Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 36:242–260, 2015 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0270-1960 print/1545-3847 online DOI: 10.1080/02701960.2015.1009055

Integrating Education, Research, and Practice in Gerontological Social Work: Lessons Learned From the Reclaiming Joy Peer Support Program ROSEMARY K. CHAPIN, ALICIA SELLON, and CARRIE WENDEL-HUMMELL School of Social Welfare, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA

The practice-to-research gap has been attributed to many factors, including differing goals and priorities, differing knowledge bases and skill sets, and lack of recognition of limits of agency and community resources. Although many scholars have called for more collaboration between educators, researchers, and practitioners, these challenges can make collaboration difficult. The authors illustrate how the application of the strengths perspective, by acknowledging and building on the strengths and goals of researchers, practitioners, and educators, can help to mitigate some of the barriers that contribute to the research—practice gap and to create more relevant research. The Reclaiming Joy Peer Support Program is offered as a case study in gerontological social work to demonstrate how the strengths perspective can be applied in a real-life research setting. KEYWORDS community-academic partnerships, gerontological social work, academic gerontology, area agency on aging, case study, collaboration, geriatric education

INTRODUCTION The growing emphasis on evidence-based practices (EBP) and on practice relevant research is fueling demands that researchers, educators, and practitioners engage in collaborative efforts to bridge the gaps that now prevent Address correspondence to Carrie Wendel-Hummell, School of Social Welfare, University of Kansas, Twente Hall, 1545 Lilac Lane, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

242

Integrating Education, Research, and Practice

243

rapid transmission of research into practice. This gap has been attributed to a number of factors but often reflects differing goals and priorities, differing knowledge bases and skill sets, and lack of recognition of limits of agency and community resources. Although many scholars have called for more collaboration between educators, researchers, and practitioners, these challenges can make collaboration difficult (Murray, 2009; Stevens, Liabo, Frost, & Roberts, 2005). Because researchers, educators, and practitioners have often operated in isolation, a framework to guide their partnerships may help support needed changes. The strengths perspective, which posits that people’s strength, resources, and goals, rather than their deficits or disabilities, is a legitimate starting point in the helping process, has been expanded, reformulated, and applied more broadly to also inform practice-based research and education (Chapin, 2014; Saleebey, 1992). A strengths-based framework can therefore be useful for highlighting the strengths and resources of each partner and can serve as a foundation for building collaboration. The purpose of this article is to illustrate how the application of the strengths perspective, by acknowledging and building on the strengths and goals of researchers, practitioners, and educators, can help to mitigate some of the barriers that contribute to the research–practice gap and to create more relevant research. The Reclaiming Joy Peer Support Program (RJPSP) is used as a case study to demonstrate how the strengths perspective can be applied in a real life research setting. RJPSP was a collaborative effort between university researchers/educators, students, human service practitioners, and older adults, designed to improve depression and well-being for older adults through the use of peer support. First, we discuss current issues that impede collaboration and also provide an overview of the strengths perspective. Then, we use our RJPSP case study to illustrate how the strengths of educators, practitioners, researchers, and research participants can provide a basis for collaboration and the development of potentially more relevant research. Finally, we present lessons learned in the course of the RJPSP project and suggest ways educators can help prepare future educators, researchers, and practitioners to engage in collaborative research.

BACKGROUND The Research-to-Practice Gap Scholars have long discussed the disconnect between research and practice (Fortune, 1982; Grinnell & Kyte, 1977; Schulberg & Baker, 1968). However, the increasing emphasis on using EBPs in practice settings has encouraged researchers in gerontology, social work, nursing, psychotherapy, education, and many other fields to not only acknowledge that their research may not be used by practitioners, but to also search for ways to reduce the divide

