Framework for Partnerships

 

Our Framework for Partnerships is rooted in the University of Michigan’s mission to serve the people of Michigan and the world, and reflects the university’s Engaged Michigan initiative. The first three three principles and values for community engagement from from the University initiative:

 

Principle of Recognition

The U-M’s approach to working with communities begins with acknowledgement of the expertise and knowledge that already exists within any community in which we engage.  Our own beliefs and understandings of the opportunities in that community must be shaped in close collaboration with diverse members of the community. Further, our own beliefs and understandings of the capacities in that community must be checked for accuracy with diverse members of the community and adjusted accordingly.

Implications

  • Faculty and students commit to collaborating with community partners from the onset, or even prior, to the beginning of a project. The goals and nature of the engagement, resources requested from all partners, communication protocols, information sharing, timeline, and milestones needs to be agreed upon by all parties. In the event that an engagement is for a limited period of time, community members should be aware and faculty and students exiting that community should do so in a way that minimizes harm and disruptions and maximizes the intended benefit for the community partners, as defined by the community.
  • Faculty and students engaged with community partners should be able to articulate the value of all partners’ work or project in accessible language, free from academic jargon. And all should be able to articulate how these value propositions are complementary and balanced.
  • U-M faculty and students working with communities should provide those communities with safe and effective systems to address concerns, including clear expectations for raising concerns, methods to do so, and pathways to higher authorities if concerns are not being addressed. U-M administrators should be prepared to engage and act when concerns are raised to them.
  • We recognize that when we engage with communities, we can become extensions or representatives of those communities. We should contribute ideas and knowledge, and support local partner-based businesses, for example by renting from community partners or purchasing from them when appropriate. We should work to make long-term partners preferred vendors for purchasing. When possible, we should hire local community residents for project-related positions (e.g., survey interviewers, project managers, field coordinators, community health workers).
  • In U-M communications about community engaged work, we should be sensitive to presenting the community partner equally alongside the U-M faculty, students and staff, recognizing that all are contributing and that often the community partner has been engaged far longer in ensuring a successful outcome.

Principle of Respect

Communities comprise many individuals, who collectively and individually have unique opportunities and capacities. Community members must be recognized as having agency in their own decisions in their own community. Their resources, not the least of which is time, must be recognized as having value. U-M scholars must be aware of power structures, both hidden and explicit, that might influence community members and U-M scholars in how collaborations are planned, managed, conducted, and communicated.

Implications

  • Seeking opportunity for collective action and synergetic engagement should be the norm, both to respect the opportunity costs to community members collaborating with U-M scholars, and to provide greater return value to the communities in which we engage.

  • Long-term partnerships and engagements are encouraged that build benefits and understanding for all partners, and prevent the harm to community resources and expectations that come from many disconnected short-term engagements. U-M scholars acknowledge the harm of appropriation or exploitation of community work, knowledge, resources, and networks with limited benefit for communities that can be caused by short-term relationships or poorly planned engagement strategies. We recognize that individual efforts are sometimes project based and inherently finite in scope, but even in these cases there may be opportunity to build long term relationships with the partner across multiple projects and multiple U-M faculty and staff engagements; we should be aware of and seek these opportunities.

  • Faculty and students should make it a practice to first learn from others, including others at U-M who are already engaged in the same community, and seek first to complement existing efforts rather than create wholly new and disconnected efforts.

  • When faculty and students seek institutional support for their work, we should expect such initial fact-finding and research as a requirement for institutional support to engage with communities. Prior to an initial engagement, faculty and students have a responsibility to learn and listen about a community before requesting resources from partners.

  • U-M scholars should recognize that communities are diverse and heterogeneous, with multiple degrees of power, perspectives and needs. Power structures are in place both within the community, between the community and the U-M, and between the community and other agencies, and these power dynamics can lead to unintended consequences or harms.

