Pub Date : 2023-10-30DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2023.2272152
Jeffrey Shook, Sara Goodkind, Kess Ballentine, Jihee Woo, Ray Engel, Holley Tillman, Tess Schleitwiler
ABSTRACTSocial workers seek to address numerous forms of oppression. While our research has focused on extensively documenting problems, solutions often remain out of grasp. Many schools of social work remain entrenched in traditional academic structures focused on narrow measures of academic success and impact. This article critiques these measures, proposing a framework for using research to build community power for societal impact. Using the Pittsburgh Wage Study as a case study, it argues engaged research offers an opportunity to move from documenting problems to demonstrating how research can build the power of community groups involved in developing solutions. Based on our experiences, we offer a framework for using research to build power, arguing we need to build relationships by showing up and listening, center the questions our partners want answered, use multiple methods and approaches, move quickly when asked, develop a broad set of products outside of journal articles, and embrace politics where needed.KEYWORDS: Organizinglabor Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Additional informationFundingThe work was supported by The Heinz Endowments.
{"title":"Using research to build power: the Pittsburgh Wage study","authors":"Jeffrey Shook, Sara Goodkind, Kess Ballentine, Jihee Woo, Ray Engel, Holley Tillman, Tess Schleitwiler","doi":"10.1080/10705422.2023.2272152","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2023.2272152","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTSocial workers seek to address numerous forms of oppression. While our research has focused on extensively documenting problems, solutions often remain out of grasp. Many schools of social work remain entrenched in traditional academic structures focused on narrow measures of academic success and impact. This article critiques these measures, proposing a framework for using research to build community power for societal impact. Using the Pittsburgh Wage Study as a case study, it argues engaged research offers an opportunity to move from documenting problems to demonstrating how research can build the power of community groups involved in developing solutions. Based on our experiences, we offer a framework for using research to build power, arguing we need to build relationships by showing up and listening, center the questions our partners want answered, use multiple methods and approaches, move quickly when asked, develop a broad set of products outside of journal articles, and embrace politics where needed.KEYWORDS: Organizinglabor Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Additional informationFundingThe work was supported by The Heinz Endowments.","PeriodicalId":46385,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136069687","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-24DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2023.2272181
Rebecca Lobb, Kareem King, Laetitia Pierre-Louis, Celia Bora, Arielle Albert, Allyson Richmond, Ryan Schroeder, Jennifer Pamphile, Tracy Battaglia, Linda Sprague Martinez
Medical mistrust among the public was amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic due to racial and social inequities in infection rates and misinformation in the media. In Boston, two initiatives were launched by the Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute (BU CTSI), Boston Medical Center (BMC), community health centers (CHCs), and community organizations to establish longitudinal and authentic partnerships with community-research boundary spanners who remained trusted sources of information. Each initiative addressed the immediate need for community-informed and partnered COVID research and provided a structure for longitudinal partnerships. In this paper, we describe the process of envisioning how these two initiatives could move from isolation toward collective impact. We also identify opportunities to improve community-engaged research practices within an academic health system. Our approach provides a structure that other organizations can use to align initiatives and move toward boundary-crossing partnerships which foster health equity.
