This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 29 April 2014, At: 09:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Community DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcod20

Community–university researchpartnerships: a role for universityresearch centers?Wendy Mendesa, Jacqui Gingrasb, Pamela Robinsonc & JaniceWaddellda School of Urban and Regional Planning, University of BritishColumbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canadab School of Nutrition, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street,Toronto, Ontario, Canadac School of Urban and Regional Planning, Ryerson University, 350Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 2K3, Canadad Faculty of Community Services, Ryerson University, 350 VictoriaStreet, Toronto, Ontario M5B 2K3, CanadaPublished online: 21 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Wendy Mendes, Jacqui Gingras, Pamela Robinson & Janice Waddell (2014)Community–university research partnerships: a role for university research centers?, CommunityDevelopment, 45:2, 165-179, DOI: 10.1080/15575330.2014.892018

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2014.892018

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

42 2

9 A

pril

2014

Community–university research partnerships: a role for universityresearch centers?

Wendy Mendesa, Jacqui Gingrasb, Pamela Robinsonc and Janice Waddelld*

aSchool of Urban and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BritishColumbia, Canada; bSchool of Nutrition, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto,Ontario, Canada; cSchool of Urban and Regional Planning, Ryerson University, 350 VictoriaStreet, Toronto, Ontario M5B 2K3, Canada; dFaculty of Community Services, Ryerson University,350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 2K3, Canada

Community–university research partnerships (CURPs) are increasingly common, yetmuch of the existing research documents the experiences of individual projects oranalyzes research methodologies associated with CURPs. Comparatively little isknown about the role of university research centers in the design and implementationof CURPs. Even less is known about the role that interdisciplinarity (as a de factocharacteristic of research centers) may play in enabling or impeding CURPs. Thisarticle contributes to filling this gap. Drawing from a reflective strategic planningprocess with research center associates and a broader faculty conference workshop,at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada, this article offers reflections on the role ofuniversity research centers in CURPs.

Keywords: community–university research partnerships; community-based research;action research; university research centers; interdisciplinarity

Recent years have seen growing interest in community–university research partnerships(CURPs). Much of the research that exists on CURPs documents the experiences ofindividual projects (Savan, 2004; Vaillancourt, 2007), analyzes research methodologiesassociated with CURPs (Felt, Rowe, & Curlew, 2004; Savan & Sider, 2003), investi-gates the relationships between practitioners and community–university (Hart & Wolff,2006), and develops knowledge sharing methods with participants and the wider com-munity (Hart et al., 2013; López, Parker, Edgren, & Brakefield-Caldwell, 2005). Less isknown about the role of university research centers in operationalizing CURPs and evenless about how interdisciplinarity may enable or impede CURPs. This article contributesto filling this gap. In this paper, we define research centers as administrative (non-departmental) units that provide a place for scholars from a range of disciplines toengage in research activities on a common topic.

Based on a series of structured, reflective meetings that took place between March2008 and April 2009 (including a panel organized in May 2008 for a faculty conferenceat Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada), this article offers considerations on the roleof university research centers in CURPs. Perspectives are offered from faculty membersand research center associates (RCA) affiliated with interdisciplinary research centerswithin Ryerson’s Faculty of Community Services (FCS), a faculty with a mandate to

*Corresponding author. Email: jwaddell@ryerson.ca

© 2014 Community Development Society

Community Development, 2014Vol. 45, No. 2, 165–179, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2014.892018

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

42 2

9 A

pril

2014

“make a positive impact on the community.” The paper proposes three questions toexamine opportunities and challenges of CURPs from the perspective of the RCA:

(1) To whom do CURPs make a difference and how?(2) What difference do research centers (and interdisciplinarity) make to CURPs?(3) What are the challenges and opportunities derived from engaging in CURPs?

The methodology for the article is both reflexive and exploratory, reflecting theprinciples of community-based research (CBR), a central theme of the paper. It is ananalytical starting point to document existing issues and trends, and identify futureresearch agendas.

The article begins with a review of relevant scholarship on CURPs, the CURP land-scape in Canada and at Ryerson University, followed by an analysis of reflections fromRyerson faculty members involved with research centers. The paper concludes byidentifying future research directions as to how research centers can contribute to theinstitutionalization and operationalization of CURPs.

Scholarship about CURPs

Our review of relevant literature focuses on two central discussions: (1) clarifying thenature of CURPs and (2) delineating the relationship between CBR and participatorymethods. These issues are emphasized to add precision to the working definitions,practice, and implications of these partnerships.

Scoping the parameters of CURPs

There is an assumption that applied, collaborative research between universities andnon-academic partners can enrich investigations of complex social, health, and environ-mental problems and lead to more meaningful outcomes. CURPs can be understood asone in a series of new institutional efforts to increase the capacity of universities andtheir community partners to tackle societal problems in more inclusive and accountableways. Yet, the practical parameters of partnership are not typically well defined. Whileit may be assumed that non-academic partners are “community-based” (i.e. grassroots),CURPs have come to include private actors that can consist of corporations and indus-try. Some argue that universities have now been re-tooled as instruments of economiccompetitiveness whose primary role is to bolster Canada’s capacity to succeed in aglobal, knowledge-based economy (Polster, 2006; Silversides, 2008). The increase of“public-private partnerships” (corporatization) in academic institutions is the subject ofmuch recent study in Canada (Engel, 2000; Gertler & Vinodrai, 2005; Washburn, 2005).

Failing to distinguish between different types of CURPs has implications beyond thequestion of academic corporatization. The attribution of “community” to all universitypartnerships, while not inherently problematic, must acknowledge that non-profit sectoractors may have considerably less capacity to contribute to and benefit from CURPsthan their private sector counterparts. Additionally, within the CURP relationship,universities often hold more influence and authority than the community actors(Hart et al., 2013; Maurrasse, 2002).

