Christopher Keane American Geosciences Institute 23 May 2012.
How a K-Award Has Advanced a Research Career: a Search for Unity in Diversity Christopher Keane...
-
Upload
kory-willis -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of How a K-Award Has Advanced a Research Career: a Search for Unity in Diversity Christopher Keane...
How a K-Award Has Advanced
a Research Career:a Search for Unity in Diversity
Christopher Keane Assistant Professor
Behavioral & Community Health SciencesUniversity of Pittsburgh
AHRQ Conference 2008
Disciplinary Expertise Prior to K-Award:
• Experimental design and survey design
• Statistical analysis, regression etc.
• Sociology of public health
• Organizational theory relating to contracting
• Biology (had never used in my health studies)
New Disciplinary Approaches Mid-K-Award:
• Experimental economics & game theory
• Modeling of complex adaptive systems
• Philosophy of sociality
• Additional organizational theory & practice
• Neuroeconomics & social neurology
• Psychology of behavior change
Challenge: How to Integrate These Diverse Approaches?
New Disciplinary Approaches to Study of Trust & Cooperation (One Unifying Theme):
• Experimental games of trust & cooperation
• Social neurology of trust & cooperation
• Modeling trust & cooperation in systems
• Philosophy of trust & cooperation
• Organizational theories of trust & cooperation • Psychology of behavior change & trust
New Disciplinary Approaches to Study of Trust & Cooperation in Health:
New Partners• Trust & cooperation games in food choices
Two new partners from experimental economic • Social neurology of trust & cooperation
No partners, yet. • Modeling trust & cooperation in health systems
Two new partners, computational modelers• Philosophy of trust & cooperation
A philosopher & computational modeler of trust• Organizational theories of trust & cooperation
Several new partners from other departments• Psychology of behavior change & trust
Several new partners
New Disciplinary Approaches to Study of Trust & Cooperation in Health:
New Grants (2008 onwards)• Trust & cooperation games in food choices
Funded study of my experimental game with vouchers• Social neurology of trust & cooperation
Incorporated theory into above, could study directly• Modeling trust & cooperation in health systems
Recently funded study of public health systems• Philosophy of trust & cooperation
Incorporated into above studies, especially the game• Organizational theories of trust & cooperation
Incorporated into study of public health systems• Psychology of behavior change & trust
Incorporated into above and HIV study (likely funded)
New Disciplinary Approaches to Study of Trust & Cooperation in Health:
• Trust & cooperation games in food choices Funded study of my experimental game with vouchers
Approaches:
Conduct several experimental games followed by interviewing
Modeling behavior using conditional rules
Computational simulation of the behavior and social networking
New Disciplinary Approaches to Study of Trust & Cooperation in Health:
• Trust & cooperation games in food choices Funded study of my experimental game with vouchers
Commitment, Cooperation & Dilemma in Health Choices: Modeling Inter-temporal and Interpersonal Coordination
What food types do people pick when sharing with others, as opposed to when choosing only for themselves?
How do unhealthy or healthy food choice behaviors spread through social networks?
Commitment, Cooperation & Dilemma in Health Choices • Trust & cooperation games in food choices
Funded study of my experimental game with vouchers
Trust Game: At start of game, two players are each given a $10 voucher by the experimenter.
All gifts are doubled, = $20 in vouchers
1) Choose whether or not to give your voucher:a) Give b) Keep
2) Choose the type of food voucher:a) Pizzab) McDonald’sc) Café Oned) Café Two
We present the restaurant name, location, menu, for each restaurant.
The Cafés offer healthier options, but we don't label them healthy or unhealthy. All are on campus.
* Investigators will rate the restaurants with the NEMS-R (Saelens et al 2007)
Please don’t quote without permission of author, Christopher Keane
Proposer makes 1st
move
P gives & R gives back, (Reciprocal giving)
P gives & R keeps, (P trusts, but R is selfish)
P & R both keep(Reciprocal selfishness)
P keeps, but R gives, (not likely)
Respondermakes 2nd
move
P keeps the$10 voucher
R keeps the$10 voucher
P keeps the$10 voucher
R keeps the$10 voucher
P gives the$10 voucher
R gives the$10 voucher
P keeps the$10 voucher
R gives the$10 voucher
Trust Game: At start of game, two players are each given a $10 voucher by the experimenter.
All gifts are doubled, = $20 in vouchers
Four Variations of the GameFour Variations of the Game
Inter-personal versionInter-personal version Inter-temporal versionInter-temporal version
Turn takingTurn taking
Choice 1Choice 1
Choice 2Choice 2
n = 40 students, randomly n = 40 students, randomly assigned to P or R.assigned to P or R.
P keeps or donates $10*P keeps or donates $10*
R keeps or donates $10* R keeps or donates $10*
Any donation to other player Any donation to other player is doubled.is doubled.
n = 20 students, each plays n = 20 students, each plays alone.alone.
At Time 1, player invests $10 for At Time 1, player invests $10 for Time 2 or takes it home* Time 2 or takes it home*
At Time 2, player can keep or At Time 2, player can keep or invest $10 in Time 3*invest $10 in Time 3*
Any investment in future time Any investment in future time point is doubled.point is doubled.
Choose at Choose at once:once:““dictator”dictator”versionversion
n = 40 studentsn = 40 students
One player chooses the One player chooses the payoff distribution in one payoff distribution in one decision* decision*
n = 20 students*n = 20 students*
One player can choose the One player can choose the payoff distribution in one payoff distribution in one decision* decision*
All subjects choose type of $10 restaurant voucher (choose 1 of 4 restaurants)All subjects choose type of $10 restaurant voucher (choose 1 of 4 restaurants)Please don’t quote without permission of author, Christopher Keane
Proposer makes 1st
move
Respondermakes 2nd
move
P keeps orgives the
$10 voucher
Trust Game: At start of game, two players are each given a $10 voucher by the experimenter.
All gifts are doubled, = $20 in vouchers
R keeps orgives the
$10 voucher
Please don’t quote without permission of author, Christopher Keane
Trust Game with Restaurant Vouchers, Between Proposer & Responder: One Pattern I Hypothesize is Common
Mirro
ring
Intending
Mirror Intention
R’s View
Search
for Balance
Search for AnalogousBalancing
Implementing
Mirror Implementation
Search for AnalogousBalancing
Search
forBalance
Search
for Balance
P Gives(Pizza)
R Gives(Pizza)
Search
for Balance
R Gives(Pizza)
P Gives(Pizza)
Search
for Balance
R Keeps(Café 1)
P Keeps(Café 1)
Search
for Balance
P Keeps(Café 1)
R Keeps(Café 1)
R’s View
of P’s View
Christopher Keane, 2008, Please don’t quote without permission of author.
Intending & Implementing as Mirrored Balancing
Mirro
ring
Intending
Mirror Intention
MirrorDomain
FocalDomain
Search
for Balance
Search for AnalogousBalancing
Implementing
Mirror Implementation
Search for AnalogousBalancing
Search
forBalance
Search
for Balance
SimulateCondition
SimulateAction
Search
for Balance
SimulateCondition
SimulateAction
Search
for Balance
SimulateCondition
SimulateAction
Search
for Balance
PerceiveCondition
TryAction
Christopher Keane, 2008, Please don’t quote without permission of author.
Food is often a “social choice” that partly depends on what we project others want. Social eating may affect college students’ long-term eating habits & health.
Inter-temporal and inter-personal cooperation and trust may operate similarly. A clear computational model may elucidate this more general inter-agent trust & cooperation.
What we eat is a function of social ecology, including the food environment: what restaurants are available locally, what social networks surround our eating.
A similar framework for modeling trust & cooperation may apply similarly between health organizations.
Significance
Modeling Public (P) & Private (R) Provider Decisions: A Trust Game? (Give = Provide Care to Uninsured)
Mirro
ring
Intending
Mirror Intention
R’s View
Search
for Balance
Search for AnalogousBalancing
Implementing
Mirror Implementation
Search for AnalogousBalancing
Search
forBalance
Search
for Balance
Search
for Balance
Search
for Balance
Search
for Balance
P Keeps R Keeps
R’s View
of P’s View
Keane 2008, Using data from Keane 2005. Please don’t quote without permission of author.
