Community-engaged research in the natural sciences: centering listening in the classroom
Kristy Kroeker
INTRODUCTION
Many of the undergraduate and graduate students I interact with in my Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department want to contribute to solutions to climate change. But many of them don’t know how to do this through careers in the physical and biological sciences. For example, many undergraduate students are drawn to my courses in global change biology because they love animals and they want to protect these animals from climate change. An undergraduate might undertake a project characterizing how warming will decrease the survival of a species of interest, but most undergraduates I encounter in the natural sciences don’t understand how to connect this information to actions that might affect this outcome or lessen its impacts. A graduate student studying the same process might have a more nuanced understanding of how scholarship in the natural sciences is used by people, but they still may be challenged in understanding how to facilitate societal or institutional change in their field of study. For example, one student might have identified that resource managers or Indigenous communities will likely be impacted by shifts in a particular species’ abundance or distribution, but they may not have identified who the actual resource managers or Indigenous communities are on the ground. Nor have they established whether these shifts are an area of interest for these communities.
Similar to my students, I also didn’t know how to connect my scholarship to solutions when I started my own career in ecology. Through a series of collaborations with resource managers, community partners, and Indigenous communities over many years, I began to understand how the answers I was providing weren’t really addressing the core questions my partners were asking. This was largely because I was forming my questions in an academic setting, separate from the communities most engaged in the issue or most impacted by my research findings (see Daniel and Ramirez-Ruiz, this volume). I have since come to understand that connecting scholarship in the natural sciences to solutions requires inclusive engagement and authentic relationships with community counterparts developed over time – relationships built upon understanding, empathy, and trust. These are not skills I learned in college or graduate school; nor were they themes central to my curriculum or pedagogical approaches as an instructor. I now endeavor to address these themes by explicitly teaching about engagement using activities centered around listening in my courses in the biophysical sciences. By doing so, I aim to promote equity, inclusivity, and belonging in the classroom and beyond.
Research in the natural sciences, even when applied, was historically considered a body of work done by trained “scientists,” separate from the social system in which it was embedded. Moreover, many undergraduate and graduate students in the natural sciences – myself included – were taught that people who might use the research findings should not be involved in framing research questions, due to the potential for bias or the assumption of bias. As a result, physical and biological research often occurs without input from those closest to the issue or those most likely to be impacted by the policy or practice implications. Similarly, ecology is often taught as if humans are external to the ecosystem. Without the knowledge, perspectives, and context of the human community, outcomes of the research program are less useful and equitable than they could be (see Kolden, this volume). Community-engaged research reverses some of these inequities with a focus on including the perspectives and assets of the people closest to the problems being studied. It places co-production of research at the center of all scholarship. Although community-engaged research was originally designed for social science, and in particular health and education research, the same principles can be applied to the natural sciences when we embrace the social-ecological context in which all ecosystems are embedded. Community-engaged research can provide a sense of ownership and belonging among all participants. Extending this framework to the classroom can similarly provide a sense of belonging and ownership in our students, particularly those historically disenfranchised from STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields, which can lead to transformative education, research, and action.
In my undergraduate and graduate-level courses, I have increasingly leaned on lessons surrounding community-engaged research to confront issues of inequity in global change ecology, both inside and outside the classroom. In this context, I not only teach students to consider engaging those closest to the research program early on, such that the research can be co-designed for use and improved by others’ perspectives and ways of knowing, but also to use inclusive engagement practices that incorporate communities that have historically been disenfranchised. Listening emerges as a powerful technique for teaching and promoting engagement that also transforms the classroom experience. By starting with listening activities, I attempt to challenge students’ perceptions of science communication and the research endeavor in general, moving from an outdated idea of engaged science being an expert providing information to an understanding that engaged research is built upon inclusivity, collaboration, facilitative leadership, and service. Moreover, by focusing on listening, I aim to promote engagement and belonging in my classroom as well.
