scholarly journals Community-based research decision-making: Experiences and factors affecting participation

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivien Runnels ◽  
Caroline Andrew
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Theoretical Orientation ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Community Based Research ◽  
Research Decision

From the post World War II period through to the present, scientific research and policy has increasingly reflected acceptance and implementation of a view that public interests are better served through public participation. Built on principles of democratic participation, community-based research (CBR) can produce new knowledge through the integration of knowledge of community members’ lived experience with the scientific and technical knowledge of academics. Although community-based research has experienced considerable recent attention as an approach to knowledge production, a specific focus on the participation of community members in decision-making or governance of CBR is sparse. To assist in understanding governance of CBR in Canada and the nature and extent of public participation, we conducted an interview-based qualitative study with 54 respondents. Arnstein’s (1969) theory of participation was used as the theoretical orientation. Respondents’ experiences showed their participation in governance was generally organised through four groups of factors that modified participation: pre-existing conditions, arrangements of governance, actions of academic actors, and actions of community actors. Although community members’ participation in governance was largely contingent on the arrangements, structures and actions controlled or formulated by academics, and despite their relatively limited access to and engagement with real decision-making power, in general community members’ participation was satisfactory to them. However, the highest level of participation that Arnstein envisaged was rarely attained. Awareness of theory and practice of participation in research decision-making can help research decision-makers put in place the conditions and means for realising democratic goals and knowledge co-production. Keywords: governance, decision-making, community-based research, public participation, Arnstein

scholarly journals Community Members as Facilitators: Reclaiming Community-Based Research as Inherently of the People

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
José Wellington Sousa
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experience ◽  
Social Space ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Judith Butler ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Community Groups ◽  
Community Based Research ◽  
The University ◽  
University Community

This article aims to rethink the positionality of community in community-based research collaboration and advocate the need for community members to facilitate CBR processes to counter power imbalances in community-university engagement. I reflect on my lived experience as a community-based facilitator through a feminist post-structural lens focused on the interplay between concepts such as subjectivity, margin-centre and performativity. I argue that, despite the community-engaged scholarship egalitarian ideal, university-community engagement still echoes the old researcher-researched binary in which academics remain the hegemonic pole. In addition, as a medium of power/knowledge, the university fabricates the community and its marginality. Thus, a margin-centre relationship is established, in which community groups must claim their marginality to receive a share of the centre (the university), such as research skills and information. In these margin-centre dynamics, university and community can be understood as identities and subject positions to be taken up by individuals. In essence, these positions are expressions of regulatory power that normalises subjectivities, a condition in which individuals exist as subjects in the social space. Insights from the work of Judith Butler lead to the understanding that, in order to conceive community members as CBR facilitators, normalised and stabilised binary identities (university-community) should be unsettled. This entails individuals who are subjected as ‘the community’ to escape subjection by moving towards recognition of a subjectivity that is not prescribed or is still marginalised within the discourse. In escaping subjection, community groups may exercise power in order to establish new power relations in which CBR becomes more community-led, yet still collaborative.

Youth-Led REP: Building Critical Consciousness for Social Change

2004 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-50
Author(s):  
Jonathan London ◽  
Melissa Chabrán
Keyword(s):  
Action Research ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Popular Education ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Social Critique ◽  
Participatory Action ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Empowerment Evaluation ◽  
Community Based Research ◽  
The Social

If knowledge is a form of power, then to lack knowledge is to lack power, and to build knowledge is to build power. This seemingly basic notion is at the source of diverse streams of theory and practice entitled participatory action research, community-based research, counter mapping, popular education and empowerment evaluation. It is from these historical, political and methodological headwaters that a relatively new stream of work, called youth-led action research, evaluation and planning, arises. These practices, while distinct, all represent attempts to build the power and capacity of those at the margins of society to examine, define, and ultimately shape their worlds according to their needs, visions and values. Youth-led action research, evaluation and planning expands the social critique and progressive stance towards breaking the monopolies of power/knowledge to include age-based inequities, along with (and in relationship to) inequities based on race, ethnicity, class gender, sexuality and other markers of difference.

Stakeholder participation in Lopburi Old Town conservation master plan

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tritsana Sorat ◽  
Nug-Rob Rawangkarn ◽  
Wee Rawang ◽  
Kanang Kantamaturapoj
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
Stakeholder Participation ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Information Provision ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Master Plan ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Flexible Form

PurposeThis study aims to evaluate the meaningful public participation in activities relating to the master plan development and, at the same time, propose some recommendations for improvement.Design/methodology/approachThe study was carried out with in-depth interviews of 35 key-informants selected from various stakeholder groups involving in public participation activities. The evaluation frameworks for meaningful participation were developed from various scholars.FindingsThe evaluation showed that the public hearings partially met the criteria of information provision and representativeness. However, there are rooms for improvement on participation in decision-making process, social learning and influence over policy decision-making. Therefore, this study proposes two recommendations. First, more flexible form of public participation is needed to enable discussions among various groups of stakeholders. Second, the organizer should communicate with stakeholders about how their opinions influence the final master plan in order to create sense of belonging among community members.Originality/valueThis research developed the evaluation framework for public participation in old town conservation master plan in developing country.

