Research into action: a report of the 1995 SPRE research roundtable.

This is a new era--a time for new possibilities for organizations and programs, whether developing joint programs, floating a bond with another agency, containing costs, downsizing, forming partnerships with external agencies, or collaborating for long-term survival. It is no longer business as usual--given today's political, social, and economic environments. Macro-and micro-environmental factors continually demand that we move beyond traditional practices and look at new methods and strategies that will allow us to be proactive.

Many professionals have accepted the notion that collaboration and partnerships save resources, expedite time and enhance the likelihood of success. Additionally, professionals realize that if we can make a commitment to formalizing collaborative ventures, we stand a greater chance of success. However, despite these realizations, we do not seem to be entering partnerships to any significant degree. The paramount questions then become: why are things not happening given the issues and the needs of various agencies? why are we not establishing partnerships or collaborative groups? and moreover, why are we not promoting environments that will foster collaborations?

The Research Roundtable, a creation of the NRPA Board of Trustees whose mission is to establish a national research agenda, has been charged with developing a mechanism to enhance research between practitioners and educators to generate responses to these questions. In 1994 the first Research Roundtable was held with over 100 practitioners and academicians participating. The group examined and reflected on the impact of leisure and recreation services on various social problems, including substance abuse, youth at risk, homelessness, HIV/AIDS, mental health, crime, and unemployment.

In 1995, the Roundtable used a focus group research process to identify barriers to collaborative ventures. This article represents the second phase of continuous effort to achieve a transfer of research and to open research to influence all aspects of the leisure and recreation profession. It is written to share the initial responses of approximately 75 practitioners and 25 educators who convened during the 1995 NRPA Congress in San Antonio, Texas to address the issue of enhancing the transfer of research between practitioners and educators.

Two goals of the 1995 SPRE Research Roundtable were identified: 1) to respond in focus groups to pre-ordinate questions related to barriers to the transfer of research; and 2) to identify personal action steps to move forward in breaking the barriers to sharing research.

Sampling

A random sample of approximately 200 practitioners was invited to participate in the Roundtable through a written letter. Approximately 125 practitioners indicated that they would participate in the session; 75 attended. The sample represented a cross section of individuals, agencies, cities, and states. SPRE members were invited via SPRENET and through personal contacts; approximately 25 educators participated in the focus group process. Pre-identified individuals served as moderators and others served as recorders.

Methodology

The focus group technique was used in an attempt to identify the barriers to the sharing of research between those who conduct it (typically academicians) and those who are impacted by its findings (typically practitioners.) Attendees were divided into groups of eight to 10 members, each with a moderator and recorder. Each group addressed one of the following questions: 1) identify and operationally define the barriers to collaborative research/evaluation efforts; 2) identify and operationally define barriers to research/evaluation methodologies; and 3) identify and operationally define barriers related to reporting styles and dissemination of findings.

In addition to the research questions asked in each focus group, group members were asked to identify an action step that they could take to their "home" territory which would address concerns and issues raised by the group. Action steps were written on index cards along with demographic data of those committing to the action. Follow-up letters were sent at mid-year to ascertain follow-through and completion of action steps. Both practitioners and educators were encouraged to subscribe to as many of these action steps as is possible. It is only with this type of shared commitment that real strides will be made in conducting and using research.

Findings: The Action Steps

As with all new endeavors, different people begin in different places. The action steps identified below exemplify the variation in knowledge base, time and commitment to the transfer of research between practitioners and researchers. The action steps to which Roundtable participants committed appeared to fall into four categories; Establishing Dialogues, Training and Education, Implementation of Research, and Dissemination. These headings generally mirror the focus of the research questions designed for each focus group.

