academic article you are mentioned in

1 23

American Journal of CommunityPsychology ISSN 0091-0562Volume 51Combined 1-2 Am J Community Psychol (2013)51:30-42DOI 10.1007/s10464-012-9498-6

Digital Animation as a Method toDisseminate Research Findings to theCommunity Using a Community-BasedParticipatory Approach

Nicole A. Vaughn, Sara F. Jacoby,Thalia Williams, Terry Guerra, NicoleA. Thomas & Therese S. Richmond

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and

all rights are held exclusively by Society for

Community Research and Action. This e-

offprint is for personal use only and shall not

be self-archived in electronic repositories.

If you wish to self-archive your work, please

use the accepted author’s version for posting

to your own website or your institution’s

repository. You may further deposit the

accepted author’s version on a funder’s

repository at a funder’s request, provided it is

not made publicly available until 12 months

after publication.

ORIGINAL PAPER

Digital Animation as a Method to Disseminate Research Findingsto the Community Using a Community-Based ParticipatoryApproach

Nicole A. Vaughn • Sara F. Jacoby •

Thalia Williams • Terry Guerra • Nicole A. Thomas •

Therese S. Richmond

Published online: 7 March 2012

� Society for Community Research and Action 2012

Abstract Community-based participatory research

(CBPR) has garnered increasing interest over the previous

two decades as researchers have tackled increasingly com-

plex health problems. In academia, professional presenta-

tions and articles are major ways that research is

disseminated. However, dissemination of research findings

to the people and communities who participated in the

research is many times forgotten. In addition, little scholarly

literature is focused on creative dissemination of research

findings to the community using CBPR methods. We seek to

fill this gap in the literature by providing an exemplar of

research dissemination and partnership strategies that were

used to complete this project. In this paper, we present a

novel approach to the dissemination of research findings to

our targeted communities through digital animation. We also

provide the foundational thinking and specific steps that

were taken to select this specific dissemination product

development and distribution strategy.

Research dissemination � Digital animation � Community

based participatory research � Youth violence

Introduction

A core tenet of research is that it is not complete until

findings are disseminated. In academia, professional pre-

sentations and peer-review articles are the major methods

by which research is disseminated (Chen et al. 2010).

Equally important, however, is the dissemination of find-

ings to the people and communities who participated in the

research. Unfortunately, this is not always done. For many

researchers, dissemination outside of the academic setting

is uncharted territory (CTSA Consortium 2008). When

research findings are disseminated, it is often narrowly

targeted to specific segments of the community such as to

care providers (Katon et al. 2010). It is often pro forma—

involving one or two presentations, distribution of a short

summary statement, or exclusively targeted to policy

makers (Isumi et al. 2010). All of these dissemination

strategies are important, but each alone is insufficient.

To diffuse research findings, both dissemination and

knowledge utilization are important in order to improve the

health of populations and change provider practice. In this

paper, we focus on dissemination of research findings

garnered from a community-based participatory research

(CBPR) project that was focused on reducing youth vio-

lence in urban communities. The impetus of our dissemi-

nation strategies was driven from the thoughtful input of

our community partners. The strategies recommended by

N. A. Vaughn � T. Williams

Department of Health Management and Policy, Philadelphia

Collaborative Violence Prevention Center (PCVPC), Drexel

University, School of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA

S. F. Jacoby

Biobehavioral and Health Sciences Department, School of

Nursing, PCVPC, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA,

USA

T. Guerra

ACHIEVEability, PCVPC, Philadelphia, PA, USA

N. A. Thomas

School of Medicine, Philadelphia Area Research Community

Coalition, PCVPC, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,

PA, USA

T. S. Richmond (&)

Biobehavioral and Health Sciences Department, School

of Nursing, PCVPC, University of Pennsylvania, Fagin Hall

Room 331, 418 Curie Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

Am J Community Psychol (2013) 51:30–42

DOI 10.1007/s10464-012-9498-6

Author's personal copy

our community partners are consistent with CBPR princi-

ples and synchronous with the growing use of social net-

works and the emerging empirical evidence supporting the

importance of interpersonal contact through social network

media to effectively disseminate influential findings

(Beaudoin and Thorson 2007; Green et al. 2009).

In this paper, we present a novel approach to the dis-

semination of research findings to our targeted communities

through digital animation. We provide the foundational

thinking and steps taken to select the specific dissemination

product development and distribution strategy. We present

this process as it unfolded over several years to: (1) indicate

the value of the academic-community partnerships, (2)

explicate the complexity of the process in which both part-

ners needed to listen and act with open minds, (3) emphasize

the need for patience with the process, and (4) highlight the

contribution of our dissemination strategy to youth devel-

opment and capacity-building in our targeted communities.

Background

Community-based participatory research has garnered

increasing interest over the previous two decades as

researchers have tackled increasingly complex health prob-

lems. Socially complex problems that are deeply embedded

in the physical, cultural, economic, and political environ-

ments lend themselves to a CBPR approach (Burdine et al.

2010). The paradigm shift to CBPR, where the community is

included as an equal partner in all aspects of the research

process, profoundly affects research and its products. Mon-

tero (2009) states that ‘‘…the voice of the people creating,

transforming, preserving, and influencing [the work]…-should be heard’’. This shift in community being ‘‘at the table

and heard’’ has resulted in increasingly rich research that is

relevant to the community and to the social aspects of

important health problems. Despite the many successful

projects using CBPR principles, many times it becomes

difficult for researchers, community and academics alike, to

ensure that ‘‘dissemination of findings and knowledge to all

partners’’ is achieved (Chen et al. 2010). Adequate dissem-

ination of findings to the community is important for many

reasons, including translation of findings into practice, but

also because community partners’ continued engagement in

CBPR activities is contingent on whether they experience

personal and community benefits (Israel et al. 2006). Finally,

when work is ‘‘carried out with community…for benefit

of the collective, [it] leads to greater awareness and

belonging’’ (Montero 2009).