An undifferentiated use of “community” risks glossing over what some scholarsidentify as neoliberal strategies to propel agendas of deregulation and downsizing ofgovernment. In this paradigm, an appeal is made to “communities” to step-in when

166 W. Mendes et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

42 2

9 A

pril

2014

governments withdraw from a range of public or social service functions and institu-tions, including universities (Lake & Newman, 2002). For CURPs with non-profit part-ners, pressure to partner with universities can increase in order to respond to funders’requirements for benchmarking, measureable outcomes, and process evaluations. Thegenealogy of CURP scholarship and practice must be understood as a part of broadershifts within universities and society at large. Furthermore, CURP activity must be situ-ated within the current economic framework, characterized as a situation of “permanentausterity” (Castles, Liebfried, Lewis, Obinger, & Pierson, 2010, p. 14). As one Canadianscholar writes:

[Academics] seldom engage in genuine debate about the university’s role in society. Weseldom discuss the good and bad uses to which our research might be put. But collectively,we in the university are not just in the business of training students to become cogs in soci-ety’s wheel, and our research has value even if it does not sell more widgets. (Overall,2008)

Among the research that examines partnerships in this broader sense are literaturesin political science and urban geography. In these disciplines, partnerships involve

… formalized arrangements between groupings of both influential actors and non-traditionalactors including community and voluntary organizations, activists, non-governmentalagencies, universities and others, resulting in shifts between previously understood scales,mandates, accountabilities and participants in modes of governance. (Larner & Craig, 2002,p. 4)

Here, partnerships are understood as vehicles to enable risk-sharing andtrust-building between the public, private, voluntary, and community sectors (Geddes,2000, p. 784). Proponents argue these partnerships can draw on local knowledge andpropose locally appropriate solutions based on collaborative inclusionary processes, con-sensus-building practices, and local “ownership” of solutions (Craig, 2004; Healey,1997). These partnerships may provide opportunities to “question and subvert ‘businessas usual’ and occasionally produce surprising and sometimes progressive results”(McCann, 2002, p. 78). They also move knowledge creation into new environments(Hart & Wolff, 2006, p. 123). Critics counter that partnerships are little more than“window dressing” giving non-traditional actors little autonomy or influence to shapeagendas (Elwood, 2006; Geddes, 2000).

What benefits might result within the highly politicized milieu of “partnerships” and“community”? First, CURPs are argued to build mutual trust between researchers andthe researched, a notable lack of which is reported in the literature (Vaillancourt, 2007).Second, CURPs may create opportunities to value “non-expert” knowledge by engagingdirectly with those most affected by research problems (Appadurai, 2001; Reinharz,1992). Third, CURPs may enrich the depth and quality of research by providing oppor-tunities for non-academic partners to provide feedback on findings at different stages ofthe research. Academic researchers can adjust the method and analysis mid-stream andalso ensure the validity of the results (Vaillancourt, 2007). Fourth, the research methodsassociated with CURPs promote a culture of reflexivity by researchers in which theyconsider their own roles in the knowledge production process. Fifth, CURPs focus onproblem-based learning, thereby fostering “real world” actions and widely applicableresults for pressing societal problems (Felt et al., 2004).

Community Development 167

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

42 2

9 A

pril

2014

Yet challenges associated with CURPs have been identified. This includes concernsover researchers and partners “living in different worlds,” reconciling different interestsand political objectives (Vaillancourt, 2007, p. 73), working on “different time clocks”for completion and dissemination, and concerns over compromising “scientific indepen-dence” (Jolin, 2004 as quoted in Vaillancourt, 2007, p. 73). Sustainability of resourcesand collaborations after the partnerships end are also not necessarily achieved (McNall,Reed, Brown, & Allen, 2009).

The ways that discourses of “partnership” and “community” influence the actorsinvolved and the outcomes they seek extends beyond the question of how CURPs aredefined. Just as significant is how they are operationalized. Here a host of participatorymethodologies are typically aligned and sometimes problematically equated with CURPs.

Not just what but how: CBR and participatory methods

The question of what constitutes a CURP is complicated by the assumption that CURPsnecessarily employ the participatory, inclusive methodologies with which they are com-monly aligned. CURPs are often associated with a range of participatory research mod-els in which non-academic partners are actively engaged in identifying needs,conducting research, and disseminating results. However, it is problematic to assumethat CURPs are operationalized with participatory methodologies, and if they are, itdoes not automatically follow that such an approach guarantees equal participation andexchange. CURPs can comprise symbolic associations that are considerably less interac-tive and inclusive than stated goals may imply, bringing into play questions of powerhierarchies, the role of funders and university administrations in determining researchagendas, the perceived value and rigor or CURP scholarship, and the ability to buildtrust and enable capacity-building among partners. These challenges are made moreacute by pressure on faculty members to attract large national research grants. This canbe problematic due to potential conflicts in roles and responsibilities, but also becauseresearch grants based on CURP principles are often limited and less lucrative than more(apparently) scientific funding pools.

A research method typically associated with CURPs is CBR which addresses com-plex environmental, health, and social problems where “objective, expert-driven”research approaches have proven insufficient. Equally significant in driving CBR aredemands on the part of research participants for more meaningful input and decision-making power (Minkler, 2004; Savan, Flicker, Kolenda, & Mildenberger, 2009).