Establishing Dialogues

Beginning and establishing dialogues and defining mutual areas of interest and benefit are often first steps to sharing research and practitioners. Opening communication should involve more than just talk. Perhaps, agendas should be developed which address topics such as: making explicit roles and responsibilities of various positions; developing a partnership agreement; identifying shared research and evaluation topics; articulating the potentials of each partner in the research process; describing a "typical" research process and how and where each partner is involved; and making decisions about financial support of research and evaluation efforts.

Establishing dialogues was a common theme for several suggested action steps. And, while dialogue is often considered the first step in action, we must be careful to avoid becoming overly comfortable with talk without accompanying action. Those who indicated they were willing and committed to opening the door to sharing research indicated that they would:

* Create a dialogue between faculty at universities and practitioners in the region about the topic of research needs, and the use of university resources to meet those needs.

* Commit to stimulating a quality two way relationship through listening to practitioners more than talking.

* Discuss the results of this focus group with practitioners and educators who are involved with other professional organizations.

* Talk with park personnel about various research roles.

* Contact regional practitioners to initiate dialogue on mutually beneficial research (evaluation, action research, etc.).

* Start a local research think tank.

* Work with a local university to develop a "walk in my shoes" program to help each other communicate.

* Form a faculty and alums group to discuss needs for research and evaluation in the field.

* Establish committee in my community to open lines of communication between the local university and the local agency.

* Contact the department heads of the accredited universities to being a dialogue practitioner needs and how they can help researchers meet this challenge.

* Establish this type of forum [Research Roundtable] at the state level and therefore begin the process of collaborative interaction.

Training and Education

Training and education was another category of action steps identified by focus group members. The action steps were presented from two perspectives; one needing further education and training related to research and evaluation, the other offering to design and implement various types of educational opportunities. As a pre-service element it appears necessary to establish required coursework in undergraduate curricula so that entering professionals have a "positive ethic" toward research and the basic skills to engage in collaborative efforts. Once in the field, on-going educational sessions need to be offered in an exciting and hands-on manner to maintain and/or develop skills. Perhaps a CEU track could be developed at state, regional, and national levels [conferences] to maintain a visible theme and commitment to making change actually occur.

Information related to the translation and interpretation of existing research seems to be a necessary beginning. To make educational and training efforts most practical, developing and conducting them in researcher/practitioner teams seems appropriate. Those action steps falling under the Training and Education heading included:

* Training students in the purpose and skills of research as critical thinking and problem solving aimed at solving social issues, problems and needs.

* Talking with faculty members in departmental meetings, encouraging them to bring practical applications of research into the content/focus of their classes, so that when students are practitioners they will be more apt to use research.

* Working on an "Interpreting Research" session for the 1996 Congress to be held in Kansas City.

* Holding one education session with the university and the [local recreation] department about the value of research [to be held at state conference].

* Auditing an evaluation and program planning course to expand research training, and provide specific skills to deal with program issues.

* Utilizing college and university resources through instructors to perform, develop and complete research in a timely fashion.

* Developing a workbook for students/practitioners at a very practical level.

* Establishing a mentoring program where research is at a practical level for a real need; and tools to be used for disseminating life skills into 21st century are advanced.

* Including a research/evaluation project in all internships; and gather local practitioners to identify research needs.

* Assisting in the development of undergraduate and graduate curricula to include research.

* Working with students to expose them to research; increase their understanding of the value of research and practical implications, and develop a positive ethic toward research.

Implementation of Research

Once the dialogue has begun, partnerships are developed and the education and training necessary to accurately interpret research is underway, research and evaluation must be implemented. While research-specific terminology (e.g., validity, triangulation) is important to understanding research and evaluation, it can be made more understandable by lay people. This, perhaps, is the first step to conducting meaningful collaborative research.

When engaging in collaborative research and evaluation efforts several elements must be made explicit prior to beginning (and reiterated throughout the process). The role and time/staff commitment of each party must be well established. For research to be truly collaborative all parties must be involved in all elements of the process; the selection of the research question, reviewing the literature, research design, conduct of the research, analysis of the data, and reporting the results. Often, one collaborator has more skills than the other in certain aspects of the research. This is to be expected and collaborators should look to one another to see how each can complement the other. Levels of involvement in each aspect of the process may differ, but being involved to some extent is necessary.

