Implementing research: Putting our values to work.

Serrano‐García, Irma

doi:10.1037/10073-013

Cited by 42 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We need to see who we are ourselves, our anxieties, our precepts, our premises, so we are aware of how our conclusions can reflect more of us than context'' (personal conversation, June 9, 2007). Reflection on our ''cultural experiences'' (Bond and Harrell 2006), including our identities, competencies, histories, and interests, in relation to those with whom we work and collaborate has the potential to foster relationships, mutual openness and willingness for challenge, growth and development (Bond and Harrell 2006;Heller 1989;Kelly 1970Kelly , 1971Nelson et al 2000;Serrano-García 1990;Prilleltensky et al 1997;Trickett and Schmid 1993). Developing an eco identity challenges the community psychologist to be open to transformation, new insight, and ''rich points'' (Agar 1996) that emerge during immersion in a setting that challenge prior assumptions.…”

Section: The Spirit Of Ecological Inquirymentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Such inquiry is theorized to improve internal and ecological validity (Kelly et al 2000;Kingry-Westergaard and Kelly 1990;Mohatt 1989;Serrano-García 1990;Trickett 1996Trickett , 1997Trickett et al 1985;Walsh 1987), interpretation of data (Mohatt 1989;Trickett 1997), dissemination of results (Chavis et al 1983;Mohatt 1989), utility of community research (Chavis et al 1983;Kelly and Hess 1986;Trickett et al 1985), and community transformation and development through selfhelp and advocacy (Bracht and Tsouros 1990;Hawe 1994;Kelly 1986a;Trickett et al 1985).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Spirit of Ecological Inquiry and Intervention Research Reports: A Heuristic Elaboration

Espino

Trickett

2008

American J of Comm Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One distinctive approach to community psychology intervention research involves finding ways to contribute to the development of communities. Ecological inquiry is a primary theoretical framework for this work. The purpose of this paper is to explore how the spirit of ecological inquiry may be expressed in the descriptions of how we design, conduct, and evaluate community interventions. We first elaborate a set of criteria as a heuristic framework for carrying out and documenting community intervention writing, theory, and action. We then pilot the application of these criteria to explore the presence of an ecological emphasis within intervention studies published in the AJCP between 1994 and 2002. This exercise helped illuminate the extent to which an ecological perspective is reflected in intervention accounts, and select intervention accounts that reflect a substantial ecological emphasis are described. Further, this review highlights the areas of our written work which contain fewer makers of ecological inquiry, as with the relevant exclusion of citizens in formative intervention roles. We conclude with a series of reflections about constraints on published intervention accounts and recommendations for those interested in furthering the spirit of ecological inquiry through their research and action commitments to community development.

show abstract

Section: The Spirit Of Ecological Inquirymentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Spirit of Ecological Inquiry and Intervention Research Reports: A Heuristic Elaboration

Espino

Trickett

2008

American J of Comm Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research partners may find themselves having to ask Bat what point do the needs of the many outweigh those of the few?F inally, ethical issues may arise in relation to disseminating or releasing sensitive or potentially unflattering data. 40,42,44,45,48,51 Academic partners may feel an imperative to publish and to Bstay true^to the Bobjective^nature of the data. Community members, however, may fear that unflattering data may (further) stigmatize their communities.…”

Section: But Is Cbpr Inherently Bethical^?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…21,49,50 Sometimes it may be important to obtain consent at a Bcommunity^level from respected or elected community leaders. 46,48,51 This may cause conflict when community leaders and members disagree on the importance of a research issue.…”

Section: But Is Cbpr Inherently Bethical^?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Dilemmas in Community-Based Participatory Research: Recommendations for Institutional Review Boards

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

National and international codes of research conduct have been established in most industrialized nations to ensure greater adherence to ethical research practices. Despite these safeguards, however, traditional research approaches often continue to stigmatize marginalized and vulnerable communities. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has evolved as an effective new research paradigm that attempts to make research a more inclusive and democratic process by fostering the development of partnerships between communities and academics to address community-relevant research priorities. As such, it attempts to redress ethical concerns that have emerged out of more traditional paradigms. Nevertheless, new and emerging ethical dilemmas are commonly associated with CBPR and are rarely addressed in traditional ethical reviews. We conducted a content analysis of forms and guidelines commonly used by institutional review boards (IRBs) in the USA and research ethics boards (REBs) in Canada. Our intent was to see if the forms used by boards reflected common CBPR experience. We drew our sample from affiliated members of the US-based Association of Schools of Public Health and from Canadian universities that offered graduate public health training. This convenience sample (n = 30) was garnered from programs where application forms were available online for download between July and August, 2004. Results show that ethical review forms and guidelines overwhelmingly operate within a biomedical framework that rarely takes into account common CBPR experience. They are primarily focused on the principle of assessing risk to individuals and not to communities and continue to perpetuate the notion that the domain of "knowledge production" is the sole right of academic researchers. Consequently, IRBs and REBs may be unintentionally placing communities at risk by continuing to use procedures inappropriate or unsuitable for CBPR. IRB/REB procedures require a new framework more suitable for CBPR, and we propose alternative questions and procedures that may be utilized when assessing the ethical appropriateness of CBPR.

show abstract

“…In some instances, however, individuals who share an ethnic identification with the community may have a more difficult time within lower income communities if the researcher is perceived as being from a different social class or is seen as someone who has "sold out" to the mainstream establishment. Community residents and CBO staff often have experienced forms of oppression that make them leery of anyone coming from outside of the organization (Perkins & Wandersman, 1990;Serrano-Garcia, 1990). Thus, we have found that the most central concern is a shared commitment to improving the conditions for the people who live in their community, regardless of whether or not there is an exact cultural or ethnic match between the team and the community.…”

Section: Respecting Human Diversitymentioning

confidence: 98%

An Interactive and Contextual Model of Community-University Collaborations for Research and Action

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community-university partnerships for research and action are at the heart of many fields in the social sciences including public health, urban planning, education, and community psychology. These partnerships involve individuals from different backgrounds and disciplines working together to address social issues of importance to the community. This article proposes an interactive and contextual model for developing and sustaining community-university partnerships. The phases in the model include gaining entry into the community, developing and sustaining a mutual collaboration (developing trust and mutual respect, establishing adequate communication, respecting human diversity, establishing a culture of learning, respecting the culture of the setting and the community, and developing an action agenda), and recognizing the benefits and outcomes of partnership work. The model also includes the potential challenges that might threaten the partnership, such as resource inequality and time commitment.

show abstract

Implementing research: Putting our values to work.

Abstract: It is the participatory spirit of the research enterprise that cames it forward toward significant discovery, useful theory, and approximate application. (D. Klein, 1985) 171

Cited by 42 publications

References 0 publications

The Spirit of Ecological Inquiry and Intervention Research Reports: A Heuristic Elaboration

The Spirit of Ecological Inquiry and Intervention Research Reports: A Heuristic Elaboration

Ethical Dilemmas in Community-Based Participatory Research: Recommendations for Institutional Review Boards

An Interactive and Contextual Model of Community-University Collaborations for Research and Action

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About