This article was downloaded by: [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] On: 28 September 2012, At: 13:05 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Community Development Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcod20 The power of process: a story of collaboration and community change Linda Spatig a , Anne Swedberg b , Tracy Legrow c & Paula Flaherty d a School of Education, Huntington, WV, USA b WV Prevention Resource Center, Dunbar, WV, USA c Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Marshall University School of Medicine, Huntington, WV, USA d Marshall University, Charleston, WV, USA Version of record first published: 27 Apr 2010. To cite this article: Linda Spatig, Anne Swedberg, Tracy Legrow & Paula Flaherty (2010): The power of process: a story of collaboration and community change, Community Development, 41:1, 3-20 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15575330903476053 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Transcript
This article was downloaded by: [University of Massachusetts, Amherst]On: 28 September 2012, At: 13:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Community DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcod20
The power of process: a story ofcollaboration and community changeLinda Spatig a , Anne Swedberg b , Tracy Legrow c & Paula Flahertyd
a School of Education, Huntington, WV, USAb WV Prevention Resource Center, Dunbar, WV, USAc Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Marshall University Schoolof Medicine, Huntington, WV, USAd Marshall University, Charleston, WV, USA
Version of record first published: 27 Apr 2010.
To cite this article: Linda Spatig, Anne Swedberg, Tracy Legrow & Paula Flaherty (2010): The powerof process: a story of collaboration and community change, Community Development, 41:1, 3-20
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15575330903476053
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
The power of process: a story of collaboration and community change
Linda Spatiga*, Anne Swedbergb, Tracy Legrowc and Paula Flahertyd
aSchool of Education, Huntington, WV, USA; bWV Prevention Resource Center, Dunbar, WV,USA; cPsychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Marshall University School of Medicine,Huntington, WV, USA; dMarshall University, Charleston, WV, USA
Based on a year-long ethnographic study, this narrative chronicles the planningyear of the West Virginia Partnership to Promote Community Well-Being—acollaborative effort to develop a comprehensive statewide substance abuseprevention system. The study provides evidence that the WV Partnership’s focuson people- and relationship-oriented processes, rather than only outcomes, waskey to its success in obtaining a State Incentive Grant1 and laid a foundation forcreating a comprehensive statewide prevention system. The essay explores thesustainability and replicability of the WV Partnership in relation to the highhuman and organizational costs of the ambitious, collaborative endeavor. Usinga critical theory framework, the project is discussed as a site of socialtransformation in the context of economic and social circumstances in centralAppalachia at the turn of the twenty-first century. Transformative elementsinclude: (1) countering within-state community imbalances between levels of needand availability of resources; (2) featuring inclusive, community-based, capacity-building approaches to social reform; and (3) challenging recent trends to legislatenarrow, quantitative definitions of social science.
At first we were unexcited about conducting evaluation research for a statewidesubstance-abuse prevention project. We envisioned long, tedious meetings withadministrators in dreary institutional settings. However our first encounter withthe West Virginia Partnership to Promote Community Well-Being (hereafterreferred to as WV Partnership), at a retreat in a state park, challenged our initialimpressions. The snow on the ground accentuated the peace and quiet we sensedas we arrived at the beautiful park on a cold, sunny February morning. Enteringthe lodge we felt the warmth of the big stone fireplace as well as the personalwarmth of the lodge staff. Planning group members arrived, energized and excitedabout the project. In the meeting room, West Virginia Prevention ResourceCenter (WVPRC) staff, who played a major role in organizing the retreat,enthusiastically greeted us. The room featured an oval arrangement of tables andchairs with name cards in front of each chair and there were all the amenities—water glasses, pens, agendas, paper, candy, gift bags, even marshmallows for
throwing at the long-winded! A feeling of camaraderie, respect, and hopefulnesswas palpable.
Thus began our study of the WV Partnership. In this narrative, we chronicle thegroup’s collaborative efforts—during its first year of existence—to plan acomprehensive statewide prevention system. After introducing the project andlocating it in central Appalachia at the turn of the twenty-first century, we describethe group’s focus on people- and relationship-oriented processes, rather than onlyoutcomes, as key to its success in obtaining a State Incentive Grant. Also, we discussthe sustainability and replicability of the project, especially in light of resourcesneeded to support leadership and staff roles played by the WVPRC.
Finally, we examine the socially transformative potential of the WV Partnership,viewing the project through a critical theory lens and arguing that the project is a‘‘site of hope’’ (Weis & Fine, 2004), an instance of real community change. Theformation of the partnership itself, by bringing together individuals and agenciesthat had previously worked independently, was itself transformative. Additionally,these people and organizations began working together in ways that: (1) aimed tocounter long-standing statewide community imbalances between levels of need andavailability of resources; (2) featured participatory, community-based, capacity-building approaches to social reform; and (3) challenged trends to legislate narrowdefinitions of social science research by including qualitative methods in internal andexternal project evaluation.
With increasing calls for evidence-based practice, systematic, empirical researchon reform efforts such as the WV Partnership is important. Qualitative methods, inparticular, provide evidence about program processes—about how programs work,especially from the view of those directly involved in them, as well as about costs andbenefits of those processes. In this essay, frank, detailed information about acollaborative statewide change effort should be useful to others engaged in, orconsidering, similar work. The narrative format of the piece highlights day-to-dayrealities of working with groups such as the WV Partnership—giving readers accessto the ‘‘complexity and the messiness of practice-in-context’’ (Lather, 2004a, p. 768).
Research methods
As an ethnographic team2, we were hired to conduct external evaluation research forthe project. We were given full responsibility for external project evaluation. Inaddition to our external qualitative research, the project featured an extensiveinternal (to the project) research program—including qualitative and quantitativedata collection and analysis.
Research purpose and questions
As external evaluators, we followed Stake (2004) in that instead of judging theproject from an external position, we tried to experience it through the eyes ofparticipants, including two categories of individuals: (1) members of the WVPartnership (aka ‘‘partners’’) who represented organizations and agencies involvedwith substance abuse prevention (e.g., WV Division on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse,WV Department of Education, WV Division on Criminal Justice Services) and (2)WVPRC employees who served as administrative staff to the project. During theplanning year, there were about 25 partners and 10 WVPRC staff involved at any
4 L. Spatig et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
assa
chus
etts
, Am
hers
t] a
t 13:
05 2
8 Se
ptem
ber
2012
given time. As researchers, we paid attention to both groups of participants seekingto understand partner and staff ideas about both the merits and shortcomings ofprocesses and outcomes. Like Mullen and Kochan (2000), we took a phenomen-ological approach and studied the project ‘‘from the inside out’’ (p. 184), hoping tounderstand participants’ perceptions and experiences. We tried to understandparticipants’ experiences and perceptions in order to discuss them in reports andpresentations (primarily to the WV Partnership) that did not get it ‘‘all wrong’’(Wolcott, 1994, p. 353). Our initial research questions were: (1) how do projectparticipants (partners and staff) experience and perceive the WV Partnership? and (2)how do project participants (partners and staff) identify and understand projectstrengths and shortcomings?
