University of Alberta

Course Guide for SPH 602 Winter 2017 (Campus)

Engaged Scholarship for Health Thursdays, 1:00 – 2:50 pm ECHA 2-135

Instructor: Candace Nykiforuk, PhD, CE Phone: (780) 492-4109 Email: [email protected] Office: ECHA 3-291 Office Hours: by appointment only

Course Description SPH 602 is a core course of the PhD curriculum in the School of Public Health. It is an interdisciplinary seminar intended to prepare students with the knowledge and skills necessary to engage effectively with communities (broadly defined) and the health system in research and practice. Students will explore the concepts of engaged scholarship and how these can be best applied in their field of expertise to promote research that is both relevant and of high quality. Note: Credit may not be obtained for both PHS 602 and SPH 602. All PhD students are required to complete this course, or SPH 607 and 610. Students can only receive credit for SPH 602, or for SPH 607 and 610. It is recommended that students have completed SPH 603 and SPH 604 prior to taking SPH 602. It is expected that students will come to the course with a selected thesis topic and methodology, and with a draft thesis proposal in development.

Objectives Upon completion of SPH 602, students will be able to: 1. Understand and discuss how engaged scholarship contributes to supporting and improving core public health functions. 2. Understand and discuss strategies for engaged scholarship that may be applicable to a range of different research topics and methods in public health. 3. Identify and discuss benefits and challenges of engaged scholarship from academic and non-academic perspectives. 4. Demonstrate knowledge and skills in planning for the development of partnerships to support/enhance a research project of their interest, showing consideration of the philosophical, ethical, and logistical issues related to engaged scholarship.

Course-related Competencies Engaged Scholarship • (Define and Apply appropriately) the key concepts and principles of engaged scholarship. • (Describe) the key concepts and principles of knowledge mobilization, knowledge utilization, and knowledge translation theory, and the importance of these concepts to public health. • (Apply appropriately) the principles of engaged scholarship to proposed knowledge-generating activities, in the context of proposed research topic. • (Critically evaluate and synthesize) relevant scientific and grey literature, integrating it appropriately with contextual information. • (Match) research questions with appropriate methodologies and approaches, in the context of engaged scholarship. • (Identify and Communicate) philosophical, ethical, and logistical issues related to engaged scholarship. Partnerships to Support/Enhance Research • (Understand and Discuss) the essential elements, principles, and strategies for creating appropriate and effective partnerships for research. • (Identify and Discuss) the various academic and non-academic stakeholders of public health research, and appropriate strategies for engaging different stakeholder groups. • (Describe) the commonalities and differences between interdisciplinary research, collaborative research, and partnership research. • (Describe) principles of partnership research, including evaluation and planning activities, in the context of engaged scholarship.

SPH 602 [Winter term, 2017]

2

•

• •

(Select and Apply) appropriate strategies and methods to promote inclusion and equitable participation in knowledge-generating activities by diverse stakeholders, in the context of proposed research topic. (Understand and Discuss) the needs of specific audiences and strategies for tailoring messages. (Apply) knowledge related to the information needs to support practice or policy development, including scientific evidence and other important inputs, to proposed research.

Professional and Leadership Skills • (Demonstrate) self-awareness and take responsibility for own performance. • (Critically reflect) on own professional development, including strengths and weaknesses, in the practice of engaged scholarship. • (Demonstrate) ability to develop inclusive and respectful collaborations with those of diverse backgrounds in the classroom environment. • (Identify) the importance of developing and maintaining effective working relationships through professional networks. • (Demonstrate) ability to present clearly, facilitate discussion, and respond to queries related to engaged scholarship in public health. • (Contribute) to a positive and mutually-supportive learning environment.

Learning Resources The University of Alberta Library’s website (http://www.library.ualberta.ca) provides information on the range of services offered to students. If you need further information or assistance, contact the Library's Ask Us service at https://www.library.ualberta.ca/ask-us . The University of Alberta also offers support for academic writing via the Student Success Centre: http://www.studentsuccess.ualberta.ca/en.aspx and Centre for Writers (C4W): http://c4w.ualberta.ca/

Course Format The course consists of weekly 2-hour seminar sessions, emphasizing active discussion and student participation. Students are expected to arrive prepared each week having completed assigned readings and exercises to facilitate their participation. Attendance is expected. Students are expected to actively participate in generating and contributing to discussions and all other course activities. Students will be required to complete a presentation and written critique related to their proposed thesis topic. Students will be asked to participate in reflective exercises, self-assessments, and providing critical feedback to their classmates. The instructor and students of SPH 602 will actively contribute to providing a safe, secure, constructive environment for co-learning and constructive feedback.

Course Evaluation Mid-point evaluation. As is the case with all SPH instructors, I am interested in improving the course. I need to hear from you in order to do that well. Mid-point feedback and recommendations from you at the mid-point of the course, will be done online by Test Scoring and Questionnaire Services. An invitation to participate in the survey is emailed to each student. Note that the message includes a login button. There will be an opportunity to discuss the anonymized, aggregated feedback in class. Final course evaluation. Following completion of the course, you will receive a standardized summative evaluation. Course evaluations will be done online by Test Scoring and Questionnaire Services. An invitation to participate in the survey is emailed to each student. One email will be sent for each start date, i.e., if a student has surveys with different start dates, they will receive multiple messages. Note that the message includes a login button.

