Advertisement

Innovative Higher Education

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 149–160 | Cite as

The Collective Power of We: Breaking Barriers in Community Engagement through Dialogue

  • Jessica L. De SantisEmail author
  • Sarah P. O’Connor
  • Kathleen Pritchard
  • Zeno E. Franco
  • Syed M. Ahmed
  • David A. Nelson
Article

Abstract

How we engage the community within our institutions, from higher education to social services, requires consistent reconceptualization. Many fields benefit from engaging the community; yet research around practical methods for engagement is limited. This study describes the process of using nominal group technique as a practical method for both community and academic members to discuss Community Based Participatory Research. Participants included faculty, staff, students, and community member stakeholders of a medical institution during a community engagement themed conference. The goal of this study was to assess the effectiveness of using the nominal group technique for community and academic members to discuss the principles of Community Based Participatory Research. Through this discussion a significant change in the research paradigm was addressed by focusing on the importance of dialogue in order to have an impact on health disparities. This study serves to illustrate a method for bringing community and academic members together around discussion of a complex topic, while simultaneously identifying general perceptions around Community Based Participatory Research.

Keywords

Community engagement Nominal group technique Community based participatory research 

Notes

References

  1. Ahmed, S. M., Maurana, C., Nelson, D., Meister, T., Neu Young, S., & Lucey, P. (2016). Opening the black box: Conceptualizing community engagement from 109 community-academic partnership programs. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 10, 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed, S. M., & Maurana, C. A. (2000). Reaching out to the underserved: A successful volunteer program. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 439–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmed, S. M., Nelson, D., Kissack, A., Franco, Z., Whittle, J., Kotchen, T.,… Brandenburg, T. (2015). Towards building a bridge between community engagement in research (CEnR) and comparative effectiveness research (CER). Clinical and Translational Science, 8, 160–165.Google Scholar
  4. Ahmed, S. M., & Palermo, A. S. (2010). Community engagement in research: Frameworks for education and peer review. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 1380–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartunek, J. M., & Murningham, J. K. (1984). The nominal group technique: Expanding the basic procedure and underlying assumptions. Group & Organization Studies, 9, 417–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belone, L., Lucero, J. E., Duran, B., Tafoya, G., Baker, E. A., Chan, D., … Wallerstein, N. (2016). Community-based participatory research conceptual model: Community partner consultation and face validity. Qualitative Health Research, 26(1), 117–135.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314557084
  7. Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and Quantity, 36, 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calleson, D. C., Jordan, C., & Seifer, S. D. (2005). Community-engaged scholarship: Is faculty work in communities a true academic enterprise? Academic Medicine, 80, 317–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chale, A., Avila, E., & Avila, Y. (2016). Maintaining engaged scholarship in challenging times: Experiences working with veteran medical providers in greater Los Angeles. Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education, 8(4), 74–83.Google Scholar
  10. Chan, R. Y. (2016). Understanding the purpose of higher education: Examining the social and economic benefits for completing a college degree. Journal of Education Policy, Planning and Administration, 6(5), 1–40.Google Scholar
  11. Claxton, J. D., Ritchie, J. R. B., & Zaichkowsky, J. (1980). The nominal group technique: Its potential for consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 308–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dahl, G. B., Loken, K. V., & Mogstad, M. (2014). Peer effects in program participation. American Economic Review, 104, 2049–2074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dankwa-Mullan, I., Rhee, K. B., Stoff, D. M., Reineke Pohlhaus, J., Sy, F. S., Stinson, N., & Ruffin, J. (2010). Moving toward paradigm-shifting research in health disparities through translational, transformational, and transdisciplinary approaches. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Felix, H. C., Lee, D., Stewart, K., & Greene, P. G. (2013). Engagement of community health workers in the research enterprise: A survey of organizations and the research roles given CHWs. Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education, 5(1), 13–23.Google Scholar
  15. Goldberg-Freeman, C., Kass, N., Gielen, A., Tracey, P., Bates-Hopkins, B., & Farfel, M. (2010). Faculty beliefs, perceptions, and level of community involvement in their research: A survey at one urban academic institution. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(4), 65–76.  https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2010.5.4.65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holzer, J. K., Ellis, L., & Merritt, M. W. (2014). Why we need community engagement in medical research. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 62, 851–855.  https://doi.org/10.1097/JIM.00000000000000097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huang, J., van der Brink, H. M., & Groot, W. (2011). College education and social trust: An evidence-based study on the causal mechanisms. Social Indicators Research, 104, 287–310.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9477-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunton, J. E., & Gold, A. (May, 2010). A field experiment comparing the outcomes of three fraud brainstorming procedures: Nominal group, round robin, and open discussion. The Accounting Review, 85, 911–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Israel, B. A., Parker, E. A., Rowe, Z., Salvatore, A., Minkler, M., López, J., ..., & Halstead, S. (2005). Community-based participatory research: Lessons learned from the centers for children's environmental health and disease prevention research. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113, 1463–1471.  https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7675
  20. Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kitts, J. (2000). Mobilizing in black boxes: Social networks and participation in social movement organizations. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 5, 241–257.Google Scholar
  22. Kolb, S. (2012). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: Valid research strategies for educators. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3, 83–86.Google Scholar
  23. Krska, J., & Mackridge, A. J. (2014). Involving the public and other stakeholders in development and evaluation of a community pharmacy alcohol screening and brief advice service. Public Health, 128, 309–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lam, C. A., Sherbourne, C., Tang, L., Belin, T., Williams, P., Young-Brinn, A., ... Wells, K. B. (2016). The impact of community engagement on health, social, and utilization outcomes in depressed, impoverished populations: Secondary findings from a randomized trial. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 29, 325–338.  https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2016.03.150306
  25. McMillan, S. S., Kelly, F., Sav, A., Kendall, E., King, M. A., Whitty, J. A., & Wheeler, A. J. (2014). Using nominal group technique: How to analyse across multiple groups. Health Services & Outcomes Research Methodology, 14, 92–108.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-014-0121-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McMillan, S. S., King, M., & Tully, M. P. (2016). How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 38, 655–662.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0257-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Michener, J. L., Yaggy, S., Lyn, M., Warburton, S., Champagne, M., Black, M., … Dzau, V. J. (2008). Improving the health of the community: Duke’s experience with community engagement. Academic Medicine, 83, 408–413.Google Scholar
  28. Munro, C., & Neilson, L. (2004). Effective community engagement: Workbook and tools (version 2). Melbourne, Vic., Australia: Victorian Government.Google Scholar
  29. Murtadha, K. (2016). Urban university community engagement: Questions of commitment to democratic ethics and social change. The Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education, 8(1), 4–18.Google Scholar
  30. Owen, A., Arnold, K., Friedman, C., & Sandman, S. (2016). Nominal group technique: An accessible and interactive method for conceptualizing the sexual self-advocacy of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Qualitative Social Work, 15, 175–189.Google Scholar
  31. Park, S., & Kim, S. (2014). The degree of community engagement: Empirical research in Baltimore city. Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis, 4, 129–141.Google Scholar
  32. Ramaley, J. (2000). Embracing civic responsibility. Retrieved June 22, 2017 from http://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slcehighered/123
  33. Sikder, S. K., Asadzadeh, A., Kuusaana, E. D., Mallick, B., & Koetter, T. (2015). Stakeholders participation for urban climate resilience: A case of informal settlements regularization in Khulna City, Bangladesh. Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis, 7, 5–20.Google Scholar
  34. Southern California Clinical and Translational Science Institute Office of Community Engagement (2012). A quick start guide to conducting community-engaged research. Retrieved from http://oprs.usc.edu/files/2013/01/Comm_Engaged_Research_Guide.pdf
  35. Spears Johnson, C. R., Kraemer Diaz, A. E., & Arcury, T. A. (2016). What does it mean for something to be “scientific”? Community understandings of science, educational attainment, and community representation among a sample of 25 CBPR projects. Health Education & Behavior, 44, 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198116651038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sullivan, J., & Siqueira, C. E. (2009). Popular arts and education in community-based participatory research (CBPR): On the subtle craft of developing and enhancing channels for clear conversations among CBPR partners. New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 19, 399–406.  https://doi.org/10.2190/NS.19.4.b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Szilagyi, P. G., Shone, L. P., Dozier, A. M., Newton, G. L., Green, T., & Bennett, N. M. (2014). Evaluating community engagement in an academic medical center. Academic Medicine, 89(4), 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tendulkar, S. A., Chu, J., Opp, J., Geller, A., DiGirolamo, A., Gandelman, E., et al. (2011). A funding initiative for community-based participatory research: Lessons from the Harvard catalyst seed grants. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 5, 35–44.  https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2011.0005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1997). Principles of community engagement (1st ed.). Atlanta GA: CDC/ATSDR Committee on Community Engagement.Google Scholar
  40. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011). Principles of community engagement (2nd ed.). Atlanta GA: CDC/ATSDR Committee on Community Engagement.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.04.014
  41. Viswanathan, M., Ammerman, A., Eng, E., Gartlehner, G., Lohr, K. N., Griffith, D., … Whitener, L. (2004). Community-based Participatory Research: Assessing the evidence. Report/technology assessment no. 99. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Publication.Google Scholar
  42. Waddock, S. (2004). Parallel universes: Companies, academics, and the progress of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review, 109, 5–42.Google Scholar
  43. Wendel, M. L., Garney, W. R., Castle, B. F., & Ingram, M. (2018). Critical reflexivity of communities on their experience to improve population health. Perspectives from the Social Sciences, 108, 896–901.Google Scholar
  44. Winter, A., Wiseman, J., & Muirhead, B. (2006). University-community engagement in Australia; Practice, policy and public good. Education, Citizenship, and Social Justice, 1, 211–230.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197906064675

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica L. De Santis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sarah P. O’Connor
    • 2
  • Kathleen Pritchard
    • 3
  • Zeno E. Franco
    • 4
  • Syed M. Ahmed
    • 4
  • David A. Nelson
    • 4
  1. 1.Medical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Office of Community EngagementMedical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA
  3. 3.Joseph J. Zilber School of Public HealthMilwaukeeUSA
  4. 4.Department of Family and Community MedicineMedical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations