Kleftis Seminar Discussion Leader - 10/21/20

CIS 650 – COMMUNITY ENGAGED
SCHOLARSHIP
(CULTURAL DIFFERENCES & CROSS-
CULTURAL RESEARCH)
COURTNEY KLEFTIS
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2020

REMINDERS:
ASSIGNMENT #5 DUE 10/28 AT 11:59PM
• Assignment 5 (CE-eP) (Your Community Organization’s Profile): DUE October 28 (11.59pm). [10% of total
grade]. [Points: A+ = 140; A = 130-140; A- = 120-130; B+ = 110-120; B = 100-110; B- = 90-100; C+ = 80-90; C =
70-80; C- = 60-70; D+ = 50-60; D = 40-50; D- = 30-40; E+ = 20-30; E = 10-20; E- = 0-10].
• Community Organization’s Profile (Its Own Representation of Itself)
• This consists of four parts:
• 5.1. The Context: Environment and Setting
• Describe the geographic and cultural environment in which your agency is embedded with relation to the
broader and/or specific aspects of focus in terms of its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (200
words or more: use two or more authoritative sources to support your descriptions and analysis).
• In addition, list at least THREE local resources (with brief annotations) related to the broader and/or specific
aspects you are focusing on.

• 5.2. Organization: Who/What/Where/How?
• Identify and characterize your community agency and its parent organization (e.g., a university is the parent
organization of an academic library) (as relevant). Describe them from a “system-centric” perspective (i.e.,
size, members, services, etc.) especially focusing on the broader and/or specific aspects you are focusing on.
Summarize the agency and the parent organization’s mission, goals, and objectives and how does external
customers/users (broadly and specifically) relate to them. (400-500 words or more: use four or more
authoritative sources to support your descriptions and analysis).
• Present the following about your community organization (others as relevant):
• Mission and Vision
• Values, Aims
• Goals and Objectives
• Strategic Plan
• How Does the Organization Measure Success?
• 5.3 How Does Your Project Relate to This?
• (100 words or more: use one or more authoritative sources to support your descriptions and analysis).
• 5.4 How Does the Organization Perceive Your Role?
• (100 words or more: use one or more authoritative sources to support your descriptions and analysis).

SCHEDULE FOR LEADING CLASS DISCUSSIONS
• September 30: Shalonda Capers (Community-Engaged Scholarship on Race/Ethnicity)
• October 7: Baheya Jaber (Gender Research - Feminism - & Engagement with Women’s Concerns)
• October 14: Misha Viehouser (Engagement with LGBTQ+ Information Offerings, Gender Fluid Diversity)
• October 21: Courtney Kleftis (Engagement with Cultural Differences and Cross-Cultural Research)
• October 28: Calah Burton [Community Engagement + Ableism/Diverse Abilities, (Dis)abilities)
• November 4: Kaeli Nieves-Whitmore (Engagement to Counter Ageism/Services for Seniors Youth
Services Design Scholarship)

REQUIRED READINGS (FOR WEEK 10)
• Charania, N. A., and Tsuji, L. J. S. (2012). A community-based participatory approach and engagement process
creates culturally appropriate and community informed pandemic plans after the 2009 H1N1 influenza
pandemic: Remote and isolated First Nations communities of sub-arctic Ontario, Canada. BMC Public Health,
12, Article No. 268. URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-2458-12-268
• Bainbridge, R and Fredericks, B and Clapham, K and Andersen, C and Ball, R and Longbottom, M and Bessarab,
D and Collard, L and Adams, M and Roe, Y and Wilkinson, N and Daniels, C. (2016). Collaborating for
community-engaged scholarship in health and wellbeing: A co-autoethnographic study of Indigenous self-
determined researcher development, International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies, 9(2), 1-19.
• Wang, W., Bryan-Kinns, N., and Ji, T. (2016). Using community engagement to drive co-creation in rural
China. International Journal of Design, 10(1), 37-52.
URL: http://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/viewFile/2458/722.
• Williment, K. (2019). It Takes a Community to Create a Library. Public Library
Quarterly, DOI: 10.1080/01616846.2019.1590757.
• Guo-Brennan, Michael and Guo-Brennan, Linyuan (2018) "Civic Capacity and Engagement in Building
Welcoming and Inclusive Communities for Newcomers: Praxis, Recommendations, and Policy Implications,"
Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship: Vol. 11 : Iss. 2 , Article
5. https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces/vol11/iss2/5.

