SPIRAL 2008 #8 - August Newsletter

*Systemic - Participatory - Inquiry - Research - Action - Learning*
SPIRAL — The Victorian Statewide Action Research Network
http://www.spiral-victoria.net/

Hi SPIRAL friends,

This is an urgent newsletter as this Friday 15 August is the last day for early bird registrations for our next SPIRAL network event which is the ALARA (Action Learning Action Research Association) national conference in Canberra on 11-12 September (see notice below).

—————–
Summary of contents of this newsletter:

1. Notice of ALARA conference in Canberra, 11-12 September 2008
2. Analysing Collaborative & Deliberative Forms of Governance Workshop, 14 Nov 2008
3. Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) for Natural Resource Management (NRM)
4. Complexity and Education journal on-line issue
5. Journal Progress in Community Health Partnerships:Research, Education, and Action (LONG item but interesting if you have time to read!)
6. AES conference, Perth, 8-12 September 2008

More details…
—————————–

1. Early bird registration closing 15 August for the ALARA conference in Canberra.

Please note that Marg O’Connell has set up some pages-of-a-book, at the conference website, for keeping everyone on the same page, and up to date with changing Conference 2008 information.
 
The web link is http://www.alara.net.au/ALARAconference2008
 
It is the most preferable link not only for updates but also links to downloadable docs for registration, catalyst paper sample, etc - it’s all the information needed about the conference.

If you need a hard copy of the registration booklet please email Donna Alleman at admin[at]alarpm.org.au,

————————-

2.  ANALYSING COLLABORATIVE & DELIBERATIVE FORMS OF GOVERNANCE Workshop 14 Nov 2008

DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY GROUP
AND THE CRAWFORD SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS & GOVERNMENT
The Australian National University, Canberra

CALL FOR PAPERS — ONE DAY WORkSHOP, 14 NOVEMBER 2008

Public policy is increasingly developed and implemented through partnerships, networks, stakeholder collaborations, and citizen participation. In these spaces, the inherent politics of policy comes to the fore: definitions are questioned, ‘facts’ and findings are destabilised, and arguments and discourses contested.

To make sense of these new forms of governance and their meaning for contemporary democracy, scholars have stepped away from the dominant empiricist tradition of policy studies which favours hypothesis driven research and quantitative analysis.
Alternative more interpretive forms of policy analysis are being embraced that are sensitive to meaning, context, and human subjectivity. Indeed much of the growing empirical research on collaborative and deliberative governance is informed by methods that explore the underlying norms, discourses, narratives and performances of policy practice.

This one-day workshop will explore the role of more interpretive forms of policy analysis in understanding collaborative and deliberative modes of governing. Its central themes include:
• new forms of collaborative and deliberative governance and their impact on policy-making and institutions of representative democracy
• the politics of emerging forms of governance
• a rethinking the theory and practice of democracy
• methodological approaches that emphasise interpretation and critical analysis
• the roles and risks of policy analysts facilitating deliberative governance.

A key speaker at the workshop will be Professor Frank Fischer (Rutgers University) a leading scholar in debates on post-empiricist policy analysis and deliberative politics.
Discussants will include Professor John Dryzek (ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences) and Professor Paul ‘t Hart (ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences).

Papers are invited that speak to the central workshop themes. Topic suggestions include:
• analytic case studies on emerging forms of governance (partnerships, collaborative, deliberative etc)
• the relationship between policy analysis and democratic theory
• a particular theoretical or philosophical approach to policy analysis (eg pragmatism, hermeneutics, post-structuralism)
• methodological themes/problems with practicing more interpretive forms of policy analysis (eg case study research, interviewing, discourse analysis, performative analysis, transcription, qualitative software).
Short abstracts (150 words) should be submitted by the 15 August 2008 to carolyn.hendriks@

————————

3.  Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI)
for Natural Resource Management (NRM)

Jess Dart of Clear Horizon
$800 — Two days: 19th & 20th August

Performance Story Reporting $500
One day workshop: 21st August

Build a People-Centred Program Logic (first day only of the MERI workshop - see below) $500
One day workshop: 13th October

