Closing the Loop: Community Engaged Pedagogy in Business Courses is a CACSL and Carleton Raven’s Den-funded CFICE evaluation project that looks at the impact on Sprott School of Business’s community partners of adopting a community service learning approach to pedagogy.
Over a number of years and across a variety of courses, Sprott has implemented projects ranging in duration and topic in order to facilitate a ‘practice’ perspective for the students in Sprott’s Bachelor of Commerce and Bachelor of International Business programs. Sprott has received lots of feedback from students, in the form of anecdotal accounts and more structured feedback exercises, and some feedback from community partners, but mostly the latter was limited to student performance during the actual project and anticipated benefits should the organization adopt the recommendations made by the student teams. Sprott therefore undertook this study to determine the impact their CSL projects made on community partners over a longer term.
This project is still ongoing, with evaluations scheduled for the Fall/Winter term from 2016 – 2017.
Completed for: Peterborough GreenUP , Supervising Professor: Tom Whillans; Trent Centre for Community-Based Education
An urban food forest is modelled after a wild forest, but is intentionally designed and planted with food production in mind. Essentially an urban food forest is a combination of wild forest and orchard. They are made up of a close-knit community of plants that help each other. There are many benefits that an urban food forest can provide. They can improve the environment we live in; help build stronger, more resilient, communities; and can provide a host of economic benefits as well. Urban food forests help us create more sustainable communities that are healthy and enjoyable to live in.
We need to rediscover our past, when we cultivated urban forests, not just for the services they provided, but also for the products as well. It is not just rural forests that can provide useable products. In fact it might even be argued that urban forests can be more productive, per unit of area, because of the intentional planning and design that goes into them. An urban food forest is a community within a community, the plants help and support one another, just as we help support one another in our communities.
Completed for: Peterborough GreenUP Professor Tom Whillans, Trent University Trent Centre for Community-Based Education
This document is a compilation of research reports written by students in the Environmental
Resource Studies/Science (ERTS) 3160H class at Trent University in the winter of 2014. The
research was completed in conjunction with GreenUP, Trent Centre for Community-Based
Education (TCCBE), and Taylor Mackey (a graduate student research assistant in Trent’s
Sustainability Studies program). The students looked critically at urban food forests around the
world and made suggestions for designing a food forest in Peterborough. These reports will help
inform this process alongside a report written by Taylor Mackey as part of his research
assistanceship: An Urban Food Forest for Peterborough: Planting for Our Future.
An urban food forest is an area in a city or town where trees, and often other plants, are
intentionally planted for food production. These urban food forests often attempt to mimic
natural ecosystems. Currently urban forests are generally considered valuable solely for the
ecosystem services they provide, such as stormwater management. In the past these urban
forests were often managed for the products they produced, rather than just the services they
There is increasing interest in creating edible landscapes in urban areas. Some are starting to see
urban forests as more than something that can clean the air or reduce the stormwater runoff.
Some are starting to see the potential to create areas that can provide these services as well as
produce food for human consumptions, as well as a host of other benefits. Most of the studied
urban food forests focus on food security. Urban food forests have the potential to provide the
same services as our current urban forests, but also produce food (and perhaps increase
biodiversity in the process).
Completed for: Abbey Gardens & Peterborough GreenUP; Supervising Professor: Tom Whillans; Trent Centre for Community-Based Education
Finding Common Ground for Facilitating Collaborative Partnerships stemmed from a desire among several employees of Peterborough GreenUP and Abbey Gardens to explore the potential for collaboration between both organizations. In the winter of 2014, planning began for a meeting between members of GreenUP and Abbey Gardens facilitated by Trent graduate students in the Sustainability Studies program through the Community First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CFICE) project and Trent Centre for Community Based Education (TCCBE). What this meeting would look like and what would be discussed evolved over the next few weeks and culminated in a daylong workshop in Bobcaygeon on April 1st, 2014.
This report summarizes the main ideas that came up in several activities and presentations. It contains resources on the background of the project, next steps, and the contact information of participants from both organizations. Appendices include the presentation slides from the respective organizations presentations, staff lists and contact information for each organization, and detailed activity notes from the workshop.
