Beginning Partnerships with Communities

Abstract

Upon completion of Chapter 3: Beginning Partnerships with Communities, the student will be able to:

Appendices

Case Study 3.1

The academic researchers joined forces with local organizations to conduct a formative study of community knowledge of Alzheimer’s disease, and to assess ways of disseminating information about it in the Latino community. Members of the research staff interviewed families, service providers, and community institutions to identify differences in the meaning of Alzheimer’s disease, and potential distribution channels for accurate information on diagnosis and management of the disease. Researchers found that families were troubled by the term “Alzheimer’s disease” because it was associated with the loss of control and mental health problems, both of which were heavily stigmatized in the community. There was widespread fear that being associated with the study would reflect negatively on families. This likely would have resulted in overall community reluctance to participate in the study. Therefore, researchers decided to identify themselves to families as people investigating health issues associated with aging. They planned to discuss symptoms first, and only later, after some general education and information-sharing with the community, would the research team discuss dementias.

 

• How do you locate and engage community partners who can share accurate information about the greater community?

• How do you balance your assumptions about the community with the sameness or diversity that actually exists in the community of focus?

• How do you demonstrate credibility and trustworthiness to different subgroups within the community?

• How can you ensure that the research staff remains open to the situations of everyday community life, without judgment, assumptions, or influence?

Case Study 3.2

A program director within the city government of a community wanted research to be conducted that would enable the city to make changes to public safety programs. The individual contacted a former minister of the community who was working at a consulting firm in another state to initiate a study that would explore behaviors that led to detainment for acute alcohol detoxification. The director of the consulting firm formed a permanent field office in the community headed by a local hospital administrator who was to coordinate the study. An initial planning meeting was held at the public safety office in the community to gather public opinions. After this meeting, the consulting firm subcontracted the study to a national research center that specialized in studies on alcohol abuse. The subcontracted research team formed two distinct planning entities: a steering committee, consisting of local indigenous community leaders, and a technical advisory group, consisting primarily of nonindigenous, nonlocal professionals. The study was to focus on distribution and consumption of alcohol, detention, and cultural changes in the community. Trained staff with expertise in alcohol and culture collected data from a convenience sample of indigenous community members over 15 years of age.

After data collection and analysis were completed under the guidance of the technical advisory group, the findings of the study were disseminated by the group via news releases and public community meetings on the same day. The next morning, the local newspaper’s lead story was entitled, Alcohol Destroying Community. Soon after, the story was picked up by the Associated Press and broadcast across the USA, clearly identifying the community. Community leaders and members were surprised by and appalled at the original newspaper article and the national exposure. Subsequently, town hall meetings were held to address concerns and allow for questions about study findings and the process used to disseminate the information.

 

• How is this scenario an example of poor partnership building?

• In what ways did the researchers try to build collaboration?

• Why was the collaboration that was developed ultimately not successful?

• How could value conflicts and disagreements have been identified and addressed up front?

• How can attempts be made to rebuild relationships with community leaders and members after an action that is perceived by the community as a betrayal of trust?

Case Study 3.3

After attending a conference on child health and abuse prevention a researcher decided to initiate a similar program in her local community. She arranged meetings with the board of directors of the local child protection agency, and with community healthcare leaders. Both groups were enthusiastic about helping with the project. After several meetings, the team was prepared to delegate initial tasks to begin the project. The child protection agency partners had experience with child abuse and protection issues, grant writing, and simple administrative structure. The healthcare group had strengths in medical and health issues, education, and research. Tasks were delegated to each group based on its strengths. The group authored, as its early task, a common mission statement that was to guide all project work, from the initial research to results interpretation and eventual program implementation. All members agreed that it was essential to come together early in project planning to define a common goal. Team members recognized that although there was some group tension early on, and that it was a learning experience for researchers and practitioners to work together, it was critical to remember that everyone was working in the same direction toward their common goal, that they respected each other’s strengths, and that each group’s work was important in accomplishing all project goals.

Important Issues to Address

• How are community partners selected? What are the expectations and assumptions of each?

• What local issues may complicate the early partnership? Are there hierarchies or power structures that could influence early work?

• To what extent do problems involve an agency view versus a community view?

• What are options to make early partnership-forming activities successful or more efficient?

• How do you determine the strengths of the partners? Should all project work involve collaboration or will tasks be divided among partners?