One socially complex problem that is amenable to CBPR

is youth violence. Homicide remains the leading cause of

death among African American males and females between

the ages of 10 and 24 years (CDC 2010). In response to the

public health impact of youth violence in urban areas the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded

Academic Centers of Excellence for Youth Violence Pre-

vention (ACE) and Urban Partnerships-Academic Centers of

Excellence for Youth Violence Prevention (U-PACE). The

Philadelphia Collaborative Violence Prevention Center

(PCVPC) is a U-PACE that is committed to a CBPR model.

Structurally, PCVPC is comprised of four cores: (1)

Administrative and Infrastructure; (2) Research; (3) Infor-

mation; and (4) Communication and Dissemination. Each

core operates as a type of department within PCVPC with

academic and community co-directors and members who

attend meetings and ensure the work of the core is carried out

with a focus on the overall mission. For the research study

and dissemination project described in this paper, there was

work conducted within as well as between the research (i.e.,

designing and conducting initial focus group research),

administrative (i.e., developing evidence-based violence

prevention tips) and communication and dissemination (i.e.,

animation work and community dissemination strategies)

cores. In conducting violence prevention work in Philadel-

phia, PCVPC has designed, implemented, analyzed and

interpreted research projects that reflect academic-commu-

nity partnerships in all phases of the project. Finally,

authorship on all of our presentations and professional

manuscripts reflects this central commitment to partnership.

At the beginning of the development and design of the

PCVPC research studies, the youth homicide rate in these

communities was 5 times the national rate (Centers for Dis-

ease Control 2006). Children living in these low-resource

communities are confronted by environmental risks including

poverty, less access to school resources, lower quality hous-

ing, and poorer municipal services (Evans 2004). Despite the

vulnerabilities present in PCVPC’s partner community (e.g.,

poverty, crime, truancy, and poor high school graduation

rates), the community has a number of assets. These assets

include strong churches, committed community-owned

businesses, relatively stable residential population, a mature

public transportation system, and youth programs in recrea-

tion centers. Finally, community leadership is strong and these

leaders are active and passionate about improving their

community. Academic and community partners came toge-

ther to develop PCVPC from its inception with leadership

activities equally shared between academic and community

partners, financial support from research grants going to both

academic and community partners, and a full partnership in all

aspects of the research process. Sustainability and building

capacity in the community across adults and youth was a well-

defined priority of the PCVPC.

Over the first several years, PCVPC academic and

community researchers focused on the implementation of

co-designed research projects, analyzing and interpreting

findings, and disseminating those findings at professional

Am J Community Psychol (2013) 51:30–42 31

123


meetings and in publications. As projects came to comple-

tion, we sought avenues to effectively disseminate the find-

ings to our communities. We looked to the literature to seek

recommendations for the best practices in dissemination to

youth and adult members of urban communities. The bulk of

scholarly publications on CBPR focused on strategies to

develop the ‘front end’ of the CBPR process, including

developing partnerships, jointly designing and implement-

ing research studies, financial distribution of grant support

across academia and community partners, and making con-

nections with ethnic media to promote action and research

(Redwood et al. 2010; Trinh-Shevrin et al. 2007).

In a recent systematic review, researchers evaluated

studies using CBPR to describe ways to disseminate research

beyond publications. Results of this review indicated that

only 48% of publications identified strategies used for broad

community dissemination (Chen et al. 2010). The modes of

dissemination described included word of mouth, use of

flyers, the media, and most commonly through community

meetings. Chen et al. (2010) contacted the authors of

included studies and requested authors to submit additional

information via a web-based survey about research dissem-

ination and 84% reported dissemination of results to the

general public. Thus, it is likely that dissemination activities

are under-reported in academic publications. In addition,

little scholarly literature is focused on specific as well as

creative dissemination of research findings to the community

using CBPR methods. We seek to fill this gap in the literature

by providing an exemplar of research dissemination and

partnership strategies that were used to complete this project.

Project Description

Philadelphia Collaborative Violence Prevention Center has

a portfolio of research studies, all of which focus on youth

and youth violence in its targeted communities. In this

section, we describe in detail the steps taken from the

completion of one of the research studies to dissemination

of the project findings to the community (see Table 1). The

Table 1 Overview of digital animation development

Phase Activities and processes Duration

1. Negotiating dissemination

strategy

Discussion of potential dissemination strategies with Community Advisory Board (CAB)

Consultation with PCVPC members

1 month

2. Translating research into

vignettes

Summer research intern identifies prime narratives from qualitative interview transcripts

Development of vignettes amenable to comic/cartoon/animation

Linking vignettes to evidence-based tips

Eliciting feedback from CAB

3 months

3. Engaging potential artists Local artists in comic, cartoon, and animation media interviewed and samples of work

obtained

Discussion of the goals and philosophy of PCVPC to ensure that artists would be amenable to

engaging in an iterative and youth-centered development process

1 month

4. Youth focus groups:

communication and media

2 Youth focus groups conducted to elicit: local youth communication norms, access to media,

validation of acceptability of vignettes, prioritization of vignettes for development, ranking

of acceptability and attractiveness of potential media platforms

Discussion of focus group reports with PCVPC members

Hiring animator based on youth perspective

1 month

5. Engaging a Youth Advisory

Board

Recruitment and development of Youth Advisory Board (YAB) 2 months

6. Youth focus group: animation

storyboards

1 Focus group conducted with animator to discuss: storyboards for animation development,

animation style and vignette content

1 month

7. Rescripting vignettes Members of YAB rescript vignettes to reflect local youth-appropriate environment, situation

and voice

2 weeks

8. Voice-over sessions Recruit YAB members, focus group participants, and community leaders to provide voice to

the animated characters

Conduct two recording sessions

2 weeks

9. Animation development,

feedback and finalization

Animator created animated shorts

Feedback on shorts from YAB and PCVPC members integrated into finalized versions

Presentation of shorts and recognition of all contributors at PCVPC community symposium

