The Value Template Process: A Participatory
Evaluation Method for Community Health
Partnerships
Alice J. Hausman, Rickie Brawer, Julie Becker, Robin Foster-Drain, Charmaine Sudier, Robin Wiicox,
and Barbara J. Terry
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
T
his article presents the results of a pilot implementation of
an evaluation process designed to help community health
collaboratives obtain relevant information for planning and
evaluation. The Value Template Process assists collaboratives to
identify performance and impact indicators that are meaningful
and measurable with accessible data. The process also
encourages communication and engagement in assessment
among collaborative members. The pilot study demonstrated
that the process's underlying assumptions of social capital were
valid and that the process was feasible and useful to the
community heaith collaborative.
KEY WORDS: community health collaboratives, evaluation,
participatory evaluation
Increasingly, public health practice is turning to com-
munity collaborative models to improve population
health status. These collaboratives are voluntary part-
nerships among public and private organizations that
join forces and link resources to improve health among
residents of defined communities.^'^ Despite the appeal
of this practice model, partnerships and coalitions are
fragile entities, difficult to maintain in part because they
face significant barriers to the use of appropriate infor-
mation for strategic planning.^-'' Often, collaboratives
do not set clear goals and measurable objectives that
members can identify as success, nor do they work in-
ternally to build the infrastructure necessary for strate-
gic planning and implementation. Collaboratives must
also be able to assess the impact of their activities and
be able to communicate the benefit of participation to
J Public Health Management Practice, 2005,11(1), 65-71
© 2005 Lippincott Williams & Wiikins, Inc.
current and prospective partners and the leadership of
partner organizations in order to be sustainable. Unless
partners see a benefit to their participation, they will
eventually stop participating and new partners will be
difficult to engage.'
This article presents the results of a pilot imple-
mentation of an evaluation process designed to assist
community health collaboratives meet their informa-
tion needs. Using principles of participatory evaluation
and social capital, the Value Template Process identi-
fies performance and impact indicators that are mean-
ingful to collaboratives and measurable with accessi-
ble data. The process also encourages communication
among collaborative members and their engagement
in all phases of assessment, planning, and evaluation.
The pilot study assessed: (1) if the underlying assump-
tions of the evaluation model were valid and (2) if the
The authors thank the following members of the Haddington Collaborative Health
Project for their contributions: Ruth Bazemore, Ruth Campbeil, Patricia Fuitz, and
Grace Haywood. Their insights, energy, and willingness to guide us enabled the
success of this endeavov-^«e are very grateiul.
Corresponding author: Aiice J. Hausman, PhD, MPH, Department of Public
Health, Temple University, 304 Vivacqua Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19122 (e-mail:
hausman@temple.edu).
Alice J. Hausman, PhD, MPH, is Professor and Chair, Department of Public Health,
Temple University, 304 Vivacqua Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Rickie Brawer, MPH, is Associate Director, Office to Advance Population Health,
Thomas Jetterson University Hospitai, Philadeiphia, Pennsylvania.
Julie Becker, PhD, MPH, is a Research Consultant, Public Health Consultants,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Rcbin Foster-Drain, MD, MPH, is President and Executive Director, To Our
Children's Future With Hearth, Phiiabelphia, Pennsylvania.
Charmaine Sudier is Director of Community Development and Organization, To Our
Children's Future With Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Robin Wiicox, MPA, is Vice President for Community Health, Texas Health
Resources, Dates.
Barbara J. Terry, RN, BSN, MS, NHA, is President and CEO, Institute for Healthy
Communities, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
8B I Journal of Public Health Management and Practice
process was feasible and produced results useful to the
collaborative.
