Case Studies in Advancing Community Priorities Through Museum-Community Participatory Science Partnerships

Evolving community partnerships

The museum and citizen science fields have seen ongoing calls to expand beyond traditional models of public engagement and build co-creative partnerships with communities (McCreedy et al. 2018; Allison 2019; Hall et al. 2024; Foo and Stanlick 2025). In the seminal publication for informal science education, Broadening Perspectives on Broadening Participation, McCreedy et al. (2018) describe and challenge traditional program models “designed by the STEM institution or organization seeking to ‘serve’ a given community” (p. 55). For museums, this applies to many common program types, including exhibits, workshops, lectures, events, and outreach (Lee, Shin, and Choi 2004). McCreedy et al. argue that these “top-down design processes,” while well intentioned, “typically reinforce dominant cultural norms in STEM… and thus deepen divides between organizations and their communities” (p. 55).

Alternative community engagement models often present a spectrum of approaches, encouraging practitioners to move from transactional models—where community members participate as recipients or informants—towards increasingly collaborative models in which communities are co-leaders throughout projects, from ideation to dissemination (Arnstein 1969; Bonney et al. 2009; Resnik, Elliot, and Miller 2015; Center for Implementation 2024; IAP2 2024).

This movement toward co-creation has emerged in other fields, such as medicine (Fiske, Prainsack, and Buyx 2019), computer science (Greenhalgh et al. 2016), public health (Morales-Garzón et al. 2023), climate adaptation (Ziervogel et al. 2021), and beyond. This collaborative scientific work is associated with many positive outcomes, like improved community empowerment (Robinson, Delany and Sugden 2024) and physical and mental health outcomes (Halvorsrud et al. 2019).

There are several recent examples in the museum context that, like the case studies presented here, model deeply collaborative community partnerships. Projects have monitored and publicly shared water quality data in New York (CSI n.d.); measured and combatted heat islands in Richmond, Virginia (Hoffman 2017); and deliberated on and built solutions for misinformation impacts in Colorado (Institute for Science & Policy 2021). The Museum of Life and Science (Case Study 2) has previously written about the “Watershed Model” for community engagement, which describes the interconnectedness of actions, with more powerful museum partners affecting their “downstream” community partners, and emphasizes trust-building as an essential interpersonal component of collaborative processes (Cawley et al. 2023).

The case studies here responded to the call for greater co-creation. From the funding mechanism to project design and implementation, and interpretation and sharing of results, these projects were built on equitable partnership between museums and community organizations, and offer lessons for other co-creative work.

The Association of Science and Technology Center’s community science initiative

In 2018, the Association of Science and Technology Centers (ASTC) conducted listening sessions with its members (primarily science centers and museums), who expressed a desire for practical tools and strategies for deeper, more collaborative community engagement. In response, ASTC created a framework to outline community-driven participatory science practices that, at the time, were described disparately across sources both in- and outside the museum field (Storksdieck, Stylinski, and Bailey 2016; Vaughn and Jacquez 2020; Charles et al. 2020; Haklay et al. 2021). A rigorous literature review, interviews, and workshops refined ASTC’s definition of community science as “a way of working” where “community members collaborate with one another, scientists, and science engagement practitioners to conduct and leverage scientific research to advance community priorities and improve community wellbeing” (ASTC 2022).

While closely related to other participatory science practices, including citizen science, community science, as defined in this context, is specifically centered on priorities communities identify as important to them. Citizen science—typically defined as research conducted by members of the public (Eitzel et al. 2017; Vaughn and Jacquez 2020)—can fall under ASTC’s definition of community science, but only in cases where research questions and processes originate from the community conducting the research, rather than an outside expert. One example from the museum field is the Citizen Science, Civics, and Resilient Communities project, which began by convening community members to identify the specific climate hazards citizen scientists would then study (Sittenfeld et al. 2022).

In community science, community members collaborate as full partners, sharing leadership and power throughout a project’s duration. ASTC’s Community Science Framework (see Figure 1) outlines various approaches, attributes, and outcomes associated with this work.