Data collection and analysis
We were observant participants (Tedlock, 1991) in four day-long quarterly WVPartnership meetings, two multiple-day partnership retreats, and seven workgroup(subgroups consisting of partners and WVPRC staff) meetings, though ourparticipation was on the passive end of the ‘‘participant-observer continuum’’(Bogdan & Biklen, 2006). Also, we interviewed 18 partners and seven WVPRC staffmembers, purposefully selecting individuals actively engaged in the work,‘‘information-rich sources’’ (Patton, 2002) from whom we could learn about howparticipants understood their experiences with the project. Interviews, someconducted by phone and some in person, were taped and transcribed.
We inductively analyzed observation and interview data generated each quarter.First, each research team member reviewed and coded all data documentsindependently. Second, we met as a team to discuss the individual coding resultsand to decide upon several major themes for the data set as a whole. Using thosecollectively agreed-upon themes as a rubric, each team member revisited the data,recoding and identifying excerpts to illustrate each theme.
Following Gabriel’s (2000) advice to quickly get evaluation findings into thehands of practitioners who can use them, every three months we provided feedbackbased on our analyses of data generated during that period. These ‘‘Notes from theField,’’ discussing the identified emergent themes, were distributed to participants—including both staff and partners. In addition, we made quarterly oral reports at WVPartnership meetings.
In this essay we turn to interpretive work, considering the project in relation toprior research and to theory. In this regard, we are drawn to critical analyses thataddress power issues—in local settings, in broader social structures, and inconceptualizing relationships between local and broader contexts.
Setting: central Appalachia, turn of the twenty-first century
Even in the prosperous 1990s, the gap grew between the ‘‘have-mores and the have-lesses’’ (Reich, 1998). Reich, Secretary of Labor in the first Clinton administration,noted: ‘‘The country is growing apart. The wealthy have become richer thanever . . . but paychecks for the bottom half of the nation’s workforce have beenshrinking . . . . The poor have become much poorer’’ (p. 13). In addition to shrinkingpaychecks, spending on social programs provided by community-based, nonprofitorganizations declined, especially funding for core operating expenses—a situation
Community Development 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
assa
chus
etts
, Am
hers
t] a
t 13:
05 2
8 Se
ptem
ber
2012
Mario Morino, president of Venture Philanthropy Partners, described as the‘‘extreme undercapitalization of quality nonprofit work’’ (Morino, 2002, p. 6).
Of particular interest in this study, rural poverty has sharply increased. In someof the poorest areas, poverty levels of 20% or higher have persisted in every censussince 1960. West Virginia, in the heart of Appalachia, is a case in point. The entirestate often is characterized as rural and poor, but there is considerable variation inpopulation density as well as in economic well-being across the 55 counties.
Substance abuse often goes hand-in-hand with poverty and despite the invisibilityof rural communities in much that is written on substance abuse, it is increasingly aproblem in rural America (Slobada, Rosenquist, & Howard, 1997). This trend isconfirmed by Diala’s (2004) study of relationships between geography and substanceabuse. Diala highlights recent studies (e.g., The National Household Survey on DrugAbuse, 2008) showing increased availability, access, and use of drugs by rural residents.
Aware of connections between poverty and substance abuse, and aware ofvariations in levels of needs and resources across the state, the WV Partnership knewthat a prevention plan featuring competitive county grants would likely perpetuatelong-standing within-state inequities. Counties with greater resources would be ableto draft strong grant applications and secure more and better services for theircommunities. Conversely, poorer, often smaller and more rural counties with fewerresources would be less likely to compete successfully for funding. With this in mind,partners tried to develop a plan that would interrupt these inequalities by design—priorities would be on supporting counties with greatest needs (in terms of substanceabuse problems) and fewest resources to meet those needs.
Findings
Our major finding is that the group’s focus on processes, rather than only outcomes,was key to its success in obtaining a State Incentive Grant and in laying a foundationfor creating a comprehensive statewide prevention system. Because this essay is anarrative, we discuss that finding in the context of the planning year story. Thenarrative features participants’ understandings of the WV Partnership—includinghow it began, its use of collaborative leadership, its emphasis on people andrelationships, and its struggle to achieve a shared vision.
Partnering up: the process begins
The project began with a $450,000 planning grant from the US Department of Healthand Human Services, through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health ServicesAdministration and the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP). The grant,obtained for the state by the West Virginia Prevention Resource Center (WVPRC),called for an advisory body. WVPRC staff identified individuals representingprevention-related organizations in the state, including state agencies, state highereducation institutions, and local community organizations to serve as the advisorybody. In addition, two young people were invited to join. At the group’s first meeting,participants expressed commitment to West Virginia, to prevention as a broadconcept, and to collaboration as a means of improving the life circumstances of WestVirginians, especially those living in areas with few resources and great needs. Theirgoals were to obtain a State Incentive Grant and to design and implement a statewideprevention system that would close gaps and reduce redundancies in services.
6 L. Spatig et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
assa
chus
etts
, Am
hers
t] a
t 13:
05 2
8 Se
ptem
ber
2012
There was agreement that outcomes were important, but developing a viable,sustainable collaborative process was just as important, especially to WVPRC staffwho guided the planning year efforts. As a WVPRC staff member noted early in theyear, ‘‘There has to be some real tangible things that come out of this . . . [but] it’s notabout the money; [it’s] about the process . . . model[ing] what we want ourcommunities to do and that is to work together and work smart.’’ In addition toviewing the process as a model of collaboration, participants saw it as educative anddevelopmental. One WVPRC staffer called it ‘‘a learning process.’’ Immediatelyfollowing the planning year, another WVPRC staff member spoke of the group’sprocess in developmental, organic terms, likening the WVPRC’s role in it to that of agardener: ‘‘As a gardener you don’t make anything grow . . . . The best you can dois . . . create good conditions that are right to provide for optimum growth . . . . Yourjob becomes . . . a steward of the environment.’’
Another staff member noted commitment among partners to the focus onprocess, too: ‘‘Folks at the table . . . are sincere about honoring process and doing itright.’’ Partners confirmed this, one commenting that coordinating prevention effortsis challenging—one of those ‘‘things [that] just have to kind of take their ownpath . . . . and go through a process to move forward.’’ Some partners, however,worried that allowing the process to develop naturally hindered the group’s progressin formulating and achieving goals. We revisit this tension between process andoutcomes in addressing leadership below as well as in a later section on sharedvision.
