Is a Theory of the Problem Sufficient for a Theory of the Solution? Negotiating Tensions among Research, Practice, Advocacy and Activism in Serving Immigrant Communities

The lives of members of immigrant communities are inevitably shaped by U.S. laws, rapidly-shifting immigration policy, institutional policies and practices (e.g., in schools), and how immigrants are welcomed (or not) by members of host communities (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). These and other aspects of the context of reception have important implications for immigrant integration, education and employment, and mental health. Accordingly, there have been significant calls for psychologists to take active roles in advocacy and activism, which resonates deeply with many of us. Roundtable organizers are community psychologists working with immigrant communities and seeking to negotiate the tensions that can arise at the intersections of research, practice, advocacy and activism. For example: • APA’s Toolkit for Local Advocacy defines advocacy as sharing information within a system with the assumption that the information will help the system respond effectively; activism, on the other hand, is more likely to indict systems perceived as unjust, perhaps from the outside. How does one choose between--or balance--advocacy and activism? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each for trying to solve specific problems in different contexts? • How does one balance social science and research goals that presumably could provide valuable information in working with immigrant communities with advocacy and activism goals? Can we have one without the other, and if so, should we? • If we integrate these roles, do we run the risk of being perceived as less objective on one hand and less invested in communities (or complicit in injustice) on the other? • Is a theory of the problem sufficient for a theory of the solution? Is it possible to move from problems to solutions without the insight and influence that insiders can provide? Participants will share the (imperfect) ways they have balanced research, practice, advocacy and activism in their work

Bridging the gap between research, policy, and practice: Lessons learned from academic-public partnerships in the CTSA network.

A primary barrier to translation of clinical research discoveries into care delivery and population health is the lack of sustainable infrastructure bringing researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and communities together to reduce silos in knowledge and action. As National Institutes of Health's (NIH) mechanism to advance translational research, Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) awardees are uniquely positioned to bridge this gap. Delivering on this promise requires sustained collaboration and alignment between research institutions and public health and healthcare programs and services. We describe the collaboration of seven CTSA hubs with city, county, and state healthcare and public health organizations striving to realize this vision together. Partnership representatives convened monthly to identify key components, common and unique themes, and barriers in academic-public collaborations. All partnerships aligned the activities of the CTSA programs with the needs of the city/county/state partners, by sharing resources, responding to real-time policy questions and training needs, promoting best practices, and advancing community-engaged research, and dissemination and implementation science to narrow the knowledge-to-practice gap. Barriers included competing priorities, differing timelines, bureaucratic hurdles, and unstable funding. Academic-public health/health system partnerships represent a unique and underutilized model with potential to enhance community and population health

TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access

Plant traits - the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants - determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait‐based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits - almost complete coverage for ‘plant growth form’. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait–environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives

Familias Divididas Divided Damilies: Transnational Family Separation and Undocumented Latinx Immigrant Health

Undocumented Latinx immigrants (ULIs) comprise a large segment of the U.S. population, yet they remain at high risk for diminished health outcomes due to increased exposure to adverse experiences and context. Transnational family separation and the distress that accompanies it is an example of a common adverse experience that is chronic and that impacts the lives of many ULIs. However, despite how chronic and central transnationalismis to the lives ofULIs, little is known about its relation to the health outcomes ofULIs. To that end, this study examined the relation between distress due to transnational family separation and the physical and mental health of ULIs. To do so, the study utilized respondent-driven sampling and path analysis methodologies to cross-sectionally examine how distress from transnational separation was related to the physical and mental health of ULIs (n = 229). Results revealed that as distress from transnational family separation increased so too did participant’s depressive (β =.25, p \u3c.001), anxiety (β =.18, p =.006), and physical symptoms (β =.24, p \u3c.0001). Distress from transnational family separation was also more strongly related to physical and depressive symptoms than to anxiety symptoms. Considering these results, important systemic changes to our approach to healthcare delivery and access among ULIs communities are needed to promote the well-being of this at-risk population. Recommendations for doing so are discussed

The roles of settings in supporting immigrants’ resistance to injustice and oppression: a policy position statement by the society for community research and action: a policy statement by the Society for Community Research and Action: Division 27 of the American Psychological Association

In 2018, in response to increasingly oppressive and widespread federal immigration enforcement actions in the United States (U.S.) and around the globe – including family separation, immigration raids, detention, deportation of people who have lived in the country for much of their lives – the Society for Community Research & Action produced a statement on the effects of deportation and forced separation on immigrants, their families, and communities (SCRA, 2018). The statement focused exclusively on the impacts of deportation and forced family separation, documenting the damage done by oppressive U.S. policies and practices. We felt it was imperative to document this harm, and yet were uncomfortable producing a narrow paper that focused solely on harm. There are multiple ways immigrants and their allies resist deportation and other forms of oppression. This resistance is done individually, collectively, and in settings that vary in size and scope, including community-based, faith-based, direct care, and educational settings, as well as entire municipalities and transnational organizing settings. Settings facilitate resistance in many ways, focusing on those who are oppressed, their oppressors, and systems of oppression. In this statement, we describe the unique and overlapping ways in which settings facilitate resistance. We situate this review of the scientific and practice literature in the frameworks of change through social settings, empowering settings, healing justice, and decolonization. We also document recommendations for continued resistance

Statement on the effects of deportation and forced separation on immigrants, their families, and communities

inexistenteinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio