Northern CommunitiesTransitioning to Resilience

The teleconference on the 25th gave rise to a number of other ideas - some of which build on these, that I would like to comment on:

• the concept of using this opportunity to shift resources outside of the university to the community/use university resources to support community work - at NORDIK and in the CESD program at Algoma, we have been trying to do some of this, though we are still very much in learning mode - NCTR could provide us with a much greater opportunity for communities to tell us what type of curricula they need - such as the Ontario Native Welfare Administrators has done, by working with us to develop a 4-course certificate program for their members.  Communities could also use this as a space where they can tell us about their research needs & questions and help us design research that works for them - like the Paquataskimik project in Ft Albany FN where Sheila Gruner has been providing training to community-based researchers (while also helping them earn university credits) to explore the FN's relationship to its traditional land & territories.  I am sure we can do a lot more of this reciprocal work - we just need to make sure that it is a strategy in the proposal, and that we learn/share the skills in making these engagements work
• another idea that Connie Nelson contributed is in strengthening the link between the concept of "northern communities transitioning to resilience" and "policy and practice in the post-carbon era". 

Here is a suggestion coming out of the teleconference on the 25th.

Brian suggested partnering institutes and community projects. Monique suggested a model of training community researchers. These are both very good ideas.

Maybe we can put these ideas together like this to get a structure that will appeal to SSHRC and provide clear roles.

• Each community group participating is partnered with at least one institute and at least one researcher associated with the institute.

This provides learning for the researchers and project mentors for each group. I think it would make SSHRC happy. It is a specific and easily verified way to be a "Community-University Research Alliance"

• Each of the group/researcher teams will develop specific projects around their own issues. The projects will be shared with the network and the network will help develop action and research strategies.

This maintains autonomy and still has us thinking together. It also allows for lots of different projects.

The NCTS network will take on the projects in the order and the manner that seems most productive. The approach is expandable. Groups could be added at any time.

The NCTS network will probably prioritize common problems and developing techniques or solutions can be used by a wide range of participants. this will provide visible progress and a sense of accomplishment.

One goal will to be to use the resources efficiently while always reinforcing the network.

• Each group should develop its own process for providing research training and research support using the mentor and possibly others in our project.

The goal is to develop people in the communities with strong links into the research institutes and a growing understanding how to use research. This is a long-run goal for the Community-University Research Alliance

Sometimes community participants will become "community researchers", sometimes they will become valuable links for the rest of their community.

• The professional researchers, mostly associated with institutes, will support and document the development of this research development network

• A primary focus of the overall project will be developing inter-community tools for getting and using knowledge. These will include technological tools but even more important will be developing a network that reliably contributes when a community or community member brings a problem or question.

(Edited by Gayle Broad - original submission Thursday, 25 March 2010, 10:40 PM)