Leading the process—from the bottom-up, top-down, and outside-in
Like other coalitions in which organization leaders come together and shareleadership as they work toward common goals, the WV Partnership included high-level administrators who shared leadership with each other in an egalitarian,democratic manner, much like the model of innovative leadership described byMullen and Kochan (2000). In addition to sharing leadership with each other,partners shared leadership with the WV Prevention Resource Center whoserelationship with the WV Partnership was understood in various ways, and was asource of tension at times. In early formative feedback to the group, we noted thatleadership in the Partnership was complex—with WVPRC staff providing guidanceon the basis of their prior experience with and knowledge about the grants—both theplanning year grant they obtained and the State Incentive Grant they hoped to beawarded at the end of the planning year. We also noted the WVPRC’s extensiveexperience with cross-agency collaboration itself. These factors led participants toview the WVPRC in a leadership role. One partner said, ‘‘We look to the PreventionResource Center as the lead . . . . The idea behind this whole grant is that it’s sharedownership . . . but the WVPRC applied for it, set up all the meetings, and so on.’’ AWVPRC staff member who shared this perspective explained, ‘‘Ultimately we[WVPRC] are responsible . . . . If it doesn’t go well, we’re the ones responsible . . . .TheWVPRC needs to [be in control] . . . . The partnership’s role is advisory.’’ Others,however, believed the partners were in charge of the WV Partnership. As one staffmember explained, ‘‘The WVPRC staff work for the [partners] . . . .We can try toguide them based on grant guidelines . . . but . . . those people kind of tell us what todo.’’ At the end of the year, participants had not fully clarified these roles andreached agreement on ‘‘who is responsible for what’’ (Burk & Keeley, 2002).
Community Development 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
assa
chus
etts
, Am
hers
t] a
t 13:
05 2
8 Se
ptem
ber
2012
To the extent WVPRC staff played a leadership role in the WV Partnership, theydid so in an informal, nondirective, nonhierarchical manner. Driven by commit-ments to community and to helping people help themselves, WVPRC staff wereexperienced at using a capacity-building approach—a participatory leadershipfocusing on ‘‘empowerment rather than power and control’’ (Kezar, 2001, p. 88)—inworking with communities. In this fashion they facilitated the work of the WVPartnership, assisting with everything from building relationships among individualsand organizations to preparing for meetings and retreats, keeping minutes, leadingdiscussions, negotiating compromises, keeping the group moving and on track,drawing partners into active engagement in the project, and ultimately writing theproposal for the State Incentive Grant.
WVPRC staff worked hard during the planning year. One staffer joked that withthe grant, they each have at least two full-time positions which is ‘‘really hard . . . .The massive amount of work . . . puts a lot of stress on us.’’ Partners, aware of theheavy workload and appreciative of the ‘‘professional, intelligent, committed staff,’’expressed concerns about a lack of acknowledgement for staff expertise andcontributions: ‘‘They are doing a great job. They are very professional . . . . They’reworking their butts off and . . . getting no recognition.’’
This perception may be related to two factors, (1) the nature of the leadershippracticed by the WVPRC, and (2) the resources needed to support the initiation oflarge collaborative projects. The WVPRC’s leadership, especially early in the year,was a form of what Chrislip and Larson (1994, p. 127) call collaborative leadership—leadership that concerns itself with ‘‘promoting and safeguarding the collaborativeprocess.’’ WVPRC staff tried to engage partners in the planning process—encouraging them to accept increasing ownership of and responsibility for theproject. To this end, staff tried not to speak too much or draw too much attention tothemselves—to open spaces for partners to play active roles in the process. This isnot unlike ‘‘collaborative leadership strategies’’ Padgett, Bekemeier, and Berkowitz(2004, p. 257) recommend to ‘‘maximize the involvement of multiple stakeholders’’and ‘‘facilitate the effectiveness of partnerships’’ or Kezar’s (2001, p. 85) view ofparticipatory leadership designed to capitalize on ‘‘the wealth of expertisethroughout an organization.’’
Another factor to consider is the administrative resources and support neededfor large-scale collaborative endeavors. Prevention initiatives often are fundedwith inadequate attention to the necessary administrative support structures. Onthe basis of a systematic literature review and a series of substance abuseprevention ‘‘think tanks,’’ Johnson, Hays, Center, and Daley (2004) stress theimportance of strengthening administrative capacity during the initial implemen-tation period of innovations when the need for human services is critical. Theplanning grant provided financial resources to support the partnership’s workduring its first year, but difficulties in obtaining those funds from the governor’soffice, lack of time because of responsibilities for pre-existing grants and projects,and the time and work involved in locating, hiring, and training new staff left theWVPRC under considerable internal strain that increased as the planning yearprogressed.
Conflicting perspectives on the relationship between the WVPRC and thepartnership notwithstanding, the hard-working, skilled, committed individuals(partners and staff) involved with the WV Partnership accomplished a majorgoal—the award of a five year, $2.3 million per year State Incentive Grant from the
8 L. Spatig et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
assa
chus
etts
, Am
hers
t] a
t 13:
05 2
8 Se
ptem
ber
2012
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. The planning year leading up to thisaccomplishment featured people- and relationship-focused processes.
Honoring people and relationships
Sustainability is enhanced when there is collaboration (e.g., Johnson et al., 2004), butcollaboration across agencies and organizations is often difficult. As Burk andKeeley (2002, p. 71) note, ‘‘Any two agencies that must work together with acommon purpose have challenges that include differences in perceived missions,leadership styles, ‘turf’ issues, and cultural differences between organizations.’’ Thesechallenges are multiplied when people from many organizations come together witha common task. During the planning year, the WV Partnership met these challengesby getting the ‘‘right people’’ to the table and developing and nurturing trusting,respectful, reciprocal relationships among them. The goal was to lay a foundationfor developing shared understandings and a willingness to work together in morethan a superficial way—as people and as organizations.
‘‘The main thing is people’’
Collaboration literature stresses the value of getting key stakeholders to the tableand actively engaging them in collaboration. Yeattes, Ray, List, and Dugger (1991),for example, note the importance of ‘‘soliciting community leaders’’ to serve inleadership roles in collaborative projects. Also, Mattessich, Monsey, and Murray-Close (1994) reviewed research on successful collaborations and found eleven studiesemphasizing the need to include representatives from stakeholder groups. Other thanmutual respect, understanding, and trust (also supported by eleven studies), none ofthe other nineteen factors influencing the success of collaboration was supported byas much empirical research.
WV Partnership participants agreed that the partnership should be broadlyinclusive. The climate of partnership meetings, warm and inviting with attention tocreature comforts, was welcoming and inclusive. Other signs of the desire forinclusiveness were invitations—from WVPRC staff, the retreat facilitator, and somepartners—to participate, to make decisions, to express views. There seemed to be agenuine desire to include all perspectives. Especially at the first retreat, considerabletime and attention were given to each organization represented—in terms ofexplaining who they are and what they do. Some said very little during the first day,but by the end of the second day there was more widespread participation andindividuals began using language reflecting a sense of involvement and ownership,for example, saying ‘‘we’’ instead of ‘‘they’’ in referring to applying for a StateIncentive Grant.
