the food system. Her current research is supported by CIHR, the SSHRC-funded FLEdGE research partnership led by Wilfrid Laurier University, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council-funded Healthy Stores 2020 project led by Monash University. She is a former member of the Toronto Food Policy Council and was a founding member of the St. John鈥檚 Food Policy Council.

Co-hosts:

Peter Andree, PhD, is Associate Professor and Associate Chair in the Department of Political Science at 杏吧原创 University. Prof Andr茅e鈥檚 research focuses on the politics of food and the environment. He practices, and teaches, community-based participatory research methods.

Diana Bronson聽joined Food Secure Canada as Executive Director in March 2012 and has worked to strengthen FSC as the national voice of the Canadian food movement.聽 Diana is trained as a political scientist and sociologist and has a professional background in journalism (CBC radio) and international human rights (Rights & Democracy) as well as international climate and technology negotiations at the UN (ETC Group.)