Use of main animated characters for advertisement on mass transit system

Creation of Facebook page

3 months

32 Am J Community Psychol (2013) 51:30–42

123


purpose of this mixed methods research study was to elicit

perspectives from community youth in their own words, on

the assets available and stressors affecting them in the

community (Teitelman et al. 2010). Throughout the pro-

cess of working on this dissemination project, community

voice was paramount. Since the focus of the Center was

using CBPR approaches for violence prevention, the

community was consulted from the beginning of the Cen-

ter. It is important to note that the community members

were a functioning group and working in partnership with

the Center as well as with other non-Center health dis-

parities research projects. The academic partnership with

the Center was ‘‘on their agenda’’ and they made the col-

lective decision to partner on this violence prevention

project for their community. Through the community

coalition—Philadelphia Area Research Community Coali-

tion (PARCC)—the community selected all of the com-

munity co-directors for PCVPC with no input from the

academic researchers. In addition, the community identi-

fied key leaders and potential community advisory board

members (CAB) who were ultimately invited to serve on

the 5-year advisory board for the Center based on their

interest and expertise. The CAB is comprised of 10 com-

munity leaders with expertise in youth and adult pro-

gramming, media dissemination, and community relations.

The CAB was established at the inception of the PCVPC

and provides feedback on the direction of the Center’s

research and dissemination efforts.

The academic and community researchers who ran the

assets and stressors study, were invited to a PCVPC CAB

meeting to present and received feedback on best modes of

community dissemination. In this meeting, the research

findings were reviewed and questions posed were discussed

and answered, to ensure that the CAB members understood

as clearly as possible the purpose and results of the research

study and the type of findings that would be disseminated.

The key recommendations from this meeting were: (1) target

findings to both adults and youth in the community; (2)

include community youth in the dissemination process and

keep the CAB informed; and (3) move beyond only reporting

findings, but give concrete strategies that community mem-

bers can take to put the findings into action.

The research team discussed the advice given from the

CAB and decided that the qualitative findings from the

mixed methods research study would be most appropriate

for initial dissemination and would specifically address the

recommendations. This decision was based on the premise

that quantitative data (numbers) would not speak as ‘‘elo-

quently’’ to the community as stories that could be derived

from the qualitative research data.

In translating the qualitative data to a dissemination

product, we wanted to assure that no youth could be

identified and thus did not want to use direct quotes from

the interviews. To this end, we engaged a summer research

intern to review all of the de-identified transcripts of the

qualitative interviews and to identify vignettes that could

be translated into a narrative or story form. The intern first

identified 8 potential story lines and generated a narrative

that told the story of the data (i.e., ‘‘staying true’’ to the

data) but was instructed to avoid any use of direct quotes

from the interviewer or youth. This process yielded the 8

initial story lines with themes that were most salient from

the data for the dissemination project. The initial scripts

were created by an intern (an African American male

college student), but were re-scripted based on input from

local Philadelphia teenagers working as a part of the

Center’s outreach team and youth advisory board. Ulti-

mately, 5 story lines were selected for full development by

the youth participating in focus groups.

The CAB specifically recommended that any dissemi-

nation product should include specific action steps that

could be taken by community members. To accomplish

this, the story lines were linked with evidence-based action

steps that could be taken by youth, adults, and public

officials to support youth and reduce violence in the

community. Academic and community researchers work-

ing with PCVPC in the administrative core had recently

completed a project in which 55 evidence-based tips to

reduce youth violence were developed to support its overall

role as a data-driven group focused on youth violence

prevention in the region. Tips were selected based on their

alignment with the qualitative data from the interviews.

The interviews were turned into scripts and the salient

messages from the youth interviews were mapped onto the

evidence-based tips. This developed resource provided an

ideal way to link the research findings to evidence-based

action steps (see Table 2).

After solidifying iterations of the vignettes and then

linking them with the evidence-based tips to the satisfac-

tion of the research team, we took this product to other

community members involved with PCVPC to get their

feedback. Overall feedback was positive, but community

members indicated youth would not read this information

as a column in the local newspapers. One community

member, who served as a co-director for the Center’s

research core, was also involved in the research study and

recommended developing comics from the story lines for

placement in a local newspaper. The CAB confirmed the

comic recommendation as a potential vehicle for dissemi-

nation. Subsequently, a small group of youth working with

the Center was informally queried on the idea of comics

and asked if their peers would read comics. The youth

indicated that their peers would be more likely to view

animation. This idea of animated messages was consistent

with feedback we received from our community partner

organizations as well as the CAB.


123


The need to broadly reach community youth by

continuing to include them into the process was discussed

during the CAB meeting. Thus, in the summer of 2009, a

small group of youth working with the Communication and

Dissemination Core gave their ideas and thoughts to the

project by reviewing the initial idea of moving from a

comic to an animated end product. It is important to note,

however, that the decision to use animation was not

solidified until formal focus groups with youth were

completed (these focus groups are described in a sub-

sequent section). Additionally, this small group of youth

gave valuable feedback for the development of a PCVPC

Youth Advisory Board (YAB). They described the types of

youth that would be interested, incentives and a preferred

meeting schedule for their peers. The Center’s inaugural

YAB was seated for the 2010–2011 academic year and

youth from the YAB were involved in the development,

refinement and approval of the final characters. Both the

YAB and CAB members were updated during their

respective meetings throughout the process of developing

the characters and the animations in order to capture

ongoing community feedback and input.

After this feedback was received, the vignettes and early

iterations of potential dialogue provided a starting point

from which to elicit perspectives from a formal focus group

of community youth to support an effective and relevant

dissemination plan. To prepare for the focus groups, three

different artists (a cartoonist, a team of comic artists and an

animator) all of whom had experience working on the

creation of social and/or health-promoting media were

interviewed and made aware of the goals of the project.

