This document provides an overview and summary of the 2014 CCCR National Summit proceedings. The goal of the summit was to extend and deepen the impact of collaborative community-campus research in solving complex problems by sharing lessons learned, building consensus on excellence indicators, identifying hubs of excellence on specific issues, and mobilizing the summit learnings. The summit included keynote presentations, discussions on categories and indicators of excellence, and hubs of excellence. It engaged participants in evaluating the summit and exploring next steps to further collaborative community-campus research. The proceedings captured the results and discussions over the course of the summit.

2.
1
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Table of contents
CCCR
National
Summit
overview
3
Participants
attending
the
National
Summit
7
Keynote
presentations:
• Trends
and
trajectories
in
CCCR
8
• Trends
to
inform
hub
development
10
Discussions
• Discussion
on
categories
of
excellence
11
• Discussion
on
project
process
and
impact
18
• Discussion
on
hubs
of
excellence
20
Wrapping
up
and
moving
forward
• Participant
evaluation
23
• A
partner
proposal
26
• Student
forum
26
Thanks
to
our
sponsors
29
CCBR
team
30

3.
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
CCCR National Summit overview
The goal of
the
2014
CCCR
National
Summit
was
to
extend,
deepen,
and
make
more
practical
the
impact
of
collaborative
research
in
solving
complex
community
problems.
Specifically,
to:
• Share
lessons-­‐learned
on
community-­‐impactful
research.
• Build
consensus
on
national
indicators
of
excellence
for
CCCR.
• Identify
hubs
of
excellence
to
address
specific
issues.
• Mobilize
the
National
Summit
learnings.
The
theme
for
the
summit
was
pursuing
excellence
in
collaborative
community-­‐campus
research
and
the
summit
was
structured
to
do
this
through
discussing
and
better
understanding:
1. Categories
of
excellence—deepening
our
understanding
of
what
excellence
means,
e.g.,
• Community
relevance
• Equitable
participation
• Action
and
change
• Research
design
2. Indicators
of
excellence—clarifying
how
we
know
when
excellence
has
been
achieved.
3. Hubs
of
excellence—determining
principles
and
topics
when
developing
a
hub
in
your
community.
At
the
summit,
questions
were
raised
such
as:
• What
do
we
mean
by
excellence?
• How
can
we
talk
about
excellence
in
truly
inclusive
way?
• How
do
we
include
all
voices
as
we
move
our
field
forward,
e.g.,
including
the
perspective
of
the
business
and
government
sectors?
• What
does
the
term
hub
mean
and
what
is
the
purpose
of
a
hub?
Throughout
the
summit,
electronic
voting
was
used
to
instantly
gauge
participants’
views
on
specific
questions.
Based
on
results,
adjustments
were
made
along
the
way—most
notably,
shifting
the
focus
of
day
1
afternoon
discussions
from
indicators
of
excellence
to
project
process
and
product.
These
proceedings
capture
the
results
of
the
summit
discussions.
With
community
and
campus
researchers
gathered
from
across
the
country,
this
was
also
an
opportunity
to
hold
a
number
of
other
important
events:
• An
open
community
event
(talk
and
cocktail)
hosted
by
the
Centre
for
International
Governance
Innovation
(CIGI)
with
a
talk
from
Paul
Manners
on
The
learning
life.
• A
breakfast
and
talk
hosted
by
Renison
University
College.
View
the
talk
from
[WHAT
IS
HER
NAME?
TITLE?]
at
[link].
• The
Community-­‐Based
Research
Canada
annual
general
meeting.
• A
student
forum
on
collaborative
community-­‐campus
research.
We
are
grateful
to
our
generous
CCCR
partners
and
sponsors
who
made
this
event
possible:
Hosting partners
• Centre
for
Community
Based
Research
• Community-­‐Based
Research
Canada
Supporting partners
• Arctic
Institute
for
Community-­‐Based
Research
• Carleton
University
• Memorial
University
of
Newfoundland,
Grenfell
Campus
• Newfoundland
and
Labrador
Office
of
Public
Engagement
• Université
du
Québec
à
Montréal
• University
of
Saskatchewan
• University
of
Victoria
Sponsors
• Social
Sciences
and
Humanities
Research
Council
of
Canada
• Wilfrid
Laurier
University
• University
of
Waterloo
• Renison
University
College
• University
of
Guelph,
Institute
for
Community
Engaged
Scholarship
• Centre
for
International
Governance
Innovation
(CIGI)
• Balsillie
School
of
International
Affairs
• Community
Research
Ethics
Office
(CREO)

4.
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Summit hosts
Summit MCs
Joanna
Ochocka,
Executive
Director,
Centre
for
Community
Based
Research
Bruce
Gilbert,
Office
of
Public
Engagement.
Assistant
Deputy
Minister,
Government
of
Newfoundland
and
Labrador
Katherine
Graham,
Senior
Advisor
to
the
Provost
and
Professor
of
Public
Policy
and
Administration,
School
of
Public
Policy
and
Administration,
Carleton
University
Rich
Janzen,
Research
Director,
Centre
for
Community
Based
Research

5.
4
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Keynote speakers
Reactor panel
Chad
Gaffield,
Professor,
Department
of
History,
University
of
Ottawa
Paul
Manners,
Director,
National
Co-­‐
ordinating
Centre
for
Public
Engagement
Director,
Institute
for
Studies
and
Innovation
in
Community-­‐
University
Engagement,
University
of
Victoria
Andrew
Petter,
President
and
Professor
of
Public
Policy,
Simon
Fraser
University
Brent
Herbert-­‐
Copley,
Vice-­‐
President,
Research
Programs,
SSCHRC
William
Holden,
Community
Co-­‐
ordinator,
Community
University
Institute
for
Social
Research,
University
of
Saskatchewan
Nancy
Neamtan,
President
and
Executive
Director,
Chantier
de
l’economie
sociale
Hounourable
Steve
Kent,
Deputy
Premier
and
Minister
responsible
for
the
Office
of
Public
Engagement,
Newfoundland
and
Labrador
Sarah
Marie
Wiebe,
Post-­‐
Doctoral
Fellow,
Institute
for
Studies
and
Innovation
in
Community-­‐
University
Engagement,
University
of
Victoria

6.
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
NATIONAL SUMMIT AGENDA
Sunday, Nov 2—Duke of Wellington Pub
Tuesday, Nov 4—Balsillie School of International Affairs
6:30
pm
Dinner,
meeting
and
getting
to
know
each
other
8:00
am
Breakfast
sponsored
by
Renison
University
College
with
speaker,
Wendy
Fletcher
(http://bit.ly/1zuyLxi,
00:00—14:24)
Monday, Nov 3—Balsillie School of International Affairs
8:45
am
Opening
plenary
• Synopsis
of
day
1
and
expectations
of
day
2
• Trends
to
inform
hub
development:
Brent
Herbert-­‐Copley,
Steve
Kent
8:00
am
Registration
and
breakfast
9:00
am
Opening
plenary
• Welcome
from
CCBR
and
CBRC:
Joanna
Ochocka
and
Katherine
Graham
• Trends
and
trajectories:
Chad
Gaffield,
Andrew
Petter,
Nancy
Neamtan
• Reactor
panel:
Leslie
Brown,
William
Holden,
Sarah
Wiebe
• Open
discussion
9:30
am
Breakout
session
on
hubs
of
excellence
• Eight
groups,
according
to
geographic
location
• Principles
and
other
considerations
for
developing
hubs
of
excellence
10:40
am
Coffee
break 10:30
am
Coffee
break
11:00
am
Breakout
session
on
categories
of
excellence
• Case
studies
informing
our
understanding:
pre-­‐assigned
breakout
groups
• Discussing
the
four
categories
of
excellence
10:45
am
Small
group
reports;
open
discussion
on
developing
hubs
of
excellence
11:45
am
Summary
remarks
and
next
steps
12:15
pm
Lunch
|
Identifying
themes
in
group
work
12:00
pm
Take
away
box
lunch
|
CBRC
Annual
General
Meeting
1:15
pm
Reporting
on
themes
and
assessing
where
we’re
at
End of 2014 CCCR National Summit
1:45
pm
Breakout
session
on
indicators
of
excellence
2:45
pm
Coffee
break
2:00
pm
Partnership
grant
proposal
development
meeting
|
3:00
pm
Small
group
reports
Student
forum
at
Wilfrid
Laurier
University,
Waterloo
Campus
4:20
pm
Summary
of
the
day
and
next
steps
4:30
pm
Free
time
5:30
pm
Buffet
dinner
sponsored
by
Wilfrid
Laurier
University
with
speaker,
Deborah
Maclatchey;
music
from
Dylan
Meiler,
classical
guitarist
7:00
pm
CIGI
community
gala
with
keynote
speaker,
Paul
Manners