In large collaborative partnerships, it is important but often difficult to involve‘‘nontraditional stakeholders . . . such as historically underserved and minoritycommunities’’ (Padgett et al., 2004, p. 257). The WV Partnership struggled withthis as well, especially with two groups—youth and community members. Onepartner cautioned, ‘‘There’s a danger in . . . state level people sitting around andmaking decisions without consulting folks that have to actually put it in practice.’’Another partner stressed the importance of including young people: ‘‘We needyouth involvement . . . . If we don’t, then it’s just like the adults trying to tellthe kids what to do.’’ As a result of these concerns, a Community/Youth
Community Development 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
assa
chus
etts
, Am
hers
t] a
t 13:
05 2
8 Se
ptem
ber
2012
Workgroup—including partners and WVPRC staff as well as additional commu-nity members—was formed.
Despite these struggles, participants agreed that ‘‘the really good folks’’ of WVare ‘‘our most precious resource’’ and took pains to find and develop, and/ormaintain, relationships with the ‘‘right people.’’ In the case of the WV Partnership,the ‘‘right people’’ meant individuals in non-appointed but high-level leadershippositions in their own organizations. It also meant people who ‘‘get it,’’ as oneWVPRC staffer put it—people who are committed to prevention and to the state,who understand and value collaboration, and are open to learning and change. OneWVPRC staff member described the partnership as ‘‘a phenomenal group offolks . . . . They have influence and respect in their areas of expertise . . . .[Some] . . .work for very little and they do it year after year after year . . . These are folks thathave . . . turned down [other positions] to stay here [because of their] commitment . . . tothe people of the state.’’
‘‘Relationships have to come first’’
Many partners had positive relationships with WVPRC staff members and/or witheach other prior to the formation of the WV Partnership. As one staff member put it,‘‘We [WVPRC staff] have relationships with just about everybody in that roomand . . .many of them [partners] have relationships [with each other].’’ Theserelationships and experiences provided prior opportunities to work together,develop trust, and perhaps even share power, as a WVPRC staff member explained:‘‘If you have worked on projects together . . . it’s a team effort and that develops thatsort of bond and that trust. And then you are willing to share some of your . . . powermaybe.’’ Another staff member identified relationships as the foundation for thepartnership, contrasting West Virginia with other states where a lack of attention torelationship-building meant failure to develop successful, sustainable collaborations.Likewise, for another staff member, relationships are the most important part of herjob and they are the reason individuals came to the partnership table.
The most important part of my job is the relationships I have with other people in thestate, with other people federally, and with the staff here . . . . People who are at the table[as partners] are there because of the nature of their roles [and because] we haverelationships with them and we have worked together on things . . . . It’s based on trust.
While it takes time for trusting relationships to develop, this group had an edge,because, as one partner noted, ‘‘We’re a small state and everybody knowseverybody . . . . A lot of us knew one another; we [had] worked together . . . . We haddeveloped a lot of trust . . . . We just totally jumped in . . . . That’s part of ourAppalachian culture.’’ Another talked about people in the state as ‘‘good social capitalbuilders,’’ as adept at building a ‘‘web of connections . . . [making it] possible to getthings done based on the fact that you can trust other people to do what they saythey’re going to do.’’ Interestingly, this partner came into the group with few pre-existing relationships with other participants. It can be difficult for newcomers to entergroups with tight social bonds, but individuals coming into the WV Partnership withless developed connections felt relatively comfortable, as this partner noted: ‘‘It’s beenvery good for me because I don’t know the players . . . . I don’t think that people fromthe other agencies really know me and know what I do.’’
10 L. Spatig et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
assa
chus
etts
, Am
hers
t] a
t 13:
05 2
8 Se
ptem
ber
2012
The fluidity of group membership, with periodic changing of partners andworkgroup assignments, helped avoid the exclusivity that can result when densenetworks and strong social capital exist within a group (Portes, 1998). Anotherreason newcomers felt comfortable was that time and attention were devoted torelationship-building, particularly in the early months of the year. At the first retreatlengthy personal introductions and a Native American Medicine Wheel activityinvited participants to discuss their personalities and values, enabling them to get toknow and trust each other more. Also, meeting rules or ‘‘considerations,’’ stressingthe importance of listening to each other, and the ‘‘acronym police,’’ ticketing peoplefor using short-hand communication that might exclude those unfamiliar with thejargon, created a fun, inviting, inclusive environment and facilitated development ofcomfortable, trusting relationships.
According to Padgett et al. (2004, p. 253), successful partnership formationincludes the ‘‘fostering of trustworthy interpersonal relationships among participant-representatives.’’ Likewise, Foss, Bonaiuto, Johnson and Moreland (2003) identifythe building of trusting relationships within one’s own organization as well as acrossorganizations as the first task in establishing new partnerships. In light of this, aswell as our own observations and interviews, we believe the WV Partnership’splanning year accomplishments may be attributed, at least in part, to its success indeveloping, maintaining, and strengthening relationships. Not unlike what Burk andKeeley (2002, p. 72) learned from studying a successful collaborative effort in anAppalachian community in Pennsylvania, it seems that while other factors played arole, ‘‘the close cooperation, respect, communication, and trust [among partici-pants] . . . [was] the foundation upon which all else was built.’’
However, the focus on relationship-building took time and attention from otherissues and tasks and some believed it slowed the group’s progress, as one partner’scomments about a team-building exercise illustrate: ‘‘I don’t think it was a waste oftime because I learned a lot about everybody . . . and I’m sure everybody learned a lotabout me . . . [but] sometimes I think we stretch things to the Nth degree. And maybewe should speed up things a little bit.’’
Shared vision: ‘‘that part is still unclear’’
Including a broad range of stakeholders and encouraging the development oftrusting relationships facilitated collaboration and set the stage for one of the hardestparts of this endeavor—constructing shared understandings about the preventionsystem the group hoped to build as well as about the roles and responsibilities of thePartnership and the WVPRC. At a general level there was shared vision within theWV Partnership from early in the process. At their first meeting, partners agreed towork collaboratively to obtain a State Incentive Grant (SIG) and, regardless of theirsuccess in getting the grant, to create a statewide system to promote community well-being. Also, they agreed to focus on assistance for communities with highest needsand fewest resources. These general agreements are important. Participants spokeenthusiastically about the timing being right for a SIG because, as one WVPRC staffmember noted: ‘‘All those people [now] have the same vision; they want the samething; they’re committed . . . . We’re all working for the same cause, and shar[ing]information and talk[ing] to each other.’’ Another WVPRC staffer spoke abouttaking advantage of this opportunity because, ‘‘We’re actually all talking the samelanguage . . . . We’ve never been on the same page [before] . . . . The time is now.’’
