This approach allows the researchers to eliminate the need to repeat the goal statement, glossary of terms, and policy option or model programs in each of the geographically-focused issue brief pages.  This is illustrated in the following graphic which shows how these sections are common to issue briefs on this topic whether they are focused on the local, state, national or global level:

 

 

However, when the user is ready to prepare a printable-versions of an issue brief they will use either a Microsoft Word or Powerpoint template we will be developing, into which they will copy the content from the issue overview page and the content from the geographically-focused issue brief page into a unified presentation.

 

See How to Use This Wiki for directions on creating new wiki pages using the built-in templates described in this section.  Below is a graphic illustration of how the pages fit together:

 

 

Selecting a Research Topic

---

 

Need for Issue Briefs

 

We've identified three audiences for issue briefs, each with their own need for this information:

 

Practitioners 

•  Too busy to keep up with information overload

•  Need practical information in digest form

 

Policymakers

•  Need brief, up-to-date, and nuetral policy analysis

 

Citizens/Students

•  Educate and inform

•  Provide context for community service 

 

 

What Makes a Good Issue Brief Topic?

 

 To be most effective, topics for research for the issue briefs have the following characteristics:

•  They are real (not made up)

• They matter to someone (a partner, agency, individual or group)

•  Feedback from constituents is utilized

•  The research results are presented in some way, as a useful product

 

Some examples of topics are:

•  Restoring economic vitality to Telegraph Avenue (working with City Council member in Berkeley) (UC Berkeley)

• Mental Health & Drug Court Brief; an independent study with an internship by two students – resulted in two briefs, one on mental health courts and one on other courts (Lynchburg)

• Analysis of nutrition programs in the Oakland Unified School District; very grounded (UC Berkeley)

• Oversight from local supervisors with a real need for the information; planning to use it in their deliberations (City Council) (UC Berkeley)Broader, internationally focused topics with no connection to local agency can still work when the researchers/writers are able to incorporate the perspective of an expert; for example, a student at UC Berkeley were able to produce briefs related to Darfur and U.S-China Relations, and bring in the guidance of a highly knowledgeable faculty member through their own effort.

 

Characteristics of topics or research that tend to be less effective:

• They are not grounded with a specific agency or group

• They are too broad or amorphous

• They are too narrow  

 

 

Working with Community Partners

---

 

While the policy research and issue brief process can still work without a real partner, we recommend that the research respond to requests from a local community organization, agency, school, or defined constituency.  In this regard, we view researching and writing an issue brief for a form of community-based research.

 

The process of defining a research topic with a community partner may involve a series of conversations that ideally also involve professors and campus staff who are involved in community-campus partnerships.  Typically, these conversations begin with identifying a few broad themes and issues.  However, they should then narrow down to a focused topic for the issue brief.  For example, the initial conversations with a agency serving the homeless would begin by covering areas of the agency's programming that are raising concerns or questions. They may then indicate that they are looking for model programs that serve the chronic homeless, which you learn in the conversation require a specific set of policy and program approaches that are different from those required to serve homeless families or those who are occasionally or at-risk of homelessness. 

 

Here is how you might carry out defining topics from partner interests:

 

1. Identify community partners that you already know or that your school already has a relationship.  Present to them the concept of community-based research and public policy research.  You can use these power-points to help you:

    Community Partnerships2.pdf

    Bonner_CBRPol.zip

2. Talk with partners about their missions, program areas, programs, and structure of their work.  Then, ask them about some of the underlying public policies that may affect their work. Below are some specific questions to ask agency or organization representatives as you seek to define a topic for your issue brief: 

   • Tell me (us) more about the type of services and work your organization is providing

   • Tell me (us) more about the type of individuals and groups you are serving

   • Tell me (us) more about some of the issues of public policy, legislation, or governmental work that may affect their funding, the design of their programs, or organizational capacity.

   • Are there other programs or models that you draw on for your organization’s work?  Are there collaborative opportunities for learning and sharing that you are part of?

   • Do you know who on the local government level works on these issues or that you interact with?  What about state level? Federal level?

   • Do you have a specific project or issue in mind for public policy research or program model research?

3. Get a list of potential issue brief topics and then ask the partner to rank them.
4. See the recommendations in the next part of this guide to narrow and select a focus. 

 

Negotiating the Research Process with Community Partners

 

In terms of working effectively with non-profit partners, it’s helpful to remember that agencies and community groups can often be under-resourced, but in different ways.  Because of that, a student may experience frustration that agencies or their representatives seems disorganized, slow to respond, late with fulfilling requests, and so on.  These tips may be helpful to you as you negotiate the process:

 

1. Build a relationship with the agency, community, or group representative.  That means meeting in person, at least once.  The representative will want to get a sense of who you are, what your intentions are, how trustworthy you are, and so on.  Regardless, you will want to come across as organized, sincere, open-minded, trustworthy, and so on.
2. Find out from the representative how best she or he likes to communicate. Don’t assume the person is great on email, for example, as many agencies may not have great computers or internet access.  Some people prefer the phone, others like to meet in person though sporadically, and some may even have a secretary who can arrange this all for you. Ask.
3. If you need to provide information, do so in a digested way.  For example, summarize your request or information in brief bulleted format.  If you think the person needs to see or read more, provide that material as back up, but don’t necessarily expect that the representative has read it for your meeting or conversation.
4. Schedule meetings or conversations in advance, but confirm them (by phone) as the time approaches (day before, morning of). 
5. Structure feedback so that you can get what you are looking for, and at appropriate times. Have specific questions in mind, instead of just asking for ‘general feedback.’ For example, you can ask, “Does this goal statement align with what you need?”, “Do the options I’ve outlined seem clear and thorough?”, “Do my recommendations seem objective and sensible?”, “What kinds of information am I missing?”  This will help you avoid feedback (like wordsmithing, nitpicking about language, or vagueness), that isn’t helpful to you, your assignment, or the agency.  Make sure you get feedback at times that keeps you and the partner on the same page about the process, as this will help prevent frustration that arises from getting stuck, going too far and having to throw out work done, and so on. 

 

 

Case Study about Working from Partners’ Real Interests

 

To pilot the policy options research process at UC Berkeley, two courses were offered for undergraduate students.  In both cases, these courses were led by graduate students, working with the guidance of the key administrator (also director for service-learning programs). 

 

In one case, the course was part of a larger internship program and non-profit management track, which also required enrolled students as interns for 110 hours with local government or a community-based agency.  In this course, students worked with local partners with whom they had real, ongoing relationships (for the service requirement) to generate topics for the issue briefs. They worked in teams of 3-4, with feedback from both graduate student advisors and the partners. At the end, they presented their briefs in teams at a public forum, attended by the mayor and others.

 

Another course was for students who would be interning in Washington D.C. over the summer, as part of a preparatory educational experience.   In this case, students created topics based more on their general interest areas, but without connection to any partner for whom the research would be utilized. 

 

The director created an assessment of the learning outcomes of each course.  The findings identified notable differences in two areas.  First, the students whose issue briefs stemmed directly from community partners experiencing greater success with the intended outcomes.  Among other positive outcomes, the course and issue brief had a increased their likelihood to participate in future activities (service or academic) that contribute to the common good.  Second, the project encouraged students to reconsider the appropriateness of their policy recommendations, making the policy creation process come alive for them.  Finally, it gave them new ways of thinking about socially responsible work.