Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups

219

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
219
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  •    
  • Transcript

    • 1. Making the Most Out of Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships and Collaborative Working Groups Jeremy M. Wilson School of Criminal Justice jwilson@msu.edu September 17, 2012© 2012 Michigan State University
    • 2. Agenda • Evolution of problem-solving working groups • Challenges with and lessons for facilitating large working groups • Identifying and overcoming inherent tensions in researcher-practitioner partnerships© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 2
    • 3. Agenda • Evolution of problem-solving working groups • Challenges with and lessons for facilitating large working groups • Identifying and overcoming inherent tensions in researcher-practitioner partnerships© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 3
    • 4. Problem-Solving has Been Shown to be an Effective Way to Reduce Crime • Problem-solving is a systematic way to improve community conditions by grouping common incidents so that the underlying factors that create them can be understood and addressed • Scientific studies have demonstrated its success in reducing various types of crime and violence in various communities • The key to success is implementation© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 4
    • 5. Problem-Solving is a Systematic Process SARA and the Crime Triangle Scanning Assessment Analysis Response Source: Center for Problem-Oriented Policing© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 5
    • 6. The “Boston Miracle” • Diverse working group diagnosed the problem of youth firearm homicides as patterned hostility among highly active offenders, particularly among loosely knitted gangs • Designed strategy to deter gang violence by reaching out to gangs, retailing the message that violence will no longer be tolerated, offering gang members services and help, and reinforcing message with “lever pulling” when violence occurred • The approach demonstrated success, thereby leading to replications (but questions about sustainability have emerged)© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 6
    • 7. Strategic Approach to Community Safety Initiative (SACSI) • Building on “The Boston Miracle”, the US DOJ began piloting in 10 cities a nationally-driven but locally run initiative led by US Attorneys • Problems vary by city, ranging from gun violence to community fear to sexual assault • Involves 5-steps: – Form an interagency working group – Gather data about a local crime problem – Design a strategic intervention – Implement the intervention – Assess and modify the strategy as the data reveal effects© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 7
    • 8. Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) • SACSI was then rolled out nationally – Led by US Attorneys, PSN involves convening a working group of stakeholders to reduce gun violence through data-driven federal prosecution and community intervention • Since 2001, approximately $2B has been invested • Success varies by district But many collaborative working groups exist© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 8
    • 9. Agenda • Evolution of problem-solving working groups • Challenges with and lessons for facilitating large working groups • Identifying and overcoming inherent tensions in researcher-practitioner partnerships© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 9
    • 10. Some Working Groups Experience Challenges in Regard to Staffing… • Turnover of working group members • Indecision of working group • Inertia and reluctance for action • Politics inhibit cooperation and agreeing on responsibility© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 10
    • 11. …Planning and Analysis… • No strategic and specific plan • Process not data-driven • Limited communication© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 11
    • 12. …And Limited Resources • Not enough funding • Staff have too little time© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 12
    • 13. Collaborative, Problem-solving Requires Planning and Resources… • Commitment to a process that is data-driven and focused • Greater planning – Development of a strategic plan that builds upon and integrates existing resources – Process for selecting projects and allocating funds – Working group composition • Adequate resources to support the plan© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 13
    • 14. …And the “Right” People With a Commitment to Sustainability • Effective leader and researcher with adequate time to devote • Build legitimacy with the community (e.g., through working groups members, partners, and outreach) • Identifying the “right” participants • Long-term sustainability and willingness to learn from mistakes • Presence of a true collaboration that involves trust and accountability • True dedication© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 14
    • 15. Agenda • Evolution of problem-solving working groups • Challenges with and lessons for facilitating large working groups • Identifying and overcoming inherent tensions in researcher-practitioner partnerships© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 15
    • 16. Inherent Tensions Exist in Relation to Objectives and Desire for Implementation Attribute Practitioners Researchers Problem-solve/Make Goal/Incentives Scientific development decision Orientation Applied Theoretical Timeline Shorter Longer Implementation fidelity Variable Consistent Dosage Low/Diffused High/Focused See Lane, Turner, and Flores (2004)© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 16
    • 17. Inherent Tensions Exist in Relation to Data Attribute Practitioners Researchers Collection purpose Reporting Analysis Collection priority Low High Form valued Anecdotes/Cases Quantitative/Aggregate Concern Vulnerability/Workload Validity/Reliability Sharing Limited Open Perceived collection Practitioners/ Researchers responsibility Researchers See Lane, Turner, and Flores (2004)© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 17
    • 18. Inherent Tensions Exist in Relation to Feedback and Deliverables Attribute Practitioners Researchers Progress updates Frequent Infrequent Feedback for Specificity in program Generality in program executives elements elements Feedback for program Constantly revise Change program after change program assessment Reporting of results Earlier/Frequent Later/Infrequent Products Reports/Briefings Journal articles See Lane, Turner, and Flores (2004)© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 18
    • 19. Additional Tensions are Present When a Client is Involved, Especially If a Partner Attribute Practitioners Researchers Resources Fewer Greater Mission creep Substantial Limited Reserved/Right to Publication rights Unlimited review See Lane, Turner, and Flores (2004)© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 19
    • 20. How Can Tensions be Overcome? Compatibility Relationship Communication Building Compromise Trust Respect See Lane, Turner, and Flores (2004)© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 20
    • 21. Helpful Resources© 2012 Michigan State University Wilson- 21
    • 22. Thank you! For more information, contact Jeremy M. Wilson School of Criminal Justice jwilson@msu.edu© 2012 Michigan State University (517)353-9474

    ×