Examples of each artist’s work were gathered in a portfo-

lio. This portfolio was used as visual material to be pre-

sented to focus groups to elicit opinion on the following

themes: youth communication, popular information dis-

semination forums, desired forms of artistic translation of

study findings, and overall acceptability of comic vignettes.

Two focus groups were planned and youth between the

ages of 10–16 years living in West and Southwest Phila-

delphia were recruited by using flyers and word of mouth.

Focus group guides were developed and adjusted for con-

tent appropriate to participants in the age range of 10–13

and 14–16. The two focus groups were carried out on

weekdays during after-school hours just prior to the end of

the school year at an easily accessible community recrea-

tion center. The incentives for participation included a pass

to a local movie theater, tokens for travel and refreshments

during the course of the 2-h sessions. Approximately half

of the participants for each focus group responded to a

recruitment flyer and registered for participation. The

remaining half was recruited directly on-site.

The first focus group comprised of one male and five

female participants between 14 and 16 years old. Two

researchers associated with PCVPC conducted the groups

(a community mobilizer with several years experience in

community-based research and a doctoral student with

experience conducting focus groups). All participants were

made aware that the session was being audiotaped and

would be transcribed in a de-identified manner for the

purpose of creating a focus group report. Examples of

questions that comprised the focus group interview guide

are illustrated in Table 3.

Table 2 Behind the animation: using evidence-based ‘TIPS’ for violence prevention

Animated message Evidence-based rationale Reference(s)

Young people have a lot to offer if you let them: help

connect them to businesses and organizations that can

value their energy, vision, and potential

Youth gainfully employed are less likely to engage or

involve themselves in risky behaviors. Youth who work in

high school are less likely to engage in negative behavior

or drop out than their peers who do not work

Stone and

Mortimer

(1998)

Good friends matter Positive friends can influence youth to practice safe behavior

and good study habits, while negative friends can pressure

youth to do things that are not in their best interest

Nelson and

DeBacker

(2008)

Practice ways to calm down before you are in a conflict Practicing ways to control anger can prevent tense situations

from escalating into violent interactions

Guerra et al.

(1996)

Use the wisdom in your community It is important for youth to have access to individuals in the

community who set an example by attitude, behavior, and

thought process. Community experts and leaders serve as

powerful resources for young adults linking them to helpful

resources and support

Pepper (2007),

Saegert and

Winkel (2004)

Being hurt can lead to later violence Youth victims of violence may respond to emotional or

physical injury through retaliatory actions. This behavior

put youth at higher risk re-injury. It is necessary for those

in contact with the victim to understand this and make

every effort to aid their recovery

Cooper et al.

(2000),

Kellerman

(1998)


123


One of the main findings regarding youth communica-

tion was that text messaging and emailing on personal

cellular phones are the most common communication

strategies employed among their peer group. All partici-

pants reported that they and the vast majority of their

friends had personal cellular phones with Internet capa-

bility. The most common media-sharing site referenced

was YouTube along with the most common networking

site, Facebook. None of the participants reported reading

newspapers; the Internet was both the most common and

most trusted source of information.

The focus group participants provided feedback on the

vignettes and all agreed that the vignettes presented sce-

narios that could realistically occur in their neighborhoods.

Youth rated their acceptance/preference of the vignettes.

Realism and humor were the two qualities most valued in

the vignettes and served as the basis for preference choices.

There was a general consensus that in comparing cartoons,

comics, and animation examples, animation was the most

appealing form of visual media by which to present the

vignettes. All agreed that they would rather view a vignette

than have to read it and would be more likely to send a

video than a comic or cartoon to a friend.

The second focus group included 12 participants aged

10–13 years (1 female and 11 males). In agreement with the

responses received from the older cohort, text messaging

using personal cellular phones and internet-based conver-

sation were stated as the predominant way by which youth

and their peer group communicated. Despite their younger

age, the group stated that having a personal cellular phone

and access to the internet were the norm. All youth reported

frequent use of YouTube to view videos. All were also

familiar with and regularly used social networking websites

like Facebook. During the discussion of the vignette content,

there was a general agreement that the vignettes presented

scenarios that could realistically occur in their neighbor-

hoods. It was more difficult, however, to have these younger

youth rank the vignettes according to preference or explicate

the rationale behind their ranking choices. In parallel to the

responses of the older cohort, the group consensus was that

animation scenarios are more appealing than that of comic or

cartoon art. All agreed that they would rather view a vignette

than have to read it and would be more likely to send a video

rather than a comic to a friend. As in the older cohort, this

cohort emphasized the importance of realism (whether ani-

mated or not) in making a vignette appealing.

Summary reports of both focus groups were created and

disseminated to the project working group. The five most

preferred and well-accepted vignettes were chosen for

further development. Of the artists initially contacted, the

animator was re-interviewed and hired to create animated

shorts that reflected the content and meaning of each of the

five vignettes and the associated evidence-based tips. As

part of his contract, the animator was asked to participate in

an iterative product development process in which youth

voice and feedback would be integral to character and

storyboard development and design.

Storyboard Focus Group

Authenticity of the characters and surrounding environ-

ments was of the utmost importance in order to make the

vignettes more appealing and engaging for today’s youth.

Therefore, another focus group was held with youth

between the ages of 10–17 to review the storyboards

designed by the animator. Flyers and word of mouth were

used to recruit youth participants for this session. As an

effort to attract and recruit more youth to participate, flyers

were hand delivered, electronically sent, and mailed to

PCVPC’s CAB, community partners and sites such as

churches and recreation centers in the targeted areas, and

researchers who conduct and/or have conducted work

within the targeted areas. Additionally, youth participants

from the previous two focus groups were contacted by

Table 3 Examples of youth focus group interview questions

Youth communication:

1. How do you and your friends communicate with each other?

2. What is your experience with the Internet?

3. How do you use the Internet?

a. Where do you have access?

b. What do you typically use the Internet for?

c. What about your friends?

d. Do you visit sites like YouTube?

e. What about Face book? Or Myspace?

f. Are there other sites that you and your friends use to send

messages to each other?

