On
May 13, SSA hosted The Conference on Global Adolescent Health and Economic
Strengthening. Our own Fred Ssewamala
organized the conference, which was very interesting, especially to someone who
has had some experience researching the vulnerabilities and resiliencies of
orphaned youth. I found the conference,
and all of the speakers, engaging and thought-provoking. Every one of the presenters had worked with
economic strengthening initiatives and each brought a slightly different
experience and view to the day-long dialogue.
I appreciated the opportunity to hear from researchers, practitioners,
and directors from a variety of different backgrounds. Productive discussion on the intersections of
research, policy, and practice requires the participation of academics, program
managers, and community partners. When these conversations exclude one or more
of these voices, we are left with failed policies and practices and
misinterpretation of data. Similarly, it
is important to open the discussion to other areas of study and practice—such
as medicine and public health—that can also learn from and enhance the
experience and wisdom of social workers and development specialists.
One
of the major points that I heard reiterated again and again was the importance
of establishing a baseline for comparison of intervention outcomes. Jason Wolfe, with USAID, took a bold stance
in criticizing the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) for not
gathering baseline data or finding comparable control/comparison groups before
implementing interventions in sub-Saharan Africa. Without comparison groups and data, we have
very little evidence to show that these interventions had a significant effect
on reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS and providing supportive services for those
who are HIV-positive. Other researchers
were very explicit when explaining their research design in identifying
comparison/control groups and/or baseline data.
I do understand, though I may not support, the PEPFAR decision to not
gather baseline data; the world was in crisis mode and the thought of delaying
aid may have seemed ethically wrong. It
may also have been a more strategic decision—politically—for the Bush
administration to take immediate action.
The argument for adhering to strong research design, even in these
situations, is that in the long run comparison groups and baseline data results
in more reliable and effective interventions.
Another
theme that I heard repeatedly during the conference was the importance of
working with community members and stakeholders at every step of the research
process. Community Based Participatory Research focuses on multiple systems
(social, economic, political) in intervention design, implementation, and
evaluation. This both helps to contextualize
the data at every step of the process, but also serves to empower community
members and reinforce the principal social work value of
self-determination. Many of the
presenters underscored the importance of community participation in the
research, and described how community input had led to surprising research
findings and intervention outcomes. Leyla
Ismayilova talked about how the structure of her research into child labor and
household structure had to change dramatically because of the specific cultural
definitions of both. She was able to
adapt and modify her research design with the input of the research
participants. If researchers in all sectors
more seriously the role of community members as research “participants” instead
of research “subjects”, we will be able to develop more effective and
sustainable programs and policies.
For
more information about the conference and the speakers: https://ssa.uchicago.edu/global-perspectives-adolescent-health-and-economic-strengthening-conference-presenter-bios
No comments:
Post a Comment