Food for Thought: Coalition Process and a Community‐based Research and Service‐learning Project

Abstract

Community‐based research and service‐learning (CBRSL) represents an important and expanding approach to academic inquiry and pedagogy employed by several fields, including cultural anthropology. Much of the theoretical work on this approach, while providing an essential foundation for research, fails to account fully for the complexities encountered in the actual practice of community‐based collaborative work. Drawing on nearly a decade of my own field experience, both teaching about and participating in community‐based research, I examine the concepts of “community” and “neighborhood” as they are constructed by collaborating partners to frame a discussion of the overall objectives of community‐based projects. In particular, I outline and explore the lifecycle of an ongoing CBRSL project, its role in the systematic generation of local transformative knowledge, and I examine how, at each stage in its evolution, the process is shaped by the interaction of individual agents within the constraints of the cultural structure in which such research takes place. This approach is valuable because it allows us to both better understand the degree to which theoretical constructs are shared by coalition members and to explicate the ramifications that variation in understanding between members holds for project success. Success, in the case of CBRSL, is multidimensional and fluid, as expectations and goals vary between partners and shift across the lifecycle of the project. I conclude that what is of lasting value to all participants is the shared appreciation of the challenges and long‐term benefits of coalition building between academic and nonacademic communities to address real world problems.

Unique Issues for Resettling Refugees from the Congo Wars

“…Finally, while better RFCW community cohesion and self‐help would seem an obvious solution, it is important both for research and for service provision to understand the many factions within the community. For example, participatory research, like participatory development, sounds inherently positive, but a “tyranny of participation” can also pervade community‐based projects (Cooke and Kothari, 2001), especially if the participatory element becomes simply a means toward attracting funding, reproducing older power relations, or providing an illusory sense of participation (Behrman 2011). For example, if you wanted to do a simple snowball sample of RFCWs, you would have a sampling bias depending on whom you chose to be your key informant.…”

Media Sovereignty and Digital Activism

“…We sought to carry out this project through leveraging the strengths of SLCE projects. In general, service-learning refers to "skills acquisition, skills application and recognition on the part of the students of their potential as agents of change in the community" (Behrman, 2002:21)1 and increasing SLCE courses are embracing community-based projects and participatory action principles (Behrman, 2002(Behrman, , 2011Bodorkós & Pataki, 2009;Bozalek, 2011;Keene & Colligan, 2004). As noted above, early conversations with the community established how SLCE work carried out together should be guided by community desires for digital activism and media sovereignty.…”

Participatory Research in Mesoamerica and Data Protection in Europe (and Elsewhere)

“…Other practices are more concerned with bringing participants into the research process itself. This may include involving participants in the development of research questions and data‐collecting activities, including interviews and filmmaking, and collaborating with them during the writing and publication process (Lebrato, this issue, Whittaker, this issue; see also Behrman 2011; Contreras and Griffith 2011; Field 1998; Hurtig 2008). More recently, the return of data collected during ethnographic research to the communities involved has also emerged as an ethical commitment within participatory research practice (Rees, this issue; Cooper 2009).…”

“…filmmaking, and collaborating with them during the writing and publication process (Lebrato, this issue, Whittaker, this issue; see also Behrman 2011;Contreras and Griffith 2011;Field 1998;Hurtig 2008). More recently, the return of data collected during ethnographic research to the communities involved has also emerged as an ethical commitment within participatory research practice (Rees, this issue;Cooper 2009).…”