CHARANIA, N. A., AND TSUJI, L. J. S. (2012). A COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY APPROACH AND ENGAGEMENT
PROCESS CREATES CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE AND COMMUNITY INFORMED PANDEMIC PLANS AFTER THE 2009 H1N1
INFLUENZA PANDEMIC: REMOTE AND ISOLATED FIRST NATIONS COMMUNITIES OF SUB-ARCTIC ONTARIO, CANADA. BMC
PUBLIC HEALTH, 12, ARTICLE NO. 268. URL: HTTPS://LINK.SPRINGER.COM/ARTICLE/10.1186/1471-2458-12-268. SLIDE #1
OF 3
• PURPOSE:
• The purpose of this study was to address inequity in healthcare access in the midst of the H1N1
influenza pandemic within remote indigenous communities in Ontario, Canada. The intent was to
engage with community members from these isolated indigenous groups to solicit their input and
feedback on federal responses to this pandemic as well as unique local needs that often go ignored.
• SIGNIFICANCE:
• The significance of this study was its capacity to highlight the importance of engaging the public in
pandemic planning to address “local perspectives” (Charania & Tsuji 2012, p. 1) and needs. The study
shed light on the fact that disadvantaged and marginalized communities tend to be disproportionately
affected by health crises due to lack of resources, isolation, overcrowded housing and poverty, pre-
existing health conditions caused by this lack of access to basic human needs and healthcare, etc.
Finally, the study proposes community-engaged research as a means of redressing this issue with the
guidance and input of the affected communities themselves.

CHARANIA, N. A., AND TSUJI, L. J. S. (2012). A COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY APPROACH AND
ENGAGEMENT PROCESS CREATES CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE AND COMMUNITY INFORMED PANDEMIC
PLANS AFTER THE 2009 H1N1 INFLUENZA PANDEMIC: REMOTE AND ISOLATED FIRST NATIONS
COMMUNITIES OF SUB-ARCTIC ONTARIO, CANADA. BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 12, ARTICLE NO. 268.
URL: HTTPS://LINK.SPRINGER.COM/ARTICLE/10.1186/1471-2458-12-268. SLIDE #2 OF 3
• METHODS:
• This study engaged with three anonymous isolated
Great Nations communities in Ontario, Canada
drawing mainly on the expertise of
local/community-based health or medical
practitioners.
• This study drew on qualitative research methods
which comprised a rigorous series of semi-
structured and unstructured (open-ended and
community-driven) interviews as well as
community pandemic committee meetings.
Throughout these three rounds of
interviews/committee meetings, revised pandemic
response plans (from 1st generation to 4th) were
prepared with the input of the communities in
question. SOURCE: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and national chief of the Assembly
of First Nations (AFN) Perry Bellegarde talk before the beginning
of the AFN Special Chiefs Assembly in Québec, 2015.

CHARANIA, N. A., AND TSUJI, L. J. S. (2012). A COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY APPROACH AND
ENGAGEMENT PROCESS CREATES CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE AND COMMUNITY INFORMED PANDEMIC
PLANS AFTER THE 2009 H1N1 INFLUENZA PANDEMIC: REMOTE AND ISOLATED FIRST NATIONS
COMMUNITIES OF SUB-ARCTIC ONTARIO, CANADA. BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 12, ARTICLE NO. 268.
URL: HTTPS://LINK.SPRINGER.COM/ARTICLE/10.1186/1471-2458-12-268. SLIDE #3 OF 3
• LIMITATIONS & CRITIQUES:
• This study utilized purposive selection for its interviews and committee formation which problematically
omitted a wide range of community members (e.g.: non-medical personnel). The committee(s) were
limited to health directors and Chief/Deputy Chief of the First Nations Band Council, restricting
community-involvement to local “experts” and/or authority figures.
• QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
• In what ways could this sampling/selection practice have negatively impacted the research results and
conclusions?
• How would drawing on the voices of a more diverse range of local indigenous peoples have informed
(and possibly improved) the design and conclusion of this research project?