SPH 602 [Winter term, 2017]

3

Student Evaluation and Marking Criteria Student evaluation will be based on the following: 1. Class participation (i.e., preparation for class & in-class activities) 2. Presentation of thesis proposal, including facilitation of Q&A seminar 3. Constructive participation in reflection on and review of peer presentations 4. Development of engaged scholarship plan related to thesis research

25% 25% 25% 25%

NOTE: All assignments submitted by E-mail should be sent to: [email protected] with the subject line: [Your Name] - SPH 602 [Assignment Descriptor, e.g., engagement plan] 1. Class Participation (25% of grade, assessed throughout the term) Class participation includes: (i) preparation (i.e., completion of readings & take-home exercises, preparation of discussion points); and (ii) active participation in all in-class activities each week. Quality is preferred over the quantity of contribution, and your participation should facilitate your learning, as well as your classmates' learning. Participation grades will be assigned based on cumulative assessment of your preparation, contributions, and class attendance. NOTE: You can anticipate to be reading ~30-50 pages of material each week. This is normal for a doctoral level 2* course. All readings address key objectives of the course and will be discussed by the entire class each week. Each week, you are responsible for: 1. Completing all required readings. 2. Arriving to class prepared with 2-3 thoughtful discussion points for each reading. 3. Participating in classroom discussions of the readings, by contributing your points and engaging in thoughtful dialogue about others’ points during discussion. 4. Completing any pre-class assignments and submitting them, as assigned. 5. Actively contributing to small-group or other in-class activities, as they occur. 6. Conducting yourself in a professional and collegial manner. 7. Engaging in self-reflection. Evaluation criteria: • Attends and participates in all classes, and is punctual. • Comes prepared, having read the assigned readings, completed all tasks required for in-class activities, and developed ideas to share with the class. • Has done additional reading on the subject (e.g., recommended items or identified own sources). • Makes an effort to relate the required reading to previous learning or work experience. • Contributes relevant comments or asks pertinent questions during class. • Actively participates in and makes meaningful contributions to all in-class activities. • Respects diverse styles of participation. • Facilitates participation of others: does not dominate small group or full class discussions.

SPH 602 [Winter term, 2017]

4

2. Presentation of Thesis Proposal (25% of grade, assessed on selected presentation date) Each student will present his/her thesis proposal in class, using an engaged scholarship perspective. Students will sign-up for their presentation date on the first day of class. The assignment provides an opportunity for students to: (i) critically apply the concepts of engaged scholarship to their particular research area; (ii) develop skills in presenting and leading discussion on a topic of engaged scholarship; (iii) practice responding to questions and challenges related to engaged scholarship in their particular research area; and, (iv) practice and model engaged scholarship principles in their response to diverse perspectives. Presentation of the thesis proposal will follow the form of Three Minute Thesis (3MT®). For rules and judging criteria, which will be used to assess the presentation for this class, refer to: http://threeminutethesis.org/rules-judging-criteria. Accordingly, each student’s presentation time will be limited to 3 minutes. Following the presentation, the student will facilitate a short question & answer period. It is recommended that the student come prepared with points to prompt discussion. One week prior to their presentation, students will be expected to provide 2 supplementary readings appropriate to their thesis presentation topic and the presentation audience. You are responsible for: • Choosing your presentation date, from the options available. • Preparing a 3MT-style presentation on your thesis topic, using an engaged scholarship perspective. • 1 week before your presentation: Circulating 2 supplementary readings relevant to your presentation to the instructor and classmates, by posting them to e-class. • 2 days before your presentation: Submitting your presentation slides (as a powerpoint file) to the instructor, by email. • Day of: Presenting your topic, keeping within the 3-minute allotted time. • Day of: Facilitating a 10-15-minute Question & Answer /discussion session and responding to questions from the audience. Evaluation criteria: • Presentation of thesis topic from an engaged scholarship perspective. • Supplementary research conducted to support presentation, including appropriateness of selected resources. • Critical application of engaged scholarship concepts to the topic of presentation, including response to questions. • Clarity and appropriateness of presentation for audience, according to the 3MT® criteria. • Discussion facilitation skills and responses to questions from audience. • Adherence to formatting guidelines and time restrictions.

SPH 602 [Winter term, 2017]

5

3. Constructive Participation in Reflection On and Review of Peer Presentations (25% of grade, assessed following presentations by peers) This assignment is complementary to assignment 2. For each 3MT-style presentation by a classmate, students will be expected to: (i) participate in constructive review of the presentation; and (ii) provide a brief written reflection, from an engaged scholarship lens, on the presentation. Constructive participation & review: occurs as (i) questions posed to the presenter during the Q&A session, and (ii) as concise, but substantive feedback on your classmates' presentations using the form provided. Written reflection: a brief reflection for each presentation should incorporate engaged scholarship concepts or principles and should demonstrate familiarity with the readings/resources circulated by the presenter, as well as the presentation. Reflections must be submitted by email to the instructor within 1-week of the presentations. You are responsible for: • 1 week before presentations: Reviewing all of the supplementary material provided by each presenter (2 articles/presenter). • Day of: Listening attentively to the presentations. • Day of: Participating in the Question & Answer /discussion sessions for each presentation. • Day of: For each presenter, completing a peer feedback form, to be submitted to instructor in-class following the presentation. • Within 1 week following the presentations: For each presentation, completing a brief written reflection, to be emailed to the instructor (by noon on the day of the subsequent class). Evaluation criteria: • Preparation for and participation in Question & Answer /discussion sessions. • Provision of respectful, constructive feedback to peers, and valuing of different perspectives (e.g., those outside familiar research areas). • Depth of critical thought demonstrated in the written reflections, including the ability to use diverse perspectives to achieve a greater level of understanding of engaged scholarship.