CBR terminology varies a great deal in the literature. This paper accepts the broadterm “CBR” and uses the definition put forward by Flicker, Savan, McGrath, Kolenda,and Mildenberger (2007) as research “conducted by, for or with the participation ofcommunity members … that aims not merely to advance understanding, but also toensure that knowledge contributes to making a concrete and constructive difference inthe world” (p. 2). CBR is not a research methodology, but rather an approach toresearch that emphasizes “the importance of collaboration, participation and social jus-tice agendas over positivist notions of objectivity and the idea that science is apolitical”(Flicker et al., 2007, p. 2). CBR practitioners contend that community involvementmakes research more relevant, accessible, and responsive to people’s experiences. Fur-thermore, CBR is argued to contribute to group empowerment and capacity buildingthat may contribute to lasting individual and broader social change (Flicker & Savan,2006; Wallerstein & Duran, 2003). Felt et al. (2004, p. 19) propose a typology that con-trasts typical academic research with CBR, demonstrating how differences in approaches

168 W. Mendes et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

42 2

9 A

pril

2014

may affect the entire research process. For example, whereas academic research can becharacterized as “focused” and “knowledge driven”, CBR is more “general/holistic” and“action driven”.

In addition to key principles and characteristics, the literature identifies a number ofbarriers to CBR, including a lack of funding, disincentives in academic hiring and pro-motion policies for academics who practice CBR, time shortages to engage in collabora-tive research, and the perception that CBR is not academically rigorous (Calleson,Jordan, & Seifer, 2005; Flicker & Savan, 2006). This last barrier poses particular chal-lenges as it implies an association with “activist” and “partisan” agendas often seen tobe incompatible with academe (Felt et al., 2004, p. 16). Yet recently, Canada’s SocialSciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) has broadened its research fundingto place greater emphasis on community–university partnerships, signaling, perhaps, along-awaited recognition of the scholarly value of CBR.

Debates over activism and the academy make up a contentious terrain that is docu-mented in scholarly literatures (Blomley, 1994, 2008; Chatterton, 2006; Gibbons, 2001).Indeed, a number of disciplines (e.g. geography, development studies, globalizationstudies, education, sociology, women’s studies) have evolved specific “critical” branchesthat purport to challenge the central tenets of academic knowledge production. Theplacement of CBR (and CURPs) on a continuum that may range from “critical” studiesto avowedly activist research raises important questions for practitioners and non-aca-demic partners and constitutes one of CURPs most pressing challenges. Before movingto the contours of this debate in relation to the Ryerson University research centers thatare the focus of this paper, it will first be helpful to describe Canada’s CURP landscapein general, and that of Ryerson in particular.

Canada’s CURP landscape: funding, research units, events, and projects

CURP activity has increased markedly in Canada over the past decade as evidenced innew funding streams, university research units, events, and projects. Canada’s largestsocial sciences and health funding agencies now mandate community participation andpartnerships in some of the research that they fund. Ten years ago, SSHRC launchedthe Community–University Research Alliances (CURAs). In what was initially a three-year experiment, large five-year grants funded research partnerships between universityresearchers and community groups (Felt et al., 2004). After the program was made per-manent (Vaillancourt, 2007), SSHRC invested $84 million in 92 CURAs (Fitzpatrick,2008). Most recently, as noted above, SSHRC has reconfigured the CURA program to amore general partnership program.

The institutionalization of CURPs by funding agencies started in the early 1990swhen the then Québec Social Research Council invited researchers to create partnershipteams in the fields of health and social welfare, leading to the creation of approximately20 research partnerships (Vaillancourt, 2007). The institutionalization of CURPs repre-sents a continuation of this lineage influenced both by pressing societal issues and shiftsin university culture. In an effort to draw together knowledge and expertise on CURPs,a coalition was launched by a group of Canadian universities, research networks, andcommunity organizations called CBR Canada (2013).

The CURP landscape at Ryerson University

Ryerson University is located in Toronto, Canada, a city of 2.48 million people (5.5million in the Greater Toronto Area), renowned for its rich cultural diversity. The

Community Development 169

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

42 2

9 A

pril

2014

University started in 1948 as a polytechnic institute focusing on career and technicaltraining. In 1993, Ryerson attained full university status and added research to itsapplied learning roots. Ryerson offers programs to approximately 39,000 students(including 2300 graduate students) in eight faculties (Ryerson University, 2013).

Ryerson’s FCS, home to the research centers that are the focus of this paper, houses10 schools offering a range of undergraduate and graduate programs in Child and YouthCare, Disability Studies, Early Childhood Education, Health Services Management,Midwifery, Nursing, Nutrition, Occupational and Public Health, Social Work, and Urban& Regional Planning. The history of Ryerson as a technical training institution com-bined with a strong component of practicum-based curriculum and community outreachmean that community–university partnerships, including those with a research focus,have evolved as an important characteristic of both the university and FCS.

The 10 FCS schools share research, teaching, and practice mandates that focus ondisciplines with impacts at the community scale. In early 2008, the Dean’s office con-vened meetings to discuss issues related to CURPs, with the goal of strengthening theFCS community-focused research efforts. The participating research centers were: TheCenter for the Advancement of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning; The Centerfor Children, Youth & Families; The Center for Health In at Risk Populations; The Cen-ter for Studies in Food Security; The Nursing Center for Research and Education onViolence against Women & Children; and The Ryerson Caribbean Research Center.Approximately 12 faculty members were involved.

The Dean’s Office encouraged faculty members to explore what role interdisciplina-rity plays as a common feature within and across research centers. At Ryerson Univer-sity, the 2008–2013 Ryerson University Academic Plan called for an increase both ininterdisciplinary work and in the number of research centers (Ryerson University,2008a). These early meetings identified a pressing need to better understand the role ofresearch centers vis-à-vis Ryerson’s mandate to “ally with community partners”(Ryerson University, 2008b) (see Table 1).