244

R. K. Chapin et al.

(Henderson, MacKay, & Peterson-Badali, 2006; Hirschkorn & Geelan, 2008; Parrish, 2014; Petrucci & Quinlan, 2007; Robinson, 2014). For gerontologists in particular, this is a critical issue in light of the need to develop and implement programs that meet the diverse needs of the baby boomers (Applebaum & Leek, 2008). It has been posited that the research-to-practice gap stems in part from the different contexts and priorities that govern the work of researchers and practitioners, sometimes referred to as the two communities theory (Caplan, 1979; Wingens, 1990). In the last two decades, scholars from a number of disciplines have described the gap and proposed possible reasons for its existence and continuation (Bhattacharyya, Reeves, & Zwarenstein, 2009; Carroll et al., 1997; Galinsky, Turnbull, Meglin, & Wilner, 1993; Goldfried et al., 2014; Goldfried & Wolfe, 1998; Gray, Sharland, Heinsch, & Schubert, 2014). Although researchers care a great deal about the use of their work and the quality of care clients receive, they also face pressures to produce high-level research and publish. These demands can influence researchers’ goals and can lead to more of a focus on the efficacy of an intervention than on its ability to be translated to practice. Indeed, according to Gray et al. (2014) “Conventionally it [EBP development] has concerned itself less with the context of knowledge production, or with how, even whether, evidence is actually used in practice” (p. 5). For example, in a discussion of the challenges of collaborative research, Galinsky et al. (1993) noted that the drive to develop gold standard research studies can lead to methodologies that are difficult to implement in practice. Similarly, Goldfried and Wolfe (1998) suggested that research produced by psychotherapy researchers is often not relevant for clinicians. The authors suggest that this may be due to the tendency of researchers to focus on the efficacy of their interventions, overlooking the external validity and clinical relevance of interventions. In a discussion of the research-practice gap in nursing, Carroll et al. (1997) suggested that researchers often write for other academics, resulting in studies that are too technical or irrelevant for practitioners. More recently in a discussion of implementation science, Bhattacharyya et al. (2009) suggested that in some cases guidelines for how practitioners should implement an evidence-based health practice are poorly constructed and difficult to use. Similarly, in their discussion of the research practice gap in psychotherapy, Goldfried et al., (2014) noted that many interventions do not provide enough detailed information to allow practitioners to implement EBPs. Further, in a discussion of evidence based practice and knowledge production and utilization, Gray et al. (2014) indicate that researchers may have different incentives and goals than practitioners. In sum, many of the goals and priorities of researchers, are different from those of practitioners. Although practitioners also care about developing and implementing interventions that will help their clients, the goals, knowledge base, and agency resources can put them at odds with goals of researchers.

Integrating Education, Research, and Practice

245

Practitioners often work with marginalized populations who may not have been well represented in the research studies. Their intent is to help improve the lives of people in contexts that may be very different from the research subjects. This can make it difficult for practitioners to implement some EBPs as they may not fit or even conflict with the cultural traditions of clients. For example, in a discussion of cultural adaptations of interventions, Marsiglia and Booth (2014) noted that there is a tension in the field of social work between implementing an EBP as it was designed and adapting it to increase its cultural relevance and fit. In addition, practitioners must provide effective and efficient services given ever present funding and time constraints. Further, agency staff may not have the additional time and money to investigate adaptations to the EBP when original guidelines are unclear or not suitable for their populations (Goldfried et al., 2014; Marsiglia & Booth, 2014). Additional agency restraints to implementing EBPs include time shortages, unsupportive organizational culture, tight funding, inadequate staff training, and limited staff availability (Applebaum & Leek, 2008; Bellamy, Bledsoe, & Traube, 2006; Bhattacharyya et al., 2009; Gautam, 2008; Gray & Schubert, 2012; Gray et al., 2014; Wike et al., 2014). EBPs are often not a part of the culture of the agency, in which practitioners have limited appreciation and understanding of the value of EBPs (Bellamy et al., 2006; Gray et al., 2014). Practitioners often have a skill set that is different from that of researchers (Gray, Joy, Plath, & Webb, 2012; Murray, 2009). Practitioners in many fields may not have developed the technical knowledge to identify high-quality studies or interpret the results. For example, scholars have noted that students who wish to become practitioners sometimes express little interest in learning about or participating in research (Berger, 2002; Forte, 1995; Shaw, Lee, & Wulczyn, 2012). In addition, the quality of research curriculum may not be adequate for engaging and developing competent practitionerresearchers or for preparing masters students to move into doctoral programs (Cheung, Ma, Thyer, & Webb, 2014; Crane, Wampler, Sprenkle, Sandberg, & Hovestadt, 2002; Harrison, Lowery, & Bailey, 1991). The National Bridging the Research and Practice Gap Symposium recently noted that more needs to be done in terms of including education on EBPs in social work curriculum (Cheung et al., 2014). These limitations can lead to practitioners having difficulty identifying good studies and understanding methods used and how to implement evidence-based interventions (Goldfried et al., 2014; LeMay, Mulhall, & Alexander, 1998; Murray, 2009; Wike et al., 2014). Although the concept has not been given as much attention as the role of researchers and practitioners in maintaining the gap, the role that educators can play in helping to reduce the research-to-practice gap has garnered increased consideration as of late. In social work, scholars have recently noted the value of educational projects and assignments on EBPs for helping students gain a greater appreciation of the connections between research