This report highlights the lack of action from ministries and organizations to help end violence against women, created by Action Research Change with the support of CFICE’s Violence Against Women Hub.
Completed for: Trent Centre for Community-Based Education : Supervising Professor: Nadine Changfoot
The Community First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CFICE) is a Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) funded research project designed to provide insights into how post-secondary institutions and community partners can establish and maintain successful relationships that ultimately maximize the value created for non-profit organizations. CFICE is organized into five self-managing research hubs; the focus of this report is the Peterborough and Haliburton section of the Community Environmental Sustainability (CES) hub. Hub members participated in interviews and a focus group to discuss the results of four first year demonstration projects. For the most part, results were favourable, especially for community-based organizations, who pointed to a high level of influence and a number of net gains such as increased capacity and the development of valuable resources. A notable finding was the important role of community-university bridging organizations, U-Links and the Trent Centre for Community-Based Education. Participants identified both organizations as a critical ingredient to the smooth functioning of demonstration projects. Challenges participants identified included delay of grant funds, delayed ethics approval and university resistance to community-based research projects in some areas.
Completed for: Community Opportunity & Innovation Network (COIN) Supervising Professor: Tom Whillans Trent Centre for Community-Based Education
Abstract: This workshop implemented SAS2 community-based research methods to facilitate direction for the Peterborough Centre for Social Innovation (PCSI) on their governance, operations, collaborations and finance strategies during their pilot project. The results will be used to provide direction on the selection of two or three case studies for interview to understand how successful social innovation organizations have connected to the community need. The results of the governance models workshop demonstrated that the PCSI should remain flexible to be reactive to the environment as many participants supported a hybrid governance and collaboration model. In addition, the operation and collaboration workshop showed that there was strong support for work space, kitchen space and programming that would provide outreach opportunities to the community. Facilitating a locally-focused social innovation centre was also a key foundation for the participants. This workshop report outlines phase one's literature review on social innovation governance and strategies, workshop results and discussion, as well as recommendations and the conclusions of this community-based research.
Prepared by Sara Fralin,Andreina Pulido and Elizabeth Teleki
Completed for: Community Opportunity & Innovation Network (COIN), Supervising Professor: Tom Whillans; Trent Centre for Community-Based Education
The Trent Centre for Community Based Education (TCCBE) brought together graduate students from Trent University’s Sustainability Studies Masters program with Peterborough’s Community Opportunity & Innovation Network (COIN), to collaborate on a community based research project for the Peterborough Centre for Social Innovation (PCSI). This workshop report outlines phase one's literature review on social innovation governance and strategies, workshop results and discussion, as well as recommendations and the conclusions of this community-based research.
This paper is an overview of the important considerations that arise at the outset of a project.
There are numerous ways that a work team may decide on which methods should be
prioritized among the many tools available for community engagement. As the project comes
to grips with the scale and the scope of a 7-year project on Community Engagement, it will be
essential to explore how the various evaluative methods: Theory of Change (ToC),
Developmental Evaluation, Collective Impact, and Action Research are combined, and how
Evaluation scholars have typically approached these subjects in the past. Is it possible to use
‘Theory of Change’ at the same time as other methods? One may answer this question with a
resounding “Yes!” In the community sector, there are many versions of a Theory of Change. The
term may be applied to both one’s personalized impression of the arrow of change, as well as
according to traditional Log Frame models for mapping long term ‘policy change.’ Even if there
are dilemmas in coming up with language to describe what is meant by “Theory of Change,”
there are many opportunities for ToC to be fused with other methods, and tried and tested
over the life of the CFICE project, whatever the original connotations of the researcher or
community practitioner may be.
Report based on Community First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CFICE) research, posted on Community Campus Engage Canada.