Build a People-Centred Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting &
Improvement (MERI) Framework $800
Two days: 13th & 14th October

To register or make an inquiry please call us on 9773 2299 or download a registration form here.
We look forward to seeing you at one of our workshops.
Best wishes
Dr Jess Dart, Managing Director
Clear Horizon
1/13 Avondale Ave
Chelsea, Vic 3196
Mobile:  0425 735530
Office:  +61 3 9773 2299
Fax:      +61 3 9773 2233
www.clearhorizon.com.au

———————–

4. Complexity and Education journal on-line issue

News from the complex processes research group,

2008/7/30 Arran Gare agare[at]groupwise.swin.edu.au

This is the latest issue of Complexity and Education journal with Inna Semetsky’s article based on the presentation to the complex processes research group at Swinburne last year on Health and Complexity.

Please read together with Tony’s response in the same issue.
http://www.complexityandeducation.ualberta.ca/COMPLICITY5/Complicity5_TOC.htm

——————————

 5. Journal Progress in Community Health Partnerships:Research, Education, and Action

The latest issue of the journal (Volume 2, Issue 2, Summer 2008) contains papers based on presentations at Community-Campus Partnerships for Health’s 10th anniversary conference, “Mobilizing Partnerships for Social Change,” held in April 2007 in Toronto, ON Canada. See below for the table of contents and abstracts. CCPH members can subscribe to the journal at a discounted rate -

for details, see: http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/books.html#JohnsHopkins1

For more information on the journal, visit
http://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/progress_in_community_health_partnerships/

Additional papers based on CCPH conference presentations appear in the December 2007 issue of Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Indigenous and Aboriginal Community Health
http://www.pimatisiwin.com/Issues/AllIssues.html

View the conference program at:  http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/conf-overview.html

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    (1) Editorial: Mobilizing Partnerships for Social Change — Sarena D. Seifer & Annika Sgambelluri

    (2) Measuring the Success of Local Health Surveys Using Participatory-Based
    Research Practices — Lorna E. Thorpe

    (3) Community Policy Brief Assessing Process and Outcomes: Evaluating Community-Based Participatory
    Research — Marj Plumb, Natalie Collins, Janna N. Cordeiro, Mhel Kavanaugh-Lynch

    (4) Original Research — Assessing Process and Outcomes: Evaluating Community-Based Participatory
    Research — Marj Plumb, Natalie Collins, Janna N. Cordeiro, Mhel Kavanaugh-Lynch

Abstract:
Background: The California Breast Cancer Research Program (CBCRP) Community Research Collaboration (CRC) Awards fund research projects conducted by partnerships between community members and academically trained research scientists.

Objectives: We sought to determine the relationship, if any, between the collaborative process of conducting the CRC projects and reported outcomes.

Methods: Community and academic researchers from the first seven CRC full award projects were interviewed in one-on-one, standardized, semistructured telephone interviews. Twelve of thirteen eligible community partners and all nine eligible academic partners were interviewed (some teams had multiple community or academic partners). Interview questions covered four major types of outcomes (improved methodology [four items], benefited community [sixitems], benefited researchers [three items], or influenced health services and policy [five items]) and three major aspects of the partnership (collaboration among partners [three items], group dynamics [five items], and community involvement [two items]). Process and outcome scores for each team were compared using a
scatter plot graph.

Result: Teams were most effective at improving the quality of research methodology, providing benefits to the participating community agency, and answering questions important to the communities involved. Areas of difficulty for the teams included collaborative data analysis, power sharing, and managing the impact of turnover. Although the projects varied in the measures of the
partnership process, the three teams that had the highest outcome scores also had the highest scores for the partnership process.

Conclusions: Although the relationship between process and outcomes is not necessarily causal, these results suggest an association worthy of further investigation.

(5) Work-in-Progress & Lessons Learned — Challenges and Lessons Learned in Developing a Community-Based Health Survey
Lauren A. Shirey, Derek M. Griffith, Jan Brady, Daniel J. Kruger, Susan Morrel-Samuels, Ella Greene-Moton

Background: Collecting community-level data to inform health interventions and monitor health status is critical to improving community health and eliminating health disparities. Ideally, the process for designing and utilizing these data collection tools will include representation from community, service, and academic institutions. The process for incorporating these entities’ diverse
needs and perspectives, however, can be challenging.

