Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T03:25:50.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A University-Based Community Outreach Program: The Challenge of Providing “Neutral” Technical Assistance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

Anna K. Harding
Anna K. Harding*
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
*
Chair and Associate Professor, Department of Public Health, 256 Waldo Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-6406; (fax) 541-737-4001; (e-mail) anna.harding@orst.edu.
Get access

Extract

The Technical Outreach Services for Communities (TOSC) program is a unique university-based community outreach and “hybrid” technical assistance program designed to assist communities affected by hazardous waste problems. A distinct feature of the TOSC program is that it provides an alternate, independent source of technical assistance on demand, that is flexible and tailored to the identified needs of the community. Highlighted are two case studies depicting the challenges that the TOSC team faces in providing “neutral” technical assistance to communities. The results of these experiences demonstrate that scientists, engineers, and others working with communities first must be willing to engage in interdisciplinary teamwork, as problems are highly complex, often political, and require expertise across disciplines. Second, TOSC technical assistance efforts have been more successful when the scientific issues are framed in a community-specific cultural context. Third, it is necessary for the technical assistance team to improve their understanding of how communities work, to develop relationships with a broad base of affected stakeholders, and to gather the residents' perspectives of the issues and concerns facing the community. Finally, it is important that those providing technical assistance resist the temptation to offer generic scientific or engineering solutions for highly local problems, but rather focus on educating and empowering the community to make its own decisions regarding environmental cleanup.

Type
Features & Reviews
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 38 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1995. Community Involvement: A Response to Growing Diversity in Values. Hazardous Substances and Public Health 5(4):3–4.Google Scholar
Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS). 1993. Risk Assessment for the Quality Printed Circuits Facility. Arizona Department of Health Services, Phoenix, Arizona.Google Scholar
Barr, C., and Huxham, C.. 1996. Involving the Community: Collaboration for Community Development. In Creating Collaborative Advantage, Huxham, C., ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
Belsten, L. 1996. Community Collaboration in Environmental Decision-Making, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
Benjamin, S., and Belluck, D.. 1990. Risk Feedback: An Important Step in Risk Communication. Journal AWWA 82:50–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyer, J. and Trice, H.. 1982. The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis of Empirical Findings. Administrative Science Quarterly 27:591–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, J. 1994. Risk Communication in Environmental Restoration Programs. Risk Analysis 14(3):357–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dearing, J., Meyer, G., Casey, M., Campo, S., and Baker, E.. 1996. Evaluation of the Technical Outreach Services for Communities Pilot Program. Michigan State University, Department of Communication, East Lansing.Google Scholar
Furuseth, O. 1989. Impacts of a Sanitary Landfill: Spatial and Non-spatial Effects on the Surrounding Community. Journal of Environmental Management 31:269–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Heath, R. 1995. Corporate Environmental Risk Communication: Cases and Practices Along the Texas Gulf Coast. In Communication Yearbook, Burleson, B. R., ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 255–277.Google Scholar
Herman, S. 1994. Environmental Cleanup and Compliance at Federal Facilities: An EPA Perspective. Environmental Law 24(3):1097–1108.Google Scholar
Howell, R., and Olsen, D.. 1982. Citizen Participation in Nuclear Waste Repository Siting (ONWI–267). Prepared by Department of Rural Sociology, Washington State University for Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, Columbus, Ohio, Battelle Memorial Institute.Google Scholar
Irwin, A., Dale, A., and Smith, D.. 1996. Science and Hell's Kitchen: The Local Understanding of Hazard Issues. In Misunderstanding Science?, Irwin, A. and Wynne, , eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juanillo, N., and Scherer, C.. 1995. Attaining a State of Informed Judgments: Toward a Dialectical Discourse on Risk. In Communication Yearbook, Burleson, B. R., ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 278–299.Google Scholar
Keeney, R., and von Winterfeldt, D.. 1986. Improving Risk Communication. Risk Analysis 6(4):417–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krimsky, S., and Plough, A., A. 1988. Environmental Hazards: Communicating Risks as a Social Process. Auburn House, New York.Google Scholar
Kunreuther, H., and Slovic, P.. 1999. Coping with Stigma: Challenges & Opportunities. Risk Health, Safety & Environment 231:269–280.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1989. Improving Risk Communication. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Petts, J. 1994. Effective Waste Management: Understanding and Dealing with Public Concerns. Waste Management and Research 12:207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. 1997. Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management (Final Report, volume 1). Author, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Rich, R., Edelstein, M., Hallman, W., and Wandersman, A.. 1995. Citizen Participation and Empowerment: The Case of Local Environmental Hazards. American Journal of Community Psychology 23:657–676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothenbuhler, E. 1991. The Process of Community Involvement. Communication Monographs 58:63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowan, K. 1995. What Risk Communicators Need to Know: An Agenda for Research. In Communication Yearbook, Burleson, B.R. ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 300–319.Google Scholar
Scherer, C., McComas, K., Juanillo, N. Jr., and Pelstring, L.. 1999. Promoting Informed Decision-making: The Role of Message Structure. Risk Health, Safety & Environment 231:209–220.Google Scholar
Sever, L. 1997. Environmental Contamination and Health Effects: What is the Evidence? Toxicology and Industrial Health 13(2/3):145–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stern, P., and Fineberg, H., eds. 1996. Understanding Risk Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. National Academy Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
USEPA. 1992. Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook (Directive 9230.0–03C). USEPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Weterings, R. and Van Eijndhoven, J. 1989. Informing the Public About Uncertain Risks. Risk Analysis 9(4):473–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yellowtail, B. 1998–1999. Outreach to Cleanup Is an Important Part of Environmental Cleanup. Centerpoint 4(2):15.Google Scholar