SPH 602 [Winter term, 2017]

6

4. Development of Engaged Scholarship Plan related to Thesis Research (25% of grade, deadline: April 6, 2016 at 12:30 pm) The purpose of this assignment is for students to apply their understanding of the concepts and principles of engaged scholarship (and related constructs) as it relates to their own thesis research and professional development as an engaged scholar. Students will be expected to prepare an Engaged Scholarship plan for their thesis research, including: i) A one-page Research Summary of proposed thesis; ii) Description of how engaged scholarship is relevant to proposed thesis research; iii) Rationale and justification for the scope of engaged scholarship appropriate for the thesis, supported by academic literature (and grey literature, if appropriate); iv) A clear description of how engaged scholarship principles and strategies will be incorporated in the thesis research, including related ethical and logistical issues that should be considered, and explanation of any limitations; v) Identification of stakeholders (e.g., research partners, KT audiences, etc.) and discussion of appropriate and meaningful ways to engage them in your research. vi) Critical reflection on the extent to which the thesis incorporates engaged scholarship principles and strategies, and discussion of possible ways to enhance an engaged scholarship perspective in the research. vii) Implications for your future research program and/or career. You are responsible for: Writing and submitting the paper on time. Papers should be submitted by email to the instructor by 12:30 p.m. on April 6, 2017. Late papers will be assessed a penalty of 5% per day, with the first penalty accruing on April 6th at 1:00 p.m. Preparing the paper according to these specifications: • Maximum length = 10 pages, excluding cover page and references. • Use 1-inch margins (top, bottom, right, left), and provide page numbers. • Use 12-point font: Times New Roman is strongly preferred. Condensed fonts (e.g., Arial Narrow) will not be accepted. • References must be cited in text. A reference list should be provided, and begin on a new page following the main body of the paper. Choose a referencing style and use it consistently. • Proof-read your paper carefully so that it is free of spelling, grammatical, and copy-edit errors. • Include a cover page with: title, SPH 602, date, your name & student ID number. • Headings and sub-headings can be used at your discretion. Evaluation criteria: • Appropriateness of the justification for and integration of engaged scholarship principles and strategies for the student’s research project. (Includes appropriate use of terms and concepts). • Appropriateness and clarity of description in how engaged scholarship principles and strategies will be incorporated in the thesis research, and in the explanation of any limitations; • Depth of discussion and critical reflection related to: identification of stakeholders, appropriate strategies for engaging them in a meaningful way; and enhancing an engaged scholarship perspective in the thesis. • Depth of discussion and critique from an engaged scholarship perspective, including the detailed consideration of philosophical, ethical, and logistical issues as well as future implications. • Clarity of writing, including appropriate spelling, grammar, and referencing, and adherence to all page limits and formatting specifications.

SPH 602 [Winter term, 2017]

7

Calculating Your Final Term Mark Each component of the course evaluation (i.e., each assignment) will be converted to a total mark out of 100. At the end of the term, the instructor will compute a weighted term mark for SPH 602 out of 100, taking into account the weights for each course evaluation component. Students must achieve a passing mark on each assignment to obtain a final ‘pass’ grade.

Calculating Your Final Course Grade Your final course mark out of 100 will be converted to a mock course grade using the University of Alberta Grading System described below. The mock letter grade is designed to give students feedback on the overall quality of their work in the course. All students who receive a mock grade of C+ or greater will be assigned a final grade of Credit for this course, which is graded on a credit/non-credit (pass/fail) basis. Please contact the instructor if you have any questions about grading procedures for the course.

Grading The University of Alberta uses a letter grading system with a four-point scale of numerical equivalents for calculating grade point averages. Grades reflect judgments of student achievement made by instructors. These judgments are based on a combination of absolute achievement and relative performance in a class. Some instructors assign grades as intervals during the course and others assign marks (e.g., percentages) throughout the term and then assign a letter grade at the end. Instructors must adapt their approaches to reflect the letter grading system. Grade distribution should reflect those shown in this document. The University of Alberta Grading System is described in the University of Alberta Calendar, Section 23.4, Regulations and Information for Students Evaluation Procedures and Grading System. As required by U of A for Graduate Courses, we will use the following Descriptors and Letter Grades:

Descriptor Excellent Good Satisfactory Failure

Grading in Graduate Courses Letter Grade Grade Point Value A+ 4.0 A 4.0 A3.7 B+ 3.3 B 3.0 B2.7 C+ 2.3 C 2.0 C1.7 D+ 1.3 D 1.0 F 0

Academic Integrity Plagiarism is a serious offence. The University of Alberta is committed to the highest standards of academic integrity and honesty. Students are expected to be familiar with the standards regarding academic honesty and to uphold the policies of the University in this respect. Students are particularly urged to familiarize themselves with the provisions of the Code of Student Behaviour (available at: http://www.governance.ualberta.ca/CodesofConductandResidenceCommunityStandards/CodeofStudentBeha viour.aspx) and avoid any behavior which could potentially result in suspicions of cheating, plagiarism, misrepresentation of facts and/or participation in an offence. Academic dishonesty is a serious offence and can result in suspension or expulsion from the University.

