“My words matter”: perspectives on evaluation from people who access and work in recovery colleges

IF 0.8 Q4 SOCIAL WORK
S. Soklaridis, Rowen Shier, Georgia Black, Gail Bellissimo, Anna Di Giandomenico, Samuel Gruszecki, Elizabeth Lin, Jordana Rovet, H. Harris
{"title":"“My words matter”: perspectives on evaluation from people who access and work in recovery colleges","authors":"S. Soklaridis, Rowen Shier, Georgia Black, Gail Bellissimo, Anna Di Giandomenico, Samuel Gruszecki, Elizabeth Lin, Jordana Rovet, H. Harris","doi":"10.1108/mhsi-01-2023-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this co-produced research project was to conduct interviews with people working in, volunteering with and accessing Canadian recovery colleges (RCs) to explore their perspectives on what an evaluation strategy for RCs could look like.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis study used a participatory action research approach and involved semistructured interviews with 29 people involved with RCs across Canada.\n\n\nFindings\nIn this paper, the authors share insights from participants about the purposes of RC evaluation; key elements of evaluation; and the most applicable and effective approaches to evaluation. Participants indicated that RC evaluations should use a personalized, humanistic and accessible approach. The findings suggest that evaluations can serve multiple purposes and have the potential to support both organizational and personal-recovery goals if they are developed with meaningful input from people who access and work in RCs.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe findings can be used to guide evaluations in which aspects that are most important to those involved in RCs could inform choices, decisions, priorities, developments and adaptations in RC evaluation processes and, ultimately, in programming.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nA recent scoping review revealed that although coproduction is a central feature of the RC model, coproduction principles are rarely acknowledged in descriptions of how RC evaluation strategies are developed. Exploring coproduction processes in all aspects of the RC model, including evaluation, can further the mission of RCs, which is to create spaces where people can come together and engage in mutual capacity-building and collaboration.\n","PeriodicalId":44476,"journal":{"name":"Mental Health and Social Inclusion","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mental Health and Social Inclusion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/mhsi-01-2023-0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this co-produced research project was to conduct interviews with people working in, volunteering with and accessing Canadian recovery colleges (RCs) to explore their perspectives on what an evaluation strategy for RCs could look like. Design/methodology/approach This study used a participatory action research approach and involved semistructured interviews with 29 people involved with RCs across Canada. Findings In this paper, the authors share insights from participants about the purposes of RC evaluation; key elements of evaluation; and the most applicable and effective approaches to evaluation. Participants indicated that RC evaluations should use a personalized, humanistic and accessible approach. The findings suggest that evaluations can serve multiple purposes and have the potential to support both organizational and personal-recovery goals if they are developed with meaningful input from people who access and work in RCs. Practical implications The findings can be used to guide evaluations in which aspects that are most important to those involved in RCs could inform choices, decisions, priorities, developments and adaptations in RC evaluation processes and, ultimately, in programming. Originality/value A recent scoping review revealed that although coproduction is a central feature of the RC model, coproduction principles are rarely acknowledged in descriptions of how RC evaluation strategies are developed. Exploring coproduction processes in all aspects of the RC model, including evaluation, can further the mission of RCs, which is to create spaces where people can come together and engage in mutual capacity-building and collaboration.
“我的话很重要”:进入康复学院工作的人对评估的看法
目的:本合作研究项目的目的是对在加拿大康复学院(RCs)工作、志愿服务和访问的人进行访谈,以探讨他们对RCs评估策略的看法。设计/方法/方法本研究采用参与式行动研究方法,并对加拿大各地参与rc的29人进行了半结构化访谈。在本文中,作者分享了参与者对RC评估目的的见解;评价的关键要素;以及最适用和最有效的评价方法。与会者指出,RC评估应采用个性化、人性化和可及性的方法。研究结果表明,评估可以服务于多种目的,并有可能支持组织和个人的恢复目标,如果它们是由访问和在rc工作的人有意义的投入开发的。实际意义研究结果可用于指导评估,其中对参与RC的人员最重要的方面可以为RC评估过程中的选择、决策、优先事项、发展和适应提供信息,并最终用于规划。独创性/价值最近的一项范围审查显示,尽管合作生产是RC模型的核心特征,但在描述如何制定RC评估策略时,很少承认合作生产原则。在包括评估在内的RC模式的各个方面探索合作生产过程,可以进一步实现RC的使命,即创造人们可以聚集在一起并进行相互能力建设和协作的空间。
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
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
25.00%
发文量
42
×
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