Gregg Walker, Oregon State University - Policy Consensus Initiative

Connecting Research and Practice: A“Pracademic’s” PerspectiveGregg B. Walker, Ph.D.Depts. of Speech Communication & Forest ResourcesOregon State University, Corvallis, OR - USAgwalker@oregonstate.eduWorkshop on the Role of University Centersin Collaborative GovernanceCo-Sponsored by the Policy Consensus Initiative, the Florida ConflictResolution Consortium, and the Florida Atlantic University Center forUrban and Environmental SolutionsFlorida Atlantic University, Jupiter, Florida06-07 June 2007

EvaluationMulti-Stakeholder Collaboration:Five PhasesAssessmentTraining/Skill BuildingImplementation(Facilitation)DesignWalker PCI-FLAt 2007

Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration:Five Phases as Research PointsAssessmentEvaluation(of process, content,outcomes) Training/Skill BuildingImplementation(Facilitation) DesignWalker PCI-FLAt 2007

“Pracademic” Research:What Data?• Pre and post-data (e.g., project data, event datafrom surveys, interviews)• Assessment data (e.g., documents,observations, conversations)• Event data (participants’ written material,audio/video recordings, observations/fieldnotes)• Project and event products and responses (e.g.,comment letters/emails, web input, appeals)Walker PCI-FLAt 2007

“Pracademic” Roles in Research:Some Models/ExamplesModel One - The PR does everythingCase: Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area• Research activity included assessmentinterviews, post-workshop surveys, contentanalysis of comments.• University faculty performed or directed allproject phases and tasksWalker PCI-FLAt 2007

Models/ExamplesModel Two - University team with role differentiation• Cases: National Forest planning (e.g., Bridger-Teton NF, Allegheny NF, Wenatchee NF)• Some university faculty (PRs) conductedassessment, training, design, and facilitation.• Other faculty led data collection and evaluation.• All team members participated in team decisionsand data analysis.• Key question: Is some role overlap OK, or shouldroles be distinct, i.e., PRs as facilitators play nopart in evaluation and evaluators do no influenceother phases?Walker PCI-FLAt 2007

Models/ExamplesModel Three: University PR assesses,designs, facilitates, agency evaluates• Case: Oregon DEQ/INR Mixing ZonesWorkshop• University faculty conductedassessment, design, and facilitation.• Agency personnel evaluated andanalyze data.Walker PCI-FLAt 2007

Other Models?• University PR provides assessmentand training; others facilitate andevaluate (e.g., RSM/MCR)• University PR provides design,facilitation, and summarize data(e.g., EPA Tribal Leaders’ Summit)• In both cases, PR prepares a databasedreport for the fundingorganizationWalker PCI-FLAt 2007

An Issue to Consider…Researcher as university faculty or asconsultant/contractor?• As university faculty - institutionalreview board approval• As a consultant, Office ofManagement and Budget approval?• Assessment and evaluation via“conversations?”Walker PCI-FLAt 2007

Regardless of the model orapproach…• Individual role responsibilities should beclear (e.g., facilitator vs. evaluator)• Institutional role responsibilities should beclear (e.g., university reviewed research,project cost-share)• Impartiality should be maintained• Conflicts of interest should be identified andavoided…and wearing too many “hats”Walker PCI-FLAt 2007