מתן אריה שוורץ

Sharing here the reflection I shared with my DSW program on the use of professional collaboration networks, in response to a request by Dr. Michelle FK

The Professional Collaboration Network is, at least in theory, a sound tool to gain feedback and input. It sounds nice to have a network of experts who can help guide someone through a doctoral process in which experts may not exist within the School of Social Work. My takeaways from this practice, as I experienced it in this doctoral program, and as I have noted in last semester’s reflection and will reiterate here, are entirely negative.

I have found that, in practice, the PCN process as implemented in our program is one that is – while well intentioned – deeply flawed, borderline unethical and not at all worth the effort that was put into it: by the faculty or the students.

The first take away is that Implementation Mapping, and I would venture to say most (if not all) implementation models and frameworks require the inclusion of stakeholders voices (Eldredge et al., 2016). Full stop. This makes the PCN entirely redundant. Redundancy is wasted time, and wasted time is wasted money.

As I mentioned in my reflection for SW633: the PCN cannot replace a formal implementation team. PCN members do not have the training or knowledge to do so. They are experts in their various fields, not in implementation science. Moreso, they are not (necessarily) experts in the areas of research that we are conducting (on top of the implementation process we are working through). Those of us who plan to use our DSW for its intended purposes will not need, nor ever use a PCN when those of us (myself included) venture out to be implementation scientists in the world. We will include all of those who ought to be included because it is part and parcel of the implementation process. Additionally, those of us who cleave to the principles of trauma-informed care (Butler et al., 2019; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA), 2014) would do this anyway.

Students worked to develop a robust PCN at the very start of the program before we – as doctoral students– really had any idea how they would be helpful. This means that I developed a PCN of over 30 people who were ready, and willing to help me…and who mostly had nothing to do but provide blips and drops of feedback as they could. Additionally, the continued use of twitter immediately became untenable with the takeover by Elon Musk.

My impression was that the doctoral program was equallyat a loss to explain exactly how the PCN should be appropriately utilized. I remained hopeful, and yet the class on engaging the PCN in our second year was an effort in futility. I have – never – had a class that I could not find one redeeming morsel of information in until this course. Not once. Not during my BA, my two masters, this doctoral program, or the entirety of my military training and education (which is nearly as extensive as my academic career).

It is clear, upon reflection, that the PCN came about from an academic perspective. This perspective, as it relates to the DSW program and cohort is terribly problematic. All of us in the DSW, with the exception of one of my colleagues, are professionals who work (primarily) outside of Academia. Academia should not have been the guiding light of this program (which seeks to reduce the research to practice gap that has been created by academia). Rather, business, workers collectives, and other lenses should have been used.

Had a literature review been conducted before swallowing the concept of PCN wholesale, the existence of Business Information Networks (BINs) would have – or should have – been clearly evident. Business Information Networks (see: https://www.bni.com; http://BINLI.org; and others) are small groups of working professionals, working in different fields, who meet regularly and who provide one another with leads, resources, information, and support.

It is done in a way that is ethical (from a business perspective) where everyone contributes to the other in a pragmatic, definable fashion, and where no one asks someone else to provide labor that goes uncompensated.

The “I’ll help you, if you help me” quid-pro-quo that exists in academia has subtle payoffs (authorship, potential use for tenure). It carries no water or weight in the clinical, consulting, or corporate worlds in which I exist and function. I would argue that it is also exploitative of professors as well, but I will leave that to the halls of the academy to address.

I found the process distressing, angering, annoying, frustrating, and generally a barrier to conducting my work. It was not a feature, but rather a bug of the program. I will do everything I can, as an Alumni, to help the school remove this deleterious component of the program.

References

Butler, L. D., Critelli, F. M., & Carello, J. (2019). Trauma and human rights integrating approaches to address human suffering. Springer International Publishing.

Eldredge, L. K. B., Markham, C. M., Ruiter, R. A. C., Fernández, M. E., Kok, G., & Parcel, G. S. (2016). Planning health promotion programs: An intervention mapping approach (4th edition [Kindle]). Jossey-Bass.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA). (2014). Trauma-informed approach and trauma specific interventions.https://www.samhsa.gov/nctic/trauma-interventions