Integrating for Impact or Integrating for Integration's Sake? An Honest Look at the Pros and Cons of SBC Methods Integration
Summary:
The integration of various social and behavior change (SBC) disciplines (i.e. social and behavior change communication, design thinking, and behavioral economics) to address health and development challenges has become an area of increasing interest in public health and related fields. The driving force behind this is the idea that integration can allow SBC practitioners to gain a broader and deeper understanding of the environmental, structural, social, cognitive and behavioral drivers of these challenges and in response, develop more innovative and impactful programs. Integration can take many forms. In multidisciplinary integration, the program planning process may include several methods, but happen sequentially. In interdisciplinary integration, two or more methods are used together, but maintain their independence. In transdisciplinary integration, there is genuine integration of methods where the application of the process is new for all stakeholders involved. There is typically an assumption that transdisciplinary integration is best. This session will seek to question that assumption. Moderated by Pathfinder International, panelists from ideas42, IDEO.org, Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs (CCP), the International Center for Research on Women (ICRW), and USAID's Center for Innovation and Impact (CII) will address the question, Does SBC method integration work best when all methods are integrated equally? Why or why not? Panelists will briefly discuss their distinct perspectives on the topic, then open the conversation for participants to share their thoughts on the pros and cons of each type of integration, and whether there are contexts in which the various types of integration are more suitable.
Discussion/Implications for the Field:
As leaders in the field of SBC methods integration, these panelists will advocate for, challenge and raise questions about transdisciplinary integration as the gold standard for collaboration amongst disciplines. Panelists will engage the audience in an open and honest discussion about the practicality and possibility of integration, sharing their own experiences and frustrations to help the audience understand if and when transdisciplinary integration is actually the gold standard they should push their programs towards.
Abstract submitted by:
Reshma Trasi - Pathfinder
Stephanie Levy - ideas42
Chris Larkin - ideas42
Claudia Vondrasek - JHU
Laura Hinson - ICRW
The integration of various social and behavior change (SBC) disciplines (i.e. social and behavior change communication, design thinking, and behavioral economics) to address health and development challenges has become an area of increasing interest in public health and related fields. The driving force behind this is the idea that integration can allow SBC practitioners to gain a broader and deeper understanding of the environmental, structural, social, cognitive and behavioral drivers of these challenges and in response, develop more innovative and impactful programs. Integration can take many forms. In multidisciplinary integration, the program planning process may include several methods, but happen sequentially. In interdisciplinary integration, two or more methods are used together, but maintain their independence. In transdisciplinary integration, there is genuine integration of methods where the application of the process is new for all stakeholders involved. There is typically an assumption that transdisciplinary integration is best. This session will seek to question that assumption. Moderated by Pathfinder International, panelists from ideas42, IDEO.org, Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs (CCP), the International Center for Research on Women (ICRW), and USAID's Center for Innovation and Impact (CII) will address the question, Does SBC method integration work best when all methods are integrated equally? Why or why not? Panelists will briefly discuss their distinct perspectives on the topic, then open the conversation for participants to share their thoughts on the pros and cons of each type of integration, and whether there are contexts in which the various types of integration are more suitable.
Discussion/Implications for the Field:
As leaders in the field of SBC methods integration, these panelists will advocate for, challenge and raise questions about transdisciplinary integration as the gold standard for collaboration amongst disciplines. Panelists will engage the audience in an open and honest discussion about the practicality and possibility of integration, sharing their own experiences and frustrations to help the audience understand if and when transdisciplinary integration is actually the gold standard they should push their programs towards.
Abstract submitted by:
Reshma Trasi - Pathfinder
Stephanie Levy - ideas42
Chris Larkin - ideas42
Claudia Vondrasek - JHU
Laura Hinson - ICRW
Source
Approved abstract for the postponed 2020 SBCC Summit in Marrakech, Morocco. Provided by the International Steering Committee for the Summit. Image credit: Graphic facilitation by Sally J Butler from Kaiser Permanente. Photograph by Nicka Smith, Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy - via Flickr