Community Development 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
assa
chus
etts
, Am
hers
t] a
t 13:
05 2
8 Se
ptem
ber
2012
Beyond this broad agreement, however, shared visions—about prevention or the roleof the Partnership—had not emerged, as a partner explained near the end of theyear: ‘‘The shared vision thing will probably emerge . . . . We can come up with ashared vision of communities staying healthy and free of substance abuse . . . . But interms of a shared vision for what the partnership is all about . . . that part is stillunclear.’’
He was not alone in lacking clarity. Many partners expressed confusionthroughout the planning year. Early in the year, one partner said, ‘‘[I’m] not tooclear yet about what are going to be the specific proposals that . . . will be the guts ofthe SIG.’’ About halfway through the year, one of the most active partners observed:‘‘Some people are still trying to figure out what it is all about . . . .We are all still kindof confused and trying to figure out what the heck are we doing.’’ Near the end of theyear, another active partner admitted, ‘‘I still get a little confused . . . I think we havea vision but my vision is still a little foggy.’’ Confusion also existed among WVPRCstaff, one of whom referred to ‘‘ambiguity’’ in both groups: ‘‘I don’t think anybodyknows.’’ Another, speaking midway into the year, agreed: ‘‘What’s missing . . . is . . .understand[ing] of what this is all about . . . .We’ve got to make sure we are all on thesame page . . . . [Our] task here [at the WVPRC] is to make sure that we all have acommon understanding.’’
Some attributed the confusion to varying levels of prevention-related experienceor knowledge. Others saw the confusion as a result of differences in discipline ororganization-related terminology, as a WVPRC staff member explained: ‘‘[We’re]just speaking different languages . . . . What is prevention? What are we going to callit? . . . Let them [partners] have a conversation . . . and they’re going to be like, ‘Oh,we’re just calling it different things.’’’ Likewise, a partner spoke of ‘‘continuousstruggle’’ to create shared visions, but also noted that ‘‘other people think like Ido . . . everybody is talking the same talk . . . . They might call it something differentbut . . . it’s all the same process.’’
Also contributing to the confusion were the official—but shifting—SIG guidelines.During the course of the year SIG became SPF SIG (Strategic Prevention FrameworkState Incentive Grant). Also, at the beginning of the year, grant guidelines specified afocus on youth, but later in the year the guidelines changed, requiring a lifespanapproach. At least one partner worried about a possible ‘‘mismatch between what thegrant [was] asking for and what the vision of the [partnership] is.’’ On the one hand,WV Partnership participants were trying to develop a vision using an open, creativeprocess with minimal constraints. On the other hand, grant guidelines had to befollowed in order to enhance the probability of funding.
Regardless of the reasons for the lack of clarity, participants agreed that sharedunderstandings were important and there is agreement about the importance ofshared vision in research on effective collaboration (e.g., Campbell, 1999; Mattessichet al., 1994; Reilly, 2001). Failing to construct shared visions may jeopardizecollaboration in a number of ways, for example, by distancing participants from theprocess. A WV Partner is a case in point; at midyear he said, ‘‘No one really [knows]what it is . . . . Everybody is like, ‘Well, you’ve got to do [this],’ but we don’t reallyknow what we’re doing it for.’’ He cautioned that the confusion might causeindividuals to withdraw from the project, as he had done at times. ‘‘I really don’tunderstand so I just remove myself . . . . You might lose some people.’’
The Partnership’s struggle with constructing shared understandings is notsurprising. According to Phipps (2004, p. 87), ‘‘collaborative planning has its
12 L. Spatig et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
assa
chus
etts
, Am
hers
t] a
t 13:
05 2
8 Se
ptem
ber
2012
challenges. Co-creating a clear and challenging vision and developing sharedmeaning . . . may cause stress for those newly involved in shared leadership.’’ Thiskind of ‘‘collaborative, facilitative leadership [involves] . . . providing context inwhich all interested parties, the leader[s] included, can together create a vision,mission or purpose they can collectively uphold’’ (Kegan, 1994, p. 322). However, asAvery (1999) notes, collaborative leadership works best when there is an equalemphasis on both ‘‘business results’’ and ‘‘meaningful experience.’’ Avery cautionsagainst letting ‘‘one focus become more important than the other, lest you invitefailure’’ (p. 37). Perhaps the WV Partnership’s focus on a people- and relationship-oriented process meant a lack of attention to goals and strategies—their ‘‘businessresults.’’ On the other hand, the WV Partnership’s focus on process laid a foundationfor the future development of shared understandings. The process fostered trustingrelationships and a collaborative culture, paving the way for consensus building,developing authentic shared visions, and a comfortableness with learning, change,and growth.
Discussion and interpretation
In this section we discuss and interpret the study findings, especially in light of theoryand prior research. Since this essay is written as a narrative, we address those issuesbelow—as part of the story itself.
Sustaining, replicating, and transforming: the process goes on
It is fitting to end this story—about a planning effort focused on process—in a non-conclusive, problem-posing rather than problem-solving manner, in the spirit ofRichardson’s (1998, p. 360) advice that qualitative researchers ‘‘view their work asprocess rather than as definitive representation’’ and Lather’s call for a ‘‘morehumble scholarship . . . . [that serves to] frame possibilities rather than close them inworking with empirical data’’ (1992, p. 95). Our closing comments feature questionsand reflections about what we still do not understand and hope that we, and others,will continue to study. In addition, we argue that the project—as we look back on itsbeginning year—is socially transformative.
Sustainability and replicability
The material, human, and social capital that played critical roles in the WVPartnership’s success were provided or facilitated largely by the WV PreventionResource Center. Material resources were available to the Partnership as a result ofthe planning grant obtained by the WVPRC. Information and skilled services wereprovided directly by WVPRC staff; and pre-existing social resources—trustingrelationships among the ‘‘right people’’—were strengthened through the facilitativeefforts of WVPRC staff. This raises questions about the WV Partnership and aboutsimilar process-oriented, collaborative change efforts. Could this collaborativeplanning group have come together, established an organizational structure, andobtained a State Incentive Grant without a WVPRC or similar organization? Andwhat are the human and organizational costs of sustaining such an effort?
