Managing the Challenges of Teaching Community-Based Research Courses: Insights from Two Instructors (original) (raw)
Related papers
Engaged Scholar Journal: Community-Engaged Research, Teaching, and Learning, 2015
Learning and Teaching Community-Based Research: Linking Pedagogy to Practice (Etmanski, Hall & Dawson, 2014) is an appropriate choice as a book to review for the inaugural issue of the Engaged Scholar Journal; the book reflects the goal of the Journal to publish work on the practice and pedagogy of community-based research (CBR) that is conducted in equal partnership with the community. As the reviewer, trained in the traditional research methodologies and academic structures that the writers indicate often conflict with the practice, teaching and learning of community-based research, I hope to bring a unique perspective to this review. Having said that, I share common ground with the pedagogy of community-based research in the concepts of experiential learning (EL), the dominant pedagogy in my teaching and a subject of my own research. Experiential learning as a process is described by Kolb and Fry (1975) as a cycle that begins with a concrete experience followed by observation and reflection, concept formation, and re-evaluation leading into the next concrete experience. In its purest form, EL is learning by doing where the line between the teaching of the skill and the practice of the skill is indistinct; "We make the road by walking" (Hall, 2014, p. 151) appropriately describes this process, one of many comments that indicate how deeply the teaching of CBR is entrenched in EL. The personal experiences and reflections appropriately related in the book show us how blurred this line between teaching and research can be and that these experiences can be both powerful and risky for student and instructor/researcher alike. The messages of the book are communicated through the personal experiences of participants in community-based research as a set of chapters organized under themes: the principles and practice of CBR, learning by doing CBR, teaching CBR in the community and in the classroom, CBR programming, and the challenge of teaching and conducting CBR under traditional academic structures. These personal experiences provide a clear definition of community-based research. The principles behind the ethical practice of CBR are described, and the pedagogy of teaching CBR is explored. For these reasons alone, this book is a valuable resource for those who, like me, are unfamiliar with, yet interested in the practice of CBR and possible incorporation of elements of CBR into our teaching. However, the writings in this book go much further. This is not a textbook per se, but a journey through the challenges, both academic and personal, of engaging with people and communities as partners in this process. The experiences related in this book show the passion and emotion of CBR, its challenges to the academic structures that CBR springs from, and its value to our human responsibility to make all our lives better. For these reasons, this book is also a valuable resource for those already immersed in the practice and teaching of community-based research. I found it enlightening, yet daunting because it demonstrates that there are no half measures with
Development of a national survey to assess student learning outcomes of community-based research
With the goal of codifying student learning outcomes of community-based research (CBR), the authors created a conceptually valid and statistically reliable CBR Student Learning Outcomes Survey. The project began with individual interviews and focus groups with 70 undergraduates and faculty at six colleges and universities nationwide discussing perceived benefits of CBR. Based on analyses of these interviews, five CBR outcome constructs were derived: academic skills, educational experience, civic engagement, professional skills, and personal growth. The survey was piloted online in spring 2009 to students who had experienced CBR from 15 colleges and universities (N = 166). Factor analyses revealed strong statistical reliability across survey constructs. The authors invite faculty to use the instrument to assess CBR courses and invite students who have experienced CBR to complete the survey online through spring 2012, as part of a national study of CBR outcomes.
Principles of Best Practice for Community-Based Research
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2003
Community-based research (CBR) offers higher education a distinctive form of engaged scholarship and a transformative approach to teaching and learning. In this article, we propose a CBR model that is genuinely collaborative and driven by community rather than campus interests; that democratizes the creation and dissemination of knowledge; and that seeks to achieve positive social change. We demonstrate how this model translates into principles that underlie the practice of CBR in four critical areas: campus-community partnerships, research design and process, teaching and learning, and the institutionalization of centers to support CBR.
An Honors Interdisciplinary Community-Based Research Course
Honors in Practice, 2013
BACKGROUND C ommunity-Based Research (CBR) is an important extension and development of existing community service learning (Stoecker). CBR has as its emphasis research questions asked or needed by the community and, therefore, positions students working alongside community members with the purpose of solving a community issue or creating social change. In doing so, it also allows student development of research skills and methods. A hallmark of CBR is collaboration between a community and academicians through all steps in the course design process, including the crafting of the initial research planning stages, implementation of the research, and dissemination of results and knowledge (Israel et al.). CBR is also action-oriented so that the community can use the process and results for positive social change. CBR is becoming increasingly popular as institutions of higher learning understand that their role is not only to prepare students to enter graduate school or the workplace but also to empower students to become responsible citizens who participate in a larger community (Bringle & Hatcher). The civic engagement of CBR is appealing to institutions for several other important reasons. Undergraduate students have become increasingly goal-oriented as education consumers (Astin et al.). To many students, such real-world learning experiences provide immediate applications for what otherwise would be only abstract theories (Braqbant & Hochman). While such projects, increasingly interdisciplinary, add value to student learning (Davis), opportunities to engage in applied research also directly benefit the communities in which these institutions are situated. Environmental issues, which are both scientific and social in nature, thus lend themselves particularly well to interdisciplinary CBR courses that seek to meld social and natural sciences for both science and non-science majors (Tilbury; Berkes). At Cabrini College, two faculty members-one from biology and the other from psychology-incorporated interdisciplinary community-based research in an honors course on environmental watershed issues. The course, Environmental 2013
"I see this still as a journey": Community-based research from a faculty perspective
Academic faculty members are increasingly following community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles. We conducted qualitative, in-depth interviews with 22 Johns Hopkins faculty members who conduct community-based research to understand their experiences and perspectives. Respondents engaged the community in numerous ways, ranging from working with community advisory boards to hiring community members as project staff to collaborating with community members across all phases of research. Challenges included defining "community," ensuring adequate community representation, sharing power with community partners, overcoming an institutional history of strained community-academic relationships, and working within existing academic incentive structures. Despite these challenges, respondents generally felt their experiences conducting research with community participation were positive and successful. Policy changes at funding and academic institutions and an emphasis on the similarities between CBPR and ethical principles could improve support for CBPR approaches.
