Perceptions That Influence the Maintenance of Scientific Integrity in Community-Based Participatory Research

Diaz, Anne E. Kraemer; Johnson, Chaya R. Spears; Arcury, Thomas A.

doi:10.1177/1090198114560016

Cited by 27 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If the ideal of CBPR is to be truly emancipatory and decolonizing for Indigenous communities (Castleden et al, 2012;Kraemer Diaz, Johnson, & Arcury, 2015;Wallerstein & Duran, 2003), then should the power to judge the legitimacy of this form of research reside solely in the hands of individuals whose "worlds do not encompass those understandings" (R1)? Moreover, can the "productivity" of such research be justly measured by academic standards for dissemination?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“I Don't Think that Any Peer Review Committee . . . Would Ever ‘Get’ What I Currently Do”: How Institutional Metrics for Success and Merit Risk Perpetuating the (Re)production of Colonial Relationships in Community-Based Participatory Research Involving Indigenous Peoples in Canada

Castleden

Martin

McNally

2015

iipj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports on findings from a study that explored how a group of leading health researchers who do Indigenous community-engaged research (n = 20) in Canada envision enacting ethically sound research with Indigenous communities, as well as the concomitant tensions associated with doing so. In particular, we explore how institutional metrics for assessing merit and granting tenure are seen to privilege conventional discourses of productivity and validity in research and, as a result, are largely incongruent with the relational values associated with decolonizing research through community-based participatory health research. Our findings reveal that colonial incursion from the academy risk filtering into such research agendas and create a conflict between relational accountability to community partners and academic accountability to one’s discipline and peers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“I Don't Think that Any Peer Review Committee . . . Would Ever ‘Get’ What I Currently Do”: How Institutional Metrics for Success and Merit Risk Perpetuating the (Re)production of Colonial Relationships in Community-Based Participatory Research Involving Indigenous Peoples in Canada

Castleden

Martin

McNally

2015

iipj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These participatory and action-oriented approaches to research, evaluation and design promote bidirectional communication, enhanced trust, shared leadership and ownership, and mutual benefits between academics and communities in the research process. Furthermore, the quality and rigour of research, evaluation and design are improved by participant engagement, contextually relevant questions, externally valid data interpretation, and culturally valid measurement instruments and techniques (Balazs & Morello-Frosch 2013;Buchanan, Miller & Wallerstein 2007;Diaz, Spears Johnson & Arcury 2015). The results of such approaches are often more widely disseminated (Chen, Weiss & Nicholson 2010) and have greater potential for real-world impact and sustainable actions.…”

Section: Collaborative Change Research Evaluation and Design (Ccred)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Activating social change together: A qualitative synthesis of collaborative change research, evaluation and design literature

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers, evaluators and designers from an array of academic disciplines and industry sectors are turning to participatory approaches as they seek to understand and address complex social problems. We refer to participatory approaches that collaboratively engage/partner with stakeholders in knowledge creation/problem solving for action/social change outcomes as collaborative change research, evaluation and design (CCRED). We further frame CCRED practitioners by their desire to move beyond knowledge creation for its own sake to implementation of new knowledge as a tool for social change. In March and May of 2018, we conducted a literature search of multiple discipline-specific databases seeking collaborative, change-oriented scholarly publications. The search was limited to include peer-reviewed journal articles, with English language abstracts available, published in the last five years. The search resulted in 526 citations, 236 of which met inclusion criteria. Though the search was limited to English abstracts, all major geographic regions (North America, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, APAC, Africa and the Middle East) were represented within the results, although many articles did not state a specific region. Of those identified, most studies were located in North America, with the Middle East having only one identified study. We followed a qualitative thematic synthesis process to examine the abstracts of peer-reviewed articles to identify practices that transcend individual disciplines, sectors and contexts to achieve collaborative change. We surveyed the terminology used to describe CCRED, setting, content/topic of study, type of collaboration, and related benefits/outcomes in order to discern the words used to designate collaboration, the frameworks, tools and methods employed, and the presence of action, evaluation or outcomes. Forty-three percent of the reviewed articles fell broadly within the social sciences, followed by 26 percent in education and 25 percent in health/medicine. In terms of participants and/or collaborators in the articles reviewed, the vast majority of the 236 articles (86%) described participants, that is, those who the research was about or from whom data was collected. In contrast to participants, partners/collaborators (n=32; 14%) were individuals or groups who participated in the design or implementation of the collaborative change effort described. In terms of the goal for collaboration and/or for doing the work, the most frequently used terminology related to some aspect of engagement and empowerment. Common descriptors for the work itself were ‘social change’ (n=74; 31%), ‘action’ (n=33; 14%), ‘collaborative or participatory research/practice’ (n=13; 6%), ‘transformation’ (n=13; 6%) and ‘community engagement’ (n=10; 4%). Of the 236 articles that mentioned a specific framework or approach, the three most common were some variation of Participatory Action Research (n=30; 50%), Action Research (n=40; 16.9%) or Community-Based Participatory Research (n=17; 7.2%). Approximately a third of the 236 articles did not mention a specific method or tool in the abstract. The most commonly cited method/tool (n=30; 12.7%) was some variation of an arts-based method followed by interviews (n=18; 7.6%), case study (n=16; 6.7%), or an ethnographic-related method (n=14; 5.9%). While some articles implied action or change, only 14 of the 236 articles (6%) stated a specific action or outcome. Most often, the changes described were: the creation or modification of a model, method, process, framework or protocol (n=9; 4%), quality improvement, policy change and social change (n=8; 3%), or modifications to education/training methods and materials (n=5; 2%). The infrequent use of collaboration as a descriptor of partner engagement, coupled with few reported findings of measurable change, raises questions about the nature of CCRED. It appears that conducting CCRED is as complex an undertaking as the problems that the work is attempting to address.