246

R. K. Chapin et al.

and practice (Cheung et al., 2014; Wells, Maschi & Slater, 2012). Wike et al. (2014) suggested that building strong partnerships between agencies and universities can help produce a future body of research ready practitioners, improve the education of current practitioners on how to identify and implement EBPs, and create a conduit for practitioners and educators to inform researchers of questions and issues that need to be explored. Finally, direct collaboration, particularly between researchers and practitioners, can help mitigate differences (Blank Wilson & Farkas, 2014; Cheung et al., 2014; Gautam, 2008; Goldfried et al., 2014). This collaboration allows for feedback loops that can inform the development and implementation of EBPs, and thus enable EBPs to be more effectively implemented in real world settings. Further, collaboration can even help researchers identify novel issues to explore (Small, 2005). For example, in research on palliative and hospice care, Demiris, Oliver, Capurro, and Wittenberg-Lyles (2013) noted the value of engaging practitioners and clients from the beginning, including research design. Rahman, Applebaum, Schnelle, and Simmons (2012) observed how collaboration and expanding on existing resources supported dissemination and use of best practices in nursing home settings. Finally, Applebaum and Leek (2008) suggested a number of ways that partnerships could be developed and sustained, including having campuses house a program that provides services to older adults. However, collaboration often comes with challenges, including limited collaborative success due to not recognizing the different goals and skills that each party brings to the table. For example, partners may undervalue each other or engage in poor communication, thus making building and maintaining relationships difficult (Murray, 2009). Indeed, in some cases, there may not be strong relationships or good avenues for practitioners to inform researchers of the research questions that are particularly relevant to their clients (Stevens et al., 2005). We propose that the strengths perspective, which we turn to next, can help overcome many of these challenges to effective collaboration.

The Strengths Perspective Over the past few decades, the strengths perspective has gained increased prominence in social work and has influenced practice in many areas including aging (Nelson-Becker, Chapin, & Fast, 2012) and policy (Chapin, 2014). Although the strengths perspective originated in the field of social work as an approach to practice, its use has spread to research as well as other disciplines such as education and public health (Bhattacharya, 2012; Viola, Mankowski, & Gray, 2014). The strengths perspective focuses on the strengths, abilities, and hopes of clients and communities. The recurring critique that the strengths perspective ignores problems and challenges is based

Integrating Education, Research, and Practice

247

on misperception. In fact, the strengths perspective does not discount difficulties; it simply does not allow them to take center stage. Rather, working from a strengths perspective often means starting with a particular problem or concern but then moving forward through the identification and development of strengths and goals (Saleebey, 1996). The principles underlying the strengths perspective have been reformulated to have broader applicability at the organizational and policy levels (Chapin, 2014). The principles most applicable to this discussion have been modified to focus on the research, education, and practice community. Four principles germane to this analysis are discussed below. Principle 1: Strengths, resources, and goals of partners (researchers, educators, and practitioners) are essential starting places for developing and sustaining partnerships. Each group brings its own strengths, including knowledge and ideas, that can form the foundation for collaboration. Practitioners have experience engaging with and developing rapport with clients and can also bring different and important worldviews to the table, such as practice with diverse clients, and ideas on potential research questions. In addition, educators bring unique skills and perspectives that can inform current and future students and studies. Educators often have a variety of research and/or practice experience and a range of ideas on how practitioners could be made more research ready. Finally, researchers have experience accessing grant funds, designing and conducting studies, and disseminating results. See Table 1 for a more comprehensive list of the strengths and resources of each group. The goals of each group are also an important area to explore and can act as a guide for developing a collaborative research study. Practitioners and their agency may have goals related to which clients or challenges they want to address. Educators may also have their own unique goals. For example, educators with students involved in the study (as practitioners or researchers) may want to see the students develop certain personal and professional skills. Finally, researchers are likely to value the priorities of the other two groups in an effective partnership, but will also have specific goals around developing and testing their intervention and publication. Principle 2: Interventions should build on client, community, practitioner, agency, and researcher strengths. Often, the reason for the development of an intervention is that one or more structural barriers have negatively affected the well-being of clients. For example, treatment access barriers related to stigma, transportation, or other factors may trigger researchers to design and test new interventions. They bring expertise in this arena. At the same time, the various partners have

248

R. K. Chapin et al.

TABLE 1 Strengths and Resources of Educators, Practitioners, and Researchers Educator

Practitioner

Researcher

Strengths • Experience educating future researchers and practitioners • Variety of research experience • Variety of practice experience • Range of ideas on research and practice education

Strengths • Experience engaging with and developing rapport with clients • Knowledge of the needs of clients • Knowledge of the barriers experienced by clients • Knowledge of community resources • Range of ideas on the role of research and practice Ideas on potential research questions where practitioners are searching for answers

Strengths • Experience designing research studies • Experience writing grants to access funds for research projects • Experience conducting research studies • Experience disseminating results • Range of ideas on the role of research and practice

Resources • Access to students • Access to other educators • Access to education resources • Access to practitioners • Varying levels of access to research funding and involvement in research

Resources • Agency staff and interns • Access to Clients • Connections with Community Resources • Publicity outlets (i.e., websites, stakeholder meetings, agency newsletters) • Access to agency data • Access to program grants and/or charitable donations

Resources • Staff to design research projects • Staff to develop grant proposals • Access to research funding • Staff and time to thoroughly examine literature and best practices, for providing technical assistance • Access to students and educators

developed diverse skills and resources in their prior efforts to effectively address these barriers. They can provide vital input about these barriers, and about which community resources can be activated that can inform the design of these new interventions. This will be illustrated in the example below. The strengths perspective guides us to seek out their input. Further, interventions that build on the strengths of clients and communities can help to identify and reduce these barriers, particularly if resources in the community are accessed and strengthened. In addition, building upon the strengths of practitioners and agencies can increase their capacity to not only participate in the research process, but to also implement and sustain the designed intervention.

