Ethics in University-Community Partnerships: Understanding the Impact of Intergroup Conflict

1. Ethics in University-Community Partnerships: Understanding the Impact of Intergroup Conflict “Collaboration necessarily includes conflicts, not all of which can be easily resolved.” (Isenberg, Loomis, Humphreys, & Maton, 2004; p. 126) Susan L. Staggs staggss@uwstout.edu

2. Participatory Approach • University-Community partnerships are most often “participatory” in nature. • collaborative approach that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings • begins with a topic of importance to the community and has the aim of combining knowledge with action to achieve social change (Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, 2006)

3. Participatory Approach • Usually includes two major groups • university faculty • community members • practitioners from government, schools, mental health clinics, etc., • Study participants, e.g., residents of a low-income neighborhood, people trying to quit smoking

4. Relevance to Ethics at Stout • Polytechnic, sustainability, community focus, e.g., Discovery Center • service learning, participatory research, university-business and university-nonprofit projects • BUT university faculty and administration embedded in UW-System legal and policy structure • Dictates actions that may be at odds with participatory ethics

5. PA is a blessing and a curse • Blessing – brings together diverse groups to solve complex social problems • Curse - for the same reason

6. Unique working environment because… • History of exploitation by academics • drive-by data collection • Academics from historically dominant groups, community members from historically marginalized groups - race, class issues • Academics reluctant to make trade-offs between scientific rigor and community usefulness • Academics know things in different ways than community members • White researchers in black communities • “Community psychologists with attitude” – Roderick Watts

7. Why Study the Participatory Approach? • Don’t know much about how it works • Federal mandate • CDC named research on participatory approach as key future public health research priority • Research mandate • Participatory approach • “at a place where rhetoric prevails and little evidence exists”

8. Relations Among Collaborators (RAC) Study Brief web survey of members of Participatory Approach listserve Good cross-section of people who work on and are interested in participatory projects

9. Relations Among Collaborators (RAC) Study • 235 people • Academic members = 125 • Community members = 110 • Academics from public health, psychology, social work fields • Community members largely from government and community social service organizations • NOT representative of non-professional members of participatory projects

10. What Factors are Associated with Intergroup Threat? Intergroup Threat (social psych integrated threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000): ingroups and outgroups) Role • Academic • Practitioner Academic ingroup – practitioner outgroup Practitioner outgroup – academic ingroup Control threat - control of major project activities by the other group Value threat – believing that your values are different from the values of the other group Anxiety threat - feeling anxiety when interacting with the other group Image threat – having negative mental images of the other group Demographic • Race • Age • Experience with PR Project • Federal funding • large

11. Threat Measures • Control threat items: Outgroup is: • in control of recruitment, in control of finances • Value threat items: How different or similar are your thoughts, feelings, and action compared to the thoughts, feelings, and actions of Outgroup partners on each of the following: • professional values, personal values, beliefs about the community the project is supposed to help

12. Threat Measures • Anxiety threat items: How would you feel if you attended a meeting where you were the only ingroup partner? • troubled, at ease, safe, awkward • Image threat items: How favorable are each of the following traits? What percentage of outgroup partners do you think have each of the following traits? • intelligent, prejudiced, willing to compromise, trustworthy

13. What is Associated with Intergroup Threat? • Role-based • Practitioners experience less control threat than academics (not as impacted by failure as academics??) • BUT experience more value, anxiety, and image threat from academics • see values and beliefs as different whereas academics see them as similar • experience anxiety during interactions • have more negative images of academics than academics have of them

14. What is Associated with Intergroup Threat? • Demographic-based • Partners of color with white outgroups experience more anxiety during interactions and have more negative images than other race x outgroup race combinations • Partners of color with outgroups of color experience more threat to their worldviews from outgroups who are also of color • Older respondents and those less experienced with PR harbor more negative images of outgroup members

15. What is Associated with Intergroup Threat? • Project-Based • More control threat on federally funded project than on privately funded or non-federal government funding (more high-profile if fail?) • Large projects (over 50 ppl) had less control threat than small- or medium-sized projects (lack of sustained, substantive contact?)

16. What Factors are Associated with Organizational Conflict? Role Demographic Organizational Conflict Project Intergroup Threat • Control • Value • Anxiety • Image

17. Organizational Conflict Measures • Rate your agreement or disagreement with the following statements • leaders frequently shared experience and expertise • great deal of personality clash • great deal of disagreement about the operational decisions of the project

18. What is Associated with Organizational Conflict? No role, demographic, or project associations Control and anxiety threat associated with increased conflict Value threats are associated with decreased conflict for practitioners (avoidance?) and increased conflict for academics (stakes are higher?)

19. Qualitative Data To Be Used in Interpretation • Academic thoughts on barriers to good intergroup relations: • “Different agendas and lack of respect for community partners by academicians....” • “Lack of support by university to allow time for faculty to do extra work required in PR” • “Different goals and perspectives”

20. Qualitative Data To Be Used in Interpretation • Practitioner thoughts on barriers to good intergroup relations: • “Political unwillingness based on institutional values of white educational systems as the ultimate beings of power” • “Paternalistic attitudes” • “Academics not understanding real-world limitations”

21. What Can We Do to Reduce Control and Value Threats? (Nyden, 2003) • Acknowledge existence formally before start of project, then: • Collaboratively develop power-sharing and data-sharing agreements • Engage in trust-building exercises • Obtain community approval of publications • Train community members on data collection protocol • Revise university policies to incorporate PR-friendly policy changes in funding and promotion/tenure criteria

22. What Can We Do About Intergroup Anxiety? (e.g., Israel et al., 1998; Metzler et al., 2003; Schultz, Israel, & Lantz, 2003) • Acknowledge existence formally before start of project, then: • Engage in meta-dialogue and open communication • Use boundary spanners (e.g., researchers of color) wisely • Implement formal conflict identification and resolution processes

23. What Can We Do About Image Threat? (e.g., Gray et al., 2000; Miller & Shinn, 2005; Naylor et al., 2002; Nichols et al., 2002) Train faculty on the history of exploitative community research and the value of community input Work with community organizations to build their capacity (e.g., don’t just partner with them to achieve teaching and research goals) Implement trust-building mechanisms such as open communication

24. Recommended Resources • Community-Campus Partnerships for Health (http://www.ccph.info/) • Community-Engaged Scholarship Review, Promotion and Tenure Packet • Ensuring Community-Level Research Protections • Faculty Toolkit for Service Learning in Higher Education • Developing and Sustaining Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships: A Skill-Building Curriculum