In response to the violence prevention vignettes:

1. Overall, what do you think of these stories?

a. What do you think of the main points of the stories?

b. Do you think they are important for you and your life?

c. Do you agree with the main points of these stories?

i. Why?

ii. Why not?

2. Which ones do you think are the most important and which

ones seem less important?

a. Why?

In response to examples of comics, cartoons, and animation as

platforms for vignettes:

1. What do you think of these different ways to illustrate stories?

a. Why?

b. If you were going to order them from most interesting/

attractive to least interesting/attractive how would you do

that? Why?


123


phone and invited to participate. The focus group was

carried out on a weekday during mid-morning hours in an

office building of a local hospital in Philadelphia. Youth

participants received a ten dollar gift card to a local movie

theater and two public transportation tokens to cover

transportation to and from the session. Additionally,

refreshments were provided after the session.

A total of 6 youth participated in the session, 5 males

and 1 female, in addition to 2 parent/guardians, both

females, stayed throughout the session to assist with

supervision of the youth. One of the male youth partici-

pants was a member of the PCVPC YAB. Consonant with

the Center’s focus on CBPR principles in conducting

research, co-learning and knowledge dissemination are

important. Thus, before formally starting the session, the

animator provided the youth with information about

careers in media art, particularly focusing on animation and

computer animation. In the presentation, the animator

highlighted the necessary education requirements and work

experience, showed the step-by-step process of creating an

animated episode, and discussed the roles of animators in

recent movies such as Avatar, Toy Story, and Shrek. The

animator welcomed and thoroughly answered questions

from the youth about the steps that can be taken at their age

to pursue a career in media arts as well as earnings and

employment opportunities in the field.

After providing this background, the focus group session

began and the youth participants were asked to express

their thoughts and provide their feedback and input to the

animator about the characters and the visual appearance of

the environments that would be displayed in the episodes.

The animator presented a draft sketch of the storyboard for

each of the five selected vignettes—(1) ‘‘Barbershop’’; (2)

‘‘Peer Pressure’’; (3) ‘‘Keeping Calm’’; (4) ‘‘Role Models’’;

and (5) ‘‘Retribution’’. Based on the sketch and violence

prevention tip of focus, the animator provided and

explained a summary of the characters’ features, which

included personality, dialect, and dress, as well as the

visual appearance of the surrounding environment. Youth

participants provided feedback on these aspects for each

storyboard. Youth unanimously agreed that the youth

characters’ clothing, especially those of the two main

characters, should be trendy and urban, similar to brands

and styles that they would currently wear. To make the

scenes more authentic, youth participants provided the

animator with descriptions of their own neighborhoods.

Participants also discussed the types of violent acts that

youth commit in their own neighborhoods such as chasing

individuals and damaging property.

At the end of the session, youth were invited to serve

as the voices of the characters. Along with their honorar-

ium, youth received a packet of information that included

a letter to their parent/or guardians giving a detailed

explanation of the project and the youth’s potential

involvement in the project, a PCVPC brochure highlighting

information about the Center, and a consent form for

recording and filming. Youth were instructed to give this

packet to their parent/guardian if interested in participating

in the recording and filming stage of the process. It was

strongly emphasized by the focus group moderators and

animator that youth must bring the completed consent form

to the first recording and filming session in order to fully

participate. Without the form, youth would not be able to

contribute to the recording and filming sessions.

Character Development

Previous research has shown the effectiveness of linking

characters with marketing to youth in influencing food

choice and purchasing (De Droog et al. 2011). Thus,

linking specific characters to dissemination of information

to youth was viewed as a meritorious approach. Two

members of the YAB, 1 male and 1 female, who were

between the ages of 16 and 17, collaboratively worked with

a graduate research assistant to develop and design the

main characters—Briana and Damon—whose lives are

highlighted in the animation episodes. The youth met

weekly with a graduate research assistant for 2 h to discuss

how they perceived the characters and how they wanted

other youth to perceive the characters. The youth discussed

and provided suggestions about the characters’ physical

appearance, personality, and dialect.

Voice Over Work with Youth and Community Adults

After the development of the main characters, storyboards,

and dialogue, youth and adults were recruited to participate

as the voices of the characters for the animation. Youth

participants of the focus group with parental consent par-

ticipated in this phase. In addition, the team working on

this project decided that additional adults from the com-

munity should be recruited in order to add to the authen-

ticity of the scenes. The developed vignettes required 3

additional adults (i.e., barbershop owner, store owner and

teacher). Adults from the community who currently work

in these roles were recruited to play these parts. A local

community-based organization offered the use of their

space for the voice over work and the animator was able to

capture audio of the local environment to add to the ani-

mations. Refreshments were provided and public trans-

portation tokens were provided to defray the costs of

coming to the location. Each adult participant and parent/

guardian of a youth participant signed a consent form

giving permission to PCVPC to use their voice and images

for dissemination purposes. In addition, minor youth par-

ticipants gave verbal assent for their participation.


123


Community Symposium

Each year, PCVPC holds a community-wide symposium to

deliver information and discuss the research progress of the

Center. The attendees of the symposium include commu-

nity leaders, residents and representatives from commu-

nity-based organizations and programs. The project team

decided that the focus on youth from the advisory boards

and the animation projects should be featured during the

annual symposium. As a part of the planning, the youth and

adult talent for the animation project were invited to attend

the symposium along with their family and friends. The

first 2 animated clips in the series were premiered during

the symposium and the voice talents were honored and

recognized. The animated clips were well received by the

community audience of approximately 150 attendees.

