Transcript The Many Approaches to CBPR: Learning from the Differences

The Many Approaches to
CBPR: Learning from the
Differences
Linda Silka, Margaret Chase Smith
Policy Center
University of Maine
Learning from the Differences
 In health fields CBPR rapidly gaining ground!

Community health partnerships are proliferating

CBPR publications were once a trickle and now a
steady stream

Entire journals and journal issues devoted to topic

Now included in health training

Funders increasingly promoting
Learning from the Differences
 Has culminated in emergence of community of
CBPRers. People are:

Reading each others’ work

Citing each others’ efforts

Learning from each other’s challenges
 Yet, as it turns out, these discussions within
health occurring in isolation from similar
conversations in other disciplines
Learning from the Differences
 The problem of nonparticipatory research an
emerging issue of concern in many research
areas
 Researchers study problems fundamentally
unrelated to health are coming up again limits
of traditional research
 Have begun to discuss need for research that is
less top-down, less researcher-driven, and
more participatory
 Almost no contact with creative CBPR work
Learning from the Differences
 I want to argue that CBPR might learn from
becoming familiar with similar struggles in other
areas
 I will focus on sustainability sciences
 By looking at what others are doing, this will
keep us from creating a new CBPR orthodoxy
that dictates exactly how CBPR should be done
and leaves little room for growth and change
Learning from the Differences
 A little background




What is sustainability science?
Why are people in this area frustrated with
existing methods of research?
Why are they thinking about the ‘loading
dock’ problem?
What are they saying about the need to
reinvent research practices?
Learning from the Differences
 “Participatory procedures involving scientists,
stakeholders, advocates, active citizens, and users of
knowledge are critically needed.” (Kates and Parris,
2003)
 Research should be “problem-driven with the goal of
creating and applying knowledge in support of decision
making…such knowledge to be truly useful it generally
needs to be ‘coproduced’ through close collaboration
between scholars and practitioners.” (Clark and Dickson,
2003)
Learning from the Differences
 Putting these ideas into practice: the UMaine
Sustainability Solutions Initiative
 Five year NSF-funded project bringing together
multiple disciplines, multiple stakeholders, multiple
universities to work on portfolio of problems related to
sustainability
 Communications, cooperative extension, ecology,
forest ecosystems, economics, education, law, parks
and recreation, psychology, tourism
 Knowledge to Action as central
Learning from the Differences
“Engaging in stakeholder-driven research that is problem focused
and solutions oriented will require continuing vigilance. It is
imperative that we remain focused on who produces knowledge
and how that knowledge is produced. We need to pay attention to
how our strategies for connecting knowledge with action pay tribute
to the needs of communities and stakeholders. If SSI does not
respond to this challenge with careful thinking and deep resolve,
we stand to lose what is especially important about our project:
knowledge co-production partnerships.” Hart, 2010
Learning from the Differences
Examples of Projects:

Adaptation Strategies in a Changing Climate: Maine’s Coastal
Communities and the Statewide Stakeholder Process

Analysis of Alternative Futures in the Maine Landscape

Modeling Stakeholder Acceptance of Solutions to Environmental
Problems

Linking Knowledge with Action: Assessing Maine’s Social, Economic,
and Cultural Landscape to Create Solutions-Oriented Partnerships

Spatial Forest Planning to Meet Multiple Natural Resource Goals:
Developing Geospatial Tools to Forecast Across a Diverse Landscape
of Ownership Types and Stakeholder Interests

Protecting Natural Resources at the Community Scale: Using
Population Persistence of Vernal Pool Fauna as a Model System to
Study Urbanization, Climate Change and Forest Management
Learning from the Differences




Different types of problems
Different types of stakeholders
Different types of disciplines
Different histories of collaboration
Learning from the Differences
 Owners of small woodlots
 Traditional basket makers who rely on trees




that may be impacted by climate change
People who live and work near contaminated
streams
People whose well water may be arsenic
contaminated
People who live and work near where deep
ocean wind power may be situated
Communities with many vernal pools
Learning from the Differences
Examples of strategies to create new problemfocused, solution-driven conversations
 Alternative Futures
 Agent-Based Modeling
 Other strategies
Learning from the Differences
Struggling when things don’t work!
Using the Wicked Problems Analysis to
Understand the Difficulties
Learning from the Differences
How these experiences are starting to
raise questions about and change
research practices in Maine!
Learning from the Differences
 What we can learn from this about reducing
barriers to researchers and communities
working together
 Implications for CBPR
 Stay Tuned!
www.umaine.edu/sustainabilitysolutions/