Questions around partnership meetings –how to facilitate them, how to make sure they are effective, how to make them collaborative and equitable– have recently risen to the top of our conversations across the network. Partly because of the need to hold many more virtual meetings during Covid-times, this renewed interest has prompted us to reconsider the importance and “how tos” of meetings in research-practice partnerships (RPPs). As we thought more deeply about partnership meetings, we realized their critical role in being the “place” where true partnership work actually happens: While stakeholder groups do engage in separate work in the course of an RPP project, the essence of “joint work”, a hallmark of RPPs, occurs in partnership meetings. Indeed, meetings are where problems of interest are co-identified and negotiated, key decisions are collaboratively thought through, and opportunities for relationship building frequently occur. 

In spite of the crucial role meetings play in partnership work, there are few resources available on how to hold equitable partnership meetings. If we hope to facilitate any of the core activities outlined above in the context of RPP meetings, special care must be taken to ensure that “joint work” is, in fact, supported. Although we’ve previously offered guidance around holding partnership meetings more generally, here we focus exclusively on key ways to support equitable partnership meetings, outlining guiding questions and useful tips we encountered in our scan of available resources, combined with our own networked-sourced knowledge of promising practices.

The Special Importance of Meeting #1

Before we head into the discussion of what to do in meetings, we first clarify the types of meetings you may encounter in partnership work, making a special distinction between the first meeting of your RPP (i.e., “Meeting #1”) and subsequent meetings (see Table 1). 

Meeting #1 may be one of the most important meetings (or set of meetings, really) your partnership will ever hold, as it is in that meeting where partners first come together before the work actually commences. In our experience, we have seen a general trend towards using Meeting #1 to plan what the partnership will work on as opposed to using it to plan how stakeholder groups will work together. One result of this prioritization is that the RPP may end up launching straight into the work without having first discussed a number of important considerations for collaboration, including establishing and documenting equitable ground rules that will support the meaningful participation of stakeholders. In the absence of such discussions, it can be quite easy for the RPP to adopt pre-existing power imbalances among partners that will inevitably influence stakeholder participation and move the partnership in the wrong direction with respect to equitable engagement.

Table 1. Description of Typical Partnership Meeting Types

We thus strongly recommend that these crucial conversations to take place during Meeting #1. And because this initial meeting is so important, in what follows, we’ll spend the bulk of this article offering a number of guiding questions for partnerships to reflect on as they plan for Meeting #1, with practical suggestions under each question.

Guiding Questions for Meeting #1

The main goal of Meeting #1 is to establish ground rules, norms, and clear processes that will guide equitable collaboration going forward. Note that the routines themselves should be developed equitably, with meaningful input from a diverse set of stakeholders. To create an equitable environment, it can be helpful to agree on norms of interaction. For example, partnerships might work to create space for multiple truths, whereby meeting attendees embrace different perspectives and seek to understand others’ truths;  acknowledge impact versus intent, whereby meeting attendees recognize that the things they say or do may have unintended negative impacts on others and take accountability for such impacts; and be willing to be uncomfortable, whereby learning from mistakes is prioritized over arriving at “tidy resolutions” (Resource Media, 2018). 

To help facilitate discussions, we offer the following guiding questions to consider together during Meeting #1:

>>How will the partnership enable key stakeholders to collaboratively build meeting agendas?

Meeting agendas are a critical element in organizing the work and prioritizing what needs attention. If only one or two people are determining what shows up on the agenda, then the perspectives of those one or two people will end up having an outsized influence on the direction of the meetings, and in turn may have an outsized influence on the direction of the partnership itself. Thus, the facilitation of equitable partnership meetings starts by encouraging many voices to contribute to meeting agendas. 

We suggest:

• Creating a shared Google document where all meeting agendas are stored and that all stakeholders have access to. Partnership members could then be invited to add, edit, or comment on agenda items prior to a meeting, making for a “living” document. During the meeting, a designated notetaker can take notes on the same document, so that all meeting attendees see the outcomes of each agenda item being recorded in real time and can also review or search meeting notes at any later time – the agenda and notes for each meeting would be stacked upon the next (Green, 2017). (More on notetaking below.)  
• Allocating different agenda items to specific meeting attendees (ideally, those who put these items on the agenda as especially crucial to them), which can also help keep meetings efficient and ensure multiple voices are heard (Green, 2017). 
• Stating your desired meeting outcomes in the agenda at the outset (Banse & Lee, 2020) and defining what success looks like for the meeting – for example, perhaps learning together is the goal of a meeting and makes it successful even if not all problems get solved or questions answered (Resource Media, 2018).

>>How will the partnership mitigate unequal dynamics of power and privilege during meetings?