7.
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Participants attending the National Summit
1. Bilgehan,
Tangül
Centre
for
Community
Based
Research
2. Boucher
de
Grosbois,
Sylvie
Université
du
Québec
à
Montréal
3. Briggs,
Geri
Canadian
Alliance
for
Community
Service
Learning
4. Brown,
Leslie
University
of
Victoria
5. Bussières,
Denis
Université
du
Québec
à
Montréal
6. Cheng,
Jethro
University
of
Saskatchewan
7. Dalsag,
Sheena
Kennedy
Carleton
University
8. Davis,
Trevor
Vancouver
Island
University
9. Dodd,
Warren
University
of
Guelph
10. Downing,
Rupert
University
of
Victoria
11. Edwards,
Cathy
Carleton
University
12. Elliott,
Susan
University
of
Waterloo
13. English,
Kyla
Centre
for
Community
Based
Research
14. Fellows,
Ruston
Carleton
University
15. Findlay,
Isobel
University
of
Saskatchewan
16. Friendship,
Katelyn
Arctic
Institute
of
Community
Based
Research
17. Fontan,
Jean-­‐Marc
Université
du
Québec
à
Montréal
18. Gaffield,
Chad
University
of
Ottawa
19. Gilbert,
Bruce
Government
of
Newfoundland
and
Labrador
20. Godin,
Katelyn
Centre
for
Community
Based
Research
21. Graham,
Katherine
Carleton
University
22. Hawkins,
Linda
University
of
Guelph
23. Herbert-­‐Copley,
Brent
Social
Sciences
and
Humanities
Research
Council
24. Hoeberechts,
Maia
University
of
Victoria
25. Holden,
William
University
of
Saskatchewan
26. Janzen,
Rich
Centre
for
Community
Based
Research
27. Kent,
Steve
Government
of
Newfoundland
and
Labrador
28. Khaladkar,
Susan
Memorial
University
of
Newfoundland
29. Kyffin,
Jen
University
of
Victoria
30. Lafreniere,
Ginette
Wilfrid
Laurier
University
31. Legge,
Dwayne
Government
of
Newfoundland
and
Labrador
32. Levac,
Leah
University
of
Guelph
33. Lovrod,
Marie
University
of
Saskatchewan
34. Lydon,
Maeve
University
of
Victoria
35. Manners,
Paul
National
Co-­‐ordinating
Centre
for
Public
Engagement
36. Marlow,
Taylor
Centre
for
Community
Based
Research
37. Mastronardi,
Laura
Wilfrid
Laurier
University
38. McGillis,
Louise
Memorial
University
of
Newfoundland
39. Michaud,
Dominique
Concordia
University
40. Minnes,
Sarah
Memorial
University
of
Newfoundland
41. Morton,
Mavis
University
of
Guelph
42. Ochocka,
Joanna
Centre
for
Community
Based
Research
43. Olson,
Kimberly
Government
of
Newfoundland
and
Labrador
44. Pachocinski,
Cécile
Conseil
québecois
de
la
cooperation
et
de
la
mutualité
45. Pelletier,
Mélanie
Université
du
Québec
à
Montréal
46. Petter,
Andrew
Simon
Fraser
University
47. Phipps,
David
York
University
48. Schwartz,
Karen
Carleton
University
49. Sreenivasan,
Gauri
Federation
for
the
Humanities
and
Social
Sciences
50. Stobbe,
Alethea
Centre
for
Community
Based
Research
51. Taylor,
Martin
University
of
Victoria
52. Thomas,
Robina
University
of
Victoria
53. Usiskin,
Len
University
of
Saskatchewan
54. Van
Bibber,
Marilyn
Arctic
Institute
of
Community
Based
Research
55. Vodden,
Kelley
Memorial
University
of
Newfoundland
56. Walsh,
Jacqueline
Memorial
University
of
Newfoundland
57. Weare,
Sue
University
of
Waterloo
58. Wedlock,
Jane
United
Way,
York
Region
59. Wiebe,
Natasha
University
of
Windsor
60. Weibe,
Sarah
Marie
University
of
Windsor

8.
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Trends and trajectories in community-based research—keynotes
Chad Gaffield, Professor, Department
of History, University of Ottawa
Andrew Petter, President, Simon Fraser
University
Nancy Neamtan, President and
Executive Director, Chantier de
l’economie sociale
(presented
by
Sylvie
Boucher
de
Grosbois)
Background
We
have
had
to
deal
with
institutional
and
cultural
realities
in
order
to
build
strong
community
and
campus
research
collaborations.
Most
significant
elements
of
CBR
• 10-­‐year
CURA
on
the
social
economy
• The
positive
public
policy
environment
in
our
field
in
Québec
has
been
the
direct
result
of
an
ongoing
process
of
co-­‐construction
in
which
practitioners
and
researchers
work
hand-­‐in-­‐hand
with
government
to
produce
new
policy
• Strong
and
long-­‐term
support
for
knowledge
transfer
through
a
multi-­‐
stakeholder
coalition
Challenges
• Time
needed
to
do
good
research
• Managing
expectations
• Concept
of
scientific
research/objectivity
• Community
understanding
of
the
ethics
and
constraints
of
research
• Ability
of
community
based
efforts
to
federate
and
form
a
strong
network
• The
need
for
active
work
on
knowledge
transfer
View
at:
http://bit.ly/1zXJ4uM
(30:30-­‐46:53)
Historical
context
1980s
birth
of
CCBR
with
a
critique
was
against
the
knowledge
transfer
from
academia
to
community.
By
the
1990s,
the
dominant
paradigm
had
begun
to
shift
to
a
much
more
participatory
approach
that
was
pushing
back
against
many
parts
of
the
old
paradigm.
This
links
to
changes
in
general
society,
e.g.,
the
notion
of
the
consumer-­‐driven
marketplace;
patient-­‐oriented
health;
student-­‐
oriented
schools;
crowdsourcing;
and
many
avenues
of
co-­‐creation.
We
have
a
new
narrative
in
the
21st
century
with
a
new
notion
of
campuses
as
contributors
to
knowledge
ecologies
that
transcend
institutional
and
jurisdictional
borders,
while
also
deeply
respecting
the
importance
of
place.
But
policies
and
practices
still
reflect
much
of
the
old
20th
century
paradigm.
Challenges
1. Pursuing
this
new
paradigm
is
labour-­‐intensive
while
we
are
being
pressured
to
do
more
with
less.
2. We
need
to
redefine
and
rearticulate
the
established
metrics
in
light
of
the
new
paradigm—moving
from
how
we
do
research
to
showing
the
value-­‐added.
3. We
need
to
understand
and
articulate
what
is
different
or
unique
about
CBR.
We
are
no
longer
marginal
and
this
has
big
implications
going
forward.
View
at:
http://bit.ly/1zXJ4uM
(00:13—14:42)
Barriers
to
CBR
Although
there
has
been
some
movement
towards
a
new
paradigm,
the
20th
century
paradigm
still
exerts
a
lot
of
influence.
It’s
important
to
understand
the
impediments
of
CBR
if
we’re
going
to
break
through
them.
Intellectual
practices
The
essence
of
CBR
is
collaboration.
For
academics,
this
is
threatening.
Authority
and
position
is
based
on
a
tradition
of
authority,
status,
and
the
ability
to
say
there
is
an
objective
framework
to
corner
knowledge
or
truth.
When
academics
embrace
a
truly
collaborative
approach,
this
very
approach
to
research
must
be
critically
examined
and
transformed
to
start
with
community
perspectives—to
enlarge
our
thinking
so
that
it
can
capture
the
fullness
of
the
context.
Institutional
practices
CCCR
requires
universities
to
shift
from
a
preoccupation
with
doing
things
well
to
a
preoccupation
with
making
things
better.
For
example,
in
research,
peer
reviewed
publishing
is
still
used
as
the
dominant
evaluation.
This
shift
requires
universities
to
be
explicit
about
their
societal
views
and
commitments,
to
move
from
the
ivory
tower
to
the
public
square.
To
make
the
case
for
this
shift,
we
need
to
challenge
the
myth
of
the
neutrality
of
universities
and
emphasize
that
increasing
democratic
participation
doesn’t
compromise
neutrality,
but
enhances
it.
The
shift
The
most
important
argument
for
making
this
shift
is
the
activities
of
community-­‐campus
engagement
and
the
benefits
communities
derive,
e.g.,
iPinch,
http://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/
and
Semester
in
Dialogue,
http://www.sfu.ca/dialogue/semester/
View
at:
http://bit.ly/1zXJ4uM
(14:42—30:30)

9.
8
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Trends and trajectories in community-based research—reactor panel
Leslie Brown, University of Victoria
William Holden, City of Saskatoon
Sarah Marie Wiebe, University of Victoria
Importance
of
place.
We
have
a
relationship,
as
educators,
with
the
Indigenous
peoples
of
this
land.
Hope
and
optimism.
Optimism
is
hope
with
a
plan.
This
is
part
of
our
goal—to
figure
out
what
that
plan
is,
so
that
CBR
helps
to
make
the
world
a
better
place.
Transformation.
The
idea
that
we’re
transforming
our
world
through
community-­‐based
research.
It’s
not
just
changing
the
world,
but
changing
ourselves
as
universities.
A
mutual
transformation
is
required.
We’re
moving
from
disciplinary
to
much
more
strategic
approaches
to
tackling
important
issues
in
the
world,
e.g.,
in
geography,
mapping
has
become
not
just
something
you
draw,
but
a
process.
This
has
changed
the
discipline.
Creating
a
new
world
together.
Bringing
community
knowledge
and
wisdom
into
the
academy.
This
is
a
real
shift,
but
it
still
puts
universities
at
the
centre,
instead
of
creating
a
new
world
together.
We
need
to
reflect
on
how
we
are
or
aren’t
inclusive.
Partnerships.
Nancy’s
talk
shows
how
the
world
changes
through
partnerships.
Evaluation.
There
is
relational
accountability
and
catalytic
validity—i.e.,
what
difference
are
we
making?
We
need
to
think
about
and
work
on
who
gets
to
assess
that.
View
at:
http://bit.ly/1zXJ4uM
(51:30—55:20)
Role
of
CCCR.
There
has
been
a
long,
ongoing
dialogue
in
academia
about
the
role
of
community-­‐
based
research.
Partners
struggle
with
universities
saying
that
CBR
is
important,
but
now
always
actualizing
that.
Defining
community.
It
is
not
just
the
university’s
responsibility
to
manage
these
issues,
but
community
also.
Who
or
what
is
community?
The
community
side
is
less
well
defined
that
the
university.
Research
and
knowledge
creation
leads
to
an
idea
of
what
we
need
to
do
to
change.
Challenging
objectivity.
On
the
community-­‐side,
there
is
a
struggle
around
objectivity.
There
is
a
discussion
around
“fact-­‐based
information.”
It
illustrates
this
idea
of
using
evidence.
The
struggle
around
these
concepts
and
words
is
not
just
a
problem
of
academia,
but
is
also
a
community
problem.
We
need
to
create
a
matrix
in
which
knowledge
creation,
policies,
and
CBR
principles,
and
taking
action
is
institutionalized.
View
at:
http://bit.ly/1zXJ4uM
(55:20—1:01:35)
Professionalization.
We’re
now
moving
from
the
margins
to
the
centre.
As
we
professionalize
and
standardize,
we
need
to
balance
this
with
the
“beautiful
messiness”
of
the
work
we
do.
Student
engagement.
Students
have
a
hunger
to
engage
in
CBR.
As
administrators,
how
do
we
balance
this
need
from
students
with
the
constraints
of
our
formal
institutions?
One
example
is
using
the
arts.
Communication.
How
we
communicate
diverse
ways
of
knowing
is
moving
beyond
an
instrumental
knowledge
transfer
model
to
thinking
about
how
we
can
take
context-­‐specific
and
emergent
knowledge
into
academia.
How
can
creative,
poetic,
and
lyrical
modes
of
expression
be
integrated
into
our
ways
of
knowing?
Ivory
tower
to
public
square.
How
can
we
think
of
our
role
in
the
academic
setting
as
creating
spaces
for
dialogue?
This
leads
to
thinking
about
things
like
libraries,
off-­‐campus
spaces,
and
how
we
enhance
open
dialogue.
It’s
important
that
we
as
academics
not
just
hear
community
voices,
but
really
listen
to
them,
and
this
requires
structural
responses
(e.g.,
policy
creation).
View
at:
http://bit.ly/1zXJ4uM
(1:01:35—1:07:15)

10.
9
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Trends to inform hub development—keynotes
Brent-Herbert-Copley, Vice-President, Research
Program, SSHRC
Honourable Steve Kent, Deputy Premier, Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador
SSHRC’s
experience
in
supporting
CBR
Community-­‐university
research
alliance
goes
back
at
least
15
years.
What
we’re
doing
to
try
to
improve:
• Listen
to
people
and
simplify
the
process
of
applying
for
and
managing
SSCHRC
funding.
• Support
funded
activities
to
allow
sharing
experiences
across
partnerships.
Though
subject
matter
may
be
different,
management
and
governance
issues
are
often
very
similar.
• Ensure
there
is
more
information
on
promising
practices.
• Ensure
we
continue
to
support
work
at
the
boundaries,(e.g.,
updating
our
Aboriginal
research
strategy).
• Celebrate
and
shine
a
light
on
exemplars,
(e.g.,
through
the
Impact
Awards).
• Engaging
sector
leaders
across
public,
private,
and
non-­‐profit,
and
academic
sectors.
Challenges
• Demonstrating
excellence
and
results.
A
movement
like
this
one
needs
to
be
able
to
demonstrate
its
accomplishments.
They
have
to
be
indicators
of
both
process
and
outcome.
• Linking
the
excellence
of
the
research
with
the
community
impact.
• Acknowledging
the
many
areas
of
CBR`s
impact.
For
example,
one
of
CBR’s
biggest
areas
of
impact
and
influence
is
the
kind
of
experience
you
provide
to
students
through
community-­‐engaged
scholarship.
This
is
now
gaining
increasing
recognition.
• Scaling
up
and
out.
Many
organizations
and
people
need
to
be
at
the
table
to
make
this
happen.
View
at:
http://bit.ly/1zuyLxi
(14:30—32:40)
Knowledge
creation
is
not
strictly
the
purview
of
academics.
There’s
an
important
role
for
government
in
this
community-­‐university-­‐
government
work.
We
directly
support,
fund,
partner
in,
initiate,
convene,
and
sometimes
even
pass
on
community-­‐based
research
initiatives
in
our
province.
We
try
to
move
beyond
written
documents
sent
to
officials.
We
try
to
include
brokered
discussions
and
follow
up
activities.
We
are
working
on
a
simple
guidebook
on
how
to
work
with
other
sectors
in
undertaking
collaborative
research.
We
have
also
launched
the
Open
Government
Initiative
with
four
pillars:
data
(with
an
open-­‐by-­‐default
philosophy),
information,
dialogue,
and
collaboration.
Lessons
and
insights
to
share
• Don’t
try
to
apply
community-­‐based
research
to
everything.
• The
process
is
as
important
as
the
products.
• Don’t
over-­‐structure
your
CBR
efforts.
• Genetic
variation
is
important.
Not
all
projects
should
have
all-­‐hands-­‐on-­‐
deck.
Some
require
more
focus.
A
commitment
• We
will
support
the
development
of
hubs
of
excellence.
• We
will
be
involved
in
CUExpo
2015.
• We
will
be
connecting
with
other
provincial
counterparts
to
open
a
dialogue
on
CBR
for
policy
innovation.
A
proposal
A
national
workshop
of
provincial
and
territorial
officials
on
the
theme
of
government,
policy
innovation,
and
collaborative
community-­‐based
research,
hopefully
organized
with
the
Institute
of
Public
Administration.
View
at:
http://bit.ly/1zuyLxi
(32:50—end)