SCIENCE TO SOLUTIONS: ILLUMINATING A PATH FOR CHANGE IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES
Growing up, I was alarmed by the threats to plants and animals caused by climate change. Our understanding of the impending impacts of climate change were nascent at the time I was entering college. In contrast, my current undergraduates and graduate students are now steeped in the reality of these threats to not only plants and animals, but also to their families, communities, and livelihoods. Much like my current students, I wanted to be part of the solution. Although global climate change is embedded in a complex, social-ecological system, I focused on the natural sciences, and ecology in particular, because I was drawn to the ecological part of the puzzle: the plants and animals that were threatened by climate change. As I came to the end of my undergraduate career, I found I had learned a lot about the ecological effects of climate change on these plants and animals, but I wasn’t sure how I would contribute to the solutions. This was in part because I was taught about the ecological systems without regard to the connections to our social systems, from the people most impacted by the potential ecological changes to the policies that might affect the outcomes. I took a number of years off between undergraduate and graduate school, trying to figure out where I plugged in. I eventually chose to go to graduate school in ecology to answer questions regarding how ocean ecosystems were likely to be impacted by global environmental change. I hoped I could stem the tide by doing research in a lab that encouraged policy relevance. As my research and scholarship developed over the years, I began to realize that my understanding of the solution space I hoped to work in was too small. At first, I thought I was working in the service of the plants and animals: preventing their extinction. In lots of ways, I still endeavor to serve these beings without voices. However, through a number of experiences, I also realized that my science and research, grounded in the natural sciences, needed to include people.
My first experience with science engagement was with policymakers. Searching for the elusive solution space for my research, I attended every training course I could in science communication and engagement. The courses were often focused on the nuts and bolts of “translating” scientific findings into messages that could be understood by and resonate with policymakers. We were trained to identify and remove jargon; and to focus on why the research findings were important for the policymakers we were speaking to, and how to bring our passion and excitement into our communication. These were all very useful skills for giving presentations or conversing with policy- makers around a decision point. This training prepared me for several briefings with federal and state-level policymakers, where the solutions associated with my research were federal bills that funded more scientific research on environmental change. These were incredibly impactful experiences for me – to see my research connect to society and inform decisions.
As I progressed in my career, I continued to pursue research in the solutions space for environmental change. In my early experiences with policymakers, I was chosen by individuals at boundary organizations to present at briefings because my research findings informed legislation that was being considered. However, I wanted more opportunities to contribute to solutions beyond these policy decision points. But the type of research I was searching for – which I now recognize as community-engaged research – needed a different skill set than I had been taught in my early science communication training. To contribute to tractable, durable solutions, I needed to engage with the communities of practice (or those who might use or be impacted by the research findings) to understand their needs, questions, and knowledge. In particular, I came to understand that for me to contribute to solutions, I needed community partners to help me develop the questions that I would address. By developing questions in collaboration with community partners, my partners had ownership in the process and helped develop more actionable outcomes.
While the field of community-engaged research has been developing for decades in the social sciences, the fact that I had to spend decades figuring out how to do this on my own highlights the lack of attention and traction it has garnered in the natural sciences. Based on the number of students I have interacted with in my ecology courses who want to contribute to change at this pivotal moment in the world’s history, I see promise in teaching about this framework in courses in the physical and biological sciences as well. Moreover, if we use this framework in our own teaching – by enlisting our students as partners in developing the questions we address in our courses – we can facilitate equity and inclusion in the classroom as well. By engaging students to develop their own questions in the classroom, we can facilitate belonging, retention and deeper understanding.
Listening as the Gateway for Engagement
When I first started teaching engagement to undergraduates and graduate students, I based my curriculum and lessons on the variety of science communication training I had personally attended, led by boundary organizations at the science–policy interface. In this setting, science communication is often taught as a one-way interaction, whereby the researcher communicates with an audience. Audience is a common frame in communication training that is often at the very core of the training – allowing the scientist to focus on the areas of relevance for that particular person or group of people. Similar to the problems identified in “outreach” by Daniel and Ramirez-Ruiz (this volume), the use of the term “audience” paints the picture of science communication as a one-way interaction, from the scientist or scholar to the passive recipient. The communication necessary for community-engaged research, however, is not one way. It is better described as dialogue, whereby the researcher is involved in a two-way or multi-way conversation with partners or community counterparts. Most importantly, this conversation is based on more than just talking. It is predicated on listening.
When I first decided to teach listening as a skill for undergraduates, as well as master’s and PhD students in the physical and biological sciences, I couldn’t find any resources to help me figure out how to teach college students and professionals to listen. My courses are very interactive, so I built my activities around active listening as well. I start by breaking students into pairs for several iterative listening sessions based around a series of broad, but introspective questions. I assign one person to speak and the other to listen. In the first round, the listener is asked not to speak – even if the speaker runs out of things to say. They are told that their entire role is to support the other person’s thinking by listening. The speaker’s job is to explore the concept covered in the question for the allotted time. Then I give them a time frame that is meant to exceed the short, perfunctory answer. What often happens is that the speaker gives their most direct response before pausing. There is an uncomfortable silence before the speaker picks up the question again from a different angle. This might be repeated two or three times. I then ask the students to switch roles, and I repeat the process with another question. Afterwards, we discuss their experiences as both a speaker and a listener. Typically, students realize how hard it is to sit and listen. Many of them have been trained to be thinking about how what someone is saying relates to themselves, and they miss a lot of information by listening through this lens. The speakers tend to reflect on how their thoughts developed and blossomed with more structured space and time.
