Experiences in Broker-Facilitated Participatory Cross-Cultural Research

Abstract

Health researchers are increasingly using community-based participatory research approaches because of the benefits accrued through ongoing community engagement. The documentation of our research partnership highlights key ethical and analytical challenges researchers face in participatory research, particularly in projects partnering with service providers or cultural brokers in cross-cultural settings. In this article, we describe how choices made to accommodate a participatory research approach in the examination of vaccination behavior impacted the process and outcomes of our qualitative inquiries. First, we found that employing multiple interviewers influenced the breadth of discussion topics, thus reducing the ability to achieve saturation in small study populations. This was mitigated by (a) having two people at each interview and (b) using convergent interviewing, a technique in which multiple interviewers discuss and include concepts raised in interviews in subsequent interviews to test the validity of interview topics. Second, participants were less engaged during the informed consent process if they knew the interviewer before the interview commenced. Finally, exposing identity traits, such as age or immigration status, before the interview affected knowledge cocreation, as the focus of the conversation then mirrored those traits. For future research, we provide recommendations to reduce ethical and analytical concerns that arise with qualitative interview methods in participatory research. Specifically, we provide guidance to ensure ethical informed consent processes and rigorous interview techniques.

Codesigning person‐centred quality indicators with diverse communities: A qualitative patient engagement study

“…Meyer et al also discussed the highly participatory approach as challenging, as it requires considerable time, particularly as a bilingual study. 39 These findings accord with experiences by Kowal et al 38 as well as our own. While we also experienced the challenges of demands on time and resources (e.g., time needed for training and mentorship throughout the study period and for knowledge mobilization, costs associated with holding meetings and honoraria for the Brokers), working with the Brokers and (Organization name) allowed more meaningful engagement with communities that was culturally sensitive and accessible to diverse communities.…”

“…While the role of community members in linking communities to health services is well established in the literature (as Community/Cultural Brokers, Lay Health Workers, Community Health Workers, etc. ), there is very little documented evidence for their role in health research 38 . Meyer et al have done important work with training community leaders as researchers and engaging lay health educators to reach out to isolated women in a Hispanic community 39 .…”

“…), there is very little documented evidence for their role in health research. 38 Meyer et al have done important work with training community leaders as researchers and engaging lay health educators to reach out to isolated women in a Hispanic community. 39 Using these strategies contributed to increased levels of trust and comfort of participants due to shared language and familiarity and greater empowerment of immigrant communities.…”

Contextual Expertise and the Development of Organization and Management Theory

“…In addition to the capabilities of individuals, we have stressed the importance of research team composition, polyphony, and practices in the overall understanding and analysis of the research setting. In particular, complex problems often surpass the limited capability of individual researchers and thus require acquisition of knowledge by other researchers, practitioners or research assistants (Van de Ven, 2007, 2018; Avenier and Cajaiba, 2012; Kowal et al ., 2017; Schumacher, 2018). While research has shown how teams can share data gathering work and coordinate data analysis across jurisdictions, boundaries, and fields (Köhler et al ., 2012; Jarzabkowski et al ., 2015; Smets et al ., 2015), we stress the significance of a fit between team capability and research setting complexity.…”

“…However, in the latter case, the researchers can critically evaluate each others' interpretations, potentially increasing the depth and robustness of the analysis. Such differences in complementary skillsets is also emphasized by Kowal et al (2017) who first used a service provider and later graduate students and postdoctoral fellows as cultural and linguistic brokers. These students and fellows, they argue, had the additional benefits of having formal research training, which fed back into how they assisted in language translation and interpretation.…”