The Many Approaches to CBPR: Learning from the Differences

1. The Many Approaches to CBPR: Learning from the Differences Linda Silka, Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center University of Maine

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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?

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. Learning from the Differences • Different types of problems • Different types of stakeholders • Different types of disciplines • Different histories of collaboration

12. 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

13. Learning from the Differences Examples of strategies to create new problem-focused, solution-driven conversations • Alternative Futures • Agent-Based Modeling • Other strategies

14. Learning from the Differences Struggling when things don’t work! Using the Wicked Problems Analysis to Understand the Difficulties

15. Learning from the Differences How these experiences are starting to raise questions about and change research practices in Maine!

16. 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/