Capacity building in physical activity promoting organizations : a qualitative assessment of change in a European Union funded implementation project

Organizational capacity building (OCB) has its roots in the development paradigm. The focus of OCB in the early 1970s and 80s was on delivery of resources and technical assistance by external entities to organizations that needed improvement. Today OCB efforts are focused on internally and cooperatively identifying issues that are central to increasing organizational performance in specific areas. Outside facilitators may assist in this process, but they do not attempt to fully control it. This dissertation “Capacity Building in Physical Activity Promoting Organizations” describes a research project (GO) focused on the more modernized, collaborative process of OCB. The GO Project occurred during a three-year period and was designed to promote health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) to socially disadvantaged groups in thirteen European Union countries. The OCB research process was intermingled with implementation efforts that included incorporating good practices and strengthening networking and partnerships between twenty-three participating organizations. Chapter One of this dissertation provides an overview of the research project. It includes a statement of the problem regarding current work in the field of OCB research. It describes a lack of attention to complexity when researching health promotion implementation projects. This leads to development of over-simplified analytical models and frameworks that are not based in theoretical underpinnings of change and how change occurs. This chapter also describes how approaching OCB research from a participatory stance while still including pre-defined categories of inquiry can lead to better research outcomes. Such an approach increases understanding of the complex dynamics that shape how organizational capacities are built during time-limited implementation projects. It further addresses the qualitative research methods used and limitations of the research. Finally, it outlines the project’s two main research questions: Research Question One. Did participation in the European Union funded GO Project result in increased organizational capacities to promote health-enhancing physical activity to socially disadvantaged groups? Research Question Two. What can analysis of the systemic and contextual elements integral as well a peripheral to the GO Project contribute to understanding the outputs of the capacity building intervention? Chapter Two describes the literature review, which led to a greater understanding of the history and definition of capacity building. It describes the many types of approaches historically taken to increase capacities in health promoting and physical activity promoting organizations. This description includes reference to pre-defined categories (e.g. management styles, problem solving abilities) that have often been considered when building organizational capacities. It also includes an explanation of how it is important to not be too quick to define such categories. Doing so can limit the research perspective. This chapter also lists six critical aspects that must be considered when engaging in OCB for health and physical activity promotion: 1) a mutually agreed upon definition of organizational capacity building is necessary at the outset, 2) the complex systems that OCB occurs within must be considered, 3) limiting research to existing systems can unintentionally ignore other contextual elements critical to OCB, 4) a commitment to networking and partnership building will strengthen OCB, 5) measuring and evaluating OCB efforts will result in better outcomes for research as well as future implementation efforts and 6) OCB activities should be based on sound theoretical concepts. Chapter Three addresses the theoretical and contextual circumstances involved in implementing the GO Project. It describes the development of the project and how a request from the European Commission to combine two proposed projects impacted its overall trajectory, and how that trajectory included elements of implementation and research that did not always merge gracefully. It then describes three key theoretical concepts regarding change that were used to develop a new Conceptual and Analytical OCB model. These concepts, as well as the model, focus on the recursive interplay between micro- meso- and macro-level influences (e.g. individual dispositions and policymaking power) that can affect how and why decisions are made regarding how to approach OCB. The model is graphically designed to include six overlapping frames that have distinct yet relational characteristics. For example, representations of individual-level perceptions of organizational capacities in the first frame sit within representations of organizational-level perceptions of organizational capacities in the second frame and so on through the sixth frame where macro-level power dynamics influencing organizational capacities are represented.The newly developed model was created to meet the challenge of temporal and contextual complexity associated with implementation projects. Chapter Four describes the qualitative approach and methodologies used in this research project to determine whether organizational capacities were built. The qualitative approach was styled as a Research as Intervention (RAI) process, which has its origins in participatory action research. It engaged participants in nine research activities that also served as the interventions intended to increase organizational capacities. The qualitative methods used to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach included formal interviews, field notes, meeting summary notes, reviews of meeting videos and personal communications. The methods of qualitative analysis included both directed and conventional content analysis, which were amenable to the inclusion of the pre-identified theoretical categories integrated in the Conceptual and Analytical OCB model. Analysis was conducted via qualitative data analysis software as well as traditional coding and categorizing of hard copy documentation. Chapter Five presents the results of research for both research questions described above. Results for research question one were gathered using the RAI approach and focused specifically on Frame Two of the Conceptual and Analytical OCB model. This approach included nine specific OCB activities. For each activity an explanation of a) the RAI intervention (e.g. a focus group), b) data collection processes, c) results from data analysis and d) next activities and steps based on findings are presented. Results for research question two were gathered after the completion of the GO Project and were analyzed in relation to all six frames of the Conceptual and Analytical OCB model. Chapter Six presents conclusions from analysis of data for both research questions. Regarding the first question, organizational capacities to promote various forms of health-enhancing physical activity to socially disadvantaged groups were strengthened to varying degrees for the 15 Collaborating Partners (CPs) in the GO Project – especially in relation to networking on international and national levels. The results were less promising for 8 Associated Partners (APs). Results from the first question are presented in relation to Frame Two of the Conceptual and Analytical OCB model, which details relevant qualitative responses to changes in goals, resources, obligations and opportunities for the organizations. Regarding the second question, results from two participating organizations, one AP and one CP, are presented in relation to all six frames of the Conceptual and Analytical OCB model. The results indicate that accounting for larger systemic and contextual elements, as well as focusing on individual interpretations of organizational goals, led to a clearer understanding of how and why organizational capacities were built or thwarted. It describes a conundrum that exists with simultaneously implementing physical activity programs focused on different ideologies. It presents a continuum of types of activities and expected outcomes associated with implementation of two different ideologies: sport for all and HEPA. This continuum is worthy of consideration as policymakers assign symbolic capital to the different terms and expand their efforts to promote physical activity to strengthen civil society in the European Public Sphere. Regarding this, the GO Project’s call to give equal symbolic capital to sport for all and HEPA greatly impacted the CP organization that was analyzed for research question two. This organization was tasked with three simultaneous efforts that were at odds with each other: 1) preserving its own national-level culture/identity, 2) integrating various groups into a European culture and 3) assimilating a stigmatized culture (i.e. Roma gypsies) into the larger national culture. Without consideration of the influences associated with all six frames of the model, this information would not have been realized. Chapter Seven discusses the implications of the results regarding future OCB research. Complexity is often called upon by researchers to be addressed and accounted for. Yet it is also called upon to be simplified so that its dynamics can be effectively transferred from researchers to policymakers to practitioners. Results from this research indicate that simplification is perhaps not the answer to transferring knowledge about complex forces that affect change – especially organizational capacities. Results from this research indicate that the best methods of transferring such knowledge include taking the additional time necessary to impart and discuss complexity, describing complexity as completely as possible and also acknowledging that complexity is a dynamic that moves both directions along the research to practice continuum. It is important to focus on the subtleties involved with implementation of physical activity programs, but it is equally important to understand how the research process itself affects OCB. Both perspectives should be combined and analyzed to understand what drives the prioritization of symbolic capital and most positively affects sustainable OCB.