Judging by Johnson et al.’s (2004) sustainability planning model, theWV Partnership is potentially sustainable in that it—in combination with the
Community Development 13
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
assa
chus
etts
, Am
hers
t] a
t 13:
05 2
8 Se
ptem
ber
2012
WVPRC—constitutes an infrastructure with capacity to support itself and todevelop a sustainable innovation—in this case, a comprehensive, community-based,statewide prevention system. However, the WV Partnership’s collaborative, people-and relationship-focused processes, which laid a foundation for creating asustainable statewide system, was hard on the people who shouldered much of theburden for it—the WVPRC staff who were working with a truncated timeline andlimited resources. As the year drew to a close, several of the enthusiastic WVPRCstaff who greeted us at the lodge on that snowy day in February, were frustrated anddiscouraged, in part by stressed relationships and declining trust among WVPRCstaff members themselves. As one staffer noted near the end of the year, ‘‘We’repretty fractured at the WVPRC . . . . We have a lot of trust issues.’’ The roots of thesetensions predate the WV Partnership, but internal organizational difficultiesintensified during the planning year.
This is a compelling issue to explore in future research—with the WVPartnership—and with other collaborative change efforts. Honest, thoughtfulaccounts of what it takes to successfully carry out the administrative work ofcollaborative projects would provide invaluable information and insights for thoseundertaking similar endeavors. Such accounts also would be helpful in makingjudgments about the suitability of a collaborative approach which is, as Reilly (2001)notes, a ‘‘fragile and tedious’’ process that should be used selectively because of theresources needed for its success. Also, we wonder about the extent to which the WVPartnership’s process-oriented approach—that was purposefully flexible, open, non-prescriptive, and anything but formulaic—can be replicated in other states or, on asmaller scale, in local and regional communities in West Virginia. While many wouldfind this developmental, people- and relationship-oriented approach appealing,without a WVPRC to guide it, how can other communities hope to engage effectivelyin this kind of collaborative planning?
Social transformation
Finally we consider the socially transformative potential of the project—its ability to(1) disrupt dichotomies between the ‘‘have-lesses and have mores’’ in West Virginia,between communities that historically have had fewer resources with which toaddress needs and communities with greater access to resources; (2) to useparticipatory, community-based—rather than top-down—approaches that enablelocal communities to identify and solve problems; and (3) to challenge efforts tonarrowly define social science research as experimental in design. On all three counts,we argue that the project is a ‘‘site of hope’’ or a ‘‘social space for challenge’’ (Weis &Fine, 2004, pp. 26, 122) that should be recognized for its efforts to promote ‘‘deep,sustained, community-based educative work’’ (Weis & Fine, 2004, p. 123).
In relation to the first item, support for communities with greatest needs andfewest resources, the WV Partnership’s plan, as explained in the State IncentiveGrant proposal submitted at the end of the year, specified that all West Virginiacounties would be eligible for funding to participate in a planning year during whichthey would, with assistance from the WVPRC, assess and decide how to addresstheir county’s substance abuse problems. The proposal explained that countyplanning grants would not be competitive; the state grant budget included funds tosupport all counties desiring to participate. A funding formula developed todetermine dollar amounts resulted in what one WVPRC staff member called
14 L. Spatig et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
assa
chus
etts
, Am
hers
t] a
t 13:
05 2
8 Se
ptem
ber
2012
‘‘an inverse per capita distribution’’ whereby all participating counties would begiven a base amount and then additional monies allocated such that smaller countieswould receive more per person than larger counties.3 In other words, while largercounties would receive larger absolute amounts than more sparsely populatedcounties, smaller counties would receive more money proportionally. This approachwas inclusive (allowing participation by all counties) and generally seen as fair. Thefact that counties would not have to compete for planning grants gave communitieswith fewer resources a chance to participate in a project from which they may havebeen eliminated if they had to compete with more resource-rich counties. Also, usinga formula that did not award funds on a straightforward per capita basis was anattempt to weaken pre-existing inequalities across counties. Had each countyreceived the same dollar amount per person, there would have been no advantage tosmaller communities with fewer resources. Counties already ahead—in the resourcesgame—would be likely to stay ahead and those behind would likely stay behind.With hindsight, we see that this well-intentioned inverse per capita formula may nothave been as successful in disrupting cross-county resource inequities as hoped.Some of the larger counties in the state have large poor populations and some of thesmaller counties are relatively affluent.
The SIG proposal also explained that a smaller number of counties would beselected for implementation money in subsequent years of the grant. All countieswould be invited to participate in a planning year, but only some would be selected—using a data-driven rather than competitive process—for larger amounts ofimplementation funding over the next four years. From the beginning, partnersexpressed commitment to developing plans that would provide resources tocommunities with greatest needs—viewed broadly using, for example, countystatistics on poverty indicators such as unemployment rates and free and reducedschool lunch rates and substance abuse indicators such as driving while intoxicatedarrests—and fewest resources. The initial SIG proposal spoke of developing an‘‘assessment system identifying high need and low resource areas’’ and ‘‘target[ing]capacity building efforts to areas of greatest needs’’ (p. 12). By the end of the year theemphasis had shifted from ‘‘resources’’ to ‘‘capacity’’ as evidenced by the SIGproposal formula ranking counties on the basis of need and capacity, giving priorityto those with greatest needs and at least adequate capacity. Because of federal funderconcerns about measuring community capacity, however, ultimately a formulafocusing only on levels of county substance abuse problems (needs)—compared tostatewide substance-abuse means—was adopted. The WV Partnership’s explicitattention to cross-county inequities identify it as a ‘‘site of hope,’’ a space forcontesting business as usual in the state. However, in the context of dwindling dollarsfor social programming, the group followed the money and the restrictions that camewith it. They complied with CSAP definitions, priorities, and directives whichresulted in a funding formula defining community needs solely in terms ofquantitative substance abuse indicators and eliminating measures of communityresources or capacity.
On the second issue, ‘‘interruption of the top-down approach’’ (Lather, 2004b)by using participatory, community-based approaches, the project has strongparallels with critical pedagogy, especially as conceptualized by Brazilian adulteducator and writer Paulo Freire. The overarching idea is social transformationthrough education. A major tenet in Freire’s critical pedagogy is the value ofauthentic education, engaging learners where they are, in relation to their real needs
Community Development 15
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
assa
chus
etts
, Am
hers
t] a
t 13:
05 2
8 Se
ptem
ber
2012
and experiences, on their own terms. As Doherty (2005) explains, the idea is‘‘empowering the intentional learner’’ (p. 1) and ‘‘releasing control of learning to thelearner’’ (p. 5). Such learner-centered, authentic approaches stand in contrast towhat Freire called ‘‘banking’’ education where knowledgeable teachers or expertsmake deposits of information into passive learners. Freire explained in an interviewnot long before his death, ‘‘Lack of consideration towards knowledge derived fromexperience . . . indicate[s] a certain scientific incompetence.’’ Arguing against ‘‘closedsystem[s] of knowledge,’’ Freire abhorred the idea of providing learners ‘‘ready-madeknowledge . . . that is supposedly complete.’’ Rather, he advocated encouraginglearners ‘‘to understand better what they already know, so that, in their turn, theywill become the creators of new knowledge’’ (Campos, 1990, p. 2).
The collaborative, participatory leadership of the WV Partnership is consistentwith this view. From the beginning, there was an explicit goal to be inclusive ingetting stakeholders to the table and engaging them in authentic power-sharing.Also, the focus on emergent ideas and processes that developed from within asopposed to being imposed from above or outside; the honoring of people andrelationships; the refusal to uncritically accept pre-existing formulas and definitionsin order to quickly achieve a shared vision—all of these exemplify the learner-centered, authentic, empowering notions of adult education characteristic of Freire’scritical pedagogy. As frustrating and slow as it felt to participants at times, the groupresisted urges to foreclose thinking about ideas such as the definition of preventionby adopting particular models or theories. This is not to say that prior research andtheory were not considered. Considerable time was spent exploring various ideas andapproaches, but none were pressed upon the group.
Further, and unlike what occurred in most other states with similar grants, thegrant proposal the group developed included plans for each county to engage in itsown authentic learning processes in which inclusive partnerships of localstakeholders would collaborate in studying, assessing, and making plans to addresscommunity needs. The idea was to employ a capacity-building approach thatmodeled the inclusive, participatory, people and relationship-oriented processes usedat the state level. The SIG proposal describes the WV Partnership as ‘‘committed toassisting communities in developing their own comprehensive plans’’ (p. 18).Further, the proposal called for identifying ‘‘all sectors within a [local] communityand . . . bringing them together around prevention issues.’’ Also, the proposalmentioned the WV Partnership’s desire to ‘‘showcase . . . home grown programsthat have been locally evaluated and show promise’’ (p. 19).
In this approach to learning and change, mistakes are inevitable, but from acritical pedagogy stance they are seen as educational, as Freire noted: ‘‘Error is notthe sign of a serious gap in . . . knowledge or a proof of . . . incompetence, but . . . alegitimate step in the learning process’’ (Campos, 1990, p. 3). In the WV Partnership,mistakes were made during the planning year, and the plan for future county-levelwork included substantial latitude—in a sense inviting mistakes—but the existenceof mistakes does not in itself mark the work as transformative; the focus on reflectingon and learning from mistakes, however, does. The group’s attention to this,especially in later years of the project, is discussed in forthcoming work.
The overarching aim of critical pedagogy is social change through education. Theidea of human agency is important in this regard, as Pruyn and Garcia note:‘‘Freirean pedagogy has as its goal . . . the development within [people] . . . of attitudesand capacities to view themselves as capable of taking action on their world in order
16 L. Spatig et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
assa
chus
etts
, Am
hers
t] a
t 13:
05 2
8 Se
ptem
ber
2012
to change it’’ (2001, pp. 3,4). This brings us back to Doherty’s (2005) idea of‘‘empowering intentional learners,’’ and to the participatory, inclusive, people- andrelationship-oriented processes characteristic of the WV Partnership’s planning year.However it may be change itself that is the basis for learning, as Freire noted:‘‘Education is not the key to transformation, but transformation is in itselfeducational’’ (Torres, 1990). Perhaps that is why throughout the planning year, andincreasingly over the next two years, people spoke about howmuch they were learning.
Finally, a key element of Freire’s critical pedagogy is praxis—putting ideas intopractice or ‘‘walking your talk’’ (Pruyn & Garcia, 2001, p. 1). The WV Partnershipwalked their talk in relation to the transformative elements featured in this essay—their attempts to alleviate inequalities across counties, to counter top-downapproaches to social reform, and to challenge narrow scientific methods limited toquantification which is discussed next.
On the third count, the interruption of trends to narrow definitions of scientificresearch, the project has much to recommend it. The decision to feature qualitativemethods in both internal and external project evaluation is itself transformative,especially in the current political context—a way of speaking out ‘‘against the federallegislating of scientific method’’ (Lather, 2004a, p. 768). According to Lather, who isherself arguing from a critical stance, ‘‘federal policy research in education hasincreasingly moved to randomized field trials (RFTs) as the ‘gold standard’ in theevidence-based movements that have taken hold . . .’’ (p. 760). She and others (e.g.,Eisenhart & Towne, 2003) recommend scrutinizing and contesting these efforts to‘‘narrowly define scientific research’’ (Lather, 2004a, p. 760). Lather, on the otherhand, argues for diverse methods, including case study research, especially in programevaluation and policy studies. She holds that contextual, participatory approaches thatreveal the ambiguities and dynamics of real people involved in particular programs aremore helpful to practitioners seeking to understand and reflect on their actions. Inapplied efforts to improve the ‘‘quality of practice, complexity and messiness ofpractice-in-context cannot be fantasized away. To try to do so yields impoverishmentrather than improvement’’ (2004a, p. 768). Likewise, Slayton and Llosa (2005)demonstrate the benefits (and challenges) of using qualitative methods in large-scaleevaluation research—especially in terms of explaining both desired and undesiredoutcomes.
Participants’ (i.e., WVPRC staff’s) commitment to broad understandings ofscientific research—and their concomitant resistance to ‘‘top-down efforts . . . tolegislate scientific practice and mandate research design’’ (Freeman, deMarrais,Preissle, Roulston & St. Pierre, 2007, p. 25) are obvious in wording used in the SIGproposal drafted at the end of the planning year:
The evaluation will be founded on participatory evaluation theories and a philosophythat reliable quantitative data are sufficient for demonstrating what has happened, butqualitative data are needed to illustrate how it happened. Consequently bothquantitative and qualitative methodologies will be incorporated. (p. 27)
As external qualitative researchers, we were given a generous budget and freereign in designing and implementing our study. We enjoyed extensive access toproject activities, materials, and participants. These resources and circumstancesenabled us to be productive, creative, and responsive to changes as the projectevolved, enhancing our ability to understand the planning year, especially asexperienced by those directly involved in the work.
Community Development 17
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
assa
chus
etts
, Am
hers
t] a
t 13:
05 2
8 Se
ptem
ber
2012
In addition to featuring qualitative methods in external project evaluation,participants (namely WVPRC staff) decided to include both qualitative andquantitative internal evaluation. During the planning year, a WVPRC ethnographermade plans for community-based case study research during the following year whencounties would engage in their own planning. The SIG proposal expressed the hopethat the participatory evaluation modeled at the state level would be adopted by localcommunities who would then have another ‘‘tool to build sustainability’’ (p. 27).