RELATED RESOURCE(S) TO EXPLORE…
• See: This Oct. 2020 ILO (International Labour Organization) statement on COVID-19's impact on global
indigenous communities downloadable PDF.
• See: UN/DESA Policy Brief #70: The Impact of COVID-19 on Indigenous Peoples (United Nations Dept. of
Economic and Social Affairs).

BAINBRIDGE, R AND FREDERICKS, B AND CLAPHAM, K AND ANDERSEN, C AND BALL, R AND LONGBOTTOM,
M AND BESSARAB, D AND COLLARD, L AND ADAMS, M AND ROE, Y AND WILKINSON, N AND DANIELS, C.
(2016). COLLABORATING FOR COMMUNITY-ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP IN HEALTH AND WELLBEING: A CO-
AUTOETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY OF INDIGENOUS SELF-DETERMINED RESEARCHER
DEVELOPMENT, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRITICAL INDIGENOUS STUDIES, 9(2), 1-19. SLIDE #1 OF 4
• PURPOSE:
• The purpose of this article (and the organization it discusses) is to provide a safe space for collaborative, multi-
disciplinary, community-engaged research and a shared reclaiming of long-silenced/marginalized indigenous
(e.g.: Australian aboriginal) voices and perspectives within mainstream academia. One important contribution
of this organization is the international open-access journal it established addressing these issues and from
which this article was excerpted.
• SIGNIFICANCE:
• This project addresses and provides an antidote to the widespread “invisibility of indigenous researchers”
(Bainbridge et al., 2016, p. 3) within mainstream academia. By providing a separate (safe) space in which
indigenous researchers from a wide spectrum of fields/disciplines can work together to reclaim their
sovereignty, this initiative strives to find ways of integrating indigenous perspectives and research modalities
into mainstream higher education curricula in Australia. This project is unique in that it was entirely
conceptualized, developed and run by indigenous researchers/scholars from throughout Australia and it
promotes indigenous leadership within the highly exclusive ”Ivory Tower.”

• METHODS:
• This research study engages in collaborative critical autoethnography (with a Freire-ian
impulse and devotion to praxis) from members of the health and well-being “node” of this
organization. It also utilizes the rigorous ground research method in order to “situate our
[the community members’] lived experiences within larger systems of power” (Bainbridge
et al. 2016, p. 5). The grounded theory method – unfortunately not discussed in satisfactory
depth in this article – helps to analyze and organize the qualitative data gathered from the
many individuals’ unique autoethnographic writings in response to the following four
writing prompts (see Bainbridge et al. 2016, p. 7):
• 1) How did you get involved in NIRAKN? How were you involved [initially]? What was your
involvement like?
• 2) What were the best things about being involved in the NIRAKN health node?
• 3) What could have been improved?
• 4) How could the future look?

• METHODS continued:
• The unique value of the collective autoethnographic approach include a
means of combatting the dominant narrative of colonialism and oppression
of indigenous communities within mainstream culture. <<< DECOLONIZING
HIGHER EDUCATION/ACADEMIA >>>
• “[A]s indigenous people who are commonly the subjects of ethnography,
co-autoethnography is liberating. It provides an opportunity for us to
become the authors of research through ‘a rewriting of the self and the
social’ (Reed-Danahay 1997, p.2)” (Bainbridge et al. 2016, p. 7). Source: Oxford University-based
Lecture available on Youtube
on decolonizing academia by
Indian-American scholar
Rajiv Malhotra.

• This relatively nascent organization, established in 2012, is somewhat exclusive and appears to be overly hierarchical:
• “[E]ngagement in NIRAKN was initiated by invitation only….Affiliates were people who were not included on the original
funding application, but were interested in becoming part of the…network in a less formal role” (Bainbridge et al. 2016, p. 8).
• The authors of the paper do acknowledge this flaw/limitation:
• “There was a general sense of privilege upon receipt of the invitation to form the NRAKN network” (Bainbridge et al. 2016, p. 8)
• Findings show that “expanding beyond the original membership was difficult to achieve” (Bainbridge et al. 2016, p. 11).
• QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
• Whose voices are not being heard due to the exclusionary invitation-based nature of this organization?
• In what ways might this organization perpetuate the elitist and hierarchical ideologies of higher education/academia in spite
of its attempt to make higher education more inclusive of marginalized groups, voices, and/or perspectives?