11.
10
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Discussion on categories of excellence
For
this
session,
participants
were
asked
to
discuss
the
questions,
below,
and
provide
their
input
on
colour-­‐coded
sticky
notes.
Groups
were
assigned
in
advance
to
ensure
a
good
mix
at
each
table,
and
each
table
worked
on
two
categories
of
excellence.
What
the
sticky
notes
were
posted
together,
this
allowed
for
theme
analysis
within
and
across
the
themes.
1. Yellow:
What
do
the
case
studies
and
our
experience
tell
us
about
what
maximizes
success
when
pursuing
these
categories
of
excellence
(i.e.,
facilitating
factors)?
2. Pink:
What
do
the
case
studies
and
our
experience
tell
us
about
what
threatens
success
when
pursuing
these
categories
of
excellence
(i.e.,
hindering
factors)?
3. Blue:
How
has
our
discussion
in
the
plenary
and
in
this
small
group
deepened
our
understanding
about
what
these
categories
of
excellence
mean?
Conmunity relevance—points of discussion
WHAT
MAXIMIZES
SUCCESS?
• When
different
timelines
are
respected.
• When
different
roles
within
the
process
are
differentiated.
• When
the
right
resources
in
the
right
ways
are
going
to
the
right
people.
• When
multiple
levels
of
systems
are
integrated.
• When
passion
is
present
(as
it
makes
projects
sustainable).
• When
there
is
a
holistic
understanding
of
context
of
partners.
• When
spaces
are
created
to
foster
dialogue.
• When
research
starts
with
community
needs
and
moves
to
collective
action.
• When
the
research
is
mutually
useful
for
all
partners.
• When
the
smaller
pieces
and
projects
all
connect
within
a
larger
guiding
framework.
• When
research
finds
different
ways
to
quantify
relevance.
• When
CBR
accepts
that
it’s
okay
to
be
imperfect.
• When
CBR
learns
to
incorporate
all
voices.
• When
CBR
responds
to
changes
over
time.
• When
authentic
relationships
are
prioritized.
• When
community
relevance
is
assessed
throughout
project—
not
just
beginning.

12.
11
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Conmunity relevance—points of discussionWHAT
THREATENS
SUCCESS?
• When
CBR
is
fear-­‐based.
• When
there
are
rigid
timelines.
• When
copyright
issues
highjack
the
research.
• When
traditional
criteria
for
academic
success
is
prioritized
as
it
is
often
opposite
of
community
relevance.
• When
it
is
difficult
to
translate
expressed
needs
into
operationalized
project(s).
• When
there
is
tension
between
continuation
versus
new
and
innovative
topics/focus.
• When
there
are
multiple
diverse
contexts
and
“relevances”
present.
• When
inaccessible
language
is
used.
• When
researchers
are
inconsistent.
• When
tunnel
vision
takes
over
and
strategic
goals
become
check-­‐boxes.
• When
relationships
are
merely
transactional
relationships.
• When
there
is
no
funding
for
relationship
building.
• When
researchers
rush
into
“doing
something”
because
of
fear,
timing,
or
resource
constraints.
• When
money
isn’t
transferred
to
the
communities.
• When
there
are
conflicting
needs
and
priorities.
• When
the
voice
of
the
CBR
movement
is
muted.
• When
there
is
limited
use
of
social
media
(i.e.,
how
it
is
currently).
Conmunity relevance—points of discussion
UNDERSTANDING
• Who
we
interview
matters,
(i.e.,
community
gatekeepers).
• Additional
domains
could
be
accountability
and
power
resistance.
• It
is
important
to
recognize
and
honor
the
texture
of
CBR
(it’s
not
smooth).
• Community
relevance
must
include
multidisciplinary
partners.
• It
is
important
to
de-­‐silo
the
university
• The
enemy
of
engagement
is
inconsistency.
• We
need
to
tie
to
different
levels
(local,
regional,
provincial,
world)
of
policy.
• We
need
to
expand
the
notion
of
“community”
as
it
is
dynamic,
changing
and
complex.
• We
need
to
find
an
inclusive
definition
of
community.
QUESTIONS
• How
can
we
reconceptualize
ethics
so
it
fits
the
heart
and
spirit
of
CBR?
• How
can
we
reconceptualize
ethics
for
non-­‐human
engagement?
• Where
can
new
funding
sources
come
from?
• Community
representation
is
always
imperfect—how
to
decide
relevance?
• Does
this
drive
towards
quality
mean
that
we
are
now
uncomfortable
with
imperfection?
• What
about
start
and
finish
dates?
• What
is
representation?
• Who
is
paid
rewards?
• What
is
your
relevance?
• Does
CBR
have
an
organizational/institutional
focus
rather
than
a
people/individual
focus?

13.
12
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Making sense of the input
Equitable participation—points of discussion
WHAT
MAXIMIZES
SUCCESS?
• When
relationship-­‐building
is
prioritized.
• When
there
is
ongoing
reflexivity
on
expectations,
roles
and
responsibilities,
assumptions,
etc.
• When
there
are
honest
discussions
about
realistic
timeframes
and
expectations.
• When
people
learn
from
and
listen
to
each
other.
• When
there
is
collaboration
in
all
aspects
of
research.
• When
there
is
continually
increasing
participation.
• When
there
is
meaningful
shared
governance.
• When
researchers
take
the
time
to
understand
multiple
histories.
• When
equitable
participation
is
seen
as
a
precondition
to
collaborative
design.
• When
community
resources
and
expertise
are
valued.
• When
context
and
place
is
considered;
when
neutral
and
trusted
places
for
participation
are
created.
• When
researchers
come
to
the
community.
• When
it
is
acknowledged
that
trust
takes
time.
• When
there
is
a
genuine
commitment
to
equity.
• When
there
are
clearly
defined
roles.
• When
partnerships
are
created.
• When
there
is
interdisciplinary
collaboration.
• When
there
is
continuity
across
time.
• When
there
is
healthy
competition
in
order
to
raise
the
bar
for
excellence.
• When
accessible
language
is
used.
• When
assumptions
are
unpacked.
• When
the
co-­‐production
and
co-­‐creation
of
research
is
prioritized.

