Messung, Bewertung und strategische Weiterentwicklung von Gemeindekapazität und -empowerment: Vorstellen eines qualitativen Instruments

Laverack, Glenn

doi:10.1055/s-0028-1102959

Cited by 11 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A strength of the subjective process we used in collectively appraising constructs is that it does not confine people’s consideration of the construct and allows new perspectives to emerge. To reduce subjectivity in assessing community capacity, Laverack [ 18 ] developed a process of ranking constructs [ 18 ]. As greater insight is acquired on the meaning of community capacity in the context of remote Indigenous Australia, a similar process to strengthen rigor in appraising capacity development over time, could be employed while maintaining scope for discussion and divergent views to be voiced.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…MacLellan-Wright et al [ 15 ], Rifkin et al [ 16 ], Gibbon et al [ 17 ] and Laverack [ 18 ] made valuable contributions to the evolution of capacity development models and to investigating participatory processes which actively engage communities to evaluate their capacity. Similarly to Jackson et al [ 10 ], these authors suggest that capacity measures be developed in consultation with the community and be adapted to the uniqueness of each community and setting [ 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From targets to ripples: tracing the process of developing a community capacity building appraisal tool with remote Australian indigenous communities to tackle food security

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe issue of food security is complex and requires capacity for often-unrelated groups to work together. We sought to assess the relevance and meaning of a commonly used set of community capacity development constructs in the context of remote Indigenous Australia and through this propose a model to support capacity.MethodsThe assessment was conducted with four communities and took place over five steps that involved: (i) test of clarity of construct meaning; (ii) inductive derivation of community capacity constructs; (iii) application of these constructs to the capacity of community multi-sector food-interest groups; (iv) a cross-check of these constructs and their meanings to literature-derived constructs, and; (v) achieving consensus on tool constructs. Data were collected over a three-year period (2010–2012) that involved two on-site visits to one community, and two urban-based workshops. These data were augmented by food-interest group meeting minutes and reports.ResultsEleven community capacity development constructs were included in the proposed model: community ownership, building on strengths, strong leadership and voice, making decisions together, strong partnerships, opportunities for learning and skill development, way of working, getting together the things you need, good strong communication, sharing the true story, and continuing the process and passing on to the next generation.The constructs derived from the literature and commonly used to appraise community capacity development were well accepted and could be used to identify areas needing strengthening. The specifics of each construct however differed from those derived from the literature yet were similar across the four communities and had particular meaning for those involved. The involvement of elders and communication with the wider community seemed paramount to forming a solid foundation on which capacity could be further developed.ConclusionThis study explored an approach for ascribing context specific meanings to a set of capacity development constructs and an effective visual appraisal tool. An approach to tackling food security in the remote Indigenous context where community capacity goals are considered in parallel with outcome goals, or at least as incremental goals along the way, may well help to lay a more solid foundation for improved service practice and program sustainability.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-914) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%