Figure 1

ASTC’s community science framework supports science centers and museums in better understanding, implementing, and advocating for community science. It also informs ASTC’s Community Science Initiative offerings, which include resources, networking opportunities, professional development, and funding.

In 2023, ASTC launched the Partnership Planning Seed Grant (PPSG) to support museums in building new community partnerships (or strengthening existing ones), while working collaboratively to develop plans for future community science projects. This grant program aimed to address an issue raised by ASTC members and other funders and practitioners (Caplan 2024): that existing grant processes did not allow sufficient time and flexibility to build trust-based, equitable relationships with community partners. Rather than focusing on external project deliverables, these six-month, $8,000 USD grants exclusively focused on building partnerships, establishing trust, and identifying mutual goals. Beyond providing funding, the PPSG offered professional development opportunities including monthly virtual workshops with ASTC staff and other awarded teams, advisors to coach each team, and manuals, workbooks, and templates to support partnerships and project development.

ASTC provided feedback to teams prior to application submission to increase equity for teams with less grant writing experience. Rather than a final grant report, which often places undue burden on grantees and provides little value to grantmakers (Bettis and Pepin 2019), grantees submitted actionable project plans that could be used to seek further funding. All three projects highlighted in this paper participated in ASTC’s PPSG program; two (Case Studies 2 and 3) received additional funding through ASTC’s subsequent Cultivating Community Science Stipend (CCSS) program. The PPSG program awarded seven teams in total; the three presented here were selected to illustrate a range of partnerships, topical foci, approaches, and outcomes.

Partners

• Museum: The Wild Center (TWC)—A natural history center in New York’s Adirondacks that aims to ignite an enduring passion for nature that inspires action toward a thriving natural world.

• Community partner: Cornell Cooperative Extension of Franklin County (CCEFC) —A nonprofit that aims to enable people to improve their lives and communities through partnerships that put experience and research knowledge to work.

Community-identified priority

Protect the health of birds, farms, people, and ecosystems from highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) impacts.

Project goal

Develop a collaborative science project that leverages research institutions and engaged citizens to increase collection of relevant HPAI data.

Project context

Newly detected in New York, HPAI is spread by migratory birds with devastating effects on domestic and wild animal populations. However, limited data exist to fully understand the disease’s impact (CDC 2024). Northern New York—including Adirondack Park, which spans nearly one third of the state—is uniquely vulnerable to HPAI due to the region’s reliance on two industries affected by HPAI: agriculture and outdoor tourism.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted supply chain challenges in the region’s remote and rural areas. More people began raising backyard poultry to increase self-reliance and decrease economic challenges from high food prices (Coffin-Schmitt et al. 2023). The pandemic also dramatically increased the number of outdoor recreationists, increasing human health concerns from interactions with diseased wildlife. Increased human-wildlife interaction and at-home poultry-raising have drastically augmented potential HPAI impacts and the need for additional research. The project team recognized that populations most affected by HPAI, including families who raise poultry and outdoor recreationists, could be leveraged for a related community-driven citizen science project.

Partnership overview

When TWC learned of ASTC’s PPSG funding opportunity, they reached out to CCEFC to gauge their interest. Shared history and aligned missions helped the organizations solidify a formal partnership. Each brought distinct strengths and connections to different communities; TWC’s network includes nature enthusiasts and conservation-minded individuals, while CCEFC works closely with farmers and rural communities. Together, they formed an ideal team to engage diverse regional audiences, share leadership, and connect people to a common community goal.

Project overview

Through the time, funding, and training provided through the PPSG, TWC and CCEFC co-developed a project idea that would bring together scientists, educators, and local communities to better understand and respond to HPAI. The team aimed to create a community-driven citizen science research model pairing local observations with high-tech tracking data. The concept included recruiting a graduate student or intern to lead research planning, partner coordination, and installation of tracking towers to monitor migratory bird activity. Community forums, stakeholder meetings, and training sessions would help volunteers collect meaningful data, turning them into critical contributors to collaborative wildlife and disease research.

The project was conceptualized to take place over one year in four phases:

1. Determine community priorities, identify stakeholders, establish meeting schedules, identify research sites, develop a research plan, and hire an intern or graduate student.

2. Hold dialogue and deliberation events, install monitoring equipment, and begin research planning.

3. Implement community outreach, community science data collection, and research analysis protocols.

4. Collect and analyze data, disseminate project findings, debrief community partners, and pursue funding opportunities.

Significantly, the project aimed to create connections between groups that rarely intersect: outdoor recreation enthusiasts, birders, farmers, educators, and researchers. Through this collaboration, the project would build a network of trained, engaged volunteers who could mobilize quickly during HPAI outbreaks or other emerging environmental threats.

Challenges and opportunities

As planning progressed, it became clear the project’s scope was greater than partners anticipated. The scale of coordination, outreach, and research support required to realize the full vision exceeded the team’s financial and logistical resources. Both partners were science education organizations that had little experience conducting research; neither held the expertise to know if the project’s scope was feasible. Despite strong momentum and a clear need, the team ultimately decided not to move the project forward. Though this project was never implemented, in the context of the PPSG program—which was focused on the development of equitable, trusting relationships—this outcome is an indication of success, the natural result of both parties honestly assessing their own capacities in relation to community needs.

The planning process laid the groundwork for what a regional, citizen-driven response to wildlife disease could look like. It reflected growing recognition that challenges like HPAI require more than academic-driven lab work and field notes; they require connection, collaboration, trust, and participation across communities.

Results and outcomes

While this project did not result in the completion of the initial concept, it produced a community science plan and model for future work, with a well-articulated approach to shared leadership between partners, including processes and responsibilities. It also resulted in new and strengthened relationships with local partners. Lastly, the project team gained a renewed focus on the need to further center community priorities in all of their work, beyond this project.

Partners

• Museum: Museum of Life and Science (MLS) —A museum near Durham, North Carolina that aims to spark curiosity and respect for nature and science.

• Community partner: Working Landscapes—A nonprofit that aims to build healthier and more sustainable lives and livelihoods in rural Warren County, North Carolina through stewardship of natural and cultural assets.

Community-identified priorities

• Expose and establish youth’s connections to agricultural careers and opportunities.

• Increase awareness about regenerative agriculture, local food access, and the climate crisis.

• Connect younger and older generations of rural community members.

Project goal

Model how youth can drive change through applied, community-engaged projects focused on food, agriculture, and climate.

Project context

Warren County is widely recognized as the birthplace of the environmental justice movement because of the protests of the unjust dumping of toxic waste by the state of North Carolina in 1982. Many residents hold persisting, experience-based concerns about soil health, and strong perspectives on how the community influences land-use decisions. Although Warrenton is an agricultural community, food insecurity remains a significant issue, and many people in the region have little knowledge about where their food comes from. Additionally, there are no science museums in this small town, a stark contrast to the science- and tech- heavy “Research Triangle” in which the MLS resides. This means that students’ knowledge and needs around science education are very different from those living an hour away in Durham.

Partnership overview

The seeds of this partnership were planted in summer 2022, when Working Landscapes staff were conducting a community engagement project to capture stories from regional leaders about climate impacts. Simultaneously, MLS staff were working with researchers from North Carolina State and others to better understand how climate change will impact the state’s coastal communities. All parties attended a meeting hosted by the Core Sound Waterfowl Museum. Working Landscapes’ executive director approached MLS to share her dream that MLS would open a satellite location in rural Warren County focused on environmental issues. The two organizations regularly checked in and discussed potential strategies if such a project came to fruition. These early partnership agreements, although informal, became valuable assets as the team co-developed a community science project plan through ASTC’s PPSG program, then implemented it with support from ASTC’s CCSS program.

Project overview

The “Food for Thought” project was driven by the overarching question: What is the past, present, and future of agriculture in Warren County? To answer this—while simultaneously addressing community priorities related to youth engagement, intergenerational connection, and climate resilience—the team facilitated an eight-month after-school program to empower youth as scientific researchers and communicators. Over five workshops, eleven high school students came together with local and regional experts to explore soil science, oral history, water quality, climate modeling, and science communication. Following each workshop, students completed an assignment expanding on a new research skill. For example, in one workshop on oral history research methods, senior community members from Heritage Quilters and Durham’s African American Quilt Circle immersed students in developing and implementing interview skills as a research tool. Students were then tasked with interviewing someone ~30 and ~60 years older about their life experiences to develop their skillset as researchers and build a deeper understanding of the county’s agricultural story.

At Food for Thought’s conclusion, students used their expertise, workshop assignments, and reflections to develop creative, open-ended, community-engaged projects that addressed the program’s central research question and presented them during a Working Landscapes open house. More than 50 visitors attended and interacted with students regarding their projects. Projects included paintings of historic agricultural scenes, a digital scrapbook of recipes and farmer profiles, and a taste test of culturally relevant food for the county’s diverse populations, including the Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe and growing Hispanic population.

Challenges and opportunities

Support from local organizations, community members, and school officials was incredibly beneficial in helping students find personal connections to their community. For instance, engaging the Warren County Memorial Library in participatory research taught the project team about resources and organizations that could enhance the program’s future iterations.

Within the partnership, a key challenge was navigating capacities and narrowing the project to a realistic scope of activities. One team member shared: “I think our ambition and impatience to do this important work was probably some of our bigger barriers….it was never that we disagreed on what was important…. each time that one of us would bring something else up, it was like, ‘Oh yeah, let’s do that also.’ And you can’t do everything all at once” (Sickler and Ong 2023, p. 14).

To remedy this, the team mindfully developed a project focused on feasibility. They recognized it needed a starting point, and were diligent about documenting their processes and evaluating in real time what strategies and program elements were effective and what needed refinement.

Results and outcomes

The project generated interconnected outcomes that demonstrated the value of youth-led participatory research in rural agricultural communities. It created a replicable model for engaging young people as researchers and storytellers about local food systems. By working closely with community partners, youth deepened their relationships with older generations, helping to bridge knowledge and experience across age groups.

Youth gained scientific agency by conducting field research, analyzing data, and interacting with local leaders. This strengthened core scientific skills and broadened their awareness of potential regional career pathways. Pre/post-survey data show meaningful increases in students’ understanding of core program topics, with the greatest gains related to Warren County’s history and environmental context—including increased understanding of local environmental justice issues and knowledge of the county’s agricultural history. Youth also grew more confident in research methods, particularly the ability to collect and interpret community stories (Sickler and Ong 2025).

The project also highlighted the power of place-based learning. As youth engaged with landscapes, farms, and food traditions that shape life in their region, they reported seeing Warren County—and their place in it—through a different lens. Over 70% of participants agreed that the program made them more connected to their community, better able to contribute to its future, and more appreciative of its agricultural history (Sickler and Ong 2025). Youth described a new awareness of local resources, institutions, and food-growing traditions. This helped strengthen their sense of belonging, deepen their relationships with community members, and illuminate connections between local knowledge, foodways, and environmental stewardship.

Partners

• Museum: Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLA) —A cultural institution encompassing the Natural History Museum in Exposition Park and La Brea Tar Pits, which aims to inspire wonder, discovery, and responsibility for our natural and cultural worlds.

• Community partners:

  • Anawakalmekak International University Preparatory of North America (Anawakalmekak)—Los Angeles’ only Indigenous TK–12 community school, co-founded by Marcos Aguilar and Minnie Ferguson with the blessings of the late Sky Chief Ya’anna Vera Rocha of the Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation, dedicated to student academic excellence, Indigenous education, and recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ cultural, social, and intellectual heritage.

  • Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation of Southern California (Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation)—Led by Sky Chief Ya’anna’s descendants, Co-Chair Nicholas Rocha, and Co-Chair and Secretary of Environmental Sciences Gabrielle Crowe—are one of the Indigenous Peoples of the Los Angeles basin, with a mission to uplift, empower, and protect Indigenous communities in their ancestral lands by advancing their sovereign rights as the Original Peoples to create a sustainable future through revitalization of their lands, culture, language, and self-determination as a nation.

  • Tzicatl Community Development Corporation—An American Indian community-based development organization created to advance the rights of Indigenous Peoples, the reparation of community, and advocacy for healthy ecosystems to cultivate Indigenous education and culture in relation with ancestral lands.

Community-identified priorities

• Support the Gabrielino-Shoshone Tribal Council and their nonprofit organization’s own Nation-building through the restoration of Chief Ya’anna Regenerative Learning Village (Ya’anna Village) and establishment of Tuatukar Ecocultural Center for Indigenous Resurgence (Tuatukar).

• Empower Indigenous youth, through intergenerational learning, to become scientific and ecological leaders.

• Design a contemporary, Indigenous-led system of collecting, analyzing, recording, teaching, and disseminating scientific research through partnerships with Indigenous scientists, Native educators, culture bearers, community subject-matter experts, Indigenous students, and recognized institutions.

• Center and elevate Indigenous science and knowledge guided by the Native Science theoretical framework (Cajete 1999), including place-based, cultural, linguistic knowledge systems and holistic, regenerative, relation-based stewardship.

Project goal

To model resurgent, regenerative, and reciprocal land- and language-based science education partnerships that center Indigenous youth leadership and draw on community expertise, with particular attention to the guidance of Indigenous scientists, culture bearers, and Anawakalmekak educational leadership, to support future rematriation, restoration, and revitalization efforts, while demonstrating best practices for ethical, intergenerational, community-rooted collaboration with local Indigenous Peoples.

Project context

The Los Angeles region is the ancestral land of numerous Indigenous Nations whose stewardship of ecological systems was disrupted by colonization. In response to resulting urban sprawl and climate crises, the Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation and Anawakalmekak rematriated a 12-acre ecocultural landbase named after Sky Chief Ya’anna Vera Rocha. Ya’anna Village is a first-of-its-kind urban model of Indigenous-led climate resiliency, addressing climate challenges through an intergenerational approach that interweaves Indigenous education, ecological revitalization, and cultural resurgence.

Partnership overview

Anawakalmekak and the Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation have a long-existing relationship grounded in ecological protection, cultural revitalization, and shared vision for land and community stewardship. These partners formally met with NHMLA in December 2022 and successfully applied together for two ASTC funding opportunities. The first opportunity (PPSG) supported the partnership’s nourishment without strict deliverables or deadlines, while the subsequent one (CCSS) supported implementation. NHMLA deepened the partnership by offering support beyond the grants’ scope, providing student tours and letters of support, and hosting Anawakalmekak’s end-of-year student gala. NHMLA’s approach was supported by their Community Science Equitable Partnership Framework which includes guidance such as “prioritizing relationship-building” (NHMLAC 2019).

Project overview

Upon the village’s rematriation, Anawakalmekak’s educators and students, guided by the Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation Tribal council and culture bearers, sought to regenerate relationships with the land and restore the youth as intrinsic place-based Indigenous scientists and stewards. To that end, they established the Yolsentlalpixkeh (Ecoguardian) Indigenous Youth Research Council. The Yolsentlalpixkeh were led by two groups of youth co-leaders (one group per year) that guided the project’s mission and vision with an annual cohort of 15 students.

Over two years, the Yolsentlalpixkeh conducted holistic ecological baseline research encompassing five areas: water retention, soil remediation, terrestrial ecology, land accessibility, and wildlife conservation. They were guided by a community coalition of Indigenous scientists, Native educators, culture bearers, a native Nawatl linguist, community-based subject-matter experts, Indigenous students, and the NHMLA community science team. The project consisted of two phases. During Phase 1, the first-year Yolsentlalpixkeh cohort collected and analyzed baseline data in collaboration with the community coalition, culminating in the Yolsentlalpixkeh Youth Summit, where community feedback on findings directed the next stage. Phase 2 focused on disseminating research to diverse audiences through the creation of the first-of-its-kind, multilingual Ya’anna Village field guide. Draft information from the field guide was presented for community feedback to Anawakalmekak TK–12 youth and international figures at global convenings in Mexico and Italy.

