Build a Common Fact Base

The consensus among collaboration partners as to what facts relating to the issue are most relevant

 

WHY IT MATTERS: Joint recognition of what data is relevant to the collaboration allows participants to determine how best to proceed.

Differences in perspectives among collaboration partners on what facts are relevant to the issue.

Collaboration partners may have sector-specific biases that influence their determination of what facts are relevant to the issue to be addressed by the collaboration. For example, a non-profit-sector partner may contend that facts related to accessibility are most relevant to guiding the collaboration’s understanding of the issue, while a business-sector partner may argue that facts related to operational efficiency are most relevant. Because agreement on a common fact base is critical to refining the collaboration’s understanding of the issue and honing the collaboration’s strategy, the collaboration should facilitate a process through which partners arrive at consensus on what facts are relevant. Without a common fact base, partners may perceive that one partner’s perception of the issue is dominant. This can leave partners with the perception that the issue is framed and understood by the collaboration in a way that does not accommodate their role in addressing the issue at hand.

Assessing qualitative and quantitative data related to the problem to be addressed by the collaboration.

Partners may have differing levels of familiarity with, and preferences related to, quantitative and qualitative analyses and information. By addressing each partner’s experience level and partiality, the collaboration can build a common fact base that incorporates both qualitative and quantitative information, resulting in a more comprehensive understanding of an issue. Without such a process, partners may be reluctant to incorporate analyses with which they are not familiar, limiting the collaboration’s understanding of the issue and, ultimately, its approach to addressing the issue.

“Combating Childhood Obesity in Somerville”

In the early 2000s, 46 percent of first and third graders in the city of Somerville, outside of Boston, were overweight or at risk for becoming so. Researchers at Tufts University worked in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Somerville Public School System, the Somerville School Food Services, community-based organizations, and local food providers to design and implement Shape Up Somerville. In the initiative’s early stages, collaboration partners agreed that gathering the perspectives of constituents and community members, particularly those affected by the obesity epidemic, would allow them to tailor their initiative to the community’s needs. They conducted a series of focus groups and key-informant interviews with children, parents, teachers, and community members, gathering critical feedback on appropriate approaches to combating childhood obesity. The creation of the Shape Up Somerville Advisory Council allowed researchers to meet monthly to provide project updates, coordinate collaborative grants, and measure outcomes. This process brought researchers, school personnel, community and immigrant service providers, and volunteer health advisors onto the same page.

  • What are the different ways partners perceive the problem we aim to address? What are the differing facts partners think are relevant to defining the problem? How will we address these differences and overcome potential sector-specific biases when it comes to defining the problem?
  • How will we ensure that we consider a balance of quantitative and qualitative data in deciding what facts are most relevant to our understanding of the issue we wish to tackle?
  • Where will we look for data?
  • How will we decide when we have developed a satisfactory understanding of the issue?

“Partnership Development Toolkit” from the European Commission

Especially see Problem Assessment on pp. 17-19 for step-by-step guidance for partners to complete a problem assessment — an activity wherein partners exhaust their understanding of the problem the collaboration wishes to tackle. The “Partnership Development Toolkit” is a guide for facilitators of EQUAL Development Partnerships (DPs) but is easily adaptable to partners in a wide variety of issues.

“Assessing Community Needs and Resources Toolkit” from Community Tool Box

Especially see points 3, 4, and 5 for guidance on assessing how key stakeholders approach the problem, gathering evidence to indicate whether the problem should be priority for the collaboration, and identifying barriers and resources for addressing the issue. Community Tool Box is an online collection of toolkits and resources for individuals seeking to work collaboratively to bring about social change.

“Tools for Complex Decision-Making” from Spark Policy Institute

Especially see the Using Information in Multi-Party Decision-Making tab for guidance on navigating the differences in how multi-sector stakeholders value and view information.

“Tools for Analysing Power in Multi-stakeholder Processes: A Menu” from Centre for Development Innovation

Especially see the Rich Picture exercise on p. 6 and the Problem Tree Analysis exercise on p. 8. Both exercises invite multi-stakeholder partners to visually express their differing viewpoints on the causes, consequences, and context of “the problem.” “Tools for Analysing Power in Multi-stakeholder Processes: A Menu” was created for participants of the Thematic Learning Programme on Power in Multi-stakeholder Partnerships and is accessible across a wide variety of issues.

Build a Common Fact Base

The consensus among collaboration partners as to what facts relating to the issue are most relevant

 

WHY IT MATTERS: Joint recognition of what data is relevant to the collaboration allows participants to determine how best to proceed.

Differences in perspectives among collaboration partners on what facts are relevant to the issue.

Collaboration partners may have sector-specific biases that influence their determination of what facts are relevant to the issue to be addressed by the collaboration. For example, a non-profit-sector partner may contend that facts related to accessibility are most relevant to guiding the collaboration’s understanding of the issue, while a business-sector partner may argue that facts related to operational efficiency are most relevant. Because agreement on a common fact base is critical to refining the collaboration’s understanding of the issue and honing the collaboration’s strategy, the collaboration should facilitate a process through which partners arrive at consensus on what facts are relevant. Without a common fact base, partners may perceive that one partner’s perception of the issue is dominant. This can leave partners with the perception that the issue is framed and understood by the collaboration in a way that does not accommodate their role in addressing the issue at hand.

Assessing qualitative and quantitative data related to the problem to be addressed by the collaboration.

Partners may have differing levels of familiarity with, and preferences related to, quantitative and qualitative analyses and information. By addressing each partner’s experience level and partiality, the collaboration can build a common fact base that incorporates both qualitative and quantitative information, resulting in a more comprehensive understanding of an issue. Without such a process, partners may be reluctant to incorporate analyses with which they are not familiar, limiting the collaboration’s understanding of the issue and, ultimately, its approach to addressing the issue.

“Combating Childhood Obesity in Somerville”

In the early 2000s, 46 percent of first and third graders in the city of Somerville, outside of Boston, were overweight or at risk for becoming so. Researchers at Tufts University worked in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Somerville Public School System, the Somerville School Food Services, community-based organizations, and local food providers to design and implement Shape Up Somerville. In the initiative’s early stages, collaboration partners agreed that gathering the perspectives of constituents and community members, particularly those affected by the obesity epidemic, would allow them to tailor their initiative to the community’s needs. They conducted a series of focus groups and key-informant interviews with children, parents, teachers, and community members, gathering critical feedback on appropriate approaches to combating childhood obesity. The creation of the Shape Up Somerville Advisory Council allowed researchers to meet monthly to provide project updates, coordinate collaborative grants, and measure outcomes. This process brought researchers, school personnel, community and immigrant service providers, and volunteer health advisors onto the same page.

  • What are the different ways partners perceive the problem we aim to address? What are the differing facts partners think are relevant to defining the problem? How will we address these differences and overcome potential sector-specific biases when it comes to defining the problem?
  • How will we ensure that we consider a balance of quantitative and qualitative data in deciding what facts are most relevant to our understanding of the issue we wish to tackle?
  • Where will we look for data?
  • How will we decide when we have developed a satisfactory understanding of the issue?

“Partnership Development Toolkit” from the European Commission

Especially see Problem Assessment on pp. 17-19 for step-by-step guidance for partners to complete a problem assessment — an activity wherein partners exhaust their understanding of the problem the collaboration wishes to tackle. The “Partnership Development Toolkit” is a guide for facilitators of EQUAL Development Partnerships (DPs) but is easily adaptable to partners in a wide variety of issues.

“Assessing Community Needs and Resources Toolkit” from Community Tool Box

Especially see points 3, 4, and 5 for guidance on assessing how key stakeholders approach the problem, gathering evidence to indicate whether the problem should be priority for the collaboration, and identifying barriers and resources for addressing the issue. Community Tool Box is an online collection of toolkits and resources for individuals seeking to work collaboratively to bring about social change.

“Tools for Complex Decision-Making” from Spark Policy Institute

Especially see the Using Information in Multi-Party Decision-Making tab for guidance on navigating the differences in how multi-sector stakeholders value and view information.

“Tools for Analysing Power in Multi-stakeholder Processes: A Menu” from Centre for Development Innovation

Especially see the Rich Picture exercise on p. 6 and the Problem Tree Analysis exercise on p. 8. Both exercises invite multi-stakeholder partners to visually express their differing viewpoints on the causes, consequences, and context of “the problem.” “Tools for Analysing Power in Multi-stakeholder Processes: A Menu” was created for participants of the Thematic Learning Programme on Power in Multi-stakeholder Partnerships and is accessible across a wide variety of issues.