State‐issued seals and certificates of biliteracy are increasingly common nationwide. Nevertheless, limited research to date has examined how this state legislation functions as language in education policy and the ideological foundations of these policies. Addressing this gap, the present paper examines state seals as an instance of neoliberal language education policy and addresses how the policy has been constructed in public discourse and interview narratives and how it has been implemented to date. Focusing on one state, Minnesota, we demonstrate the neoliberal logic that undergirds state seals of biliteracy. Data revealed uneven availability of assessments and access to seals across the state. Access was largely determined by market‐oriented, rational choice ideologies, and dependent upon the language and district in question. Analysis also suggested that while Minnesota seals have been constructed in public discourse as a financial asset, their value is unclear in a potentially inflated marketplace of academic credentials within the state.
Background
Participatory research offers a promising approach to addressing health inequities and improving the social determinants of health for diverse populations of adolescents. However, little research has systematically explored factors influencing the implementation of participatory health interventions targeting health disparities.
Objective
This study examined the utility of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) in identifying and comparing barriers and facilitators influencing implementation of participatory research trials by employing an adaptation of the CFIR to assess the implementation of a multi-component, urban public school-based participatory health intervention.
Methods
We collected qualitative data over a one-year period through weekly team meeting observational field notes and regular semi-structured interviews with five community-based participatory researchers, one school-based partner, and four school principals involved in implementing a participatory intervention in five schools. Adapted CFIR constructs guided our largely deductive approach to thematic data analysis. We ranked each of the three intervention components as high or low implementation to create an overall implementation effectiveness score for all five schools. Cross-case comparison of constructs across high and low implementation schools identified constructs that most strongly influenced implementation.
Results
Ten of 30 assessed constructs consistently distinguished between high and low implementation schools in this participatory intervention, with five strongly distinguishing. Three additional constructs played influential, though non-distinguishing, roles within this participatory intervention implementation. Influential constructs spanned all five domains and fit within three broad themes: 1) leadership engagement, 2) alignment between the intervention and institutional goals, priorities, demographics, and existing systems, and 3) tensions between adaptability and complexity within participatory interventions. However, the dynamic and collaborative nature of participatory intervention implementation underscores the artificial distinction between inner and outer settings in participatory research and the individual behavior change focus does not consider how relationships between stakeholders at multiple levels of participatory interventions shape the implementation process.
Conclusions
The CFIR is a useful framework for the assessment of participatory research trial implementation. Our findings underscore how the framework can be readily adapted to further strengthen its fit as a tool to examine project implementation in this context.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.