SPH 602 [Winter term, 2017]

8

SPH 602 - Schedule at a Glance (subject to change) Date Jan 12

Topic

Assignment Due In-Class

Introduction to SPH 602 & Operationalizing course focus: engagement in research projects

Sign up for proposal presentation date, in class

ALL CLASSES: Arrive prepared with 2-3 discussion points from readings each week Jan 19

ES principles and practice

Submit outline of your thesis research (see p.11)

Jan 26

KT theory & related concepts

Feb 2

Critical review of ES examples

Arrive prepared to do critical reviews (see p.13)

Feb 9

Planning research for impact

Submit overview of knowledge users related to your thesis research (see p.14)

Feb 16

End-of-project dissemination/ action

Submit dissemination / action plan (see p.15) - Mid-term course evaluation approx. this week

Feb 23 - Reading week, no class Mar 2

Working with knowledge users

Mar 9

Special issues in ES

Mar 16 & Mar 23

Engagement in specific research projects: 3MT-style proposal presentations

- 1-week before presentation: Presenters post their selected readings on e-class; Peers review the material to prepare for class - Week of presentation: Presenters present & then facilitate 15-min Q&A; Peers participate in discussions & provide constructive feedback - March 23: Peers submit their reflections on March 16th presentations to instructor by noon today (see pages 5-6, & 18)

Mar 30

Planning and evaluating ES

Arrive prepared with discussion questions based on assigned video (see p.19) - Peers: submit their reflections on March 23rd presentations to instructor by noon today

Apr 6

[Last class] Engaged research careers

- Submit final paper today, by 12:30 p.m. Late penalties begin today at 1:00. - Arrive with example and discussion points for inclass activity (see pages 7 & 20)

SPH 602 [Winter term, 2017]

Arrive prepared to discuss a KU example (& submit source to instructor) (see p.16)

9

DETAILED COURSE OUTLINE BY WEEK Class 1: Introduction to SPH 602 & Operationalizing Course Focus: Engagement in Specific Research Projects January 12, 2017 Learning Objectives: Students will: • Review syllabus and clarify course objectives, outline, expectations, and assignments. • Identify specific student objectives for SPH 602. • Share student interests, knowledge, and experiences related to engaged scholarship. • Define key concepts concerning engaged scholarship. • Identify concepts and approaches related to engaged scholarship (e.g., participatory research, collaborative research, integrated knowledge translation, etc). • Compare and contrast working definitions of engaged scholarship, knowledge translation, and related concepts. • Describe the relevance of engaged scholarship to public health. • Contribute to a positive, respectful, and scholarly co-learning environment. Required Reading: • SPH 602 [Winter 2017] Course Syllabus. • Silka, L., Glover, R., Hutchins, K., Lindenfield, L., Blackstone, A., Elliot, C., Ladenheim, M. & Sullivan, C. (2013). Moving beyond the single discipline: building a scholarship of engagement that permeates higher education. Tamara: Journal for Critical Organization Theory 11(4), 41-52. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=bth&AN=109081927&site=eds-live&scope=site • Graham, I. D., Logan, J., Harrison, M. B., Straus, S. E., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W., & Robinson, N. (2006). Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? Journal of continuing education in the health professions, 26(1), 13-24. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=edswsc&AN=000236855300003&site=eds-live&scope=site • Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Guide to Knowledge Translation Planning at CIHR: Integrated and End-of-Grant Approaches. Available at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/45321.html Recommended Readings/Resources: • Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Knowledge Translation at CIHR. Available at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29418.html • Bowen, S., Botting, I., Roy, J.P. (2011). Promoting action on equity issues: a knowledge-to-action handbook. Edmonton: School of Public Health, University of Alberta. Available at: http://www.wrha.mb.ca/professionals/language/files/EquityIssues-Handbook.pdf

SPH 602 [Winter term, 2017]

10

Class 2: Engaged Scholarship Principles and Practice January 19, 2017 Learning Objectives: Students will: • Summarize the history and evolution of the concept of engaged scholarship (ES). • Identify principles of engaged scholarship, and differentiate between engaged scholarship and other forms of academic (or researcher) involvement with community. • Discuss examples of engaged scholarship and the application of ES principles to a diversity of research specializations and topics. • Share their thesis projects (or research interests) with others in the class, and identify specific engaged scholarship principles and challenges related to their thesis. • Discuss strategies for promoting ethical and engaged research in their area of focus. • Identify resources and supports needed to incorporate an engaged scholarship perspective into their thesis (or program of research). • Participate in collegial critique of peers’ thesis research plans, from an engaged scholarship (and related concepts) perspective. • Contribute to a positive, respectful, and scholarly co-learning environment. Assignment Due In Class: Students will arrive prepared with a brief outline of their proposed thesis research, including: research question and objectives; proposed methodology; engaged scholarship strategies; knowledge translation plans; and challenges expected or encountered to date. Please bring 2 hard copies: 1 to submit to the instructor (for reference), and 1 to use during in-class activities throughout the term. Required Readings: • Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 18-33. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=eric&AN=EJ1097206&site=eds-live&scope=site • Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of management review, 31(4), 802-821. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.10.2307.20159252&site=eds-live&scope=site • Bowen, S. J., & Graham, I. D. (2013). From knowledge translation to engaged scholarship: Promoting research relevance and utilization. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 94(1), S3-S8. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.04.037 • Kelley, M., Edwards, K., Starks, H., Fullerton, S. M., James, R., Goering, S., ... & Burke, W. (2012). Values in translation: How asking the right questions can move translational science toward greater health impact. Clinical and translational science, 5(6), 445-451. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=edswsc&AN=000312545900007&site=eds-live&scope=site • Cargo, M., & Mercer, S. L. (2008). The value and challenges of participatory research: Strengthening its practice. Annu. Rev. Public Health, 29, 325-350. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.09 1307.083824 • Glassick, C. E. (2000). Boyer's expanded definitions of scholarship, the standards for assessing scholarship, and the elusiveness of the scholarship of teaching. Academic Medicine, 75, 877-880. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC= Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&AN=00001888-200009000-00007&LSLINK=80&D=ovft