Although RPPs by design address the historical imbalance of power that has characterized the production of research knowledge, power dynamics can still be a challenge throughout RPP work and specifically during partnership meetings. Meeting attendees must be conscious of and explicitly challenge power dynamics, especially historical patterns of power and participation (AORTA, 2017; National Equity Project, 2013) based on a number of factors, including age, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, national origin, race, and gender as well as the intersections of these factors.

We suggest:

• Mitigating unequal dynamics by rotating meeting facilitation and/or leadership roles when possible (Youth Development Executives of King County [YDEKC]) or by holding meetings at locations that help partners that might traditionally feel less empowered be more comfortable – for example, holding meetings on school district grounds rather than a university campus (Lash, Wortel-London, & Velesaca, 2018).
• Using jargon-free language that everyone understands, even in the meeting agenda (YDEKC). 
• Making an explicit effort to have all voices be heard by, for example, breaking meeting participants into small groups for part of the meeting, which can make participation and exploration of ideas easier (YDEKC) and ensure that everyone feels safe to contribute ideas and disagree with others (Lash, Wortel-London, & Velesaca, 2018; National Equity Project, 2013).

>>How will the partnership recognize and respect multiple forms of expertise and ensure diverse representation of expertise at meetings?

Related to issues of power dynamics and privilege, expertise has also historically been attributed to only certain individuals in the production of research. Challenging these assumptions, the very concept of an RPP is based on the acknowledgement that researchers, practitioners, community members, and other stakeholders all hold valuable expertise. Partnership meetings are one of the best mechanisms to ensure that these various kinds of expertise get to actively contribute to the partnership work. While different meetings might require different participants, the core partnership team should include someone from each relevant stakeholder group (YDEKC).

We suggest:

• Consistently having the p-side voice present at meetings (Lash, Wortel-London, & Velesaca, 2018). One way of explicitly acknowledging expertise beyond including different stakeholders in meetings is to name practice-side partnership members as co-PIs on grants whenever possible (Lash, Wortel-London, & Velesaca, 2018).
• Developing equitable processes for determining who the relevant experts are that need to attend a given meeting, whereby diverse stakeholders get to define the kind of representative expertise that is needed. RPP brokers might have an important role in seeking out experts given a meeting’s purpose and goals due to their familiarity with a number of actors across partner organizations.
• Acknowledging that no single person knows everything but that the group can best learn together, make new meaning together, and expand everyone’s thinking together (AORTA, 2017; National Equity Project, 2013).

>>How will the partnership allocate key meeting roles and responsibilities?

Two key roles include the meeting’s facilitator and notetaker. The facilitator plays an important role in ensuring that meetings are equitable by balancing power dynamics, which includes (respectfully) calling out instances of unequal dynamics, such as when something hurtful is said or when a specific group of people is repeatedly interrupted (AORTA, 2017). The facilitator should additionally pay attention to the group’s tone and body language, which can also reveal inequitable dynamics (AORTA, 2017). In terms of the meeting notetaker, they too hold power in that they determine how information is recorded and “therefore remembered” (Green, 2017). Taking notes is especially important for documenting collective decisions and meeting outcomes (YDEKC). 

When establishing these roles, we recommend keeping in mind the underlying power dynamics that can result in unintentional reinforcement of the very dynamics your partnership might be trying to address (for example, assigning the notetaking responsibilities to the only woman on the team).

We suggest:

• Electing a meeting facilitator who is not already in a management position or leading one of the teams / organizations involved in the partnership meeting (Green, 2017) – for example, consider having a broker facilitate the meeting (Kulshreshtha, 2020), as brokers already function as a bridge between different groups and are familiar with the priorities of different stakeholders while being more neutral than direct representatives of any stakeholder group or involved partnering organization. 
• Electing one designated notetaker or scribe, as that will help with clarity (Green, 2017). At the same time, be aware that this role should entail more than passive note taking and be willing to give the scribe the power to step in at any time during the meeting and request clarity when needed (Green, 2017).
• Sharing the meeting notes in real-time, by giving everyone access to the same Google document where the notetaker is currently taking notes. This will also allow for someone in the meeting to take notes while the notetaker is talking, which is something that is easily missed if not assigned.

Good Practices No Matter the Meeting

While the above recommendations focus on key aspects of the discussions that should occur during Meeting #1, we now turn to a number of general good meeting practices your RPP should consider adopting, regardless of the meeting type:

1. Regarding calendar invites:

a. Make sure to send one as soon as everyone has agreed upon a date/time

b. Do NOT send a calendar invite without first confirming whether that day/time works for meeting participants

c. Even if a calendar invite has been provided and your participants have RSVP’d, it’s still a good idea to confirm the meeting via email reminder either the day before or the morning of

2. When sending a calendar invite or reminder, we also recommend sending a link to the team’s shared meeting agenda document as well.

3. Consider what activities can be done without meeting so as to use the time together most efficiently. It’s important to recognize that not every partner is being compensated in the same way for participating (i.e., time spent on the project might be “paid for” for some members of the project, such as the PI, whereas others are essentially donating their time – be respectful and mindful of that privilege).

4. A good way to close a meeting with equity in mind is to offer acknowledgement to individuals’ or teams’ contributions (Banse & Lee, 2020).

In Closing: A note on the role of equitable meetings in overall RPP equity

Equitable partnership meetings are, of course, a natural extension of equitable partnerships; thus, another way to think about equitable partnership meetings is to consider how the partnership itself realizes equitable engagement. For example, this resource defines equity in RPPs as “all partners [having] shared interest and equal voice in the purpose, conduct, and outcomes of a study” (Ryoo, Choi, & McLeod, 2015) and identifies a number of characteristics of equitable partnerships that can directly be applied to partnership meetings, including challenging unequal power dynamics, acknowledging and placing equal value on all diverse types of experience and knowledge, and collaboratively defining research goals and definitions of success – all of which also show up on our list of guiding questions and practical suggestions above. 

In this article in a previous issue of NNERPP Extra, the authors make the case that a truly equitable partnership centers equity across three domains: in the partnership itself, in the research, and in practice / implementation. Within this framework, partnership meetings fall within the “partnership” domain, which considers equity in interactions, dialogue, and institutional structures within the RPP. However, we would argue that partnership meetings also have a role to play in the “research” and “practice/implementation” domains, as meetings are where the collaborative work comes alive. Similarly, this previous NNERPP Extra article about attending to equity in evaluating RPPs mentions meetings as a mechanism to achieve equity goals in terms of developing equitable relationships and equitable systems. 

Finally, the thoughts we previously put forth in this NNERPP Extra article on applying lessons identified by Chicago Beyond to an RPP context also apply to the more specific context of partnership meetings; in particular, the reflections we surfaced around validity and access are quite relevant to partnership meetings and also emerge to some extent throughout the previous paragraphs.

Without a doubt, equitable meetings play an important role in overall RPP equity. An RPP’s meetings might even give important insights into an RPP’s overall health: Tense and ineffective meetings that do not emphasize collaborative meeting agendas, the lifting up of all voices and expertise, and a thoughtful approach to meeting facilitating and notetaking might signal problems of inequity or power within the partnership as a whole. At the same time, meetings are a mechanism through which to improve a partnership’s progress towards equity goals. To that end, we hope you test out the guiding questions and suggested practices described above in your RPPs’ quest to support equitable joint work – let us know how it goes!

Paula Arce-Trigatti is Director and Nina Spitzley is Marketing Specialist of the National Network of Education Research-Practice Partnerships (NNERPP).

REFERENCES

Anti-Oppression Resource & Training Alliance (AORTA). (2017, June). Anti-Oppressive Facilitation for Democratic Process: Making Meetings Awesome for Everyone. https://aorta.coop/portfolio_page/anti-oppressive-facilitation/ 

Banse, L., & Lee, F. (2020, June 5). Introduction to Virtual Meetings and Equitable Facilitation Techniques [PowerPoint slides]. Communities of Opportunity and Resource Media. https://www.coopartnerships.org/blog/2020/6/5/training-introduction-to-virtual-meetings-and-equitable-facilitation-techniques 

Green, C. (2017, July 14). 4 Hacks for Engaging Collaborative Meetings (that don’t suck!). Round Sky Solutions Blog. https://www.roundskysolutions.com/engaging-collaborative-meetings/ 

Kulshreshtha, N.  (2020, July 6). How to Run Collaborative Meetings Effectively? Fireflies Blog. https://blogs.fireflies.ai/how-to-run-collaborative-meetings/ 

Lash, T., Wortel-London, S., & Velesaca, J. (2018). RPPforCS Theme Study: Trust. CSforAll. https://www.csforall.org/projects_and_programs/rppforcs-theme-study-trust/ 

National Equity Project. (2013, October 17). Three Keys to Effective and Equitable Meetings. https://www.nationalequityproject.org/blog/three-keys-to-effective-and-equitable-meetings?rq=meeting

Resource Media. (2018, August 7). Community Agreements. https://resource-media.org/embedding-equity-justice-culture-community-agreements/community-agreements-1-pager/  

Ryoo, J. N., Choi, M., & McLeod, E. (2015, October 27). Building Equity in Research-Practice Partnerships. Research + Practice Collaboratory. http://researchandpractice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BuildingEquity_Oct2015.pdf 

Youth Development Executives of King County (YDEKC). (n.d.). Tip Sheet: Planning Equitable Collaboration Meetings.  https://ydekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Tip-Sheet-Equitable-Meetings.pdf

Suggested citation: Arce-Trigatti, P., & Spitzley, N. (2021). How to Hold Equitable Partnership Meetings. NNERPP Extra, 3(1), 19-24.