A Study Of Resiliency In Communities

Methodology

The Community Resiliency study was a collaboration between the AHPRC at Dalhousie University and the three selected communities. The research team comprised three university-based members and three community-based members. The latter were experienced in community development, and each had connections with one of the study communities. The four part-time staff members were a Project Coordinator based at AHPRC, and three Community Coordinators, one in each study site.

The study sites were selected based on the risks all three faced as coastal communities hard hit by the collapse of the groundfish industry, and on the evidence of some community strengths that might prove to be protective factors in their challenge to deal with current adversity. All of the study communities included several small neighbouring villages.

Two of the sites, Cheticamp and Isle Madame are Acadian communities located on Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia. Cheticamp is situated on the island's western coast, along the Cabot Trail. The 1991 Census reported slightly over 5000 residents in the larger Acadian region which includes the villages of Cheticamp, St. Joseph du Moine, East Margaree and several other tiny hamlets. Isle Madame is an island community located in the southwestern corner of the island, and is connected by causeway to the mainland. The 1991 Census indicated a population base of 4300 inhabitants. Several small villages make up the island community, including Arichat, Petit de Grat, West Arichat and D'Escousse. The third site was Dildo, a small community located on the upper south shore of Trinity Bay on the Avalon Peninsula of Newfoundland. The 1991 Census reports approximately 1700 residents in the region which includes the villages of Dildo, South Dildo, Old Shop and Broad Cove.

The study was conducted over 22 months, from June 1995 to March 1997. As detailed below, it was enacted in eight phases:

• hiring of community coordinators,
• development of the research instruments,
• training of community coordinators,
• recruitment of participants,
• data collection,
• data management,
• content analysis, and
• recommendations.

The communities yielded two types of data: recordings and transcriptions of the consultations (i.e., the individual interviews and focus groups), and written observations of the community coordinators.

Hiring of Community Coordinators

During fall 1995, a steering committee of citizens was created in each of the three study communities. The role of these committees was to oversee the local hiring of a Community Coordinator, and to provide support and guidance to that coordinator, especially during the recruitment period. The community-based members of the research team played a key role in establishing the steering committees.

A job description for the position of Community Coordinator was developed by the research team. Essential requirements were credibility within the community, interview, writing and organization skills, and the ability to collect information by observation.

The Community Coordinators were hired for two days a week for 32 weeks. The local committees advertised the positions and carried out the hiring process. In each community, a local organization was delegated to receive and administer the funds for their coordinator's salary.

By mid-November 1995, local coordinators were in place in all three communities.

Development of the Research Instruments

The interview guide used in this study was the product of a collaboration. It was discussed initially at a research team meeting in Halifax with both university and community-based members of the research team present. Shortly thereafter, in fall 1995, plans were confirmed for a parallel study in the Crowsnest Pass area of Alberta to be conducted by colleagues at the University of Lethbridge. Researchers from the RCHPCS collaborated in the production of the interview guide that was subsequently used in both Atlantic Canada and Alberta (Appendix B).

The design of the interview guide was based on the community resiliency framework developed for the study (Figure 1). Questions were developed to explore each of the proposed indicators of risk factors, protective factors and outcomes.

A similar inter-provincial collaboration took place a few months later to produce a guide for the focus group consultations (Appendix C). The scope of these consultations was somewhat narrower than the individual interviews, with a strong focus on the role of community-based organizations.

In addition to the two guides, a brief socio-demographic questionnaire of four questions was designed, to be administered at the conclusion of each consultation.

French translations were made of all instruments for the two Acadian communities.

Training Session for Community Coordinators

In early December 1995, a one and a half-day training session for the Community Coordinators was held in Cheticamp, NS. Acting as trainers for this session were the Halifax-based Project Coordinator and the community-based members of the research team. A steering committee member from one of the communities also attended.

The objectives of the training session were to discuss: the project, recruiting participants, setting up appointments, use of the consent form, using the interview guide and obtaining written observations. Role playing was used to develop interviewing skills. The criteria for the 10 community observations included any of the topics addressed in the interview guide, and were supported, where possible, with documentation such as newspaper clippings, bulletins and photos.

Another objective of the session was to allow participants to get to know each other. The provision of support for the Community Coordinators was a concern since the community-based members of the research team were not able to be on site throughout the data collection period, and the Project Coordinator was located in Halifax. The Community Coordinators were encouraged to contact each other from time to time and reported that these contacts were a source of support and encouragement.