Integrating Education, Research, and Practice

249

Principle 3: Practitioners have first-hand knowledge of their agencies, working environments, and client characteristics, and therefore, have valuable insight into the importance and feasibility of research goals and potential resulting interventions. Practitioners often have extensive knowledge of their clients, communities, and agencies. Although their skills may be somewhat different than researchers, such as comfort with statistics or designing a study, practitioners’ knowledge and skills (see Table 1) can help to insure that interventions are not only relevant to their clients but also feasible given the resources of the community. In addition, as noted above the culture of an agency can influence how readily new EBPs are sought out and implemented. Practitioners can provide important insights into the comfort level with EBPs and where knowledge and skill development might be needed. In addition, their buyin will be particularly relevant to researchers wishing to conduct studies in agencies that have not been involved in research in the past. Principle 4: Clients have firsthand knowledge and their perspectives, needs, and goals should also help inform research questions and interventions. Regarding the fourth principle, clients can be very helpful in developing or reviewing the study. For example, many agencies serve a diverse array of clients across several communities. These communities may each have unique sociodemographic characteristics and community resources. Although practitioners will be able to provide a more aggregate-level view of the needs of their clients, participation of clients can help to highlight how well a particular intervention is working in each community and for themselves. Many agencies already have developed channels such as client participation in advisory boards and focus groups to ensure client involvement in their work. Researchers can help create new channels or tap existing resources. A potential vehicle for addressing these principles is through a collaborative process that begins with attention to the strengths and goals of each partner as illustrated in the case study below. This starting place allows the group as a whole (researchers, practitioners, educators, and clients) to better understand what resources are available to design, implement, and evaluate the study. In addition, identifying goals for each group can help insure that the study addresses the needs of each group. Further, the strengths perspective helps promote a non-hierarchal method of collaboration in which each partners’ perspectives are valued and resources are pooled. As we now detail with our case study, the strengths perspective was essential to our collaborative success in reaching our final goal of improving geriatric mental health supports in our local communities.

250

R. K. Chapin et al.

CASE STUDY: RECLAIMING JOY PEER SUPPORT PROGRAM The RJPSP was a peer support program that matched an older adult receiving Medicaid Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) and experiencing symptoms of depression with a trained older adult peer who assisted the client on working toward self-determined, strengths-based goals. For more details on the RJSPS design and outcomes, see the recent article by Chapin et al. (2013). The focus of this discussion is on the development, implementation, and sustainability of the RJPSP (for details on how the strength perspective was incorporated into the peer support intervention, see Chapin et al., 2013). The strengths perspective shaped the RJPSP project by facilitating collaboration and in developing the research design, as well as informing the program intervention. As discussed above, researchers can turn to clients and practitioners for insight when seeking to make research more relevant. In the case of the RJPSP, the genesis for this research project was an idea from an Area Agency on Aging (AAA) director, who suggested a peer support program for older adults with mental health concerns who were receiving Medicaid HCBS. This director had worked for years to increase supports for older adults with mental health issues but faced barriers including fear of stigma on the part of older adults, a paucity of mental health professionals especially in rural areas, and ever dwindling funding. She had seen firsthand how unresolved mental health issues contributed to loss of community tenure and nursing home placement. The director had learned about the success of peer support programs in helping adults in other settings manage their mental health symptoms, and wondered if the program could be adjusted to help older adults receiving Medicaid HCBS services better manage their mental health symptoms, and, therefore, also support community tenure. This director saw a great need for improved mental health supports for her clientele and felt that a home-based peer support program may overcome some of the barriers associated with professional mental health treatment for older adults. Further, this director had a prior history of collaborating with University of Kansas researchers through previous state-funded research projects intended to improve long term services and supports in Kansas because the university researchers and state agencies that funded this research were conversant with the strengths perspective and recognized the importance of collaborative partnerships. This director was also a former master’s student of the principal investigator, Dr. Rosemary Chapin, and therefore understood the research process and value of program evaluation. Her idea was shared with state policy makers at the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS), other AAA directors, and university researchers, who all agreed that there was a great need for improved mental health supports for HCBS customers and that peer support was a promising idea.

