Here is the list of reports we SENT OUT to the list from the conference. ------------------------------------------------------ >From loka@amhux4.amherst.eduMon Jul 22 12:06:12 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 10:32:50 -0400 From: Loka Institute Reply to: scishops@listserv.ncsu.edu To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: The NCRN Conference:Please participate! Welcome to the electronic participation section of the National Community Research Planning Network Conference sponsored by the Loka Institute, UMass Extension and the UMass Science and Technology/ Society Program. Conference updates will be uploaded throughout the weekend and replies will be downloaded for those gathered in Amherst. Dick Sclove (Director of the Loka Institute) gave a welcoming introduction to a diversity of scholars, researchers, organizers and advocates at an informal reception and set the tone for the conference when he said that "the purpose for our coming together is as much about forming connections as coming up with an model for the network. In the spirit of community: that is why we are here." The atmosphere was both kenetic and relaxed. Tomorrow the focus the conference will move to examining community based advocacy/research network models. We will hear from international, national and regional networks in attempting to envision a path for the development of this network. Please feel free to communicate with us throughout the weekend. We will be uploading information periodically and ask for your participation in making this conference as democratic as possible. -------------------------------------------------------- >From loka@amhux4.amherst.eduMon Jul 22 12:06:31 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 14:27:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Loka Institute To: scishops Cc: Loka@amhux4.amherst.edu Subject: Re:NCRN Conference update: Saturday morning John Gerber (Associate Dean of the College of Food and Natural Resources and Director of Extension at the University of Massachusetts) began introductions by asking what the role of educational institutions should be with regard to community networks and how they (institutions) would best serve the public. David Scott, the Chancellor of the University of Massachusetts, replied to Gerber's question with the definition of Loka: the forming of action for the benefit of the world. Scott said that educational institutional should be producing complete and intergrated human beings. "Unfortunately" he said "universities apply their research-based theories to the world and don't allow for the world to make those theories themselves." Scott ended the morning introductions by adding that he believed that this conference would be taking the next step "in changing the nature of scholarship." David Schecter prepared the participants for looking at various network models by asking the following questions: Who should we serve? What should we do for the communities that we serve? What benefits should we provide these communities? What is the larger goal of which we choose to be a part? Who is the we? These questions he felt should be asked in the context of examining the conceptualization of the National Community Research Network: What is meant by national? Who will be our community/ What will be the location of community? How will we define research? How will we develop a community? Please feel free to answer these questions and send them to us as we go about trying to find honest answers ourselves. The next update will concern the various models of networks that will be presented later this morning. ------------------------------------------------------ >From loka@amhux4.amherst.eduMon Jul 22 12:06:46 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 00:52:12 -0400 From: Loka Institute Reply to: scishops@listserv.ncsu.edu To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Conference PRAG: Joanne Adams of the Policy and Research Action Group in Chicago represented Philip Nyden, Director of PRAG. Joanne presented a brief overview of PRAG, which is a collaborative partnership between four universities and over 15 community organizations. PRAG supports community based organizations by helping them in a variety of ways including guidance and organizational support, access to academic institutions and other community groups, funding through grants, and training. Dennis Sakurai from the Southeast Asia Center and a member of PRAG spoke about the opportunities and difficulties of working with universities. He spoke about the value of working with specific faculty and departments as well as the difficulty of working across departments and between universities. He suggested that the important issues of power and relationships must be clear. The work on developing a governance model that is equitable and inclusive is very important if the NCRN is to thrive. Dennis felt that NCRN was important for community groups if they are to have an impact on policy. A discussion followed about the advantages to both the university and the community that comes from working in partnership. Joanne said that PRAG works because it pays attention to power sharing, flexibility, and respect. URBAN UNIVERSITIES NETWORK: Jeffrey Moore from the Regional Development Finance Authority spoke about the Urban Universities Network centered in Dayton, Ohio. UUN represents 500 community based organizations, college, universities and schools. They provide software and hardware and continuous support for a system of electronic connectivity throughout the network. One of the keys to sustaining local neighborhood centers is maintaining connectivity among similar groups which are the nodes of the network. UUN brings people and organizations together by serving a brokering function. This encourages synergy and helps to avoid duplication. GENERAL DISCUSSION: Several questions arose around the equitability of access through computer linkages. Being on-line allows very small groups to have access in an efficient way. UUN helps groups develop and maintain electronic connectivity. Very small groups that might not be able to afford the hardware and phone connections are helped through aggregation of purchasing, donations of hardware, and sharing of resources. For some groups this means developing local capacity through computer literacy programs in addition to hardware and networking support. Dennis Sakurai confirmed that even the smallest community groups can develop the capacity to connect with a network. In order to make this work the organization must attend to both the technical questions as well as issues of trust and respect. Dennis shared that the "tech person" for his social service agency was a 14 year old youth. The discussion focused on the proposed national network. Dennis Sakurai asked how governance would work in a national network. He suggested that territorality within a city and among universities presented a challenge, and that a national system would be even more challenging. Dennis asked how the universities would be involved. The universities must be able to acknowledge and respect a diversity of needs, purpose and expertise. It was suggested that some communities don't have effective local organizations dealing with public issues. These groups could be nurtured and supported by a national network. SOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT: Kathy Roth introduced Jeanne Guana of the SouthWest Organizing Project.(SWOP) SWOP is a group of community organizers based in New Mexico created in the early eighties as a multi-racial, multibased organization that has set about to provide a mechanism by which the localcommunity can protect themselves against economic aliention, enviromental hazards and agricultural destitution. SWOP serves, in it's capacity as an organization, enviromental juctice and human rights activists network. Guana described the network as a "saftey net that works!" SWOP formed when a group of concerned activists realized that they needed INFORMATION in order to organize around protesting the violation of human rights. They have connections in seven US staes and four Mexican states. SWOP researches, publishes, educates and organizes at the local level. COMMUNITY TECHNOLOGY CENTERS' NETWORK: Debby Snow, the facilitator of this Boston based network, explained that CTCNET sought to provide technology-based and information resources tools for community services that provide various technological resources for the public. The organizations become afiliates of the CTCNET by 1. being a public computer service provider 2. a modest membership fee 3. agreeing to becoming an afiliate with the responsibility of building a network with the other members.Afiliates then receive support services, free software and a network from which they are able to draw on expertise of others. GENERAL DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS: There were a variety of questions about inclusivenes, namely: how to operate a diverse network that honored pluralism while developing a cohesive sense of purpose and community. Other questions that were raised focused on funding and electronic resources.Both presenters agreed that the ability to be connected via technology was imperative to the functioning of the network. While both networks provided very different services it was very apparent that many shared the same logistical concerns. DUTCH SCIENCE SHOP MODELS: Dick Scolve introduced Brigit Fokkinga from the University of Nijmegan, Netherlands. Brigit explained at the onset of her presentation that "science" refered to social as well as natural science. She then gave basic information on the set-up of the shops which were formed in the seventies and are linked to the public universities. There are currently 13 state universities that have science shops and over 38 shops in Holland. There is a network that joins these shops via a delegate from each university to look at the policy issues for the shops.This network functions as an organization and has a national secretarial office. There are committee's for planning, publicity and computor-internet communications and a variety of changing sub-networks as well. When the network is called to order they meet in a central location facilitated by a rotating chairperson. More information on the functioning of "science shops" can be acertained by reading Dick Scolves article in The Chronicle of Higher Education: Putting Science to Work in Communities. Volume XLI, November 29. March 31, 1995 Please feel free to send us any information on networks that you believe would be of interest to the conference participants or comments on information provided. Next update will be the review of the questions posed by David Schecter this morning to working groups... ------------------------------------------------- >From loka@amhux4.amherst.eduMon Jul 22 12:07:00 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 10:13:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Loka Institute To: scishops Cc: loka@amhux4.amherst.edu