Engaged Scholarship in the Sciences: Community-Based Research, Service Learning, Grants, and Publications Phil Brown Professor of Sociology and Environmental

Engaged Scholarship in the Sciences: Community-Based Research, Service

Learning, Grants, and Publications

Phil Brown

Professor of Sociology and Environmental Studies

Brown University Tulane UniversityCenter for Public Service and

Center for Engaged Learning & Teaching

November 7, 2011

• My focus is on how social scientists can work in interdisciplinary projects with life scientists and natural scientists, even though I also do a lot of work that involves primarily social science

forms of community engagement

Community Engaged ActivityLike CBPR, the needs of communities are central.

Service and education, rather than research -- topics are identified by and useful to community partners. Most projects supported by Brown University’s Swearer Center

for Public Service are like this.

Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR)Collaborative, equitable involvement of all partners in all phases of the research,

from design to dissemination. Much of my work is like this, but I also do much of the first type.

Furthermore, CEA and CBPR can interact…

For example, our Environmental Justice seminar sends many students into the field, working with community groups with whom we have prior involvement.

Some of their work involves research as well as service:• 50-state survey of state guidelines on school siting on

contaminated land – published as EPA document and in another form by Center for Health, Environment, and Justice

Some of their service work gets published in major journals:• One class project worked with a community toxics groups

(Environmental Awareness Committee of Tiverton) to pass state law establishing ECHO (Environmentally Compromised Home Ownership Loan Program). Article on this published in Environmental Science & Technology

For me, the two are part of a whole

Working with students on CES prepares them for CBPR in terms of their sensibilities, ethics, and experience

Students may go back and forth between the two, just as I do

However…I will focus on CBPR, since the research end provides grants and publications, which is a focus for us today

How to build departmental interest: discussions of public sociology in Sociology Department following 2004 talk by

ASA President Michael Burawoy on “public sociology”

2004-2005Forum on “Public Sociology Meets Community-Based Participatory Research”

6 workshops over the rest of the year, featuring presentations by graduate students and faculty from Sociology and other departments

One of my doctoral students suggested this, in part because of what our research group does and in part because she was a member of ASA Task Force

on Public Sociology

Principles of Community-Based Participatory Research CBPR

• Address issues affecting community partners

• Build community capacity

• Report findings using accessible language

• Knowledge and power are linked

• Creation of new knowledge should be liberating

• Be respectful about community needs when reporting data

• Adhere to ethics of mutual respect, open communication, and recognition of knowledge, expertise, and resource capacities of all partners

• All participants are co-learners

• Co-ownership of data

• Credit and recognition for project shared equally -Schulz, Israel, Selig, and Bayer, 1997 ; Schultz, Parker, Becker, 1998; Southeast Community Research Center

Rationale for CBPR• Increases quality and validity of research

• Builds community capacity

• Improves relevance and utility of data for all partners

• Pools diversity of skills, knowledge, and expertise applied to a research question or problem.

• Provides additional money and employment opportunities for community partners

-Israel, Schulz, Parker, and Becker, 1998

Institutionalization of CBPR• “Best-Practice” Guidelines—National Institute of Environmental

Health Sciences

• Federal RFAs • CDC—Urban Health Centers• National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences• NIH-wide programs• Agency for Health Care Research & Quality• Environmental Protection Agency• WF Kellogg Foundation• Ford Foundation

• Institutionalized Lay Participation on Review Panels• Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program • California Breast Cancer Research Program

CBPR and Community Engagement in NIEHS

• Beginning in early 1990s, supported various grant programs:

Environmental Justice

Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR)

Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications

CBPR and Community Engagement in NIEHS• Community Engagement Cores required in major center and

program grants ($1-16 million):• Superfund Research Program• Children’s Environmental Health Centers (joint with EPA)• Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Centers• Environmental Health Core Centers

– CBPR is part of many RFAs in the Partnerships in Environmental Public Health Program (PEPH)

– Community Engagement Core in Superfund Research Program Centers now able to have full research project

Tensions in Collaborative Research• Fundamental inequalities:

• Salary differentials• Funds for infrastructure support• Indirect costs at universities eat up much budget• Legacy of “helicopter” research• Institutional racism—predominance of white academics and scientists

working in communities of color.

• Who represents the community?

• IRB: will university IRBs cover CBOs?

• Sampling design—aligning scientific standards for sampling with community groups’ needs

Tensions in Collaborative Research

• CBOs & research: time consuming mission drift?

• Enough time for evaluating collaborative processes and outcomes?

• What will happen if we have negative findings?