I build from this activity with increasing levels of facilitation, moving from the concept of listening to understand someone to the idea of listening in support of someone’s thinking, or facilitative listening. Subsequent rounds of speaking and listening involve paraphrasing, where the listener is allowed to speak, but only in ways that are meant to clarify their own understanding of the speaker’s words. This can feel forced at first, but becomes more natural with practice. I underscore the importance of listening as a skill, which can only be improved through awareness and practice.
Through all of these activities, I emphasize the importance of authentic listening. While facilitative listening is a skill, your job as an authentic listener is to strive to understand the other person’s perspective. No more. No less. I come back to the concept of authentic listening and what it means for community-engaged research and each individual’s research process throughout the course.
Community-Engaged Research: An Avenue for JEDI (Justice Equity Diversity and Inclusion)
I once attended a talk by John Holdren – a previous science advisor to President Barack Obama and a professor at Harvard. His talk took place during the Trump administration, when many Western scientists felt that science as an institution was under attack. When questioned about this societal trend, he responded by talking about how we need to change how we teach science – from elementary school through graduate school. He argued that by teaching science as a set of facts, we create an unnecessary barrier between scientists and their communities. Some people know the facts (scientists), and others don’t (those not trained in science). First, this is a very narrow view of ways of knowing that connects Western knowledge systems to facts. Instead, if we teach students about the scientific process, we democratize science as a process or a structured way of approaching a problem borne from a certain cultural perspective, thereby making it available and understandable to every- one. If we teach people that science is one way of approaching a question, then science is available to everyone, whether you know the “facts” or not.
Community-engaged research builds on this idea. Science is not something that happens in an ivory tower, but it is one tool in service to us all. Science becomes one way of knowing that can inform our decisions. I believe that science is a powerful tool; and by listening to others and participating in our communities, scientists can support necessary decisions and actions. I like to think of it as science for the people, which starts by listening to the people.
The act of listening to our communities of practice builds collaboration. Authentic listening requires being open to new ideas and changing the direction of your research or scholarship when new ideas or insights emerge. Or it involves identifying questions that need to be addressed by someone other than yourself. For example, in my work studying the ecosystem services of seagrass communities in our shallow estuaries, my relationships with shellfish growers have fundamentally changed the questions I am asking. I am an expert in the ecological effects of ocean acidification. By listening, I learned that they think this is interesting, but ocean acidification is a threat that is far in the future.
Instead, they are not sure if they will still be in business by the time ocean acidification becomes a problem because their oysters are dying from heatwaves. Knowing this, I can shift my research program to address issues surrounding heatwaves; or I can introduce the shellfish growers to colleagues who are working on these issues already. This idea of authentic listening and flexibility in purpose is a challenging concept for undergraduate and graduate students, who often have some ideas of what they want to do already in mind. It also highlights the importance of engagement early on in any research project.
For community-engaged research to be just and equitable, it is important that scientists are listening to a diverse range of voices. I often teach a lesson in my classes where I have students brainstorm all of the human communities or individual people that could be impacted by the problem they are interested in working on or their research findings. I then push them one step further to think about the voices that are not usually included in these lists. Who are the communities or individuals that are disenfranchised or excluded? These are the voices that we need to listen to the most. My students are often unsure of how to engage with these communities, and my answer always involves authenticity and listening. Recognizing that some communities have very real, substantial limits to their interest or ability to engage with researchers, I encourage them to start by listening.
CONCLUSION
Listening is a powerful tool for promoting engagement, equity, and justice in our fields of study and our classrooms, including environmental justice. By teaching students about community-engaged research, I aim to reframe the academic or scientific process in natural sciences as a series of tools – one of many different ways of knowing or approaching a problem, which are available to anyone – and to reclassify scholars or scientists as community partners trained in how to use these tools. By teaching authentic listening, I aim to explicitly break down power structures and facilitate belonging or ownership in the solution space by including a wider range of voices – including those of my students. While I have focused here on how I teach listening to facilitate an inclusive scientific process, taking the time to discuss and practice listening can promote inclusivity in any classroom. After discussing how to listen for understanding and to paraphrase in support of another person’s thinking, I model this in my classroom discussions – in an effort to promote student engagement, belonging and ownership. By practicing authentic listening myself, I also open myself up to learning with my students and continually revisiting my curriculum and pedagogical approaches (see Daniel and Ramirez-Ruiz; Kolden, this volume).