SPH 602 [Winter term, 2017]

11

Class 3: Knowledge Translation (KT) Theory and Related Concepts January 26, 2017 Learning Objectives: Students will: • Define and identify contributors to the “knowledge to action” gap. • Differentiate between knowledge translation research and knowledge translation practice. • Summarize the history and evolution of the concept of knowledge translation as one strategy to address the “knowledge to action” gap. • Describe and differentiate between KT-related concepts, including: diffusion of innovations, knowledge translation theory (including definitions of: push-pull, knowledge broker, partnership theory), implementation science, etc. • Identify main themes in - and discuss various approaches for categorizing - KT theory. • Summarize current knowledge on “what works” in knowledge translation theory: common strategies for facilitating KT and the effectiveness of KT interventions. • Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the KT versus ES paradigms, including overlaps and departures between paradigms. • Contribute to a positive, respectful, and scholarly co-learning environment. Required Readings: • Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public administration review, 426-431. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db =edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.10.2307.3109916&site=eds-live&scope=site • Dearing, J. W. (2008). Evolution of diffusion and dissemination theory. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 14(2), 99-108. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC= Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&AN=00124784-200803000-00005&LSLINK=80&D=ovft • Greenhalgh, T., & Wieringa, S. (2011). Is it time to drop the ‘knowledge translation’ metaphor? A critical literature review. J Royal Society of Medicine, 104(12), 501-509. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2011.110285 • Estabrooks, C. A., Norton, P., Birdsell, J. M., Newton, M. S., Adewale, A. J., & Thornley, R. (2008). Knowledge translation and research careers: Mode I and Mode II activity among health researchers. Research Policy, 37(6), 1066-1078. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.006 • Field, B., Booth, A., Ilott, I., & Gerrish, K. (2014). Using the Knowledge to Action Framework in practice: a citation analysis and systematic review. Implementation Science, 9(1), 172. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0172-2 • Grimshaw, J. M., Eccles, M. P., Lavis, J. N., Hill, S. J., & Squires, J. E. (2012). Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci, 7(1), 50. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=rzh&AN=104371929&site=eds-live&scope=site

SPH 602 [Winter term, 2017]

12

Class 4: Critical Review of Engaged Scholarship Examples February 2, 2017 Learning Objectives: Students will: • Practice a critical review of a journal article from an engaged scholarship perspective. • Practice working with their colleagues to include diverse perspectives in a critical review of examples of engaged scholarship. • Contribute to a positive, respectful, and scholarly co-learning environment. Required Readings/Pre-Class Task: Students will arrive prepared to work in a small group to conduct a critical review of a journal article using an engaged scholarship perspective. Please come prepared to discuss all 3 of these readings: 1. Boivin, A., Lehoux, P., Lacombe, R., Burgers, J., & Grol, R. (2014). Involving patients in setting priorities for healthcare improvement: a cluster randomized trial. Implement Sci, 9(1), 24. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=rzh&AN=104032397&site=eds-live&scope=site 2. Choudhry, S., McClinton-Powell, L., Solomon, M., Davis, D., Lipton, R., Darukhanavala, A., ... & Burnet, D. L. (2011). Power-up: A collaborative after-school program to prevent obesity in African American children. Progress in community health partnerships: research, education, and action, 5(4), 363. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=https://muse.jhu.edu/article/462764/pdf 3. Kondo M., Mizes C., Lee J., McGady-Saier J., O'Malley L., Diliberto A., Burstyn I. (2014). Towards participatory air pollution exposure assessment in a goods movement Progress in community health partnerships: research, education, and action, 8(3), 291-304. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2014.0047 NOTES: It may be helpful to review the Author Guidelines for manuscripts submitted to this journal, which are available at: https://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/progress_in_community_health_partnerships/guidelines.html A specific framework for conducting the critical review from an ES perspective will be provided in class. However, if you are unfamiliar with writing a critical review of a journal article, a useful general resource is available here: https://academicskills.anu.edu.au/node/492

SPH 602 [Winter term, 2017]

