Methods: The R&E Division is composed of 65 research staff across a variety of job titles. Approximately 30 regularly participate in programming. All members were invited to participate in two data collection procedures: 1) a ripple effects mapping (REM) process and 2) an on-line self-assessment tool of antiracist practices. Conducted like a focus group, REM is a participatory approach to evaluating complex interventions across levels – personal, team/interpersonal, organization/community, and policy across phases of a research project (Emery et al., 2015). The REM resulted in a visual representation of impacts across levels and helped participants complete the self-assessment tool. The tool was completed by individuals or teams (n=10). Items on the tool were rated on a 4-point scale: Haven't Started Yet (1), Plans Exist to Use (2), In Place and Evidence of Use (3), and Part of our Routine and We Could Model for Others (4).Descriptive statistics were used to analyze tool results.
Results: The REM process revealed that so far most impacts of the antiracist methods programming have been at the personal (seeking additional training) and team/interpersonal (including a community PI) levels across study phases. The most infusion of equitable practices has been at the analysis/meaning-making phase and the least at the dissemination phase. However, the dissemination phase saw more activity at the policy “ripple:” policy briefs and including equity expectations in RFAs. Results from the self-assessment tool showed implementation highest in the study formation section (include communities), where the modal response was 3. The study follow-up section (efforts made to act, track action, share back) received the lowest ratings, with a modal response of 1.
Conclusions and Implications: The FPG R&E Division is making strides in infusing antiracist methods into research practices across all study phases. So far, these practices have largely impacted individual research staff and teams. There have been fewer impacts rippling out to communities and to policy change. More equitable practices are also being implemented in earlier research phases, while less so in terms of data collection, dissemination, and follow-up. Subsequent programming should target these areas for additional learning. Next steps will include inviting assessment participation from community partners and tracking change over time in practices.