Hi Melissa,

We created our Community-Review Board of Non-negotiables to help guide us. We believe that it should not be dominant culture institutions that "allow" access or modification of protocols, but that it should be the underserved communities themselves that are equal partners in the decision-making from the very beginning. Please check out our project non-negotiables and our ICBO Working Agreements. I hope this is helpful.

Hi Melissa,

Thank you for watching our video. We are happy you are interested in ways to enhance engagement in areas from which communities have been excluded. Our approach was to use community-based participatory research with grounded theory approaches. Our mission, vision, rules based on Jemez Principles community review board of non-negotiables guide our work. The research comes from the community and it is co-lead, co-created with our institution. Our project has informed our work.

• We’ve been interpreting findings and disseminating the work using the arts (music, theater), spoken word, dance and creative body movement, non-academic language, and we have developed engaging posters using graphic novel style, drawings, photography to document process and photo voice. The group wants the findings to benefit their communities in a practical way and for everyone to understand and be included.
• We did not propose modifications to protocols, but co-created them in ways that make sense to the community.
• In this new grant project, we are living all we’ve learned and putting it to action.

 Below is our COMMUNITY REVIEW BOARD NON-NEGOTIABLES

1. Research in our communities must be conducted with respect and cultural competence.

1. research in Our communities must include our communities from the beginning.

1. Research in our communities will be beneficial and empowering to our communities.

1. Researchers must have a deep understanding of equity*.

1. Researchers must have a high level of emotional intelligence.

1. Researchers will use vocabulary that is easy for everyone involved in the project (and their communities) to understand.

1. Researchers must understand our communities’ priorities.

1. Researchers will not use our communities as guinea pigs. We do not want to be studied or used for the benefit of others.

1. Research in our communities will be honest, transparent, and have high integrity.

1. OUR worldviews ARE NOT THOSE OF THE DOMINANT CULTURE. WE WILL NOT ADAPT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS THE WAY SCIENCE IS TRADITIONALLY DONE. 

1. Researchers will be clear and transparent about their agenda.

1. Researchers will NOT use our communities for the benefit of their institutions or for their personal benefit.

1. Research results will always be shared with our communities first and in ways that are accessible and clear to everyone.

1. Consent documents will be clear and to the point so that anyone can understand what they are agreeing to.

1. The intellectual property that is taken from our communities belongs to our community.

*Equity: Providing the structure, tools, respect, and support needed to give each member the same opportunity to succeed. Working for equity also means identifying and fighting forces and systems that limit opportunities and outcomes.

I hope this helps!

Thanks.

Hi Marilu, I find a lot of the details you mention in this response intriguing. I'm always curious about using arts in meaningful ways to engage in science storytelling and as alternative ways to communicate research results. Are there places to see some of the outcomes you mention (examples of the posters, etc)? Are you communicating results in more standard academic/scientific communities? (Obviously, I understand this showcase could be considered a good example, though obviously there may be a diverse audience!). In those cases, how are you choosing to talk about this work?

 

Hi Carrie,

Thank you for watching our video! From the beginning of our work it was clear that academic language was a barrier between the institution and the communities in a collaboration. When the ICBOs began their strand of research, we wanted to communicate in ways we could be inclusive and understood by anyone in our communities. The arts have overcome any barrier and have universal reach, are welcoming and provide creative ways of expression that can reach more people of all backgrounds and bring attention to what we want to communicate.

You can find some examples on our blog: https://power30icbos.blogspot.com/

-Inequitable Collaborations: the need for full access: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RqTg_goY24

-Walking on Eggshells, visually explained: https://power30icbos.blogspot.com/2019/03/walki...

-Our posters: https://power30icbos.blogspot.com/search/label/...

Thanks!

Marilú

Hi Nikki, 

We agree that community involvement from the very beginning is invaluable. This is a community-led project, and we have been working together for approximately five years. We've created a framework to guide our research and our decision-making. We are in the first year of the project and are in the midst of co-creating! We meet weekly and primarily focus on process. 

Thanks, Karen. I would also like to add that we met the community researchers years ago through the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s citizen science project Celebrate Urban Birds (CUBs). It all started when they got a mini-grant award from CUBs to create an event in their community and participate in the citizen science project. That was the beginning of the relationship. Years later, when we got an NSF award for a collaborative research project, we brought a group of those community members as advisors to the project. A year later, feeling that academic language was a barrier that made communities feel studied and did not provide meaningful access to the research or that they could use, in a practical way, in their communities, they began their own strand of research using community-based participatory research and grounded theory approaches.

The process for co-creating the research project includes meeting several times a month and staying in touch. We also hold in-person meetings at least twice a year. The decisions are made collectively and we strive to make sure every voice is heard. To accomplish this, we use different ways to make sure everyone is heard. We also follow the Jemez Principles and our working agreements.

Our framework guides our research and decision-making and our Community Review Board of Project Non-negotiables and Working Agreements help guide our process.

We developed these in our in-person meetings and worked together to come to common understandings of what these terms mean. It's a process!

We feel that it is important for us to review and adjust these agreements and non-negotiables over time and depending on context.

Greetings Jake,

 

Thanks for your interest in our research. My name is Makeda and I'm the Executive Director of the WorldBeat Cultural Center in San Diego, CA. I am one of the community leaders representing underserved communities throughout the USA that has been participating in the project. We call ourselves Independent Community Based Organizations (IBCOs). Our research has been co-created from the beginning. Together we created the survey that we shared amongst 30 community organizations to better understand the challenges in fostering equity, diversity and inclusion in STEM research. Together we analyzed the data, named the results, and created a workbook to guide both Informal Science Educators and Community Based Organizations through their collaborations. Most recently in the last 2 years, we've presented our results and workbooks throughout various conferences throughout the nation. Now we are putting these results into practice on a noise pollution project where four of us are co-principle investigators. Each of our respective communities also has participating Community Science Collaborators as key players in the project where they are co-creating the noise pollution app so that its relevant to everyone. Being authors and presenters of our own research has empowered us and our communities. We have all adopted or implemented our research and values in our own unique way into our organizations and collaborations.

In our research, we found that Power and Privilege and Trust and Transparency are key themes that come up when trying to understand collaborations between Informal Science Institutions and Community Based Organizations. Community Based Organizations felt used by the dominant culture institutions coming into their communities and 'using' them for grants and research. Many communities feel that in their collaborations they were being 'studied' with no benefit for them in the long run and that's one of the problems that creates mistrust. Research participants from underserved communities did not have access to grant writers, developers, foundations like the dominant culture institutions. This is what constitutes Power and Privilege. Having a commitment to Equity, Diversity and Inclusion is necessary to have meaningful collaborations between Informal Science Educators and Community Based Organizations.

Thank you, Rebecca!

Thanks, Bobby. Indeed, a very important step to see community leaders as Co-Principal Investigators. Looking forward to seeing more community voices elevated in other projects like the ones in this showcase!

Thank you, Jomo! It is an honor to be working with this amazing group.