Integrating Education, Research, and Practice

251

Working together, the University of Kansas Center for Research on Aging and Disability Options (CRADO), AAAs, and KDADS developed a pilot peer support program which was applicable for older adults receiving HCBS long term care (LTC) services. The team drew on prior research to better understand the strengths and challenges of peer support programs and also built on their own practice-based experience to adapt peer support models for the new population. The new program, the RJPSP, was then implemented in a pilot study in which researchers and practitioners continued to work together to develop an effective program that could be become a sustainable program for AAAs. Due to the initial success of the pilot study in three AAAs, four more joined the RJPSP initiative. In the pilot study and the follow-up expansion, each group (AAAs, CRADO, and KDADS) brought their own skills and resources to the collaborative process and carried out key roles in the implementation of the RJPSP. Through their firsthand knowledge and experience with clients, practitioners are in an ideal position to suggest the type of research questions that could be addressed, how the intervention should be designed, and in ensuring they are feasible to carry out and implement in practice. Throughout the development and execution of the project the AAAs contributed a critical set of skills, ideas, and resources. For example, AAA staff had extensive knowledge of the barriers to accessing mental health services in their communities. These barriers included a shortage of geriatrically trained mental health providers, reluctance on the part of older adults to seek formal mental health treatment, and being homebound. AAAs also had regular access to client perspectives from the older adults who served on their governing boards. In addition, their agencies had connections with community groups and resources that could be leveraged for support. For example, they worked with these community groups to help recruit peer volunteers and to spread awareness about their program. The AAAs also helped identify local resources which were provided to the older adults participating in RJPSP as a list of community resources they could draw on and help their clients access. Similarly, the University of Kansas research staff, consisting of faculty, research staff, and graduate students, brought its own unique set of strengths to the table. As researchers, they had extensive experience in developing, implementing, and evaluating carefully designed research that could be called upon to help insure the rigor of the study. As educators, faculty had an awareness of the general type and depth of knowledge related to research that AAA staff were likely to have, and the skills to help further educate AAA practitioners about the research process. In addition, they were aware of the importance of developing future researchers who could participate in collaborative research and provided PhD students with an opportunity to play an active role in the project. Compared to practitioners who were very busy serving clients, the university researchers had more time to review the body of literature on peer support practices, and share important findings with

252

R. K. Chapin et al.

the larger team. Likewise, the university had the time resources to contact and learn from others who had implemented similar peer support programs. This ability to investigate and summarize key details, as well as to look into additional questions the RJPSP team posed, was indispensable in informing collaborative program development and decision making. University faculty also drew on their experience in higher education to develop and deliver effective training centered on principles of adult education. The researchers had a key role in collecting data and evaluating program outcomes, which was essential for program sustainability. Finally, the university had access to quality printing and video production, which allowed them to create program manuals and DVDs to allow RJPSP to be implemented in other settings. KDADS was also an important collaborator and provided funding support for the project. The idea of a peer support program for Medicaid HCBS programs fit into larger state goals of supporting community tenure and reducing unnecessary nursing home admissions. In addition to funding support, the state provided guidance and oversight on legal issues. For instance, they helped facilitate background checks for the older adult participants, to help ensure safety for older adult peer and the HCBS customer participants. Finally, the state provided important data on HCBS customers, for the purposes of better understanding regional mental health needs and identifying customers who would benefit from additional mental health supports. These partners continued to work together to help ensure the success of the RJPSP initiative. They met and communicated regularly to refine program protocols. To facilitate rapid and effective communication across partners, a university staff person was stationed at one of the AAAs. As the program was expanded, each AAA was assigned a liaison from the research team to provide ongoing technical assistance. Throughout the pilot collaboration, the university research team would share initial plans for program design, outcome measures, volunteer trainings, and program manuals, which were reviewed by other partners. Feedback was gathered and incorporated into the RJPSP design to help ensure that these resources were pragmatic and user-friendly. Our AAA partners, in particular, helped to work out a feasible plan for identifying and referring HCBS customers, as well as volunteer recruitment. All partners helped disseminate information about the program, which was instrumental in recruiting participants as well as expanding the regional reach of the RJPSP pilot program. As the RJPSP was expanded, university researchers applied the strengths approach to each AAA to identify the unique strengths and resources of each agency, their community, and the population they served. There were many challenges throughout the pilot program, however, the partnership worked effectively to identify solutions and new approaches. For example, recruiting participants was often a challenge. This difficulty, in particular, required close collaboration in which the AAA practitioners gathered information on barriers, including the concerns of their older adult

Integrating Education, Research, and Practice

253

clientele. They received guidance from university researchers on how to develop standardized tracking procedures. The AAAs used this information to adjust program outreach efforts, while university researchers consulted best practices and revised research participation protocols. Although recruitment was improved as a result of this collaboration, recruitment remained a challenge. Rurality made matching HCBS customers to peer volunteers difficult, due to smaller populations to draw from and the possible burden of traveling lengthy distances. HCBS customers were frail, and older peer volunteers also often had disabilities or health conditions to take into account. These realities made it challenging to complete a sufficiently large number of interventions with older adults in rural areas so that we could conduct a more complex statistical analysis. This, in turn, makes it difficult to attract national funders interested in moving beyond the pilot stage. AAA staffing and workload issues also posed challenges throughout the project. AAA case managers often had overwhelming workloads and many other duties, in addition to the RJPSP initiative. Therefore, they did not always have adequate time for more aggressively recruiting participants or completing follow-up interviews in a timely manner. The project was affected by AAA staff turnover, which is characteristic of human service agencies in general. As a result, we often had to provide additional training to new case managers about the RJPSP model, as well as educate them about the research component of the project and their important role in helping the team to collect robust data. These staffing issues, combined with distance factors characteristic of rural areas, sometimes made oversight difficult and slowed communication. These challenges resulted in project delays, but KDADS understood the value of collaboration and knew firsthand some of the barriers faced when new programs are implemented, particularly in rural areas. Therefore, they remained committed to the pilot project and were willing to partner financially in continuing the collaborative initiative. Although challenges remained, close collaboration allowed effective strategies identified in one or a few regions to be effectively transmitted to other RJPSP sites. As a result of these collaborative efforts, the RJPSP program was implemented in a majority of the AAAs serving the state of Kansas. Further, the evaluative research demonstrated promising results for RJPSP. Specifically, participants experienced significant decreases in symptoms of depression as well as increases in quality of life through improvements in health and functioning, as reported in The Gerontologist (Chapin et al., 2013). In terms of sustainability of the RJPSP, AAAs connected with community resources such as faith based organizations and senior centers to help continue the program after the research project concluded. Other AAAs continued the program in select areas based on staff and community resources in these counties/communities. Participating AAAs had in place systems for collecting program output data such as number of participants referred, volunteers