Faculty Perspectives on Community-Based Research:" I See This Still as a Journey
Journal of Empirical …, 2009
Academic faculty members are increasingly following community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles. We conducted qualitative, in-depth interviews with 22 Johns Hopkins faculty members who conduct community-based research to understand their experiences and perspectives. Participants engaged the community in numerous ways, ranging from working with community advisory boards to hiring community members as project staff to collaborating with community members across all phases of research. Challenges included defining "community," ensuring adequate community representation, sharing power with community partners, overcoming an institutional history of strained community-academic relationships, and working within existing academic incentive structures. Despite these challenges, participants generally felt their experiences conducting research with community participation were positive and successful. Policy changes at funding and academic institutions could provide greater support for CBPR approaches.
Health Equity, 2018
The community-based participatory research approach has been identified as a great asset in reducing health disparities through the integration of community members in all phases of the research process. It is essential to provide skills to community members to achieve successful research partnerships. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of the community-based participatory research training curriculum for community members. Methods: Using mixed-methods, noncomparative design, eight workshops were developed and tested. Workshops covered topics such as community-based participatory research principles, health disparities, ethics in community-based participatory research, and fundamentals of research methodology. A total of 25 community leaders were trained. Pre-/post-test knowledge (unpaired t-test), retention rate, workshop satisfaction, and cognitive debriefing sessions were used to assess knowledge gained and acceptability and feasibility of the curriculum. Results: A retention rate of 100% and an average satisfaction of 92.68% were obtained. Preliminary effectiveness results indicate that there was an overall significant change in participant's knowledge before and after the curriculum (p < 0.001). In the cognitive debriefing, participants were satisfied with the organization and structure and found the curriculum feasible. Furthermore, participants identified the skills acquired to aid in being more effective in their communities and work with academic researchers. The following changes were recommended: workshops' order, time, practical activities, and level of language. Discussion: Findings from this study suggest that the curriculum was acceptable and feasible to community leaders and that it might provide skills to actively incorporate community members in research activities. A large randomized clinical trial (RCT) study to evaluate curriculum effectiveness is recommended.
Learning And Teaching Community-Based Research Linking Pedagogy To Practice
University of Toronto Press eBooks, 2014
Learning and Teaching Community-Based Research attempts to, according to the book's subtitle, link pedagogy to practice. While the book certainly accomplishes that task, it moves far beyond the pragmatic into the realm of inspiration and aspiration. Through thoughtful and thought-provoking case studies of community-based research (CBR) activities at the University of Victoria, the authors and editors construct much more than a how-to manual for CBR, and instead call for the reader to re-envision the ways universities operate in our communities. CBR activities are often misunderstood, misrepresented, and misconstrued. Further, inconsistent and unclear language fails to provide the necessary clarity or structure to help create a cohesive community of CBR practitioners. The authors provide a list of 28 examples of terminology and traditions associated with CBR, including action research, community service learning, knowledge mobilization, participatory research, and scholarship of engagement. Thankfully, many authors in this volume provide frameworks for conceptualizing what CBR is and is not. Overall, two key facets of CBR work emerge: "It is action oriented, and it is participatory" (p. 6). However, the authors recognize the difficulty in framing one's work under the umbrella of CBR when institutional structures and processes are resistant to new knowledges and practices within the institution. Many who practise CBR approaches label their own work as engaged scholarship, drawing on the traditions of Ernest Boyer (1987, 1990), instead of CBR because they are uncomfortable with their work being labelled "partisan" or "activist, " dangerous labels within institutions that foster conformity and uniformity. The authors in this volume, however, stress the importance and indeed necessity of "privileging more emancipatory approaches to CBR as well as non-dominant epistemological standpoints" (p. 4) to respond to the inequity and injustice in our communities. Indeed, in Chapter 9, authors Jeff Corntassel and Adam Gaudry call for insurgent education practices to disrupt and discomfort the institutions through which CBR occurs, including the authors' own institution, the University of Victoria. According to the editors, the University of Victoria has a "long history in CBR through a legacy of scholars working in Indigenous studies, health promotion, history, geography, policy studies, environmental studies, water quality studies, technology adaptation for people with disabilities, community law, adult education, and community development"(p.
2014
Community-Based Research (CBR) has been recognized as a significant reform agent within graduate education. This article explores the decisions involved in implementing a CBR model into graduate education programs. It uses the doctoral program in educational leadership at the University of Hartford as an example of how CBR can be employed to support the development of leadership, collaborative, and research competencies for graduate students, particularly in the area of school practice. The article concludes by highlighting particular decision points and recommendations for graduate faculty and community members to consider for assuring equitable partnerships in CBR.