• Geographic distance between groups (e.g. SUNY Albany as partner with Alaska Community Action on Toxics)

Teaching Potential

CBPR and community-engaged teaching often use service learning projects:

liven up class provide data not otherwise available show students relevant applications and prepare them for real-world applications offer capacity to teach ethics of academic-community partnerships teach students about how university serves its community

Publication Potential

Our CBPR and community-engaged work has been published in top journals:

• Journal of Health and Social Behavior

• American Journal of Public Health

• Environmental Health Perspectives

• Environmental Health

• Environmental Science & Technology

• Social Science and Medicine

• Sociology of Health and Illness

• Science, Technology, and Human Values

• Health Affairs

• Sociological Forum

Impact of a Research Group

• Contested Illnesses Research Group (CIRG)– Started 2000– “Social science lab” – analog to science lab– Currently two faculty, 3 postdocs, 6 doctoral students– Weekly meeting for discussion of articles in progress, grant

writing, guest scholars, discussion of outreach and engagement activities

– Training and socialization in all components of interdisciplinary work, much of it with biomedical scientists – this includes joint appointments, as with current Mellon postdoc in Environmental Studies and Pathology, teaching a course in each

Contested Illnesses Research Group, Brown University, Providence RI

CIRG has published44 articles6 books


Forthcoming, Phil Brown, Rachel Morello-Frosch, Stephen Zavestoski, and the Contested Illnesses Research Group Contested Illnesses: Citizens, Science and Health Social Movements

December 2011

University of California Press

Highlights of CIRG students

Laura Senier – University of Wisconsin-Madison: joint appointment in Community and Environmental Sociology and Medical School/Department of Family Medicine

-excellent score on K-grant

Brian Mayer - University of Florida:Joint appointment in Sociology and Public Health

-co-PI on large program grant: NIEHS Deepwater Horizon grant

Sabrina McCormick – George Washington University – School of Public Health-just finished as AAAS Fellow at EPA-co-PI on multisite CDC grant on climate change and health-PI on EPA grant on Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Rebecca Altman – Tufts University adjunct; freelance writer; board of Science and Environmental Health Network and collaborator with Sandra Steingraber

Elizabeth Hoover – Brown University:Departments of Ethnic Studies and American Studies

Social Science/Natural and Life Science Collaboration Efforts at Brown

• This is a central component of my vision and action through my research group

• We are very involved in Science and Technology Studies Program, which is one of few in the US which has predominance of non-social scientists– Associate Dean of the College for Science provides space in Science Center

and some financial support

• Vice President for Research asked STS to arrange 2-hour presentation on relevance of STS to large science projects – NSF’s STS Program Director was lead speaker, along with Brown STS Program faculty and an outside scholar working on genetics

• Dean of the College now convening workgroup to either offer course on interdisciplinary work, or series of discussions

Funding Potential

This is a growing area and researchers will ignore it at their

peril!!

Example: my funding in this area

Funding Potential

First:An array of past and present funded

projects

My research group has:- Become the go-to location for social science involvement in

large science projects at Brown

- Been engaged in long-term partnership with toxicologists, epidemiologists, exposure scientists at Silent Spring Institute and University of California-Berkeley

• What you’ll see from these examples is that by doing this kind of CBPR and related research, we are well-equipped to deal with:

– NSF requirements for “Broader Impacts”• Dissemination to lay audiences, with lay involvement• Contributions to public policy and regulatory agency needs• Education and training component• Ethics concerns integrated into both dissemination, outreach, and

research itself

– NIH “Significance” • Go beyond just significance to the field• Talk about NIH mission (and also specific mission of Institute or

Center), which is increasingly about research translation, and often includes community involvement, if not CBPR outright

– Our ethics-related work has been especially helpful…

NSF Ethics Training Grant Provides Useful Support

• Ethics training session for trainees of T32 Pathobiology Training Program and Superfund Research Program– Brings in faculty, as well as postdocs and students

• Research ethics presentations to individual departments, followed by certificate training programs for graduate students

• Work with School of Engineering to create ethics training

COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH:CONTESTED ILLNESSES RESEARCH GROUP

• Community Environmental Health Research: Finding Meaning – partners: Boston University, Toxics Action Center, Haverhill Environmental

League, Health-Link $958,576 (NIEHS)

• Collaborative Initiative for Research Ethics in Environmental Health– partners: Syracuse University, Southeast Community Research Center,

University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, University of Massachusetts-Lowell approx $150,000, renewed for approx $150,000 (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/National Heart, Blood, and Lung Institute)

– led to:“Northeast Ethics Education Partnership for Research Ethics/Cultural

Competence Training” $397,984 (NSF)


