Community development projects continue despite the COVID-19 pandemic. Participatory evaluation of these projects is crucial. Ripple effect mapping (REM) is a participatory approach to evaluation that captures coalition and community member perspectives on program outcomes and impacts. In response to COVID-19, the Louisiana State University AgCenter Healthy Communities Initiative adapted REM for online delivery. The REM evaluation was found to be an effective way for community coalitions to reflect on outcomes and impacts and to motivate continued engagement

Greene, Matthew D

Holston, Denise

Stroope, Jessica

English

Clemson University: TigerPrints

The Journal of Extension Volume 60 Number 1 Article 9 2-28-2022 Adapting Ripple Effect Mapping to a Virtual Survey Format Matthew D. Greene Louisiana State University Agriculture Center, mgreene@agcenter.lsu.edu Jessica Stroope Louisiana State University Agriculture Center, jstroope@agcenter.lsu.edu Denise Holston Louisiana State University Agriculture Center, dholston@agcenter.lsu.edu This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Greene, M. D., Stroope, J., & Holston, D. (2022). Adapting Ripple Effect Mapping to a Virtual Survey Format. The Journal of Extension, 60(1), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.60.01.10 This Research in Brief is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Extension by an authorized editor of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu. Adapting Ripple Effect Mapping to a Virtual Survey Format Cover Page Footnote Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Matthew Greene. Email: mgreene@agcenter.lsu.edu This research in brief is available in The Journal of Extension: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol60/iss1/9 Journal of Extension   Adapting Ripple Effect Mapping to a Virtual Survey FormatMatthew D. Greene¹, Jessica stroope¹, anD Denise holston¹AUTHORS: 1Louisiana State University Agriculture Center.Abstract. Community development projects continue despite the COVID-19 pandemic. Participatory evaluation of these projects is crucial. Ripple effect mapping (REM) is a participatory approach to evaluation that captures coalition and community member perspectives on program outcomes and impacts. In response to COVID-19, the Louisiana State University AgCenter Healthy Communities Initiative adapted REM for online delivery. The REM evaluation was found to be an effective way for community coalitions to reflect on outcomes and impacts and to motivate continued engagement.INTRODUCTIONEvaluation of Cooperative Extension Service (CES) efforts is crucial to measure outcomes and impacts, inspire those who have worked to accomplish these successes, and advocate for additional resources. Although the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated moving in-person programs and evaluation efforts online, its profound impact on the physical and eco-nomic wellbeing of our communities brought the need for extension and community development work to the fore-front. Evaluation therefore became even more critical to refo-cus our priorities and reinvigorate clientele and stakeholders during the pandemic. Online approaches to evaluation have successfully demonstrated the impact of Cooperative Exten-sion’s work during the pandemic (Dobbins et al., 2021). Qualitative research and evaluation methods have been suc-cessfully adapted to online videoconferencing software (Gray et al., 2020), though the use of videoconferencing software presents challenges in rural areas with limited internet access and speed. This article details our adaptation of one partici-patory evaluation method to an online survey format during a national emergency.Participatory evaluation methods empower community members to engage in decisions about the evaluation pro-cess, ensuring that the evaluation results serve the needs of stakeholders and the community (Minkler & Wallerstein, 2011). These methods are an important component of the transformative evaluation paradigm, which seeks to promote social justice (Mertens, 2008). Thus, transformative partici-patory evaluation methods are critical for community-based extension programming that seeks to make lasting change and appropriately address community needs.Ripple Effect Mapping (REM) is one qualitative method of participatory evaluation. The REM method can be used to document the impacts and unintended consequences of community development efforts and can inspire future movement toward community goals (Chazdon et al., 2017). This occurs through a collaborative mapping session during which participants share program successes that are drawn on a map and grouped into categories according to the Com-munity Capitals Framework (CCF) (Emery & Flora, 2006). The CCF describes seven categories of assets available to communities that may be impacted by community devel-opment projects, including built, human, natural, political, financial, social, and cultural capitals.The Louisiana Healthy Communities Initiative is a com-munity-led process in which Cooperative Extension staff facilitate in-person community forums where residents iden-tify and prioritize strategies for community development through policies, systems, and environmental changes that impact the food system and accessibility of physical activ-ity (Greene et al., 2020). We evaluate the program with REM and follow the principles of the transformative evaluation paradigm in an attempt to promote social justice in the com-munities involved in the initiative. Beginning in March 2020, restrictions on in-person gatherings due to the COVID-19 pandemic posed a barrier to conducting planned REM ses-sions. The LSU AgCenter’s Healthy Communities coalitions continued to meet virtually, and stakeholders of one coali-tion in Bogalusa requested that some form of REM session be held despite the pandemic. Stakeholders felt this would inspire participants and continue the momentum of projects despite restrictions on gatherings.       