Recruitment of Participants

Consistent with qualitative research methods, purposive rather than random sampling defined the approach to recruitment. The goal in recruitment for individual interviews was to achieve, in each study community, a broad cross-section of the population with regard to age, gender, employment status and level of community involvement. While recruitment for focus groups shared these aims, there was also an attempt to create groups with some common ground, whether by membership in a particular organization, or by shared concerns or experience (e.g., youth, unemployment). To ensure that the sample was representative, the Community Coordinators provided the Project Coordinator with weekly progress reports as recruiting proceeded.

The Community Coordinators used a number of recruitment strategies. In most cases, recruitment was done by personal contact rather than by telephone. Local advisors and the Project Coordinator were available for suggestions and support. A written description of the project was provided to the Community Coordinators for distribution at initial contact.

Data Collection

Consultations

Number of consultations

From January to June 1996, 179 Atlantic Canadians living in the three study communities took part in the consultations which were the major source of data for the Community Resiliency study. A total of 66 individual interviews were conducted: 30 in Cheticamp, 15 in Isle Madame and 21 in Dildo.

Six focus groups were held in each community with a total of 113 participants. One group had three participants, and another had twelve. The sixteen remaining groups had between four and ten participants, with six or seven being the average.

Consultation process

The Community Coordinators made arrangements for all consultations. Individual interviews began early in January 1996. The focus groups began in mid-May. All consultations were completed by early June 1996.

Participants were required to sign a consent form and were told that their responses and identities would remain confidential. All consultations were tape recorded. In the two Acadian communities, several consultations were conducted in French: two interviews and four focus groups in Cheticamp and one focus group in Isle Madame. These were translated into English.

Individual interviews

The Community Coordinators conducted all individual interviews usually at the participant's home. On average, they were an hour in length.

Focus groups

In May, the Project Coordinator visited the three communities to help the Community Coordinators launch the focus groups. The three community-based research team members also assisted with this initiative. In Cheticamp, two local community development workers also helped with the facilitation of focus groups. Focus groups took place in the quarters of a variety of community organizations and lasted approximately an hour and a half.

Support for the interviewers

Throughout the consultation period, the Community Coordinators were asked to send taped interviews to the Project Coordinator three or four at a time. The Project Coordinator offered feedback during regular telephone contacts. This was especially critical at the beginning, since none of the Community Coordinators was an experienced interviewer. In the early stages, written summaries of suggestions were sometimes distributed to the coordinators, and interview guides were modified to include additional suggested wordings for questions and probes in order to make interview styles consistent.

Once the Community Coordinators had each completed several interviews, a teleconference was held. All research team members, Community Coordinators, and the Project Coordinator took part. The Health Canada Research Analyst also participated. It was apparent that the local coordinators were quite anxious about this conference at first. However, as it soon became clear that others were there to help and support them, and not to criticize, their relief was evident, and an excellent exchange took place. The Community Coordinators reported later to the Project Coordinator that the teleconference had been a positive and encouraging experience.

Written Observations

Written observations provided by the Community Coordinators were an additional source of data. Each Community Coordinator submitted 10 written observations pertaining to issues explored in the interviews and focus groups. The observations included public meetings and protests, cultural and social events, training and development projects, and activities of local organizations. Articles from local and regional newspapers and newsletters, church bulletins and meeting agendas often covered the issues. The coordinators also included comments based on their personal experiences and insights as community members.

Data Management and Coding

An initial selection of 45 individual interviews (15 from each community) and all 18 focus groups were transcribed and coded. The remaining 21 interviews were to be added should data saturation not be reached. Data saturation was achieved with the 63 transcripts initially chosen. The 45 individual interviews were chosen for transcription by the Project Coordinator who made a selection based on the quality of the interview and a representative cross-section of participants.

An initial coding scheme was based on the 24 indicators explored in the interview and focus group guides. Negative and positive answers were specified for each topic. The scheme was refined and expanded to accommodate additional themes during the initial stages of coding.

The Project Coordinator coded all 63 transcripts. The Ethnograph computer program (1988) was used to sort the data by codes.

Content Analysis

The Project Coordinator and the Dalhousie-based members of the research team conducted the analysis. For each indicator, the data were analyzed first by individual community, and then data from all three communities were combined to discover the common themes and sub-themes. Significant differences among the communities were noted for the report.

The themes and sub-themes were organized into the key components of the study framework: risk factors, protective factors and outcomes. The original framework (Figure 1) was then modified to reflect the data (Figure 2 - see page 76).

The written observations were also analyzed for content and used to enhance and support the consultation findings.

Recommendations

The report of the findings was distributed to all research team members. In March 1997, shortly before the project ended, a teleconference was held during which team members created recommendations for future research, policy and programs. These appear at the end of this report.