254

R. K. Chapin et al.

recruited, matches made, and volunteer and participant satisfaction with the PSP, and thus gained an appreciation for how collection of data could aid in the procurement of future funding. Older adult clients who served on AAA governing boards were also important in supporting the sustainability of the program. The collaborative approach was essential in creating program materials that allowed the program to be feasibly replicated, and further, outcome data to help demonstrate the promise of sustaining and replicating peer support programs for older adults. These partners also worked together to spread awareness of the RJPSP program and disseminate research results. For example, the AAAs included pieces on RJPSP in their agency newsletter, while the researchers discussed this program at academic conferences and in journals. Practitioners helped to develop and review journal submissions and were included as authors. In sum, the RJPSP initiative began as a research model but transitioned to a practice model throughout the course of the pilot program and as a direct result of effective, strengths based collaborations.

LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS The RJPSP project was an effective collaboration that built on the strengths of its partners. The strength perspective was essential in overcoming many of the noted difficulties in collaboration across researchers, educations, and practitioners. As demonstrated above, the strengths perspective facilitated: ●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

The identification of an EBP, peer support, as a promising approach, with the potential to address a local service need; and consequently, identification of a shared goal across practitioners, researchers, and state policy-makers The capacity to effectively adapt prior peer support programs for a new population and local service needs The ability to implement and revise the program, as needed, to be responsive to agency, practitioner, and client needs Effective communication throughout the course of the project The ability to pool and maximize the knowledge, skills, and resources of each individual partner A broader range of perspectives to help identify and address challenges that emerged during the project The development of new networks that can be drawn on to collaboratively address future education, research, and practice needs A supportive space for practitioners to educate researchers about their needs, and, likewise, for researchers to be able to educate practitioners on rigorous research standards

255

Integrating Education, Research, and Practice ●

●

●

Numerous outlets for dissemination of research and program results, including the development of a user-friendly program manual tailored to practitioner needs Direct involvement of practitioners in dissemination of results via coauthorship of peer reviewed journal articles and face to face presentations to other practitioners Greater interest and buy in from other practitioners who had easier access and more comfort with practitioner led dissemination activities.

Further, through this collaborative, applied research project, participating faculty and future faculty (i.e., doctoral students) gained new perspectives to help them educate future practitioners and researchers and help their students better understand the importance of all partners. Nonetheless, there were also difficulties throughout the RJPSP project, as noted in the case study above. In addition, while federal and foundation funding sources may profess interest in community engaged research, financial support for the foundational work to build and sustain infrastructure to support ongoing collaboration is often in short supply. Finally, the RJPSP project was built upon a prior history of collaboration between the university, the AAAs, and the State; and therefore, collaboration among new partners is likely to pose additional challenges. Nonetheless, a focus on each partners’ strengths can help to establish trust and effective communication in newer collaborative relationships. As a result of this success, the RJPSP has gathered national and international attention from other scholars and practitioners interested in adapting this program in their regions, appearing to be particularly attractive to other scholars who cross the researcher-practitioner divide. Table 2 is provided as an example of how to start the strengths-based process with research, education, and practice (REP) partners, by providing a structure for identifying and acknowledging each other’s skills, knowledge, ideas, and resources. At minimum, researchers, educators and practitioners should consider the elements of this table, think through what they as well as each partner can bring to the table, and then find ways to facilitate collaboration that builds on these strengths. Funding to further test tools like the strengths assessment TABLE 2 Strengths Assessment for Research, Education, and Practice Collaboration What are my/our strengths? Skills Knowledge Ideas Resources Source. Modified from Fast and Chapin (2000).

What are our goals?

How can I/we use our strengths?