Nanotechnology program grant

Micropatterned Nanotopography Chips for Probing the Cellular Basis of Biocompatibility and Toxicity$1,200,000 (NSF)

NSF required a Societal and Ethical Implications (SEI) component-Based on Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) component mandated by Congress for Human Genome Research Institute-Example of increasing requirements for social science and humanities involvement in natural and life sciences

The SEI Core helped develop graduate nanotechnology survey course, provided guest lectures, surveyed student perception of nano-ethics before and after course exposure, published results in Journal of Nano Education


Interdisciplinary Katrina grants

“Katrina and the Built Environment: Spatial and Social Impacts” $99,800 (NSF)

“Disaster, Resilience, and the Built Environment on the Gulf Coast” $248,806 (NSF)

These included Sociology, Geology, Environmental Studies, Community Health – methods included interviews, ethnographic observation, remote sensing, GIS, census analysis


Two large program grants

• Superfund Research Program: “Re-use in Rhode Island: A State-Based Approach to Complex Exposures” $11,520320, renewed for additional $15,392,906 (NIEHS)– partners: Environmental Neighborhood Awareness Committee of

Tiverton, Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council. Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island

• Children’s Environmental Health Center: “Formative Center for the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts on Fetal Development” $2,289,097 (NIEHS and EPA) – partners: Silent Spring Institute, Environmental Justice League of

Rhode Island


• CARE For Environmental Justice in Rhode Island– partners: Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island

$100,000 (EPA)

Of particular attention at Brown

• Our role in Superfund Research Program re-funding– Community Engagement Core got highest score of all components, putting our application just

above the next one, and assured funding

• Our role in community engagement and research translation– Helps scientists consider how their work can be translated to various audiences

• Our community work makes up a significant part of Brown’s presence in the community

Of particular attention nationally

• Growing importance of research translation, e.g. at Superfund Research Program Annual Meeting in October 2011, each scientific session was followed by a discussion of the research translation issues and offered suggestions for improvement

• NIEHS has moved beyond just requiring Community Engagement Cores and Research Translation Cores major program and center grants – some now allow for a CBPR-based science project as one of the projects: Superfund Research Program; Deepwater Horizon special grants program

Funding Potential

Second:A focus on one project and its

many sequelae


• Linking Breast Cancer Advocacy & Environmental Justice (NIEHS) and Research Right -to-Know: Ethics and Values in Communicating Research Data to Individuals and Communities (NSF)

– partners: Silent Spring Institute, Communities for a Better Environment, UC-Berkeley $959,800 (NIEHS) and $407,539 (NSF)

Led to:

– “Ethical and Legal Challenges in Communicating Individual Biomonitoring and Personal Exposure Results to Study Participants: Guidance for Researchers and Institutional Review Boards” $1,826,012 (NIEHS)

– adds partners: Harvard Law School and Harvard School of Public Health

– “Toxic Ignorance and the New Right-to-Know: The Implications of Biomonitoring for Regulatory Science.” $407,539 (NSF)

– “Flame Retardant Chemicals: Their Social Discovery as a Case Study for Emerging Contaminants” $432,676 (NSF)

– Addition (ViCTER) to “Ethical and Legal Challenges in Communicating Individual Biomonitoring and Personal Exposure Results to Study Participants: Guidance for Researchers and Institutional Review Boards.” $1,205,048 (NIEHS)adds partners: Harvard Law School, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Department of Computer Science


Led to other pending grant:

• “Data Sharing and Privacy Protection in Digital-Age Environmental Health Studies” approx. $2,000,000 (NIEHS)adds partner: Harvard Department of Computer Science (additional computer scientist)

If it’s that easy…???

Junior faculty to need to be aware of issues

• Potentially longer time in data gathering

• More complexity in developing projects and writing proposals

• Potentially longer time in writing articles

• Need to ensure that chairperson and senior faculty understand

• Need mentorship from senior faculty in the larger community of engaged scholars


EXAMPLE OF COLLABORATION

Linking Breast Cancer Advocacy and Environmental Justice

Community organizer learning air sampling

Silent Spring Institute

Brown University

Communities for a Better Environment

University of California-Berkeley


Linking Breast Cancer Advocacy & Environmental Justice – Project Tasks Conduct community-based exposure assessment in Cape

Cod and Richmond, CA Community-based outreach and education Develop guidelines for reporting back study results to

communities and individual study participants Pilot test an intervention to reduce household pollutant levels



Why would laypeople choose to be involved?Organizationally:

Citizens for a Better Environment has past history of scientific work

• Developed the “Bucket Brigade” for low-cost air sampling

• Tracking flares and emissions from the Chevron refinery

• Got MTBE cleanup rules

• Controlled dioxin dumping

Build capacity to do research and challenge environmental contaminants (specifically oil refineries and diesel emissions)

But, it’s their community organizers, not trained in science, who do the air sampling in our project


Why would laypeople choose to be involved?Community residents:

Trust in CBE’s past organizing work

Concern over lived experience of intense pollution from refinery and multiple other sources

Door-to-door recruiting educates and interests people


Processes in Collaboration Collaborative grant writing

Monthly teleconference (later, often bi-weekly)

Negotiate study site, sampling methods, and pollution sources to include

Learn from each other on data collection

Discuss how we gain as separate groups and as collaborative

Share presentations, documents, connections to other groups

Participate at each other’s events


Example of collaboration Choosing Bolinas as “clean” comparison

site

Develop a sampling frame that meets needs of both researchers and activists How to get volunteers into sample 20+20=100%


YOU MUST RSVP-SPACE IS LIMITED!Jessica Guadalupe Tovar, Community OrganizerCommunities for a Better Environment

510-302-0430 ext 24 office 415-596-3517 cell

Save The Date!!!Air Sampling Study in Richmond Follow-up EventSaturday March 24th 10am-12:45pmAll community members invited!Food, Music, Questions & AnswersLocated at Atchison Community Room-1 Collins & Curry Richmond, CA(Near West MacDonald & Gerrard Blvd)Speakers from

Silent Spring Institute, Brown University& Communities for a Better Environment BACKGROUND: In summer 2006 Communities for a Better Environment in Partnership with Silent Spring Institute & Brown University conducted an air sampling study in Atchison and Liberty villages. We took air samples from indoor and outdoors in order to identify chemicals in the air that may be linked to illnesses such as asthma and cancer. The full results are expected to take up to a year from when the sample was taken. Attend this event to find out more about the study, the status and the organizations.


Community Meetings – Building Relationships

Breakout sessions in English and Spanish

Community meal Music Scientific presentations in lay terms


Community Meeting 2008


A Guide to Reading Your Results

oooooooo

ooooooooo

ooo

o

ooo

oooooooooo

o

ooooooo

ooooooooooo

o

ooo

o

ooo

o

oooooo

o

ooo

o

o

oo

o

o

ooo

o

ooo

ooooo

o

ooooo ooooooo ooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooo

oo

o

o

ooooo

o

oo

o

o

o

o

o

o

oo

o

o

o

o

o

oooo

o

o

o

oo

o

o

o

oooo

ooooo

o

o

oooooooooo

ooooooo

o

o

ooooo

o

oo

o

ooooooo

o

ooo

ooo

oooo

o

ooooo

oo

oo

o

oo

oooo

o

o

oo

o

oooo

o

oo

o

o

oo

oooo

oooo

o

ooo oo

o

o

o

oo

oooo

o

oo

- - -

- -

--

- - - - -

-

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

Concen

tration (

microgr

ams per

cubic m

eter)

Particulate Matter, Ions and Metals in Air

Participant 47

Abbreviated Chemical Name

X shows the current EPA health guideline. If your bar is above the X, your results are higher than the guideline.

Your results are marked by orange bars.

If there is no orange bar, then the chemical was not detected in your home.

Each represents one other home’s indoor air result in the study, and each O represents one other home’s outdoor air result.

The column of circles shows the range of concentrations measured.

If your bar is near the top, your result was higher than most; if your bar is near the bottom, your result was lower than most.

You can find more information about each chemical by matching the abbreviation on the graph with the full name on the “Sources” chart.


oo

ooo

oo

o

oo

o

o

o

oooo

o

oooo

o

o

o

o

o

o

o o- -- -X X

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

Concentr

ation (

nanogra

ms p

er

cubic

mete

r)Pesticides in Air

Participant 4

Abbreviated Chemical Name


0

1

2

3

4

5

BDE 47 BDE 99 BDE 100

BDE Congener

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n in

Ho

use

Du

st (

m g/g

)

Cape Cod, MA

Atlanta, GA

Washington DC

Ottawa, Canada

Boston, MA

N. California

Median PBDE household dust concentrations across 6 regions in North America

2.7

3.8

0.730.25-0.67

0.37-1.0

0.07-0.17


Linking Breast Cancer Advocacy and Environmental Justice: Research Update

Atchison Village Auditorium April 5, 2008

Silent Spring InstituteCommunities for a Better EnvironmentBrown UniversityUniversity of California at Berkeley


Take Home Messages

Common sources of the 155 chemicals tested Industry (oil refining) Cars and trucks Consumer products (household pesticides, cleaners)

Chemicals from outdoor sources - industry & traffic Richmond higher than Bolinas (outdoor & indoor) Outdoor levels often lead to higher indoor levels

Chemicals from indoor sources - products, furniture, textiles Fewer differences between Richmond and Bolinas Indoor levels higher than outdoors Outdoor air not an important source


What did we find?