Community-Based Participatory Research

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracey Marie Barnett
Keyword(s):  
Action Research ◽  
Participatory Research ◽  
Community Based Participatory Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Collaborative Action Research ◽  
Participatory Action ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Community Based Research ◽  
Partnership Approach

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) embraces a partnership approach to research that equitably involves community members, organizational representatives, social workers, and researchers in all aspects of the research process. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the community and has the aim of combining knowledge with action and achieving social change. It is community based in the sense that community members become part of the research team and researchers become engaged in the activities of the community. Community–researcher partnerships allow for a blending of values and expertise, promoting co-learning and capacity building among all partners, and integrating and achieving a balance between research and action for the mutual benefit of all partners. Various terms have been used to describe this research, including participatory action research (PAR), action research (AR), community based research (CBR), collaborative action research (CAR), anti-oppressive research, and feminist research.

Grounded in Culture: Reflections on Sitting Outside the Circle in Community-Based Research With Indigenous Men

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (14) ◽  
pp. 2343-2350
Author(s):  
Candice M. Waddell ◽  
Rachel V. Herron ◽  
Jason Gobeil ◽  
Frank Tacan ◽  
Margaret De Jager ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Community Based Participatory Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Power Dynamics ◽  
Indigenous Research ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Community Based Research ◽  
Research Paradigms ◽  
Reflexive Practice

Research continues to be a dirty word for many Indigenous people. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a means to disrupt power dynamics by engaging community members within the research process. However, the majority of relationships between researcher and participants within CBPR are structured within Western research paradigms and they often reproduce imbalances of power. The purpose of this article is to reflect on the process of CBPR within a research project focused on Indigenous men’s masculinity and mental health. In doing so, we aim to contribute to reflexive practice in CBPR and flatten research hierarchies to facilitate more equitable knowledge sharing. Our reflections highlight the importance of prioritizing healing, centering cultural protocols, negotiating language, and creating space for Indigenous research partners to lead. These critical lessons challenge Western researchers to ground their practices in Indigenous culture while they “sit outside the circle” to facilitate more equitable and engaged partnerships.

scholarly journals Caught up in power: Exploring discursive frictions in community research

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cindy Hanson ◽  
Adeyemi Ogunade
Keyword(s):  
Research Process ◽  
Community Research ◽  
Power Dynamics ◽  
Power Relationships ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Community Based Research ◽  
Research Outcomes ◽  
Power Asymmetries ◽  
Research Relationships

This article outlines the debate around the emancipatory claims of community-based research (CBR) and identifies discursive frictions as a pivotal point upon which much of CBR practice revolves. Using a Foucauldian theoretical lens, we suggest that CBR is neither inherently emancipatory nor repressive, but that research outcomes are more often a product of power asymmetries in CBR relationships. To illustrate how power asymmetries in research relationships produce discursive frictions, several studies from our work and the literature are presented. The article provides examples of CBR relationships between the researcher and community members and relationships within the community to illustrate how power asymmetries and discursive frictions in these relationships dynamically influence research outcomes and thus alert researchers to the need to address power asymmetries not just before initiating CBR projects, but during CBR projects as well. We interrogate how power asymmetries and discursive frictions operate and are constructed in CBR in an attempt to highlight how research might be conducted more effectively and ethically. Finally, we indicate that some of the tensions and challenges associated with CBR might be ameliorated by the use of participatory facilitation methodologies, such as photo-voice and story circle discussion groups, that draw attention to power asymmetries and purposefully use more creative participatory tools to restructure power relationships and ultimately address the inequities that exist in the research process. Because CBR is continually caught up in power dynamics, we hope that highlighting some examples might offer an opportunity for increased dialogue and critical reflection on its claims of empowerment and emancipation.Keywords: discursive friction, Foucault, participatory methodologies, power asymmetries, research relationships, emancipatory research  

scholarly journals 2483

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (S1) ◽  
pp. 80-80
Author(s):  
Clara Pelfrey ◽  
Katrice Cain ◽  
Mary Ellen Lawless ◽  
Earl Pike ◽  
Ashwini Sehgal
Keyword(s):  
Evaluation System ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Consult Service ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Knowledge Community ◽  
Community Based Research ◽  
Research Outcomes ◽  
Study Population