Creation of Facebook Page

Consonant with the focus group recommendations, the

social media website—Facebook—was suggested as a

dissemination tool for this project. After development of

the animated episodes, a community Facebook page was

created with the goal of reaching a wide range of audiences

with a particular focus on youth in Philadelphia. The

community page, which highlights Briana and Damon,

displays the animated episodes as well as information

about the PCVPC and its youth violence prevention efforts

in the West and Southwest Philadelphia communities (to

view on Facebook see ‘Briana and Damon Violence Pre-

vention’). The page also features a discussion board in

which supporters can participate in a dialogue with each

other and members of the Center by asking and answering

questions about youth violence prevention as well as gather

resources and local event information for youth.

Center Branding and Marketing of Animated

Characters

Academic and community researchers decided to use the

main characters for the animation project (i.e., Briana and

Damon) as the brand for the Center. In order to ensure that

dissemination of this work was widespread in our target

neighborhoods, we queried our CAB for mass media

marketing outlets. The CAB identified a local utility

company that runs a marquee on the top of one of the

tallest buildings in the city, the public transit system, as

well as local newspapers and radio stations. We began

researching the cost and feasibility of each of the recom-

mendations. Initially, we discussed target audience, mes-

saging, and design. After assessing reach, audience, and

cost, we came to consensus and began work with the local

transit system in Philadelphia to design advertisements

featuring these 2 characters with one of the evidence-based

tips from the Center. As the ad was developed, the youth

and adults from the community remained active in the

review process to ensure acceptability of design and mes-

sage. A copy of the final ads can be found in Figs. 1 and 2.

Discussion

The public health approach to youth violence prevention

culminates in dissemination of information to support the

adoption of evidence-based strategies to decrease violence

and injury (National Center for Injury Prevention and Con-

trol 2009). Researchers must take this final step seriously and

in this paper we described our process for dissemination of

research findings as a central part of our mission. PCVPC is

committed to fully engaging community researchers and

members in our work and understanding the best means and

modes for dissemination with our partners is central to this

process. Wallerstein and Duran (2003) posit that ‘‘best

practices of CBPR involve and promote the participation of

community members in order to transform their lives.’’ Chen

et al. (2010) describe results from their analysis that includes

dissemination to community participants and the general

public and conclude that there is wide variation in the time

and effort allocated to dissemination. Most dissemination

efforts focus on the academic products such as conference

presentations and manuscripts. While the work of PCVPC

has focused on the traditional academic dissemination

products, we have balanced our work with a distinct focus on

community dissemination of products that are co-created

with our target audience.

This work has been engaging, however, it is important to

convey that dissemination activities such as these take time.

Listening thoughtfully, while remaining focused on deliv-

ering a high quality product that is appropriate for our

audience was crucial to this project’s success. Feedback from

our community partners and youth has been positive and this

work has sparked interest in this type of dissemination of

evidence-based research in a novel way. We believe that

through this project we have worked through a number of the

CBPR principles (Israel et al. 2003). Specifically, we rec-

ognized our defined community as a unit of identity by

working in our target areas to hold community meetings,

focus groups, recruit for character development and voice

over work as well as disseminate through the local public

transportation system. We ‘‘built on the strengths and

resources within the community’’ by working with adult

leaders and youth in the community as the voice and creative

talent behind the work. We contributed to community

capacity and promoted ‘‘co-learning and empowerment’’ by

having the animator discuss career opportunities and path-

ways for youth and by providing them with the opportunity to


123


not only give their ideas and feedback but to continually

engage in the work while the animator and academics

learned about their community partners, creating meaningful

messaging for youth and community resources from the

YAB and CAB members (Cook 2008).

Finally, this overall work involved many iterations and

cycles as well as parallel processes. The PCVPC is com-

prised of researchers not only across disciplines but also

across universities and communities. With a commitment to

work across the Center’s formal core structure (e.g., research

core working with the communication and dissemination

core), the community and academic researchers were able to

maximize expertise and take actionable steps to see the

process through to dissemination. As with all CBPR projects,

this work has surfaced additional community needs and has

shown that when working together, communities can see the

direct and tangible benefit of academic-community part-

nerships within the timeframe of a grant period.

Lessons Learned

Throughout this project we learned a number of valuable

lessons in using CBPR principles in disseminating research

Fig. 1 Initial advertisement introducing brand characters from PCVPC to public


123


findings directly for community audiences. The first of

these lessons includes academic expectations regarding

timelines and the ‘‘speed’’ of moving through the process.

We recognized the value of allocating additional time and

being flexible with the process for dissemination. No step

in the process could be ‘diluted’ or ‘rushed’. The CAB

meets quarterly and the YAB meets monthly, thus the

academic partners had to be respectful of presenting and

vetting the ideas through these valuable community lead-

ers. This process took a considerable amount of time given

that the YAB was formed within the last year of the pro-

ject, however, waiting for their feedback was important as

they were able to provide recommendations that could be

incorporated into the product drafts. Over time, we realize

there are efficiencies that develop and from working

through this process we feel confident that we have a

systematic process for vetting and disseminating informa-

tion with respect and input from community voices.

An important lesson learned involved including youth as

early as possible to ensure relevance and youth voice for

this project. Although youth were participants in the initial

focus groups of the mixed methods research study, there

was no formal group of youth assembled prior to the dis-

semination project. The authors of this paper (both aca-

demic and community researchers) decided early in the

process to begin to elicit youth feedback first by informally

Fig. 2 One of the still evidence-based tips advertisements from the animation feature


123


querying youth in the target age range who were working

with PCVPC, then by recruiting a formal focus group of 2

groups of youth in different age categories, and then by

working with PCVPC’s newly formed YAB.

