Research collaboration with community organizations: A case example

FIELD NOTES

Field Notes serves as a forum for social workers where they can briefly share and comment on their experiences in practice. This may include new perspectives or critical commentaries on practice, innovative programs and policies, work with diverse client groups, and other related approaches to social work practice. We invite all readers to share their experiences. -Editor

Abstract

This case example details a collaborative research experience between an urban state university and a community-based organization. The project combined the author's interest in midlife volunteering with the organization's need for long-term planning in volunteer and program development. Important components of this endeavor mirror those previously reported in the literature as necessary for collaborative success, including shared concerns, good timing, strong stakeholder groups, involvement of high-level visible leaders, and development of respect and trust. In addition, the author found that prior involvement between the university and the organization helped, as did the author's prior experience with collaborative efforts. Also discussed are the positive outcomes and challenges of undertaking academic research with community organizations.

COLLABORATION DIFFERS FROM OTHER TYPES of partnerships in that it involves true shared decision-making between stakeholders with varying degrees and types of power (Graham & Barter, 1999). The sharing aspect accounts for the infrequency of research collaboration between universities in the United States and community organizations; many academics are either not willing or have no knowledge of how to share the creation of a research project with nonacademics. This paper provides a case example of a collaborative research experience between an urban state university and a community-based organization. My academic interest in midlife voluntarism, combined with the organization's need to increase their volunteer base, led to this joint data collection project.

Some background on the substantive area of midlife volunteering is followed by a narrative of the collaborative process to provide examples of components previously identified in the literature as necessary for success. Additionally, I describe two other components that I found to be crucial for a productive and mutually beneficial collaborative research experience. I conclude with a discussion of positive outcomes, lessons learned, and suggestions for future collaborations.

Volunteering In Midlife

Increases in longevity and healthy aging, along with decreases in the average age of retirement, have led to a growing number of American retirees that can and do remain active after leaving a career job (Burkhauser, Couch, & Phillips, 1996). Many advocates for the aging have championed volunteering as an appropriate activity for retirees (Chambre, 1993; Freedman, 1997, 1999). But even as members of the current population aged 50-64 retire at earlier ages than in the past (Henretta, 1992; Kohli, 1994), community organizations that rely on volunteer labor have experienced a decline in volunteering among midlife adults aged 55-64. Only 47% of this group volunteered in 1993-1994; down from a peak 51% in 1989-1990 (Harootyan, 1996). Research on why older adults volunteer (or not) is just beginning to emerge in the literature (Caro & Bass, 1997; Chappell & Prince, 1997; Jirovec & Hyduk, 1998). These trends, as well as the fact that midlife is becoming recognized as a distinct life stage (Moen & Wethington, 1999), suggests the study of midlife voluntarism to be a rich area for research.

Case Example: The Study of Midlife

Entering Into the Collaboration

The Shepherd's Center, a faith- and community-based organization serving part of Kansas City, targets volunteer and programmatic opportunities to midlife and older adults. Hundreds of the Center's volunteers are involved in services such as Meals on Wheels, home security assessments, exercise classes, respite care, flu vaccinations, and several other programs that help older adults. The organization has experienced the described loss of volunteers first-hand; their challenge is to attract new generations of volunteers as increased age and infirmity limits the contributions of their current volunteers. In the mid-1990s, the Shepherd's Center was unsure why it had been largely unsuccessful recruiting volunteers aged 50-64 and also needed data onwhat programs and services would meet the needs of community residents in the future. In 1997, 1 began serving on the board of directors for the Shepherd's Center and became aware of the decrease in volunteers and the need for program development data. The executive director was quick to recognize the benefits of a collaboration when I mentioned my academic interests in midlife volunteering. The superb fit between my research agenda and the identified needs of the Shepherd's Center led us to explore the possibility of a collaborative research project to gather information on midlife issues including voluntarism, adult education programming interests, and retirement planning.

Adequate human subject protection, including the confidentiality of the subjects' identities, is one hallmark separating academic research from other methods of inquiry. Therefore, appropriate handling of the data became a significant issue to resolve during our negotiations to collaborate. The executive director and I were able to agree that the university's research team would have sole access to the names and identifying information of study participants. This meant I could assure the university's human subjects review committee and the potential study participants themselves of the confidentiality of their responses.

With this critical issue resolved, the executive director and I obtained permission from the Shepherd's Center board of directors to indicate on grant applications that this research project was a collaborative effort between the Shepherd's Center and the university. Three of the seven objectives listed in the funding proposal for The Study of Midlife were directly related to fostering a positive relationship between the university and community organization and aiding the Shepherd's Center's volunteer and program participant recruitment efforts. The university itself was approached first and by funding the proposal the university's peerreviewed research committee endorsed the academic integrity of the project as well as supported the goal of working collaboratively with a community partner.

