Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A crescendo of voices: Creating networks of networks in research on fathers’ involvement
Jessica BallEarly Childhood Development Intercultural Partnerships (www.ecdip.org)
University of Victoria, Canada
Joining forces in C-U Networks
When we ‘learn in place/learn from place’ … how far can we go?
If we leave our home-based learning sites, do we have to leave our context-embedded knowledge behind?
Can we create a ‘movement’ with different constituencies, different sensitivities, different needs, but with a shared agenda for knowledge creation, mobilization & social change?
Can we have a symphony of sounds, or must we all sing out of the same page in the song book?
Getting from local to national social change
How can CU research be conducted to instigate change beyond the sphere of the community-based research project?
CU networked research: A network of networks approach
Double layering: Community-specific AND pre-planned omnibus activities &
commitments
A promising example…Fathers Involvement Research Alliance CURA
Goal: Increase visibility & supports for positive fathers’ involvement with their children
1. Create & strengthen alliances
2. Create & consolidate Canadian knowledge
3. Promote conditions for social change
Fathers Involvement Research Alliance CURA
Research focus on 7 populations of fathers:
Population specific networks
Research about each population of fathers was done by a population focused research team, through a “cluster” of community-university partnerships, involving from 20 to 80 fathers.
Each cluster was limited to one province & one “population”Eg. Indigenous fathers project cluster– 5 community partners, all in B.C.– University of Victoria – university based & community-based team members (2 + 5)– 80 First Nations & Metis fathers
Populations overlapped (e.g., separated Indigenous father of a child with special needs)
Double layer of research questions
Double layer of driving hypotheses & questions for data collection
• Pop. Specific constructs, questions, concerns generated through each cluster’s community-university dialogue
• Pan-Canadian – derived from pre-project theoretical review, yielding content themes for further investigation. These questions populated the research proposal & got us the funding!
No overarching theoretical lens
Double layer of ethics review
• Academic partner for cluster (eg. U. Victoria)• Academic partner for omnibus project (U. Guelph)
Stable institutional home for the ‘family’ of pop. specific projects
Centre for Families, Work & Well-Being, U. Guelph• Leadership: Kerry Daly, P.I.• Central management group led by Linda Hawkins, E.D.
– Accounting– PR – Project wide knowledge mobilization, especially the
FIRA website– Annual reports to funder– Mid-term review– Conference planning– Greasing the wheels of networked collaboration
Project wide activities
In addition to the pop. specific activities at the level of each ‘cluster’ …..
1. Demographic analysis of fathers in Canada (Census, General Social Survey, etc.)
* Pan-Canadian profile & pop. specific
2. Policy analysis: Policy, legislation, constitutional issues affecting fathers’ involvement with their children
* Pan-Canadian & pop. Specific
3. Pan-Canadian website to raise fathers’ visibility & provide a clearinghouse (www.fira.ca)
Cluster specific outcomes
Each cluster within the collaborative project generated:• New capacity in the community and university• New knowledge• New practice recommendations and tools• New policy directions• New ‘learning objects’ for training & post-secondary ed.
curricula
Identifying cross-cluster commonalities (methodological, theoretical, practice & policy)
Expanding geographies of knowledge creation & social transformation from local to global
Goal: To define and carry out a community-
based research agenda on father involvement in Canada
Objectives
New Canadian
Knowledge Creating Alliances and Networks
Conditions for Social Change
Outcomes
An increase in public dialogue about the
conditions that shape father involvement
and heightened awareness of the benefits of father
involvement and the barriers to it. Students trained to
conduct research on father
involvement; positive
relationships between students and community
networks of action.
Recommendations to Statistics Canada on measures and issues that are appropriate for advancing our understanding of
fathers and fathering
A Canadian body of scholarship on
father involvement that includes
empirical research and policy analysis
and recommendations.
Outcomes
The spawning of new research relationships, collaborations, and
funding opportunities that will extend the scope of the present
research into additional programs and activities.
Increased research capacity to conduct community research by both university researchers and community-based service providers.
A vital and sustainable network of people interested
in enhancing fatherhood
education and promotion programs.
Outcomes
Best practice examples of involving fathers in services, including the development of new tools and resources and
training opportunities for professional staff.
Greater acceptance and promotion of father
involvement in families, workplaces, communities, and
among fathers.
