No abstract

This paper is based on a three-year research programme, the overall purpose of which was to develop, implement and evaluate sport-based after-school programmes for students in low-income areas of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. In addition to presenting the results of this study, the other purpose of this paper was to provide an empirical example of participatory action research, depicting when and how community partners were engaged in the research process. Following several years of initial work in low-income communities, a need to create sport-based after-school programming was identified. The first action phase involved the creation and delivery of a multi-sport programme in two schools. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 28 children and two teachers to evaluate programme content and benefits. Inductive analysis revealed that the programme provided children with new opportunities and helped them to learn social and personal life skills. In the second action phase, a revised programme was delivered to 35 children. Fourteen children and three teachers participated in interviews to share their views on programme content, benefits and challenges. There were difficulties relating to the children's skill level, behaviour and listening during the early stages of the programme. Nonetheless, by the end of the programme, children reported that they enjoyed activities based on creating optimal challenges and 'adventures' which engaged their imaginations. Children also learned fundamental movement, sport and life skills, some of which transferred to other areas of their lives.

This research examined media coverage of breast cancer (n = 145) and heart disease and stroke (n = 39) news articles, videos, advertisements, and images in a local Canadian context through quantitative and thematic content analyses. Quantitative analysis revealed significant differences between coverage of the diseases in placement, survivors as a source of information, health agency, human interest stories, citation of a research study, the inclusion of risk statistics, discussion of preventative behaviors, and tone used. The thematic analysis revealed themes that characterized a "typical" breast cancer survivor and indicated that "good" citizens and businesses should help the cause of breast cancer. Themes for heart disease and stroke articulated individual responsibility and the ways fundraising reinforced femininity and privilege. Findings provide insight on how these diseases are framed in local Canadian media, which might impact an individual's understanding of the disease.

No abstract

As community-based research (CBR) continues to emerge, CBR practitioners are beginning to ask, "How do we know if we are doing CBR well?" For some, this question may bring to mind the concept of rigour. Yet, how meaningful is rigour among diverse CBR partners from community, government, and academia? Using an exploratory approach, we engaged in dialogue a group of seven CBR practitioners from diverse contexts and asked the question, "Is rigour a meaningful concept in CBR?" We used interpretive description to analyse the interview and guide the application of findings in CBR practice. The findings are presented as three themes: Obligation, Representation, and Turn to Action. Participants expressed a sense of obligation to meet often competing expectations to do CBR well. The fulfillment of one obligation sometimes meant compromising another, thus presenting a dilemma to CBR practitioners. Representation outlines participants' beliefs that some obligations can be met through the analysis, interpretation, and carefully contextualized presentation of research findings on behalf of CBR partnerships. In Turn to Action, participants described their desire to participate in the co-construction of understanding and identified a need to conceptualize the meaning of doing CBR well. We recommend that practitioners of CBR continue to form communities of practice in which to engage in dialogue about rigour; together, we can navigate the identified dilemma and collaboratively construct what it means to do CBR well. Specifically, we recommend that communities of CBR practice strive to: (a) be transparent during CBR collaboration, (b) be in dialogue with other CBR practitioners, and (c) coconstruct the meaning of doing CBR well.