While many studies have addressed the successes and challenges of participatory action research, few have documented how community campus engagement (CCE) works and how partnerships can be designed for strong community impact. This paper responds to increasing calls for ‘community first’ approaches to CCE. Our analysis draws on experiences and research from Community First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CFICE), a collaborative action research project that ran from 2012-2020 in Canada and aimed to better understand how community-campus partnerships might be designed and implemented to maximize the value for community-based organizations. As five of the project’s co-leads, we reflect on our experiences, drawing on research and practice in three of CFICE’s thematic hubs (food sovereignty, poverty reduction, and community environmental sustainability) to identify achievements and articulate preliminary lessons about how to build stronger and more meaningful relationships. We identify the need to: strive towards equitable and mutually beneficial partnerships; work with boundary spanners from both the academy and civil society to facilitate such relationships; be transparent and self-reflexive about power differentials; and look continuously for ways to mitigate inequities.
The purpose of this article is to improve understanding of internationalization as a strategic response to the catalysts of globalization and the knowledge society. The paper will attempt to critically identify and interpret how the aforementioned elements are being recontextualized and translated into responsive internationalization policies and systemic institutional change. The article takes a critical analysis approach on current internationalization efforts and provides a conceptual framework for developing a performance indicator set through a combination of institutional change theory (North 1990) and the Delta cycle for internationalization (Rumbley 2010). Recommendations on future research areas are made at the conclusion of the article.
Few people have bothered to defend the Majoritarian, winner take all character of the current Canadian electoral system. This parliamentary system has been in existence in the same form since the founding of the modern state in 1867. In these remarks, I offer a defense of Majoritarianism in the Canadian context when the alternative is some form of Proportional Representation. These remarks were prepared as an opening statement in a debate on electoral reform at a Faculty of Public Affairs 75th Anniversary conference at Carleton University, March 3, 2017.
The debate arose because of the Prime Minister's announced intention to replace the current system with some other during the election campaign that led to his victory in 2015. The debate occurred a few months after the release of a lengthy report on electoral reform by a special allparty committee of the House of Commons. A few weeks before the debate, the Prime Minister announced (independently of the debate, of course) that his government would no longer pursue electoral reform, perhaps because it looked like he would not be able to avoid a referendum, a process which is hard to control. In any event, and especially in the light of recent attempts to change the system both at the federal level and in some provinces, I think it is important for people to understand that the existing electoral system is a sensible one that likely will continue to serve us well.
In this article, I analyze various discourses held by governmental and health authorities, nutrition experts, and civil society organizations that advocate for the importance of consuming and having access to “healthy” food in order to prevent health-related risks associated with diet, such as the development of chronic diseases or conditions like “obesity.” While “anti-obesity” discourses and practices aiming to “help” the population in the fight against “obesity” connect the issue to social or even food justice considerations, I discuss how the discourse of “healthy” food plays a key role both in problematizing the fat body and in the solutions brought forward to “fix it” as well as the broader “obesity” epidemic. I argue that these two roles are closely linked together – because “healthy” food is positioned as a solution to “obesity”, it reinforces the idea that fatness can be “acted on” or solved, and thus that it should be.
I mobilize works emerging in critical food and fat studies to address how these discourses and practices contribute to further marginalizing those whose bodies do not match dominant ideas of health while creating harmful and discriminatory processes that have material and health-related consequences.
I contend that scholars should be attentive to the broad effectivities of ”healthy” food as arising from “anti-obesity”, or pro-health, discourses and practices as they contribute to further reproducing social injustices and can potentially materialize in damaging ways in individuals’ bodies and health.
Current ‘healthy’ food knowledge revolves around characterizing food by its purported direct, causal effects on the body that ingests it, following a biomedical approach informed by nutritionism (Scrinis, Nutritionism: the science and politics of dietary advice. Columbia University Press, New York, 2013). As long as the focus is on the effects given foods or nutrients have on the ingesting body, a whole array of other effects that produce differentiated bodies beyond ingestion processes receive little attention. I draw on Grossberg (We got to get out of this place: popular conservatism and postmodern culture. Routledge, New York, 1992)’s notion of “effectivities” as a way of taking into account the heterogeneous ‘effects’ that ‘healthy’ food—as a discursive construct and a material object—has, and which occur in different realms (economic, political, agricultural, interspecies, health-related). Using the avocado as a means to illustrate my broader theoretical argument, I contend that ‘healthy’ foods’ effectivities can be observed in how they materialize in differentiated—here racialized—bodies. This raises the key question that permeates the critical stance of this article: whose health matters when it comes to defining ‘healthy’ food?