In addition to establishing dialogues and increasing the knowledge base about research and evaluation, some Roundtable participants indicated a commitment to Implementation of Research. Those action steps in this category range from entry into the field of research and evaluation to the actual implementation of specific projects. Reported action steps included:

* Review the research for practitioners and/or paraprofessionals and ensure workable terminology.

* Contact the local university for possible greater interaction and/or try to identify potential research opportunities which could be addressed locally.

* Join a practitioner group and involve them [from the beginning] in an upcoming research project.

* Collaborate with professors and identify research that is currently going on and how it can benefit practitioners.

* Revisit a local proposed research site and work to ensure the inclusion of research in new NRPA technological development.

* Create a research and evaluation situation where client/practitioner is a partner in the process. Researcher and practitioner need to agree on goals of research and evaluation project.

* Finish outcome evaluation instruments for at-risk youth recreation programs.

* Include a research component in the new NRPA "Benefits Program."

Dissemination

Finally, dissemination of results must be considered. Research and evaluation are of little use if they are kept close to the vest. As can be seen from the action steps identified by the Research Roundtable participants listed below, there are many avenues for dissemination. It appears as though most research would be read if found in state newsletters and magazines, and if the articles included implications or action steps for practitioners. In addition, utilizing the Internet and other electronic dissemination options would be attractive as more practitioners get "on-line." Other avenues for sharing research and evaluation results include research symposia on local and state levels, as well as poster sessions at various levels.

Several focus group members indicated an interest in helping with the dissemination of research and evaluation to make it more usable by practitioners. Dissemination ideas included newsletters, symposia, and articles in practitioner-based journals.

* Encourage faculty to write articles for practitioners. Articles must summarize research in a field area relevant to practitioners and recommendations, including action steps for the practitioner.

* Assist coordinating research publications [or summaries] in state magazines.

* Develop a newsletter/research information exchange between practitioners and academics.

* Place articles in state newsletters.

* Publish research information from state colleges or universities in state publications.

* Develop a research symposium.

* Produce an intergenerational poster session for a NRPA Congress by submitting for publication a written synopsis of the process and its benefits.

* Coordinate through state park and recreation association a clearing house for available research information for agencies throughout the state.

* Write an article on the relevance and need for collaboration.

* Use the Internet and the World Wide Web as a vehicle for communication

Discussion

The SPRE Research Roundtable has produced a great deal of interest in practitioner/researcher dialogue over the past couple of years. The dialogue is well underway and specific barriers to the sharing and transfer of research are currently being identified. Once barriers are identified, steps to removing the barriers and engaging in collaborative research efforts will be simplified. As practitioners and researchers join together there is much that can be done on a local level to act as a catalyst to this end. The notion of "think globally, act locally" can be put into action.

Participants of the 1995 SPRE Research Roundtable were generous in their commitments to move forward with the sharing of research and evaluation. These action steps are simply a beginning. Participants consisted both of practitioners and academicians, who brought different strengths and experiences to the research and evaluation process. Together, barriers to the transfer of research can be overcome and a national agenda developed and conducted. In order to have real meaning, however, this national agenda must include local action and a commitment by each member of NRPA to make a difference.

As we work toward developing a national research agenda we must bear in mind the issues and concerns of all our constituents; this will only be realized if practitioners and academicians develop the agenda together. Understanding and addressing the barriers that interfere with collaborative research efforts will aid in eliminating these barriers so that real action may be taken.

Once the barriers to research methodologies have been articulated and targeted, researchers and practitioners can join together in selecting the appropriate procedures for the desired information. Furthermore, the identification and minimization of barriers to research dissemination will aid in sharing research with all professionals in recreation and leisure services.