# The Value Template Process
The Value Template Process was created by the Penn-
sylvania Institute for Health Communities (an affiliate
organization of the Hospital and Health System Asso-
ciation of Pennsylvania) and a work team composed
of representatives from public health, business, health
care, health planning, and education. The Value Tem-
plate Process is built upon principles of social capital
and participatory research. The core idea of social cap-
ital is that social relationships affect individual behav-
ior and social networks influence the productivity of
organizations.^^ Research has shown that societal fea-
tures such as strong social networks, high levels of trust
among community constituents, and civic participation
(to name a few) are related to improved health indica-
tors, so the concept has particular relevance to com-
munity health initiatives.^"'" Community health initia-
tives employ social capital principles in that issues of
trust, information sharing, and strength of inter-agency
relationships are critical to maintaining cohesion and
generating effective action.''''^'' Here, the Value Tem-
plate Process applies concepts and principles of social
capital to community health partnerships, viewing the
network of different agencies as the social unit where
social capital is built and bartered. Coleman's' presen-
tation of social capital as a product of rational, pur-
poseful individuals who build social capital to maxi-
mize their individual opportunities underlies the Value
Template Process. The process does not actually mea-
sure social capital, but rather focuses on demonstrat-
ing to members how they benefit both individually
and collectively, and how they can further their self-
interest by supporting and sustaining the partnerships.
The underlying premise based on social capital is that
the more participating individuals and organizations
realize their own self-interests through participation,
the more likely they are to continue to participate.
TABLE 1 o Example of \n': cells present examples of specific indicators of value specified by each focus group
Value indicator Health care/ Small community
domain business/politicians organizations
Personal benefits Better job performance Si<ill development
Benefit to organization Enlianced reputation Use of evaluation data
Community benefits More/better services Children's programs
Performance Roie definition Mutual support
Research on participatory methods and coUabora-
tives demonstrates that when partnerships engage in
assessment and evaluation, they increase their owner-
ship of both methods and results.""" Simply put, the
Value Template Process engages partnership members
in a dialogue about why they participate and what their
expectations are for results. They are then asked to op-
erationalize their expectations by offering indicators of
success. Table 1 presents an example "template" that
provides a structural framework for organizing and
presenting the derived indicators across all partnership
constituencies for easy communication. The columns
reflect the membership of the collaborative, although
the actual groupings or titles will vary according to how
each collaborative defines its structure. The rows are the
indicators of value identified by the groups through the
Template Process, as it is described below. In each cell
are examples of indicators derived from the piloting
of the process. This format provides a visual way for
partnership constituencies to see similarities and differ-
ences, and to identify sectors that can be strengthened.
While the indicators themselves are useful to the
partnership, the underlying premise of the Value Tem-
plate Process is that the communication of what mem-
bers value and the act of identifying the indicators
of value are most important. The acts of discussion
both within and across partnership constituencies fa-
cilitate consensus-based evaluation and can help build
an infrastructure for ongoing assessment and strategic
planning.
The Value Template Process is different from other
tools that have been developed to evaluate partnerships
or coalitions because it focuses more on processes of dis-
covery and communication rather than the actual data
collection. Rather than actually measuring or monitor-
ing aspects of collaboratives, it sets the stage for the
use of methods and tools designed for those purposes.
For example, the Community Toolbox is a resource of
methods and tools community health coalitions can use
to chart their activities and progress along a pathway
to community change.'"*'^ Butterfoss, Goodman, and
Wandersman'* have studied factors that support the
Stakeholders
Youth groups Faith-based groups Block captains
Life si<ills Spiritual mission met Use and value of
personal experience
Inter-group cooperation Expansion of mission Shared resources
More youth activities Increased safety More parental involvement
Networking Networking Shared information

functioning and effectiveness of coalitions and have de-
veloped tools for measuring key features of coalitions
that assist in formal evaluations. The Template Pro-
cess facilitates the flow of the information that the tools
generate among partners. The Value Template Process
also complements previous efforts to identify indica-
tors that may better reflect the way collaboratives work
to achieve health improvements'^"^" by generating ad-
ditional categories of relevant outcomes.
• Applying the Template Process
The pilot test of the Value Template Process was con-
ducted in one urban community health partnership,
the Haddington Community Health Project Collabora-
tive (HCHPC). The research team included university-
based personnel and members of the collaborative.
This partnership was selected for the pilot study be-
cause it sustains a high level of organizational stabil-
ity and community action. We felt that if principles
of social capital were relevant to the Value Template
Process, they would be revealed in our work with the
Haddington Collaborative. Temple University's Insti-
tutional Review Board reviewed and approved the re-
search protocol; participants signed informed consent
forms and gave permission to audiotape. Collaborative
members helped phrase the consent letters and proce-
dures for presenting them to focus group participants.