• 155 chemicals tested

• More chemicals in Richmond than Bolinas

• 79 chemicals in Richmond outdoor air

• 104 chemicals in Richmond indoor air


Outdoor Air: Richmond versus Bolinas

31

50

2 83 Total

Levels higher in Richmond

Levels similar across both communities

Levels higher in Bolinas

Num

ber

of

com

poun

ds


Mostly outdoor sources

Sulfates Nitrates Metals (8)

Outdoor air: 31 Compounds that are higher in Richmond compared to Bolinas

Outdoor & indoor sources

Particulate matter Ammonia PAHs (10) Soot/Black

carbon (2) Organic

carbon (4)

Mostly indoor sources

Phthalates (2) Disinfectant (1)


Mic

rogr

ams

per

Cub

ic M

eter

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

How to Read This Graph

This line is the median – half of the results are higher and half are lower.

The box encloses the middle half of the results. 25% of the results are higher than the top of the box and 25% are lower than the bottom.

The dots above this line show the highest ~5% of results.

How Much?

Location

more

less

The dots below this line show the lowest ~5% of results.

54


• Sources: cars and trucks, industries, smoking, and cooking

• Richmond is higher than Bolinas

• Indoor levels are higher than outdoor

• Particulates can cause respiratory and heart problems


Higher outdoor PM levels lead to higher indoor levels


Sulfates

• Sources: oil refining, power plants and other industries• Richmond higher than Bolinas• Higher outdoor levels lead to higher indoor levels• Higher sulfate content in PM linked to more health problems


Vanadium

• Sources: key marker for petroleum refining

• Richmond higher than Bolinas •Outdoor air is the major indoor source


April 5, 2008 Community Meeting:Residents Suggest Additional Comparison Sites and Research Approaches

Study Vallejo where there is a power plant and where there are similar demographics; that could lead to a useful comparison of different areas that both have major pollution sources.

Why didn’t you test for mercury since I found it in my soil at 50X higher than acceptable levels?

Look at chemicals that are now at or near EPA and Cal-EPA standards, and tell Richmond government that the refinery expansion would likely lead to exceedances.

Use the Environmental Impact Review (EIR) to see which pollutants are predicted to rise, and then see if those are the same chemicals we are finding in our data

Community could fight by arguing that expansion could violate state legislation on greenhouse gas emissions.


April 5, 2008 Community Meeting:Residents Push Action Will these data be useful to reduce exposure? Richmond authorities should take this data to Chevron and push them

to act appropriately in light of what we found. Our data should be used to push the Richmond City Council to act on

the community’s behalf. “They should have rushed the doors when they were kept out of the

hearing” [Chevron bused in 300 workers very early, leaving residents outside hearing]

Residents should write letters to the editor, including their personal experiences of living in Richmond.

Push City Council candidates for election and re-election to take a strong point on the refinery, using our data as ammunition

Everyone should speak at hearings, and that you don’t have to be a practiced speakers – merely getting up and telling a personal experience of living with such contamination is eloquent in its own right


People were using their own data CBE’s Northern CA director and a community organizer

presented some of the science, such as rationale for the project and sample selection

Residents clearly understood that we were not scientists collecting data to help ourselves, but that we were there with them strategizing on how to organize

We were not treated as distant scientists who were presenting material, but as part of a team with the local organizers.

The level of democratic science-making was very high.

In summary…

CBPR and community-engaged work: Energizes faculty, students, academic

departments Provides excellent training Offers wide potential for grants Gives many outlets for top-quality publication Provides great vehicle to integrate social, natural,

and life sciences Helps university better serve its many communities


New research stemming from issues you’ve heard about today

• Interdisciplinary research between social scientists and biomedical researchers– Taps an existing topic with only a few articles, which largely show

drawbacks to sociologists– My experience is far more positive, though there are some pitfalls– Learn from experience of federal programs, especially NIEHS – This will become increasingly common, so we need to learn more

about it– Social scientists are critical for CBPR, ethics, research translation– Interviewing social scientists who are collaborating with biomedical

scientists, with emphasis on environmental health

Documents

Engaged Scholarship in the Sciences: Community-Based Research, Service Learning, Grants, and Publications Phil Brown Professor of Sociology and Environmental