{"title":"Notes from the field: moving initiatives from isolation to collective impact to change community-engaged research practices in an academic medical system","authors":"Rebecca Lobb, Kareem King, Laetitia Pierre-Louis, Celia Bora, Arielle Albert, Allyson Richmond, Ryan Schroeder, Jennifer Pamphile, Tracy Battaglia, Linda Sprague Martinez","doi":"10.1080/10705422.2023.2272181","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2023.2272181","url":null,"abstract":"Medical mistrust among the public was amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic due to racial and social inequities in infection rates and misinformation in the media. In Boston, two initiatives were launched by the Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute (BU CTSI), Boston Medical Center (BMC), community health centers (CHCs), and community organizations to establish longitudinal and authentic partnerships with community-research boundary spanners who remained trusted sources of information. Each initiative addressed the immediate need for community-informed and partnered COVID research and provided a structure for longitudinal partnerships. In this paper, we describe the process of envisioning how these two initiatives could move from isolation toward collective impact. We also identify opportunities to improve community-engaged research practices within an academic health system. Our approach provides a structure that other organizations can use to align initiatives and move toward boundary-crossing partnerships which foster health equity.","PeriodicalId":46385,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135267355","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACTWalking along side those responding to climate-related threats as co-researchers is surfacing new understanding of the potential for community action in complex and chaotic situations. Action research enables academia, government, non-government organizations and community members to learn collaboratively, building knowledge that is nuanced and contextualized. Whilst this approach aims to disrupt traditional power in relation to knowledge production, it continues to struggle for legitimacy and, hence, policy and practice traction, sitting uncomfortably in a field dominated by positivist empirical strategies a “single truth.” This article draws on two action research case studies – the first a multi-partner place-based engagement and the second a learning partnership with a philanthropic organization operating across two Australian States – to illustrate how we might navigate the contours of power that shape our efforts to build knowledge collaboratively. Drawing on these experiences we identify two key challenges to successful industry/academic action research partnerships: shifting power and translating knowledge to broader audiences. We conclude with ideas to improve future action research practice.KEYWORDS: Learningaction researchdisasterspartnerships Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThe work was supported by the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal Infrastructure NSW.
{"title":"Learning together about disasters through action research partnerships","authors":"Margot Rawsthorne, Nina O’Brien, Madeleine Dignam, Pam Joseph, Cate Massola, Amanda Howard","doi":"10.1080/10705422.2023.2272149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2023.2272149","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTWalking along side those responding to climate-related threats as co-researchers is surfacing new understanding of the potential for community action in complex and chaotic situations. Action research enables academia, government, non-government organizations and community members to learn collaboratively, building knowledge that is nuanced and contextualized. Whilst this approach aims to disrupt traditional power in relation to knowledge production, it continues to struggle for legitimacy and, hence, policy and practice traction, sitting uncomfortably in a field dominated by positivist empirical strategies a “single truth.” This article draws on two action research case studies – the first a multi-partner place-based engagement and the second a learning partnership with a philanthropic organization operating across two Australian States – to illustrate how we might navigate the contours of power that shape our efforts to build knowledge collaboratively. Drawing on these experiences we identify two key challenges to successful industry/academic action research partnerships: shifting power and translating knowledge to broader audiences. We conclude with ideas to improve future action research practice.KEYWORDS: Learningaction researchdisasterspartnerships Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThe work was supported by the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal Infrastructure NSW.","PeriodicalId":46385,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135267325","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-24DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2023.2273912
Moonhawk Kim, Valerie B. Shapiro, Emily J. Ozer, Susan Stone, Brian Villa, Marieka Schotland, Colleen Kohashi