Haddington Community Heaitii Project Collaborative
The Haddington area of West Philadelphia is 93%
African American with a high level of poverty (42.2%
live below 150% poverty) and low level of education
(19.3% have less than high school education). Children
and youth are at increased risk for pregnancy, sexually
transmitted disease, use of drugs and alcohol, and vic-
timization from violent crime.'^' In an effort to address
these issues, the HCHPC was formed in 1995 as a part-
nership of a church, a community group, a hospital and
the Philadelphia Housing Authority to address health
(1) Local
businesses
(3) Faith-based
FIGURE 1. Structure of the collaborative organizations
and focus group definition.
The Value Template Process I 8 7
and social issues in West Philadelphia. The HCHPC cur-
rently consists of over 40 organizations and 30 commu-
nity residents. Projects include youth literacy programs,
nutrition programs, health services for the elderly and
children, and community beautification projects. The
collaborative receives its funding from a combination of
foundation and federal grants as well as through a small
donor base. The collaborative is organized into sub-
committees based upon common backgrounds, such
as health care providers, organizations involved with
youth, and faith-based organizations (see Figure 1).
The Template Process
Table 2 presents the Value Template Process phases as
they were implemented in the pilot test. Generally, the
process involves a series of focused discussions and val-
idation of results. The first phase involves engagement
with the collaborative and defining procedures; the sec-
ond phase collects and analyzes focus group data and
validates the analysis with participants; the third phase
brings results back to the larger collaborative and facil-
itates planning for follow-up; the last phase involves
integration of the process into ongoing strategic plan-
ning and performance monitoring.
9 Results
Pbase 1
The pilot test research team was established by drawing
upon the HCHPC leadership's guidance to ensure full
participation of the collaborative in the Template Pro-
cess. The team included individuals who had worked
together before in both practice and academic settings.
Engagement of the collaborative was facilitated by the
pre-existing relationships between the academic re-
searchers and collaborative members who were com-
mitted to expanding the capacity of the collaborative
in the areas of strategic planning and evaluation. These
nriembers were approached early with the idea of pi-
loting the Template Process, and subsequent meetings
Haddington Collaborative Health Project
zzb=
(1) Health care (1) Politicians (2) Block
providers political groups captains
(4) Youth (5) Small
groups community-based
organizations
68 I Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

TABLE 2 o Procedure for using the value template

Phase one Outline partnership structure and constituencies:

• identify accountabiiity relationships (eg, between the board and all other partnership members, or among subcommittees).
• identify different types of activities iini^ed to partnership members;
• Involve partnership in process.
Phase two Conduct focus groups:
• Engage board members in defining and organizing focus groups.
• Group participants by professional affinities and/or activities into focus groups.
• Conduct focus groups using questions designed to identify indicators refiecting their respective interests and concerns.
• Summarize themes of expectations and concerns by group and present to group for vaiidation.
• Reach agreement on indicators of success ("vaiue") for each group.
Phase three Aiign indicators with constituencies using vaiue tempiate:
• Organize all indicators into categories that emerge from aii focus groups.
• Present aii resuits to partnership members with faciiitated dialogue.
• Identify existing data sources, discuss practicaiity, and cogency.
Phase four Coiiect data on indicators:
• Confirm consensus and participation.
• Coiiect, organize and interpret data.
• Review resuits with partnership using faciiitated diaiogue.
• Assess subsequent strategic pianning process.
Sustainability integrate data coiiection and systematic review into partnership process.

with staff from the lead agency of the collaborative (see Table 3). More than 90% of the participants were
and interested HCHPC members built support for par- African American.
ticipation. The pilot project was well-received by the Focus group questions were directed to yield in-
HCHPC membership and 4 additional members were formation in 3 areas: (1) the value of participation in
appointed to be a part of the research team to ensure the partnership, in terms of both the individual and
that the community was appropriately represented in their parent organization, (2) perceived indicators of the
the research design and methodology. collaborative's success, and (3) identification of what
was working well or needed improvement within the
partnership.
