University of Alberta

Course Guide for SPH 607 Winter 2015 (Campus)

Introduction to Engaged Scholarship Thursday 1:00 – 1:50 p.m. ECHA 1-451

Instructor:

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

Course Description [U of A Calendar]

Credit: 1 (fi 2) (either term, 0-1s-0). An introductory seminar intended to provide students with the knowledge and critical thinking skills necessary to conduct research that is relevant and credible to intended users. The course includes a theoretical overview of engaged scholarship, knowledge translation and related concepts, and practical examples of how these concepts and principles could be applied to a diversity of research topics and methods. This course is the first of two required seminars in Engaged Scholarship for Health for PhD students in the School of Public Health. Note: Credit may not be obtained for both PHS 607 and SPH 607. Students cannot receive credit for both SPH 602 and SPH 607.

Objectives

Upon completion of this course, students will be able to: 1. Demonstrate an understanding of the philosophical, ethical, and logistical issues integral to engaged scholarship. 2. Compare and contrast concepts of engaged scholarship, knowledge translation (integrated and end-of-grant), knowledge utilization and knowledge mobilization, interdisciplinary research, and collaborative research. 3. Discuss the evolution of Knowledge Translation theory. 4. Identify methods and strategies useful for promoting and facilitating engaged scholarship. 5. Propose strategies for engaged scholarship that may be applicable to a range of different research topics and methods. 6. Identify and discuss benefits and challenges of engaged scholarship from academic, health system, and community perspectives.

Competencies

• •

• • •

•

SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

(Operationalize) key concepts and principles of engaged scholarship. (Describe) the key concepts and principles of knowledge mobilization and knowledge translation theory, and the importance of this concept to public health. (Explain principles) of partnership research, evaluation, and planning activities, in the context of engaged scholarship. (Apply) principles of engagement to knowledge generating activities. (Identify) strategies and methods to promote inclusion and equitable participation in research and evaluation related activities by diverse stakeholders and population groups. (Critically evaluate and synthesize) relevant scientific literature, integrating it with appropriate contextual University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 2

• • •

Library

information. (Manage) time in order to meet deadlines. (Identify) ethical issues related to engaged scholarship. (Understand) the essential elements, principles, and strategies for creating effective partnerships for research.

The University of Alberta library system’s website www.library.ualberta.ca details the range of services offered to students on and off campus. If you need further information or assistance, contact the Library's Electronic Reference Desk at www.library.ualberta.ca/ereference/index.cfm or call 1-800-207-0172.

SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 3

Course Evaluation Mid Point Evaluation:

Final Course 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. I will gather feedback and recommendations from you at the mid-point of the course, by asking a student to administer and deliver an anonymous course evaluation back to the instructor(s). 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.

Student Evaluation Assignment/Exams 1. Participation and demonstration of engagement principles

Percentage 20%

Date All classes

2. Written reflections on engaged scholarship (4 required)

20%

Jan 22, Feb 12, Mar 12, April 2 (by 1:00)

3. Case analysis of a practical example of engaged scholarship (small group assignment)

30%

One of: Mar 12, Mar 19, or Mar 26 Students will select group & be notified of presentation date on Jan 8th

4. Critical review paper

30%

April 9, 2015 by 1:00 p.m. (in class)

Evaluation of Course Work Each assignment/activity will be graded individually out of the total assigned mark. Students must achieve a passing mark on each assignment to obtain a final Pass grade. As this is a credit/non-credit course, the final grade for the course will be assessed as Pass/Fail. Late assignments will be penalized 5% per day, including weekends. Incomplete or missing assignments will assigned a mark of zero, and will be included as part of the assessment for the final grade.

SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 4

Evaluation Criteria for 1. Participation and Demonstration of Engagement Specific Assignments & Principles Activities Students will be expected to read the assigned readings prior to class and to apply their knowledge of these readings to classroom and small group discussions. Reading of supplementary references will be recognized, especially when applied to reflections or classroom participation. Students will be expected to prepare for and participate in the discussion of readings each class. Quality is preferred over the quantity of contribution, and participation should facilitate both group and individual learning. It is expected that participation will reflect the principles of engagement and collaboration. Participation grades will be assigned based on an assessment of preparation and contributions, as well as class attendance. Evaluation criteria: • Attends and participates in all classes, and is punctual. • Comes prepared, having read the assigned readings and completed all assignments and/or tasks required for inclass activities. • Has done additional reading on the subject (i.e., optional readings or identified own sources of information). • Makes an effort to relate the required reading to previous learning or work experience. • Contributes relevant comments, or asks pertinent questions during class and peer presentations. • Respects diverse styles of participation. • Does not dominate small group or full class discussions: facilitates participation of others in discussions. Total: 20 marks 2. Written Reflections on Engaged Scholarship Students will be required to submit four short reflections on an engaged scholarship topic of their choice, by the stated deadline each month (i.e., 4 reflections will be required over the course of the term). The students are expected to use the reflections to synthesize their knowledge of assigned readings and class-based discussions with their own experience and insights.

SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 5

Reflections should demonstrate that the student is applying – not just repeating – engaged scholarship concepts to their specific area of study. Page format and length: student-determined. Alternate modes of reflection documentation (e.g., photo essay, video, etc.) will be accepted, but only with prior approval by the instructor. Reflections are to be submitted to the instructor by 1:00 (i.e., by the start of class) on the deadline, either as hard copy or by email. Evaluation criteria: • Completion of all 4 required reflections by the assigned deadlines. • Synthesis of readings (assigned and optional or studentidentified), classroom discussion, and student’s own insights. • Evidence of critical thinking, as related to engaged scholarship. • Integration of student’s own experience and/or research interests. • Depth of synthesis and integration in all 4 reflections. Total: 20 marks 3. Case Analysis of a Practical Example of Engaged Scholarship (small group assignment) Students will be asked to form small groups (3-4 people each) to complete a case analysis of a practical example of engaged scholarship. Groups will be formed and will sign up for a presentation date during the first class. Each group will be required to identify a practical example of research employing engaged scholarship. Students will then analyse that example using criteria that they develop based on the concepts and principles of engaged scholarship. Groups will present their case analysis, including the criteria used, in class. Presentations will be 15 minutes (maximum), followed by 25 minutes for class questions and discussion. Groups will be expected to facilitate the discussion session following their presentation. SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 6

Evaluation criteria: • Participation in all aspects of the assignment. (5 marks) • Development of and justification for criteria for the case analysis. (10 marks) • Depth of critical thinking evident and application of engaged scholarship concepts in the case analysis of the practical example. (10 marks) • Demonstration of ability to integrate perspectives of others, through class participation and the final analysis. (5 marks) Total: 30 marks 4. Critical Review Paper Students will be required to identify a peer-reviewed journal article for critical review, and submit the citation to the instructor for approval by Jan 29, 2015. The paper must report on a research study that employed engaged scholarship strategies and be within the field of public health. Papers that are listed in required or recommended readings for SPH 607 or SPH 610 can not be used for this assignment. Students will then be required to conduct a critical review of the paper they selected, according to the sections below and any other criteria they choose to employ. The review should be 5-8 double-spaced pages, and use 12-point Times New Roman font. Page limit does not include title page or reference list. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the student’s understanding and critical application of key concepts related to engaged scholarship. The paper should include, but is not limited to, the following sections: Background a) Identify the question that the research is intended to address. b) Summarize the methodology used to address the question. Stakeholders a) Who are the interested and affected parties as related to this research? Who are the knowledge users? b) Which of these parties may have a contribution to make to the research? SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 7

Engagement a) What evidence, if any, is there that the relevant stakeholders were engaged in the research? Also, consider this question from the perspective of ‘integrated’ and ‘endof-project’ knowledge translation. b-1) If evidence of engagement: what was the form(s) of this engagement, and was it appropriate? (Why or why not?) b-2) If no evidence of engagement: how might this omission have affected the research? Critique a) How did (or could) engaged scholarship strategies improve the quality or relevance of the research? b) If you were to conduct similar research, what would you do differently, if anything? What would be the impacts of any changes in approach? If you would not make any changes, explain why. c) Any other issues the student deems relevant to the review of the paper. Note: if needed, a useful general resource for writing a critical review of a journal article is available here: https://academicskills.anu.edu.au/node/492 Evaluation criteria: • Identification of appropriate paper to review, submitted to instructor by deadline. (5 marks) • Extent to which the review criteria are addressed. (5 marks) • Depth of evidence of critical reflection on the concepts of engaged scholarship, knowledge translation, and related issues, as they may apply to the research study under review. (10 marks) • Appropriate use of concepts and terminology. (5 marks) • Clarity of writing, organization, punctuation, grammar, appropriate citation and referencing (5 marks) Total: 30 marks The review paper is to be submitted to the instructor by 1:00 (i.e., by the start of class) on the deadline, either as hard copy or by email

SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 8

See ‘Assignments and Marking Criteria’.

