CHAIR IN COMMUNITY APPROACHES AND HEALTH INEQUALITIES CHSRF/CIHR

1. CHAIR IN COMMUNITY APPROACHES AND HEALTH INEQUALITIES CHSRF/CIHR Reflective practices in participatory public health research Yan Sénéchal, Julie Bradette and Stéphane Vibert • Presentation plan • Preamble: The theorization of partnership practices in public health • 1. The work of ÉRIRIS • 1.1 The research team on Interventions to reduce social health inequalities • 1.2 Cases under study • 1.3 Stages completed • 2. The relationship between research and practice • 2.1 Develop research projects that respond to practical concerns • 2.2 Regularly inform partners on research progress and results • 2.3 Establish clear rules for establishing partnerships • 3. Mediation between partners • 3.1 The mediation function • 3.2 Liaison mechanisms • Conclusion: Theorizing liaison mechanisms that support partnership practices

2. CHAIR IN COMMUNITY APPROACHES AND HEALTH INEQUALITIES CHSRF/CIHR Reflective practices in participatory public health research Yan Sénéchal, Julie Bradette and Stéphane Vibert • Preamble: The theorization of partnership practices in public health • Although seldom discussed, theorization is a central aspect of participatory public health. • It clarifies past experiences and guides future experiences. • In this sense, a particularly important issue is the theorization of the practices actually used by the research partners. • This issue, which concerns reflection, is present in at least three levels: • Understanding effective practices • Identifying innovative practices • Generalizing these practices in order to develop guidance tools. • This three-pronged issue is presented in three parts, as a preliminary report on the initial phases of an ongoing project: • The work of ÉRIRIS • The relationship between research and practice • Mediation between partners

3. CHAIR IN COMMUNITY APPROACHES AND HEALTH INEQUALITIES CHSRF/CIHR Reflective practices in participatory public health research Yan Sénéchal, Julie Bradette and Stéphane Vibert • 1. The work of ÉRIRIS • 1.1 The Research Team on Interventions to Reduce Public Health Inequalities • Under the responsibility of Louise Potvin, the Research Team on Interventions to Reduce Public Health Inequalities (ÉRIRIS) is a research subgroup under the Chair in Community Approaches and Health Inequalities (CACIS) at the University of Montreal, Québec. • One of the Team’s projects is to theorize effective, participatory research practices. • One question, although undefined, was raised throughout the entire initial development phase of this project: How should these practices be theorized? And what theoretical approach should be used? • After much lively discussion, a multi-case study and a grounded theoretical analysis was deemed the most appropriate approach. • This approach allowed us to consider all the different interests and objectives of the partners (researchers, practitioners, managers, financial backers, etc.). • The starting point for this approach would be the actual practices of those involved, and it consisted of a systematic confrontation between these practices and the theoretical analysis.

4. CHAIR IN COMMUNITY APPROACHES AND HEALTH INEQUALITIES CHSRF/CIHR Reflective practices in participatory public health research Yan Sénéchal, Julie Bradette and Stéphane Vibert • 1. The work of ÉRIRIS (continued) • 1.2 Cases under study • Five intervention projects in Montreal, Québec make up the cases that allow theorization of the prevailing partnership practices in the ongoing participatory research. • They involve various intervention types, because they are conducted at various levels (local, regional and national) and are at various stages of completion: • Assessment of a nutritional education project in schools in disadvantaged communities (Petits cuistots – Parents en réseaux) (Little cooks – parental network); • Principal researcher: Johanne Bédard • Le quartier comme espace transactionnel (The neighbourhood as a transactional space); • Principal researcher: Gilles Sénécal • Assessment of the Démarche-action (Action approach) project in Montreal-North; • Principal researcher: André Bergeron; Associate researcher: Louise Potvin • Assessment of a support program for young parents (SIPPE); • Principal researchers: Céline Goulet and Sylvie Gendron • A research-intervention partnership called Un milieu ouvert sur sesécolesin Bordeaux-Cartierville; • Principal researcher: Angèle Bilodeau

5. CHAIR IN COMMUNITY APPROACHES AND HEALTH INEQUALITIES CHSRF/CIHR Reflective practices in participatory public health research Yan Sénéchal, Julie Bradette and Stéphane Vibert • 1. The work of ÉRIRIS (continued) • 1.3 Stages completed • To date, two stages have been completed in the time horizon for the theorization of the practices involved in these participatory research projects. • These stages aimed at a preliminary documentation of the experiences of the researchers, managers, practitioners and the public. • Semi-directed interviews were held in summer 2007 on the following four general themes: a) the expectations of everyone involved; b) relationships between research and practice; c) mediation between the partners; and d) research benefits. • Analysis of these interviews revealed that most of the practitioners concerns were connected with the relationship between research and practice, as well as mediation between the partners. • Based on this preliminary analysis, a Partnership Workshop was organized in January 2008 to address these two important aspects of partnership practices. • Here are some of the comments and questions offered by the Workshop participants.