Objectives: This paper describes how a community-academic partnership designed a survey in 2003 and 2005 to examine factors influencing the health of residents in an urban city and surrounding county area.

Methods: The partnership used community-based public health research principles to guide the development of the telephone surveys.

Lessons Learned: Through these two survey development processes, we learned three key lessons: To regularly examine our partnership and process; to communicate directly with and obtain the support of each individual partner; and to focus on building the capacity of the partners and partnership.

(6) Using Community-Based Participatory Research to Develop a Bilingual Mental Health Survey for Latinos — Carolyn M. Garcia, Lauren Gilchrist, Centro Campesino, Nancy Raymond, Sandy Naughton, Janeth Guerra de Patino

Background: Despite rapid growth, Latino communities’ mental health needs are unmet by existing services and research. Barriers may vary by geographic locations, but often include language, insurance coverage, immigration status, cultural beliefs, and lack of services.

Objectives: The aim of this research was development of a cross-sectional instrument to assess the mental health status, beliefs, and knowledge of resources among rural and urban Latinos residing in a Midwestern state.

Methods: The purpose of this article is to describe the community-based participatory research (CBPR) process of instrument development and lessons learned.

Results: A culturally relevant, 100-item bilingual survey instrument was developed by community and academic partners.

Lessons Learned: Community-based participatory research methods are salient for sensitive health topics and varied research objectives, including instrument development. To ensure cultural and social relevance of research, community participation is crucial at all stages of research, including developing the research question and instrument.

(7) Setting Up a Peer Review Process for Community-Based Organizations: Conflicts and Challenges — Michael T. Wright, Karl Lemmen, Martina Block, Hella von Unger

Background: The authors are conducting a national demonstration project in Germany to develop quality assurance structures and methods for community-based HIV prevention.

Objectives: We sought to provide outside input to AIDS service organizations (ASOs) on their prevention work while improving the local discourse on the quality of HIV prevention.

Methods: A voluntary peer review process with community workers, funders, community members, and researchers as reviewers.

Lessons Learned: Although the idea of a peer review process is interesting for many ASOs, it has been difficult finding organizations to participate in the process. Issues of trust regarding the intentions of the reviewers and concerns about publicizing the results have prevented implementation.

Conclusions: Peer review is a promising idea for the further development of quality assurance in the HIV prevention of German ASOs. More time needs to be invested in implementing the process to build trust on all sides.

(8) Photovoice in a Toronto Community Partnership: Exploring the Social Determinants of Health With Homeless People — Nancy Viva, Davis Halifax, Fred Yurichuk, Jim Meeks, Erika Khandor

Abstract: When working on social justice issues, it is easy to become overwhelmed by the problems faced. To maintain morale, it helps to be creative, have fun, and see results. In the spring of 2006, we were able to bring together a group of people to document, first hand, the daily experience of being homeless in the City of Toronto. Using photography and story telling, we were able to give
voice to a population not often heard. Our powerful images reached out to the public through events and publications. This resulted not only in great coverage and discussion of the important issues we were addressing, but also in a successful and rewarding group project that benefited group members in many ways.

(9) The Last Straw!: A Tool for Participatory Education About the Social Determinants of Health — Kate Rossiter, Kate Reeve

Background: In response to a scarcity of teaching tools regarding the social determinants of health (SDOH), Kate Reeve and Kate Rossiter created The Last Straw! board game, an innovative participatory education tool to facilitate and engage critical thinking about the SDOH.

Objectives: The Last Straw! is designed to encourage discussion about the SDOH, promote critical thinking, and build empathy with marginalized people.

Methods: The game begins as each player rolls the dice to create a character profile, including socioeconomic status (SES), race, and gender. Based on this profile, players then receive a certain number of vitality chips. Moving across the board, players encounter scenarios that cause them to gain and lose chips based on their profile. The player who finishes the game with the most chips wins the game. The game can be facilitated for a variety of audiences, including both players with no prior knowledge of the SDOH and those experienced in the field.