14.
13
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Equitable participation—points of discussionTHREATENS
• When
stakeholder
values
or
purposes
are
misaligned.
• When
there
is
an
imbalance
of
resources
favoring
universities/institutions.
• When
there
is
inconsistency.
• When
short-­‐term
projects
are
not
part
of
a
longer
term
effort/relationship.
• When
the
right
people
are
not
at
the
table.
• When
there
are
unrealistic
or
unclear
expectations.
• When
power
results
in
positions.
• When
there
are
inflexible
funding
models.
• When
there
is
greed.
UNDERSTANDING
• “Equitable”
is
not
enough;
How
about…meaningful?
Relevant?
Appropriate?
Reciprocal?
• It
is
necessary
to
have
all
disciplines
at
the
table
• The
importance
of
spaces
for
change.
• The
importance
of
learning
from
those
“disadvantaged”—how
discursive
participation
can
be
marginalized.
• Equitable
participation
must
mean
reciprocal
benefit.
• It
is
important
to
learn
over
time.
• It
is
important
to
recognize
what
everyone
brings
to
the
table.
• Power
must
be
recognized
and
redistributed.
QUESTIONS
• What
are
some
creative
ways
to
bring
people
together?
• How
can
the
playing
field
be
levelled?
• How
do
we
define
equitable
participation?
Power?
Funding?
Governance?
• What
are
the
needs
and
agendas
for
different
partners?
• Who
is
responsible
over
time?
• Does
the
participation
focus
make
CBR
labour
intensive?
• Whose
knowledge
is
valued?
• People
have
“engaged”
forever…why
do
we
engage
if
isn’t
on
my
CV,
transcript?
Research design—points of discussion
WHAT
MAXIMIZES
SUCCESS?
• When
full
spectrum
thinking
is
used.
• When
business
and
science
are
engaged.
• When
practice,
process,
platform,
product
are
blended.
• When
the
purpose
of
research
is
clear.
• When
“success”
is
defined
together.
• When
multiple
and
evolving
methods
are
integrated
throughout
the
research
design.
• When
capacity-­‐building
and
training
is
multi-­‐dimensional.
• When
there
is
transparency
of
research
design
to
communities.
• When
community
protocols
are
understood
and
followed.
• When
research
design
is
used
AS
action
in
itself.
• When
time
is
taken
to
identify
who
is
active
in
the
community,
and
the
history
of
relationships.
• When
an
agreement
on
values
and
how
to
“be
together”
is
formed
from
the
beginning.
• When
data
is
shared
with
other
researchers
to
minimize
burden
on
communities.
• When
trust-­‐building
is
used
as
a
precondition
to
collaborative
design.
• When
“self-­‐consciousness”
is
prioritized.
• When
researchers
are
explicit
about
the
various
research
processes
we
manage.
• When
relationships
are
built
between
communities
and
institutions
(not
just
individuals).
• When
the
plan
for
action
is
defined
early.
• When
knowledge
is
co-­‐produced.
• When
communication
strategy
is
built
into
the
research
design.
• When
the
research
process
is
simplified
and
demystified
to
include
all.

15.
14
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Research design—points of discussionWHAT
THREATENS
SUCCESS?
• When
research
funding
ends
with
report
to
funder
and
no
resources
are
obtained
for
dignified
community
knowledge
translation.
• When
researchers
and
community
do
not
have
full
grasp
of
content.
• When
there
are
restrictions
in
the
ethical
process
(i.e.,
the
current
academic
ethics
process)
• When
research
is
product-­‐focused.
• When
there
are
administrative
barriers
for
including
communities
as
co-­‐applicants
on
grants.
• When
funding
is
not
sent
to
communities.
• When
there
is
limited
agility
in
granting
structures,
(e.g.,
may
not
account
for
length
required
for
knowledge
exchange
activities).
• When
there
is
a
significant
time
lag
between
research
and
policy/other
change.
• When
communities
feel
uncomfortable
reaching
out
to
institutions
(generally
other
way
around).
• When
monitoring
and
evaluation
are
short-­‐term.
• When
stakeholder
timeframes
are
competing.
• When
there
is
a
lack
of
transparency.
DEEPENED
UNDERSTANDING
• CBR
has
a
wide
continuum
of
projects
and
changing
language.
• It
is
important
to
represent
community
realities
(e.g.,
weather,
deaths,
etc.).
• Relationships
are
at
the
core
of
all
these
categories
of
excellence.
• Stakeholder
engagement
must
be
a
part
of
knowledge
mobilization
so
they
own
the
knowledge.
• Capacity
building
could
be
another
important
category
of
excellence.
• All
of
these
categories
could
be
framed
within
the
determinants
of
health
or
the
Canadian
Index
of
Wellbeing.
• It
is
important
not
to
minimize
creative
chaos
(messy
but
beautiful
nature
of
CBR).
• We
are
doing
more
than
“research”—research
is
one
tool.
• We
can
measure
impact
in
terms
of
networking
–
connections
bring
people
together,
which
can
create
other
outcomes
Open discussions

16.
15
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Action and change—points of discussionWHAT
MAXIMIZES
SUCCESS?
• When
granting
counsels
incentivize
outcome
and
impacts.
• When
new
initiatives
truly
build
community.
• When
there
is
a
mutual
endpoint.
• When
impact
is
measured
at
the
level
of
partners
and
the
partners
have
the
opportunity
to
define
success
• When
there
is
an
ongoing
commitment
to
action
• When
the
“feel
good
vibe”
is
balanced
with
the
tackling
of
real
issues.
• When
there
is
mentorship.
• When
there
is
good
brokering.
• When
the
research
is
process
oriented,
not
only
outcome-­‐
oriented.
• When
there
is
evaluation
throughout
the
process.
• When
change
is
conceptualized
as
both
short
and
long-­‐term.
• When
knowledge
is
shared.
• When
research
builds
on
past
efforts.
• When
there
is
early
engagement
of
decision-­‐makers
and
insiders.
• When
collective
goals
are
set.
• When
communities
are
included
in
presentations,
events.
• When
community
are
co-­‐applicants.
• When
partners
remains
committed
after
the
project;
commitment
that
transcends
time
boundaries.
• When
there
are
clear
expectations.
• When
there
is
good
communication.
• When
there
is
enough
time
to
enact
change.
• When
students
are
provided
with
a
chance
to
further
their
project
beyond
their
degree
or
course
because
students
are
future
leaders
and
agents
of
change.
• When
allies
are
used
(e.g.,
within
the
government)
to
move
change
forward.
Action and change—points of discussion
WHAT
THREATENS
SUCCESS?
• When
there
is
no
system
to
identify
long-­‐term
action,
change
and
impact.
• When
there
isn’t
enough
time
or
resources.
• When
there
is
too
much
focus
on
process,
rather
than
real
outcomes.
• When
the
difference
between
impact
and
positive
impact
is
not
teased
out.
• When
universities
don’t
recognize
the
time
required
to
achieve
impact
on
projects
and
relationships.
• The
difficulty
to
achieve
change
for
tough
social
issues.
• When
the
language
used
is
restrictive
to
inter-­‐disciplinary
change
and
involvement.
• When
the
expectations
are
unrealistic
or
unclear.
• When
researchers
don’t
co-­‐publish
with
community
members.
• Current
university
reward
mechanisms.
• When
researchers
try
to
maintain
“neutrality”
so
as
not
to
be
seen
as
“activist.”
• When
the
right
people
are
not
at
the
table.
• When
it
is
difficult
to
measure
impact
during
the
process