ABSTRACTThe study and the practice of collaborative research between university researchers and community entities of various types have generally focused on the organizational conditions that facilitate community partners to make use of research knowledge. In this article, we propose a conceptual innovation that absorptive capacity – the ability to identify helpful new information and to absorb and apply it in new ways – is important not only for community entities but also for universities. Using our experience of collaborating at the University of California Berkeley between scholars engaged in collaborative research and Institutional Review Board (IRB) analysts, we examine the dimensions of absorptive capacity – prior knowledge, communication pathways, strategic knowledge leadership, and resources – in the university context. The analysis generates insights that recommend 1) further research into the conditions and the processes of organizational learning for collaborative research in universities and 2) strategies for practitioners of collaborative research to strengthen and improve universities’ capacity to engage in it.KEYWORDS: Community-engaged scholarshipinstitutional review board AcknowledgmentsThis project was made possible by the generous support of the W.T. Grant Institutional Challenge Grant, supported by the W.T. Grant and Doris Duke Charitable Foundations. The authors wish to acknowledge the many community partners with whom we have collaborated with over the years to conduct community-engaged scholarship, including San Francisco Peer Resources, SF Unified School District, EOYDC (the East Oakland Youth Development Center), and the RYSE Youth Center. The authors also thank colleagues at Innovations for Youth (i4Y), particularly the i4Y Steering Committee, who played essential roles in the completion of this work. The authors appreciate the support and consultation of many Berkeley Senate faculty and administrative leaders who have engaged with this institutional change effort, and the support of the UC-Berkeley Vice Chancellor for Research Office, Dean Michael Lu (Public Health), Dean Linda Burton (Social Welfare), Dean Emeriti Prudence Carter (Education), and Interim Dean Christopher Edley (Education). The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of any funding agency, community partner, university leader, or consultant. Valerie Shapiro would like to acknowledge the W.T. Grant Foundation Scholars Award for supporting her research and career development in thinking about how to promote the use of research evidence to improve the lives of young people.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. We use “collaborative education research” or CER instead of collaborative research, when referring to specific efforts, scholars or literature about collaborative research in the field of education.Additional informationFundingThe work was supported by the Doris D
{"title":"University’s absorptive capacity for collaborative research: examining challenges and opportunities for organizational learning to engage in research with community partners","authors":"Moonhawk Kim, Valerie B. Shapiro, Emily J. Ozer, Susan Stone, Brian Villa, Marieka Schotland, Colleen Kohashi","doi":"10.1080/10705422.2023.2273912","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2023.2273912","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThe study and the practice of collaborative research between university researchers and community entities of various types have generally focused on the organizational conditions that facilitate community partners to make use of research knowledge. In this article, we propose a conceptual innovation that absorptive capacity – the ability to identify helpful new information and to absorb and apply it in new ways – is important not only for community entities but also for universities. Using our experience of collaborating at the University of California Berkeley between scholars engaged in collaborative research and Institutional Review Board (IRB) analysts, we examine the dimensions of absorptive capacity – prior knowledge, communication pathways, strategic knowledge leadership, and resources – in the university context. The analysis generates insights that recommend 1) further research into the conditions and the processes of organizational learning for collaborative research in universities and 2) strategies for practitioners of collaborative research to strengthen and improve universities’ capacity to engage in it.KEYWORDS: Community-engaged scholarshipinstitutional review board AcknowledgmentsThis project was made possible by the generous support of the W.T. Grant Institutional Challenge Grant, supported by the W.T. Grant and Doris Duke Charitable Foundations. The authors wish to acknowledge the many community partners with whom we have collaborated with over the years to conduct community-engaged scholarship, including San Francisco Peer Resources, SF Unified School District, EOYDC (the East Oakland Youth Development Center), and the RYSE Youth Center. The authors also thank colleagues at Innovations for Youth (i4Y), particularly the i4Y Steering Committee, who played essential roles in the completion of this work. The authors appreciate the support and consultation of many Berkeley Senate faculty and administrative leaders who have engaged with this institutional change effort, and the support of the UC-Berkeley Vice Chancellor for Research Office, Dean Michael Lu (Public Health), Dean Linda Burton (Social Welfare), Dean Emeriti Prudence Carter (Education), and Interim Dean Christopher Edley (Education). The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of any funding agency, community partner, university leader, or consultant. Valerie Shapiro would like to acknowledge the W.T. Grant Foundation Scholars Award for supporting her research and career development in thinking about how to promote the use of research evidence to improve the lives of young people.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. We use “collaborative education research” or CER instead of collaborative research, when referring to specific efforts, scholars or literature about collaborative research in the field of education.Additional informationFundingThe work was supported by the Doris D","PeriodicalId":46385,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135274015","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-19DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2023.2271923
Danielle Maude Littman, Anna Ortega-Williams, Ramona Beltrán, M. Alex Wagaman, Kimberly Bender, Laura Wernick