Principle of Equitable Partnership

Effective engagement requires true partnership, which must be founded on equitable relationships and mutual benefit. All members of a partnership must see and understand the evolving benefits to themselves, their organizations and their communities, that will emerge from the engagement, and have safe and effective recourse in case of concerns. They must have full visibility to the motives, needs, and concerns of others, and must be mutually accountable to meet other partners’ needs and address each other’s concerns.

Implications

  • Faculty and students commit to collaborating with community partners from the onset, or even prior, to the beginning of a project. The goals and nature of the engagement, resources requested from all partners, communication protocols, information sharing, timeline, and milestones needs to be agreed upon by all parties. In the event that an engagement is for a limited period of time, community members should be aware and faculty and students exiting that community should do so in a way that minimizes harm and disruptions and maximizes the intended benefit for the community partners, as defined by the community.
  • Faculty and students engaged with community partners should be able to articulate the value of all partners’ work or project in accessible language, free from academic jargon. And all should be able to articulate how these value propositions are complementary and balanced.
  • U-M faculty and students working with communities should provide those communities with safe and effective systems to address concerns, including clear expectations for raising concerns, methods to do so, and pathways to higher authorities if concerns are not being addressed. U-M administrators should be prepared to engage and act when concerns are raised to them.
  • We recognize that when we engage with communities, we can become extensions or representatives of those communities. We should contribute ideas and knowledge, and support local partner-based businesses, for example by renting from community partners or purchasing from them when appropriate. We should work to make long-term partners preferred vendors for purchasing. When possible, we should hire local community residents for project-related positions (e.g., survey interviewers, project managers, field coordinators, community health workers).
  • In U-M communications about community engaged work, we should be sensitive to presenting the community partner equally alongside the U-M faculty, students and staff, recognizing that all are contributing and that often the community partner has been engaged far longer in ensuring a successful outcome.

We are committed to incorporating these three principles in how we initiate, collaborate, and pursue solutions within communities.  In addition to the Engaged Michigan principles, we extended our practice to incorporate two additional principles:

Principle of Trust and Transparency 

Successful community engagement efforts have a strong foundation of trust.  Trust is essential for any community engagement effort and will increase the likelihood of success in any endeavor.  Trust is often built over time and relies on effective action and communication that considers the needs of all stakeholders, especially the most marginalized and disenfranchised, and when academics demonstrate willingness to prioritize community needs/concerns over their own project goals. Transparency and honesty are strongly linked to building trust.   

Implications

  • Faculty and students involved in community engagement must be honest, and convey their expectations of the engagement clearly to all involved parties and engage in a dialogue with partners to respond, and react to expectations, and adjust and project plans when appropriate.
  • An extra emphasis on deepening trust should be part of each step of the engagement, which could involve making records public or sharing raw data while still being respectful of privacy.
  • Members of the community should feel that they can easily access information, become involved, stay engaged, and meaningfully contribute to the efforts.
  • Faculty and students should employ active, open, and exploratory listening practice to deepen trust and understanding.

Principle of Justice, Empowerment, and Community Competency

Communities need to have the confidence that research or efforts are not only important and appropriate, but also beneficial and benefits are shared.  It is important to remember that no external entity should assume it can bestow on a community the power to act in its own self-interest.  Therefore, community engagement efforts should move from viewing community-as-deficient to community-as-valued partner.  Engagements are more likely to be sustained when new resources and capabilities are collaboratively developed as it promotes acceptance and advocacy from community members.

Implications

  • Faculty and students involved should acknowledge, and when possible act on, power imbalances and how society produces privilege, racism, and inequalities of power. They should also acknowledge diversity in background, experience, culture, income, and education and work across differences through reflection and learning.
  • Community partners need to have ownership and buy-in for the efforts and the community should be seen as change agents to implement the agreed upon community benefits.
  • Empowerment should be viewed as both a process and outcome that includes ing accounting for issues of justice; incorporating plans for building skills and social capital; and planning for long-term relationships. Members will work to connect community partners to additional university resources that allow the relationship and community competency to grow.
  • Recognizing partners’ needs and empowering all partners to assert their unique rights within the relationship leads to equity and creates and ethical framework for all partners to collaborate within.