Subject: Re: Conference TO; SCISHOP LISTSERVE The Sunday morning session of the NCRN planning conference began with much coffee. Frank Emken reviewed the results of the discussion from the previous night. Elizabeth Bird summarized the thinking. She proposed for our consideration: 1. Who will the network serve? Direct -------- * community organizations/groups engaged on research *faculty engaged with community research groups * unlinked community groups * universities and colleges and other research institutions Indirect --------- * community members 2. What are the potential benefits of the network to these groups? Nurturing/supporting ------------------------- * community building * reduce isolation * broaden perspectives Increased Access (and effectiveness and connections) --------------------- * information sharing * technical assistance * research capacity * help identify strategic information needs * share resources * translate research jargon into common language * increase the size of the audience (communications amplifier) Change -------- * colleges/universities * empowered/transformed communities * policy * quantity and quality of community research Improved image/credibility -------------------------------- * for community research * for university research 3. What are the larger goals of the CRN? * democratize the practice of research (including development, outreach, action) * integration of knowledge and practice 4. How will this be accomplished? * share models, questions, information * collaborate * offer training opportunties * make referrals to; community groups, universities, access to interns * advocate for funds * learn through dialogue and cooperation * advocate for policy change * publicity The "late night" group proposed that three committees would be needed to help establish the network. These are; governance, funding, and activities for the network. The group was asked to break up into smaller groups and brainstorm then prioritize a list of potential activities for the network, based on the discussion noted above. Please feel free to communicate with us throughout the weekend. We will be uploading information periodically and ask for your participation in making this conference as democratic as possible. Thanks to those who have already posted on the listserve. --------------------------------------------------------------- >From loka@amhux4.amherst.eduMon Jul 22 12:07:22 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 10:18:08 -0400 From: Loka Institute Reply to: scishops@listserv.ncsu.edu To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Conference updates from the working groups... As of now the participants have broken into four working groups to try to answer the questions that were posed early in the morning. To gain understanding of how the process is working here is an update from one of the groups: Who will we serve? * The disempowered, the disenfranchised and those who are the "willing empowerers" * People in Universities: University community * Policy makers * Community level groups Question: Should we discern between direct and indirect clients? What are some of the results and benefits to this network? * Information sharing * A democratic decision making tool a. efficiency b. effectiveness c. credibility * Service to existing groups as well as service group as well * Expanding opportunities and capacities for community research centers * Support and Community building * Better knowledge and access to already working groups * Problem solving for social change * Link resources to improve access to them * Aggressive purchasing * Provide direct connections for people with similar experience and questions * Provide centers to collect knowledge * Topical working group * Changes in universities a. connecting knowledge with skills b. making knowledge applicable c. promoting interdisciplinary learning and problem solving d. connecting with curriculum e. influencing the faculty reward system f. meeting student needs g. anchoring universities in community organizations Question: Beyond science and technology, how do we want to define science? * Community service * Choice and advocacy * A forum where we talk about how science and technology affects social change. * Create other forums for scholarly discussion Question: What do we do to make this work? Is research just a one time thing that yields the answer? Who will be the facilitators in our structure? How will they be trained? Later on the conference when the four groups meet to discuss their answers to these questions, we will provide a synopsis... ----------------------------------------------------- >From loka@amhux4.amherst.eduMon Jul 22 12:08:00 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 11:17:35 -0400 From: Loka Institute Reply to: scishops@listserv.ncsu.edu To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Conference update: discussion on defining community based research Conference members plan an agenda but hope that at some point during the conference the participants will steer the group in a direction that is not on the agenda. This is a sign that the group has developed an energy of it's own, that it is steering itself...Here are some excerpts from the large group discussion on what community based research strives to do: "promote the production of the collective knowledge through the investigation and presentation of a social reality by groups living in it." "promote group ownership of the information" "promote collective analysis through the