Transcript Slide 1

International Forum on the Social and Solidarity Economy
Panel on collaborative and partnership research
Palais de congrès, Montréal
October 19, 2011
Partners in Research
By
Leslie Brown
Mount Saint Vincent University
Social Economy and Sustainability Research Network
Partenariat sur l’économie sociale et la durabilité
Bridging, Bonding, and Building / Renforcement des liens et des capacités
www.msvu.ca/socialeconomyatlantic
Map of the 4 Atlantic Provinces of Canada
Context
1. Partnership was funded by SSHRC
2. SESRN as an intentional creation, a (time-limited)
community of practice covering large geographic
distances & a highly diverse membership
3. SESRN focus on partners from the grass-roots
4. Influenced by the particular qualities of the SE as an
arena of activity based on particular sets of values
such as participation/inclusion, solidarity, autonomy,
and citizenship
Context
Expectations from the SE community partners
“My experience with this work is that it is
quite inclusive and respectful. Not only does
this approach work, it is a necessary
approach when dealing with community
groups”
(emphasis added, Daughton , 2011)
Iterative processes for
a collaborative & sustainable research
partnership
BEHAVIOUR
PLANNING
OUTCOMES
Ongoing self-assessment
A Critical Factor in Success
For SESRN, success in ‘getting the research
and dissemination done’ was integrally
linked with ‘following the appropriate
processes’, ‘maintaining respectful
relationships’, and ‘mutual learning’.
Figure 2:
Governance Diagram
SN6 Steering
Committee
Community
Sector Council
& Memorial U
SN5
Steering
Committee
St Mary’s U
SN1
Steering
Committee
U New
Brunswick
Ad Hoc
Committees
Node Steering
Committee
(Node office)
Mt. St. Vincent
University
Management
Committee
SN4
Steering
Committee
U de
Moncton
SN2
Steering
Committee
U Prince
Edward Isl
SN3
Steering
Committee
Mt St
Vincent U
Development of a Partnership
Comment from an academic partner
…we made a conscious decision right off the top
not to rush things, and we took the better part of a
year to [build the partnership]. The other thing …
was that we decided to trust one another and to
just share the money up front and put it in the
hands of local committees [sub-nodes] who then
did what they needed to do with it… I think these
two decisions made this project a success.
Development of a Partnership
Comment from a community partner:
“Personally, I think that the main partnershipbuilding success was that there was attention
paid to the meaningful participation of all
partners from the very beginning …
engagement wasn’t just lip service”
Recognizing Challenges & Addressing Them
1.Building & sustaining a community of practice and
negotiated equality (bridging, bonding, allocating
resources)
2.Workload, workflow, and balancing the various
priorities (i.e. focus on processes & the work itself)
3.Accountability and record keeping
(internal and external accountabilities ; multiple
criteria for judging success)
Recognizing Challenges & Addressing Them
An academic partner spoke about workload &
accountability:
“But being rooted in the community organization
and having to do research that is sensible to them,
that makes a difference to them, is key to how you
then conduct the whole thing, and in the pressures
you then have, because there is responsibility and
accountability to them, to deliver something that
they can show they spent their time wisely … [and]
because it is asking a lot of them in voluntary time. “
Recognizing Challenges & Addressing Them
A community partner commented:
“I’ve really been interested in the different priorities
between community and academic research and how
there isn’t an easy balance in meeting everyone’s
needs. … I wasn’t really happy about that at times, but
it was a really good opportunity to understand why it is
the way it is and to think about how you take these two
different needs (the need to publish and the need to do)
and blend them into something that achieves the best
we can, and reflect the different focuses.”
Time to talk and
get to know one
another.
Time for FUN!
Here we enjoy a
dance performance.
Legacy
Products (available and on the way)
Professional, political and social networks
Policy development and links with governments
New organizations within the SE; individual and
organizational capacity and careers
Participation in new CURAs and in smaller
collaborative projects
Legacy - Policy
• A recognition of the value of collaborating in order to
influence policy through research + now have linkages
• A reinforcement of an appetite for being involved in policy
making – now with the vocabulary of co-construction, and
knowledge that in other provinces strides are being made
• Debates about the nature of social enterprise and the need
for enabling policies
• ACCSE (and its links within each province) as an
organization that is helping to move a policy agenda
forward
Knowledge Mobilization and Dissemination Impacts on team members and their practice
One community partner reported (academics agreed):
“It truly did give us a window into what goes on with
the SE community … It allowed us access to, and to
share information with, a whole breadth of people
who were doing work in sectors that apply to us … It
created a whole new network of people who can
provide us with information and opportunities we
didn’t have before.”
Knowledge Mobilization and Dissemination Impacts on team members and their practice
Two comments from students:
“[It was] helpful, especially, to participate in negotiating
how to work with academics as well as community
practitioners… how they could achieve their own goals …
but contribute to something larger”
AND
“I delivered papers at 2 international conferences …”
Development of a Partnership
Questions to consider:
• WHAT is a CURA? (or other partnered research)
• WHO is to be included within the partnership?
• HOW should the partnership work?
• What is the PURPOSE OF PARTNERING in research,
and what are the anticipated outcomes?
• TO WHOM is the alliance accountable? (note
implications for measures of ‘success’)
To conclude
Four Qualities that SESRN emphasized:
Partnerships appropriate to the objectives
Engaged collaborative scholarship
Participatory Action Research methodologies
Reflection and self-evaluation
CHUTZPAH (audacity!)
Thank you!
You can reach me, at
[email protected]
Peruse
http://www.msvu.ca/socialeconomyatlantic
Social Economy Space
http://dc.msvu.ca:8080/xmlui/handle/10587/9
Postscript
Why Collaborate in Research?
Key Dimensions of Partnerships
Qualities to Seek and to Monitor
Why Collaborate?
Examples of positive impacts
1. Obtain reliable and valid data
2. Leverage additional resources
3. Build capacity within universities and in the
community
4. Connect people and connect institutions (social
capital); facilitate action
5. Wider dissemination and mobilization of knowledge
6. Personally and professionally rewarding
KEY DIMENSIONS
(How partnerships
should work)
QUALITIES TO SEEK AND TO MONITOR
1. Values &
Principles guiding
the partnership

2. Control over
processes
(governance AND
research)




3. # of partners




4. Interactions
within the
partnership
5. Communications
(internal &
external)

Consensus on these values and principles (including principles
for decision making)
Consensus on overarching research themes and questions
Respect diversity and divergent opinions (e.g. re. definition of
the SE); developing some shared language
Shared as widely as possible and as team decides is appropriate
Representative, participatory, and decentralized governance
Participatory Action Research Methodologies
Clarity of roles and responsibilities achieved via MOUs, detailed
project proposals, and ethics applications
Manageable number (smaller numbers work better)
Appropriate to the objectives
Adequately funded
Frequent, rooted in face-to-face as much as possible (especially
in the early days) but also using available technologies
Appropriate to the needs of the network




Guided by an agreed-upon communication plan
Frequent
Bi-lateral and Multi-lateral
Respectful


KEY DIMENSIONS
(how partnerships
should work)
QUALITIES TO SEEK AND TO MONITOR
6. Flexibility /
Adaptability

Willingness to adapt and change as network develops and agrees
on processes for doing this – iterative process
7. Trust


Trust based on relational is likely to be the strongest
Fortified by clarity of roles and expectations
8. Learning


Jointly generated collaborative learning
Research results shared
9. Benefits and
outcomes


Mutual and/or compatible
Supporting one another in making space / time for particularized
benefits to be realized too
10. Monitoring

Self-evaluation of process and of deliverables / products /
outcomes in relation to goals and commitments
Responding to the results of these self-evaluations
