Community-University Partnerships: Community Engagement for Transformative Learning

an approach for repositioning institutions of higher education and a program of study, demonstrates that critical voices can impact educational programs and that institutions of higher education can be collaborative in nature and foster networks of relationships for learning that are motivated by the need for social (organizational and community) change.

Recently, various scholars have remarked that university continuing education (UCE) is moving away from one of its original core foci, that of social justice. In this article, the possible causes of this are discussed, including current political environments, the role of universities and academics in perpetuating or disrupting the status quo, and increased reliance on cost recovery and for-profit programming. Community-based participatory research as a feasible strategy for promoting UCE's role in social justice is also presented. An example of UCE that was developed in response to existing social inequities and driven by discussions with the community is offered to demonstrate that critical voices can have an impact and that institutions of higher education can be collaborative and foster networks of résumé Récemment, plusieurs érudites ont remarqué que l'éducation permanente universitaire se distancie d'une de ses cibles d'attention de base, celle de la justice sociale. Dans cet article, l'auteur propose des causes possibles pour cette distanciation, y compris les environnements politiques actuels, le rôle des universités et des académiques dans la perpétuation ou la perturbation du statu quo, ainsi que la confiance accrue sur la programmation de recouvrement des coûts et à profits. Aussi présente-t-elle comment la recherche communautaire participative est une bonne stratégie pour promouvoir le rôle de l'éducation permanente universitaire en justice sociale. Miller offre un exemple d'éducation permanente universitaire qui fut développé en réponse aux injustices sociales existantes et qui fut mené par des discussions Community-University Partnerships: Community Engagement for Transformative Learning