ordering of information in ways useful to the group" "promote critical analysis by groups and individuals by using ordered information to determine root causes of problems and issues apparent in the constituency with a view of finding solutions for them." "Establish relationship between personal and structural problems as part of the collective problem solving process and link evaluation with action, taking the time to ask why, who, what, where..." How would you define community-based research? How would you answer the aforementioned questions? Please send us your replies... ---------------------------------------------------------------- >From loka@amhux4.amherst.eduMon Jul 22 12:08:16 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 12:34:24 -0400 From: Loka Institute Reply to: scishops@listserv.ncsu.edu To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Conference update and conlusion TO: SCISHOPS Listserve Frank Emspak (sorry to Frank about pervious message where his name was incorrect) called the group back to order and asked for group reports. The following are the high priority "activities" proposed for the network from each of the groups: 1. group one: * identify and contact people who are missing * create an expense fund to keep the planning going * identify a "home" for the network * create a "report" or concept paper for the network 2. group two: * continue and improve the listserve/divide by topic groups * generate a directory of potential regional contacts * organize a meeting to develop strategies for engaging university folks in scishop type activities *work on image and outreach for the CRN (especially for those not on-line, ie. letterhead) 3. group three: * establish a communications infrastructure (on-line, FAX, newsletter) * develop a conference to involve more community groups 4. group four: * develop a concept paper on the CRN (distribute via newsletters/listserve) * survey the needs of groups who receive the concept paper * host local, state, regional meetings of community groups to learn, promote, and connect * advocate with established networks to join with CRN Frank Emspak suggested there were common themes. He proposed a governance committee, a funding committee, and a program development committee divide these proposed responsibilities and ask individuals to "sign on". Program Development would probably have subsets; image and outreach, communication and referral (including infrastructure), and capacity building. Dick Sclove asked the key question; does the group think there is a need for a Community Research Network? There was a consensus agreement that a network was needed and that the Loka Institute should serve as an interim secretariat to help the group take the next steps. The groups then broke up into the three proposed groups (funding, governance and program development. Each group was asked to: * who will convene * how will they communicate among * we will do "what" by "when" The groups reported back: 1. Governance: * should expand the representation and diversity of this group * act as a communication hub for the other groups (cross functional communication) * Loka will serve as interim location for communications purposes * communication will be by e-mail and FAX * determine "what is governance", who are members etc. * encourage three more conferences (community-based groups, university groups, and both together) *several people volunteered to move forward on the meeting of the community-based groups * Dennis Sakurai volunteered to maintain communications with the funding group 2. Funding: * long term goal was to become a non-profit service provider * first step was to ask Loka to be the interim "home" with a review * develop a funding plan * create a international trust fund as an investment plan * pursue other ideas presented earlier for sustainability such as as univesities to subscribe to services provided by the CRN * communications will be by e-mail * Laurie Millman from Loka will convene this group 3. Program Development: * Carolyn Raffensberger agreed to convene this group * the group agreed to meet via e-mail There are three subcommittees: Outreach ----------- * contacting missing groups * creating a report * regional conferences * logo and letterhead * needs assessment * sub-chair is Bobby Hackett Information and Referral -------------------------------------- * documentation and building a database * sub-chair is Phil Sheppard Capacity Building ----------------------------- *strategies for engaging universities *training researchers and community members on * sub-chair is Frank Emspak (with Elizabeth Bird) ========================================================= There was good energy following these meetings to move forward. The final activity at the conference was an evaluation of the process. Dennis Sakura closed the conference with Dick Sclove saying that he was leaving with as much enthusiasm as when he had arrived. He encouraged all the participants to return home and spread the word "about this fledgling organization that is certain to grow" Dick thanked everyone and acknowledged the enthusiasm and energy of all the participants. He stated that he was very pleased to have Loka be the interim facilitator for the new NCRN! A concise report of this conference will be available in the next couple of weeks. In the mean time please feel free to ask questions of those who participated and to also continue the dialogue on any of the issues discussed here. ---------------------------------------------------------