Table 1. Examples of CURPs in which Ryerson FCS research centers participate.

Ryerson FCS Research Center CURP examples

Center for Studies in Food Security Partnerships with civil society and governmentorganizations in Canada, Africa, Brazil and theCaribbean.

Nursing Center for Research and Educationon Violence against Women & Children

Partnership project with field-based practitioners:“The efficacy of professional curricula in preparingstudents to engage in and influence health carerelated to violence against women & children(VAWC).”

Center for the Advancement of theScholarship of Teaching & Learning

Partnerships with clinical leaders in hospitals wherestudents complete placements and practica in orderto provide high-quality, innovative educationalsupport to facilitate preparedness for professionalpractice.

Ryerson Caribbean Research Center(RCRC)

Partners with Ryerson’s Center for Studies in FoodSecurity and civil society organizations to developa program in research, education, and training onfood security issues affecting Caribbeancommunities in Canada and around the world.

170 W. Mendes et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

42 2

9 A

pril

2014

With interdisciplinarity emerging as an important priority there was an interest inexploring how it might relate to the design and implementation of CURPs. Efforts tounderstand the nature and role of interdisciplinarity are now well represented in scholar-ship (Balsiger, 2004; Barry, Born, & Weskalnys, 2008; National Academy of Sciences,2005; Öberg, 2009; Robinson, 2008). However, there remains considerable disagreementover what constitutes interdisciplinarity, its perceived value, how it is practiced andevaluated, and the reasons for enabling it.

Robinson (2008) identifies a 1972 Organization for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) paper as one of the first systematic efforts to come to terms withwhat interdisciplinarity means and how it is practiced based on an assumption that theultimate goal of interdisciplinary scholarship is “unity of knowledge” that is fully inte-grated and coherent. The second interdisciplinary temperament proposed by Robinson is“issue-based interdisciplinarity.” This approach is driven by an interest in the need toengage outside of the academic world by taking novel approaches to complex problems,and Robinson (2008) argues that a central characteristic of this type of interdisciplinarityis a strong focus on partnerships “which go beyond treating partners primarily as audi-ences, and instead involves these partners as co-producers of new hybrid forms ofknowledge” (p. 72). In spite of the focus on partnerships, it is worth noting that almostnowhere in the literatures on CURPs and CBR is interdisciplinarity addressed as a sig-nificant characteristic associated with the practice, even though the review itself revealsan intellectual trajectory that thread across and between a number of traditions.

What emerged from preliminary discussions was that CURPs are an important goalof universities and Ryerson’s FCS, but that relatively little was documented in scholar-ship, teaching, or practice about their dynamics, advantages, and challenges, particularlyfrom the RCA perspective. With the aim of improving pedagogical and research capac-ity, faculty members saw the value in documenting the process of inquiry that resultedin the reflections offered here.

Methods

The methodology for the article is both reflexive and exploratory; reflecting the princi-ples of CBR that are a central theme of the paper. It is intended as an analytical startingpoint to document existing issues and identify future research agendas. Given that theRCAs would be engaged in the sharing of their own perspectives, the Dean hired aresearch assistant to facilitate the inquiry. The ensuing design included data collectionvis-à-vis hand-written notes taken by the research assistant during eight monthly RCAmeetings and three conference planning meetings. The individuals attending these two-hour meetings were representatives of their respective research centers. Meeting atten-dance ranged in number from 10 to 14 people, depending on availability. This phase ofdata collection occurred over approximately nine months.

The research assistant analyzed the textual data from this first phase of the researchproject to inform the second phase. From the meeting transcripts, a brief survey wasdeveloped that was shared by the research assistant with the other members of theresearch team (second, third, and fourth authors of this paper) for input. After receivingfeedback from the research team regarding the scope of the survey, a final version wasconfirmed and distributed by email to the leadership (Chairs and co-Chairs) of eachresearch center. The survey asked three multi-part, open-ended questions:

Community Development 171

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

42 2

9 A

pril

2014

(1) To whom do CURPs make a difference and how?(2) What difference do research centers (and interdisciplinarity) make to CURPs?(3) Why engage in CURPs, and what are the challenges?

Respondents were not anonymous to the research assistant given the small sample, butall provided informed consent to share their responses, knowing that these data wouldbe used here. Respondents’ identities remained confidential.

Eight replies were received from individuals in leadership roles within all of theFCS research centers. Textual analysis (including thematic coding) was performed onthe structured surveys and, along with the data collected in the first phase of the study,determined the three themes discussed below. A qualitative approach based on Thorne,Kirkham, and MacDonald-Emes’ (1997) method of interpretive description was appliedto the analysis of the textual data. Interpretive description is considered suitable forexploration of previously unexplored experiences and will allow researchers to movebeyond the mere description of the experience of working within a community–univer-sity partnership (Thorne et al., 1997). Following the results section, the paper concludeswith recommendations for future CURP research.

Findings

Three key themes emerged from our research: (1) defining terminology and identifyingCURP beneficiaries, (2) the role of research centers in enabling CURPs, and (3) the roleof interdisciplinarity as a defining characteristic of FCS research centers. These themesreflect a negotiation regarding the relationship between community and university part-ners within highly complex systems of “ruling relations”, (Smith, 1987) as well as thechallenges for individuals in each position to meet the demands of their respective insti-tutions, while at the same time being productive as a mutually beneficial entity.

Theme 1: defining terminology and identifying CURP beneficiaries

First, the RCAs explored simple yet fundamental questions. What is meant by a CURP?To whom do CURPs make a difference (e.g. the university, funders, faculty members,and/or community partners)? What does “community” mean? Who is included? Who isleft out? What are the minimum requirements for a partnership? Are a certain numberof partners required or does “partnership” refer to a way of doing research (e.g. valuingknowledge and ensuring equitable participation)?

