Invite diverse people and communities (e.g., POC, queer, ability, age, etc.) to this conference/research symposium that are interested in EE. Help others to remove barriers. We need to hear diverse voices.

Avoid putting people in boxes. We need to expand EE "boxes" to include diverse voices, versus limiting groups (e.g., POC) to certain methodologies (e.g., PAR).

Consider living systems in IRB and/or use different review methods (e.g., indigenous) when assessing research design

The "world we want" can be prescriptive. Who is the "we" ? Need to critically consider this in research but doing this will involve tensions and discomfort.

Challenge: participant/collaborator deep/continual engagement should be optional

Authenticity criteria. Research isn't valid unless it recognizes structured dominance. What about knowledge mobilization? Reciprocity? Staying open-minded to voices that we might not recognize as valuable (as recognized from the position of dominance).
Yet, we operate within a paradigm of the "scientific method" so we can't completely reject the "traditional" expectations of academia. Where lies the obligation of researchers? Journals and universities are lagging behind.
Herein lies the biggest tension: scientific tradition (accepted and prescriptive) versus other ways of knowing.
Community goals may be different than researcher goals.
The standard model isn't flexible enough!

There needs to be a relationship between the practitioner/NGO/org and the researchers. Practitioners will receive "grant applications" to study their work with vry little notice or involvement with the discussion of the plan. The trust needs to be there (from our small group discussion)