Evaluating the Partnership and Enhancing Future Successes

Abstract

Upon completion of Chapter 6: Evaluating the Partnership and Enhancing Future Successes, the student will be able to:

Appendices

Case Study 6.1

The study methodology involved participants completing questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with the academic team. According to the research plan, the team decided to prepare a booklet of study findings to be distributed to participants as soon as the results were finalized. During the course of data collection, a number of participants indicated that they would like to meet with others who were involved in the project. They expressed a desire to reflect on the process and share their experiences with others. In order to facilitate this request, and to continue strengthening the relationship with the community, an initial, verbal sharing of research findings occurred in the context of luncheons held for the research participants. Approximately two-thirds of the participants attended the luncheons, which included social time, and a discussion of the research findings. Participants were invited to comment on, discuss, or challenge the findings, as well as offer alternate interpretations and their thoughts on ways to use the findings to benefit the community. These participants became more invested in the work of implementing later programs based on the research because of their heightened levels of personal investment, influence, and ownership in the work based on their increased participation.

• Who best represents the community perspective when interpreting study results?

• How can study results best be shared with the community?

• How do you maintain scientific responsibility when interpreting study results while respecting community interpretation?

• Do individual biases play a part in community members’ interpretation of study results? How do you interpret/recognize personal bias? When results are made public, how is the news managed?

Case Study 6.2

An ethical dilemma arose during a recent study of systematic and individual barriers experienced by visible minority workers in mainstream health agencies. One of the challenges in the study concerned the presentation of findings. During the collection of qualitative data, direct quotes were obtained from members of local racial minority communities about what they perceived to be acts of discrimination. When reviewing the data, institutional researchers were torn because they wanted to present an unbiased research perspective, but they felt that any commentary or analysis of the quotes and comments of study volunteers would contain elements of their personal values and perspectives. However, when study results are presented without researcher interpretation and analysis, readers of the research often feel that the work is biased and does not look at all sides of an issue. The assumption is that the work is poorly done and conclusions are not based on western standards. During data reporting, it became clear that one’s race, gender, class, and sexual orientation affect data analysis and interpretation, and that reporting non-biased findings is often a fine balancing act between maintaining integrity, respect, honesty, and credibility.

• How can the interpretation of results reflect community perspectives and remain bias-free?

• Can scientific integrity always be maintained when the community perspective prevails in results interpretation?

• How do you respect community interpretation when results are made public? What issues might rise when articles are prepared for publication?

Case Study 6.3

At the end of a 5-year federally funded grant, a university-based research group and a small rural community came to the end of a project evaluating the effectiveness of a program designed to treat depressive disorders in women living in rural communities. Taking into account the planning and implementation phases of the project, this collaboration and partnership spanned approximately 7 years. At the end of the grant, the research group was forced to place its time and energy on newly funded projects and on seeking out additional funding sources to keep its doors open. However, the research group and the community leaders were very concerned about losing the partnership they had built over the years. In addition, the community had experienced measurable improvement in the health and wellness of its families, a success they attributed to the mental health program for women. Through brainstorming sessions, the researchers and community members decided to find ways of staying connected. The community contributed to the effort by continuing to collect programmatic data and providing permission to the research group to analyze the data and use them for publication purposes. The researchers contributed by giving the community opportunity to preview all research findings and provide consultation about the meaning of the findings in the context of the community’s values and culture. Ongoing efforts were made to identify community mental health needs and apply for funding to secure services through pro bono work by the research team. Ultimately, another federal grant was funded for the purpose of preparing and submitting the original women’s mental health program as an evidenced-based practice for rural communities.

• What were the benefits to the research group in maintaining an ongoing relationship with the community?

• What were the benefits to the community to maintain an ongoing relationship with the research group?

• What obstacles could have gotten in the way of maintaining this relationship long term for both the researchers and the community leaders?

• In what ways did the research group show respect toward the community and utilize the community’s expertise?

• How did the research group maintain the relationship even with limited resources and no funding? Why would they have done this?