Fay Fletcher, University of Alberta
Some current CBPR programs in UCE are reviewed, and an evolving UCE program that focuses on CBPR and health promotion with Indigenous populations is used to present strategies for returning to transformative learning with social justice outcomes. relationships for learning. Finally, key points for the successful development of a UCE program that responds to critical voices and returns to social justice are shared. avec la communauté afin de démontrer que des opinions données peuvent avoir un impact, et que les institutions d'éducation supérieure peuvent être collaboratives et peuvent favoriser la mise sur pied de réseaux de relations pour l'apprentissage. Finalement, l'auteur partage des points-clés pour développer avec succès un programme d'éducation permanente universitaire répondant aux opinions données et retournant à la justice sociale. the chAngIng FAce oF unIversIty contInuIng educAtIon Denis Haughey has clearly articulated the sense of malaise that many adult educators are feeling about current trends in adult education. He has provided much food for thought on university extension/continuing education in two book chapters: "From Passion to Passivity: The Decline of University Extension for Social Change" (1998) and "Not Waving but Drowning: Canadian University Extension for Social Change Revisited" (2006). In his 1998 chapter, Haughey cited the declining role of UCE as an agent for democratic social change. In order to demonstrate the changing face of adult education, he specified landmark programs that captured the "passion, creativity, and dedication" (p. 200) of adult educators from the 1930s to the 1970s and exemplified learning opportunities at Canadian universities whose aim was to develop "an informed and involved public voice" (p. 200). Haughey went on to propose some possible causes for the decline in the "dispassionate examination of social issues of the day" (p. 204) and to describe the impact of this decline on subsequent adult education programs and services. The possible causes included: the university itself, in particular, its increasingly conservative nature; political inaction, seen in the academic body's lack of desire or ability to rally external political support or to withstand political pressures to reflect the status quo (perhaps demoralized by constant reorganization and financial downsizing); the increased emphasis on adult education for professional development (as demonstrated by cost-recovery programming); and a loss of social commitment. Add to these, the fact that human and fiscal resources must be committed to new sites of practice and networks with partners external to the university. (Selman [2005] described the current phase or movement in UCE, citing many of the same qualities: cost-recovery programs; the elimination of "subsidized" programs; vocationally oriented programs and an increased focus on credentialism; and various means of capturing "markets.") Haughey also called on adult educators to overcome intellectual passivity or reluctance to be morally committed to social change, adding that to be so committed required reflective practice, personal intellectual renewal, and a new theory upon which to build emancipatory education. In this final section of his chapter, Haughey suggested that academics in adult education read theorists such as Gramsci, Giroux, and Friere, whose work was inspired by the need for social change.
In his 2006 book chapter, Haughey revisited his critique of UCE, concluding that the trend he noted in 1998 had, for the most part, taken hold, as the rise of neo-liberal governments and subsequent fiscal and ideological pressures had "infiltrated extension operations and considerably blunted the critical social approaches with which we were previously comfortable Revue canadienne de l'éducation permanente universitaire Vol. 34, N o 2, automne 2008 and more adept" (p. 300). He drew upon comments by Bagnall (2000, cited in Haughey, 2006 and others who support his belief that decisions regarding adult education programming and delivery are made on the basis of cost recovery and economic benefit as opposed to social change or social action. Bagnall had written that "contemporary educational change is largely and ultimately driven, framed and determined by considerations of cost and benefit measured through the economy" (p. 299), while Nesbit et al. (2007) stated that "those lifelong learning opportunities that do exist in institutions of higher education appear to focus on enhancing employment and career opportunities over citizenship development " (p. 46 Despite the evidence of this growing trend in continuing adult education, Plumb and Welton (cited in Haughey, 2006) posited that there continues to be pressure from critical voices-feminist, ecological, and Aboriginal, among others-for educational programs that reflect transformative and critical inquiry. To this end, Nesbit et al. (2007) suggested that institutions of higher education reposition themselves as "learning organizations" (Faris, 2003;Tinto, 1997). Such an approach would go some way toward reasserting the citizenship aspects of lifelong learning discussed earlier and requiring institutions of higher education to recognize and develop their capacity as sources of learning, resources, and partnerships. In addition to providing a range of educational opportunities, institutions of higher education might collaborate in, and foster, networks of relationships with local groups and communities to generate debate and promote learning as a guiding principle to organizational and community change. (p. 48, italics added) The following description of community-based participatory research from Cram and Morrison (2005), as both an approach for repositioning institutions of higher education and a program of study, demonstrates that critical voices can impact educational programs and that institutions of higher education can be collaborative in nature and foster networks of relationships for learning that are motivated by the need for social (organizational and community) change.  Cram and Morrison (2005) provided a conceptualization of social justice that is useful for exploring the evolving development of community-based participatory research (CBPR) for use in program development. As these authors asserted, "It can be argued that we will find evidence for social justice both in the processes by which we plan educational programs and facilitate learning and in the products we provide as educational programs" (p. 32). In other words, what we believe to be "just" is reflected not only in the programs we offer but also in the processes we use to identify educational needs and to develop and deliver programs. Wilson andCervero (2001, cited in Cram &Morrison, 2005) wrote that "strategic educational practice means political action that forthrightly attempts to alter who benefits in such struggles [for knowledge and power] by seeking to redistribute benefits to those who should" (p. 33). Education for social justice or social change, then, is defined as educational processes and products that disrupt the status quo in order to reduce inequities.

Community-Based Participatory Research: An Approach to UCE Program Development
CBPR is a useful approach to the development of programming that is aimed at social justice, as described by Cram and Morrison (2005). It is a collaborative approach that involves a diversity of individuals and groups (e.g., academic researchers, professionals, service providers, and community members) in all stages of the research process. All partners share ownership, control, influence, and decision making and contribute their expertise according to each individual's knowledge and skills (Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker, 1998).

communIty-bAsed PArtIcIPAtory reseArch In uce ProgrAms
The growing popularity and recognition of CBPR as a viable and credible research approach is evident in recent requests for proposals from major Canadian funding agencies ( This increased expectation that academics will engage with community partners in CBPR, particularly in research that addresses health inequities, requires careful consideration of the potential inequities of such partnerships. In the absence of appropriate programs providing training in how to develop community/academic partnerships, building equitable relationships for research that is relevant and accessible to community partners will be challenging, at best. Therefore, CBPR training, developed and delivered with members of the learning community, is suggested as one possible strategy to rejuvenate the passion for and commitment to university continuing education that supports social justice.

