Understanding the Cultures of Community O rganizations and Academic C enters

1. Understanding the Cultures of Community Organizations and Academic Centers Module 2

2. Overview • Discussion Groups • Group 1: Organizational Mentors • Group 2: Fellows • Group 3: Faculty • What are some general characteristics of: (1) Cultures of Community Organizations? (2) Cultures of Academic Centers? (3) How might the cultures of the two: (a) conflict? (b) be synergistic?

3. Cultures of Community-Based Organizations • Often interested in short-term outcomes, evaluation of particular programs • Accountable to multiple stakeholders • Boards of Directors • Community of Focus • Staff • Larger parent organizations and/or organizations focused on same topic • Collaborative Partners • Government rules, regulations

4. Community Members’ Perspective on Research Historical Associations w/community research, medical research and exploitation (e.g., medical experimentation on slaves, Nazi concentration camps, Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Henrietta Lacks) Less blatant but still important cases of exploitation: Researchers “using” the community (for access to data, people, etc.) to advance own careers Important question: Who does the research benefit?

5. Cultures of Academic Organizations • General Expectations of Faculty • Establishing Oneself as an Expert • Must be “Productive” • Expertise and Productivity demonstrated by: • Publishing (Especially in peer-reviewed journals) • Obtaining Funding (grants, fellowships, etc.) • Fiscal Tensions • Grant-writing to bring in salary support • Funders increasingly look for collaborative approach • Paying for graduate assistance

6. General Faculty Types

7. Cultures of Academic Organizations • Substantial Intracultural Variation • Across Faculty Categories • Across and within Departments • Tenure-track Faculty: Pressures/priorities-tenure process • Community-based research not always fully recognized, valued in tenure process, though there is some shifting being seen • Researchers often trained to conduct research for the sake of research

8. Considerations for University-Based Researchers in Working with Community Organizations Oppression: Recognize the role research has historically played, and how it has contributed to oppression Power: The university’s power, extent to which individual researchers’ educational status and/or accomplishments and/or association with the university communicate power Community-based Research: focus on affecting “real” problems and larger social change Building relationships with the community takes time

9. PEER: Finding Common Ground

10. PEER Goals for Partnership Community Orgs • Develop, increase research capacity • Enhance service to stakeholders • Relationship w/university • Enhanced ability to “produce” in partnership • Publications • Grants Faculty Partners • Develop, increase community partnerships • Relationship w/community • Enhanced ability to “produce” in partnership • Publications • Grants

11. PEER: What the Partnership will look like Faculty partly serve in advisory capacity Ideally, goals are mutual Community organization has particular goals (e.g., evaluation), the faculty member might suggest taking a particular approach that aligns with their area of interest in selecting methods, etc. Work benefits both researcher and organization Hope for a long-term partnership Negotiation/partnership

12. Partnership Skills Getting to Yes

13. A simple, useful definition Conflict is an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals. Transforming a conflict depends on perceptual or conceptual change in one or more of the parties. Perception is at the core of all conflict analysis. You must sort out what is actually happening from the perception of what is happening Mark Chupp, 13

14. Elements of Conflict These elements must be examined carefully if conflict is to be clarified enough to “re-solve” • An expressed struggle • Interdependence • Perceived Incompatible Goals • Perceived scarce resources • Interference Mark Chupp, 14

15. Mark Chupp, 15

17. React = Re-Enact the Past Auto-downloading Mental Models Action Stimulus Response Adapted from C. Otto Scharmer, Theory U Mark Chupp, 17

18. React = Re-Enact the Past Auto-downloading Mental Models Action Mind the Gap Challenge your Mental Models Adapted from C. Otto Scharmer, Theory U Mark Chupp, 18

19. Looking into the Blind Spot Mind the Gap - Ability to Reflect & Choose Awareness of our mental models is the beginning of our ability to change them and even to quit serving them Mark Chupp, 19

20. What is negotiation? “An interaction between two or more interdependent parties in which at least one party tries to influence at least one other party to behave in a particular way.” Mark Chupp, 20

21. An Illustration From the Internet: an ‘actual’ radio conversation of a US Naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October 1995. Americans: Please divert your course 15º to the North to avoid collision. Canadians: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15º to the South to avoid collision. Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course. Canadians: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course. Mark Chupp, 21

22. An Illustration, cont’d Americans: This is the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln, the second largest ship in the United States Atlantic fleet. We are accompanied by three destroyers, three cruisers and numerous support vessels. I demand that you change your course 15º north, that’s one five degrees north, or counter-measures will be undertaken to ensure the safety of this ship. Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call. Mark Chupp, 22

23. Comparison of Approaches Competitive • Zero sum gain (win-lose) • Hard (unfriendly) • Rigid (confrontational) • Based on mistrust • Solution-rationalize (positional bargaining) Collaborative • Joint gain (win-win) • Soft (friendly) • Flexible supportive) • Based on trust • Solution-building (interest-based bargaining) Mark Chupp, 23

24. Collaborative Negotiation • Integrative--enlightened self-interests • Both parties gain something (win-win) • Diverse and common interests • Separate and interdependent needs • Process • build trust • full disclosure of relevant information • creatively seek to maximize joint benefits • expand perceived limited resources • Value relationship • Metaphor--wilderness survival Mark Chupp, 24

25. Dynamics of Collaboration Implies interdependence Solutions emerge by dealing constructively with differences Joint ownership of decisions & collective responsibility for future direction An emergent process Based on trust & free flow of information Emphasize commonalties & minimize differences Search for solutions that meet goals and objectives of both sides Mark Chupp, 25

26. Don’t bargain over positions • Disentangle the negotiators from the problems they are negotiating over so people don’t fight to protect their egos. • Focus on interests and not positions. The positions are merely a means to realize broader interests. • Take a lot of time to generate mutually beneficial agreements, and be creative in the process. • Insist on using some fair, objective criteria for judging potential agreements.

27. Stages (Principles) of Process 1. Identify and define the problem (separate people from the problem) 2. Identify interests and needs (focus on interests, not positions) 3. Generate options/alternative solutions (generate possibilities before deciding) 4. Evaluate and select alternatives (decide on objective criteria or standards) Mark Chupp, 27

28. Invent options for mutual gain • There are usually four obstacles to coming up with mutually beneficial solutions to problems: • Premature judgment • Assumption that there is a single possible solution to the problem • Assumption that the negotiation is zero-sum, and there is no way to be compensated for apparent losses one is focused upon in the negotiation • View that it’s the responsibility of the other side to solve their own problems • Look for common ground and common interests between parties, and focus on ways to satisfy those

29. Agree upfront on objective criteria for how decisions will be made Reach agreements based on principles and agree to principles beforehand. Do not give in to pressure or threats from the other side: insist on using the fair criteria. Continually ask the other side what type of objective standard they are using and what their calculations were to arrive at their offer. Through this tactic, you can expose poor logic and attempts to take advantage of you, which will serve your interests.