Greater attention given to policies affecting father
involvement with a call to review and revise policies as
needed.
New teaching methods and
parenting curricula in profession-oriented
graduate programs in Canada.
Impact: Fathers and Families (148)Impact: Community Organizations
(144)
Impact: Connections (101)
Impact: Policy or Government (76)
Impact: Academic (117)
Impact:Community Organizations (97)
Impact: Academic
(46)
Impact: Policy or
Government (26)
Impact: Academic (31)
Impact: Community Organizations
(37)
Impact: Policy or Government(55)
Impact: Policy or Government (59)
Impact: Community Organizations
(46)
NetworksImpact:
Connections(28)
Impact: Academic (62)
Impact: Connections (61)
Impact: Community Organizations
(37)
Impact: Fathers and Families
(26)
Impact: Policy or Government
(26)
Impact: Fathers and Families
(39)
Father Involvement Research Alliance (FIRA) 2008. Anne Bergen, Linda Hawkins and Jaime-Lee Brown.
Impact: Fathers
and Families
(17)
Focus: Fathering Community Practice and Process Legislation and Funding Practice Networks, CU Partnerships and Alliances Research Practice
Impacts:Fathers and Families
Community Organizations and PracticePolicy or Government
National and International ConnectionsAcademic
Impact: Connections
(30)
Impact: Academic (38)
Impact: Connections (46)
Objectives
Creating Alliances and Networks Conditions for Social ChangeNew Canadian Knowledge
Impact: Fathers& Families
(15)
17 Reports37 Advisory or
Consulting Services
68 Conference Papers or
Presentations
49 Works Published or Accepted for Publication
28 Workshops11 Theses and
Research Proposals
117 Media Products
2 Creative Works (DVDs and Films)
20 Meetings and Networking Events
Why has a complex multi-component CURA project been so successful?
What does it take to achieve collaborative productivity in a project with many CBR components?
Herding cats
1. Clear and uncluttered vision
2. Selective inclusion
3. Effective leadership
4. Clear structure for independent & collective aspects & timelines of research plan
5. Responsive project management
6. Permanent host institution (e.g., Research Centre, ongoing program)
Promising Practices in Networked Research
1. Vision: Uncluttered path that all can agree with.“To increase visibility and support for positive fathers involvement”
2. Selection criteria: Not ‘all comers’ Independent AND collaborativeAble to commit to some common deliverables (no prima donnas!)Able & willing to teach (what other team members need to understand) Able & willing to learn
3. Effective leadership: clear communication, responsiveness to both project-wide and cluster specific needs, high tolerance of ambiguity, good ‘boundaries’, no control freaks, acknowledge difficulties and successes
Promising Practices in Networked Research
4. Clear structure: Overall plan, commitments, and strategies will articulated at the outset so partners and participants know what they are agreeing to.FIRA-CURA: Yr 1 2 3: Cluster specific
Yr 4: Thematic analysisYr 5: Knowledge mobilization
5. Competent & responsive project management: Not everyone will move at the same pace: prop up some slow starters, be alert for emerging keenersEquitable, not necessary equal, resource allocationsDifferentiated roles – not everyone does everything
6. Permanent host institution: geographic home, experienced project management staff, financial buffers, ability to support certain post-project activities (e.g., the next project, opportunities to continue to mobilize project products).
Promising Practices in Networked Research
6. Permanent host institution: geographic home, experienced project management staff, financial buffers, ability to support certain post-project activities (e.g., the next project, opportunities to continue to mobilize project products)
Promising Practices in Networked Research
7. Double layers of knowledge mobilization:Some population specific and some omnibus
• Emissary model – from community-specific to policy tables• Ambassador roles – representing project wide social change objectives
(e.g., national policy tables)• Consolidating action potentials: networked practitioner engagement• Consolidating intellectual productivity: networked academic engagement
No expectation of a unified theory, unified set of objectives for policy reforms, or pan-Canadian ‘voice’
A crescendo of different voices
Beyond site specific learningAre we there yet?
From CBR to national to global
FIRA network beginning to network with emerging networks around the world…
• South Africa• Australia• USA• UK• Finland• Brazil
International Father Involvement conference in Oct 08, Toronto
FIRA a signatory to Global Alliance of Community-Engaged Research