Added to this set of questions was a concern with how to address “hierarchies” inpartnerships, including differences between agendas and priorities of funding agencies,community groups, and universities. These differences impact responsiveness, timeli-ness, and pace of CURPs, as well as the ability to build trust and enable goals of train-ing and community capacity building. Potential disconnects between partners anddifferent scales of intervention (e.g. neighborhood-based CURPs or CURPs involvingnational-level organizations) and intersections between community involvement andteaching practices were considered.

In spite of these challenges, all RCAs identified “community partners” or “commu-nity members” as the rightful beneficiaries of CURPs. It was stated that CURPs enableacademics to bring information and resources to community partners, resulting in out-comes that are more than the sum of their parts (RCAs 1, 2, and 6). RCA 8 reinforced

172 W. Mendes et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

42 2

9 A

pril

2014

this view by identifying community partners as “essential” to CURPs and the partner-ships themselves as vehicles to build mutual trust and respect that can benefit vulnerablepopulations and the agencies that serve them.

… community agencies that are organized to provide service with and for at-risk popula-tions (e.g. immigrants, refugees, sexual minorities, youth, First Nations people, homelesspeoples, women in shelters, street involved youth, those with disabilities, people strugglingwith poverty, among others) can be a point of entry to building mutual trust, respect, andcollaborative partnerships for current and future research. (RCA 8)

Our research found that CURPs enhanced the integrity and relevance of academics’work. One RCA described a project in which alliances developed with “practice part-ners” made a significant contribution to the ability to develop curriculum that wasresponsive to the reality of the practice setting and the communities in which practitio-ners serve. Additional benefits included the ability to prepare new graduates to work inpartnership with vulnerable populations (RCA 8). RCA 6 asserted that CURPS make asignificant difference to the integrity of her work. She stated simply: “I want my workto matter.”

However, the assertion that CURPs make a difference for community partners wastempered by a set of strong caveats. First, some RCAs stipulated that there must beacceptance on the part of academics that they are a part of – not separate from – thecommunities in which they reside (and conduct research), and with this recognitioncomes a responsibility to actively engage in collaborative community development ini-tiatives (RCA 1). A strong sense of service was conveyed by many RCAs who indi-cated a sense of obligation to contribute information and resources to communitypartners (RCAs 1 and 6) or to “open doors” for community partners (RCA 2). At thesame time, other RCAs – almost all – built upon these observations by once again call-ing into question the very notion of “community,” and insisting that its conceptualambiguities be unpacked. These included general questions about how community isunderstood. For instance, in their questionnaire responses, RCAs raised the question ofwhether “community” was defined by shared interest, shared goals, length of member-ship, singularity of purpose, approach, or vision. One RCA stated, “I would like toexplore the notion of community. This is a contested notion. They are not fixed. Theyare situated, particular depending on context” (RCA 5).

This sentiment was further expressed by RCAs who emphasized that individualsbelong to many communities, which can create fragmented identities, making it chal-lenging to specify what community means (RCA 7). Another RCA pointed out thatmany of the community members involved with CURPs are within the university itself.These include students, educator practitioners, alumni, stakeholders, and so on (RCA 5).

While RCAs were hesitant to concretely define what constitutes “community,” manywere interested in delineating essential characteristics of the partnerships inherent inCURP arrangements, irrespective of who the “community partners” might be. This cameacross as the most important concept to be interrogated because it carries with it somany implications around participation, benefits, and value judgments regarding theknowledge that results from CURPs. One RCA insisted that partnerships require threebasic elements: mutuality, respect, and a willingness to learn from each other:

Mutuality creates the basis for identifying joint interests, compatible visions and approachesthat are participatory in both theory and practice … Respect is the platform on which part-nership must be built and is the critical ingredient in participatory approaches. (RCA 7)

Community Development 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

42 2

9 A

pril

2014

These observations were reinforced by RCAs’ assertion that academics cannot be assumedto “have all the answers.” As one RCA put it: “[community partners] are very competentat putting realistic plans together to improve their community’s wellbeing if they haveaccess to information and appropriate partnerships” (RCA 1). RCA 7 added a need to rec-ognize the important skill sets of community partners from which RCAs must be willingto learn. Underpinning these recognitions was an interest in challenging legacies of colo-nialism and other forms of oppression that have effectively hampered access to opportuni-ties for certain population groups to have their knowledge recognized and valued.

In spite of the challenges and inconsistencies, RCAs were insistent about why theyengage in CURPs, both as individual scholars and as RCAs:

Why do it? Because it is part of whom we are. Yes it is messy, often frustrating and timeconsuming but I cannot identify a better alternative. For me there is no choice. Failure isnot an option! (RCA 7)

RCAs indicated that CURPs represent a powerful vehicle to build scholarship capac-ity, but also to transform a culture of scholarship steeped in competitiveness rather thancooperation. Rather than focusing on individual endeavors, CURPs are generally seen tofocus on a collaborative approach to research that creates a community of scholars sup-porting the scholarship of teaching and learning (Cash & Tate, 2008, p. 1). RCAs recog-nized however, that this requires that the “expert” culture of universities – and researchcenters – be challenged:

[There is a] tendency for university research centres to be aloof and think of themselves as arepository of expertise that will only respond if asked for help; the “experts” … then identifythe important issues and suggest suitable actions to address them. This “expert” cultureneeds to be discarded if research centres are to be effective community partners. (RCA 1)

Questioning the expert culture of universities and research centers brings a host ofadditional challenges, many of which are well represented in the literatures. First, RCAsnoted that CURPs are poorly rewarded in tenure and promotion processes, and may infact be a liability for untenured faculty, “Many of my young faculty colleagues areuntenured. This changes their priorities and interacts badly with available time [toparticipate in CURPs]” (RCA 7).