Phase 2 The tapes and notes from the 2 note-takers present at
The team worked with the collaborative to identify ap- each focus group were reviewed and abstracted by at
propriate focus group constituencies, questions, and least 2 researchers and 3 members of the research team
procedures for communication of results. HCHPC reviewed the abstracts. Two domains of themes were
members helped to determine the structure and num- searched for within the data. The first set focused on
ber of the focus groups, assisted with the design of the the identification of predetermined categories of value
questions to be asked, and took responsibility for con-
tacting participants and organizing the groups. The fo-
cus groups followed the subcommittee structure, ex- 1ABLE3 O Focus group participation
cept where it was necessary to group like subcommit- No. who No. who
tees to generate a group of sufficient size. Five focus participated participated
groups were held with the following constituencies: No. invited in focus in review
hospitals/businesses/political officials, youth group Groups to participate group group
leaders, block captains (residents elected by their neigh-
bors on their block to serve as liaisons with city agen- Hospital/business/iegislation 9 7 6
cies), faith-based organizations, and small community- Smaii community-based 18 4 5
based organizations (see Figure 1). The focus groups organizations
were held between January and June of 2002 and were Youth group 13 6 8
conducted by a professional facilitator. Participants Faith-based groups 14 9 12
were offered refreshments and given subway tokens Biock captains 30 8 5
as small appreciation gift. Focus groups ranged in size Totai 84 34 36
from 4 people to 8 people for a total of 34 participants Overall participation rate,% 40 43

indicators. Specifically, we looked for stated benefits of
participation for the individual, their organization, and
the community served; stated markers or indicators of
success; and comments about the internal performance
of the collaborative. The second set focused on social
capital: data were read for how concepts of social capital
were expressed in the different groups. Within each of
these domains, constructs were modified as we learned
more from the focus groups, utilizing techniques from
grounded theory study.^
Next, we provided feedback to each focus group in-
dividually to clarify information, language, and to val-
idate indicators. Constituency members unable to at-
tend the focus group could participate in the validation
groups and their participation helped to ensure that
information from the focus groups reflected the larger
constituency, particularly in focus groups that had less
initial participation (see Table 3). We presented the list
of indicators we had "heard" to the validation group
and participants then either added more indicators or
clarified our language to better reflect their intended
meaning. In none of these validation meetings were in-
dicators removed from the list. Phase Two provided
an opportunity for enhanced communication within
the constituencies that comprised each focus group.
It encouraged sharing of information and highlighted
commonalities, differences, and expectations of the
individual members within the constituency. Improved
communication among collaborative members fosters
the building of "trust," a major tenet of social capital.
Phase 3
The third phase of the Template Process is character-
ized by synthesizing the results of the individual fo-
cus groups for presentation to the collaborative as a
whole. Bimonthly, all members of the HCHP are in-
vited to a meeting that functions like a town meeting,
where information is presented from the subcommit-
tees to the larger collaborative and time is allotted for
open discussion. A complete list of all the value indi-
cators identified from the focus groups was presented
to over 40 collaborative members during one of these
open meetings. There was discussion about the indica-
tors, ideas were shared across constituencies, and the
list was validated with the larger group. Again, some
additions were made to the list. Importantly, the discus-
sion shifted to looking across the small group results
to identify common concerns and themes. For exam-
ple, improved quality of life was a community bene-
fit that all groups specified. Similarly, the need for in-
creased communication throughout the collaborative
was widely shared.
At this time, collaborative members were asked to
identify data they already collect that might be used
The Value Template Process I 69
to measure any of the listed indicators. This process
helped to edit the list from the perspective of practical-
ity; only those indicators that were likely to be actually
measured either from existing data or other data easily
obtained using existing collaborative resources stayed
on the list. The result of the editing was used to com-
plete a Value Template, creating a matrix of indicators
that was disseminated throughout the collaborative. A
fuller discussion of the indicators and data sources is
presented elsewhere.'^
Phase 4
The final phase of the Template Process is to actually
collect the data on the specified indicators, analyze re-
sults, and interpret them through the eyes of the collab-
orative members. The pilot implementation project did
not carry through this phase, and, as such, the degree
to which results were integrated into ongoing collabo-
rative planning was also not assessed.
• Discussion
The pilot test of the Value Template Process focused as-
sessment on (1) the validity of the underlying assump-
tions of the evaluation model and (2) the feasibility
and utility of the process from the perspective of the
collaborative.
