C. Etmanski, Teaching CBR 2009-10 Workshop Series Final Report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Video DocumentationA local “Story-Catcher” (Christopher Bowers of conversationsworks.ca) was hired tovideo-record several of the panel presentations. He also interviewed some of thespeakers individually.Readers can find the main menu of OCBR video clips on blip.tv here:https://www.uvic.ca/resources/searchdir/people.phpSpeakers from the series are featured here:Abebe Teklu (Part 1) http://ocbrinstitute.blip.tv/file/3285905/Abebe Teklu (Part 2) http://ocbrinstitute.blip.tv/file/3285873/Catherine Etmanski http://ocbrinstitute.blip.tv/file/3305262/Darlene Cloverhttp://ocbrinstitute.blip.tv/file/3155901/John Lutzhttp://ocbrinstitute.blip.tv/file/3107485/Kathy Sanfordhttp://blip.tv/file/3522988/Leslie Brown (Part 1) http://ocbrinstitute.blip.tv/file/3348258/Leslie Brown (Part 2) http://ocbrinstitute.blip.tv/file/3348249/Lorna Williamshttp://ocbrinstitute.blip.tv/file/2269917/Margo Matwychuck http://ocbrinstitute.blip.tv/file/3128299/Onowa McIvorhttp://ocbrinstitute.blip.tv/file/3523094/Teresa Dawsonhttp://blip.tv/file/3523114Panel presenters and audience members alike responded to the video documentationwith varying degrees of receptivity: some were very enthusiastic to speak about theirwork; others expressed some discomfort in being taped.While it certainly is helpful to have these talks documented, in general, the act of videorecording created an additional layer of complexity for the series, and raised someethical concerns around ensuring informed consent. Recommendation: If storycatchingwill be used during future workshops and events, I recommend that morethought be put into permission-seeking, the intended use of video materials, andensuring participants’ general comfort with the format in advance (e.g. include noticethat it will be video-recorded in the promotional materials).Successes, Challenges, and RecommendationsIt is important to be clear that the verbal feedback we have received on this series todate has been positive overall. Staff members at the Learning and Teaching Centre haverepeatedly mentioned that these workshops are some of their most popular events, anda number of participants attended regularly. The 2010 to 2011 “Engaging Scholars”series is already underway, with an increased emphasis on Community-EngagedC. Etmanski | Teaching CBR Workshop Series 2009-2010 | Final Report 6
Research (CER) and intentional outreach in non-traditional CBR Faculties such asBusiness and Engineering. See the series website for updates on this year’s speakers:http://www.ltc.uvic.ca/events/cbrseries.phpThe momentum and cross-campus interest in this series has resulted in a proposed bookon Learning and Teaching Community Based Research (C. Etmanski, T. Dawson & B. Hall,Eds.). The original proposal contains 18 chapters from 30 UVic and local Victoria(community-based) researchers and is currently under review by the University ofToronto Press.The series was successful in three key areas:1. In establishing a solid working relationship between the LTC and OCBR;2. In generating awareness of and further interest in the role of both the LTC andOCBR ina. promoting innovative teaching strategies (such as those employed byCBR practitioners), andb. supporting and promoting CBR on campus; and finally3. In highlighting the community-based work of 26 scholars and communityresearchers in the Victoria area, thereby raising the profile of CBR at UVic.The following section includes several areas that presented unanticipated challenges.These comments are not intended to undermine the above-described success; rather,they are meant to offer a thoughtful reflection on our practice and recommendations aswe move forward.1. Consistency of Purpose: As is often the case, the speakers did not always know eachother in advance and were often not able to communicate prior to the session. Attimes, a few of the speakers also did not address the key question or proposed topic.While all the comments were undoubtedly interesting, as a facilitator, I would like tosee more clarity of purpose amongst panel presenters. Recommendation: Invitepanelists who already have a working relationship and can give differentperspectives on one research topic or project (e.g. the 2 nd workshop on IndigenousResearch and 7 th workshop on Multi-Disciplinary Research Internships—see fulldescriptions in Appendix A below).2. Repetition and Pre-Requisite Knowledge: While some participants attended almostevery workshop, for the most part, the audience was different at each one, as werethe panelists. This is to be expected in a drop-in model; however, for this reason,there was usually some overlap between both speakers’ comments and audiencequestions. For example, audience members would regularly ask questions along thelines of, “What does the word community really mean?” or “Aren’t Universities partof communities?” While these are important questions and related to the patienteffort of building knowledge around the practice of CBR, they were indicative of thevarious levels of exposure to CBR in the room. As an educator, at times I would haveC. Etmanski | Teaching CBR Workshop Series 2009-2010 | Final Report 7
Page 2 and 3: Teaching Community Based ResearchRe
Page 4 and 5: 2009 - 2010 Organizing Team (in Alp
Page 9: Evaluation and Ongoing EngagementWe
Page 13: and make best use of the unique ski
Page 16 and 17: Students Commission of Canada, a na
Page 18 and 19: Developers Caucus and a member of t
Page 20 and 21: Appendix B: Contents of Feedback Fo
Page 22 and 23: Boal, A. (2001). Hamlet and the bak
Page 24 and 25: De Silva, G.V.S., et al. (1979). Bh
Page 26 and 27: Hall, B. (1993). Introduction. In:
Page 28 and 29: Krumer-Nevo, M. (2009). From voice
Page 30 and 31: Pain, R. (2004) Social geography: p
Page 32 and 33: Shore, N., Wong, K. A., Seifer, S.

C. Etmanski, Teaching CBR 2009-10 Workshop Series Final Report

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?