Focus Groups

The first data collection involved two focus groups with a mix of retirees and current workers (n = 18) aged 50 to 64 held in the Spring of 1998 at the Shepherd's Center. The participants indicated they either anticipated changing or actually did change their volunteering commitments after retirement; one woman planned to resign board memberships when her husband retired so they would be free to travel. Moreover, participants did not want to think of themselves as "old" and wanted to participate in activities that included people of all ages. These results are consistent with findings reported in recent literature (Moen, Fields, Meador, & Rosenblatt, 2000; Savishinsky, 2000).

Holding focus groups was to be the end-stage of this collaboration, and while these insights were helpful to both the study's academic and programmatic objectives, both partners wanted to collect additional data from a greater number of midlife adults. Fortunately, the success of the focus groups and trust built between the two partners during this phase of data collection led to continuation of The Study of Midlife.

Mail Survey

In the summer of 1998 the Shepherd's Center obtained the addresses of all heads of households aged 50 and older in a six zip-code region surrounding the Shepherd's Center including the neighborhoods it currently served (mostly Euro-American) as well as adjoining neighborhoods where the board wanted to expand services (mostly African American). From this information I generated a random sample of heads of households aged 50-64 living within the Shepherd's Center's current and proposed boundaries. A mail survey would gather information from a larger and more diverse group of adults than was possible using only focus groups thereby increasing our confidence that the data would be representative of midlife adults living in the area.

To underwrite the costs of the mail survey and the dissemination of results we received a community foundation grant as well as additional funds from the university. A Shepherd's Center employee aided in the creation of the survey document and Shepherd's Center volunteers and undergraduate research assistants worked together to assemble the survey packets. A total of 323 people returned surveys for a response rate of 52.5%; we also received 98 completed spouse questionnaires (a response rate of 61%; 161 of the 323 were married). We combined the respondents' and spouses' data on volunteering and program interests; the results are based on a total sample of 421 individuals.

Over half (53%) reported volunteering within the last two years. There were no gender differences with men just as likely to volunteer as women. Many respondents saw themselves volunteering in the future; 78% reported at least a 50% chance of volunteering in the next 5 years and six out of 10 see volunteering as part of ideal retirement lifestyle (60.5%). We also asked about current and future leisure time interests to inform the Shepherd's Center's program planning. Only 30% of the respondents reported previously taking an adult education class but over 50% indicated an interest in classes in the future-an encouraging sign for the Shepherd's Center which is active in adult education.

Disseminating the Results

We are currently sharing the study's findings with both academic and community audiences. I have presented at academic conferences and submitted peer-reviewed journal articles that use the data to investigate postretirement volunteering and labor force participation intentions of workers aged 50-64.

As principal investigator with data analysis expertise, it was my responsibility to also disseminate the study's findings and subsequent implications to two main community audiences: members of the Shepherd's Center's Board of Directors and other organizations who rely on volunteers to complete their missions (a requirement for receipt of the community foundation's funds). The univariate and bivariate analyses in the written report to the Shepherd's Center Board of Directors uncovered definite trends, providing insight into a recent programming failure. A forum on end-of-life issues had been poorly attended and the findings were able to suggest a reason why. Very few people indicated interest in this topic; out of twelve possible topics end-of-life issues had the lowest reported interest. To publicize the findings to other organizations, I wrote an article for the newsletter of the local coalition of family serving organizations.

Components of a Successful Collaboration

The Study of Midlife was truly a collaborative effort. The university and the Shepherd's Center each had a significant stake in the collaboration, both played equally critical roles in decision-making, and both directly benefited from the joint endeavor.

Earlier scholarship has suggested a framework for productive collaborations; ours contained several of the components identified as necessary for success. First and foremost, the executive director and I discovered we both had interest in voluntarism among midlife adults, fitting the profile of partners with shared concerns described by Chrislip and Larson (1994) and Rielly (1998). The component ofgood timing was also in evidence: my research agenda was taking shape just as the Shepherd's Center's Board was completing its strategic plan.

Strong stakeholder groups and involvement of high-level visible leaders are found to be important in several models of collaboration (Bryson & Crosby, 1992; Chrislip & Larson, 1994; Rielly, 1998). In this case, both collaborative partners provided funds and staff for the project; I provided my survey research expertise and the Shepherd's Center's executive director arranged for both paid and volunteer labor and sponsored the focus groups. Open and respectful discussion, making all decisions jointly, and both partners being highly invested in the process added to the credibility and openness of the process (Chrislip & Larson, 1994; Graham & Barter, 1999). Chrislip and Larson (1994) also report the necessity of support or acquiescence of "established" authorities; the support of the Shepherd's Center Board of Directors and my university superiors-the department chair, the college dean, and research office--were critical to the viability of this collaboration.

