24 April 2013 — Asset Based Community Development

Kretzman, J. (1996). A twenty-first century map for health communities. Retrieved from http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publications/papers/century.pdf.

Kretzman, J. and McKnight, J. (1993).Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. Chicago, Illinois: ACTA Publications. Introduction.

Mathie, A. and Cunningham, G. (2003). From clients to citizens: Asset-based community development as a strategy for community-driven development.Development in Practice, 13(5), 474-486.

 

  1. What are the central assumptions of the needs-based approach to development?

 

  1. What are the consequences of adopting a needs-based approach as the only guide to development?

 

  1. Mathie and Cunningham present ABCD as “an approach, as a set of methods for community mobilisation, and as a strategy for community-based development” (p. 477).  How does ABCD function as such?

 

  1. What are assets?  How are they identified?  How are they utilized?

 

  1. Which of the elements of ABCD (see Mathie and Cunningham, p. 478-483) resonates most strongly with your approach to your work at the CCE?

 

  1. What becomes of student learning outcomes if ABCD – as an approach/set of methods/strategy – guides the community-based work of the CCE?  Do student learning outcomes take a back seat?  Are they re-configured and integrated with community-identified outcomes?  What do you think?
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

10 April 2013

In Sickness and In Wealth

 

http://www.unnaturalcauses.org/about_the_series.php

Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

27 March Reading and Discussion Questions

Evidence-based public health: Moving beyond randomized trials.

A framework for public health action: The health impact pyramid.

 

Cesar et al. (2004). Evidence-based public health: Moving beyond randomized trials

 

  1. What is the difference between “efficacy” and “effectiveness”?  Why is this distinction important?

 

  1. Why are RCTs considered the gold standard for clinical decision-making?

 

  1. Why is it difficult to evaluate the impact of large-scale public health programs?

 

  1. Why are RCTs often inappropriate for assessing the impact of public health interventions?

 

  1. What should “true evidence-based” public health look like?

 

Frieden, T. (2010). A framework for public health action: The health impact pyramid

 

  1. What are the distinguishing features of the 5 tiers?

 

  1. What are the social determinants of health?  How do they affect health?

 

  1. What does it mean to make a “healthy option” a “default choice”? (591)

 

  1. Why is health education “generally the least effective type of intervention”? (592)

 

  1. What value, if any, does this 5-tier model have for conceptualizing the work of the CCE (beyond the specific activities of public health oriented student groups)?
Categories: Journal Club | Leave a comment

13 March Reading and Discussion Questions

Soul of a Citizen Chapter Five

Soul of a Citizen Chapter Twelve

 

 

  • Do the ideas of global ripples and unforeseen fruits jive with dynamic systems theory?

 

  • How does letting go of outcomes actually work? Does it work? Can we conceptualize letting go of outcomes as a protective factor, and how can we reconcile this possibility with the knowledge that hopelessness/helplessness are known to place individuals at risk for compassion fatigue and depression?

 

  • Do you personally practice radical patience? How? How can this idea assist us in the CCE, and in which situations?

 

  • Slow-burning fire on the block plan??

 

 

  • Straight lines and detours … and Adison’s river stories …
Categories: Journal Club | Leave a comment

6 March 2013 Reading and Discussion Questions

Ingoldsby and Shaw (2002)

  1. What do Ingoldsby and Shaw (and the researchers they cite in this paper) mean by antisocial behavior? Does their definition resemble the ways in which the term “antisocial” is used colloquially?
  2. How can we best understand the distinction between direct and indirect neighborhood effects? Do you think this is different from the distinction between a proximal effect and a distal effect?
  3. What do the authors mean when they say middle childhood may be a “critical developmental period?”
  4. On page 24, the authors note that the timing of the switch from indirect to direct neighborhood effects may vary depending on the characteristics of the community.  What does this mean? Do you see this playing out in your own life, or in the lives of CC students?
  5. On pages 24-25, the authors present four dimensions/models of neighborhood effects that researchers see as increasing the likelihood that children will be pushed onto antisocial pathways.  How would you outline or describe these dimensions to our students?
  6. What methodological challenges do researchers face in studying the development of neighborhood effects on antisocial pathways (pages 28-30)?
  7. What do you think the authors mean on page 39 when they say, “There is some evidence that neighborhood poverty potentiates the effects of other risk variables?”
  8. On page 45, halfway doesn the first column, the authors summarize the findings of the literature review on the previous several pages, highlighting four factors that are associated with antisocial behavior in childhood.  Do you understand these factors to be interrelated?  How?
  9. On page 50, the authors briefly discuss implications for prevention and intervention.  Where does the work of the CCE plug into this, if at all?
  10. What stories about gender, race, ethnicity and class are being told in this paper?  Are those stories problematic?  Is the manner in which they are told problematic?

 

Categories: Community Based Research, Journal Club | Leave a comment

27 February Reading and Discussion Questions

“Neighborhood contextual factors and early-starting antisocial pathways”

 

 

  • What do Ingoldsby and Shaw (and the researchers they cite in this paper) mean by antisocial behavior? Does their definition resemble the ways in which the term “antisocial” is used colloquially?

 

  • How can we best understand the distinction between direct and indirect neighborhood effects?  Do you think this is different from the distinction between a proximal effect and a distal effect?

 

  • What do the authors mean when they say middle childhood may be a “critical developmental period?”

 

  • On page 24, the authors note that the timing of the switch from indirect to direct neighborhood effects may vary depending on the characteristics of the community.  What does this mean? Do you see this playing out in your own life, or in the lives of CC students?