17.
16
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Action and change—points of discussionDEEPENED
UNDERSTANDING
• We
want
prosperous,
resilient,
just
societies;
not
just
social
change.
• Sometimes
CBR
isn’t
what’s
needed
for
action
and
change.
• The
established
sets
of
criteria
for
research
are
problematic
and
need
to
be
redefined.
• The
key
starting
place
is
framing
project(s)
within
societal
change.
• Organizational
capacity
and
infrastructure
is
key.
• CBR
can
be
used
to
make
a
difference
in
community
and
transform
power
and
institutions.
• It
is
important
to
foster
cross-­‐country
dialogue
and
learning.
• CBR
areas
of
excellence
are
not
a
frontal
attack
on
existing
cultural
“excellence”
(traditional
campus
criteria).
• CBR
can
be
one
pillar
for
universities
to
use
to
enact
impact
within
communities.
• It
is
important
to
take
the
broad
categories
of
excellence
and
parse
them
into
specific
aspects.
• Action
and
change
is
fundamental
to
CBR;
the
other
areas
of
excellence
follow.
• More
heads
better
than
one,
so
results
should
be
co-­‐consulted.
• We
need
to
be
reflexive.
Action and change—points of discussion
QUESTIONS
• How
can
action
and
change
be
linked
to
process
and
engagement?
• How
can
the
private
sector
be
brought
in?
• How
can
success
be
defined
in
terms
of
action
and
change?
• Where
do
health
and
natural
science
researchers
fit
and
participate?
• Who
defines
metrics?
• Who
is
missing?

18.
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Discussion on project process and impact
After
small
group
work,
it
was
felt
that
more
clarity
was
needed
on
the
very
concept
of
categories
of
excellence
and
that
the
planned
discussion
needed
to
be
adapted.
Many
issues
were
raised,
for
example:
the
need
to
build
community
capacity;
the
need
to
build
institution
capacity
and
change
campus
culture
to
better
support
faculty
engaged
in
community
research;
the
need
to
clarify
the
purpose
of
CBR—is
it
about
social
change
or
is
the
term
societal
change
a
better
fit?
Thus,
the
second
small
group
discussion
was
reoriented
from
building
consensus
on
indicators
of
excellence
towards
a
broader
discussion
focusing
on
improvements
and
successes.
The
revised
small
group
discussion
questions
were:
1. What
can
we
do
to
improve
both
project
process
and
impact?
2. How
do
we
know
if
we
are
successful
(please
be
as
specific
as
possible)?
1. What
can
we
do
to
improve
both
project
process
and
impact?
Discussions
emphasized
that
community
members
and
academics
can
work
together
at
two
levels
in
order
to
improve
CBR
process
and
impact:
(1)
the
institutional
or
systems
level
and
(2)
the
project
or
on-­‐the-­‐ground
level.
Strategies
that
may
improve
(or
are
indicative
of)
good
quality
CBR
at
both
of
these
levels
are
summarized
into
action
statements
below.
To
improve
process
and
impact
at
the
institutional
level,
we
should:
• Develop
a
set
of
guiding
principles
• Refer
to
relevant
documents,
such
as
the
UN
Charter
of
Human
Rights
• Develop
a
list
of
empirical
indicators
of
success
• Develop
checklists
(outlining
ethical
procedures,
principles,
templates,
etc.)
• Develop
national
CBR
networks,
and
initiate
discussions
about
successes
and
challenges
of
CBR
• Create
physical
spaces
where
the
above
discussions
can
occur
• Evaluate
current
research
methods
used
within
CBR
• Frame
CBR
as
a
spectrum
of
research,
with
the
idea
that
CBR
can
take
many
different
forms
1. What
can
we
do
to
improve
both
project
process
and
impact?
• Adopt
language
that
won’t
limit
CBR
methodology
to
any
specific
discipline
• Develop
flexible
funding
structures
(i.e.,
to
account
for
relationship-­‐
building
processes
and
ongoing
knowledge
mobilization)
To
improve
process
and
impact
at
the
project
level,
we
should:
• Make
strategic
decisions
about
what
to
research,
and
who
to
partner
with
• Develop
strong
relationships
that
are
not
limited
by
length
of
study
• Build
understanding
of
historical,
political,
and
cultural
contexts
• Help
communities
develop
their
own
research
plan
• Involve
all
relevant
stakeholders
and
decision-­‐makers
• Encourage
others
to
become
involved
throughout
the
process
• Create
shared
principles
of
engagement
• Develop
a
clear
vision
and
purpose
together
• Have
regular,
open,
honest,
and
bi-­‐directional
communication
between
all
research
partners
• Have
conversations
about
desired
outcomes
• Have
conversations
about
realistic
outcomes
• Increase
community
capacity,
including
training
community
members
as
researchers
• Increase
researcher
capacity
• Make
decisions
together
• Define
“success”
together
• Encourage
imagination
• Expand
impact;
create
wide-­‐spread,
community-­‐led
knowledge
mobilization
strategies
• Be
flexible
• Respect
the
strengths
and
limitations
of
all
partners;
balance
each
other’s
strengths
&
weaknesses
• Share
responsibility

19.
18
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
2. How
will
we
know
if
we
are
successful?
The
next
discussion
session
focused
on
the
concept
of
success,
and
how
people
know
when
a
CBR
project
has
been
successful.
According
to
these
conversations,
we
know
we
have
achieved
success
when…
• People
apply
what
they’ve
learned
to
other
contexts
• The
community
ends
up
with
something
tangible
(more
than
they
started
with)
• Relationships
are
developed
and
become
stronger
throughout
the
process
• Relationships
continue
once
the
research
is
over
• There
is
mutual
satisfaction
• There
is
increased
capacity
within
the
community
(e.g.,
opportunities
for
training,
etc.)
• Community
members
are
trained
as
researchers
• The
power
dynamic
is
reduced
between
the
researcher(s)
and
the
community
• Multiple
ways
of
knowing
are
acknowledged
and
celebrated
• Decision-­‐makers
are
part
of
the
process
• Decisions
are
made
together
• Partners
can
openly
communicate
about
challenges
and
outcomes
• People
celebrate
the
process
as
well
as
the
outcomes
• Communities
have
access
to
resources
they
previously
didn’t
have
access
to
• People
are
moving
towards
goals
and
achieving
them
• “Success”
is
defined
together
and
is
context-­‐specific
• People
involved
say
they
would
“do
it
again”
• People
want
to
continue
learning
• The
project
is
sustainable
• Useful
and
relevant
recommendations
are
made
• Policies
are
impacted
• There
is
increased
capacity
to
enact
societal
change
• The
whole
is
bigger
than
the
sum
of
the
parts
• Research
groups
and
networks
are
established
across
the
country
• People
are
happy
and
stay
with
the
project
Thoughtful conversations…

20.
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Discussion on hubs of excellence
The
final
breakout
session
looked
forward
to
explore
the
possibility
of
developing
hubs
of
CCCR
excellence.
The
guiding
questions
for
small
group
discussions—in
regional
groups—were:
1. What
guiding
principles
should
be
followed
when
developing
collaborative
community
campus
research
hubs?
2. What
topics
or
questions
should
hubs
address?
3. What
would
help
and
what
would
hinder
hub
development?
4. What
is
the
role
of
CBRC
in
developing
and
supporting
hubs?
To
these
questions,
many
small
groups
added
questions
and
considerations
necessary
to
answer
prior
to
beginning
work
on
hubs.
Following
is
a
summary
across
all
geographic
regions.
0. What
is
a
hub?
What
is
its
purpose?
What
does
it
look
like?
• Why
a
hub?
What
will
the
hub
do?
What
is
its
purpose?
• How
do
we
develop
hubs?
• Should
hubs
be
based
on
geographic
regions
or
themes?
Or
both?
• If
hubs
are
provincial
or
regional,
how
do
we
ensure
that
the
issues
are
still
locally
relevant?
• Do
hubs
conduct
research?
• What
should
be
the
role
of
existing
centres
and
organizations?
• What
is
the
problem
that
hub
is
the
answer
to?
• Who
do
we
wish
to
be
as
a
hub
and
what
does
that
demand
of
us
in
relationship
with
one
another?
• How
can
these
hubs
be
used
to
further
the
CBR
movement?
• What
elements
of
existing
hubs
make
them
strong,
endure
over
time?
What
infrastructure/level
of
investment
has
proved
to
work
in
Canada?
Internationally?
Where
are
the
gaps?
• How
do
we
make
optimal
use
of
existing
human
resources
and
talents
in
our
communities?
• How
do
we
really
look
at
doing
the
communication,
sharing
resources,
and
capacity
building
as
nimbly
as
possible?
• How
can
we
do
this
work
without
creating
more
work
and
a
structure
0. What
is
a
hub?
What
is
its
purpose?
What
does
it
look
like?
that
will
kill
what’s
on
the
ground?
It
was
seen
as
vitally
important
to
look
at
previous
models
of
hubs,
in
order
to
learn
from
both
past
successes
and
failures.
Examples
included:
• Ocean
Networks
Canada
(ONC)
• Canadian
Social
Economy
Hub
(CSEHub)
Getting into the details