Our critical analysis follows the Freirian tradition of examining programs andpractices in terms of power relations. We analyzed the WV Partnership’s planningyear ‘‘according to whether it serve[d] to reproduce existing social formations orserve[d] as a set of cultural practices that promote democratic and emancipatorychange’’ (Torres, 1990, p. 2). This exemplifies ‘‘socially committed research’’ (Apple,2004, p. 10) in that we examined a particular project with ‘‘all the complexities ofreal people’s understanding of what they are facing and of what they can do about it’’.While the WV Partners and WVPRC staff are not the kinds of people typicallyfeatured in critically-framed studies, we agree with Lather about the value of‘‘put[ting] our critical theory to work’’ (Lather, 2004b, p. 22) in program evaluationand policy analysis. In this way we, as researchers, engage in our own praxis; we ‘‘walkthe talk’’ by putting our critical theory into our evaluation research practice. Asresearchers and as individuals committed to local, strengths-based social reform, it isgratifying for us to acknowledge people in our state who are ‘‘working against thegrain to create more critical and egalitarian structures’’ (Weis & Fine, 2004, p. 122).
Acknowledgements
The research was funded by a grant from the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Notes
1. The State Incentive Grant (SIG) program of the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention(CSAP) provides funds to help states and communities implement effective preventionprograms. According to CSAP’s website, at the time of this writing there are 37 SIGs inoperation with over 600 sub-recipients.
2. Tracy LeGrow, Anne Swedberg, and Linda Spatig were the three members of the researchteam during the planning year. Over a twelve-month period (February 2004 – February2005), we collected and analyzed data and began to disseminate formative feedback to thepartnership. At the beginning of the second year of the project, when Tracy left to fulfill agraduate internship, Paula Flaherty joined the team, assisting with the development of thismanuscript as well as the collection of year two data.
3. As it turned out, the ‘‘inverse per capita’’ formula resulted in counties in the largest sizecategory receiving $.35 per capita and those in the smallest size category receiving $3.26.
References
Apple, M. (2004). Series editor’s introduction. In L. Weis & M. Fine (Eds.), Working method:Research and social justice (pp. ix–xi). New York: Routledge.
Avery, C. (1999). All power to you: Collaborative leadership works. The Journal for Qualityand Participation, March/April, 36–40.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2006). Qualitative research in Education: An introduction to theoryand methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Burk, M., & Keeley, J. (2002). Collaboration between the school and the bunkhouse: Aneffective collaboration protocol between independent education and institution providersin a juvenile correctional institution. Journal of Correctional Education, 53(2), 70–73.
Campbell, J. (1999). Collaboration as a partnership.Violence Against Women, 5(10), 1140–1157.
18 L. Spatig et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
assa
chus
etts
, Am
hers
t] a
t 13:
05 2
8 Se
ptem
ber
2012
Campos, M. (1990). Reading the world: Interview with Brazilian educator Paulo Freire.UNESCO Courier, December.
Chrislip, D., & Larson, C. (1994). Collaborative leadership: How citizens and civic leaders canmake a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Crippen, C. (2005). Servant-leadership as an effective model for educational leadership andmanagement: First to serve and then to lead. MiE, 18(5), 11–16.
Diala, C. (2004). Gender, occupational, and socioeconomic correlates of alcohol and drugabuse among US rural, metropolitan, and urban residents. American Journal of Drug andAlcohol Abuse, 30(2), 409–428.
Doherty, J. (2005). Empowering the intentional learner: A critical theory for informationliteracy instruction. Library Philosophy and Practice, 8(1), 1–11.
Eisenhart, M., & Towne, L. (2003). Contestation and change in national policy on‘‘scientifically based’’ education research. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 31–38.
Freeman, M., deMarrais, K., Preissle, J., Roulston, K., & St. Pierre, E. (2007). Standards ofevidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36(1),25–32.
Foss, G., Bonaiuto, M., Johnson, S., & Moreland, D. (2003). Using Polvika’s model to createa service-learning partnership. Journal of School Health, 73(8), 305–310.
Gabriel, R. (2000). Methodological challenges in evaluating community partnerships andcoalitions: Still crazy after all these years. Journal of Community Psychology, 28(3), 339–352.
Johnson, K., Hays, C., Center, H., & Daley, C. (2004). Building capacity and sustainableprevention innovations: A sustainability planning model. Evaluation and ProgramPlanning, 27, 135–149.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press.
Kezar, A. (2001). Investigating organizational fit in a participatory leadership environment.Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 23(1), 85–101.
Lather, P. (1992). Critical frames in educational research: Feminist and post-structuralperspectives. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 87–99.
Lather, P. (2004a). Scientific research in education: A critical perspective. British EducationalResearch Journal, 30(6), 759–772.
Lather, P. (2004b). This IS your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case ofqualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1), 15–34.
Mattessich, P., Monsey, B., & Murray-Close, M. (1994). Collaboration: What makes it work: Areview of research literature on factors influencing successful collaboration. Saint Paul, MN:Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
Morino, M. (2002). Papers and perspectives: The perfect storm. Essay based on presentationto Venture Philanthropy Partners Board of Directors.
Mullen, C., & Kochan, F. (2000). Creating a collaborative leadership network: An organicview of change. Leadership in Education, 3(3), 183–200.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Newbury Park: Sage.Padgett, S., Bekemeier, B., & Berkowitz, B. (2004). Collaborative partnerships at the state
level: Promoting systems changes in public health infrastructure. Journal of Public HealthManagement and Practice, 10(3), 271–277.
Phipps, S. (2004). The system design approach to organizational development: The Universityof Arizona Model. Library Trends, 53(1), 68–111.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. AnnualReview of Sociology, 24(1), 1–24.
Pruyn, M., & Garcia, H. (2001). Critical theory in education: Remembering the lessons of ElAbuelito. Tamara: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science, 1–11.
Reich, R. (1998). Locked in the cabinet. New York: Knopf.Reilly, T. (2001). Collaboration in action: An uncertain process. Administration in Social
and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 345–371). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Slayton, J., & Llosa, L. (2005). The use of qualitative methods in large-scale evaluation:
Improving the quality of the evaluation and the meaningfulness of the findings. TeachersCollege Record, 107(12), 2543–2565.
Community Development 19
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
assa
chus
etts
, Am
hers
t] a
t 13:
05 2
8 Se
ptem
ber
2012
Slobada, Z., Rosenquist, E., & Howard, J. (1997). Substance abuse in America. NIDAResearch Monograph, 168, 1–5.
Stake, R. (2004). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Tedlock, B. (1991). From participant-observation to the observation of participation: The
emergence of narrative ethnography. Journal of Anthropological Research, 47, 69–94.Torres, C. (1990). Paulo Freire: Twenty years later – similar problems, different solutions.
Aurora Online. Retrieved from http://aurora.icaap.org/index.php/aurora/article/viewArticle/45/58
Weis, L., & Fine, M. (2004). Working method: Research and social justice. New York:Routledge.
Wolcott, H. (1994). Transforming qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Yeattes, D., Ray, S., List, N., & Dugger, B. (1991). Financing geriatric programs in
community health centers. Public Health Reports, 106(4), 375–383.
