Challenge power dynamics

Challenge power dynamics

It is easy to underestimate, or not be aware of, the implicit power that comes from being an ‘institution’, both as a venue/space, a nationally known organisation or as a part of the science sector. A science centre, museum, university, or learned society can be perceived externally as being powerful and intimidating.

As your partnership grows, try to keep unpicking any assumptions about priorities, perceptions and motivations that either party may have made about the other partner. Otherwise, this will continue to impact on how partners feedback and interact.

You may find you need to talk about a shared language. Historical terms commonly used in informal science learning (such as ‘disadvantaged’ or ‘deprivation’) are often considered inappropriate.

Changes made in response to questions and challenges about power dynamics can be a useful thing to capture over the course of the relationship (see section on Evaluation in Practice) so prioritise putting time aside for shared reflective practice and regular communication. This can help challenge perceived power dynamics and support a healthy and effective partnership to flourish.

I can't really say that one group is leading the other one, we are just interacting together in a very good way, and we just try to make things happen in the best way possible... we have the experience of how we can run it in the best way in the community and they know how it's best to run it to make it more interesting for local children, so that's a nice combination.

Community Partner, Cambridge

Find each other’s superpowers

Each partner brings unique gifts to the partnership. Neither should relinquish all control, but partners should feel able to lead where their expertise lies. With trust and honesty, partnerships should feel able to feedback honestly to each other.

Always develop your partnership from an asset-based approach. Avoid the perception of any partner as being in deficit (‘lacking’ or ‘missing’ something). Always consider what you both bring, such as different approaches, ideas, spaces, networks, skills and expertise.

What your partner might bring:
Your community partner may bring trusted relationships with individuals, cultural and linguistic expertise, safeguarding training, co-design and evaluation. Working with a partner will bring renewed energy, enthusiasm and expertise in areas different from your own, and add valuable breadth of perspective to your organisation.

What you might bring:
Informal Science Learning organisations can bring a lot to the partnership beyond science resources and expertise. This could be providing a venue, wider learning resources, advocacy and dissemination, or the opportunity for youth work experience and developing employability skills.

All partners have resources and assets, and an effective partnership creates a resource pool that every partner can draw on. Museums have successfully partnered with libraries, schools, churches and other cultural institutions, to cooperate and share resources and spaces rather than compete.

P. Bienkowski and H. McGowan, Managing Change in Museums and Galleries

Equity in decision making

The way we position ourselves in a relationship will pre-determine how equitable and collaborative our partnership will be. When approaching a new partner organisation, be transparent. Share a copy of the project proposal, including the budget line, so that your partner understands the aims of the project and what support is available. Equally, when making important decisions, ensure that the community partner has the same number of representatives as you. This prevents you from dominating any discussions. Keep asking the question – at each decision-point – who has representation, who does not have a voice, who is not in the room who should be in the room?

Equity in funding

When sharing the proposal be sure to be transparent and open about the project budget. Withholding information or being unclear shows that you place yourself in a higher position of authority. Funding can cause an uncomfortable power imbalance, so keep challenging yourself and your organisation. A crucial step towards equitable working is to ensure staff costs across all partnering organisations (including volunteers) are valued in the budget. Best practice would be to prepare the funding proposal together. This ensures a more equitable and co-produced delivery, evaluation and budget plan from the very start.

However, it is important to acknowledge that there is a risk to beginning these conversations with new community partners based on a grant application that may not be successful, so be cautious on the depth of your scoping interactions if this is at a cost to your community partner.

Usually a single organisation holds the funding and is the main party leading the application, the budget, and is required to submit the evaluation. They often ultimately decide the scope of the programme and what success looks like unless the funder specifically encourages more active involvement.

The administrative pressure might feel appropriate to be shouldered by the bigger organisation that might be better placed (e.g. having dedicated finance personnel and audited accounts) to help process this. However, in some experiences, this opportunity to hold the funds – if desired by the community group – can help develop a longer-term capacity to hold funding in the future and become more self-sustainable.

It is important to be aware that funding doesn't solve everything, for example those who might have caring responsibilities, rural communities, small organisations often overwhelmed to deliver services, or community members who aren't doing this as their main jobs. For many, time can't simply just be 'bought out'.

Lewis Hou, Science Ceilidh

At a mid-point during Explore Your Universe Phase 4, funding was allocated directly to community partners to support their ongoing engagement with STFC science. Learning from this explores the power dynamics around who holds funding, the different agendas and opportunities that can develop, and when/why it’s often not all about the money.

Where money is given directly to the community partners, science centres’ support around proposal development (e.g. what activities might be feasible and how they could be used) was very valuable. In addition community partners found science centres’ knowledge – such as ideas of where to source the supplies and which are high quality – was particularly useful to reduce administrative burdens.

As highlighted throughout this handbook, flexibility on behalf of the science centres was key. As organisations and as a network, their systems and processes could be responsive and nimble to adapt to changing priorities or needs.

The more informal science learning and education organisations are able to serve the provisions, priorities and ambition of their community partners, the more they become genuine community assets.