Suchergebnisse

Many different scientific fields are testing out partnership approaches for research. The key points of Silka's plenary presentation: (1) Partnerships are challenging! (2) It isn't yet time to apply a "one size fits all" approach. (3) It IS time to look at what different scientific fields—citizen science, for example—are trying out with partnership approaches. (4) Find ways to learn from different fields and reduce the "silos" in the democratization of science. (5) Develop strategies for innovation and problem solving.

Efforts aimed at democratizing science continue to emerge, but these many efforts remain isolated from each other. This article argues that the full impact of democratization efforts will not be felt until they are integrated with each other. Two strategies for integration are proposed: a typology approach and a generative strategy. Uses of such strategies in other areas have been successful and offer pathways for coordinating science efforts. The article ends with recommendations for how such strategies could be pursued to integrate promising but dispersed democratization of science efforts such as citizen science, community based participatory research, participatory action research, and public participation in scientific research.

In health research, community-based participatory research (CBPR) has seen remarkable growth as an approach that overcomes many of the ethical concerns raised by traditional approaches. A community of CBPR scholars is now sharing ideas and devising new approaches to collaborative research. Yet, this is occurring in isolation from similar efforts using different nomenclature and occurring outside of health research areas. There is much to be gained by bringing these parallel discussions together. In sustainability science, for example, scholars are struggling with the question of how stakeholders and scientists can coproduce knowledge that offers useful solutions to complex and urgent environmental problems. Like CBPR in health, sustainability science is denigrated for perceived lack of rigor because of its applied problem focus and lack of positivist approach. Approaches to knowledge creation in sustainability science involve "new" ideas such as wicked problems and agent-based modeling, which would be equally applicable to CBPR. Interestingly, sustainability research is motivated less by recognition of the corrosive effects of the inequality of power than from frustration at how limited the impact of research has been, a perspective that might be useful in CBPR, particularly in conjunction with the use of some borrowed tools of sustainability science such as wicked problem analysis and agent-based modeling. Importantly, the example of sustainability science has the potential to keep CBPR from entering into a new orthodoxy of how research should be done.

Two overarching questions central to the development mission of the University of Massachusetts Lowell are discussed in this article. First, how does the university restructure its myriad activities to have a transformative impact on the regional economy while continuing to provide meaningful learning experiences for graduate and undergraduate students? Second, just who ought to participate in discussions about the nature of such a restructuring? Central to the authors' analysis is a review of projects undertaken over the past several years at the university under the auspices of $400,000 community outreach partnership grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

This study proposes that the experiences of refugees vary across the life course, creating new challenges as refugees grow into old age decades after resettlement. Past posttraumatic stress symptoms may emerge as different symptoms years later, with social role changes within the family and stressors triggered by the social environment surrounding the refugees. After their initial entry into the country decades ago as survivors of political violence, they were provided some material and financial assistance from the federal and state government in the region they relocated. Years later, however, aging population of refugees face new issues that were not present when they first arrived in this country. Scars of earlier traumatic experiences embedded in their psyche resurface requiring therapeutic attention. Social service providers and health care clinicians need to be aware of these changes, as they strive to provide relevant care and services to such groups. Only then can they effectively help refugees and contribute toward their resettlement.

To address society's complex challenges, campus-community partnerships are increasingly being undertaken by academia. As a result, questions of how to ensure that these partnerships succeed have taken on a new urgency. This urgency has led to an emphasis on the creation of 'how to' guides focused on the mechanics of building effective partnerships. This article argues that this focus is premature and attention instead needs to be directed to the neglected but ultimately more fundamental question of who is 'allowed' to initiate the partnerships. It is argued here that the seemingly simple and straightforward issue of who initiates the partnership leads us into the complex problems of choice, power and perspective which bedevil campus-community partnerships. Until these problems are fully addressed, the partnership approach is unlikely to achieve its status as a central means by which community-university engagement can be realised in academia. Keywords: campus-community partnerships, community engagement, partnership initiation, research, knowledge creation, reciprocity.

Introduction: Preserving and enhancing communities / Elisabeth M. Hamin, Linda Silka, and Priscilla Geigis -- Sec.I. Gathering perspectives and getting involved : Ch.1. Getting involved: local residents and the planning process / Elisabeth M. Hamin and Jeff Levine -- Ch.2. Building consensus: coalitions for policy change / Kathryn Leahy and Andrea Cooper -- Ch.3. Diversity: multiple cultures forming one community / Linda Silka and Veronica Eady -- Ch.4. Thinking like a developer: partners, adversaries, or competitors? / Robert H. Kuehn Jr. -- Sec.II. Developing a vision : Ch.5. Comprehensive planning: bringing it all together / Steve Smith, Kurt Gaertner, and Glenn Garber -- Ch.6. Creative zoning: putting the teeth in tour planning / Jay Wickersham, Jack Wiggin, and Glenn Garber -- Ch.7. Current and future land use: GIS applied / Jane Pfister, John Hultgren, Christian Jacqz, and Richard Taupier -- Sec.III. Preserving natural resources : Ch.8. Biodiversity conservation and ecosystem protection / Sharon McGregor and Jack Ahern -- Ch.9. Watershed planning: securing our water future / Mark P. Smith, Brian Howes, and Joan Kimball -- Ch.10. Natural land: preserving and funding open space / Robert L. Ryan and Arthur P. Bergeron, Esq. -- Sec.IV. Enhancing community strengths : Ch.11. Transportation: linking land use and mobility / Jeff Levine -- Ch.12. Housing and community preservation: a home for all / Toni Coyne Hall and Linda Silka -- Ch.13. The new economy: thriving amidst change / Zenia Kotval and John R. Mullin -- Sec.V. Keeping the best : Ch.14. Brownfields redevelopment: reconnecting economy, ecology, and equity / Veronica Eady -- Ch.15. Adaptive reuse of buildings: if it is already built, will they come? / Robert Forrant -- Ch.16. Historic landscape preservation: saving community character / Annaliese Bischoff -- Ch.17. Community preservation: residents, municipalities, and the state collaborating for smarter growth / Priscilla Geigis, Linda Silka, and Elisabeth M. Hamin -- Appendix: Indicators of community preservation / Elisabeth M. Hamin

Researchers in numerous fields assert that research partnerships involving academics and nonacademics are essential for developing solutions to pressing and complex problems. While theoretically justified and urgently needed, working across institutional and epistemological boundaries to produce knowledge and create solutions turns out to be complex and challenging. Given the potential and often realized challenges of collaborations, and the need for partners to come together to develop workable solutions, additional research is needed on process in research collaborations. With this paper, we contribute to the literature on process and outcomes in the development of community-university research teams. Specifically, we study local government officials' (LGOs) process and outcome preferences for engaging in community-university research partnerships and their perceptions of academic researchers. Our data were generated from open-ended responses to a statewide survey of LGOs in Maine, United States, during the scoping phase of a large-scale sustainability-focused research initiative. Our findings revealed that respondents' process preferences were influenced by such considerations as partners' willingness to codesign the partnership and the attendant research, and by having a shared understanding of partner needs and responsibilities. Stakeholders' outcome preferences were influenced by their perceptions of the type and relevance of the outcomes to all involved parties. We conclude with a discussion of how to use this data to initiate research partnerships and facilitate inclusive partnership processes. Being mindful of partners' process and outcomes preferences in research collaborations and being aware of the perceptions that partners bring to the table are important for achieving solutions that are inclusive, thoughtful, and ethical.