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: This study describes the design, operation, and evaluation of a community-based research (CBR) consult service within the setting of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) institution. To our knowledge, there are no published evaluations of a CBR consult service at a CTSA hub. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A CBR consult service was created to support faculty, healthcare providers/research coordinators, trainees, community-based organizations, and community members. A framework was developed to assess the stages of client engagement and to foster clear articulation of client needs and challenges. A developmental evaluation system was integrated with the framework to track progress, store documents, continuously improve the consult service, and assess research outcomes. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: This framework provides information on client numbers, types, services used, and successful outreach methods. Tracking progress reveals reasons that prevent clients from completing projects and facilitates learning outcomes relevant to clients and funding agencies. Clients benefit from the expert knowledge, community connections, and project guidance provided by the consult service team, increasing the likelihood of study completion and achieving research outcomes. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Our evaluation suggests that clients benefit by (1) gaining the collective knowledge of the experts comprising the team, (2) learning the process of doing CBR, including the required steps to reach completion, and (3) gaining a project management mentality promoting translational research outcomes. This study offers a framework by which CTSA institutions can expand their capacity to conduct and evaluate CBR while addressing challenges that inhibit community engagement.

scholarly journals Maximizing community participation and engagement: lessons learned over 2 decades of field trials in rural Ghana

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Newton ◽  
Guus Ten Asbroek ◽  
Zelee Hill ◽  
Charlotte Tawiah Agyemang ◽  
Seyi Soremekun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Community Participation ◽  
Research Team ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Community Members ◽  
District Health ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Community Based Research ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Field Workers

Abstract Background Successful implementation of community-based research is dominantly influenced by participation and engagement from the local community without which community members will not want to participate in research and important knowledge and potential health benefits will be missed. Therefore, maximising community participation and engagement is key for the effective conduct of community-based research. In this paper, we present lessons learnt over two decades of conducting research in 7 rural districts in the Brong Ahafo region of Ghana with an estimated population of around 600,000. The trials which were mainly in the area of Maternal, Neonatal and Child Health were conducted by the Kintampo Health Research Centre (KHRC) in collaboration with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). Methods The four core strategies which were used were formative research methods, the formation of the Information, Education and Communication (IEC) team to serve as the main link between the research team and the community, recruitment of field workers from the communities within which they lived, and close collaboration with national and regional stakeholders. Results These measures allowed trust to be built between the community members and the research team and ensured that potential misconceptions which came up in the communities were promptly dealt with through the IEC team. The decision to place field workers in the communities from which they came and their knowledge of the local language created trust between the research team and the community. The close working relationship between the District health authorities and the Kintampo Health Research Centre supported the acceptance of the research in the communities as the District Health Authorities were respected and trusted. Conclusion The successes achieved during the past 2 decades of collaboration between LSHTM and KHRC in conducting community-based field trials were based on involving the community in research projects. Community participation and engagement helped not only to identify the pertinent issues, but also enabled the communities and research team to contribute towards efforts to address challenges.

The Principles, Possibilities and Politics of Community-Based Educational Research

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lesley Wood
Keyword(s):  
Educational Research ◽  
Social Impact ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Strategic Decisions ◽  
Learning And Development ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Community Based Research ◽  
Starting Point

Globally, there is a shift toward embracing educational research with a social justice intent, based on the principles of inclusion, authentic participation, and democratic decision-making. This shift toward doing research with, rather than on, participants could be seen as a reaction to the criticism of contemporary universities being exclusive and in need of finding ways to connect with traditionally marginalized groups. Universities need to be more responsive to the real learning and development needs of communities and use their theoretical knowledge to complement and facilitate, rather than direct, research conducted in partnership with those whose lives are directly affected by the phenomenon being studied. Community-based educational research accepts local knowledge as the starting point of sustainable change and the learning and development of all involved as an important outcome of the research process. Community-based research thus has an educative intent; it is also inherently political since it aims to change systems that breed inequity. Yet these very characteristics stand in opposition to the neoliberal, silo-like models of operation in academia, where the bottom line trumps social impact in most strategic decisions. Negotiating the bureaucratic boundaries regarding the ethics of community-based research becomes a major hurdle for most researchers and often leads to compromises that contradict and undermine the ideal of partnership and equitable power relations. There is a pressing need to rethink how we “do” community-based educational research to ensure it is truly educational for all. This begs the question, in what ways does the academy need to change to accommodate educational research that contributes to the sustainable learning and development of people and to the democratization of knowledge? Community-based educational research can help close the gap between theory and practice, between academic and community researcher.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document