Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
Crossing the Threshold: Developing University-Community Partnerships
What are key features of successful University-Community Partnerships?
Ruta Valaitis RN, PhDDorothy C. Hall in Primary Health Care Nursing
Nursing SeminarMonday, May 7, 2012, 1:00-2:00 p.m.
McMaster Health Sciences Centre, Room 2J13
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
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!
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
2 Programs of Research
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
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
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
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
Research Teams
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
42 members
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
REBECCA SPARK 2011DIGITAL COMMONS:HTTP://DIGITALCOMMONS.MCMASTER.CA/OPENDISSERTATIONS/6151/
AN EXPLORATION OF EXPERIENCES OF ACADEMICS AND DECISION-MAKERS IN A COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM OF RESEARCH
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
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”
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
“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”
Enablers (Spark, 2011)
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
“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]”
Enablers (Spark, 2011)
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
RePHS Newsletter
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
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”
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
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”
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
TOPHC Conference Abstract
Panel with DM partners
and others
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
Challenges (Spark, 2011)
Challenging Individual Demands
“Individual workload demands impact time available for project”
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
“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....
Challenges (Spark, 2011)
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
“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”
Challenges (Spark, 2011)
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
(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”
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
One pagers
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
Spark, 2011
“Structures and Processes that Could Be Improved Principal Investigators or research staff
‘check-in’ regularly with individual team members
Establish role clarity early in project and re-visit and provide feedback on roles and contributions throughout project”
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
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”
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
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
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
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
Insp
ire.
Lead.
Eng
age.
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 facultyb) Facilitate knowledge exchange with the communityi. Create opportunities for reciprocal dialogueii. Ensure transmission of research compilations to the communityiii. 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
