Constituent Involvement in NCEDL
This study has concluded.
Investigators:
Pam Winton
(winton@mail.fpg.unc.edu)
Staff: Kate Thegen, Michelle Barrick
Research structure, goals: The purpose of the Constituent Advisory Board (CAB) was to: - identify the kinds of research information needed by consumers to promote the learning and development of young children
- identify how that information can best be disseminated to consumers
- ensure that the products (ratings scales, training curricula, videos, etc) developed through NCEDL are practical, relevant, and reflect an appreciation for linguistic and cultural differences.
Three NCEDL projects actively involved constituents in their project activities: the Best Practices Study (UCLA); Kindergarten Transition Intervention (University of Virginia); and the Quality Practices for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and their Families Project (UNC). In addition, a center-wide Constituent Advisory Board (CAB) was created to contribute to overall mission of NCEDL.
With a broad understanding that the term constituents refers to recipients and beneficiaries of anticipated research findings, two different approaches were taken by the projects. One was to collaboratively partner with those who were also participants in the research. Both the Best Practices Study and the Kindergarten Transition Intervention employed this approach. Constituent/participants helped interpret the data, contributed to the ongoing design and processes of the research and in the UVA study, co-designed a document that was an outcome of the research.
The other approach sought feedback and guidance from individual constituents who represent the perspectives of stakeholders who would be affected by the research findings, such as practitioners, policy-makers and parents. This approach was taken by the Quality Practices for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and their Families Project and the NCEDL-wide Constituent Advisory Board.
1. Constituent involvement across projects:
Kindergarten Transition Intervention at UVA: The Kindergarten Transition Intervention was a collaboration among university researchers, preschool teachers and staff, elementary school staff, and parents to design, implement and conduct research on an intervention to improve transitions to kindergarten. This project employed participants-as-partners in research; and as collaborative research partners, all of the study participants were considered constituents. Existing professionals in the schools and preschools (teachers and family workers) were enlisted as data collectors and facilitators. Participating families' input was through formal and informal interviews and surveys conducted by the family workers.
An opportunity to assess effective constituent involvement was created by de-briefing interviews conducted with all participants. Family workers interviewed families and NCEDL staff interviewed kindergarten and preschool teachers. Participants gave feedback about what it had been like to collaborate in a research project. Themes that emerged include - researcher appreciation of practitioner experiences
- custom-tailored intervention more meaningful to programs and schools
- intervention sustainable over time because of shared vision with explicit goals
As one family worker said, "By developing the intervention together, school personnel became more receptive to the research ideas." While the participants' feedback was uniformly positive, the degree of satisfaction varied based on the length of time and level of involvement experienced by each constituent's. For instance, those teachers involved from the beginning felt more favorably toward the experience than those teachers who became involved only at the end of the study.
In addition, a Collaborative Design Team, or CDT, met monthly through the entire 3 years. The 8 core members of this team were participating preschool teachers, kindergarten teachers, principals, family workers and NCEDL staff. At an early stage, the CDT included representatives from community family service agencies, who though less engaged as the study proceeded, were aware of the project and played a peripheral role for community support.
The CDT designed and oversaw implementation and evaluation of the Kindergarten Transition intervention. They designed and conducted a needs assessment, interacted in data collection, designed the intervention and oversaw its implementation. An illustration of their impact was the collaborative nature of the design work that created a document describing the effective transition practices that emerged from the study. The resulting document describes an array of possible practices, particularly because this open-ended, menu-based format was seen by constituents as most appropriate. Three members of the CDT also participated in the Kindergarten Transition Synthesis Conference.
Best Practices Study - UCLA: The Best Practices Study sought to expand the notion of quality childcare and to explore factors for understanding the growth and development of under-represented children. This prompted a research design that involved constituents at different levels and times thus effectively crafting another version of a participant-partner role for constituents. Researchers also employed a more traditional advisory board strategy.
At the heart of the research was the intentional construction of trusting relationships between the researchers and the approximately 40 participants/subjects who were the teachers and directors of the participating child care centers. Regular, respectful and sustained contact enabled the researchers to both collect data and, in partnership with participants, engage in dialogue about program practices and possible changes that could enhance the experience of young children in their care. Relationships were intentionally re-defined to broaden the researcher role to one of partner and supporter and the subject role to include contributor.