Research in Brief Volume 60, Issue 1, 2022Journal of Extension  Volume 60, Issue 1 (2022)  Greene, Stroope, and HolstonResearch and evaluation professionals have demon-strated that REM can be successfully adapted to live, virtual formats. The National Community Resource and Economic Development Indicators Team released a webinar in February 2021 which detailed professionals’ methods of adapting REM to online formats using videoconferencing software (Sero et al., 2021). The presenters discussed two adaptations, one syn-chronous method in which the REM session occurred in real time with the entire group, and one asynchronous method in which participants reported results of paired discussions to an evaluator who then prepared the REM separately and later reviewed the map with the entire group.In our adaptation of REM, we considered hosting a sim-ilar live video conference that would mimic an in-person REM session, but decided the barriers to participation would limit equitable engagement. Poor broadband internet access and speed is an issue in rural areas, and participants may not have been able to fully engage with a video conference session (Lawson, 2020). Instead, we collected participants’ perspectives through an online survey and then reviewed the map with participants once the entire map had been devel-oped. The survey allowed all participants to have equal say in the production of the ripple effect map rather than just those participants who had stable internet connections for the length of the REM session, which may have lasted up to 2 hours. In this article, we present our adaptation of REM, which may encourage similar adaptations of participatory evaluation methods.METHODSOur approach to REM was drawn from the “web mapping” approach developed by Emery et al. (2015) and later described in A Field Guide to Ripple Effects Mapping (Chazdon et al. 2017). We first introduced REM to coalition and commu-nity members involved in the project at a virtual coalition meeting, which occurred using Microsoft Teams videocon-ferencing software. We then sent these stakeholders an email that explained the purpose of REM, described the constructs of the CCF, and included PDF documents that provided a simple, visual explanation of the process and the CCF con-structs. The image used to explain the CCF is available in the appendix. The same email included a link to a survey with questions drawn from the “web mapping” approach to REM which asks participants specifically how a project may have impacted each CCF construct (Emery et al., 2015). We con-ducted the survey using Qualtrics Online Survey Software, a free online software that allows users to create and distribute surveys as well as manage and present survey results.An important component of REM is a period of appre-ciative inquiry at the beginning of a session, during which participants pair up to interview each other and reflect on their successes with the program (Chazdon et al., 2017). The use of a survey precludes any period of appreciative inquiry in pairs. To address this, we structured the survey to begin with the same questions that participants would typically use to interview each other. These questions ask about broad impacts of the program to be evaluated and encourage reflec-tion. The survey questions then narrow to ask about impacts specific to each community capital.We coded responses to survey questions according to the CCF and then mapped out the responses using mind mapping software (Xmind), which allows for the arrange-ment of text in various forms to produce maps or diagrams. To give participants an opportunity to add any other impacts and for purposes of member checking, we reviewed survey results and the map with coalition members and survey par-ticipants. This member checking process occurred via email, to give those without adequate or reliable internet access a chance to review the map, and also in a live videoconference meeting held using Microsoft Teams, to allow for some group discussion about the map. Both methods of member check-ing did not result in any additional impacts beyond those captured through the survey.RESULTSWe collected survey responses from 13 participants who identified 94 separate impacts (Figure 1). Participants reported impacts to every capital in the CCF, but the largest share of impacts affected human capital (25.5%). The least impacted capitals were natural and cultural capital, each rep-resenting 8.5% of the total reported impacts. Notable impacts of the coalition’s work included the establishment of a May-or’s Wellness Council (political capital), a $10,000 grant to support a cancer survivorship program (financial capital), the addition of new bike paths and a “farmacy” community garden in the city (built capital), and additional education provided by a “talk with a doc” radio show (human capital).The map produced through this virtual format resem-bled maps that were produced via in-person REM sessions held for similar Louisiana Healthy Communities Initiative projects prior to the pandemic. For example, an in-person REM session held with eight participants resulted in a map that included 43 separate impacts (Figure 2).When we discussed the results of the map produced from survey responses with participants in the member checking meeting, participants agreed with the impacts presented and did not propose any additional impacts. Par-ticipants also felt that the map could be a tool to advocate for further funding of the project and to motivate program participants to continue their efforts despite restrictions on in-person gatherings.Journal of Extension  Volume 60, Issue 1 (2022)  Adapting Ripple Effect Mapping to a Virtual Survey FormatFigure 1. Ripple