This places untenured faculty who wish to dedicate time to or indeed build theirscholarly careers on CURP methods and approaches, in a precarious position. In arecent paper entitled, “Community-engaged scholarship: is faculty work in communitiesa true academic enterprise?” Calleson et al. (2005) discuss the challenges inherent inCURPs, given institutional approaches to tenure and promotion. Inconsistent supportand recognition – both within and outside the university – present material difficultiesthat express themselves in limits to funding opportunities and advancement potential forfaculty engaged in CURPs. It also presents contradictions for faculty members whowish, on the one hand, to confront the “expert culture” of academia, while at the sametime adhering to tenure and advancement requirements that demand its reinforcement(Robinson, Gingras, Cooper, Waddell, & Davidge, 2009).

In terms of the mechanics of conducting CURP research, RCAs identified the chal-lenge of time, “time for outreach; to do the work; to hold the partnerships together; toshare knowledge. It takes time to build trust” (RCA 7). It was generally recognized byRCAs that CURPs require patience and an enormous amount of coordination and

174 W. Mendes et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

42 2

9 A

pril

2014

communication (RCAs 1, 2, and 4). The process of identifying what information will beuseful – both for academics and their partners – to address complex social, economic,and physical challenges can be painstaking. However, it seems to be an inescapableingredient of CURPs, and one that is key to producing lasting, sustainable improve-ments for CURP partners.

Theme 2: research centers enabling CURPs

Having begun to examine the “building blocks” of CURPs, the next major theme toemerge was the question of what, if anything, distinguishes research centers in theirapproach to and implementation of CURPs. A number of RCAs argued that universityresearch centers are in a unique position to play a pivotal role in collaborative processesby acting as brokers for knowledge and network-building that extend beyond “the com-munity” itself (RCAs 1, 2, 3, and 5). RCA 1 described it this way:

There are many roles for a [research] centre: knowledge broker; catalyst for initiating thedevelopment of collaborative learning groups; resource for building skills and capacity incritical thinking on complex issues; actor and partner in community development initiativesetc. (RCA 1)

Together these roles help community partners build the capacity and expertise thatthey may not normally have resources to attain. RCAs evoked the paradigm of “sociallearning” to describe the function that research centers play. This refers to building skillsand capacity for critical thinking around complex issues so that communities are able tomake informed decisions on suitable development actions (RCA 1). In this same vein,another RCA added that research centers can enable research programs to gain power(the capacity to change), legitimacy, and visibility among an academic and broader com-munity (RCA 5).

These observations were underpinned by reflections on what it is about research cen-ters that puts them – and their associates – in a unique position to affect the outcomesdescribed. RCAs claimed that the very structure of research centers supports sharedscholarly interests and creative energy for emergent cross-disciplinary work that is com-munity-based. One RCA stated, “Both [research center] infrastructure (e.g. support staff,a place to meet) and their wide net of expertise creates an environment that encouragesinterdisciplinary collaboration essential for CBR” (RCA 2).

Other RCAs supported this observation, and added further thoughts that identifystructural benefits but also the importance of creating a community of like-mindedscholars and opportunities for critical interdisciplinary dialog that is not always possiblewithin a single discipline or department:

My understanding of “community” is enhanced through critical dialogue [with RC peers]about what constitutes “community,” thus my independent research program is enhancedand so are our collective [research centre] efforts. Involvement with a research centre offersan iterative and generative experience. (RCA 5)

Research centres present an opportunity for extra support for researchers who want to pur-sue CBR. But not only that type of research … We want to support all types of research,which subscribe to our vision and principles. It just so happens that the type of researchthat matters is very much community-based. [Our RC provides] an opportunity to find like-minded people who will support each other. Research centres, through a variety of expertiseand partners from many disciplines can be uniquely appropriate as supportive networks forcommunity-based activities, particularly CBR. (RCA 6)

Community Development 175

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

42 2

9 A

pril

2014

Theme 3: interdisciplinarity as a defining characteristic of FCS research centers

The assertion that research centers offer a valuable “bridging” function between individualacademic departments, and also between academic and non-academic partners was closelylinked to the role of interdisciplinarity as a de facto characteristic of research centers.RCAs identified interdisciplinarity as an intrinsic part of the identity of their respectiveresearch centers, and equally the identity of their collective of centers. Interdisciplinaritywas therefore understood as a “point of departure” for discussion and analysis of CURPs(an input not an output). Interdisciplinarity was described by RCAs as an “embedded partof the culture” of the FCS, and a crucial part of how research is undertaken. Interdisciplin-ary practice was argued to reflect a belief in the value of difference, and recognition of theimportance of acting as a bridge between academia and the communities with whichRCAs work. It was pointed out that this “bridging” works both ways: both reaching out tocommunities from academia, as well as bringing new thinking and perspectives fromcommunities back into academia. In this way, research centers are seen to represent amodel of “cross-over” that raises the visibility and legitimacy of CURPs.

RCAs also observed that because community development issues are often socomplex, it is unlikely that any initial actions would be completely effective. For thisreason, on-going evaluation, reflection, learning, adaptation, and newly formulatedactions must occur iteratively in order for development to keep on track towards thegoals the community has set itself:

The complexity of issues such as poverty, food insecurity, and environmental degradationare not ones that are amenable to simple technical fixes. They require an integrated collabo-rative approach that brings “many heads together” to share perspectives, knowledge, andexperience in order to establish the boundaries of their understanding, and where moreinformation is needed in order to move forward. (RCA 1)

These needs present challenges for research centers including the incompatibilitieswith the timeframes and expectations of universities, and demands on academics toproduce results quickly. Even so, RCAs insisted that research centers could – andshould – play an important part in facilitating such experiential interdisciplinary learningprocesses (RCAs 1 and 7).

