Transcript Slide 1

Inspire
.
Engage.
Lead.
Crossing the Threshold: Developing
University-Community Partnerships
What are key features of successful
University-Community Partnerships?
Ruta Valaitis RN, PhD
Dorothy C. Hall in Primary Health Care Nursing
Nursing Seminar
Monday, May 7, 2012, 1:00-2:00 p.m.
McMaster Health Sciences Centre, Room 2J13
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
Principles





Think community development / engagement
Think participatory design
Think PBL
Think family dynamics
Like any good partnership, where:
– nurturing relationships
– effective communication
– participatory approaches are key!
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
2 Programs of Research
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
Renewal of Public Health
Systems
 Co-developed research proposal with DM
stakeholders
 Foundation in BC was based on a CPHFRI
(Core Public Health Functions Research
Initiative)
 ON needed to “catch up” to build a similar team
structure
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
Research Teams
 Development of the research teams takes time
– Decision-maker leads and academic leads identified
in each province
– Key supports in place with RAs as well as admin
support
– Launch in ON involved face-to-face event with some
key team members (PIs from BC led the meeting)
– ON team representation from MoHLTC, PHO, health
unit managers, front line staff in programs of interest
– Recruitment of team members occurred based on
case study sites as well as key stakeholders
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
42 members
Inspire
.
Engage.
Lead.
AN EXPLORATION OF EXPERIENCES OF
ACADEMICS AND DECISION-MAKERS IN A
COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM OF RESEARCH
REBECCA SPARK 2011
DIGITAL COMMONS:
HTTP://DIGITALCOMMONS.MCMASTER.CA/OPENDISSERTATIONS/61
51/
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
Enablers (Spark, 2011)
“Supportive Organizational Structure and
Staffing
 Organized, reliable, accessible, and
knowledgeable research staff
 Regularly scheduled team meetings
 Sufficient funding to allow for face-to-face
meetings and conference travel”
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
Enablers (Spark, 2011)
“Creation of an Open, Supportive, and Flexible
Research Environment
 Environment that fosters open lines of
communication for establishing role clarity and
attaining consensus during decision-making
 Team members strive to understand each
other’s roles and worlds
 Flexibility in meetings to allow for theoretical
and practical debates”
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
Enablers (Spark, 2011)
“Effective Communication Structures and
Processes
 Use of monthly newsletters, short electronic
communication, and reminders regarding
meetings or upcoming events
 Maintaining regular ongoing communication
with succinct updates, e.g., one pager
summaries
 Use of one single generic project email, e.g.,
[email protected]”
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
RePHS Newsletter
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
Strategies to Support Relationship
Building & Maintenance (Spark, 2011)
 “Meeting face-to-face early on in the project and
then as often as project funding and logistics
allow”
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
Spark, 2011
“Valuing and Respecting Team Members
 Listening to the voices of all participants in the
project and incorporating suggestions into
research process
 Informing decision-maker partners of research
opportunities internal and external to project
 Research staff and principal investigators are
aware of and appropriately utilize skill sets
brought to team”
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
TOPHC Conference Abstract
Panel
with DM
partners
and
others
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
Challenges (Spark, 2011)
Challenging Individual Demands
 “Individual workload demands impact time
available for project”
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
Challenges (Spark, 2011)
“Challenging Structures and Processes at the
Team Level
 Melding of research and practice perspectives
and worlds
 Communication structures not used to full
capacity, e.g., SharePoint website
 Difference between research and practice
languages impacts communication”
 And....
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
Challenges (Spark, 2011)
 “Decision-making with a large, geographically
dispersed group
 Role clarity and expectations for individual or
organizational participation not established at
project outset
 Making sure every member of the team feels
engaged and motivated”
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
(Spark, 2011)
“Structures and Processes that Could Be
Improved
 Frequent research updates that are framed for
target audience and succinct
 Include more information related to research
updates in monthly newsletters”
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
One pagers
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
Spark, 2011
“Structures and Processes that Could Be
Improved
 Principal Investigators or research staff ‘checkin’ regularly with individual team members
 Establish role clarity early in project and re-visit
and provide feedback on roles and contributions
throughout project”
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
Spark, 2011
“Mechanisms to Carry Project Momentum
Forward
 Large group face-to-face meeting to re-visit
original research plan, revise and edit and
create a plan for moving forward”
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
Implications for Researchers
 Investment of time for partnerships is essential
 This can result in loss of time in building and
maintaining relationships on the home front
resulting in:
– “I haven’t seen you in ages!”
– “What are you doing these days anyway?”
 It means less time for other scholarly activities.
 Major rewards: uptake and valuing of research
by knowledge users
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
President’s Taskforce on
Community Engagement
 “Principle 2. The University will value
collaborative research activities with
community stakeholders.
 Objectives:
– To ensure that research excellence is informed by,
supports and/or is facilitated by the community
– To promote effective, reciprocal knowledge exchange
with the community
– To enhance excellence and innovation in our
research within our communities”
 http://www.mcmaster.ca/presidentsoffice/documents/PP_CE
_final.pdf
Lead.
Engage.
Inspire
.
Strategies and
Recommendations:
“a) Link Community engagement (CE) with research priorities
i. Revise institutional policies for management of research funding and related
financial arrangements intended to address gaps in Tri‐Council policies so
that wherever possible McMaster policies recognize and support CE
ii. Integrate within hiring and reward structures for faculty
b) Facilitate knowledge exchange with the community
i. Create opportunities for reciprocal dialogue
ii. Ensure transmission of research compilations to the community
iii. Through tenure and promotion, reward researchers who participate in
community engaged scholarship and/ or integrated knowledge exchange
activities
c) Facilitate training and support for students and faculty to engage in
Participatory Action Research (PAR)
 d) Create a mechanism for reimbursing community stakeholders for
research participation’
– http://www.mcmaster.ca/presidentsoffice/documents/PP_CE_final.pdf