We learned that there was a need to balance youth as

well as adult ideas involving the development of the main

characters, Briana and Damon. The youth had distinct ideas

that made the characters appealing to their peers, however,

some of these ideas were in conflict with the image PCVPC

wanted to project to the public. For example, the animator

initially created the male character with a skull and

crossbones logo on his hat and the youth did not object to

this logo. However, community and academic researchers

as well as the community liaison coordinator from PCVPC

felt this image was not appropriate for a violence preven-

tion center and the logo was changed to reflect PCVPC. All

members of the team decided that the Center logo would be

more appropriate to brand the characters as we wanted the

main characters to appear in future animations and adver-

tisements. The Center logo on the apparel of the main

characters was presented to the YAB members. After dis-

cussing with the youth the importance of consistency of

messaging and branding aligning with the Center’s mission

and the potential ‘skull and crossbones’’ logo evoking the

meaning of death, it became apparent to the youth that this

was not appropriate for a violence prevention center and

they approved of this change. Youth were more concerned

about clothing style of the characters rather than the sym-

bols used. This processing of vetting changes through the

adult as well as youth community members aided in adding

authenticity to the characters. Youth voice and recom-

mendations were definitely valued and incorporated into

the final version of the characters. They decided that the

main male character needed to carry an MP3 player with

smaller headphones than originally presented. They also

decided to change many features of the main female

character, which included pants, jewelry, hairstyle and

shoes. This process of full inclusion of youth into the

project is similar to Montero’s work which highlights that

it is important when youth ‘‘voice their opinion, ideas,

criticisms [while] taking care not to disqualify anyone’s

work, but allow learning and correcting by themselves [of]

their own work’’ (Montero 2009). Finally, YAB members

were key to the process by reworking the original dialogue

to include common expressions of their peers for the ani-

mated vignettes.

Our project focused on dissemination of research about

violence prevention. We believe that the strategies

employed to disseminate these findings are highly relevant

to many other topics. A major consideration is the

resources required for such a dissemination plan. Research

teams will have different resource limitations and each

team will have to consider how to best use those resources

to jointly reflect community and academic voice. Our

decision to use print advertising and develop animated

vignettes was based on the fact that print advertising was

the most reasonably priced in our geographic region and

the animator we worked with was extremely talented yet

willing to charge reduced fees as he considered this a

community service project. There is an array of choices in

creating a product from using amateurs in the community

to students at local colleges and professionals. We under-

stood that animation was chosen based on the youth data

from the focus groups and that animation required a high-

level of technical skills. With commitment and resource-

fulness, we were able to balance the desired product within

time and budget constraints were important for our work.

While this paper focused on messaging meant to target

youth and adults, there were additional products developed

by the Communication and Dissemination core of PCVPC

specifically for adults from the target community. Other

research projects from the Center were turned into com-

munity research briefs with a focus on lay audiences and

were distributed through a partnership with a widely read

local community newspaper. The process for developing

these products is beyond the scope of this paper. Addi-

tionally, there were no direct methods to directly assess the

attractiveness of our advertisements for adults from the

target community. However, adults from the target com-

munity were in positions of leadership within the Center

(i.e., community liaison coordinator) and gave their candid

feedback on all of the dissemination products.

Finally, we recognize that there was a small group of

youth for the focus group and also who were members of

the YAB and that these youth may not be representative

of all youth in the community. Yet many youth involved

described themselves and their immediate friends as

receiving both positive and negative influences. The intent

of our messages through our vignettes and advertisements

was not to isolate or stigmatize youth who may be less

‘‘well-adjusted’’ but to provide opportunities to promote

positive evidence-based messaging irrespective of the

youth’s circumstances. The community members of the

research team as well as the CAB members made this point

extremely clear. The messages were meant to depict the

reality for youth while giving them the language of positive

alternatives to violence.

Next Steps

While there were lessons learned from this project, there

are definite limitations of this work. We know that by

working with both youth and adults from the community

that our end products reflect community voice, however,

we do not know the effectiveness of our dissemination


123


strategy to use animated characters in advertisements and

animated vignettes. The focus of this research project was

to be responsive to the recommendations of our community

partners, CAB, YAB and to reach a wider community

audience of youth and adults with violence prevention

messaging that included specific strategies that they could

employ. There was a focus on youth with the messaging of

the animated vignettes, however, we wanted to ensure that

the advertisements incorporated the evidence-based mes-

sage with action steps for both youth and adults. We know

that the advertisements we have developed with the

PCVPC main characters have been viewed and are

approved by community audiences (e.g., symposium). We

also know that the ridership of the local trains in our tar-

geted neighborhoods over the course of our advertising

period reaches approximately 1,428,000 riders every

28 days. Advertisements are run for 60 days. Formally

evaluating the appeal and the effectiveness of the mes-

saging as well as determining if the advertisements

increase traffic to the PCVPC website is yet to be deter-

mined. A more focused research project of the effective-

ness of our dissemination products as well as the evaluation

of content and the comprehension of the main message of

the vignettes is warranted.

In conclusion, this project has benefitted the academic

and community audiences in that we were able to develop a

systematic process for developing a dissemination

approach with and for community audiences. This meth-

odology is not confined to violence prevention but can be

used with any topic as it lends itself as a way of ensuring

that the products of research are disseminated beyond the

academic community. More research is needed regarding

these types of approaches and understanding around timely

community dissemination is important to improve research

creditability and community ideas around the real-time

benefit of quality mixed-methods research studies and

dissemination projects.

Acknowledgments Funding for this work was provided by the

cooperative agreement number 5 U49 CE001093 from the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention. Its contents are the sole responsi-

bility of the authors and do not represent the official position of the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We would like to

acknowledge the following PCVPC team members for their work

with this dissemination project, including: LaVelle King, Alvin

Rucker, Crystal Wyatt, Nigell Hester, Portia Thomas, Saburah Abdul-

Kabir, and Anna Hargrove. We would also like to acknowledge the

work of the additional members of the Communication and Dis-

semination and Research Cores of the Center who include Steve Leff,

PhD, Tom Henry, and Ayana Bradshaw. We would like to thank

ACHIEVEability and Ahmad Ajouz of Digital Media Graphix. We

would also like to thank the youth and adults that participated in the

focus groups as well as voiced the animated vignettes. Finally, we

would like to thank the PCVPC Community and Youth Advisory

Boards for their continued feedback and dedication to the process of

dissemination.