A FEW RECOMMENDED SOURCES ON THE
AUTOETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH METHOD:
• Boylorn, Robin M. and Mark P. Orbe (Eds.) 2014. Critical autoethnography: Intersecting cultural
identities in everyday life. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
• Ellis, Carolyn. 2002. The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Ethnographic
Alternatives. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Source: Google Books
link.
Source: Google Books
link.

WANG, W., BRYAN-KINNS, N., AND JI, T. (2016). USING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TO DRIVE CO-CREATION IN RURAL
CHINA. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN, 10(1), 37-52.
URL: HTTP://WWW.IJDESIGN.ORG/INDEX.PHP/IJDESIGN/ARTICLE/VIEWFILE/2458/722.
SLIDE #1 OF 6
• PURPOSE:
• This project serves the purpose of comparing short-term and long-term co-creative social design paradigms.
Its main intent is to address the challenges faced by social designers in sustaining motivation for long-term
collaborations with locals, especially in rural, underserved, and hard-to-reach communities. Finally, the
authors wish to shift the focus in social design from end product to process (community-building, etc.)
through the lens of CE (Community Engaged research). What is SOCIAL DESIGN? (See next slide - #16).
• SIGNIFICANCE:
• This project sheds light on how the social design framework can be embraced by marginalized communities
(specifically in rural China) to “design their own futures, using their own ingenuity and locally available
resources” (Wang & Ji 2016, p. 37). In order to illustrate this community-driven use of the social design
framework, the authors delineate 3 different social design models concluding in favor of the 3rd (CE –
Community Engagement). See TABLE 1 below (source – Wang et al. 2016, p. 43).

WANG, W., BRYAN-KINNS, N., AND JI, T. (2016). USING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TO DRIVE CO-CREATION
IN RURAL CHINA. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN, 10(1), 37-52.
SLIDE #2 OF 6
• What is SOCIAL DESIGN?
Source: Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA)
Research Center for Social Design
Social Design – in the words of Liz Ogbu (TedX talk – Oct. 2014)
- An “architect that doesn’t design buildings but
opportunities for impact.”
- Draws on expertise of citizens themselves in designing their
social/communal spaces.
- Empowers local (often marginalized) communities by
reclaiming their local day-to-day knowledge/wisdom as
expertise.
- Social Design is about transforming spaces to empower
(often disenfranchised) communities.
SEE NEXT SLIDE FOR MORE IMAGES! >>>

WANG, W., BRYAN-KINNS, N., AND JI, T. (2016). USING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TO DRIVE CO-
CREATION IN RURAL CHINA. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN, 10(1), 37-52.
SLIDE #3 OF 6
Photograph of a site designed by Liz Ogbu as advocacy for day
laborers in San Francisco, CA (ideally to be spread across the U.S.) SOURCE

SLIDE #4 OF 6
• METHODS:
• This article provides a detailed analysis of a case study of a CE
(Community Engagement) project based in Tongdao, a rural
mountainous county in Hunan, China. This project illustrates
principles of collaborative, co-creative social design in the form of
drama/theater.
• The main evaluative methods used in this social design project
include interviews with all that participated in the study as well as
participatory observation “and audience questionnaires about the
drama and interactive installation” (Wang et al. 2016, 44).
Source: Wang et
al. 2016, p. 40
Source:
Wikipedia

SLIDE #5 OF 6
- This article maintains a rather paternalistic and/or condescending tone
throughout (at least to my “ears”) and it really rubbed me the wrong way.
- EX.: “[G]iving participants total freedom to self-organize…could lead to chaos and
the loss of a common direction…” (see Wang et al. 2016, p. 46).
- Uses problematic terminology like “ethnic music” (see Wang et al. 2016, p. 40).
- Perpetuates the traditional notion of authority/authority figures describing the
challenging quest to “find qualified local partners” (see Wang et al. 2016, p. 41)
in the Tongdao-based CE project & Posits as a challenge/barrier to this type of
CE work the difficult of finding community-based participants who are
sufficiently educated to “engage in authoritative Western discourses” (see
Wang et al. 2016, p. 38, referencing Murray (2010)).
- Perpetuates Western-centric capitalist values in claiming that while for short-
term projects the CE model is useful, long-term projects would be better suited
to the Product-Service System (PSS) paradigm. There is certainly value in
improving the economy of these often impoverished rural communities, but
indoctrinating them in Western capitalistic ideologies is NOT appropriate or
very culturally sensitive. (See Wang et al. 2016, p. 49).
- [FOR ALL references mentioned above – see: Wang et al. 2016 PDF].
Source: tumblr