256

R. K. Chapin et al.

presented here, as well as the utility of companion guidelines, could result in the development of more robust strategies for building successful REP partnerships. In sum, educators, researchers, and practitioners in gerontology have a lot to learn from each other and effective, strengths-based collaboration can improve care for older adults. Because practitioners are in direct contact with older adult clients, they can often bring clients’ concerns to the attention of researchers and also engage clients in this process. Informed by this insight, researchers and educators can develop methods to help practitioners identify questions they are vitally interested in answering, consider how to use these questions to develop researchable questions, and create the expectations in students and practitioners that they regularly engage collaboratively with researchers from the point of developing basic questions to implementing results. This approach is likely to improve the applicability of research for practitioners. Further, expanding the role of educators in this process could help establish a body of researchers and practitioners that are prepared to engage in collaborative research over the long term. Students who become tomorrow’s practitioners must understand their role in shaping research, and likewise, future researchers should understand the needs of practitioners and policymakers. Educators, with their own unique skills and resources, can play a critical role in helping prepare students, as practitioners or researchers, to play an active role in developing and implementing research projects. Educators who are also integrally involved in developing and carrying out research have a unique opportunity to develop practitioners who will bring their practice grounded research questions to the attention of the research community and expect to be integrally involved in the research and practice implementation process. Such practitioners can also facilitate the all-important involvement of clients in research. Regardless of the field, those wishing to engage in collaborative research and to improve the links between educators, practitioners and researchers can begin forming stronger relationships via use of the strengths perspective.

CONCLUSION Practitioners, educators, and researchers need to develop vehicles for communication that assume all parties have valuable input relevant to the various stages of the research and practice implementation process. To be certain, many difficult barriers remain and application of the strengths perspective is not a cure all. Much work still needs to be done to increase research based policies and practices that improve outcomes for older adults. However, the strengths perspective can help build collaborative REP partnerships that can maximize material, social, and human resources currently available for this work. The RJPSP collaboration built on many unique strengths of our region

Integrating Education, Research, and Practice

257

and partners. Although our precise collaborative process will not work in all settings, the overarching strengths framework provides a structure for successful collaborations in a way that will be unique and flexible for specific project needs. Further, as educators we have the responsibility to develop the expectation of, and indeed the duty to foster, this kind of collaboration between researchers and practitioners.

FUNDING The project that is used as a case study, the Reclaiming Joy Peer Support Program, was funded by the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS).

REFERENCES Applebaum, R., & Leek, J. (2008). Bridging the academic/practice gap in gerontology and geriatrics. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 28, 131–148. Bellamy, J. L., Bledsoe, S. E., & Traube, D. E. (2006). The current state of EBP in social work. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 3(1), 23–48. Berger, R. (2002). Teaching research in practice courses. Social Work Education, 21, 347–358. Bhattacharya, G. (2012). Self-management of type 2 diabetes among African Americans in the Arkansas delta: A strengths perspective in social-cultural context. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 23(1), 161–178. Bhattacharyya, O., Reeves, S., & Zwarenstein, M. (2009). What is implementation research? Rationale, concepts, and practices. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5), 491–502. Blank Wilson, A., & Farkas, K. (2014). Collaborative adaptations in social work intervention research in real-world settings: Lessons learned from the field. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 11(1–2), 183–192. Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22(3), 459–470. Carroll, D. L., Greenwood, R., Lynch, K. E., Sullivan, J. K., Ready, C. H., & Fitzmaurice, J. B. (1997). Barriers and facilitators to the utilization of nursing research. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 11(5), 207–212. Chapin, R. (2014). Social policy for effective practice (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Chapin, R. K., Sergeant, J. F., Landry, S., Leedahl, S. N., Rachlin, R., Koenig, T., & Graham, A. (2013). Reclaiming Joy: Pilot evaluation of a mental health peer support program for older adults who receive Medicaid. The Gerontologist, 53(2), 345–352. Cheung, M., Ma, A. K., Thyer, B. A., & Webb, A. E. (2014). Research–practice integration in real practice settings issues and suggestions. Research on Social Work Practice. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1049731514540479.