13

Class 5: Planning Research for Impact February 9, 2017 Learning Objectives: Students will: • Define the roles and needs of knowledge users and stakeholders. • Discuss similarities and differences of engaged scholarship activities at policy, planning, and practice levels, including implications for public health. • Identify and describe 6 phases for moving knowledge into action. • Identify common barriers to and facilitators of engagement, at various levels. • Differentiate between replicability and transferability. • Discuss current issues related to research impact and research impact assessment, in academic and non-academic settings. • Contribute to a positive, respectful, and scholarly co-learning environment. Assignment Due In Class: Students will arrive prepared with a brief description of the knowledge users concerning their thesis research. Topics to be covered include: (i) the direct knowledge users for their proposed research, and any other interested or affected parties (i.e., stakeholders); (ii) the potential impact of their research on knowledge users; (iii) appropriate timing and strategies for engaging knowledge users; and (iv) facilitators and barriers to engaging knowledge users in their research. Please bring 2 copies: 1 to submit to the instructor (for reference), and 1 to use during in-class activities throughout the term. Required Readings: • Frank, C., & Nason, E. (2009). Health research: measuring the social, health and economic benefits. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 180(5), 528-534. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=edswsc&AN=000263526200015&site=eds-live&scope=site • Bhattacharyya, O. K., Estey, E. A., & Zwarenstein, M. (2011). Methodologies to evaluate the effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions: a primer for researchers and health care managers. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 64(1), 32-40. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.022 • Murphy, K., & Fafard, P. (2012). Taking power, politics, and policy problems seriously. Journal of Urban Health, 89(4), 723-732. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=edswsc&AN=000307335300012&site=eds-live&scope=site • Ellen, M. E., Léon, G., Bouchard, G., Ouimet, M., Grimshaw, J. M., & Lavis, J. N. (2014). Barriers, facilitators and views about next steps to implementing supports for evidence-informed decisionmaking in health systems: A qualitative study. Implementation Science, 9(1), 179. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=rzh&AN=109728142&site=eds-live&scope=site Supplementary Resources: • Explore the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools: http://www.nccmt.ca (hint: click on the quick links for ‘Evidence-Informed Public Health’ and ‘KT Methods and Tools’ or try searching the terms “measuring KT” and have fun from there) • Explore the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy: http://www.ncchpp.ca

(hint: click on the quick link for ‘Links to Evidence’ or try searching “knowledge exchange” and explore from there)

SPH 602 [Winter term, 2017]

14

Class 6: End-of-Project Dissemination / Action February 16, 2017 Learning Objectives: Students will: • Differentiate between knowledge utilization, knowledge sharing, knowledge mobilization, diffusion, passive dissemination, and active dissemination. • Discuss key concepts in implementation research and the application of those concepts to public health, and student-specific research projects. • Discuss key principles promoting effective dissemination and use of research findings. • Identify and discuss ethical issues related to dissemination activities. • Discuss the role of researchers to promote appropriate dissemination and knowledge utilization. • Contribute to a positive, respectful, and scholarly co-learning environment. Assignment Due In Class: Students will arrive prepared with a brief outline of a preliminary plan for the end-of-project dissemination/actions for their thesis research, including: (i) review/update of previously identified knowledge users and stakeholders; (ii) modes of dissemination appropriate for different knowledge user audiences; (iii) strategies for dissemination, identifying: who, what, when, where, how, how long, and why disseminate/take action at the end of a project; (iv) researcher, knowledge user, and possible partner roles in dissemination/action; (v) facilitators and barriers to dissemination/action; and (vi) the role of integrated KT activities in support of end-of-project dissemination/action. Please bring 2 copies: 1 to submit to the instructor (for reference), and 1 for in-class activities all term. Required Readings/Resources: • Frankfurt H. On Bullshit, parts 1 & 2. (On Youtube). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1RO93OS0Sk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp_c8-CfZtg • Tabak, R. G., Khoong, E. C., Chambers, D. A., & Brownson, R. C. (2012). Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. American journal of preventive medicine, 43(3), 337-350. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024 • Black, N. (2001). Evidence based policy: proceed with care. BMJ, 323(7307), 275. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/25467549 Supplementary Readings/Resources: • David H. Peters, Nhan T. Tran, Taghreed Adam. (2013). Implementation Research In Health: A Practical Guide. Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/resources/implementationresearchguide/en/ • Wilson, P. M., Petticrew, M., Calnan, M. W., & Nazareth, I. (2010). Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks. Implementation Science, 5(1), 91. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=edswsc&AN=000284779600001&site=eds-live&scope=site • Chambers, D., Glasgow, R., & Stange, K. (2013). The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implement Sci, 8(1), 117. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-117 • Review examples and resources on the website: http://www.ces4health.info

SPH 602 [Winter term, 2017]