SLIDE #6 OF 6
• QUESTION(S) FOR DISCUSSION:
• In what ways does the project discussed in this article embody - or not - the values of SOCIAL DESIGN
(e.g.: community-driven research, a dedication to transform spaces according to local communities’
self-determined needs, and a dedication to empower communities by honoring them as authorities on
their own shared needs and goals, etc.)?
• How can you engage with the aforementioned values espoused by SOCIAL DESIGN (as articulated in this
article and/or the TedX talk with Liz Ogbu) in your own CE project?
• A little SOCIAL DESIGN humor: Who doesn’t love (and need) a cat café? 
Kitty photos from the Instagram
account of The Café Meow in
Minneapolis, MN.
Photos L-R – ONE, TWO, THREE
Aptly named, CUPID. <3

WILLIMENT, K. (2019). IT TAKES A COMMUNITY TO CREATE A LIBRARY. PUBLIC LIBRARY
QUARTERLY, DOI: 10.1080/01616846.2019.1590757. SLIDE #1 OF 6
• PURPOSE:
• The Vancouver Public Library (VPL) established the Working Together Project in
2002 with the intent of a) highlighting the importance of librarians building
relationships with ALL users and b) developing collaborative methods for
public libraries/librarians to working with low-income, underserved, and
marginalized communities.
• This short but pithy article serves to challenge common assumptions that
public libraries are inclusive and accessible to ALL users and to demonstrate
that while librarians believe this to be the case, many community members do
NOT feel welcome or interested in using library services (see Williment 2019,
p. 411).
• Guiding questions:
• “[D]oes a service model which works fairly well with traditional [e.g.: middle-class]
users also address the needs of socially excluded library users and non-users?”
(Williment 2019, p. 413).
• How could this traditional process [of assessing community/user needs] be
structured differently or improved? (Williment 2019, p. 416). Source of images: VPL website

• SIGNIFICANCE:
• This articles sheds light on the limitations of traditional assessment tools (e.g.: for determining
library community needs). While traditional, middle-class library users do generally find
libraries accessible and inviting spaces considering their usually shared values with community
librarians, “socially excluded community members” (Williment 2019, p. 415) do not use library
services so traditional assessment tools of those services unintentionally exclude them.
• The Working Together Project – a collaborative endeavor across 4 Vancouver-area public
libraries – provides a “new community-based service model” (Williment 2019, p. 416).
• The success of this initiative established in 2002 “increased the relevance and quality of library
services” (Williment 2019, p. 419) for ALL communities in the Vancouver area and provides a
model for other libraries to expand and improve their own offerings.
• For example, this initiative worked to eliminate common barriers to library use/access (see:
Williment 2019, p. 412).
• “The impact of library fees” [financial/economic barrier]
• “Use of library jargon” [perception of librarian elitism/condescension]
• “Confusion regarding the arrangement of collections” [physical arrangement/organization barrier]
• “A feeling of being judged and evaluated by the staff” [perception of librarian elitism/condescension]
• “Viewing library staff as ‘trying to educate’ them” [perception of librarian elitism/condescension]
Source:
Chicago Public Library
News!

• METHODS:
• This article doesn’t have a clearly defined methods section or definitive set of
methodologies employed beyond the following (enumerated in Williment
2019, pp. 418-419).
• 1. Relationship Building (AND building trust!!!)
• 2. Identifying potential service areas
• 3. Collaborative planning (between community members, partner organizations,
and library staff)
• 4. Evaluation (should be ongoing)
• The author seems to have intended for the article to read as a narrative (with
manifesto-like qualities), calling for ALL librarians – from public to special,
academic and beyond – to engage more directly with their user communities
when designing and evaluating library services and programming.
• For more details on the methodology behind the Working Together project
discussed/summarized in this article, see: Working Together: Community-Led
Libraries Toolkit (available freely online in PDF format).
Source:
Libraries Aotearoa
(New Zealand-based).

• NONE --- (Just kidding)…
• The methods behind this project would benefit from a much more straightforward and detailed
discussion than is currently offered (see Williment 2019, pp. 418-419). Also, it would have been helpful
for the article to link to the Toolkit in the text and engage with specific sections of it (as this Toolkit
clearly lays out a step-by-step and rigorous approach to this establishing a community-informed library
services assessment model).
• How does the organization you are working with this semester on your CE project meet the needs of
socially excluded users? Are there areas that call for improvement? If so, what are they and how can
you be of assistance in this endeavor?
• As a library user have you ever felt like your needs were not being met OR that the librarians perceived
your needs to be different than what they actually were? How did you resolve /work around this
barrier? Are there any other barriers you personally have faced as a library user in any environment?
• In what ways do you believe this model would need to be adapted to serve diverse populations in other
environments (e.g.: academic libraries and/or special libraries, archives or medical libraries, etc.)?

• To compare the 2 models of library services assessment see:
• A) The traditional model
Source: Williment 2019, p.414.
For B) The Community-driven
Model, see the NEXT SLIDE! >>>

• B) The community-driven model promoted by Working Together!
Source: Williment 2019, p. 417.

GUO-BRENNAN, MICHAEL AND GUO-BRENNAN, LINYUAN (2018) "CIVIC CAPACITY AND ENGAGEMENT IN BUILDING
WELCOMING AND INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES FOR NEWCOMERS: PRAXIS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND POLICY
IMPLICATIONS," JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP: VOL. 11 : ISS. 2 , ARTICLE
5. HTTPS://DIGITALCOMMONS.NORTHGEORGIA.EDU/JCES/VOL11/ISS2/5. SLIDE #1 OF 6
• PURPOSE:
• The purpose of this article is to provide a model for communities to develop welcoming and
inclusive programs and/or services to fully integrate immigrants and refugees (This model
study took place in the capital city, Charlottetown, of Prince Edward Island (PEI), Canada).
During an era of widespread xenophobia, perpetuated by high-profile politicians like Trump
who call for barrier walls to drive out Mexican and other Latin American immigrants from
the U.S., renders this issue especially timely and demonstrates the urgency of overcoming
these divisive beliefs and practices.
• This study builds on earlier studies which have “emphasized the significance of a systematic
approach to improving the inclusion and equity for newcomers; however, there is little
empirical evidence to illustrate how these systems are currently functioning to achieve this
objective” (Guo-Brennan & Guo-Brennan 2018, p. 2). This gap in the literature is what this
article sets out to fill.
• 3 Guiding Questions of this study (see Guo-Brennan & Guo-Brennan 2018, p. 3):
• 1) “What are newcomers’ perceptions and expectations for a welcoming and inclusive
community?”
• 2) “What policy and practices are adopted to build welcoming and inclusive communities for
newcomers?”
• 3) “What needs to be done to foster the civic capacity and engagement in building
welcoming communities for newcomers?”
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica

• SIGNIFICANCE:
• This study provides informative findings which shed light on the following 3 main
topics (see: Guo-Brennan & Guo-Brennan 2018, p. 4):
• “1) Newcomer perceptions”
• “2) Challenges and barriers”
• “3) Promising Practices”
• The authors conclude that local government agencies need to build partnerships
and make concrete efforts to improve inclusivity for immigrants and/or refugees.
They emphasize the importance of building community and designing
programs/services around “a sense of ‘common cause’” (Guo-Brennan & Guo-
Brennan 2018, p. 8) and also highlight how essential “partnerships and
collaborations”(Guo-Brennan & Guo-Brenna 2018, p. 10) are for these endeavors
to succeed.
• The study concludes with a brief discussion of 7 key tenets and practical
recommendations for all communities that wish to draw inspiration on this
community’s improving integration of its own immigrant/refugee population
which rose from 1% to 10% of the population within the past decade (see Guo-
Brennan & Guo-Brennan 2018, p. 1).
Source: American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU).