show abstract

“…15 For example, one study used in-depth interviews to reveal distinct scientific integrity issues raised by community-and university-based stakeholders. 16 Specifically, community partners highlighted power concerns Stakeholder Ethics Convergence -Hoover et al distributions, and snowball sampling. Details of the study design have been described elsewhere.…”

Section: Participants and Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Convergence Despite Divergence: Views of Academic and Community Stakeholders about the Ethics of Community-Engaged Research

Hoover¹,

Tiwari²,

Kim³

et al. 2019

Ethn Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Stakeholder engagement and community-engaged research (CEnR) are recognized as approaches necessary to promote health equity. Few studies have examined variations in stakeholder perspectives on research ethics despite the potential for meaningful differences. Our study examines the association between stakeholders’ characteristics and their perception of the importance of 15 stakeholder-developed CEnR ethical statements.Design: Quantitative analysis of close-ended Delphi survey.Participants: We recruited a national, non-random, purposive sample of people who were eligible if they endorsed conducting CEnR in public health or biomedical fields. Participants were recruited from publicly available information, professional email distributions, and snowball sampling.Main Outcome Measures: We designed our close-ended Delphi survey from the results of 15 CEnR ethical statements, which were developed from a consensus development workshop with academic and community stakeholders.Results: 259 participants completed the Delphi survey. The results demonstrated that stakeholders’ characteristics (affiliation, ethnicity, number of CEnR relationships, and duration of CEnR partnerships) were not associated with their perception of the importance of 15 ethical statements.Conclusions: The strong agreement among stakeholders on these broad, aspirational ethical statements can help guide partnerships toward ethical decisions and actions. Continued research about variability among stakeholders’ ethics perspectives is needed to bolster the capacity of CEnR to contribute to health equity.Ethn Dis. 2019;29(2):309- 316. doi:10.18865/ed.29.2.309

show abstract

Perceptions That Influence the Maintenance of Scientific Integrity in Community-Based Participatory Research

Cited by 27 publications

References 24 publications

“I Don't Think that Any Peer Review Committee . . . Would Ever ‘Get’ What I Currently Do”: How Institutional Metrics for Success and Merit Risk Perpetuating the (Re)production of Colonial Relationships in Community-Based Participatory Research Involving Indigenous Peoples in Canada

“I Don't Think that Any Peer Review Committee . . . Would Ever ‘Get’ What I Currently Do”: How Institutional Metrics for Success and Merit Risk Perpetuating the (Re)production of Colonial Relationships in Community-Based Participatory Research Involving Indigenous Peoples in Canada

Activating social change together: A qualitative synthesis of collaborative change research, evaluation and design literature

Convergence Despite Divergence: Views of Academic and Community Stakeholders about the Ethics of Community-Engaged Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About