 

  • On pages 24-25, the authors present four dimensions/models of neighborhood effects that researchers see as increasing the likelihood that children will be pushed onto antisocial pathways. How would you outline or describe these dimensions to our students?

 

  • What methodological challenges do researchers face in studying the development of neighborhood effects on antisocial pathways (pages 28-30)?

 

  • What do you think the authors mean on page 39 when they say, “There is some evidence that neighborhood poverty potentiates the effects of other risk variables?”

 

  • On page 45, halfway down the first column, the authors summarize the findings of the literature review on the previous several pages, highlighting four factors that are associated with antisocial behavior in childhood.  Do you understand these factors to be interrelated?  How?

 

  • On page 50, the authors briefly discuss implications for prevention and intervention.  Where does the work of the CCE plug into this, if at all?

 

  • What stories about gender, race, ethnicity, and class are being told in this paper? Are these stories problematic? Is the manner in which they are told problematic?
Categories: Journal Club | Leave a comment

20 February 2013 — Risk and Resilience

pg 1

pg 2pg 3

pg 4

Categories: Journal Club, Resilience, Risk | Leave a comment

20 February Reading

“Thinking about risk and resilience in families.”

 

Categories: Journal Club | Leave a comment

6 February 2013 Discussion Questions

Considering Hautzinger

1.What prompted the change in course design between 2006 and 2008?

The main change in course design was prompted by questions around whether students could be “of service” in places where they don’t speak the language, have individual relationships or understand the rudiments of deep or recent histories.  The course seems unable to avoid reproducing and reinforcing an order of post-colonialism.  The 2008 course was developed in collaboration with in-country instructors to provide exposure to local analyses and strategies.

2. How does the change in course design reflect the difference between service-learning and community-based learning?

In contrasting the two courses, the 2006 course takes direction from local concerns, emphasizing immersion. Hautzinger
3. What does deferred reciprocity look like in the context of the 2008 course?
4. How does an emphasis on deferred reciprocity affect the exchange between the community partners and the students in the 2008 course?
5. Under what circumstances is deferred reciprocity a preferred model for community-based work involving students?

 

Considering Holland

 

1. How does Holland’s conceptualization of reciprocity compare with Hautzinger’s?
2. Why do faculty, students, and community partners become involved in engaged partnerships?
3. Given their motivations, how can reciprocity be achieved?
4. On page 15, Holland makes the following claim: I believe the next great wave of change in civic engagement and service-learning will be documenting and measuring our relationships and the impact of our partnership endeavors.  This is important not just to grow and sustain this work within the academy, but given current events, documentation, evaluation and assessment have important policy implications as well (p. 15).What is your response to the claim?
5. How can we assess and document the work of the CCE moving forward?

Categories: Journal Club, Reading | Leave a comment

30 January 2013 — Community-Based Research

 

Yesterday morning we had a lively conversation about Community-Based Research and its role on the Colorado College campus.  In my opinion, these two first chapters of Strand et. al offered an easily understandable and relateable introduction to Community-Based Research to a reader (myself) who has little to no former knowledge on the topic.  The CBR newbies (me, Sarah and Adison), agreed that one of the most helpful sections of this article was the “Ten Principles of Successful Community-Campus Partnerships” (p. 29)

Entering partnerships

Community and campus partners

  1. Share a worldview
  2. Agree about goals and strategies
  3. Have trust and mutual respect

Conducting partnerships

Community and campus partners

  1. Share power
  2. Communicate clearly and listen carefully
  3. Understand and empathize with each other
  4. Remain flexible

Outcomes of partnerships

Community and campus partners

  1. Satisfy each other’s interests or needs
  2. Have their organizational capacities enhanced
  3. Adopt long-range social change perspectives

 

Although these principles can certainly be unpacked and analyzed ["share a worldview" -- on everything?? the issue at-hand? social inequality and justice? Is this too idealistic of an outlook?], they set a clear and concise baseline of expectations and best practices when entering into a relationship with a community partner.

The second expectation/best practice outlined by Strand that we chose to discuss was the thought that, “in every case, the community consists of people who are oppressed  powerless, economically deprived, or disenfranchised — that is, who disadvantaged by existing social, political or economic arrangements” (p. 3).  This sentence struck a chord with us because often, the CCE’s current community-based research partners are in fact more resourced than we are.  How do we reconcile these fruitful community partnerships with the striking reality that 18% of Colorado Springs children live in poverty, and that in our zip code alone, 21% of people live in poverty (thank you Adison for these stats)?  Where are we choosing to dedicate our resources and what does that say about our motivations as an institution of higher education?

Additionally, how do we encourage students to contribute to our surrounding community?  A common barrier for student engagement could possibly be that students consider themselves temporary community members.  If this is the case, how can we encourage students to articulate why they would rather conduct research in places so removed from their physical locationHow do we remove the stigmas associated with Colorado Springs, or better yet, how do we make conducting research in Colorado Springs cool?

One final question that I would like to highlight for readers is the following:

One major problem with CBR is faculty buy-in.  Primarily, the rigor of community-based research when compared to traditional, “hard science” research is often called into question.  How do we combat these doubts?  How do we incentivize faculty participation in CBR?

 

In conclusion, as we move forward with a CBR feasibility study and implementation of new workshops,  how do we address these very major questions?  What suggestions do you have for us?

Categories: Community Based Research, Journal Club | Leave a comment