[ Music ]
>> Introduction to
Experiential Evidence:
Experiential evidence is
the collective experience
and expertise of those who
have practiced or lived
in a particular setting.
It also includes the knowledge
of subject matter experts.
These insights, understandings,
skills,
and expertise are accumulated
over time and is often referred
to as intuitive or
tacit knowledge.
>> I think of it as bringing
people in that, you know,
have seen stuff, have
experienced stuff,
who have maybe worked
in a capacity
where they have seen a lot
of, you know, things happen,
and bring in people who
that can serve as resources.
>> Experiential evidence may
help to provide information
on some of the same
factors addressed
by contextual evidence,
including acceptability,
feasibility, and utility
of a prevention strategy.
However, experiential evidence
provides distinctive guidance
in the form of real-world
experience gathered
from multiple stakeholders who
are familiar with a variety
of key aspects about the
setting and have knowledge
about the norms and
values of the community
in which a prevention
strategy is to be implemented.
While best available
research evidence
and contextual evidence can be
drawn from existing data sources
as well as new sources of data,
and applied to a decision,
experiential evidence
must be intentionally
and systematically elicited
from a diverse array
of key stakeholders in response
to a particular decision
making situation.
Systematically gathering
experiential evidence can help
to answer the following
questions:
What can the experiences
and knowledge
of stakeholders tell us about
what has previously worked
or not worked with
the specific community
and population in question?
What can the experiences
and knowledge
of stakeholders tell us
about a program, practice,
or policy's possible appeal to
stakeholders and participants?
What common goals do
the stakeholders have
around this issue?
What do the experiences
and knowledge
of stakeholders tell us about
how well matched those goals are
to the programs,
practices, or policies based
on the best available
research evidence?
[ Clicking ]
[ Silence ]
Early on in the decision
making process,
parts of the interagency
workgroup meetings were
committed to interactive
activities led by a facilitator.
This helped to identify
a common understanding
of the issue they
addressed and the consensus
about the direction
that they need to take.
One example was an exercise in
which the participants wrote
on large cards the problems
that faced families, children,
and youth in the community.
They were asked to visualize
the problems and write
down a 3-to-5-word
statement on the cards
about the problems
that they visualized.
The common problems
were clustered together.
Once these clusters
were identified,
those that had the
most cards stood
out as the group's
primary concerns.
The group also listed out the
things in their community based
on its assets for prevention.
The differences between
perceived concerns and strengths
of the group and local data
findings were discussed,
and the priorities for the
workgroup were identified.
One of the first tasks of
the interagency workgroup
on teen dating violence
prevention
in our case study community was
to identify who was at the table
and who was not but should be.
The local public health
office, local school system,
and juvenile justice were part
of the workgroup from the start.
Participation from this
diverse cross section of leaders
from local government
and youth-serving organizations
was an indication of interest
and commitment for bringing a
teen dating violence prevention
program to the community.
However, one of the first
goals of the workgroup was
to engage representatives
from other important sectors,
including healthcare and
domestic violence coalitions.
Another challenge was to keep
the workgroup small enough
to be effective yet still
have it represent the
broader community.
To gather additional information
and engage the community
in support of this
effort, representatives
of the interagency
workgroup presented
to the community violence
prevention strategies identified
through their search of the best
available research evidence.
The best available research
evidence was reviewed,
and attendees were given a
chance to reflect on the issues
that most concern them
as community members.
Participants were put into small
groups to review a synthesis
of the best available research
evidence on each model.
As a whole group, each
smaller group reported
on how well they
thought the programs
from the research evidence
fit with the local community,
based on their knowledge
and experience
as those most familiar
with the community.
The dialog that resulted
was carefully documented
and distributed to
the workgroup.