Grading

University of Alberta Calendar Section 23.4 Regulations and Information for Students Evaluation Procedures and Grading System The University of Alberta Grading System 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. (EXEC 03 FEB 2003) Descriptor

Grading in Graduate Courses Letter Grade Grade Point Value

Excellent

Good Satisfactory Failure

A+ A AB+ B BC+ C CD+ D F

4.0 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.0

Marks (for conversion purposes only) 90-100 86-89 82-85 78-81 74-77 70-73 66-69 62-65 58-61 54-57 50-53 0-49

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 these 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 (online at www.ualberta.ca/CodeofStudentBehaviour) and avoid any behaviour 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. University of Alberta policy about course outline can be found in Section 23.4(2) of the University Calendar. (GFC 29 SEP 2003)

SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 9

DETAILED COURSE OUTLINE BY WEEK Class 1: Introduction to SPH 607 January 8, 2015 Instructor: C. Nykiforuk

 

Learning Objectives:   Students will: • Review and clarify course objectives, outline, expectations, and assignments, including seminar sessions. • Identify specific student objectives for SPH 607. • Share student interests, knowledge, and experiences related to engaged scholarship. • Contribute to a positive, respectful, and scholarly co-learning environment. Required Reading: • SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus.

     

SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

 

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 10

Class 2: Introduction to Engaged Scholarship January 15, 2015 Instructor: C. Nykiforuk

  Learning Objectives: Students will: • Define key concepts concerning engaged scholarship. • Identify concepts and approaches related to engaged scholarship (e.g., participatory 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 Readings: • 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. Available at: http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/journal/index.php/tamara/article/view/352 • 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. • Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2012). Guide to Knowledge Translation Planning at CIHR: Integrated and End-of-Grant Approaches. Available at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/45321.html • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (2014). More About Knowledge Translation at CIHR. Available at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/39033.html Recommended Readings/Resources: • Bowen, S., Botting, I., Roy, J.P. (2011). Promoting action on equity issues: a knowledgeto-action handbook. Edmonton: School of Public Health, University of Alberta. Available at: http://www.wrha.mb.ca/professionals/language/files/EquityIssuesHandbook.pdf

       

SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

 

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 11

Classes 3 & 4: Engaged Scholarship in Practice January 22 & 29, 2015 Instructor: C. Nykiforuk

  Learning Objectives: Students will: • Summarize the history and evolution of the concept of engaged scholarship. • Identify principles of engaged scholarship. • Discuss examples of engaged scholarship and the application of principles to a diversity of research specializations and topics. • Differentiate between engaged scholarship and other forms of academic (or researcher) involvement with community • Compare and contrast the concepts of practitioner-researcher collaboration and engaged scholarship. • Contribute to a positive, respectful, and scholarly co-learning environment.

 

Required Readings: • Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 18-33. • Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of management review, 31(4), 802-821. • 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. • 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. • Cargo, M., & Mercer, S. L. (2008). The value and challenges of participatory research: Strengthening its practice. Annu. Rev. Public Health, 29, 325-350.