ABSTRACTIn this paper, six social work scholars at varying career stages and institutions used collaborative autoethnography to identify (1) structural constraints and tensions to engage in participatory action research (PAR) in the academy, (2) the strategies we have used to navigate this work, and (3) suggestions for structural changes necessary to meaningfully value this work in the academy. Key structural constraints and tensions center around questioning the legitimacy of this work, time necessary to do this work, challenges funding this work, and inherent ableism in the academy. We share case examples of strategies PAR scholars have used to navigate or subvert academic expectations, including operationalizing values, rooting in movements, uplifting accessibility and knowledge; holding accountability to community, and articulating commitments. We end with recommendations for social work institutions and funders to meaningfully elevate, support, and fund PAR work in the academy. Specifically, we see the need for social work institutions to elevate PAR training and reward systems as legitimate knowledge, build support systems for conducting PAR in the academy, revise evaluation of scholars at milestones to value PAR; funders should also work to align funding opportunities and practices with participatory praxis.KEYWORDS: Participatory action researchcommunity-based participatory researchsocial work scholarshippromotiontenure Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
{"title":"Navigating, subverting, and replacing conventional academic structures and expectations to co-create with participatory action research (PAR) teams: where to for PAR scholarship?","authors":"Danielle Maude Littman, Anna Ortega-Williams, Ramona Beltrán, M. Alex Wagaman, Kimberly Bender, Laura Wernick","doi":"10.1080/10705422.2023.2271923","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2023.2271923","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTIn this paper, six social work scholars at varying career stages and institutions used collaborative autoethnography to identify (1) structural constraints and tensions to engage in participatory action research (PAR) in the academy, (2) the strategies we have used to navigate this work, and (3) suggestions for structural changes necessary to meaningfully value this work in the academy. Key structural constraints and tensions center around questioning the legitimacy of this work, time necessary to do this work, challenges funding this work, and inherent ableism in the academy. We share case examples of strategies PAR scholars have used to navigate or subvert academic expectations, including operationalizing values, rooting in movements, uplifting accessibility and knowledge; holding accountability to community, and articulating commitments. We end with recommendations for social work institutions and funders to meaningfully elevate, support, and fund PAR work in the academy. Specifically, we see the need for social work institutions to elevate PAR training and reward systems as legitimate knowledge, build support systems for conducting PAR in the academy, revise evaluation of scholars at milestones to value PAR; funders should also work to align funding opportunities and practices with participatory praxis.KEYWORDS: Participatory action researchcommunity-based participatory researchsocial work scholarshippromotiontenure Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).","PeriodicalId":46385,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135730703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-19DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2023.2272151
Richard J Smith, Camille Wilson, Paulina Fraser, Margaret O’Connell Hanna, Jasahn Larsosa
ABSTRACTThis paper reflects upon “Justice Now Coalition” (JNC), an anti-racist research practice partnership (RPP). The Coalition drew from the Black Emancipatory Action Research (BEAR) Framework as well as Black feminist, Afro-futurist, and critical race epistemologies to answer two research questions: 1) How can an urban education RPP that includes academic, community, and youth partners engage in a collaborative inquiry process that helps to dismantle the STPP/Nexus; and 2) How does engagement in the collaborative inquiry process influence research projects, group dynamics, and community members? We present a self-reflective, ethnographic case study of an anti-racist RPP that we led. We find that the collaborative inquiry teams’ primary way to dismantle the STPP/Nexus is to center Black children. They approached their work not from a policy change perspective, but in the co-creation of a space where Black youth speak, are heard, and take the agency to reimagine and reconstruct their school environment. Data also show the leadership of Black women who collaborated with partners with the intentionality of demonstrating love and critical care for Black communities. This work extends the vision of RPPs to be explicitly anti-racist and decolonizing by engaging in an Afro-futurist space in the present.KEYWORDS: Research practice partnershipsanti-racistBlack feminismAfro-futurismschool to prison pipeline/nexus Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. Pseudonym to allow for confidentiality.2. We depart from academic convention here to honor the voice of community residents as knowledge at the same level as peer-reviewed literature.3. Core ideas of our conceptual framework were influenced by the Combahee River Collective Statement (Combahee River Collective, Citation2000) originally written in 1977, by Black feminists and lesbians who helped pioneer U.S.-based Black feminist scholarship. The Collective’s statement emerged from consciousness raising sessions in which members grappled with the intersecting realities of racial, gender, class, and sexual identity oppression. They then introduced key ideas that have informed intersectionality theory, including “interlocking systems of oppression.”Additional informationFundingThis research is based on work funded by the Spencer Foundation (#202000153).
摘要本文对反种族主义研究实践伙伴“正义联盟”(Justice Now Coalition, JNC)进行反思。该联盟借鉴了黑人解放行动研究(BEAR)框架以及黑人女权主义者、非洲未来主义者和批判性种族认识论来回答两个研究问题:1)包括学术、社区和青年合作伙伴在内的城市教育RPP如何参与一个有助于拆除STPP/Nexus的协作调查过程;2)参与协作探究过程如何影响研究项目、群体动态和社区成员?我们提出了一个我们领导的反种族主义RPP的自我反思，人种学案例研究。我们发现，合作调查小组拆除STPP/Nexus的主要方式是将黑人儿童放在中心。他们的工作不是从政策改变的角度出发，而是共同创造一个空间，让黑人青年说话，被听到，并通过该机构重新想象和重建他们的学校环境。数据还显示了黑人妇女的领导力，她们与合作伙伴合作，有意表现出对黑人社区的爱和重症监护。这项工作扩展了rpp的愿景，通过参与当前的非洲未来主义空间，明确地反对种族主义和非殖民化。关键词:研究、实践、合作、反种族主义、黑人女权主义、黑人未来主义、从学校到监狱的管道/关系披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。使用假名是为了保密。我们在这里脱离学术惯例，尊重社区居民的声音，将其视为与同行评议文献同等水平的知识。我们概念框架的核心思想受到Combahee River集体声明(Combahee River Collective, Citation2000)的影响，该声明最初于1977年由黑人女权主义者和女同性恋者撰写，她们帮助开创了美国黑人女权主义奖学金。集体的声明来自于提高意识的会议，在会议上，成员们努力解决种族、性别、阶级和性身份压迫的交叉现实。然后，他们介绍了影响交叉性理论的关键思想，包括“压迫的连锁系统”。本研究是基于由斯宾塞基金会(#202000153)资助的工作。
{"title":"Anti-racist research practice partnerships as critical education: dismantling the master’s house with their own tools?","authors":"Richard J Smith, Camille Wilson, Paulina Fraser, Margaret O’Connell Hanna, Jasahn Larsosa","doi":"10.1080/10705422.2023.2272151","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2023.2272151","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThis paper reflects upon “Justice Now Coalition” (JNC), an anti-racist research practice partnership (RPP). The Coalition drew from the Black Emancipatory Action Research (BEAR) Framework as well as Black feminist, Afro-futurist, and critical race epistemologies to answer two research questions: 1) How can an urban education RPP that includes academic, community, and youth partners engage in a collaborative inquiry process that helps to dismantle the STPP/Nexus; and 2) How does engagement in the collaborative inquiry process influence research projects, group dynamics, and community members? We present a self-reflective, ethnographic case study of an anti-racist RPP that we led. We find that the collaborative inquiry teams’ primary way to dismantle the STPP/Nexus is to center Black children. They approached their work not from a policy change perspective, but in the co-creation of a space where Black youth speak, are heard, and take the agency to reimagine and reconstruct their school environment. Data also show the leadership of Black women who collaborated with partners with the intentionality of demonstrating love and critical care for Black communities. This work extends the vision of RPPs to be explicitly anti-racist and decolonizing by engaging in an Afro-futurist space in the present.KEYWORDS: Research practice partnershipsanti-racistBlack feminismAfro-futurismschool to prison pipeline/nexus Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. Pseudonym to allow for confidentiality.2. We depart from academic convention here to honor the voice of community residents as knowledge at the same level as peer-reviewed literature.3. Core ideas of our conceptual framework were influenced by the Combahee River Collective Statement (Combahee River Collective, Citation2000) originally written in 1977, by Black feminists and lesbians who helped pioneer U.S.-based Black feminist scholarship. The Collective’s statement emerged from consciousness raising sessions in which members grappled with the intersecting realities of racial, gender, class, and sexual identity oppression. They then introduced key ideas that have informed intersectionality theory, including “interlocking systems of oppression.”Additional informationFundingThis research is based on work funded by the Spencer Foundation (#202000153).","PeriodicalId":46385,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135779695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-19DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2023.2272162
Rose Ann E. Gutierrez, Melanie Sonsteng-Person, Sam King-Shaw, Marie Trisha Valmocena
ABSTRACTParticipatory action research has the goal of democratizing knowledge to inform individual and collective action. Photovoice, an arts-based method within the broader PAR landscape, provides a lens for exploring community strengths and needs with the purpose of social change. Research demonstrates photovoice’s utility in inciting social change with and for communities, yet concerns arise over the lack of participant voices in the analysis, writing, and dissemination of the projects leaving us to question, “Is our research for the institution or for the community?” This conceptual article extends PAR scholarship about conducting an anti-oppressive research praxis by drawing on the lived experiences of two uni-researchers and two co-researchers and their use of praxis across two separate photovoice research projects. We describe three key principles in conducting an anti-oppressive research praxis and conclude with implications for practice and research.KEYWORDS: Participatory action researchphotovoicecommunity research Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