The initial respect and trust between partners grew over time; I was fortunate to work with an executive director who was aware of the peculiarities of academic research, respecting from the beginning of the need for confidentiality concerning the names of the study respondents as per the university's human subjects committee. She even intervened when one board member sharply questioned why these names could not be used for marketing purposes. I, on the other hand, respected that the Shepherd's Center's need for information was just as legitimate as my own. During the collaborative process we found, as Rielly (1998) did, that the interim success of the focus groups further strengthened our mutual trust allowing us to gather additional data via the mail survey. Both parties of this collaboration have now shifted to broader concerns. The Shepherd's Center's hopes the data will aid in making sound decisions for future planning and I am contributing to the academic literature on midlife volunteering. While the existing literature reminds us that each collaborative effort is unique (Chrislip & Larson, 1994; Rielly, 1998), this project fits the profile of a successful collaboration.

Furthermore, this case example suggests that two additional components may be necessary for a successful research collaboration between academic institutions and community organizations: prior experience with joint efforts between the organization and the university, and the principal investigator having prior experience specifically with research collaboration.

Even though many social science and social work departments are well-connected in the community, not all types of partnerships are identical. A collaborative research project that uses rigorous academic standards differs from many existing relationships such as placing social work student interns at community agencies. In our case, previous nonresearch-oriented connections between the Shepherd's Center and the university laid the groundwork for the current research collaboration. These interactions had already created an atmosphere of trust and therefore the Shepherd's Center was more willing to be aware of and have respect for the rigors associated with academic data collection.

Before entering into this collaboration I participated in two collaborative research projects during my graduate research training. I witnessed my doctoral advisor gain access to the employment files of six large organizations, both for-profit corporations and not-for-profit service institutions, for a research project in exchange for having questions specific to their interests on the survey instrument. I also saw a second faculty mentor create a fruitful collaboration with a community-based not-for-profit organization to assess the effectiveness of different types of social support for caregivers of Alzheimer's patients. Through these experiences I learned the rewards of collaboration outweighed the considerable investments of time, money, and other resources necessary for success and was therefore willing to enter into the role of principal investigator of my own collaborative research project.

Positive Outcomes

Positive outcomes were in evidence for both collaborative partners at many levels. The university raised its visibility and credibility in the community an increasingly important priority for urban institutions. As a nontenured professor, I benefited from the assistance on the research project provided by the Shepherd's Center's volunteers and staff. The Shepherd's Center benefited by having access to data gathered using scientifically sound methods; hiring a consultant to perform a needs assessment would have been prohibitively expensive for them and the data-gathering methods may not have been as rigorous, decreasing the data's value as an effective planning tool.

Lessons Learned and Cautions

Sharing lessons learned and cautions can smooth the way for future collaborations.

Assigning leadership on the funding proposal (akin to first authorship of a paper) needs to be negotiated between the partners before approaching potential contributors; consulting with the university's research office may help a researcher avoid potential headaches. Other issues such as "If only partial funding is awarded, how will the money be distributed between partners?" should also be determined beforehand with communication between partners being open and honest. The community foundation awarded us a fraction of the requested amount; our solution was to keep the percentages for the two partners as they appeared in the original proposal. (However, this option might not be feasible if the monies are to fund personnel.)

The general public is not familiar with the imperfect nature of social science and therefore can become frustrated when researchers decline to offer a definitive solution to a particular social issue. Although academics are keenly aware of what we do not know, we should acknowledge that the public sees us as experts and cultivate our abilities to speak and write for the lay audience. For example, in the community newsletter article I went beyond merely reporting the findings and gave concrete suggestions for volunteer and program development.

Collaboration is extremely resource intensive (Rielly, 1998). I discovered one challenge of working with lay people outside of academic settings is respectfully educating them how scholarly research differs from other types of research. Academics need to remember that working with lay volunteers is not the same as working with graduate or undergraduate students who have some exposure to academic research. We also must recognize that community organization volunteers have not spent (nor want to spend) many years learning the intricacies of academic research. Therefore, adjustments must be made to our vocabulary and supervisory techniques. In particular, sufficient training for volunteers in the principles of survey research, i.e. impressing the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of the respondents' identities, is not to be taken lightly. Only members of the university team very familiar with research methodologies, either the researcher herself or a senior graduate student, should be entrusted with the tasks of training and supervising the volunteers.

Let me illustrate this point using a concrete example from our experience. Even after training, one volunteer did not verify that the addresses and identification numbers on the survey instruments matched the addresses and identification numbers on the envelopes. Mailing these packets would have been problematic for two reasons: (a) the identification numbers would be incorrectly matched so it would be impossible to know which answers came from which respondent, and (b) some survey participants would learn the names of others invited to take part in the project. The first outcome would have compromised the validity of the data; the second would have compromised the assurances of confidentiality. Fortunately, I became aware of the situation before the surveys were mailed. But I was able to derail this breach of protocol only because I was physically there supervising the volunteers. The problem was averted with a little extra time and a few more envelopes; however, had I not been present this serious error would not have been caught.