21.
20
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
1. What
guiding
principles
should
be
followed
in
hub
development?
• Be
Inclusive:
of
provinces
and
territories,
of
types
of
community,
of
universities,
of
sectors,
of
cultural
diversity,
etc.
• Build
on
demonstrated
strengths,
such
as
existing
principles,
mechanisms,
and
relationships
• Have
open
access
to
information
and
data
• Have
their
own
established
ethics
and
protocols
• Be
accountable
and
transparent
• Be
democratic
with
a
focus
on
shared
governance
• Be
interdisciplinary
• Be
flexible
and
responsive
• Facilitate
movement
(of
people
and
information)
between
hubs
• Facilitate
connections
through
strong
communication
• Build
capacity
• Have
a
clear,
sustainable
vision
across
topic
areas
• Be
strategic
in
choices
of
topics
• Create
the
conditions
for
CBR
to
flourish
across
Canada
• Be
action-­‐oriented
2. What
topics
or
questions
should
hubs
address?
Overall,
participants
agreed
that
topics
should
emerge
from
the
research
context
and
community.
There
were
some
suggestions
for
potential
topics,
but
it
was
emphasized
that
if
these
don’t
make
sense
for
the
community,
the
hubs
should
not
be
limited
by
these
(or
any)
suggestions.
Suggested
topics
included:
• Epistemology
• Student
training
• CBR
methodology
related
to
an
interdisciplinary
approach
• Collaborations
between
academia
and
community
partners
• Effective
knowledge
mobilization
tools
• Community
ethics
• Indicators
of
good
CBR
practice
• Community
engagement
• Drinking
water
• Regional
cooperation
• Indigenous
self-­‐determination
• Economic
inequality
• Social
innovation
• Food
security
• Marine
geo-­‐hazards
• Climate
change

22.
21
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
3. What
would
help
and
hinder
hub
development?
What
would
help:
• Focusing
on
strengths
and
assets
• Ensuring
regional
interests
were
prioritized
• Resources
to
assist
us
carry
out
this
work
• The
strength
of
existing
structures/institutions
• Leveraging
students
• Initial
strong
boundaries
to
build
a
foundation
• Engagement
beyond
research
projects
• Physical
space
for
meeting,
dialogue,
and
innovation
• Institutional
buy-­‐in
• Building
on
already
strong
relationships
and
partnerships
• Expectation
management
of
all
stakeholders
• Ensuring
value
for
participation
• Greater
recognition
for
the
creativity,
strengthens,
and
impact
of
CBR
across
different
content
areas
(i.e.,
as
was
done
through
volume
of
case
studies)
• Optimal
use
of
human
talent
• Having
a
wide
variety
of
people
at
the
table,
conflicting
ideas
to
actually
push
things
forward
(cross
disciplines,
cross
geographical
areas),
too
much
like-­‐mindedness
may
not
be
as
productive
• Better
use
of
technology
• Having
a
framework
for
evaluation.
• Pilot
projects
What
would
hinder:
• Taking
on
too
many
issues
and
spreading
ourselves
too
thin
• Duplication
of
work
• If
the
existing
strengths
and
uniqueness
of
existing
organizations
were
diluted
• Allocating
resources
according
to
previous
structures;
the
resources
need
to
be
centralized
• Geographical
limitations
making
it
difficult
to
connect
people
• Not
having
the
right
people
at
the
table.
4. What
is
the
role
of
CBRC
in
developing
and
supporting
hubs?
There
were
several
ways
in
which
CBRC’s
role
in
developing
and
supporting
hubs
was
conceptualized.
This
included:
• Enabler
(for
emerging
scholars,
students)
• Convener
(for
conferences,
workshops,
training,
CUExpos,
etc.)
• Facilitator
(of
foundational
partners
of
hubs)
• Disseminator
• Networker
(with
organizations,
governments,
etc.)
• Connector
(for
all
existing
CBR
champions,
eventually
hubs)
• Capacity
builder
(resources/knowledge
to
do
CBR
better)
• CBR
movement
builder
• Mobilizer
(of
knowledge
(e.g.,
profile
case
examples
and
people)
• Advocator
(policy
changes
for
societal
issues,
funding,
etc.)
• Expert
(to
provide
consultations
for
excellent
CBR)
• Innovator
(to
create
new
solutions
• Translator
(so
metrics
can
be
utilized
nationally)
• Broker

23.
22
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Wrapping up and moving forward
National Summit participant evaluation
The
summit
evaluation
was
conducted
using
the
voting
technology
to
get
instantaneous
feedback.
Below
are
the
evaluation
questions
with
their
results.
1. Which
sessions
did
you
find
most
useful
(select
three)?

24.
23
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
2. What
do
you
think
will
be
the
greatest
challenge
for
you
to
establish
a
hub
of
excellence
in
your
community?
3. What
type
of
summit
dissemination
are
you
going
to
follow
up
with
(choose
3)?

25.
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
4. Overall,
I
am
satisfied
with
this
summit
5. The
thing
I’m
most
looking
forward
to
when
I
go
home
is…
Discussing
CCCR
principles
with
my
friends
and
family—55%
Sleeping
in
my
own
bed—37%
With
time
change
and
travel,
I
won’t
get
home
for
another
two
days!—8%

26.
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
A partner proposal
As
noted
in
the
agenda,
following
the
National
Summit,
representatives
of
CBRC
and
other
partners
met
to
discuss
steps
for
developing
a
proposal
for
regional
hubs
in
community-­‐based
research.
CCBR
is
leading
the
proposal
development,
with
strong
support
from
other
CBRC
partners.
Stay
tuned
over
the
coming
weeks
for
more
information
and
ways
to
be
involved.
Next
steps:
1. Analysis
of
the
group
work
will
be
completed
to
surface
themes.
2. A
draft
of
indicators
identified
will
be
circulated
and
feedback
solicited.
3. We
are
all
responsible
to
disseminate
these
proceedings
and
other
National
Summit
information
(http://bit.ly/1vbJX2N).
CCCR student forum
The
student
forum
began
with
a
discussion
about
learning
from
experiences.
Participants
discussed
their
experience
and
knowledge
of
community-­‐based
research,
and
talked
about
what
community-­‐based
research
or
collaborative
campus
community
work
means
to
them—
including
what
CCCR
is
not.
The
draft
indicators
of
excellence
were
shared
and
input
from
the
student
perspective
was
sought.
Below
is
the
compiled
input
to
the
four
indicators:
Student
input
to
indicators
of
excellence
Community
relevance
• Involves
ensuring
applicability
of
research
process/topic.
• Ownership
of
the
research
should
be
shared,
or
largely
ingrained
in
the
community—making
it
their
own
and
having
influence
over
its
direction.
• Must
value
the
community
and
community
expertise
throughout
the
entire
research
process
• Must
avoid
tokenism
• Central
questions:
How
do
we
do
this
in
a
meaningful
way?
How
do
we
make
it
meaningful
to
the
community?
Who
is
representative
of
the
community?
Who
makes
up
this
community?
What
voices
are
being
heard?
• Research
should
emerge
from
the
community/members
• Can
ask
guiding
questions:
facilitate
by
asking
the
community
the
right
questions,
not
providing
the
answers
for
them.
• Must
be
intentional
and
genuine—strive
for
community
relevance
in
all
domains
of
research
process
• Process
needs
to
be
honoured:
ensure
voices
are
being
heard,
space
for
voices
of
dissent
or
contradiction;
consensus
may
not
be
possible
but
should
be
strived
for.
• Requires
the
development
of
strong
relationships
with
the
community,
full
immersion—already
be
a
part
of
the
community
when
research
begins;
create
strong
foundations
within
the
community.
• Be
invited
and
wanted
within
the
community:
“Should
be
invited
to
the
table
by
the
community,
not
merely
setting
up
the
table.”
• Develop
trusting
relationships
• Additional
focus
on
impact
• Urgency
of
issues:
address
the
realities
of
research
and
the
time
and
resources
impact
will
take;
can
be
difficult
if
there
is
a
sense
of
urgent
needs
within
the
community

