Perspectives from LGBTQ+ serving CBO leaders on equitable community‐academic partnerships in evaluation

Q2 Social Sciences
LaSaia Wade, Stephanie Skora, Erik Elías Glenn
{"title":"Perspectives from LGBTQ+ serving CBO leaders on equitable community‐academic partnerships in evaluation","authors":"LaSaia Wade, Stephanie Skora, Erik Elías Glenn","doi":"10.1002/ev.20516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the United States, human service, public health, and healthcare organizations are dedicated to improving health equity among our society's most vulnerable. A wealth of literature highlights the importance of targeting root causes of inequity, however, intervention‐based attempts to improve health outcomes and reduce disparities have varied in their success. Too frequently, public health interventions fail to center community priorities and challenge oppressive regimes. At the same time, calls grow to pilot and evaluate new systems of care and service to replace antiquated, patchwork systems that depend on power imbalances and resource hoarding. The authors of this article, as current and recent leaders of Black‐led, LGBTQ+ organizations, engage in a conversation, in which we reflect on the power dynamics and pitfalls associated with community‐academic partnerships. Through our dialogue, we invite readers to internalize our testimony and re‐envision the role of the evaluator as a champion of liberation. Only through disrupting the status quo can evaluation hope to stand in community with “priority populations” and join the fight to achieve health equity. As members of the communities we serve, we transgress traditional means of how power and stature are allocated by being present in this special issue. We speak bluntly to honor our truth and inform evaluators in the process of fostering partnerships.","PeriodicalId":35250,"journal":{"name":"New Directions for Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Directions for Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20516","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the United States, human service, public health, and healthcare organizations are dedicated to improving health equity among our society's most vulnerable. A wealth of literature highlights the importance of targeting root causes of inequity, however, intervention‐based attempts to improve health outcomes and reduce disparities have varied in their success. Too frequently, public health interventions fail to center community priorities and challenge oppressive regimes. At the same time, calls grow to pilot and evaluate new systems of care and service to replace antiquated, patchwork systems that depend on power imbalances and resource hoarding. The authors of this article, as current and recent leaders of Black‐led, LGBTQ+ organizations, engage in a conversation, in which we reflect on the power dynamics and pitfalls associated with community‐academic partnerships. Through our dialogue, we invite readers to internalize our testimony and re‐envision the role of the evaluator as a champion of liberation. Only through disrupting the status quo can evaluation hope to stand in community with “priority populations” and join the fight to achieve health equity. As members of the communities we serve, we transgress traditional means of how power and stature are allocated by being present in this special issue. We speak bluntly to honor our truth and inform evaluators in the process of fostering partnerships.
LGBTQ+在职CBO领导人对评估中公平的社区-学术伙伴关系的看法
在美国,人类服务、公共卫生和医疗保健组织致力于改善社会最弱势群体的健康公平。大量文献强调了针对不平等根源的重要性,然而,基于干预的改善健康结果和减少差异的尝试在成功方面各不相同。公共卫生干预措施往往未能以社区优先事项为中心,并挑战压迫性政权。与此同时,越来越多的人呼吁试点和评估新的护理和服务系统,以取代依赖权力失衡和资源囤积的陈旧、拼凑的系统。这篇文章的作者,作为黑人领导的LGBTQ+组织的现任和近期领导人,参与了一场对话,我们在对话中反思了与社区-学术伙伴关系相关的权力动态和陷阱。通过我们的对话,我们邀请读者内化我们的证词,并重新设想评估者作为解放斗士的角色。只有打破现状,评估才能希望与“优先人群”站在一起,加入实现健康公平的斗争。作为我们所服务的社区的成员,我们出现在这期特刊中,违反了权力和地位分配的传统方式。我们直言不讳是为了尊重我们的真相,并在培养伙伴关系的过程中告知评估人员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
New Directions for Evaluation
New Directions for Evaluation Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信