15

READING WEEK - No Class February 23, 2017

Class 7: Working with Knowledge Users March 2, 2017 Learning Objectives: Students will: • Explore the experiences/perspectives of knowledge users on engaged research and teaching activities, from a variety of settings. • Identify researcher skills, characteristics, and behaviours that support or prohibit ES. • Discuss the range of knowledge user research needs and strategies for addressing needs. • Contribute to a positive, respectful, and scholarly co-learning environment. Pre-Class Task Required: Students will arrive prepared to discuss the experience or perspective of a knowledge user on engaged research or engaged teaching, ideally from the field of public health. Students may obtain this information from a variety of sources: personal experience as a knowledge user (in professional public health – or related – practice); informal conversation with a knowledge user; viewing videos on YouTube (suggested search term: knowledge user perspective on engaged [research or teaching]); or perusal of practice-based resources available on the internet. Please bring (or email prior to the start of class) documentation of your source to submit to the instructor (e.g., YouTube link, contact info for knowledge user, reference for resource, etc.). Required Readings: • CIHR: A Guide to Researcher and Knowledge-User Collaboration in Health Research. Available at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/44954.html • Orton, L., Lloyd-Williams, F., Taylor-Robinson, D., O'Flaherty, M., & Capewell, S. (2011). The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review. PLoS One, 6(7), e21704. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=edswsc&AN=000293175100005&site=eds-live&scope=site • Greenhalgh, T., & Russell, J. (2009). Evidence-based policymaking: a critique. Perspectives in biology and medicine, 52(2), 304-318. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pbm.0.0085 • Holmes, B., Scarrow, G., & Schellenberg, M. (2012). Translating evidence into practice: the role of health research funders. Implement Sci, 7, 39. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=rzh&AN=104362554&site=eds-live&scope=site • Nicholls, Stuart G., Ainsley J. Newson, and Richard E. Ashcroft. (2016). The need for ethics as well as evidence in evidence-based medicine. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 77, 7-10. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.05.006

SPH 602 [Winter term, 2017]

16

Class 8: Special Issues in Engaged Scholarship March 9, 2017 Learning Objectives: Students will: • Explore and discuss the implications and challenges of engagement for research relevance, quality, and credibility in intercultural and international settings. • Identify implications of engagement for research design and methods selection. • Identify specific cultural issues related to students’ research interests. • Identify and discuss ethical issues related to engaged scholarship and KT research. • Identify common challenges and limitations of ethical review processes for ES and KT. • Contribute to a positive, respectful, and scholarly co-learning environment. Required Readings: • Ross, L. F., Loup, A., Nelson, R. M., Botkin, J. R.,… & Gehlert, S. (2010). Human subjects protections in community-engaged research: a research ethics framework. Journal of empirical research on human research ethics, 5(1), 5. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/jer.2010.5.1.5 • Behague, D., Tawiah, C., Rosato, M., Some, T., & Morrison, J. (2009). Evidence-based policy-making: the implications of globally-applicable research for context-specific problem-solving in developing countries. Soc Sci Med, 69(10), 1539-1546. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.08.006 • Sofaer, N., & Eyal, N. (2010). The diverse ethics of translational research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 10(8), 19-30. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=rzh&AN=105088064&site=eds-live&scope=site • Watkins, B. X., Shepard, P. M., & Corbin-Mark, C. D. (2009). Completing the circle: a model for effective community review of environmental health research. American journal of public health, 99(S3), S567-S577. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=s3h&AN=47511883&site=eds-live&scope=site • Michell, H. J. (2009). Gathering berries in northern contexts: a Woodlands Cree metaphor for community-based research. Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Aboriginal & Indigenous Community Health, 7(1). http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=edo&AN=51457256&site=eds-live&scope=site Supplementary Readings/Resources: • TCPS2 (2014). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans: http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/Default/ • Holden, N. J., & Von Kortzfleisch, H. F. (2004). Why cross-cultural knowledge transfer is a form of translation in more ways than you think. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(2), 127-36. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=bth&AN=17073215&site=eds-live&scope=site • Prins, E. (2005). Framing a conflict in a community-university partnership. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(1), 57-74. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456X04270370 • (Video) BureaucraZy: Navigating Health and Social Services in Alberta. (2010). Native Counselling Services of Alberta and University of Alberta, Faculty of Extension. Copyright 2010. Available at: https://vimeo.com/17161614

SPH 602 [Winter term, 2017]

17

Classes 9-10: Engagement in Specific Research Projects: Proposal Presentations March 16 & 23, 2017

Learning Objectives: Students will: • Demonstrate an ability to apply the principles of engaged scholarship (and related concepts) to a specific research project in their area of interest (i.e., their thesis proposal). • Identify, and propose appropriate responses to, specific challenges related to engaged scholarship in a specific area of expertise. • Practice presenting on, and responding to questions about, topics of engaged scholarship in a specific area of expertise. • Practice reflective and critical evaluation skills in reviewing engagement strategies from projects in diverse research areas. • Contribute to a positive, respectful, and scholarly co-learning environment. Assignment Due In Class & Required Readings: 1) Presenters & Peers: See detailed instructions for assignments 2 & 3 (provided on pages 5-6). 2) Presenters: Each student is expected to provide a 250-word summary of their thesis topic and 1-2 additional readings/resources related to their presentation. Citation information (or copies of resources if not available online) is to be provided to the instructor and classmates a minimum of 1 week before the presentation, by posting them in e-class. The purpose of the readings is to provide the class with needed background to constructively critique each student’s proposal. Presenting students are encouraged to use creativity in planning for selecting resources (which need not be limited to the peer-reviewed literature) for this particular audience. 3) Peers are expected to prepare for their classmates’ presentations by carefully reviewing the provided resources for each presentation before class. Recommended Resources: • Overview of the Three Minute Thesis (3MT®) program: http://threeminutethesis.org/index.html • Examples of winning presentations: http://threeminutethesis.org/index.html?page=191541&pid=193447 • Mewburn, I. How to talk about your thesis in 3 minutes: https://prezi.com/jwhwyydfzqxo/how-to-talk-about-your-thesis-in-3-minutes/ • Three Minute thesis tips and resources, courtesy of University of Alberta: https://www.ualberta.ca/graduate-studies/professional-development/events/3minute-thesis/what-is-athree-minute-thesis

