Download
1 / 39
1.51k likes | 4.31k Vues
Conservation of Resources Theory . H671: Advanced Behavior Theories Arpita Tiwari. The COR Theory. “Individuals seek to create circumstances that will protect and promote the integrity of the individual, nested in a family, and nested in a tribe”
E N D
Conservation of Resources Theory H671: Advanced Behavior Theories Arpita Tiwari
The COR Theory • “Individuals seek to create circumstances that will protect and promote the integrity of the individual, nested in a family, and nested in a tribe” • The COR model proposes that individuals seek to acquire and maintain resources. • Resource loss is more powerful than resource gain • Resources must be invested in order to gain resources or prevent their loss. Hobfoll & Schumm
What are Resources? • Objects – Physical value or status • Personal Characteristics/Skills – Optimism/ Self-efficacy/Self-esteem • Conditions – Marriage/ Tenure • Energies – Time, Money & Knowledge
Stressors • Threat of net loss of resources • Actual net loss of resources • Lack of resource gain following investment
Principles of COR theory • Resources are interrelated i.e. change in one resource affects the availability of the other • Disproportional impact of resource loss (Loss Spirals) • Gain cycles are relevant to buffer potential future losses
Theory of Gender and Power • Due to the societal structure women are at a higher risk of lower health outcomes as understood by the function of the following: • The sexual division of labor • The sexual division of power • The structure of cathexis Connell 1987
Effectiveness of Empowerment • Empowerment is found to be an outcome or an intermediate indicator to improve health disparities • Self and Collective Efficacy • SiSTA/SIHLE/WiLLOW • Role of Health policy on empowerment • Role of Health promotion on empowerment
What are community coalitions? “Community coalitions are a specific type of coalition defined as a group of individuals representing diverse organizations, factions, or constituencies within the community who agree to work together to achieve a common goal” (Butterfoss & Kegler, 2009,p. 238)
Reasons Coalitions Form In response to • An opportunity (e.g., new funding) • A threat • Limited resources • Requirements by funding source Organizations join collaborative relationships when benefits > costs. (field of interorganizational relations) Butterfoss & Kegler, 2009
Coalitions and Public Health Examples: • Lead • Asthma • Tobacco • Healthy weight • Healthy aging • Oral health
Benefits of Community Coalitions • Exchange of knowledge, ideas, strategies • Develop community support or concern • Community empowerment • Potential to impact social acceptability of behavior • Sharing costs/risks • Reduce inefficient duplication of efforts • Mobilize diverse talents and resources Butterfoss & Kegler, 2009
Possible costs of coalition membership • Delays in problem solving • Conflict • Loss of autonomy • Loss of resources (e.g., time, money) Butterfoss & Kegler, 2009
A community coalition in action http://youtu.be/rk7ZIeHFQzY
Community Coalition Action Theory (CCAT) • A comprehensive theory of community coalitions. • Built upon various organizational models and theories. • 21 practice-proven propositions Butterfoss & Kegler, 2009
CCAT & the TTI • How does this theory relate to the TTI?
Inquiry Paradigms • Positivist • Postpositivism • “Critical theory et al” • Constructivism Israel et al., 1998
Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) • Collaborative approach to research • Conducting research with a community vs. conducting research in a community (Israel et al., 1998; Israel et al., 2001)
Key Principles • Recognizes community as a unit of identity • Builds on community’s strengths/assets • Facilitates collaboration in all research phases • Integrates research results with community change efforts for benefit of all partners • Emphasizes a co-learning and empowering process • Cyclical and iterative • Applies both positive and ecological perspectives • Disseminates findings to all partners • Involves long-term commitment (Israel et al., 1998; Israel et al., 2001)
CBPR vs. Traditional Research http://www.cbprcurriculum.info/ (The Examining Community-Institutional Partnerships for Prevention Research Group, 2006, Unit 1, Section 1.1)
Benefits of Community-based Research Partnerships • Enhances relevance of research data • Brings together partners with diverse skill sets and expertise • Local knowledge and perspectives may improve quality and validity of research • Attempts to address social and health inequities among marginalized communities Israel et al., 1998
Partnership Issues/ Challenges • Lack of trust and perceived lack of respect • Inequities in power and control • Conflicts spurring from different values, beliefs, perspectives, etc.; from issues regarding funding • Definition and representation of community • It takes time Israel et al., 1998
Methodological Issues/Challenges • Questions raised regarding its scientific quality • Difficulty with proving success • Balance between research and community action • Time required to collect, analyze, and interpret data • Interpreting data from multiple sources Israel et al., 1998
Broader Issues Broader social, political, economic, institutional, and cultural issues. E.g.: • Competing demands on time and resources across partner institutions • High-risk approach for achieving tenure • Expectations by funding agencies and other institutions that do not allow sufficient time • Political and social dynamics within the community Israel et al., 1998
CBPR and Policy Advocacy Using CBPR to enhance community capacity for policy advocacy in seven Detroit neighborhoods. The NWP project goals: • Strengthen policy advocacy skills • Expand community voices in policy-making arena • Promote policies that create healthy, safe neighborhoods Israel et al., 2010
CBPR and Policy Advocacy NWP project components: • Train the trainers program • Workshops to train neighborhoods residents in policy advocacy skills • Technical assistance to workshop participants in subsequent policy-related efforts Israel et al., 2010
CBPR and Policy Advocacy RESULTS • Participants found many aspects of the workshops important and useful • They reported high intentions of applying the training to work toward changing policy • A measureable change in self-efficacy • There was an increase in reports of engaging in policy change work out of those who reported not having worked for policy change in prior 6 months at 1st workshop Israel et al., 2010
Lessons Learned • Respond to participants’ diverse learning needs. • There may be other factors competing for participants’ time. Keep this in mind when planning meetings and try to be accommodating. • Use participatory formative evaluation. • Use a partnership approach (i.e. CBPR) to enhance community capacity for policy change. Israel et al., 2010
Activity Based on the information collected from the snippets of key informant interviews: • Whom else would you want to form partnerships with? • What would be some first steps in the collaboration process? • How would you go about selecting priorities? What are some potential issues or challenges that may arise?