Conclusions: The game has been played with students, policymakers, and community workers, among others, and has been met with immense enthusiasm. Here, we detail the games reception within the community, including benefits, limitations, and next steps.

(10) CBPR as Community Health Intervention: Institutionalizing CBPR Within Community Based Organizations — Marlynn May, Jon Law

Background: A community-academy partnership was created with a commitment to developing a program for institutionalizing community-based participatory research (CBPR) capacity within community-based organizations (CBOs), with the intention to enhance CBOs’ existing capabilities to understand and improve community health.

Objectives: This article presents the design and conceptual foundations for a year-long CBPR education and training program in which CBO teams learn research design, discuss the principles of CBPR, design and implement a community health-related research project tailored to their program and community, conduct analyses, and initiate integration of the results into the organization and community. One objective is to integrate a commitment to and the practice of CBPR within CBOs’ program and policies.

Methods: An initial partnership was created between the Center for Border Health, El Paso, and Texas A&M University School of Rural Public Health, College Station. Three additional CBOs then joined the partnership and participated in the CBPR education and training program consisting of four stages: (1)3 intensive months devoted to learning about and creating a research
design; (2) 6 months for implementation of the design; (3) 2 months for analyses, interpretation, and consolidation of results into one or more final products; and (4) 1 month for development of protocols for integrating research results into community health development.

Results: In the first iteration, an interactive process evaluation was conducted during each program stage, plus a final year-end exit interview with each participating CBO. Evaluation demonstrated strong positive results and specific lessons learned. A proposal incorporating the lessons learned was presented to the funding source. A second iteration has been funded, with monies included to develop a formal outcome evaluation.

(11) Podcast Interview Transcript — Marlynn May, Jon Law

(12) Theory and Method — A Participatory Group Process to Analyze Qualitative Data — Suzanne F. Jackson

Background: When conducting community-based participatory research (CBPR), community researchers are often consulted during the analysis step, but rarely participate in the entire process.

Objectives: This paper describes a participatory qualitative data analysis process that was used in three projects with marginalized women in Ontario, Canada. In each project, marginalized women were trained as Inclusion Researchers (IRs) and participated in all stages of the research process. Given the emphasis of the projects on inclusion, it was important that a data analysis process be developed that was group oriented, engaging, understandable, and inclusive of the community researchers.

Methods: A five-part analysis process is described including preparation of the data, grouping and coding, consolidation, making sense of the data, and producing a report. This group analysis process took place over 2 full days with facilitation by an academic researcher, Details about the techniques used for each step are described.

Conclusions: The strengths of this participatory qualitative data analysis process were that it enabled participation of people with a mixture of levels of education and familiarity with analysis; it enabled community member control of the interpretation; and it could handle large volumes of data quickly. The main limitation was that additional time and procedures would be necessary for a deeper analysis or for groups of over 25 participants. The factors that contributed to the success of this participatory analysis process included accessible and clear procedures, use of visual grouping techniques, and a positive and supportive atmosphere for participation.

(13) Practical Tools — Making Sure Research Is Used: Community-Generated Recommendations for Disseminating Research — Jose Ramon Fernandez-Pena, Lisa Moore, Ellen Goldstein, Pamela DeCarlo, Olga Grinstead, Carolyn Hunt, Daniel Bao, Hank Wilson

Academic research, no matter how innovative, will never make a difference in the lives of people unless it is disseminated in an appropriate and timely manner to providers and organizations serving the public. Yet many researchers are not trained, rewarded, or supported to disseminate research findings. The Community Advisory Board (CAB) of the University of California, San Francisco,
Center for AIDS Prevention Studies (CAPS) developed a set guidelines to support researchers’ intentions to disseminate their findings through nontraditional venues. These guidelines are unique because community members, many of whom have struggled with accessing research in a timely way, generated them. In addition to developing the guidelines, the CAB also conceived and implemented a dissemination strategy for the guidelines. The purpose of this article is to present specific guidelines for disseminating research developed by the CAPS CAB.

——————————–

6. Australasian Evaluation Society (AES) conference, Perth, 8-12 September 2008

All information on the website…
http://www.aes.asn.au/

—————————–

Filed under Uncategorized |