258

R. K. Chapin et al.

Crane, D. R., Wampler, K. S., Sprenkle, D. H., Sandberg, J. G., & Hovestadt, A. J. (2002). The scientist-practitioner model in marriage and family therapy doctoral programs: Current status. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28(1), 75–83. Demiris, G., Oliver, D. P., Capurro, D., & Wittenberg-Lyles, E. (2013). Implementation science: Implications for intervention research in hospice and palliative care. The Gerontologist, 54(2), 163–171. Fast, B., & Chapin, R. (2000). Strengths case management in long term care. Baltimore, MD: Health Professions Press. Forte, J. A. (1995). Teaching statistics without sadistics. Journal of Social Work Education, 31(2), 204–218. Fortune, A. E. (1982). Teaching students to integrate research concepts and field performance standards. Journal of Education for Social Work, 18(1), 5–13. Galinsky, M. J., Turnbull, J. E., Meglin, D. E., & Wilner, M. E. (1993). Confronting the reality of collaborative practice research: Issues of practice, design, measurement, and team development. Social Work, 38(4), 440–449. Gautam, K. (2008). Addressing the research-practice gap in healthcare management. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 14(2), 155–159. Goldfried, M. R., Newman, M. G., Castonguay, L. G., Fuertes, J. N., Magnavita, J. J., Sobell, L., & Wolf, A. W. (2014). On the dissemination of clinical experiences in using empirically supported treatments. Behavior Therapy, 45(1), 3–6. Goldfried, M. R., & Wolfe, B. E. (1998). Toward a more clinically valid approach to therapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(1), 143–150. Gray, M., Joy, E., Plath, D., & Webb, S. A. (2012). Implementing evidence-based practice: A review of the empirical research literature. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(2), 157–166. Gray, M., Sharland, E., Heinsch, M., & Schubert, L. (2014). Connecting research to action: Perspectives on research utilisation. British Journal of Social Work. Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcu089. Gray, M., & Schubert, L. (2012). Sustainable social work: Modelling knowledge production, transfer and evidence-based practice. International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(2), 203–214. Grinnell, R. M. Jr., & Kyte, N. S. (1977). A model for bridging the gap between undergraduate research and practice. Journal of Education for Social Work, 13(3), 30–36. Harrison, L. L., Lowery, B., & Bailey, P. (1991). Changes in nursing students’ knowledge about and attitudes toward research following an undergraduate research course. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 16(7), 807–812. Henderson, J. L., MacKay, S., & Peterson-Badali, M. (2006). Closing the researchpractice gap: Factors affecting adoption and implementation of a children’s mental health program. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35(1), 2–12. Hirschkorn, M., & Geelan, D. (2008). Bridging the research-practice gap: research translation and/or research transformation. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54(1), 1–13.

Integrating Education, Research, and Practice

259

Le May, A., Mulhall, A., & Alexander, C. (1998). Bridging the research–practice gap: exploring the research cultures of practitioners and managers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(2), 428–437. Marsiglia, F. F., & Booth, J. M. (2014). Cultural adaptation of interventions in real practice settings. Research on Social Work Practice. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1049731514535989. Murray, C. E. (2009). Diffusion of innovation theory: A bridge for the research-practice gap in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87(1), 108–116. Nelson-Becker, H., Chapin, R., & Fast, B. (2012). The strengths model with older adults: Critical practice components. In D. Saleebey (Ed). The strengths perspective in social work practice (pp. 161–182). New York, NY: Pearson Higher Ed. Parrish, D. E. (2014). Introduction to the special issue Houston Bridging the Research–Practice Gap Symposium. Research on Social Work Practice. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/104973154540341. Petrucci, C. J., & Quinlan, K. M. (2007). Bridging the research-practice gap: Concept mapping as a mixed-methods strategy in practice-based research and evaluation. Journal of Social Service Research, 34(2), 25–42. Rahman, A. N., Applebaum, R. A., Schnelle, J. F., & Simmons, S. F. (2012). Translating research into practice in nursing homes: Can we close the gap? The Gerontologist, 52(5), 597–606. Robinson, V. M. (2014). Reducing the research-practice gap through problem-based methodology. In A. D. Reid, E. P. Hart, & M. A. Peters (Eds.), A companion to research in education (pp. 341–352), The Netherlands: Springer. Saleebey, D. (1992). Introduction: Power in the people. In D. Saleebey (Ed.), The strengths perspective in social work practice (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Longman. Saleebey, D. (1996). The strengths perspective in social work practice: Extensions and cautions. Social Work, 41(3),296–305. Schulberg, H. C., & Baker, F. (1968). Program evaluation models and the implementation of research findings. American Journal of Public Health and the Nation’s Health, 58(7), 1248–1255. Shaw, T. V., Lee, B. R., & Wulczyn, F. (2012). “I thought I hated data”: Preparing MSW students for data-driven practice. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 32(1), 78–89. Small, S. A. (2005). Bridging research and practice in the family and human sciences. Family Relations, 54(2), 320–334. Stevens, M., Liabo, K., Frost, S., & Roberts, H. (2005). Using research in practice: A research information service for social care practitioners. Child and Family Social Work, 10, 67–75. Viola, W. E., Mankowski, E. S., & Gray, M. E. (2014). The moderating effect of within-group similarity on change in a strengths-based programme for incarcerated young men. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 25(2), 95–109.

260

R. K. Chapin et al.

Wells, M., Maschi, T., & Slater, G. Y. (2012). Integration of research and practice: Innovations and challenges in social work programs. Social Work Education, 31(3), 331–346. Wike, T. L., Bledsoe, S. E., Manuel, J. I., Despard, M., Johnson, L. V., Bellamy, J. L., & Killian-Farrell, C. (2014). Evidence-based practice in social work: challenges and opportunities for clinicians and organizations. Clinical Social Work Journal, 42(2), 161–170. Wingens, M. (1990). Toward a general utilization theory: A system theory reformulation of the two-communities metaphor. Science Communication, 12(1), 27–42.

Copyright of Gerontology & Geriatrics Education is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.