The social challenges and problems we face today are often at the intersection of many systems, contextual factors and the relations between them- in other words, the social processes involved.
It is hoped that when those who have been marginalized from social, cultural and economic access artistically create together, social inclusion and their sense of worth and sense of community will improve, thereby increasing social equity and improving collective living conditions (Spiegel & Parent, 2017). However, actual collective impacts are linked to how individuals engage with larger social and collective activities and conditions (Spiegel & Parent, 2017).
Social determination of health:
The analysis we adopt in the tool, as explained by Spiegel et al, 2018, is the notion of “social determination of health” whereby health is conceptualized as:
“a complex multidimensional dialectic deeply rooted in social and political processes in which social groups have “ways of living” defined by their position in class/gender/ethno-cultural relations, in turn expressed in individual lifestyles and bio-psychological embodiments (Breilh, 2010, 2013; Krieger, 2011). The social determination of health approach, in contrast to the more traditional social determinants of health analytic framing, focuses attention not merely on the discrete factors or conditions that impact health and wellbeing (e.g. nutrition, housing, education, income, etc.), but rather on the structural processes at the societal level that lead to these social inequities, and the interrelationships among these (Breilh, 2008).”
The overall objective in trying to better understand “collective impact” of an arts for social change project thus should focus on:
“understanding the complex ways by which social policies, as well as their associated social interventions employing the arts (sociocultural interventions), intercede in the dominant modes of constructing ways of being and lifestyles at the individual and collective level.” (Spiegel et al., 2018)
References & Resources:
Breilh, J. (2008). Latin american critical ('social') epidemiology: New settings for an old dream. International Journal of Epidemiology, 37(4), 745-750.
Breilh, J. (2010). Las tres "s" de la determinación de la vida y el triángulo de la política. 10 tesis hacia una visión crítica de la determinación social de la vida y la salud. En: Passos R, organizador. Determinacao social da saúde e reforma sanitaria. Rio de Janeiro: CEBES, 88, 94.
Breilh, J. (2013). La determinación social de la salud como herramienta de transformación hacia una nueva salud pública (salud colectiva)/The social health determination as a tool of transformation towards a new public health (community health). Revista De La Facultad Nacional De Salud Pública, 31, 13-27.
Krieger, N. (2011). Epidemiology and the people's health: Theory and context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Spiegel, J., and Parent, S. (2017). Re-Approaching Community Development through the Arts: A ‘Critical Mixed Methods’ Study of Social Circus in Quebec. Community Development Journal.
Spiegel JB, Ortiz B, Campaña A, Boydell KM, Breilh J, Yassi A. (2018, under review). Social transformation, collective health and community-based arts: Buen Vivir and Ecuador’s social circus program. Global Public Health.
Measuring collective impact:
In their article on collective impact, Kania and Kramer (2011) focus on the collective benefits within the partnership of those involved (rather than society as a whole, which would be too big a task for an “evaluation” exercise.). Kania and Kramer focus on shared measurement, which goes hand-in-hand with authentic partnerships
As with other types of evaluation, it is important to consider the theory of social change
underlying the program as this will inform the focus of the evaluation. In shared measurement, this is especially important to establish among the collective impact partners, as the partners may otherwise approach social change at different levels – for example, at the micro
(individual) level versus the meso
(group) level – and this would influence the respective choice of measures or indicators to collect and analyze within the shared measurement system.
One example of a method relevant for collective impact and its shared measurement is outcome mapping
. In outcome mapping, the focus shifts from measuring direct causal outcomes to focus on behavioural changes and the subsequent ripple effect as those changes move into the wider community and into other domains. This is particularly relevant for collective impact, where the overall goals of social change may be too complex and longstanding to attribute as direct causal outcomes to individual programs. Learn more about outcome mapping in the e-book, Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs
, published by the International Development Research Centre.
References & Resources:
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact
. Stanford Social Innovation Review
, 9(1), 36-41.
Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-Focused Evaluation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.