Validation of underiying assumptions
The first assumption made for the Value Template Pro-
cess was that principles of social capital are applicable
to community health partnerships as entities and that
social capital dynamics of individual self-interest, reci-
procity, and communication were relevant to the collab-
orative's internal functioning and achieved result. We
found that social capital was clearly expressed in the in-
dicators of value of participation. Individual members
articulated a number of personal benefits they derived
from participation, ranging from meeting their spiri-
tual needs to improved job performance and satisfac-
tion. Benefits to organizations that sponsored participa-
tion of their representatives, such as community health
clinics, hospitals, as well as churches, were specified in
more economic terms, such as increased market share
through improved community relations and increased
attendance. Identification of these important expecta-
tions for personal and organizational investment in the
collaborative sets the stage for providing information
on those factors that will sustain continued participa-
tion. Reciprocity was noted as a key benefit for par-
ticipation. The value of the collective effort was enu-
merated in the faith-based group in terms of resources
70 I Journal of Public Health Management and Practice
that were shared. Other individual members noted how
their job-related tasks in the community were facili-
tated by the different groups working together. Specifi-
cally, sharing information with collaborative members
about available resources, upcoming events, and prob-
lem solving assisted organizations in promoting their
services and programs while also improving commu-
nity access. This was valued by individuals and the
organizations they represented.
The importance of communication both within and
across subcommittees in the collaborative was clearly
stated in a number of the focus groups. Within groups,
people felt their ideas were heard and applied. How-
ever, the need for increased communication across sub-
committees was identified in a number of different con-
stituencies and this was seen as one pathway for help-
ing the collaborative move forward with its mission.
Improved communication across constituencies helps
to create bridging social capital, believed to be cru-
cial to communities in "getting ahead."^ The format of
the template itself allowed participants a visual means
to identify commonalities and differences amongst the
constituency groups. This visual form helped to facili-
tate additional discussions about goals and steps to take
towards progress.
The second assumption of the Value Template Pro-
cess is that it is fully participatory. Our hope for the
process was that collaborative members would become
engaged in the process, own it, and use the results.
We found that the process was successful in generat-
ing participation at all levels. The perceived role of the
collaborative in the process was aptly characterized by
a HCHP board member when she commented on the
importance of participating in the pilot study: "It's up
to us to see what's working and what isn't." Partic-
ipation in the focus groups varied across the differ-
ent constituencies, but all were represented. In all, 28
member organizations participated in the focus groups
and validation process, approximately 38% of the total
collaborative.
Feasibility, utiiity, and limitations
The pilot implementation of the Value Template Process
demonstrated that it is a feasible process and that it can
provide results that are useful to the collaborative. The
concepts and procedures of the Value Template Pro-
cess were easily communicated and members quickly
engaged in the process and organized its implemen-
The pilot implementation of the Value Template Process
demonstrated that it is a feasible process and that it can
provide results that are useful to the collaborative.
tation. Discussions were Hvely and collaborative mem-
bers were supportive of the effort. Whereas the pilot did
not follow the board's actions in subsequent meetings,
it appeared that "next step" plans were being made
to help move the process from a research exercise to a
component of strategic planning.
In many respects, we did expect that HCHPC would
be fully engaged in the Template Process because of
their demonstrated interest and previous experience
in doing evaluation and planning. The pre-existing
relationships between the academic researchers and
HCHPC members also greatly facilitated implementa-
tion. Furthermore, the early involvement of the collabo-
rative minimized the time spent in "learning" about the
structure and activities of the collaborative. We would
expect that in some instances, more time would need
to be spent in Phase 1 than was spent in the pilot study.
Even with a well-established and successful collabo-
rative, the Value Template Process required additional
resources. The use of an external facilitator to conduct
the focus groups and the review discussions was very
successful, and we would recommend this in any repli-
cation. The process requires sufficient research capac-
ity to conduct preliminary analyses and to establish
methods for following through on measuring indica-
tors. Here, the academic members of the research team
conducted the bulk of the focus group analyses. Ac-
cess to research expertise, either through partnering
with public health professionals with research train-
ing or by having staff with expertise, is an important
component of the Template Process. A workbook guide
for procedures and links with existing evaluation tools
for measuring identified indicators would also facili-
tate replication. The Template Process needs to be repli-
cated with newer and/or less organized collaboratives
to see if implementation is as easy and if it is as help-
ful with planning and sustainability. Such replication
would also provide further insight into the role of so-
cial capital in community health collaboratives and its
use for evaluation.