27.
26
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Student
input
to
indicators
of
excellence
Equitable
participation
• Community
helps
to
define
the
research
question,
as
opposed
to
a
need
defined
by
someone
on
the
outside:
defining
a
project
or
research
question
should
be
a
collaborative
process
with
all
partners
involved.
• People
who
are
being
researched
can
be
the
researchers:
importance
of
peer
research
models
and
training
of
community
researchers
• Decisions
on
participation
in
traditional
research
models
is
fundamentally
about
purse
strings
and
technical
skills:
dominant
funding
structures
and
focus
on
specific
technical
skills
can
create
power
imbalances
within
the
research
process
• Central
question:
What
funding
and
capacity
building
needs
to
happen
to
get
to
the
power
dynamics
in
CBR?
• Research
process
should
become
more
knowledge-­‐driven.
• Participatory
budget-­‐making
• Reflexivity:
all
research
partners
should
be
continually
recognizing
and
assessing
their
own
position
and
power
within
the
research
process
relative
to
other
research
partners.
• Must
involve
flexibility
• Central
question:
Is
equitable
the
right
word?
Is
meaningful
better?
Who
is
the
community?
What
focus
do
you
have?
Is
it
solely
on
formal
organizations?
Student
input
to
indicators
of
excellence
Research
design
• Importance
of
rapport
and
building
trust
prior
to
proposal
development
• Important
to
ensure
effective
and
accessible
communication
with
the
community
(learn
the
language,
ensure
interpretation,
using
accessible
language
as
opposed
to
academic
language
or
jargon).
• Important
to
communicate
research
theory
and
approach
before
beginning
the
research
process;
alternatively,
since
there
isn’t
always
a
theory
that
fits
from
the
beginning
researchers
must
focus
on
learning
from
the
community
to
create
collaborative
theories
and
understandings
of
the
research
question.
• Should
always
consider
ethics
and
any
community-­‐specific
protocols
or
norms.
• For
example,
approaching
the
right
gatekeepers
(as
determined
by
the
community)
and
getting
buy-­‐in
and
understanding
from
respected
community
leaders
(e.g.,
elders).
• Design
requires
community
consent
and
community
direction
• Research
design
is
a
process;
takes
a
lot
of
time.
• Design
should
consider
ownership,
control,
access
and
possession
of
the
research
and
its
findings.
• Should
center
on
empowering
communities
to
engage
in
their
own
research.
• Build
capacity
of
community
and
researchers
throughout
the
stages
of
the
research
design
so
that
they
can
continue
with
research,
evaluation
or
action
plan
in
the
future.
• Build
capacity
so
they
can
continue
to
address
community
issues
or
at
least
understand
how
they
could
approach
issues
from
this
framework.
• Researchers
need
training
as
well,
in
methodology
as
well
as
in
community
&
cultural
protocols
–bi-­‐directional
learning
between
community
and
formal
researchers
is
key.

28.
27
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Student
input
to
indicators
of
excellence
Action
and
change
• Promoted
by
pairing
students
and
researchers
with
communities.
Work
in
tandem
to
create
and
promote
action
and
change
that
is
relevant
to
the
community
and
its
needs.
• Importance
of
impact
of
research:
How
do
you
make
change
for
the
better
with
your
research?
What
does
this
change
look
like
for
different
stakeholders?
• Proposed
action
and
change
resulting
from
research
should
target
the
strengths
and
weaknesses
of
the
community;
involves
a
process
of
asset
mapping
• Involves
community
evaluation
and
consultation
• Importance
of
intersections:
multi-­‐level
analysis
of
scope
for
action
and
change
• Requires
sustainable
relationships:
importance
of
relationship-­‐
building
after
exit
from
the
field/community
and
the
importance
of
thinking
through
responsibilities
and
expectations
among
stakeholders.
• Involves
the
provision
and
sharing
of
resources
and
connections
with
the
community.
• Action
plans
are
a
key
outcome
of
research;
they
must
be
collaboratively
designed.
• Key
question
and
consideration:
How
can
we
involve
the
government
and
political
leaders?
Such
stakeholders
are
inextricably
linked
to
action
and
change.
• Diverse
knowledge
dissemination
strategies:
create
awareness
through
alternative
methods
such
as
media,
documentaries,
films,
etc.
Utilize
the
creative
arts
of
engagement.
Some
additional
categories
of
excellence
were
suggested,
as
well:
• Community
readiness:
Importance
of
gauging
the
willingness,
openness
and
readiness
to
engage
in
this
research.
There
may
be
barriers
to
participation
that
must
be
addressed
before
successful
research
can
occur.
• Community
engagement:
Relates
to
equitable
participation;
research
may
be
relevant
and
researchers
may
desire
equitable
participation
but
is
the
community
willing
and
able
to
engage
in
the
research?
Barriers
to
engagement
must
be
addressed.
Concerned
with
asking:
how
involved
are
communities
in
addressing
the
issues
and
the
research
process?
How
do
we
get
people
out
that
are
truly
representative
of
the
community?
Do
we
know
what
the
communities
think
about
the
process?
What
does
the
community
think
are
indicators
of
success
for
the
particular
project?
These
questions
may
link
to
the
importance
of
encouraging
‘participatory
evaluation’
on
an
ongoing,
iterative
basis.
• Meaningful
participation:
As
opposed
to
equitable;
ensuring
that
participation
is
meaningful
and
appropriately
shared
may
be
a
better
category
of
excellence
to
strive
for;
aligns
with
an
interpretive
research
process.
The
student
forum
wrapped
up
with
a
discussion
of
professional
training
opportunities
and
ways
to
become
more
involved
in
CCCR.
Students
put
forward
a
list
of
suggested
additional
supports
that
CBRC
or
others
could
provide.
They
are
listed
in
brief
here:
• Promote
awareness
and
positive
discourse
around
research.
• Host
retreats
or
camps.
• Research
training.
• Jobs
and
paid
internships.
• Scholarships.
• Advocacy
and
funders.
• Class
outreach.
• Workshops
and
webinars.
• Speaker
series.
• Mentorship
programmes.
• Online
toolkit.
• Social
media.
For
further
details,
please
contact
Taylor
Marlow
at
taylor@communitybasedresearch.ca.

29.
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
Thanks to our sponsors!

30.
29
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings
!
2014CCCRNATIONALSUMMIT!
pursuingexcellenceincollaborativecommunitycampusresearch!
CCBR team"

31.
30
2014
CCCR
summit
proceedings