What Makes CBPR Training Transformative Learning?
In order to be truly collaborative, CBPR must encourage community participation throughout the research process and assume a shared understanding of not only the roles and responsibilities of each research team member but also research ethics, protocols, and processes. The overall goal of CBPR is to honour community members' knowledge and understanding of their own strengths and challenges and their ability to develop research questions to address these challenges for the purpose of improving health outcomes and building community capacity (Buchannan, Miller, & Wallerstein, 2007).
One obstacle to realizing the core value of community participation is the absence of training for community-based partners. In its absence, we 1) reinforce inequitable distributions of power, 2) compromise the comfort and confidence of community partners to fulfill their roles as researchers and health promoters, and 3) jeopardize the validity and relevance of the work being done. Being aware and critical of these persistent inequities, I was intrigued by McLean's (2007) comment on the role of universities in the reproduction of inequality and perhaps, unintentionally, the legitimization of inequities (p. 79). Is the near absence of CBPR training for non-academic audiences one example of the systematic perpetuation of inequities? If so, does an Indigenous-specific CBPR program present an opportunity to develop UCE that is motivated by social justice and the desire to promote social change? I propose that, with access to CBPR education programs, Indigenous communities (often marginal to academic institutions and, at times, to mainstream culture/values/beliefs) have greater potential to shape and lead social change.

exPlorIng current cbPr ProgrAms In uce
As a graduate student, my first teaching experiences in UCE took me to communities (First Nations and immigrant) traditionally under served by mainstream educational institutions. The work of theorists of education for social change began to resonate with me as I worked with individuals and communities that had been historically marginalized by the traditional university environment. As Selman (2005) Giroux (2007) proposed that we open spaces for dialogue and allow public time, measured by "the opportunity for individuals and groups to share resources, debate, think otherwise, and consider the task of having a positive, long-term impact on the world" (p. 196). Since accepting an academic appointment, I have been exploring ways to increase access for historically marginalized (non-traditional) learners to the formal learning environment of the university. The examination of CBPR for non-traditional learners that follows confirmed the need for what Giroux (2007) referred to as "public time" in the creation of CBPR education.
"One of the roles that continuing education can play is to develop programs that provide an alternative entry point for those who did not enter university programs through the main door, as it were, but still want to access further education" (Selman, 2005, p. 25). In order to explore CBPR training in light of its potential to increase access to transformative learning for social justice, a review of all CBPR training currently available in UCE outside of traditional, undergraduate, and graduate credit is presented. The information on existing educational programming is derived from three main sources: documents accessed via the Internet; online and hard copies of community college calendars; and email and telephone communications with persons knowledgeable in areas of community-based research and education. Two primary terms were used for Internet searches: communitybased participatory research (CBPR) and community-based research (CBR). Both terms, when accompanied by one or more of the qualifiers-training/ education/resources-produced very similar search results.
Comprehensive programs offering learners a structured opportunity to acquire CBPR-related skills that are relevant and immediately applicable in a wide variety of settings are few in number. Often, they are intended for specific populations of learners and communities and, as such, are limited in scope. For example, according to the website of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for American Indian Health Training and Scholarship Program, it has, for several years, offered a comprehensive training program that . . . aims to provide premiere training opportunities for American Indians in public health and allied health professions in order to help tribes develop local expertise in building appropriate health systems, health policy, culturally appropriate biomedical and behavioral health research, and public health interventions to address priority concerns. Learners range from tribal health leaders to individuals with little or no formal health-related training. Funding is available to American Indian applicants in order to offset most of the expenses. Courses are offered as institutes in January and July of each year and include: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Understanding the Health of Native Americans; Using Mass Media for Health Promotion in Native Communities; Collecting, Analyzing, and Using Public Health Data in Native American Communities; Introduction to American Indian Health Research Ethics; Introduction to Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods; Introduction to Data Management Using American Indian Health Data; Mental Health Care and Delivery in Native American Communities.
The website of the University of Colorado Denver, American Indian and Alaska Native Programs notes that the Native Telehealth Outreach and Technical Assistance Program (NTOTAP), though not specific to CBPR, aims to enhance and facilitate communities' capacities to engage in CBPR (and in health-promotion and health-education activities) by teaching technical knowledge, skills, and expertise to lay members of tribal communities and community health professionals. The Community Health Advocate (CHA) Program trains five CHAs at a time, requiring them to travel each month to Denver for instruction and mentoring, over a period of 12 months; the Community Health Professional Program is similar but 18 months in duration.
In Canada, the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR) offers the Swift and Efficient Application of Research in Community Health (SEARCH) Program, in partnership with regional health authorities (RHAs), universities, and the provincial government. The program, again not specific to CBPR, was established in 1996 and consists of ongoing cycles of two-year research training programs for selected health professionals (usually individuals with several years of front-line health-care experience) employed by RHAs throughout Alberta. The stated goal of the program is ". . . to facilitate expertise in conducting research, and applying findings to meet local needs" (AHFMR, n.d.). It should be noted that although the terms collaborative, applied, and evidence-based are frequently used to describe the program, RHAs select and support participants and preselect priority topics for projects. Over the two-year training period, participants attend seven residential workshops, each five to seven days in length, which cover specific modules.
Community Information, Empowerment, and Transparency (CIET) is an international organization that specifies capacity building as a fundamental component of its research education and training activities worldwide. According to its website, in recent years, CIET, in partnership with Canadian organizations and institutions, has shared its considerable capacity building The Community-University Partnership for the Study of Children, Youth and Family (CUP) at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, offers CBR education/training initiatives through a series of community workshops/seminars, which are listed on the CUP website. At this point, these workshops/ seminars are not accredited.

current cbr trAInIng In relAtIon to current uce trends
The survey of CBPR education reported above is now used to illustrate and respond to two particular foci of Haughey's (1998Haughey's ( , 2006 and McLean's (1996McLean's ( , 2007 reflections: 1) that programming decisions are based on a cost-benefit analysis of economic versus social value, and 2) that this practice may leave UCE units vulnerable to the charge of perpetuating systematic discrimination and inequities and to being displaced by educators who will and do take on the responsibility of providing education for social action.
Revue canadienne de l'éducation permanente universitaire Vol. 34, N o 2, automne 2008 Of the programs surveyed, two exemplify adult education that is responsive and accessible to adult learners in the community-those offered by the Johns Hopkins Center for American Indian Health in Baltimore, Maryland, and by Toronto's Wellesley Institute. It is interesting to note that these programs have been developed with relatively little or no economic costs to the institutions that offer them. Johns Hopkins receives support and/ or provides financial assistance to its students through government funding; the Wellesley Institute was established and is sustained by virtue of a large endowment. Reports by the Wellesley Institute state that the subsidized cost of courses was especially attractive, since, for some learners, the cost of attending workshops is a barrier to access (personal communication with Wellesly director, Apri1 2007). If we use existing CBPR training as an example, it appears that fiscal and human resources are seldom allocated by formal learning institutions for the creation of non-traditional learning opportunities in this field of study. This, in effect, amounts to systematic discrimination against learners whose educational or socio-economic history may have already prevented them from pursuing post-secondary education (McLean, 2007). By discriminating in this way, institutions perpetuate existing inequitable relationships in community-based research. Recognition of this fact is critically important because "if we lose touch with how oppression is being accomplished, we risk losing relevance as social activists and becoming complicit actors in the subjection of ourselves and our learners" (McLean, 1996, p. 15).
It should also be noted that responsive and accessible programs such as those offered by Johns Hopkins or the Wellesley Institute are not offered by continuing education units. Instead, they are offered by institutes or other organizations that have taken on the social-justice aspect of education, as noted by Haughey (2006) in his reflection on Alberta's response to pressing social issues: I do not see the leading reactions [to pressing issues confronting Albertans] coming from university extension units. Instead, the most incisive and provocative critique is coming either from academics in other sectors of the university or, more frequently, from individuals, organized pressure groups, think tanks . . . (p. 304) Evidence of the perpetuation of systematic discrimination is also provided by the fact that CBPR is being integrated into undergraduate and graduate programming (Kieren, 2006). Thus, the training of traditional academic learners in CBPR is exceeding that of adult learners working in or with organizations/communities, even though it is the adult learners who will be approached to participate in or lead CBPR initiatives. Most recently, for example, the University of Guelph, in Ontario, launched a Master of Science in Community Development and Extension. The Community-University Partnership (CUP), which is affiliated with the University of Alberta, is also in the process of developing a graduate certificate program in CBR. As graduate programs, both restrict access to those with undergraduate degrees. Indeed, statements in university visionary documents such as the University of Alberta's (2006) Dare to Discover emphasize the priority placed on undergraduate and graduate studies in particular and on relationships with business, industry, and government. To be fair, however, the same document also speaks of the importance of taking pride in contributions from Aboriginal people and other groups, of improving university access for rural, Aboriginal, and non-traditional learners, and of the contribution of discovery and scholarship to public policy. Future developments in research, teaching, and service will provide tangible evidence of the University of Alberta's commitment to these issues.