Researchers supported this relationship with activities such as financially supporting teachers' and directors' expertise and time, holding a reception honoring the work of the child care programs, creating opportunities for the program staffs to meet each other and network and by creating a brochure highlighting the sites. The participants-partners constituent group participated in the Best Practices Synthesis Conference at UCLA. Staff from each program site were either facilitators or paper discussants for small groups throughout the two days. Each person was paid for her/his work and scholarships were offered to 2 staff from each child care center. Reflecting significant buy-in and partnership, centers sent additional staff at the center's expense. Additional support for the constituents was the presence of a translator enabling simultaneous translation of the proceedings for Spanish-speaking participants.
Specific activities and structures were developed to sustain and define the exchange of information between researchers and constituents. The child care program staff helped interpret the data, plan for next steps, and commented upon and, in some cases, learned to use measurement instruments. A regular feedback loop was created between the "research partners" (NCEDL staff) and the entire staff of the child care program about study findings and data. Focus groups were held with teachers to discuss classroom practices as well the study itself. In some instances, there were one-time meetings for parents to discuss study findings. One outcome was the discovery of the need to focus on directors more, and as a result the project created a focus group for that set of constituents.
In addition, an 8-member advisory board representing the professional development and inclusion and regulatory expertise of the local community, met quarterly for the 4 years of the study. This group helped identify study sites, develop the research questions and provided on-going advice.
2. Constituent involvement as stakeholders
Quality Practices for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and their Families Project-- Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, UNC: The Quality Practices Project created an assessment instrument, the Early Intervention Services Assessment Scale (EISAS) for use by early intervention programs to assess the quality of services. Over 4* years, the research team collaborated with a constituent advisory board to conceptualize and implement a study focused on quality early intervention practices for young children with disabilities and their families. The board was instrumental in getting input and feedback from a broad base of constituents during the development of the instrument and developing plans for a field study.
The board met 3 times a year and was composed of 8 constituents including three parents with children with special needs, a local county infant/toddler coordinator of disability services, an early interventionist from a developmental day care center, the state coordinator of disability services and a member of his staff.
The board successfully kept its members engaged and the sustained involvement of the local professionals and parents on the advisory board was notable - they reported that they were not just contributing simple feedback, but involved in concrete work with hands-on contributions. One concern expressed by the project director, however, was that the project was not quite as successful as hoped in engaging more constituents from diverse racial/ethnic/linguistic backgrounds. Although the effort was successful to some extent, future efforts need to work harder to achieve diverse representation of constituents.
The project also employed an additional strategy for constituent involvement in its technical consultants group. Four research colleagues at FPG met once a year with project staff to discuss progress, contribute practical feedback and expertise. In particular, this group was instrumental in sharing expertise about how to conduct the national field study.
NCEDL-wide Constituent Advisory Board: The purpose of the NCEDL-wide Constituent Advisory Board, (CAB) was to solicit feedback and guidance from a broad range of constituents representing stakeholders affected by all NCEDL research and projects.
The CAB included12-14 members: 2 parents, a childcare center director, an early childhood teacher, a kindergarten teacher, state policy makers, the director of a family resource center, a director of a county resource and referral agency, 2 child care consultants as well as 2 local program-level early childhood staff and the executive director of NC's Smart Start initiative. Members also included the director of the Head Start Collaboration Office, a lead staff member of the Division of Child Development and a community college instructor. Fifty-four percent of the CAB members (7) were African-American and include two men and eleven women.
This group met 5-6 times each year and reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of five research briefs, developed the format for a product for parents and early childhood teachers (the OME brochure) and helped create the design of the NCEDL policy briefs and fact sheets. They played an active role in the Infant-Toddler Synthesis Conference providing constituent perspective and as leaders of group activities. They attended and participated in NCEDL's Research Partners meetings, functioning, in essence, as a constituent research partner, providing feedback to NCEDL on its overall activities. They contributed to the development of the national survey of early childhood professional development and its findings and contributed feedback to the case stories published by NCEDL. They provided strategies and suggestions for dissemination of all products and provided feedback about dissemination to the researchers on the Continuity of Care study. The group also participated in a usability study of our website.