Challenges and opportunities

At its core, this project was an opportunity to uplift Native Science, described by Gregory Cajete (1999) as “[…] the collective heritage of human experience with the natural world […]” (p.3) that encompasses a range of disciplines including philosophy, architecture, agriculture, phenology, cosmology, medicine, practical technologies, and language. It also includes ceremony, community, spirituality, creativity, and our relationship to the earth, the cosmos, and each other. Embracing a Native Science approach, the project timeline was intentionally adjusted to allow for community collaboration and reflection to honor the project’s spirit. For instance, the field guide was developed in four languages—Nawatl, Gabrielino, Spanish, and English—which required extending the timeline to accommodate extensive study and collaboration with language experts to translate, interpret, and develop new vocabulary for scientific and technical terminology. However, delays led to opportunities—in this example, it led the team to conduct a wider search for an Indigenous artist and graphic designer who could capture the cultural and intellectual knowledge gathered by the Yolesentalpixkeh.

Externally, there were compounding challenges, including the January 2025 Southern California wildfires and federal policy shifts. As a result, the partnership extended beyond traditional grant parameters; trust allowed for open, honest communication about obstacles, priorities, and aspirations. Partners shared not only resources and support, but also a mutual commitment to honoring cultural knowledge, addressing community needs, and co-creating solutions that reflect collective values.

While ASTC funding was a valuable catalyst, it did not cover the project’s full cost. Long-term, community-driven work requires time and consistency, and this project succeeded due to immense community investment; Anawakalmekak provided matched and additional funding, while mentors, Elders, and students contributed hundreds of hours for modest honorariums. This success proves the need for sustained, multi-year commitments, and highlights how funders could support larger projects with expanded funding capacity.

Results and outcomes

To ensure integrity and cultural accountability, the project established a holistic, non-extractive research framework grounded in community-defined priorities and land- and language-based education. This intergenerational model centered Indigenous science, ceremony, research sovereignty, Nation-building, and autonomy to guide all stages of collaboration. Through this framework, the Yolsentlalpixkeh worked alongside Indigenous scientists, culture bearers, linguists, educators, and NHMLA partners to conduct ecological research to document Ya’anna Village’s history, cultural significance, and ecosystem. Systematic soil analyses, topographic assessments, and floral and faunal studies allowed youth researchers to generate an ecological baseline to guide restoration strategies and inform designs for Tuatukar Ecocultural Center.

These findings and research processes established Ya’anna Village as a model of autonomous Indigenous ecocultural regeneration, demonstrating Indigenous futurity and climate resilience through community-led, intergenerational stewardship. Youth participants strengthened their capacity and self-determination in ecocultural and environmental research and science leadership, supporting future academic and career pathways. The research culminated in the publication of the Chief Ya’anna Regenerative Learning Village Field Guide in four languages.

Dissemination of project outcomes extended beyond the local community, as Indigenous youth presented their research and perspectives in national and international forums. These engagements broadened public understanding of Indigenous-led research models and contributed to global conversations on ethical, community-rooted science. Collectively, the project’s results illustrate how Indigenous youth leadership, supported by culturally grounded research frameworks and intergenerational community education, can drive regenerative futures and advance sovereignty over knowledge, land, and scientific practice.

Ample time is required to build strong, equitable partnerships

The PPSG program that supported these projects was designed in response to a need voiced by ASTC members: financial support and time to plan and develop partnerships. The planning phase of this work is essential; without significant time and attention in early stages, teams risk ignoring or misunderstanding community priorities, failing to adequately share leadership, and focusing on deliverables rather than community impact. Initially, partners must identify skills and resources each is able to offer to support the development of roles and expectations for each organization.

This lesson echoes existing advice for community-based science, including the importance of getting acquainted before jumping into proposed work, creating guidelines for collaboration, and continuously building trust throughout the project (Varga and Williams 2023). The teams that implemented their projects (Case Studies 2 and 3) both cited the initial investment in partnership development as an essential foundation for their later work. A Case Study 2 team member explained that the opportunity to focus on partnership “gives me and the organization… a different model of how you might approach thinking through projects and partnerships with more time and intention” (Sickler and Ong 2023, p. 14).

Even the team that declined to implement their project (Case Study 1) demonstrated the importance of investing time in partnership development and planning. Without this, they may have attempted an ambitious project that harmed the community due to misalignment between community needs and organizational assets.

Shared leadership requires intentionality and trust

Each project team implemented a model of shared leadership between the museum and the partnering organization(s). The museum and citizen science fields have long grappled with questions of leadership and hierarchy, particularly as they move towards more co-creative collaboration (Foo and Stanlick 2025). As noted by the International Association for Public Participation, “Public participation is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process” (IAP2 2017). When there is no real decision-making power, “public participation” can ultimately cause more harm than good by eroding the community’s trust in the organization and leading to feelings of disempowerment (Walker, Smigaj, and Tani 2020). However, the actual process of sharing this power is often confounded by real-life challenges (Foti 2022), and practitioners pursuing non-hierarchical partnership models may need more information and resources to do so successfully.

Shared leadership is a core attribute of ASTC’s Community Science Framework. Project participants co-own decision-making power, data, results, and credit, while incorporating systems for accountability and addressing power imbalances. This shared leadership also supports sustainability, as the success of the project does not depend on a single person or small group. All teams outlined in these case studies successfully established non-hierarchical partnerships that approached decision-making in an equitable and collaborative way (Sickler and Ong 2023).

The PPSG program included guidance for developing collaborative strategies that emphasized shared leadership. The Case Study 3 team noted that “Sometimes, when you’re partnering up, you don’t have those explicit conversations… ‘Well, what are we doing?… So, it was really nice to have that framework from the workbook…” (Sickler and Ong 2023, p. 8). This shows the value of developing explicit plans and agreements early in the partnership. The Case Study 2 team learned that fully sharing leadership helped increase their capacity: “We got into a practice of figuring out what shared decision-making looks and feels like, how we manage identifying and handing over a task to somebody and trusting that that person will steward that task until it’s time for input, rather than feeling like all hands need to be in it at the same time” (p. 14).

Success requires matching scope to resources

Narrowing down to a feasible scope was difficult for all partnerships. In the exciting early phase of a new partnership, teams wanted to pursue many inspiring ideas that were beyond their capacity. The Case Study 2 team realized this early in their partnership, and intentionally focused on designing a project that was feasible.

An important part of managing scope is knowing when and how to bring in outside resources. While these case studies focus on partnerships between a museum and one to three core partner organizations, every project required additional support beyond these primary partners. In Case Study 3, language experts provided translation and an Indigenous artist contributed to capturing and sharing the knowledge generated by the Yolsentlalpixkeh. In Case Study 2, community members, school officials, and other organizations supported participants in learning about their community. In Case Study 1, the lack of external support was a factor in the project not being implemented. This team recognized that they lacked necessary research experience, and were not (yet) able to identify the right external source for that expertise. Additionally, the team could not identify additional funding sources to implement their plans after establishing their relationship through the PPSG program.

Flexible, trust-based philanthropy is critical

Community science projects benefit from funding models that are flexible and rooted in mutual respect between grantor and grantee (CEP 2023). Community science projects require time up front to develop the partnership, and aspects of the project may change in response to evolving community needs. Prioritizing rapid outcomes and specific programmatic deliverables can unintentionally undermine that work. Funding approaches like ASTC’s PPSG can support this work by redefining success and accountability to allow for authentic work that meaningfully benefits society. As stated in a previous paper by MLS, “Funders, and everyone downstream from them, must build in the expectation of allowing for time, patience, and mutual understanding – things not always inherent in many current funding mechanisms” (Cawley et al. 2023, p. 344). One promising funding model is trust-based philanthropy, which encourages practices like reducing bureaucratic hurdles to funding and prioritizing flexibility to “rebalance power through stronger relationships, collaboration and mutual accountability” (Caplan 2024).

In the PPSG program, funding was not the only support grantees received. It included cohort-based learning, in which teams had opportunities to learn from one another, ASTC staff, and other experts assigned as advisors. Although current evidence is preliminary, the PPSG program evaluation found that these supports were effective and warrant further research.