The NOISE Project (https://noiseproject.org) is led by the ICBOs (Independent Community-based Organizations), representing communities historically excluded from the sciences. It is our experience that in the sciences, as in society, people of color are dismissed, which makes it even more critical for us to share our unfiltered research, voices and perspectives. Traditional scientific approaches in Public Participation in STEM Research often lead to extractive practices that are designed to benefit institutional power through funding and knowledge production, leaving communities feeling used and studied. Our project seeks to build more equitable research partnerships in which community knowledge and scientific knowledge are understood to be equally valuable and where there is a true exchange of expertise. Our goal is to document and better understand the co-creation of a community science project focused on noise pollution with the objective of increasing justice, diversity, equity and inclusion in STEM research and programming. Please read our research results in the journal BioScience: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac001, in InformalScience.org and on our Noise Project website.

In collaborations between communities historically excluded from the sciences and dominant culture STEM institutions, the NOISE Project recommends the intentional co-creation of equitable research practices that center race and call out unjust power dynamics so they can be subverted: (https://noiseproject.org/process/). Taking time to co-develop equitable processes, research protocols, and methodologies is essential to the success of STEM research and programming in view of the field's long history of exploitation, abuse, extraction, exclusion, and neglect. Communities must have greater agency and ownership. We recommend processes such as Working Agreements to guide diverse communities in working together harmoniously even during challenging times, Non-Negotiables for Doing Research and Evaluation in Minoritized Communities as a complement to the institutional IRB process that protects institutions and individuals instead of our communities; a consensus-based decision-making tool that intentionally balances power and privilege; and a community research framework that requires institutional researchers to grapple with historically oppressive dynamics present in scientific collaborations and challenge dominant-culture structures that create barriers to inclusive science. Dominant culture institutions must acknowledge how science has historically oppressed and exploited communities of color and indigenous communities so we can foster conversations that seek to understand, respect, and tackle the barriers that our communities face in the sciences. 

Our co-creation efforts with the Cornell Lab of Ornithology did not work out as we hoped. Our research points to a systemic pattern of behavior by dominant culture institutions that will not change if the status quo is not questioned.  Failures and mistakes provide opportunities to learn and grow and these lessons learned could be instructive and constructive to others. In the work of social justice and equity, the phrase "Centering Whiteness" is often used. This means that in the current system, our BIPOC communities must adjust, mold, and accommodate (and thus, "center") white institutions' desires, fears, demands, and fragility. Our research and documentation leads us to conclude that dominant culture institutions will interfere with community-led research efforts that lead to findings that expose institutional racism, power inequities, or have the potential to make practitioners feel fragile. When one considers the need to maintain the perceived institutional public image and the interests of powerful dominant-culture leaders and board members, there is a clear conflict of interests. Since STEM Institutions control the funding, research priorities, and evaluation, if they do not see the value of community leadership in research, and fear the public consequences of the work, there is little hope of creating meaningful change in addressing inequity in science. 

These results lead us to highlight the critical importance of funding communities directly, bypassing dominant culture STEM institutions, so that CBOs are able to control and build equitable projects that use community-centered approaches. CBOs must have direct access to resources, networks, and channels currently available only to dominant-culture institutions. Communities are tired of being studied, used, saved, and educated. Power inequities and lack of transparency will not be confronted, and race will not be centered if we do not change the system from a top-down, deficit approach to one that is bottom-up and based on community strengths and priorities. We must fundamentally change the scientific enterprise by providing direct funding to communities historically excluded from the sciences so that their leadership, expertise, and voices are not filtered by the existing system.

Finally, our research has also led us to understand that the success of STEM research and programming focused on our communities is best evaluated by community-led teams and must include indicators such as how much ownership communities have over the results. Evaluators (particularly BIPOC evaluators) may feel like they need to be cautious in their reporting due to the power that institutions hold and the repercussions that may come if they call out inequities. It is important that there are no mediating institutions with their own motivations and biases. 

Last Modified: 01/01/2023
Modified by: Karen A Purcell