Journal Summary, Literature Review Example

Ahmed, S. M., Palermo, A. S. (2010). Community engagement in research: Frameworks for education and peer review.  American Journal of Public Health, 100 (8), 1380-1387.

 

A key problem when the academic world approaches community development is engaging the community in the proces.  Ahmed and Palermo (2010) note that it is critical for researchers and planners to understand how best to engage the community in their planning efforts. Ahmed and Palermo note in particular that understanding the community’s priorities is of particular importance, along with finding ways to communicate in culturally sensitive methods.  While this paper speaks specifically to bringing the community into health research issues, many of the issues apply to general urban planning as well as to overall university-community relationships. Of particular interest in this paper is the chart of the criteria for assessing the quality of the relationship with the community.  With minor modifications, these criteria can be used to established and assess the success of community relations in an urban planning project. Overall, this paper provides guidelines for establishing and maintaining quality community engagement in the project.

Ambrose, A., Short, P. (2009). Integrating health planning and social planning: A case study in community-based partnerships for better health. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 15 (4), 294-302.

 

Ambrose and Short (2009) report on how health planning and social planning can be integrated. The authors use a case-study based on Healthy Bodies, Healthy Minds.  Of importance to this effort was the fact that there were many stakeholders in the project, including the government, the health services, local communities, and local businesses.  This paper provides a detailed description of the process of incorporating the needs of all those stakeholders in planning a successful community project. The researchers used semi-structured interviews to investigate the process of planning and implementing the project. Key benefits of this paper include the mention of some snags encountered in the planning process and the identification of critical stages along the planning path.  Of critical importance was maintaining good communication among the involved parties, and the complexity of even a relatively small-scale project that involves engaging the community.

Sanderson, R C., Richards, M. H. (2010). The after-school needs and resources of a low-income urban community: Surveying youth and parents for community change. American Journal of Community Pscyhology, 45 (3/4), 430-440.

 

Development of urban areas fills multiple economic needs, but it must also fill the needs of the local population. One of those is the issue of dealing with after-school needs of the community’s children.  Sanderson  and Richards (2010) reported on a collaboration between university researchers, community youths, and local parents to determine what local families needed and wanted.  The focus of this work was determining the appropriate mix of academic, recreational, and social resources, including providing support for educational needs.  While the paper focuses on after-school programs, the methodology of the study provides a methodology for engaging the local, low-income population and gaining their participation in planning to grow and develop their community.  This approach of considering both the youth of the community and their parents to determine needs and wants allows planners to produce a plan based on actual economic and community needs rather than on outside expectations of what those needs may be.

Trickett, E. J., Beehler, S., Deutsch, C., Green, L. W., Hawe, P., McLeroy, K.,Miller, R. L., Rapkin, B. D., Schensul, J. J., Schulz, A. J. et al. (2011). Advancing the science of community-level interventions. American Journal of Public Health,  101 (8), 1410-1419.

 

Trickett et al. (2011) describe the process of creating interventions at the community level, noting that these programs are highly complex and need to look at longer-term change and longer term outcomes. The authors report a new community paradigm which includes  defining the goals of the intervention in detail; noting the complexity of community interactions; the essential nature of collaboration for success; that local culture is omnipresent in any community intervention. Each of these presumptions provides critical guidance for appropriate mechanism to develop any large-scale community intervention.  One suggestion, for example, is to engage community groups—not merely community governments—in the planning process and thus giving them both a voice and “ownership” of the planned changes.

 

 

 

References

Ahmed, S. M., Palermo, A. S. (2010). Community engagement in research: Frameworks for education and peer review.  American Journal of Public Health, 100 (8), 1380-1387.

Ambrose, A., Short, P. (2009). Integrating health planning and social planning: A case study in community-based partnerships for better health. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 15 (4), 294-302.

Sanderson, R C., Richards, M. H. (2010). The after-school needs and resources of a low-income urban community: Surveying youth and parents for community change. American Journal of Community Pscyhology, 45 (3/4), 430-440.

Trickett, E. J., Beehler, S., Deutsch, C., Green, L. W., Hawe, P., McLeroy, K.,Miller, R. L., Rapkin, B. D., Schensul, J. J., Schulz, A. J. et al. (2011). Advancing the science of community-level interventions. American Journal of Public Health,  101 (8), 1410-1419.