  Recommended Readings/Resources: • Gibbons, M. (2000). Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science. Science and public policy, 27(3), 159-163. • Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Available at: https://depts.washington.edu/gs630/Spring/Boyer.pdf • Holland, D., Powell, D. E., Eng, E., & Drew, G. (2010). Models of engaged scholarship: An interdisciplinary discussion. Collaborative Anthropologies, 3(1), 1-36. • Stanton, T. K. (2008). New times demand new scholarship Opportunities and challenges for civic engagement at research universities. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 3(1), 19-42. (continued next page)

SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 12

•

•

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(9), 877-880. Peruse the resources listed on Campus Connect website: “What is Engaged Scholarship?”. Available at: http://www.compact.org/initiatives/trucen/trucentoolkit/what-is-engaged-scholarship-3/

       

SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

 

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 13

Classes 5 & 6: The Evolution of Knowledge Translation (KT) Theory February 5 & 12, 2015 Instructor: C. Nykiforuk

  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/define related concepts, including: diffusion of innovations, knowledge translation theory (including definitions of: push-pull, knowledge broker, partnership theory), and discuss the evidence for each concept. • Identify main themes in - and discuss various approaches for categorizing - knowledge translation theory. • Summarize current knowledge on “what works” in knowledge translation theory: common strategies for promoting/facilitating KT and the effectiveness of KT interventions to date. • Identify similarities and differences between engaged scholarship and knowledge translation (and implementation science). • Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the KT versus engagement 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. • Dearing, J. W. (2008). Evolution of diffusion and dissemination theory. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 14(2), 99-108. • Greenhalgh, T., & Wieringa, S. (2011). Is it time to drop the ‘knowledge translation’metaphor? A critical literature review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 104(12), 501-509. • 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. • 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. • 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://www.implementationscience.com/content/9/1/172 • McKibbon, K. A., Lokker, C., Wilczynski, N. L., Ciliska, D., Dobbins, M., Davis, D. A., ... & Straus, S. E. (2010). A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: a Tower of Babel. Implement Sci, 5(1), 16. (continued next page) SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 14

Readings for Review: • Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2012). Guide to Knowledge Translation Planning at CIHR: Integrated and End-of-Grant Approaches. Available at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/45321.html • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (2014). More About Knowledge Translation at CIHR. Available at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/39033.html Recommended Readings/Resources: • Murnaghan, D., Morrison, W., Griffith, E. J., Bell, B. L., Duffley, L. A., McGarry, K., & Manske, S. (2013). Knowledge exchange systems for youth health and chronic disease prevention: a tri-provincial case study. Chron Dis Inj Can, 33, 257-266. • Kothari, A., & Wathen, N. (2013). A critical second look at integrated knowledge translation. Health policy, 109(2), 187-191. • Estabrooks, C. A., Thompson, D. S., Lovely, J. J. E., & Hofmeyer, A. (2006). A guide to knowledge translation theory. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1), 25-36. • Davies, H., Nutley, S., & Walter, I. (2008). Why ‘knowledge transfer’is misconceived for applied social research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13(3), 188-190. • Bhattacharyya, O., Reeves, S., Garfinkel, S., & Zwarenstein, M. (2006). Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions: Fine in theory, but evidence of effectiveness in practice is needed. Implement Sci, 1(5), 1-3. • Lomas, J. (2007). The in-between world of knowledge brokering. BMJ, 334(7585), 129132. • 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. • Wharf Higgins, J. (2011). Navigating through translational research: A social marketing compass. Health marketing quarterly, 28(1), 1-15. • Green, L. W., Ottoson, J. M., Garcia, C., & Hiatt, R. A. (2009). Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and integration in public health. Annual review of public health, 30, 151-174. • Review “What is KT” wiki: http://whatiskt.wikispaces.com

         

SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

 

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 15

Class 7: Working with Knowledge Users February 26, 2015 Instructor: C. Nykiforuk

 

NOTE: NO CLASS ON FEB 19TH DUE TO READING WEEK

  Learning Objectives: Students will: • Explore the experiences and perspectives of knowledge users on engaged research and teaching activities, from a variety of settings. • Identify researcher skills, characteristics, and behaviours supportive (or prohibitive) of engaged scholarship activities. • Discuss the range of knowledge user research, including related needs and strategies for addressing these 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: • 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. • Greenhalgh, T., & Russell, J. (2009). Evidence-based policymaking: a critique. Perspectives in biology and medicine, 52(2), 304-318. • Haynes, A. S., Derrick, G. E., Chapman, S., Redman, S., Hall, W. D., Gillespie, J., & Sturk, H. (2011). From “our world” to the “real world”: Exploring the views and behaviour of policy-influential Australian public health researchers. Social Science & Medicine, 72(7), 1047-1055. • Holmes, B., Scarrow, G., & Schellenberg, M. (2012). Translating evidence into practice: the role of health research funders. Implement Sci, 7, 39. (continued next page)

SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 16

Recommended Readings/Resources: • CIHR: A Guide to Researcher and Knowledge-User Collaboration in Health Research. Available at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/44954.html • Lander, B., & Atkinson-Grosjean, J. (2011). Translational science and the hidden research system in universities and academic hospitals: A case study. Social Science & Medicine, 72(4), 537-544. • Martinez, L. S., Russell, B., Rubin, C. L., Leslie, L. K., & Brugge, D. (2012). Clinical and translational research and community engagement: Implications for researcher capacity building. Clinical and translational science, 5(4), 329-332. • Green, L. W., & Glasgow, R. E. (2006). Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research issues in external validation and translation methodology. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 29(1), 126-153. • Levesque, P. (2008). Government Support and Infrastructure: Realizing the value of collaborative work. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 1, 150-164. • Black, N. (2009). Health services research: the gradual encroachment of ideas. Journal of health services research & policy, 14(2), 120-123. • Kerner, J. F. (2006). Knowledge translation versus knowledge integration: A “funder's” perspective. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1), 72-80. • Phillipson, J., Lowe, P., Proctor, A., & Ruto, E. (2012). Stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange in environmental research. Journal of Environmental Management, 95(1), 56-65.

         

SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

 

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 17

Classes 8 & 9: Planning and Evaluating Engaged Scholarship March 5 & 12, 2015 Instructor: C. Nykiforuk

  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 engaged activities, based on level of complexity. • Practice a critical review of a journal article from an engaged scholarship perspective. • Contribute to a positive, respectful, and scholarly co-learning environment.

 

Pre-Class Task Required (for March 5th): Students will arrive prepared to discuss The Cynefin Framework (D. Snowden), having watched the video available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8 Please bring (or email prior to the start of class) two discussion questions based on this video, in the context of the required readings.

 

Pre-Class Task Required (for March 12th): 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: • 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. Note: 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 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. Implementation Science, 9(1), 74. • 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. (continued next page) SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 18

•

•

•

•

Upshur, C. C., Wenz-Gross, M., Queeney, C. N., Nikander, M., MacMillan, A., Harned, K., ... & Courtney, P. (2014). You Want Us to Do What? How to Conduct Communityengaged Research Studies from the Perspective of the Community Organizations: Evidence from the Kidsteps II Study. 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. 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. Cammer, A., Morgan, D., Stewart, N., McGilton, K., Rycroft-Malone, J., Dopson, S., & Estabrooks, C. (2013). The Hidden Complexity of Long-Term Care: How Context Mediates Knowledge Translation and Use of Best Practices. The Gerontologist, gnt068.

  Recommended Readings/Resources: • Clearinghouse and National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement. (2002). The scholarship of engagement, National Review Board: Evaluation criteria for the scholarship of engagement. Available at: http://www.scholarshipofengagement.org/evaluation/evaluation_criteria.html • Andrews, J. O., Cox, M. J., Newman, S. D., Gillenwater, G., Warner, G., Winkler, J. A., ... & Slaughter, S. (2013). Training Partnership Dyads for Community-Based Participatory Research Strategies and Lessons Learned From the Community Engaged Scholars Program. Health promotion practice, 14(4), 524-533. • 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. • King, G., Servais, M., Kertoy, M., Specht, J., Currie, M., Rosenbaum, P., ... & 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.] • Nykiforuk, C. I., Schopflocher, D., Vallianatos, H., Spence, J. C., Raine, K. D., Plotnikoff, R. C., ... & Nieuwendyk, L. (2013). Community Health and the Built Environment: examining place in a Canadian chronic disease prevention project. Health promotion international, 28(2), 257-268. • Shove, E., & Rip, A. (2000). Users and unicorns: a discussion of mythical beasts in interactive science. Science and Public Policy, 27(3), 175-182.

          SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

  University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 19

Classes 10-12: Case Analysis of Practical Examples of Engaged Scholarship: Small Group Presentations Weekly: March 29 - April 2, 2015, inclusive Instructors: C. Nykiforuk, assigned students

  Learning Objectives: Students will: • Apply the concepts learned in the course to the critical analysis of a practical example of engaged scholarship. • Practice working in a collaborative setting and valuing diverse perspectives. • Practice presenting on, and responding to questions about, an engaged scholarship analysis. • Practice reflective and critical evaluation skills in reviewing engagement strategies and related concepts from projects in diverse research areas. • Practice team-facilitating a group discussion session. • Demonstrate ability to critically evaluate own perspectives on engaged scholarship and related concepts, in consideration of practice-based examples. • Contribute to a positive, respectful, and scholarly co-learning environment. Assignment Due In Class / Required Readings: Each small group is expected to provide 1-2 additional readings/resources related to their presentation. Citation/source 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. The purpose of the readings is to provide peers with needed background to constructively critique each student’s proposal. Presenting groups are encouraged to use creativity in planning for selecting resources (which need not be limited to the peer-reviewed literature) for this particular audience. Observing students are expected to prepare for their peers’ presentations by reviewing these resources carefully before class.

SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 20

Class 13: Special Issues in Engaged Scholarship April 9, 2015 Instructor: C. Nykiforuk

  Learning Objectives: Students will: • Identify 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 engaged scholarship and knowledge translation research. • Contribute to a positive, respectful, and scholarly co-learning environment.

 

Required Readings: • Ross, L. F., Loup, A., Nelson, R. M., Botkin, J. R., Kost, R., Smith Jr, G. R., & Gehlert, S. (2010). Human subjects protections in community-engaged research: a research ethics framework. Journal of empirical research on human research ethics: JERHRE, 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. Social Science & Medicine, 69(10), 1539-1546. • Meleis, A. I. (1996). Culturally competent scholarship: Substance and rigor. Advances in nursing science, 19(2), 1-16. • Sofaer, N., & Eyal, N. (2010). The diverse ethics of translational research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 10(8), 19-30. Recommended Readings/Resources: • TCPS2 (2014). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans Available at: http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2eptc2/Default/ • Guta, A., Wilson, M. G., Flicker, S., Travers, R., Mason, C., Wenyeve, G., & O'Campo, P. (2010). Are we asking the right questions? A review of Canadian REB practices in relation to community-based participatory research. • 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. • 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), 127-136. • Banister, E., Leadbeater, B.J.R., & Marshall, E.A. (Eds.). (2011). Knowledge translation in context: Indigenous, policy, and community settings. University of Toronto Press. • Solomon, M. Z. (2010). The ethical urgency of advancing implementation science. The American Journal of Bioethics, 10(8), 31-32   SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 21

Schedule  at  a  Glance     Date Jan 8

Topic Introduction to SPH 607

Assignment Due In-Class Sign up for small group.

Jan 15

Introduction engaged scholarship ALL CLASSES: Arrive prepared with discussion points from readings

Jan 22 & Engaged scholarship in practice Jan 29

Jan 22nd: Submit reflection #1 (by 1:00)

Feb 5 & Feb 12 Feb 19

Evolution of KT theory

Feb 12th: Submit reflection #2 (by 1:00)

Feb 26

Working with knowledge users

Mar 5 & Mar 12

Planning and evaluating engaged Mar 5th & 12th: Prepare for in-class activities scholarship Mar 12th: Submit reflection #3 (by 1:00)

Mar 19

Case analysis of practical example – part 1

1-week before presentation: Presenters circulate their selected readings to instructor and peers Week of Presentation: Presenters present (15m) & facilitate discussion (25m); Peers participate in discussion & provide constructive feedback

Mar 26

Case analysis of practical example – part 2

1-week before presentation: Presenters circulate their selected readings to instructor and peers Week of Presentation: Presenters present (15m) & facilitate discussion (25m); Peers participate in discussion & provide constructive feedback

Apr 2

Case analysis of practical example – part 3

1-week before presentation: Presenters circulate their selected readings to instructor and peers Week of Presentation: Presenters present (15m) & facilitate discussion (25m); Peers participate in discussion & provide constructive feedback

Jan29th: Submit reference for journal paper selected for your critical review assignment

Reading week – no class Prepare for in-class activity.

Apr 2nd: Submit reflection #4 (by 1:00) Apr 9

Special issues in engaged scholarship [Last Class]

Submit final critical review paper (by 1:00)

 

SPH 607 [W-2015] Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 22