SPH 602 [Winter term, 2017]

18

Class 11: Planning and Evaluating Engaged Scholarship March 30, 2017 Learning Objectives: Students will: • Discuss similarities and differences among engaged activities at policy, planning, and practice levels, as well as the implications for public health. • Identify common barriers to and facilitators of engagement, at various levels. • Discuss a model for planning and evaluating KT and ES, based on level of complexity. • Contribute to a positive, respectful, and scholarly co-learning environment. Pre-Class Tasks Required: Please bring (or email prior to the start of class) two discussion questions based on this video, developed in the context of the required readings: The Cynefin Framework (D. Snowden) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8 Required Readings: • Sweet, S. N., Ginis, K. A., Estabrooks, P. A., & Latimer-Cheung, A. E. (2014). Operationalizing the RE-AIM framework to evaluate the impact of multi-sector partnerships. Impl Sci, 9(1), 74. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=rzh&AN=103964952&site=eds-live&scope=site • Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci, 4(1), 50. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=edswsc&AN=000269819300001&site=eds-live&scope=site • Lloyd Michener, M., Cook, J., Ahmed, S. M., Yonas, M. A., Coyne-Beasley, T., & Aguilar-Gaxiola, S. (2012). Aligning the goals of community-engaged research: why and how academic health centers can successfully engage with communities to improve health. Academic Medicine, 87(3), 285. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC= Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&AN=00001888-201203010-00014&LSLINK=80&D=ovft • Boyko, J. A., Lavis, J. N., Abelson, J., Dobbins, M., & Carter, N. (2012). Deliberative dialogues as a mechanism for knowledge translation and exchange in health systems decision-making. Social Science & Medicine, 75(11), 1938-1945. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.016 Supplementary Readings/Resources: • Glass, C. R., Doberneck, D. M., & Schweitzer, J. H. (2011). Unpacking faculty engagement: The types of activities faculty members report as publicly engaged scholarship during promotion and tenure. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15(1), 7-30. http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/jheoe/article/view/504 • King, G., Servais, M., Kertoy, M., Specht, J., Currie, M., ... & Willoughby, T. (2009). A measure of community members’ perceptions of the impacts of research partnerships in health and social services. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(3), 289-299. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.02.002 • Shove, E., & Rip, A. (2000). Users and unicorns: a discussion of mythical beasts in interactive science. Science and Public Policy, 27(3), 175-182. http://www.library.ualberta.ca/permalink/opac/6820170/WUAARCHIVE (access U of A catalogue) • Cammer, Allison, et al. "The hidden complexity of long-term care: how context mediates knowledge translation and use of best practices." The Gerontologist 54.6 (2014): 101323. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnt068

SPH 602 [Winter term, 2017]

19

Class 12: Engaged Research Careers April 6, 2017 Learning Objectives: Students will: • Identify the challenges and benefits of an engaged scholarship career. • Identify and discuss options for careers in engaged scholarship and resources to support them, relevant to their specific fields of interest. • Assess appropriate strategies for promoting engagement in their specific research areas. • Discuss challenges within academia to recognition of engaged scholarship activities, along with strategies for addressing these challenges. • Identify and analyse a recent collaborative research activity to identify strengths, challenges, and strategies related to collaborative research approaches. • Contribute to a positive, respectful, and scholarly co-learning environment. Assignment Due In Class: Students will identify and critique, according to potential career implications of engaged scholarship, a “reallife” example of a research collaboration in their specialization area. Then, based on assigned readings, peer experience, and their chosen “real-life” example, students will discuss in-class: a) implications of engaged scholarship for research in their area of specialization; and b) strategies for developing and managing research collaborations. Students are strongly encouraged to come to class prepared with at least one question related to the topic of “engaged careers”. Required Readings/Resources: • Calleson, D., Jordan, C., & Seifer, S. (2005). Community-engaged scholarship: Is faculty work in communities a true academic enterprise? Academic Medicine, 80(4), 317-321. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC= Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&AN=00001888-200504000-00002&LSLINK=80&D=ovft • Martin, S. (2010). Co-production of social research: strategies for engaged scholarship. Public Money & Management, 30(4), 211-218. http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2010.492180 • Explore: Rewarding Community Engaged Scholarship http://engagedscholarship.ca Supplementary Readings/Resources: • Jordan C (Editor). (2007). Community-Engaged Scholarship Review, Promotion & Tenure Package. Peer Review Workgroup, Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative, CommunityCampus Partnerships for Health. Available at: http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/pdf_files/CES_RPT_Package.pdf • Campus Compact. Section B: Engaged Scholarship and Review, Promotion, and Tenure (RPT). Available at: http://compact.org/resource-posts/trucen-section-b/ • Office of Community-Based Research, University of Victoria. (n.d.) Recognizing excellence in Community–Engaged Scholarship: Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure Decisions. Available at: http://communityresearchcanada.ca/res/download.php?id=4218 • MacLean, R., & Tucker J. (2013). Evaluation of CIHR’s Knowledge Translation Program. Evaluation Report 2013. CIHR. At: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/47332.html

SPH 602 [Winter term, 2017]

20