Challenging the empowerment expectation: Learning, alienation and design possibilities in community-university research

Abstract

As community-university partnerships have become mainstream, researchers have argued that these approaches have the potential to be transformative, supporting community learning and creating capacity for community development. While this remains the dominant narrative of community research, some researchers have questioned the impacts of community research on frontline community, or peer, researchers who represent partnerships in their communities. These studies complicate the narrative, suggesting that learning and capacity building are not straightforward processes. While on the whole community-university partnerships tend to be empowering for community researchers, research is needed to understand the experiences of community researchers for whom this is not the case. My research examines a Toronto-based community-university participatory action research partnership, asking what community researchers learnt through their participation. I argue that, while community researchers learnt a great deal from their participation, the overall impact was not empowerment, but alienation. They did have their knowledge of community validated, and they built research skills, developed grievances through their conversations with neighbours and interrogated the links between grievances, all of which were important aspects of their participation. However, through the process they developed, or entrenched, a sense of powerlessness and dependence on the university researchers to take up their cause politically. This contradicts the aspirations of community-university partnership models, especially participatory action research, and raises questions about the inevitability of empowering social action stemming from these research projects. I argue that the disempowerment that the community researchers reported points to the need for community research to be embedded within existing social action organisations and infrastructure to provide clearer pathways to action because, without this, peer researchers may become overwhelmed by the scope of the grievances in their neighbourhoods and withdraw from, rather than embrace, the need for collective social action.

Deliberative Democracy in Higher Education: The Role of Critical Spaces Across Universities

“…Evidence of this broadened role for higher education in practice is the global change movement by universities to take an active role in social change projects through international organizations such as the Global University Network for Innovation, the Talloires Network of Engaged Universities, UNESCO, and an array of world regional and national organizations, in which scholars collaborate with practitioners and communities to improve social conditions (Curnow, 2017;Escrigas, et al, 2013;Hall & Tandon, 2020;Hoyt & Newcomb Rowe, 2017). There are many examples of these university-community partnerships for social change involving economic justice, health, poverty, and sustainability (Hall, et al, 2013;Hall, Tandon, & Tremblay, 2015;Tandon, et al, 2016).…”

“…Second, universities that have significant successful experience working hand-in-hand to empower communities to design and implement social change using deliberative principles could be identified. Third, the global change movement involving universities, such as the Global University Network for Innovation, the Talloires Network of Engaged Universities, and an array of international organizations and foundations could be tapped for their expertise and support (Curnow, 2017;Escrigas, et al, 2013;Hall & Tandon, 2020;Hoyt & Rowe, 2017).…”

Maintaining the Authenticity of Co-Researcher Voice Using FPAR Principles

“…I also understand my responsibility to use my privilege and power as a doctoral student researcher to facilitate change. It would be highly unrealistic for me to expect my co-researchers to complete the action piece of our project, as expected by Curnow (2017), on their own. Another way I was able to fulfill my responsibility as a supportive researcher was listening to the voices and stories of my peers.…”

Towards a Framework for Building Community-University Resilience Research Agendas

“…However, studies of community-university partnerships have also identified negative results. For example, Curnow (2017) writes about community research projects that have been experienced by peer researchers as disempowering and alienating. Levkoe (2017) highlights research that speaks to an array of barriers and consequences community partners can face within community campus engagements.…”

“…Levkoe (2017) highlights research that speaks to an array of barriers and consequences community partners can face within community campus engagements. Some examples include the need for addressing knowledge hierarchies (Anderson and McLachlan 2016), and reconciling the tensions between knowledge production and action-oriented social change (Warren et al 2018;Curnow 2017;Stoecker and Tryon 2009), including responding to the pull between developing accessible resources valued by community partners and the production of publications for academic audiences (Watson-Thompson 2015). Failure to address these challenges can prevent an overt focus on justice 4 in practice (Da Cruz 2018), which can in turn re-inscribe the power discrepancies that community-engaged scholars often intend to disrupt and change.…”