P Gives R Gives
P Gives R Gives P Keeps R Keeps
New Disciplinary Approaches to Study of Trust & Cooperation in Health:
• Modeling trust & cooperation in health systems Recently funded study of public health systems
• Organizational theories of trust & cooperation Incorporated into study of public health systems
“Adaptive Systems Indicators” for Public Health System Emergency Response
“Adaptive Systems Indicators” for Public Health System Emergency Response
Designed to capture the adaptive system processes of public health emergency response.
Assumes public health systems are dynamic networks of human actors who consider:
• Inter-organizational trust in their networks,
• the relative complexity of emergency response rules,
• the Diversity or partners, degree of centralization,
• Tension between top-down & bottom-up decisions.
These factors predict system performance (Choi & Brower 2006, Comfort 1999, 2005, Epstein 2006, Keane 2005, 2008 Axelrod & Cohen 2000)
Christopher Keane, 2008, Please don’t quote without permission of author.
“Adaptive Systems Indicators” for Public Health System Emergency Response
Measures the properties of networks of public health decision makers that we hypothesize result in effective emergency response:
• inter-organizational trust• degree of centralization-decentralization• connectivity• diversity and participation in decision-making• necessary redundancy in networks• relatively simple decision rules
These factors predict system performance (Choi & Brower 2006, Comfort 1999, 2005, Epstein 2006, Keane 2005, 2008, Axelrod & Cohen 2000)
Christopher Keane, 2008, Please don’t quote without permission of author.
“Adaptive Systems Indicators” (ASIs) for Public Health System Emergency Response
• inter-organizational trust• degree of centralization-decentralization• connectivity• diversity and participation in decision-making• necessary redundancy in networks• relatively simple decision rules
Initial plan is to measure the ASIs in (a) 12 to 20 public health system networks, including local health departments and their private partners, and (b) approx. 300 local health departments.
The ASIs would supplement existing emergency response guidelines.
The ASI is my contributions to a R01.
PublicHealth Schools
TransitEMS
MentalHealth
Hypothetical Public Health System Legal Network
Level 1
Level 3
Level 2
with 3 as the most directive
We designated 3 levels of mandated relationship,
State Statutory Relationship Worksheet (network matrix)
PublicHealth
EMS MentalHealth
Schools Transit
PublicHealth
XX 33
EMSEMS 00 XX 00Mental Mental HealthHealth
XX 22
SchoolSchoolss
33 XX
TransitTransit 11 XX
. . . etc.
Level 1
Level 3
Level 2
Rows indicate the organization that state law requires to Initiate contact with other organization (Column).
The network framework is my contribution to R01 grant
Integrating New Approaches to Study of Public Health Systems & Health Behavior:
Integrated Study of: • Adaptive Systems Indicators, & • Public Health System Legal Network for• Computational Modeling of PH Response Systemto improve Public Health System Emergency Response
• Trust & cooperation games in food choices
Current study of trust and social food choice• Experimental trust game with restaurant vouchers• Computational modeling of trust & projection in networks
• Modeling trust in adaptive network• Organizational theories of trust & decisions
• Experimental trust games with policy makers?• I’m working on this one
Dilemma: How to flexibly expand expertise via pre-planned mentors?
• Experimental economics & game theory• Neuroeconomics & social neurology• Computational modeling of adaptive systems• Philosophy of sociality• New organizational theory & practice, • Psychology of trust and behavior change etc.
One Strategy: Use “Coordinating mentor”
Planning Growth & Inter-Disciplinarity in my K-Award
• Unlike a traditional grant, career award allows training, to develop expertise in new areas
• therefore requires more flexibility for research agenda, to acquire and apply new ideas
• Perhaps use “Coordinating mentor”
• Flexible approach resulted in publication in very different of prestigious journals, representing sociology, anthropology, health policy, public health practice, medical practice, health management (publications in over a dozen different journals), and a diversity of grants.
• diversity of research with unified theory