{"title":"For the institution or for the community?: toward an anti-oppressive research praxis in conducting participatory action research","authors":"Rose Ann E. Gutierrez, Melanie Sonsteng-Person, Sam King-Shaw, Marie Trisha Valmocena","doi":"10.1080/10705422.2023.2272162","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2023.2272162","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTParticipatory action research has the goal of democratizing knowledge to inform individual and collective action. Photovoice, an arts-based method within the broader PAR landscape, provides a lens for exploring community strengths and needs with the purpose of social change. Research demonstrates photovoice’s utility in inciting social change with and for communities, yet concerns arise over the lack of participant voices in the analysis, writing, and dissemination of the projects leaving us to question, “Is our research for the institution or for the community?” This conceptual article extends PAR scholarship about conducting an anti-oppressive research praxis by drawing on the lived experiences of two uni-researchers and two co-researchers and their use of praxis across two separate photovoice research projects. We describe three key principles in conducting an anti-oppressive research praxis and conclude with implications for practice and research.KEYWORDS: Participatory action researchphotovoicecommunity research Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.","PeriodicalId":46385,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135732033","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2023.2214547
M. Meyer, Karen M. Hopkins, Jenny Lee, Nicole Mattocks, Jonalyn Denlinger
ABSTRACT This paper examines the process and outcomes from a five-year, community-based participatory research (CBPR) study of a community building initiative to strengthen two neighborhoods in a mid-size, Mid-Atlantic city. In addition to supporting over 50 resident-led projects during the five-year initiative, outcomes included positive changes in resident perceptions about some aspects of neighborhood safety, cleanliness, greening, and vibrancy, and in both neighborhoods respondents who were most involved with the lead community-based organizations (CBOs) reported significantly higher social capital compared to those least involved. Nevertheless, analysis of the evaluation process revealed certain data were more meaningful to stakeholders during and at the end of the initiative, and other data were less worth the effort and cost to collect. This study offers insights for how foundations and nonprofit organizations can best use their evaluation resources in small-scale community-building efforts.
{"title":"Looking for impact in all the wrong places: Setting realistic expectations and measurable outcomes for small-scale community building initiatives","authors":"M. Meyer, Karen M. Hopkins, Jenny Lee, Nicole Mattocks, Jonalyn Denlinger","doi":"10.1080/10705422.2023.2214547","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2023.2214547","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper examines the process and outcomes from a five-year, community-based participatory research (CBPR) study of a community building initiative to strengthen two neighborhoods in a mid-size, Mid-Atlantic city. In addition to supporting over 50 resident-led projects during the five-year initiative, outcomes included positive changes in resident perceptions about some aspects of neighborhood safety, cleanliness, greening, and vibrancy, and in both neighborhoods respondents who were most involved with the lead community-based organizations (CBOs) reported significantly higher social capital compared to those least involved. Nevertheless, analysis of the evaluation process revealed certain data were more meaningful to stakeholders during and at the end of the initiative, and other data were less worth the effort and cost to collect. This study offers insights for how foundations and nonprofit organizations can best use their evaluation resources in small-scale community-building efforts.","PeriodicalId":46385,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48196797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2023.2210136
D. Littman, Karaya Morris, C. Hostetter, Madi Boyett, Kimberly A. Bender, Brendon T. Holloway, A. Dunbar, Sophia P Sarantakos
ABSTRACT Mutual aid, a longstanding practice among socially marginalized communities, has proliferated as a widespread form of collective care amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and compounding crises. We used critical phenomenological methods to understand how participants (N = 25) who engaged in mutual aid in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic conceptualized mutual aid, and how their social identities intersect with their conceptualizations. We found that conceptualizations of mutual aid fell upon a spectrum; some participants (who primarily held privileged social identities) saw mutual aid as a temporary crisis response, which was similar to traditional aid, and could be adjunctive to government support. Others (who tended to hold more marginalized social identities) saw mutual aid as an ongoing support mechanism which was explicitly different than traditional aid and should be separate from government structures. Our research offers insight into mutual aid at a moment of compounding crises and little studied increase in mutual aid. We invite mutual aid groups to consider how their understandings of their work fall upon this spectrum and offer resources for political education in mutual aid work.
{"title":"How was mutual aid being conceptualized during its proliferation in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic? A critical phenomenological analysis","authors":"D. Littman, Karaya Morris, C. Hostetter, Madi Boyett, Kimberly A. Bender, Brendon T. Holloway, A. Dunbar, Sophia P Sarantakos","doi":"10.1080/10705422.2023.2210136","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2023.2210136","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Mutual aid, a longstanding practice among socially marginalized communities, has proliferated as a widespread form of collective care amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and compounding crises. We used critical phenomenological methods to understand how participants (N = 25) who engaged in mutual aid in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic conceptualized mutual aid, and how their social identities intersect with their conceptualizations. We found that conceptualizations of mutual aid fell upon a spectrum; some participants (who primarily held privileged social identities) saw mutual aid as a temporary crisis response, which was similar to traditional aid, and could be adjunctive to government support. Others (who tended to hold more marginalized social identities) saw mutual aid as an ongoing support mechanism which was explicitly different than traditional aid and should be separate from government structures. Our research offers insight into mutual aid at a moment of compounding crises and little studied increase in mutual aid. We invite mutual aid groups to consider how their understandings of their work fall upon this spectrum and offer resources for political education in mutual aid work.","PeriodicalId":46385,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48219212","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2023.2224470
Michelle Mohr Carney, Deborah Adams, Amy Mendenhall, Mary L. Ohmer
In the 19 century, Alexis de Tocqueville (1969) cautioned about the omnipotence of the majority and the potential negative effects of individualism on American democracy. Later Putnam (2001) echoed that warning, suggesting that individualism could lead to community disengagement and the decline of our democracy. Although the warning from Tocqueville was two centuries ago, the dangers of radical individualism and the tendency to put self-interest ahead of the greater good can be witnessed today in the proliferation of gun violence and mass shootings, attitudes toward climate change, and a variety of public policies. Is civic engagement the antidote? It is easy to lose sight of the benefit of the collective in the face of pervasive self-interest, but the power of community to use democracy to create change offers hope. According to Longley (2022), “civic engagement means participating in activities intended to improve the quality of life in one’s community by addressing issues of public concern, such as homelessness, pollution, or food insecurity, and developing the knowledge and skills needed to address those issues. Civic engagement can involve a wide range of political and nonpolitical activities including voting, volunteering, and participating in group activities like community gardens and food banks.” The benefits of engaging civically have been widely researched. Civic engagement has been linked to good citizenry as measured by voting, protecting the environment and advancing public health (Wike et al., 2022) and to healthier societies (Healthy People 2030 n.d.; Salinsky, 2022). Putnam linked the importance of civic engagement and social connectedness to “school performance, public health, crime rates, clinical depression, tax compliance, philanthropy, race relations, community development, census returns, teen suicide, economic productivity, campaign finance, even simple human happiness – all are demonstrably affected by how (and whether) we connect with our family and friends and neighbors and coworkers” (Stossel, 2000). Ballard et al. (2019) found civic engagement in later adolescence/early adulthood to be positively associated with increased income, educational achievement, and mental health outcomes. Sanders (2001) found psychological benefits to political participation. Formal and institutional civic engagement has been declining for years (McCann, 2022), but Fine and Harrington (2004) provide an alternative perspective. Their research showed that in the face of declining institutional civil engagement, small groups can make a big difference. They suggested that “instead of indicating a decline in civil society, a proliferation of small groups JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE 2023, VOL. 31, NO. 2, 121–126 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2023.2224470
19世纪，亚历克西斯·德·托克维尔（Alexis de Tocqueville，1969）警告大多数人无所不能，个人主义对美国民主的潜在负面影响。后来Putnam（2001）回应了这一警告，认为个人主义可能导致社区脱离和我们民主的衰落。尽管托克维尔的警告发生在两个世纪前，但在枪支暴力和大规模枪击事件的激增、对气候变化的态度以及各种公共政策中，可以看到激进个人主义的危险以及将自身利益置于更大利益之上的倾向。公民参与是解药吗？面对普遍存在的私利，人们很容易忽视集体的利益，但社区利用民主创造变革的力量带来了希望。根据Longley（2022），“公民参与是指参与旨在改善社区生活质量的活动，解决公众关注的问题，如无家可归、污染或粮食不安全，并发展解决这些问题所需的知识和技能。公民参与可以包括广泛的政治和非政治活动，包括投票、志愿服务和参加社区花园和食品银行等团体活动。”公民参与的好处已经得到了广泛的研究。公民参与与投票、保护环境和促进公共健康（Wike et al.，2022）以及更健康的社会（Healthy People 2030 n.d.；Salinsky，2022）相关。Putnam将公民参与和社会联系的重要性与“学校表现、公共卫生、犯罪率、临床抑郁症、纳税、慈善事业、种族关系、社区发展、人口普查报告、青少年自杀、经济生产力、竞选资金，甚至简单的人类幸福感——所有这些都明显受到如何（以及是否）我们与家人、朋友、邻居和同事建立联系”（Stossel，2000）。Ballard等人（2019）发现，青少年后期/成年早期的公民参与与收入、教育成就和心理健康结果的增加呈正相关。Sanders（2001）发现政治参与在心理上有好处。多年来，正式和机构的公民参与一直在下降（McCann，2022），但Fine和Harrington（2004）提供了另一种视角。他们的研究表明，面对日益减少的机构公民参与，小团体可以有所作为。他们建议，“小团体的激增并没有表明公民社会的衰落，《2023年社区实践杂志》，第31卷，第2期，121-126https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2023.2224470
{"title":"Civic engagement: an antidote to desperation?","authors":"Michelle Mohr Carney, Deborah Adams, Amy Mendenhall, Mary L. Ohmer","doi":"10.1080/10705422.2023.2224470","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2023.2224470","url":null,"abstract":"In the 19 century, Alexis de Tocqueville (1969) cautioned about the omnipotence of the majority and the potential negative effects of individualism on American democracy. Later Putnam (2001) echoed that warning, suggesting that individualism could lead to community disengagement and the decline of our democracy. Although the warning from Tocqueville was two centuries ago, the dangers of radical individualism and the tendency to put self-interest ahead of the greater good can be witnessed today in the proliferation of gun violence and mass shootings, attitudes toward climate change, and a variety of public policies. Is civic engagement the antidote? It is easy to lose sight of the benefit of the collective in the face of pervasive self-interest, but the power of community to use democracy to create change offers hope. According to Longley (2022), “civic engagement means participating in activities intended to improve the quality of life in one’s community by addressing issues of public concern, such as homelessness, pollution, or food insecurity, and developing the knowledge and skills needed to address those issues. Civic engagement can involve a wide range of political and nonpolitical activities including voting, volunteering, and participating in group activities like community gardens and food banks.” The benefits of engaging civically have been widely researched. Civic engagement has been linked to good citizenry as measured by voting, protecting the environment and advancing public health (Wike et al., 2022) and to healthier societies (Healthy People 2030 n.d.; Salinsky, 2022). Putnam linked the importance of civic engagement and social connectedness to “school performance, public health, crime rates, clinical depression, tax compliance, philanthropy, race relations, community development, census returns, teen suicide, economic productivity, campaign finance, even simple human happiness – all are demonstrably affected by how (and whether) we connect with our family and friends and neighbors and coworkers” (Stossel, 2000). Ballard et al. (2019) found civic engagement in later adolescence/early adulthood to be positively associated with increased income, educational achievement, and mental health outcomes. Sanders (2001) found psychological benefits to political participation. Formal and institutional civic engagement has been declining for years (McCann, 2022), but Fine and Harrington (2004) provide an alternative perspective. Their research showed that in the face of declining institutional civil engagement, small groups can make a big difference. They suggested that “instead of indicating a decline in civil society, a proliferation of small groups JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE 2023, VOL. 31, NO. 2, 121–126 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2023.2224470","PeriodicalId":46385,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47088951","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：