This situation highlights the necessity for researchers to exercise caution when entering into a collaboration with community organizations. Researchers need to choose community partners who either already have a firm understanding of academic research or those who are willing to learn about its peculiar requirements. Researchers therefore must be realistic, or at least mindful, about the amount of time required for success. If researchers are unable or unwilling to spend a considerable amount of time training and supervising volunteers and/or staff then they may want to rethink doing collaborative work with community partners.

Conclusion

The Shepherd's Center and university successfully collaborated on The Study of Midlife that will have far-reaching effects on their shared community. The data gathered will further academic research on midlife volunteering while also aiding the Shepherd's Center and other organizations in their programming and volunteer development decisions. This experience, based on mutual need and trust, can be a model for future academic-community research collaborations. This case example reinforces that the success of any collaboration rests on the willingness of the partners involved to have had some prior experience with collaboration, to be committed to shared decision-making, and to provide the necessary resources to reach their common research goal.

References

Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (1992). Leadership for the common good. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Burkhauser, R V., Couch, K, & Phillips, J. (1996). Who takes early social security benefits? The economic and health characteristics of early beneficiaries. The Gerontologist, 36, 789-799.

Caro, F. G., & Bass, S. A. (1997). Receptivity to volunteering in the immediate postretirement period. journal ofApplied Gerontology, 16, 427-441. Chambre, S. M. (1993). Volunteerism by elders: Past trends and future

prospects. The Gerontologist, 33, 221-228.

Chappell, N. L., & Prince, M. J. (1997). Reasons why canadian seniors volunteer. Canadian Journal on Aging, 16, 336-353.

Chrislip, D. D., & Larson, C. E. (1994). Collaborative leadership: How citizens and civic leaders can make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Freedman, M. (1997). Towards civic renewal: How senior citizens could save

civil society. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 28, 243-263. Freedman, M. (1999). Prime time: How baby boomers will revolutionize retirement and transform America. New York: PublicAffairs of the Perseus Book Group.

Graham, J. Ri, & Barter, Ih. (1999). Collaboration: A social work practice method. Families in Society, 80, 6-13.

Haroot,an, Ra A. (1996). Volunteer activity by older adults. Encyclopedia of Gerontology.: Age, Aging, and the Aged, 2, 613-620.

Henretta, J. C. (1992). Uniformitv and diversity: Life course institutionalization and late-life work exit. Sociological Quarterly, 33, 265-279.

Jirovec, P L., & Hyduk, C. A. (1998). Type of volunteer experience and health among older adult volunteers. journal ofGerontological Social Work, 30, 29-42.

Kohli, M. (1994). Work and retirement: A comparative perspective. In M. W Riley & R. L. Kahn & A. Foner (Eds.), Age and structural lag: Society's failure to provide meaningful opportunities in work, family, and leisure (pp. 80-106). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Moen, P., Fields, V., Meador, R, & Rosenblatt, H. (2000). Fostering integration: A case study of the Cornell retirees volunteering in service (CRVIS) program. In K. Pillemer & P. Moen & E. Wethington & N. Glasgow (Eds.), Social integration in the second half of life (pp. 247-264). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Moen, P., & Wethington, E. (1999). Midlife development in a life course context. In Life in the middle (pp. 3-23). San Diego: Academic Press. Rielly, T. (1998). Communities in conflict: Resolving differences through collab

orative efforts in environmental planning and human service delivery. Journal of-Sociology and Social Welfare, 25, 115-142.

Savishinsky, J. S. (2000). Breaking the watch: The meanings of-retirement in America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Deborah B. Smith

Deborah & Smith, PhD, is assistant professor of sociology, Department of Sociology/Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of Missouri-Kansas City, 208 Haag Hall, 5100 Rockhill Road, Kansas City, MO 64110. Correspondence can be sent to her at the above address or via e-mail: smithde@umkc.edu.

Authors note. An earlier version of this research was presented at of the 1999 National Council on Family Relations Annual Conference, Irvine, CA, November 10-15. There were three important sources of support for the research reported here: University of Missouri Kansas City Faculty Research Grant # 1512, a University of Missouri-Kansas City Research Incentive Grant, and funds from the Oppenstein Brothers Foundation. The author thanks Frank Kuo, Cathy Lawrenz, Fan Ping, Charlotte Seller, Brenda Smith, Kay Wallick, and Brenda Williams for their work on The UMKC Study of Midlife.

Copyright Families in Society Jan-Mar 2003
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved