Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Closer to Home: The Case for Experiential Participation in Health Reform

  • Published:
Canadian Journal of Public Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article describes partial results from a case study of community participation in “New Directions for a Healthy B.C.”, a now-abandoned health reform policy. For this study, focus groups were conducted to explore the perspectives of traditionally under-represented citizens in understanding reasons for nonparticipation and to identify strategies for fostering participation in the health reform process. The findings indicate that participating in traditional ways — committee meetings, public fora, completing surveys — was not relevant to the realities of these individuals. Yet, rather than merely refusing to be involved, focus group members extended an invitation for health planning group members to experience their daily lives; an idea that is referred to in the literature as ‘experiential participation’. In order to foster broad-based participation in community health initiatives, the findings from this study argue for a new understanding of, and appreciation for what actually constitutes participation.

Résumé

Cet article décrit les résultats partiels d’une étude de cas impliquant la participation de la communauté sur „les nouvelles directives pour une Colombie-Britannique en bonne santé”, programme de réforme sur la santé maintenant annulé. Pour cette étude, des groupes d’observation furent établis afin d’étudier le point de vue de citoyens habituellement sous-représentés et pour comprendre les raisons de leur manque de participation ainsi que pour identifier les stratégies qui inciteront leur participation au processus de réforme sur la santé. Les résultats indiquent qu’une participation de type tradi-tionnel (réunions de comités, forum au public, sondages) ne s’accordait pas à la réalité quotidienne de ces individus. Cependant, plutôt que de simplement refuser de s’impliquer dans les recherches, les membres des groupes d’observation ont invité les autres participants à venir observer leur vie de tous les jours — un concept auquel on fait souvent référence sous le terme de „participation expérimentale.” Afin d’encourager une vaste participation aux initiatives sur la santé au niveau de la communauté, les résultats de cette étude montrent à la fois une nouvelle compréhension et une nouvelle appréciation des éléments constituant réellement la participation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. United Nations. Community Involvement in Primary Health Care: A Study of the Process of Community Motivation and Continued Participation. Report for the 1977 UNICEF-WHO Joint Committee on Health Policy, 21st session. Geneva: WHO, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organization. Expert Committee on the Health Education of the Public. Geneva: WHO Technical Report Series, 89, 1954.

    Google Scholar 

  3. World Health Organization. Alma-Ata 1978 Primary Health Care. Report of the International Conference on Primary Health Care. Geneva: WHO, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  4. World Health Organization. Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  5. World Health Organization. Concept and Principles of Health Promotion, a Discussion Document. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Christenson JA, Robinson JW (Eds.). Community Development in Perspective. Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Roberts H. Community Development: Learning and Action. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Harris EM. Accessing community development research methodologies. Can J Public Health 1992;83(1):S62–S66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Canadian Public Health Association Board of Directors Issue Paper. Focus on health — public health in health services restructuring. Can J Public Health 1996; 87(1): I1–I56.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Prior D, Stewart J, Walsh K. Citizenship: Rights, Community and Participation London: Pitman Publishing, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chrislip D. Pulling together — creating a constituency for change. National Civic Review 1995; Winter:21–29.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wolf M. Involving the community in national service. Social Policy 1993; Fall: 14–20.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Syme GJ, Nancarrow BE. Predicting public involvement in urban water management and planning. Environment and Behavior 1992;24(6):738–58.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Henderson LJ. Metropolitan governance: Citizen participation in the urban federation. National Civic Review 1990;79(2):105–17.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hutchison P. Community development in recreation services: Why not? Plan Canada 1998;38(1):5–7.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ferderber R, Fortier M, Hopkins J. Taking the pulse of Canadian health and health care. Plan Canada 1997;37(3):26–28.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Levin LS. Public participation in health care quality. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1995;49:348–53.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Poulin J, Kauffman S. Citizen participation in prevention activities: Path model II. J Commun Psychol 1995;23:234–49.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Tuloss JK. Citizen participation in Boston’s development policy. Urban Affairs Review 1995;30(4):514–37.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Henry G, Basile K. Understanding the decision to participate in formal adult education. Adult Educ Q 1994;44(2):64–82.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jones P. Will the public accept it? Involving the community in transport planning. Local Transport Today 1993;February:18.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sancar FH. An integrative approach to public participation and knowledge generation in design. Landscape Urban Planning 1993;26:67–88.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Persons GA. Defining public interest: Citizen participation in metropolitan and state policy making. National Civic Review 1990;79(2):118–31.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Thomas JC. Public involvement in public management: Adapting and testing a borrowed theory. Public Admin Review 1990;July/August:435–45.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jewkes R, Murcott A. Community representatives: Representing the “community”? Soc Sci Med 1998;46(7):843–58.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Julian D, Reischl R, Carrick R, Katrenich C. Citizen participation — lessons from a local united way planning process. Am Planners Assoc J 1997;Summer:345–55.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lomas J, Veenstra G. If you build it, who will come? Policy Options 1995; November:37–40.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Piette D. Community participation in formal decision-making mechanisms. Health Prom Int 1990;5(3):187–97.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sullivan M, Scattolon Y. Health policy planning: A look at consumer involvement in Nova Scotia. Can J Public Health 1995;86(5):317–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sundeen RA. Explaining participation in coproduction: A study of volunteers. Soc Science Q 1988;69:547–68.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Checkoway B. The politics of public hearings. J Appl Behav Sci 1981;17(4): 566–79.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gittel M. Limits to Citizen Participation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Millbrath LW. Citizen surveys as citizen participation mechanisms. J Appl Behav Sci 1981;17(4):478–96.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kathlene L, Martin JA. Enhancing citizen participation: Panel designs, perspectives and policy formation. J Policy Analysis Management 1991;10(1): 46–63.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Brown C. Citizens’ rights. New Statesman and Society 1989;April:28.

    Google Scholar 

  36. McCarron G, Tenenbein S, Hindley P. Communication, belonging and health. In: Hayes M, Foster L and Foster H (Eds.), The Determinants of Population Health. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, 1994;57–72.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wharf B. Communities and Social Policy in Canada. Toronto: McLelland and Stewart, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Young IM. Polity and group difference: A critique of the ideal of universal citizenship. Ethics 1989;99:250–74.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Freeman C, Littlewood S, Whitney D. Local government and emerging models of participation in the Local Agenda 21 process. J Environment Planning Management 1996;39(1):65–78.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wallerstein N. Powerlessness, empowerment and health: Implications for health promotion programs. Am J Health Prom 1992;6(3):197–205.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Singer MA. Public participation in setting health-care priorities: Should it be done and can it be done? Ann Royal Can Phys Surgeon’s College 1994;27(5):275–78.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Stachenko S. National opportunities for health promotion: The Canadian experience. Health Prom Int 1994;9(2):105–10.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Green LW, Kreuter MW. Are community organization and health promotion one process or two? Am J Health Prom 1993;7(3):221.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Bracht N, Tsouros A. Principles and strategies of effective community participation. Health Prom Int 1990;5(3):199–208.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Powell M, Faghfoury N, Hill K, Nyhenuis P. Fostering public participation. In: Knowledge Development for Health Promotion. Ottawa: Health Services and Promotion Branch Working Paper, Health and Welfare Canada, 1989;169–75.

    Google Scholar 

  46. British Columbia Ministry of Health. New Directions for a Healthy British Columbia. Victoria: British Columbia Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Crabtree B, Miller W. Doing Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Diekelman N, Schuster R, Lam S. Martin User Guide, Version 2.0. Madison: University of Wisconsin, School of Nursing, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Patton MQ. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wharf Higgins J. Social marketing and MARTIN: Tools for organizing, analyzing and interpreting qualitative data. Qualitative Health Research 1998;8(6):867–76.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Paul B, Demarest W. Citizen participation over-planned: The case of a health project in the Guatemalan community of San Pedro La Laguna. Soc Sci Med 1984;19(3):185–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Travers K. Reducing inequities through participatory research and community empowerment. Health Educ Behav 1997;24(3):344–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Gilbert A. Forms and effectiveness of community participation in squatter settlements. Regional Development J 1987;8(4):56–80.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Hofman N, Davidson G. Moving toward effective decision-making. Plan Canada 1997;37(3):29–32.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Phillips A. Democracy and difference: Some problems for feminist theory. In: Kymlicka W (Ed.), The Rights of Minority Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995;288–302.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Beresford P, Trevillion S. Developing Skills for Community Care. England: Arena, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Lord J. Personal empowerment and active living. In: Quinney HA, Gauvin L, Wall AET (Eds.). Toward Active Living. Windsor, ON: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1994;213–18.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Lusthaus E. Making a contribution: An emerging social role for persons with a mental handicap. Entourage 1986;1(2):24–31.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Crawshaw R. Grass roots participation in health care reform. Ann Int Med 1994;120(8):677–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Anderson M, Meaton J, Potter C. Public participation, an approach using aerial photographs at Ashford, Kent. Town Planning Review 1994;65(1):41–58.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kubiski WS. Citizen Participation in the ’90s: Realities, Challenges and Opportunities. Occasional Paper 30. Institute of Urban Studies, University of Winnipeg, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Berry JM, Portney KE, Thomson K. The Rebirth of Urban Democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Marshall N, Roberts R. That thing called public involvement. Plan Canada 1997; 37(3):8–11.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Glaser MA, Denhardt KG, Grubbs JW. Local government-sponsored community development, exploring relationships between perceptions of empowerment and community impact. Am Review Public Admin 1997;27(1):76–94.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Kelly K, Van Vlaenderen H. Dynamics of participation in a community health project. Soc Sci Med 1996;42(9):1235–46.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Schulz AJ, Israel BA, Zimmerman MA, Checkoway B. Empowerment as a multi-level construct: Perceived control at the individual, organizational and community levels. Health Educ Res 1995;10(3):309–27.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Physical Education, University of Victoria, P.O. Box 3015, Victoria, BC, V8W 3P1, Canada

    Joan Wharf Higgins PhD

Authors
  1. Joan Wharf Higgins PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joan Wharf Higgins PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Higgins, J.W. Closer to Home: The Case for Experiential Participation in Health Reform. Can J Public Health 90, 30–34 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03404095

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03404095

Search

Navigation