How do histories affect our work?

I just got back from doing a workshop with the Alliance for Research in Chicagoland Communities. Several participants spoke about the importance of beginning partnership with open discussions of history. Or should I say histories. The history of research in neighborhoods. The history of the universities and their relationship to the communities. This proposal to air out history came in the context of a discussion of trust-building activities. Trust, as we know, is a critical component of successful partnerships.

Is there another advantage to having a discussion of history early on? Would it help to frame the strengths of the community and the university, and the challenges both need to overcome in order to achieve health promoting change? Is it possible the discussion might actually uncover some interesting knowledge about the history of policies and their impacts on the community?

I recently met a young historian who specializes in criminal justice. She really opened my eyes to the potential value of that discipline to policy change. Understanding what has been done and how it was done informs our understanding of what can be done. Are there any partnerships out there who are working with historians or who consciously use history as part of their policy development process?

From subjects to citizens

Last week I attended the "Translating Science to Policy: Protecting Children's Environment Health" conference put on by the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health and WEACT. As a parent this conference was overall chilling, but also motivating. Sandra Steingraber spoke with particular eloquence on a point of interest for researchers, advocates and community residents alike. She said that one of the big mistakes of the environmental health movement in the last 15 years was to address people as consumers rather than citizens.

This insight made me think about changes in research attitudes over the years from traditional biomedical research to intervention research to CBPR. Researchers have been moving away from thinking of people as subjects. Participants is a word favored in CBPR circles. Clients in intervention research. It seems that for the most part we are still missing that leap, the leap that Sandra Steingraber has taken, of seeing all people as citizens - that is as political actors.

One appeal of intervention research and of CBPR is that you don't have to wait to complete research to begin to address identified problems. This instinct is a good one, many problems our communities face are serious or even dire. However, as Steingraber pointed out, on many issues we can't afford the time to research, to educate the public, and to wait for policy reform. From chemical regulation to emissions control to criminal justice reform, some problems impacting human health need immediate action. Is it possible that beginning to think of our research participants, our communities, and ourselves as citizens is a first step in achieving the kind of rapid policy reform that is necassary for our survival?

How might viewing yourself and the people you work with as citizens first affect your research, change strategies, and desired outcomes?