The CBPR Approach and Transformative Learning: Aboriginal Health Promotion
As noted earlier, Plumb and Welton (cited in Haughey, 2006) posited that there continues to be pressure from critical voices-feminist, ecological, and Aboriginal, among others-for education programs that reflect transformative and critical inquiry. Recent work, funded by the federal government, in response to the need for building the capacity of health promotion leaders in First Nations communities, is making it possible for a research team comprised of colleagues from the University of Albert and Blue Quills First Nations College to listen and respond to community voices in the development and delivery of a health-promotion program tailored to the needs of practicing health promoters. Health promotion, using CBPR, focuses on building the capacity of individuals and communities for the purpose of social action and community empowerment (Whitehead, 2004). A new program in health promotion with First Nations communities presents an opportunity for UCE to facilitate transformative learning and social justice. The development, delivery and evaluation of an Aboriginal Health Promotion Citation, though still in its infancy, allows for reflection on successful strategies for transformative UCE.
The earlier survey of CBPR programs showed that, in order for such programs to succeed, the fiscal (and, to some extent, human) resources must be garnered from resources external to the institute/organization (e.g., through endowments or scholarships). Previously noted literature identified the need to build networks of relationships with local groups and communities that are external to the university and to find critical voices who will apply pressure to change the status quo. With regard, specifically, to the process of building CBPR and health-promotion training for First Nations and American Indian students, these findings are echoed in the following six points, points that I identify as critical for success: 1. Build networks and relationships: others will share your passion for social justice and social change.
2. Understand the historical and/or root causes of the status quo: this requires an in-depth understanding of the social and political contexts.
3. Find critical voices: in the absence of personal experience, build networks and relationships with those affected by the issue and those who are in a position to "champion" the cause.
4. Reflect those voices in your plan and demonstrate your commitment to them: be responsive/flexible to their ongoing participation in the development, delivery, and assessment processes.
5. Secure financial support (and finances to support human resources): secure this support through networks and advocates.
6. Build opportunities to formalize the role of critical voices in the learning design and delivery of the program: do this on an ongoing basis.

conclusIon
The future of UCE depends, in part, on responding to visionary statements relevant to diversity and non-traditional learners. To do so means creating and nourishing equal and open partnerships with external partners, as suggested by Haughey (2006) and Nesbit et al. (2007); this must be motivated by a sincere desire to be proactively engaged in the development and facilitation of UCE for the purposes of transformational learning, social justice, and advocacy. Success will depend, to a large extent, on reflective practices that are based on the work of critical social theorists and on thinking "outside the box" and outside the physical confines of traditional venues for university education. Haughey (1998) wrote that "as the role of university extension educators becomes more restricted, they must rethink what they are doing. Increasingly, this will necessitate a reconstruction of their work in social action as a more intellectual pursuit" (p. 109). As I reflect on my experiences in the current context of UCE, I agree that the future of university continuing adult education units will be enriched by, and possibly saved by, thoughtful reflection and a positive response to this call for a passionate, dedicated, and creative commitment to education for social justice.
bIogrAPhy Fay Fletcher's research interests focus on the impact of education and culture on health, including Aboriginal health promotion and research education, the adaptation of a drug abuse prevention program for children in a First Nations community, and the integration of health services in a local First Nations community.
Les intérêts de recherche de Fay Fletcher se rapportent à l'impact de l'éducation et de la culture sur la santé, y compris la promotion de la santé et l'éducation de recherche parmi les Autochtones, l'adaptation d'un programme de prévention de l'abus des drogues pour les enfants dans les collectivités autochtones, et l'intégration des services de santé dans une communauté locale de Premières Nations.