Improving mutual consultation among key stakeholders to optimize the use of research evidence

Community member post by Allison Metz

Alison Metz
Allison Metz (biography)

Processes to support the uptake of research evidence call for each of the key stakeholders to consider the challenges faced by other key stakeholders in making good use of research evidence. When stakeholders have the opportunity to consider perspectives other than their own, they will generally have a broader understanding of the problem space, and, in turn a greater commitment to co-creating prototypes for improving research translation.

Let’s consider a real world example in New York City’s public child welfare system. New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services operates what is believed to be the world’s largest and most diverse array of evidence-based and evidence-informed preventive programs in any municipal child welfare jurisdiction. This required – and continues to require – major changes in policies, services, program standards, staff training, business processes, and data systems. To this end, the Administration for Children’s Services, private service providers, researchers, and families must come together to co-create processes that allow for productive adaptations of evidence-based services to ensure sustainability and impact.

(Source: Metz and Bartley, 2017)

There were four key challenges to improving mutual consultation between some of the key stakeholders, specifically service providers, researchers, and policy makers:

  • Time and space to interact
  • Proactively addressing adaptive issues, rather than simply troubleshooting crises or emerging challenges
  • Ensuring everyone had a say and no person or group dominated
  • Effectively supporting the use of research evidence.

These challenges were addressed, respectively, by:

  • Increasing meeting frequency from monthly (or in some cases only as needed) to bi-weekly
  • Developing standard meeting agendas
  • Using structured facilitation techniques such as nominal group process
  • Co-developing products and processes, including desk guides, logic models and conceptual models.

A research study to assess the effectiveness of these processes found that levels of mutual consultation increased for all interactions. Specifically the study found increases in:

  • the intensity of interactions
  • formalized structures to support stakeholder communication
  • co-development of products or processes to translate research evidence.

These findings align with systematic reviews of evidence on the factors that support effective co-creation (Voorberg, Bekkers and Tummers, 2015), including a formal infrastructure for communication and the willingness of stakeholders to actively participate in communication. Feedback loops also promote iterative and cyclical improvements and modifications to evidence use, a hallmark of co-creation and co-design models.

What processes have you found to be useful?

Reference:
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M. and Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17, 9: 1333-1357.

For more information, see:
Metz, A. and Bartley, L. (2017). Co-creating the conditions to sustain the use of research evidence in public child welfare. Child Welfare, 94, 2: 115-139.

Biography: Allison Metz, Ph.D., is a developmental psychologist, Director of the National Implementation Research Network (NIRN), and Senior Scientist at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Allison specializes in the implementation, mainstreaming, and scaling of evidence to achieve social impact for children and families in a range of human service and education areas, with an emphasis on child welfare and early childhood service contexts. Among many projects, Allison is studying how to effectively co-create the conditions to sustain the use of research evidence in public child welfare through a project funded by the William T. Grant Foundation. Allison serves on the Board of Directors for the Global Implementation Initiative. She is a principal investigator of the Co-Creative Capacity pursuit funded by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC).

This blog post is one of a series developed in preparation for the second meeting in January 2017 of the Co-Creative Capacity Pursuit. This pursuit is part of the theme Building Resources for Complex, Action-Oriented Team Science funded by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC).

What’s in a name? The role of storytelling in participatory modeling

Community member post by Alison Singer

singer
Alison Singer (biography)

That which we call a rose,
by any other name would smell as sweet.

That Shakespeare guy really knew what he was talking about. A rose is what it is, no matter what we call it. A word is simply a cultural agreement about what we call something. And because language is a common thread that binds cultures together, participatory modeling – as a pursuit that strives to incorporate knowledge and perspectives from diverse stakeholders – is prime for integrating stories into its practice.

To an extent, that’s what every modeling activity does, whether it’s through translating an individual’s story into a fuzzy cognitive map, or into an agent-based model. But I would argue that the drive to quantify everything can sometimes make us lose the richness that a story can provide. Continue reading

Sharing integrated modelling practices – Part 2: How to use “patterns”?

Community member post by Sondoss Elsawah and Joseph Guillaume

sondoss-elsawah
Sondoss Elsawah (biography)

In part 1 of our blog posts on why use patterns, we argued for making unstated, tacit knowledge about integrated modelling practices explicit by identifying patterns, which link solutions to specific problems and their context. We emphasised the importance of differentiating the underlying concept of a pattern and a pattern artefact – the specific form in which the pattern is explicitly described. Continue reading

Methods for integration in transdisciplinary research

Community member post by Matthias Bergmann

matthias-bergmann
Matthias Bergmann (biography)

To make progress in contributing to the solution of complex real-world problems, transdisciplinary research has come to the forefront. By integrating multiple disciplines as well as the expertise of partners from societal practice, transdisciplinary researchers are able to look at a problem from many angles, with the goal of making both societal and scientific advances.

But how can these different types of expertise be integrated into both a better understanding of the problem and more effective ways of addressing it?

Colleagues and I have collected 43 methods from a number of transdisciplinary research projects dealing with a variety of research topics. We have grouped them into seven classes following an epistemological hierarchy. We start with methods in the narrower sense, progressing to integration instruments. Continue reading

Learning to tackle wicked problems through games / Aprendiendo a hacer frente a problemas perversos a través de los juegos/ Apprendre à affronter les problèmes sournois à travers les jeux

Community member post by Claude Garcia, Anne Dray and Patrick Waeber

claude-garcia
Claude Garcia (biography)

A Spanish version and a French version of this post are available

Can we help the next generation of policy makers, business leaders and citizens to become creative, critical and independent thinkers? Can we make them aware of the nature of the problems they will be confronted with? Can we strengthen their capacity to foster and lead stakeholder processes to address these problems?

Yes. Continue reading

Knowledge mapping technologies

Community member post by Jack Park

jack-park
Jack Park (biography)

How can you improve your thinking – alone or in a group? How can mapping ideas help you understand the relationships among them? How can mapping a conversation create a new reality for those involved?

In what follows, I draw on the work of Daniel Kahneman’s (2011) best-selling book Thinking, Fast and Slow, which explains how human thinking occurs at different speeds, from the very fast thinking associated with face-to-face conversation to the very slow thinking associated with assembling information resources into encyclopedias. I use those ideas in my descriptions of knowledge maps.

Three kinds of knowledge maps Continue reading