Challenges for this CAB included the logistics of getting this number of people together from across the state. Initial challenges also included concerns from some researchers about the CAB's ability to effectively contribute; and this eventually became one of the group's greatest successes, as their role and contribution became more widely accepted and valued.
In summary, these 4 project experiences had many similarities and some notable differences, but all report that their research was enhanced by constituent involvement. Whether that involvement is direct and immediate, as when participant-partners help interpret data or more indirect, as when constituent perspectives are simply shared at advisory board meetings, the contributions by constituents are valued and effective.
In a survey done in each of NCEDL's first 3 years, the ratings from year 1 to year 3 became more positive. The ratings were highest in year 2 when the smallest number of principal investigators responded, perhaps reflecting the opinions of a small, but satisfied number of investigators.
Table 1. NCEDL Constituent Involvement
Summary Across Three Data Collection Points
Data collection points:
6/97 - Year 1 (n = 8)
12/97 - Year 2 (n = 5)
12/98 - Year 3 (n = 9)
| | Mean and Range on a scale of 1 - 5, 1 being low and 5 being high | | | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
1. To what extent has constituent participation been helpful to your project at this point? | 4.4 (3-5) | 4.8 (4-5) | 4.3 (2-5) | |
2. To what extent have constituent perspectives, recommendations or ideas changed or refined an NCEDL product or activity? | 3.5 (2-4) | 4.5 (4-5) | 3.7 (2-5) | |
3. How satisfied are you with the involvement of constituents in your project? | 3.6 (2-5) | 4.8 (4-5) | 4.3 (3-5) | |
4. Do you have plans for making changes in how constituents are involved? | Yes = 7 No = 0 | Yes = 4 No = 1 | Yes = 4 No = 5 |
Benefits of research to constituents: Constituents had opportunities to contribute in meaningful ways, shaping research questions, research implementation and dissemination of research findings. They reap the benefits of research that is relevant and useful to them. In the Best Practices Study, a center director instigated the sharing of the study results with the childcare sites at the conclusion of the study. According to the researcher, the director said that they "could not simply expect to take from the sites but …"needed to provide them with feedback about what {we were seeing} in a way that was useful to them in a day to day fashion."
Major problems/challenges: Across all the projects, one challenge to implementing constituent involvement was the time constraints that affected all participants. Considerable time and energy was devoted to creating and sustaining the relationships between constituents and researchers. All projects readily acknowledged that need and met it with some degree of success. Sustaining involvement and interest over time was also a challenge, but it appears that as long as relevant and meaningful work was offered to constituents, they remained involved and committed. The center-wide CAB identified the resistance of some researchers to their involvement, but over time and with successful interactions, those reservations diminished.
New knowledge: Constituent feedback has shaped future dissemination work of NCEDL by creating formats (briefing papers, Spotlights, brochures) that will be used in the future to for sharing findings. Our experience is years 1-5 has set a positive precedent for the involvement of constituents in a variety of roles. In some cases, subjects of and participants in the study are seen as constituents and have an expanded role in research (e.g. interpreting findings, contributing to research measures). In other cases, individuals representing the groups who will be affected by research findings are involved in the design and process of dissemination. Both approaches bring different challenges and benefits but both enrich the relevance of the research information.
Policy, practice, or professional development implications: Our results should encourage and guide appropriate and effective inclusion of constituents in research. Policy will be more relevant and effective when the information shaping it is, in part, emerging from the real experiences and needs of families and practitioners. Practitioners need information that is accessible, meaningful and conveyed in means that respect their experiences and build upon strengths and self identified areas of concern. Families and other non-professionals need to help shape research so that it is asking the right questions, and sharing the answers to those questions in ways that consumers can have easy access to, understand and effectively translate into practice.
Publications, products:
Suggestions for Professionals Conducting Constituent Advisory Meetings
Protocol for Constituent Participation in a Research and Policy Conference
National Center for Early Development & Learning. Article in Early Developments, Vol. 1, No. 2: How Constituents Advisory Board Works. Chapel Hill, NC: author
National Center for Early Development & Learning. Articles in Early Developments, Vol. 1, No. 3: 1) Awards given to 2 NCEDL researchers. 2) Feature on Constituents Advisory Board working with specific project. Chapel Hill, NC: author.
|