References

Beaudoin, C. E., & Thorson, E. (2007). Evaluating the effects of a

youth health media campaign. Journal of Health Communica-tion, 12(5), 439–454.

Burdine, J. N., McLeroy, K., Blakely, C., Wendel, M. L., & Felix, M.

R. J. (2010). Community-based participatory research and

community health development. Journal of Primary Prevention,31(1), 1–7.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2006). Web-

based injury statistics and reporting system (WISQARS).Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://webappa.cdc.gov/

sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2010). Web-

based injury statistics and reporting system (WISQARS).Retrieved June 14, 2010, from http://www.cdc.gov/injury.

Chen, P. G., Diaz, N., Lucas, G., & Rosenthal, M. S. (2010).

Dissemination of results in community-based participatory

research. American Journal of Prevention Research, 39(4),

372–378.

Cook, W. K. (2008). Integrating research and action: A systematic

review of community-based participatory research to address

health disparities in environmental and occupational health in the

USA. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62,

668–676.

Cooper, C., Eslinger, D., Nash, D., al-Zawahri, J., & Stolley, P.

(2000). Repeat victims of violence: Report of a large

concurrent case-control study. Archives of Surgery, 135(7),

837–843.

CTSA Consortium. (2008). The clinical and translational science

award (CTSA) Consortium’s community engagement key func-

tion committee and the CTSA community engagement workshop

planning committee. Researchers and their communities: Thechallenge of meaningful community engagement. Retrieved

March 1, 2012, from http://www.virginia.edu/provost/public/

pdf/Best_Practices_in_Community_Engagement_Summary_2007-

08.pdf.

De Droog, S. M., Valkenburg, P. M., & Buijzen, M. (2011). Using

brand characters to promote young children’s liking of and

purchase requests for fruit. Journal of Health Communications,16(1), 79–89.

Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty.

American Psychologist, 59(2), 77–92.

Green, L. W., Ottoson, J. M., Garcia, C., & Hiatt, R. A. (2009).

Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and

integration in public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 30,

151–174.

Guerra, N., Eron, L. D., Huesmann, L. R., Tolan, P., & Van Acker, R.

(1996). A cognitive ecological approach to the prevention and

mitigation of violence and aggression in inner city youth. In D.

Fry & K. Bjorkyvist (Eds.), Cultural variation in conflictresolution (pp. 199–214). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Israel, B. A., Krieger, J., Vlahov, D., Ciske, S., Foley, M., Fortin, P.,

et al. (2006). Challenges and facilitating factors in sustaining

community-based participatory research partnerships: Lessons

learned from the Detroit, New York City and Seattle urban

research centers. Journal of Urban Health, 83(6), 1022–1040.

Israel, B., Schulz, A., Parker, E., Becker, A., Allen, A. J., & Guzman,

J. R. (2003). Critical issues in developing and following

community based participatory research principles. In M.

Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community-based participa-tory research for health (pp. 53–76). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Isumi, B. T., Schulz, A. J., Israel, B. A., Reyes, A. G., Martin, J.,

Lichtenstein, R. L., et al. (2010). The one-pager: A practical


123


http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

http://www.cdc.gov/injury

http://www.virginia.edu/provost/public/pdf/Best_Practices_in_Community_Engagement_Summary_2007-08.pdf



policy advocacy tool for translating community-based partici-

patory research in action. Progress in Community HealthPartnerships, 4(2), 141–147.

Katon, W., Unutzer, J., Wells, K., & Jones, L. (2010). Collaborative

depression care: History, evolution and ways to enhance

dissemination and sustainability. General Hospital Psychiatry,32(5), 456–464.

Kellerman, A. (1998). Preventing youth violence: What works?

Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 271–292.

Montero, M. (2009). Community action and research as citizenship

construction. American Journal of Community Psychology,43(1), 149–161.

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2009). CDCinjury research agenda, 2009–2018. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Depart-

ment of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention.

Nelson, R., & DeBacker, T. (2008). Achievement motivation in

adolescents: The role of peer climate and best friends. TheJournal of Experimental Education, 76(2), 170–189.

Pepper, J. (2007). What really matters: Service, leadership, people,and values. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Redwood, D., Lanier, A., Kemberling, M., Kleika, J., Sylvester, I., &

Lundgren, K. (2010). Community-based participatory research in

a large cohort study of chronic diseases among Alaska adults.

Progress in Community Health Partnerships, 4(4), 325–330.

Saegert, S., & Winkel, G. (2004). Crime, social capital, and

community participation. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 34(3), 219–233.

Stone, J., & Mortimer, J. (1998). The effect of adolescent employ-

ment of vocational development: Public and educational policy

implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53(2), 184–214.

Teitelman, A., McDonald, K., Wiebe, D. J., Thomas, N., Guerra, T.,

Kassam-Adams, N., et al. (2010). Youth’s strategies for staying

safe and coping with the stress of living in violent communities.

Journal of Community Psychology, 38(7), 874–885.

Trinh-Shevrin, C., Islam, N., Tandon, S. D., Abesami, N., Hoe-Asjoe,

H., & Rey, M. (2007). Using community-based participatory

research as a guiding framework for health disparities research

centers. Progress in Community Health Partnerships, 1(2),

195–205.

Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2003). The conceptual, historical, and

practice roots of community based participatory research and

related participatory traditions. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein

(Eds.), Community-based participatory research for health(pp. 27–52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


123


academic article you are mentioned in

Documents