This is what you will learn during this class:

Learning Objectives 

1. Understand and apply the principles of polarity management to distinguish between basic and applied research.

2. Apply polarity management principles to differentiate outcome-based from process-based research frameworks.

3. Develop and apply critical thinking and argumentation skills through structured debate on research approaches.

4. Enhance collaboration and peer-to-peer learning by working in small groups on a research scenario.

5. Reflect on personal research approaches and potential biases through a written reflection.

6. Integrate feedback to improve discussion and presentation skills in subsequent class activities.

Breakdown:

Step 1: Icebreaker (10 minutes)

• Objective: Warm up the class and create a comfortable environment.

• Activity: We will start "Yes, And" vs. "No, But" Icebreaker Exercise (instructions).

Step 2: Introductions (20 minutes)

• Objective: Familiarize students with each other and set the stage for collaborative learning.

• Activity: I will ask each one of you to introduce yourselves, including your background, research interests, and what you hope to learn from the class.

Step 3: Lecture on Process-Oriented Frameworks (30 minutes)

• Objective: Teach about process-oriented frameworks in research.

• Activity: Lecture covering the principles, benefits, and examples of process-oriented frameworks, including how they can complement outcome-based approaches.

Step 4: Explain the Fishbowl Exercise and Rules (15 minutes)

• Objective: Ensure students understand the fishbowl exercise.

• Activity: I will use an activity called "fishbowl" exercise. First we will go over the ground rules for this activity. 

Step 5: Break (15 minutes)

Step 6: Describe the Problem and Divide Students into 2 Groups (5 minutes)

• Objective: Prepare for the debate (see the primer document).

• Activity: This activity is based on one of the concepts explored in the lecture, which is best captured by the the question: "Is research outcome-based or process-based?" To run the activity, I will first divide all students into two groups to take the opposing views: Group 1 (outcome-based) and Group 2 (process-based).

Step 7: Individual Work: Prepare Arguments (15 minutes)

• Objective: Allow students, individually, time to develop their arguments.

• Activity: I will let you take 15 minutes to independently research and prepare arguments for your group's stance.

Step 8: Group 1 Presentation (20 minutes) (see detailed activity timeline and steps here)

• Objective: Present arguments supporting the outcome-based perspective.

• Activity: In this activity, I will ask the students in Group 1 to present their arguments in the fishbowl setting, using "Yes, and..." approach, while Group 2 observes and takes notes.

Step 9: Group 2 Presentation (20 minutes)

• Objective: Present arguments supporting the process-based perspective.

• Activity: Conversely, in this activity, I will ask the students in Group 2 to present their arguments in the fishbowl setting, using "Yes, and..." approach, while Group 1 observes and takes notes.

Step 10: Debrief (20 minutes)

• Objective: Reflect on the exercise and provide feedback.

• Activity: This activity will follow a debriefing method where we will try to bring together the two perspectives

  • Discuss feelings about the exercise (stress, engagement, inclusion).

  • Analyze the process (participation order, contribution duration, discussion dynamics, facilitation).

  • Reflect on the content (evidence, topic preference, changing opinions, research implications).

  • Consider how the discussions impacted thoughts on past and future research.

Step 11: Assignment and Closing Discussion (60 minutes)

• Objective: Consolidate learning and apply it to a real-world context.

• Activity:

  • Assignment: I would like to ask you to write a 2-page paper taking a side (outcome-based, process-based, or a balanced view) and presenting arguments in the context of their own work. 

  • Submit the written assignment electronically on Canvas at the end of this class. This assignment will be graded by the course instructor.

Assessment Rubric

Step 12: Homework

Objective: Share your initial thoughts on your chosen stance and how the class discussions influenced your perspective.

Activity: format:  "two-minute-wonder" where you will have 1-slide and 2 minutes (timed) to pitch your ideas to the class).

• • Submit the slides electronically to this folder by next Monday.

Additional Readings

Process-Oriented Frameworks:

1. MRC Framework:

   • Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., & Petticrew, M. (2008). Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 337, a1655. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655

   • Moore, G. F., Audrey, S., Barker, M., Bond, L., Bonell, C., Hardeman, W., ... & Baird, J. (2015). Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 350, h1258. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1258

2. Implementation Science and Process Evaluation:

   • Nilsen, P. (2015). Making sense of implementation theories, models, and frameworks. Implementation Science, 10(53), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0

3. Process-Oriented Frameworks in Health Research:

   • Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network. https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/sites/nirn.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIRN-MonographFull-01-2005.pdf

Outcome-Based Frameworks:

1. Outcome-Based Research:

   • Kazdin, A. E. (2007). Mediators and mechanisms of change in psychotherapy research. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091432

   • Proctor, E. K., Powell, B. J., & McMillen, J. C. (2013). Implementation strategies: Recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implementation Science, 8(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-139

2. Challenges in Outcome Measurement:

   • Glasziou, P., Meats, E., Heneghan, C., & Shepperd, S. (2008). What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ, 336(7659), 1472-1474. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39590.732037.47

Debate on Outcome-Based vs. Process-Based Research:

1. Balancing Process and Outcomes:

   • Glasgow, R. E., Linnan, L. A., & Jilcott, S. (2004). Why don't we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. American Journal of Public Health, 94(10), 1618-1623. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.10.1618

2. Integrating Process and Outcome Measures:

   • Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell Publishing.

3. Research Frameworks and their Application:

   • Greenhalgh, T., & Papoutsi, C. (2018). Studying complexity in health services research: Desperately seeking an overdue paradigm shift. BMC Medicine, 16(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1089-4

Fishbowl and Debriefing Techniques:

1. Collaborative Learning and Debate:

   • Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (2012). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms. Jossey-Bass.

2. Fishbowl Techniques in Education:

   • Schwartz, P., Mennin, S., & Webb, G. (Eds.). (2001). Problem-based learning: Case studies, experience, and practice. Kogan Page Publishers.