• Conclusion
The Value Template Process utilizes principles of so-
cial capital and holds promise for helping commu-
nity health partnerships meet their information needs
for accountability and sustainability. It can provide
meaningful and measurable indicators of success, fos-
ter communication and trust, and build social capital
within the partnership. It can provide vital informa-
tion and, after further refinement, it may assist in fa-
cilitating participation and enhance sustainability over
time.
 The Value Template Process I 71

REFERENCES patory Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1991:19-

55.
1. Green LW, et al. Partnerships and coalitions for community-
13. Chambers R. Whose Reality Counts? London: Intermediate
based research. Public Health Reports. 2001;116(suppl.):20-
Technologies Publications; 1997.
31.
14. Coombe CM. Using empowerment evaluation in commu-
2. Green LW, Mercer SL. Can public health researchers and
nity organizing and community based health initiatives. In:
agencies reconcile the push from funding bodies and the
Minkler M, ed. Community Organizing and Community Build-
pull from communities? American Journal of Public Health.
ing for Health. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press;
2001;91(12):1926-1929.
1997:291-307.
3. United Way. Agenci/ Experiences with Outcome Measurement:
15. Francisco VT, et al. A methodology for monitoring and evalu-
Survey Findings [item no. 0196]. Alexandria, VA: United Way
ation community health coalitions. Health Education Research.
of America; 2000.
1993;8:403-416.
4. Hausman A. Implications of evidence-based practice for
16. The Community Tool Box [Web site]. Available at: http:/ /ctb.
community health. American Journal of Community Psychol-
ku.edu/. Accessed April 5, 2004.
ogy. 2002;30(3):453-467.
17. Butterfoss FD, et al. Community coalitions for prevention and
5. Berkman L, et al. From social integration to health:
health promotion: factors predicting satisfaction, participa-
Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science and Medicine.
tion, and planning. Health Education Quarterly. 1996;23(1):65-
2000;51:843-857.
79.
6. Kawachi I, et al. Social capital and self-rated health: a contex-
18. Cheadle A, et al. Environmental Indicators: A tool for evaluat-
tual analysis. American Journal of Public Health. 1999;89:1187-
ing community-based health-promotion programs. American
1193.
Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1992;8:345-350.
7. Coleman J. Social capital in the creation of human
19. Cohen S, et al. Social Support And Measurement And Interven-
capital. American Journal of Sociology. 1988;94(suppl.):95-
tion: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists. New York: Oxford
120.
University Press; 2000.
8. Putnam R. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
20. Hart M. Guide to Sustainable Measures. Available at: http://
Community. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2002.
www.sustainablemeasures.com/. Accessed December 3,
9. Kreuter M, Levin N. Social Capital Theory: implications
2003.
of community based health promotion. In: DiClemente R,
21. Norris T. Community Initiatives, Inc. [Web site]. Available
Crosby R, Kegler M (eds). Emerging Theories in Health Promo-
at: http://www.communityinitiatives.com/home.html. Ac-
tion Practice and Research. New York: Jossey-Bass; 2002:228-
cessed December 03, 2003.
254.
22. Philadelphia Health Management Corporation. Haddington
10. Kawachi I, et al. Social Capital, Income Inequality and
Collaborative Health Needs Assessment. Philadelphia: Philadel-
Mortality. American Journal of Public Health. 1997;87(9):1491-
phia Health Management Corporation; 1996.
1498.
23. Creswell J. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Ap-
11. Miller R. Healthy Boston and social capital: application, dy-
proaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishers; 1994.
namics, and limitations. National Civic Review. 1997;86(2):157-
24. Hausman A, et al. Identifying Value Indicators and So-
166.
cial Capital in Community Health Partnerships. Paper in
12. Whyte WF, et al. Participatory action research: through prac-
preparation.
tice to science in social research. In: Whyte WF, ed. Partici-