Conclusion and future directions

The purpose of this article has been to offer reflections on the role of university researchcenters and their associates in enabling CURPs. The article has been a reflexive andexploratory starting point intended to: (1) document existing issues and trends identifiedby a group of RCAs affiliated with interdisciplinary research centers housed in a facultywith a mandate “to make a positive impact on the community” and (2) identify areasfor future research. On the second aim, two clear directions emerge as requiring furtherinvestigation.

First, preliminary findings of this exploratory research indicate that research centerscan contribute to the institutionalization of CURPs within universities, as well as offeroperational models for engaging in CURPs, while also raising their legitimacy. RCAsidentified a number of characteristics including structural factors (the ability to create across-departmental space for critical dialog and investigation that is not always possiblewithin a single discipline or department) and procedural/methodological factors (aninterest in honing methods associated with CBR in an environment that may be more

176 W. Mendes et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

42 2

9 A

pril

2014

tolerant to experimental approaches and openness to valuing “non-expert” knowledge).On both of these factors, more research will be required to test the preliminary links thathave been identified.

A second direction for future research is the need to test the significance of the in-terdisciplinarity of research centers as a defining indicator of capacity to engage inCURPs. As Öberg observes, “a basic prerequisite for successful interdisciplinary schol-arship is the ability to acknowledge and navigate among contradictory or competingknowledge claims” (2009, p. 9). It is clear that university research centers are in aunique position to offer an environment where “competing knowledge claims” can beexamined productively. However, this alone does not necessarily capture the additionallayer of complexity that results when interdisciplinarity extends beyond academe andengages non-academic partners. It is here that we circle back to the terrain of partner-ships that is central to this paper. Both CURPs (and the CBR approaches that oftencharacterize them) and issue-based interdisciplinarity share a number of common con-cerns, challenges, and benefits. Despite this, the relationships between them have notbeen explored deeply.

In conclusion, it is the expectation of the Ryerson research centers who participated inthis first phase of exploratory research to use these preliminary findings and futureresearch directions to advance the inquiry introduced in this article. In so doing, the inten-tion is to continue examining ways of making “bridging” approaches more visible andlegitimate in academia, while at the same time generating relevant and engaged CBR.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors wish to acknowledge the Ryerson University, Faculty of Community Services (FCS)Dean’s Office, and FCS Research Centre Associates whose support and contributions made thisarticle possible.

ReferencesAppadurai, A. (2001). Deep democracy: Urban governmentality and the horizon of politics.

Environment & Urbanization, 13, 23–43.Balsiger, P. W. (2004). Supradisciplinary research practices. Futures, 36, 407–421.Barry, A., Born, G., & Weskalnys, G. (2008). Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society,

37, 20–49.Blomley, N. K. (1994). Activism and the academy [Editorial]. Environment and Planning D:

Society and Space, 12, 383–385.Blomley, N. K. (2008). The spaces of critical geography. Progress in Human Geography, 32,

285–293.Calleson, D., Jordan, C., & Seifer, S. D. (2005). Community-engaged scholarship: Is faculty work

in communities a true academic enterprise? Academic Medicine, 80, 317–321.Cash, P. A., & Tate, B. (2008). Creating a community of scholars: Using a community develop-

ment approach to foster scholarship with nursing faculty. International Journal of NursingEducation Scholarship, 5(1), 1–11.

Castles, F. G., Liebfried, S., Lewis, J., Obinger, H., & Pierson, C. (Eds.). (2010). The Oxfordhandbook of the welfare state. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Chatterton, P. (2006). “Give up activism” and change the world in unknown ways: Or, learning towalk with others on uncommon ground. Antipode, 38, 259–281.

Community Based Research Canada. (2013). Who we are. Retrieved May 2, 2013, from http://communityresearchcanada.ca/who_are_we

Craig, D. (2004). Building on partnership: Sustainable local collaboration and devolved coordi-nation: A review of core issues, with on-the-ground examples from the ‘Waitakere Way.’Strengthening Communities through Local Partnerships. Local Partnerships and GovernanceResearch Group, Research Paper 15, Auckland, New Zealand.

Community Development 177

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

42 2

9 A

pril

2014

Elwood, S. (2006). Negotiating knowledge production: The everyday inclusions, exclusions, andcontradictions of participatory GIS research. The Professional Geographer, 58, 197–208.

Engel, M. (2000). The struggle for control of public education: Market ideology vs. democraticvalues. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Felt, L. F., Rowe, P. M., & Curlew, K. (2004, September). Teaching academic dogs and cats newtricks: ‘Re-tooling’ senior academic researchers for collaborative community-based research.Paper presented at the Researching the Voluntary Sector Conference, Sheffield, England.

Fitzpatrick, J. (2008, April 7). Putting knowledge into practice. University Affairs. Retrieved Octo-ber 12, 2008, from http://www.universityaffairs.ca/2008/04/07/putting-knowledge-into-practice.aspx

Flicker, S., & Savan, B. (2006). A snapshot of CBR in Canada. Toronto, ON: Wellesley Institute.Retrieved January 31, 2014, from http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/pdf_files/CBR%20snapshot%20report%20final.pdf

Flicker, S., Savan, B., McGrath, M., Kolenda, B., & Mildenberger, M. (2007). ‘If you couldchange one thing…’ What community-based researchers wish they could have done differ-ently. Community Development Journal, 43, 239–253.

Geddes, M. (2000). Tackling social exclusion in the European Union? The limits to the neworthodoxy of local partnership. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24,782–800.

Gertler, M., & Vinodrai, T. (2005). Anchors of creativity: How do public universities createcompetitive and cohesive communities? In F. Iacobucci & C. Tuohy (Eds.), Taking publicuniversities seriously (pp. 293–313) Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Gibbons, W. (2001). ‘Critical of what?’: Past and current issues in critical human geography.History of Intellectual Culture, 1(1). Retrieved July 15, 2009, from http://www.ucalgary.ca/hic/issues/vol1/4

Hart, A., Davies, C., Aumann, K., Wenger, E., Aranda, K., Heaver, B., & Wolff, D. (2013).Mobilising knowledge in community-university partnerships: What does a community ofpractice approach contribute? Contemporary Social Science: Journal of the Academy of SocialSciences, 8, 278–291. Retrieved July 9, 2013, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2013.767470

Hart, A., & Wolff, D. (2006). Developing local ‘communities of practice’ through localcommunity-university partnerships. Planning, Practice & Research, 21, 121–138. RetrievedJuly 9, 2013, from http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/tmp/5779429516098825318.pdf

Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London:Macmillan.

Lake, R. W., & Newman, K. (2002). Differential citizenship in the shadow state. GeoJournal, 58,109–120.

Larner, W., & Craig, D. (2002). After neoliberalism? Local partnerships and social governance inAotearoa New Zealand. Working Paper #6: Strengthening Communities through Local Part-nerships. Prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,Boston, August 2002 for a panel entitled: Redesigning Welfare Regimes.

López, E., Parker, E., Edgren, K., & Brakefield-Caldwell, W. (2005). Disseminating research find-ings back to partnering communities: Lessons learned from a community-based participatoryresearch approach. In Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities (Ed.), Community-based research, 16, 59–76.

Maurrasse, D. (2002). Higher education-community partnerships: Assessing progress in the field.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 131–139. Retrieved July 9, 2013, from http://resolver.scholarsportal.info.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/resolve/08997640/v31i0001/131_hepapitf

McCann, E. (2002). Space, citizenship, and the right to the city: A brief overview. GeoJournal,58, 77–79.

McNall, M., Reed, C., Brown, R., & Allen, A. (2009). Brokering community-university engage-ment. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 317–331. Retrieved July 12, 2013, from http://resolver.scholarsportal.info/resolve/07425627/v33i0005/317_bce

Minkler, M. (2004). Ethical challenges for the “outside” research in community-based participa-tory research. Health Education & Behavior, 31, 684–697.

178 W. Mendes et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

42 2

9 A

pril

2014

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine.(2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: The National AcademiesPress.

Öberg, G. (2009). Facilitating interdisciplinary work: Using quality assessment to create commonground. Higher Education, 57, 405–415.

Overall, C. (2008, September 8). Where’s the debate? University Affairs. Retrieved July 15, 2009,from http://www.universityaffairs.ca/wheres-the-debate.aspx

Polster, C. (2006). Rethinking Canada’s higher education policy: Corporatization of universitiesmore harmful than helpful. In The Monitor. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.Retrieved July 15, 2009, from http://www.policyalternatives.ca/MonitorIssues/2006/11/MonitorIssue1515/

Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York, NY: Oxford University.Robinson, J. (2008). Being undisciplined: Transgressions and intersections in academia and

beyond. Futures, 40, 70–86.Robinson, P., Gingras, J., Cooper, L., Waddell, J., & Davidge, E. (2009). SoTL’s watershed

moment: A critical turning point for Ryerson University. Transformative Dialogues: Teachingand Learning Journal, 3(1), 1–11.

Ryerson University. (2008a, June). Shaping our future. Academic Plan for 2008–2013. Toronto:Office of the Provost and Vice-President Academic.

Ryerson University. (2008b). Faculty of community services. Retrieved January 31, 2014, fromhttp://www.ryerson.ca/fcs/about/index.html

Ryerson University. (2013). About Ryerson. Retrieved May 3, 2013, from http://www.ryerson.ca/about/

Savan, B. (2004). Community–university partnerships: Linking research and action for sustainablecommunity development. Community Development Journal, 39, 372–384.

Savan, B., & Sider, D. (2003). Contrasting approaches to community-based research and a casestudy of community sustainability in Toronto, Canada. Local Environment, 8, 303–316.

Savan, B. I., Flicker, S., Kolenda, B., & Mildenberger, M. (2009). How to facilitate (ordiscourage) community-based research: Recommendations based on a Canadian survey. LocalEnvironment, 14, 783–796.

Silversides, A. (2008). Merchant scientists: How commercialization is changing research in Can-ada. The Walrus. Retrieved March 23, 2009, from http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2008.05-science-and-commercialization-ann-silversides/

Smith, D. (1987). The everyday world as problematic. Boston, MA: Northeastern UniversityPress.

Thorne, S., Kirkham, S. R., & MacDonald-Emes, J. (1997). Interpretative description: A noncate-gorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. Research in Nursing &Health, 20, 169–177.

Vaillancourt, Y. (2007). Democratizing knowledge: The experience of university-communityresearch partnerships. In Jan Aart Scholte (Ed.), Building local and global democracy (pp.63–80). Harrowsmith: The Carold Institute.

Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2003). The conceptual, historical and practice roots of communitybased participatory research and related participatory traditions. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein(Eds.), Community based participatory research for health (pp. 27–52). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Washburn, J. (2005). University Inc.: The corporate corruption of higher education. New York,NY: Basic Books.

Community Development 179

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

42 2

9 A

pril

2014