6. CHAIR IN COMMUNITY APPROACHES AND HEALTH INEQUALITIES CHSRF/CIHR Reflective practices in participatory public health research Yan Sénéchal, Julie Bradette and Stéphane Vibert • 2. The relationship between research and practice • 2.1 Develop research projects that respond to practical concerns • According to the practitioners, researchers should engage in research that meets the quality standards in force and is peer-recognized. • However, given the time spent conducting the participatory research, the practitioners wanted to see tangible benefits of the interventions. • Some partners doubted that the divergent interests of research and intervention could be reconciled. • Participants’ questions: • What reasons would researchers and practitioners have to develop partnerships? • What are the benefits for the partners who participate in the research? • How can common goals be set?

7. CHAIR IN COMMUNITY APPROACHES AND HEALTH INEQUALITIES CHSRF/CIHR Reflective practices in participatory public health research Yan Sénéchal, Julie Bradette and Stéphane Vibert • 2. The relationship between research and practice (continued) • 2.2 Regularly inform partners on research progress and results • Research time differs from intervention time. • Nevertheless, the partners feel it is important to receive regular follow-ups on research developments. • However, some researchers are reluctant to release partial or preliminary results. • Participants’ questions: • Can research inform practice on a regular basis? • Is it up to research alone to organize and support these encounters? • How can the financial backers be made aware of the time that researchers and practitioners spend on these activities?

8. CHAIR IN COMMUNITY APPROACHES AND HEALTH INEQUALITIES CHSRF/CIHR Reflective practices in participatory public health research Yan Sénéchal, Julie Bradette and Stéphane Vibert • 2. The relationship between research and practice (continued) • 2.3 Establish clear rules for establishing partnerships. • Clear rules must be defined for participatory research, so that all the partners benefit. • Among other things, these rules should clarify the respective areas of action. • They could also help to conciliate the separate requirements of researchers and practitioners. • Participants’ questions: • How can scientific production practices be integrated with intervention practices? • What is the role of a representative or spokesperson in the partnership? • Who owns the research results?

9. CHAIR IN COMMUNITY APPROACHES AND HEALTH INEQUALITIES CHSRF/CIHR Reflective practices in participatory public health research Yan Sénéchal, Julie Bradette and Stéphane Vibert • 3. Mediation between partners • 3.1 The mediation function • The mediation function aims at more than just information management. • It must stimulate and “energize” the partnership. • It must succeed in clarifying ambiguities and grey areas. • Participants’ questions: • Does the mediation function improve the synergy between researchers and workers on the ground? • Should the mediation function be fulfilled by a single person? • How can we make sure that the mediators have a global vision of the partnership, and the direction it is headed ?

10. CHAIR IN COMMUNITY APPROACHES AND HEALTH INEQUALITIES CHSRF/CIHR Reflective practices in participatory public health research Yan Sénéchal, Julie Bradette and Stéphane Vibert • 3. Mediation between partners (continued) • 3.2 Liaison mechanisms • Partnership practices alone are not enough to ensure coherent, large-scale participatory research. • Hence the need to put in place liaison mechanisms on which all those involved in the project can agree. • These mechanisms can be more or less formal, for example, a steering committee, and would serve as the “memory” for the research, among other things. • These mechanisms ensure continuity between the existing research partners and new partners that join the research along the way. • Participants’ questions: • How do these mechanisms affect the practices of the partners? • How can these mechanisms be justified to financial backers?

11. CHAIR IN COMMUNITY APPROACHES AND HEALTH INEQUALITIES CHSRF/CIHR Reflective practices in participatory public health research Yan Sénéchal, Julie Bradette and Stéphane Vibert • Conclusion: Theorizing the liaison mechanisms that support partnership practices • Next year, we will focus our attention more on mediation between research and practice, and more particularly on the mediation mechanisms between partners. • We must gain a better understanding of the nature of these mechanisms that accompany the conduct of participatory research involving multiple partners. • We must better understand the effects of the presence or absence of these mechanisms on partnership practices. • Do the mechanisms foster reflective practices? • Can they be applied to other settings? • Finally, can the study of these liaison mechanisms shed new light on issues affecting participatory public health research? • These are a few of the questions that our ongoing project is attempting to answer. • Thank you!