“We+butted+heads+so+nicely”

Download a PDF of this file ** “We butted heads so nicely”: Considering ‘grassroots think-tanks’ and science shops to generate new knowledge by connecting ‘local’ and ‘expert’ knowers in community-campus partnerships ** Marie Sandy, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [sandym@uwm.edu]


 * Keywords:** Marginalized people, grassroots, science shop approach, hermeneutic research method, community-campus partnerships


 * Conference track:** Community partnerships and outcomes


 * Format:** Research/scholarly paper

There is a growing acceptance of involving grassroots, low-income people directly in leadership roles to design solutions intended to positively impact their lives (e.g., ATD Fourth World, 2000; UN, 2000). When community members are involved with the design and implementation of solutions to community problems, those interventions are proven to have better outcomes (e.g., Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), 2004). But including marginalized people in decision-making processes is not easy. Hardina (2003) describes the ways in which their participation is often co-opted or designed to fail because of the possibility they might threaten existing power structures.
 * Summary**

Community-campus partnerships sponsored by higher education can help support this effort. To date, research on the community perspective of community-campus partnerships usually involves community-based professionals with institutional affiliations rather than residents (e.g., Sandy & Holland, 2006; Stoecker & Tryon, 2009). Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Outreach Partnership Program, the “grassroots think-tank” partnership functioned as a voluntary association that included over 40 low-income residents and representatives from K - 12 institutions, churches, community-based organizations, and higher education institutions.

This paper will analyze how the deliberative processes did and did not meet the challenges of integrating the knowledge of grassroots participants and ‘expert’ knowers to generate new knowledge and actions together. The author will compare and contrast the deliberative-based partnership model with the model of science shops, which is usually an entity set up in an academic setting “to provide participatory research support to concerns experienced by civil society” (Steinhaus, 2007); similarities and distinctions will be addressed, and the author will provide an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each. Narratives of grassroots community partner members are integrated using a conversation-based hermeneutic research method (Gadamer, 1960/1975; Herda, 1999; Sandy, 2011).

Ahmed, S., Nelson, D., Biedrzycki, P., Sandy, M., Opel, S., & Franco, Z. (in press). Community engagement for translational disaster research: Fostering public, private & responder group partnerships//.// Proceedings of the 9th International ISCRAM Conference. Vancouver, Canada.
 * References**

ATD Fourth World. (2000). //Participation works.// London, UK: Author.

Bringle, R., & Hatcher, J. (2002). Campus-community partnerships: The terms of engagement. //Journal of Social Issues//, //58//(3), 503-516.

Gadamer, H-G. (1975). //Truth and method// (Sheed and Ward, Ltd. Trans.). (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Crossroad.

Giles, D. E., Jr., & Cruz, N. (2000). Where’s the community in service-learning [Special issue]? //Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning//, //7//, 28-34

Hardina, D. (2003). Linking citizen participation to empowerment practice: A historical overview. //Journal of Community Practice//, //Fall,// 11-37.

Herda, E. (1999). //Research conversations and narrative: A critical hermeneutic orientation in participatory inquiry.// London UL: Praeger.

Lister, R. (2010). A politics of recognition and respect: Involving people with experience of poverty in decision-making that affects their lives. //Social Policy and Society//, //1// (1//)//, 37-46.

Liederman, S., Furco, A. Zapf, J., & Goss, M. (2003). //Building partnerships with college campuses: Community perspectives//. Monograph: A publication of the Consortium for the Advancement of Private Higher Education’s Engaging Communities and Campuses Program. The Council of Independent Colleges.

Ravensbergen, F., & VanderPlaat, M. (2010). Barriers to citizen participation: The missing voices of people living with low income. //Community Development Journal//, //45//(4//),// 389-403.

Sandy, M. (2007). //Community voices: A California Campus Compact study on improving partnerships.// San Francisco, CA: California Campus Compact.

Sandy, M. (2011). Practical beauty and the legacy of pragmatism: Generating theory for community-engaged scholarship. //Interchange//, //42//(3), 261-285.

Sandy, M. & Holland, B. (2006). Different worlds and common ground: Community partner perspectives in campus-community partnerships. //Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 13// (1), 30 - 43.

Steinhaus, N. (2007). Wiessenschaftsladen Bonn, Bonn Science Shop. Paper presented at Living Knowledge meeting, Paris, France.

Stoecker, R., Loving, K., Redding, M., & Bollig, N. (2010). Can community-based research guide service learning? //Journal of Community Practice//, //18// (2-3), 280-296.

Stoecker, R., & Tyron, E. (Eds). (2009). //The unheard voices: Community organizations and service-learning//. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

United Nations Development Report. (2000). //Human development report 2000//. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2000). Community-centered service learning. //American Behavioral Scientist//, //43//, 767-780.


 * To access materials from this session please click on the file link(s) below:**

include component="comments" page="“We butted heads so nicely”" limit="50"