GUO-BRENNAN, MICHAEL AND GUO-BRENNAN, LINYUAN (2018) "CIVIC CAPACITY AND ENGAGEMENT IN
BUILDING WELCOMING AND INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES FOR NEWCOMERS: PRAXIS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS," JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP: VOL. 11 : ISS. 2 ,
ARTICLE 5. HTTPS://DIGITALCOMMONS.NORTHGEORGIA.EDU/JCES/VOL11/ISS2/5. SLIDE #3 OF 6
• SIGNIFICANCE continued:
• 7 key tenets/principles & recommendations for building welcoming and inclusive communities (see
Guo-Brennan & Guo-Brennan 2018, pp. 7-9):
• 1) “Develop a strategic plan or action framework to build a coalition to enhance inclusion and equity in the
community”
• 2) “Create a shared vision and action plan”
• 3) “Strengthen local ownership and community partnerships”
• 4) “Work to promote inclusion and equity in the society, requiring the broad involvement of committed groups
of people”
• 5) “Create more opportunities for education and awareness”
• 6) “Strive for a better coordinated refugee settlement”
• 7) “Challenge language inequality in policy, planning, and services”

• METHODS:
• This two-year study based in Prince Edward Island (PEI), Canada – home of
L.M. Montgomery’s beloved and indomitable YA heroine, Anne of Green
Gables – employed several different qualitative methods in order to
encourage “a reciprocal process of learning, investigating, problem-solving,
and continual collaboration with stakeholders, community members, and
research participants” (Guo-Brennan & Guo-Brennan 2018, p. 3).
• Qualitative methods employed include (see Guo-Brennan & Guo-Brennan
2018, p. 3):
• Document analysis (of existing government policies, etc.)
• 5 focus Groups
• Program observations (an ethnographic approach exploring existing
services/programs for immigrants, etc.)
• 50 semi-structured interviews
Source:
Thriftbooks
Source:
Anne of Green
Gables film series
website

• My main critique of this study is its failure to provide concrete and practical
guidance/recommendations which was one of its purposes. The study remains too abstract
and the 7 recommendations for building inclusive communities for immigrants and refugees
– see SLIDE #28 - are not discussed in sufficient depth.
• The study claims to have been based on rigorous qualitative research (5 focus groups and 50
semi-structured interviews with policy makers, community stakeholders, and
immigrants/refugees), however, it fails to give voice to them in this article beyond a
superficial level.
• EX. 1: An anonymous widowed refugee from Ghana claims that she and her two children felt very
welcomed by the local government in Charlottetown, PEI upon their arrival (see excerpt of her
interview – Guo-Brennan & Guo-Brennan 2018, pp. 4-5). However this study’s finding that CFA
(individuals labeled as those that “come from away”) – including Canadians from other provinces
and other immigrants– feel less welcomed than refugees. This finding calls for a much deeper
engagement and unpacking of its significance! Why is it that refugees feel more welcomed than
other immigrants and even non-local Canadians? Is this a superficial or short-term welcome?
• EX. 2: In outlining their research methodology the authors mention “program observations” (Guo-
Brennan & Guo-Brennan 2018, p. 3) which they fail/neglect to discuss at sufficient length and/or
depth. The only time they mention some of these programs they fail to provide concrete examples
of what they observed when participating in them and immediately leap to making
abstract/theoretical conclusions about the significance of this programming (see: Guo-Brennan &
Guo-Brennan 2018, p. 7).
An example of being
Superficially welcoming:
Minnesota Nice Podcast!

• This article emphasizes the importance of increasing local awareness about immigrant/refugee
culture(s), etc. (see Guo-Brennan & Guo-Brennan 2018, p. 9). How can you find effective means of
educating locals on immigrant/refugee cultures and customs without running the risk of tokenizing,
sensationalizing, and further othering them?
• The authors of this article claim that the most difficult community to reach for their study was refugees
(see Guo-Brennan & Guo-Brennan 2018, p. 3). What are some useful strategies for reaching and
establishing trust and rapport with these (often invisibilized) communities?
• In your own CE project, are you facing difficulties reaching out to particular communities (or sub-sectors
of the community you are working with)? If so, what have you done to overcome these challenges in an
ethical manner?

THANKS – ‘TIL NEXT WEEK! 
Source: GIPHY.com

Kleftis Seminar Discussion Leader - 10/21/20

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Similar to Kleftis Seminar Discussion Leader - 10/21/20

Similar to Kleftis Seminar Discussion Leader - 10/21/20 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Kleftis Seminar Discussion Leader - 10/21/20

Editor's Notes