Co-researching complexities: Learning strategies for edge walking in community–university research partnerships

Abstract

Community–university research partnerships (CURPs) comprise a diverse group of stakeholders who share differing capabilities and diverse insights into the same issues, and they are widely regarded as valuable to navigate the best course of action. Partnering as co-researchers is core to nurturing these partnerships, but it requires careful navigation of complexities. The different insider and outsider positionalities occupied by co-researchers highlight experiences of ‘walking on the edges’ of each other’s worlds. This not only challenges these collaborations, but also enables a depth of understanding that may not be achieved in CURPs where the luxury of, or effort in, building a team of co-researchers to collect, analyse and write up data is not present. This article focuses on learning strategies to advance the co-researching capacities of CURPs where stakeholders occupy divergent positions. The focus will be on lessons from a co-researching partnership comprising a university-affiliated academic researcher, a local Kenyan non-governmental organization (NGO) and members of a community in which the NGO worked. We argue that applying selected learning strategies may facilitate positive experiences of edge walking and enhance the meaningful two-way sharing required for cross-cultural CURPs. It is recommended that community and university research partners examine the utility of these learning strategies for strengthening co-researching in CURP contexts.

Baraza as method: Adapting a traditional conversational space for data collection and pathways for change

“…CBPAR is premised on the notion that a study will respond to concerns of a particular community and is typically done in partnership with a core group from the area. For an in-depth description of the study’s research team and roles see Chubb et al (2021). The principles of CBPAR have been covered widely elsewhere (Naanyu et al 2011; Travers et al, 2013; Wallerstein et al, 2008).…”

“…Mataira (2002), in speaking of bicultural practice with Māori in New Zealand, argued that unless true participation is achieved, and honoured, in the engagement with indigenous communities, there are risks for injunction of roles and responsibilities. In the case of our study, locals were involved from the study’s conception through data dissemination (Chubb et al, 2021; Home et al, 2021).…”

“…The limited scope of this article does not allow for reporting on the study as a whole. Aspects of design and cross-cultural learnings from the study are covered elsewhere ( see Chubb et al, 2021; Home et al, 2021). We will focus on the evolution of the baraza as a traditional space and the innovative use of the baraza for data collection and dialogue as potential pathways for change before we present principles for adapting traditional conversational spaces for research.…”

Exploratory conversations: reflections on developing a triad interview method

“…A defining characteristic of our wider research was the practical involvement of co-researchers with an interconnected, yet distinct experience of cancer, who came together in community-academic partnership (Chubb et al, 2021). Embedding a community-based participatory research ethos (Wallerstein et al, 2018), the study foregrounded both the participatory intent (Brown, 2021) and the relational nature of engaged research (Duncan and Oliver, 2019) as its methodological anchor.…”