effect map produced through an online survey.Journal of Extension  Volume 60, Issue 1 (2022)  Greene, Stroope, and HolstonFigure 2. Ripple effect map produced through an in-person mapping session.Journal of Extension  Volume 60, Issue 1 (2022)  Adapting Ripple Effect Mapping to a Virtual Survey FormatCONCLUSIONSInvolving program participants and stakeholders in the evaluation of Cooperative Extension programming leads to evaluations that meet the needs of the participants (Minkler & Wallerstein, 2011). Participatory evaluation can also rein-vigorate stakeholders’ drive to make change by demonstrat-ing how far a project has come and identifying areas where additional effort is needed (Fawcett et al., 2003). This became especially important during the COVID-19 pandemic, when restrictions placed on in-person gatherings may have ham-pered Cooperative Extension’s efforts at a time of increased community need (Dobbins et al., 2021).Based on our adaptation of REM to an online survey, there is initial evidence that this adaptation is an effective way to capture impacts of the Louisiana Healthy Commu-nities Initiative during the COVID-19 pandemic. Though this initiative is a community development program focused on improving equitable food and physical activity access, the survey REM technique could easily be adapted to other Cooperative Extension efforts to build evidence for its utility in other contexts.Compared with other online adaptations of REM, our method did not allow any opportunity for group interaction during the listing of impacts for the map. This is a serious drawback of a survey-only design because one of the advan-tages of REM is group collaboration in the development of the map. Additionally, this method did not allow for the period of appreciative inquiry which facilitates paired dis-cussion and further engages participants with the REM pro-cess. Despite these drawbacks, a survey-only adaptation of the REM process may be appropriate for the evaluation of programs with fewer resources to devote to evaluation. For example, one online adaptation of REM described in the February 2021 webinar required the participation of multiple team members to manage discussion and produce the REM in real time (Sero et al., 2021). Evaluators wishing to adapt REM to a survey-only design will need to weigh the draw-backs of this adaptation with their available resources.Extension professionals should consider using REM to evaluate program impacts. REM is an important tool to involve stakeholders and participants in the evaluation pro-cess, capture qualitative program impacts, and motivate stakeholders to continue work on a project. Our adapta-tion of REM demonstrates one method of moving this pro-cess online that was appropriate for a project with limited resources to devote to evaluation and that served a popu-lation with low access to high-speed broadband internet. Extension professionals who wish to implement an online adaptation of REM should consider a survey-only adaptation alongside other methods presented in the Moving Ripple Effects Mapping Online webinar (Sero et al., 2021) that may be more appropriate for projects with a team of evaluation professionals and in areas with reliable access to high-speed internet.REFERENCESChazdon, S., Emery, M., Hansen, D., Higgins, L., & Sero, R. (2017). A field guide to Ripple Effects Mapping. Univer-sity of Minnesota.Dobbins, C. E., Faulk, K. L., Roberts, A., & Lamm, A. J. (2021). Evaluating Extension in times of crisis: Assess-ing program impact during COVID-19. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 28(2), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.5191/jiaee.2021.28201Emery, M., & Flora, C. (2006). Spiraling-up: Mapping community transformation with community capitals framework. Community Development, 37(1), 19–35.Emery, M., Higgins, L., Chazdon, S., & Hansen, D. (2015). Using ripple effect mapping to evaluate program impact: Choosing or combining the methods that work best for you. Journal of Extension, 53(2). https://tiger prints.clemson.edu/joe/vol53/iss2/36/Fawcett, S. B., Boothroyd, R., Schultz, J. A., Francisco, V. T., Carson, V., & Bremby, R. (2003). Building capacity for participatory evaluation within community initiatives. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 26(2), 21–36.Gray, L. M., Wong-Wylie, G., Rempel, G. R., & Cook, K. (2020). Expanding qualitative research interviewing strategies: Zoom video communications. The Qualita-tive Report, 25(5), 1292–1301.Greene, M., Stroope, J., & Holston, D. (2020). The Louisiana Healthy Communities Initiative: A community- participatory model for obesity prevention. Current Developments in Nutrition, 4(Supplement 2), 196. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzaa043_047Lawson, K. (2020, January 28). USDA invests $15.5 million in broadband for rural Louisiana communities. United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2020/01/28/usda-invests- 155-million-broadband-rural-louisiana-communitiesMertens, D. M. (2008). Transformative research and evalua-tion. Guilford Press.Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2011). Community-based participatory research for health: From process to out-comes. John Wiley & Sons.Sero, R., Chazdon, S., & Higgins, L. (2021, February 23). Moving Ripple Effects Mapping online. Utah State Uni-versity. https://rrdc.usu.edu/national-cred-teamJournal of Extension  Volume 60, Issue 1 (2022)  Greene, Stroope, and HolstonAPPENDIX: DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITY CAPITALS FRAMEWORK PROVIDED TO SURVEY PARTICIPANTS

Adapting Ripple Effect Mapping to a Virtual Survey Format

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1090&context=joe

Adapting Ripple Effect Mapping to a Virtual Survey Format

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Clemson University: TigerPrints