The six parallel sessions on Friday afternoon opened discussion in areas from striking a balance between the needs of participants and avoiding exploitation of participants to planning for demographic change, encouraging various models of knowledge exchange and evaluating the process and the outcomes of community engagement in science, technology and innovation. Take a breath!
The abstracts and links related to the Parallel Sessions are located on the
Living Knowledge webpage.
I’ll give you a taste of the sessions with the help of Paul McGill, from the
Centre for Ageing Research and Development in Ireland. Thanks Paul. Off to the conference buffet and ceilidh now – for more discussion and engagement of course!
…but here are those summaries:
Session 1.1. Community-based research: finding a balance between non-government organisation-student-higher education institution needsChairs: Gerard Straver and Ils De BalMeeting the academic criteria does not mean civil society organisations will be happy with it. Tension between scientific and academic needs on the one hand and civil society organisations on the other.
One centre engaged 900 volunteers and employed 80 of them. Where does the money come from? This is a problem. Can you ask beneficiaries for payment for some or all of the work? Should there by criteria for deciding how much an organisation should pay.
Community research is win-win but to what extent do the different experiences influence the approach to research (e.g. by intermediary bodies like
Science Shops)?
Impact of research on policy-making and on university curricula: sometimes it has tremendous policy impact and in other cases little or none.
No agreement on paying students for their research: in some cases they get academic credits, in others they are paid.
Session 2.1. Encouraging models of knowledge exchange: planning for demographic changeChair: Paul McGillWhat does it mean for users (such as older people) to be involved in research: It’s not enough to interview them or get them to fill in questionnaires. We need to ask the extent to which they want to be engaged and take account of practical issues.
Why do older people drop out of research projects (people who are poor or in bad health more likely to leave)? We can tackle some of the causes and minimise drop-out rates and can boost participation through social networking sites and by pointing to positive impact of previous community research projects.
Local versus global? There was discussion of the extent to which a local research project, e.g. a survey, may or may not be representative of the wider population. Does that matter?
Issue of paying community researchers: some research centres pay and others do not.
Session 3.1. Climate change: science and civil societyChair: John BarryMeeting the challenges of climate change requires a partnership of the university, municipal authorities and community. The issues must be brought out to the people. Science shops have a role to play in this.
We need to search for new funding mechanisms to apply new ideas in food, transportation and housing.
Breaking down the barriers between the university and community requires more effective communication.
Session 4.1. Avoiding exploitation: good practice in engagement and knowledge exchangeChairs: Bill Peterman and Kim TreasureSetting an agreed vision of the research from the start is central to breaking down silos and building confidence and trust among stakeholders. Various disciplines having shared responsibility, with co-directed research. An aim is to improve quality of life and ‘wellness’. Working from a grass-roots level, in response to concerns expressed by community partners, with genuine participation; best to focus on solutions rather than problems alone.
All stakeholders should be involved from the very beginning of the project. It is not about community members dropping in and out to do specific jobs.
What if the results reflect unfavourably on the community or are not what they want? How can you help them to see the bigger picture in a positive way rather than focusing on smaller negative points?
Working with universities to value community based research just as much as laboratory research.
Session 5.1. Sustaining community-based research practice through arts and cultural formsChairs: Khan Rahi, Heather Floyd and Caragh O’DonnellHow can the community feel ownership of research? It must be involved from the beginning in formulating the questions and community expertise must be recognised – there is often disrespect for community knowledge.
There is a role for the community in disseminating research; example given of good practice in a working class area in Belfast, but this may be threatened by lack of resources.
Quilting – making a large blanket in groups – is one of many means of giving a voice: it can transcend a lot of layers and can release stories during the process.
Session 6.1. How do we evaluate both the processes and the outcomes of community engagement in science, technology and innovation?Chair: Norbert SteinhausStandards for evaluating science shops and community based research: who sets them? Where do they come from? For example if there are no mission statements defining the Science Shop, how are evaluation criteria to be defined?
A template for quality improvement was presented and triggered some disagreement about the relevance and possible constraining effects of structured evaluation; also raising questions about the limits of self-evaluation.
Overall there was great interest in the possibility of developing a shared evaluation framework and instruments. Some discussion on relation between such evaluations and kinds of assessment applied at disciplinary level in higher education.
Welcome to another Engagers' Digest, the last before Christmas. 
