how research help our community

• Find Studies

For Researchers

• Learn about Research

What does it mean to do research within a community?

Some researchers do studies in a lab. Some do studies in a clinic. Some do studies in hospitals. And some do studies within a community. You might be thinking, what does it mean to do research within a community? What do researchers even mean when they say “community”? Why do they want to do research with a community? How do they learn about communities? These are all great questions! 

“Community” can mean a lot of different things when it comes to research. Researchers think about communities in many different ways. A community could be people who live in the same area. It could be people who are in the same age group (like children, or older adults). It could be people who share the same identities, speak the same languages, work the same jobs, experience the same health issues, join the same social media groups, enjoy doing the same activities…or people who feel connected to each other for any of these reasons, and others!    

Just like there are many different types of communities, there are a lot of reasons why researchers might be interested in doing research with communities. Some researchers want to find out about how people live their lives within their communities to help improve everyday health. Some want to figure out what the most important health issues are in a community. And others want to see if a new program might help make communities healthier.     

How do researchers learn about communities?  

Imagine you just moved to a new town – how would you try to learn about your new home? Would you go to some events? Try to meet new people? Talk to your neighbors? Find groups that do activities you like? Now, if you were a researcher, how would you try to learn about a community you wanted to work with? If your answers seem similar, that’s because…well…they are. When researchers want to learn about communities, the best thing they can do is (you guessed it) get out there! As a researcher tries to learn more about a community, they might go to events, volunteer with community groups, or meet with people who are interested in the same health topics as they are. They might try to find out what research projects are already going on in a community by talking to other researchers. They might try to find out what health topics are most important to community members by looking at community health reports, or maybe even by trying to organize a listening session where community members come and share their thoughts and feelings about a research topic. The more time a researcher can spend learning about a community, the better their research can be! If you see a researcher out in your community before a research project starts, they might be trying to:  

• Build trust and relationships with community members  
• Choose a research topic that the community is interested in  
• Pick a type of study that the community wants to take part in  
• Learn what results community members want to see from the research   
• Figure out what might make it hard for community members to join a research study and what might make it easier  
• Learn if the community wants to help plan, do, or share the research  

How can researchers work with a community on a research project?  

One of the most important things a researcher can learn when they want to work with communities is how much a community wants to help plan, do, and share the research. Sometimes research projects happen  in  communities. Research that happens  in  communities is called  community-based research . You might also think of research as happening  on  communities (research should not feel like it is happening on you!). Well, research can happen  with  communities, too. Working  with  communities on a research project is called  community-engaged research .   

Even though community-engaged research is one type of research, these projects can all look really different. There are many ways to “engage” with communities on a research project. This is why it is so important for researchers to talk with communities about how involved they want to be in planning, doing, and sharing the research. Researchers can work with community members to…  

Researchers can work with communities on one part of a research project (like PLAN), or all parts of a research project (PLAN, DO, and SHARE). And sometimes researchers will work with the same communities on many different research projects! It all depends on the researcher, the study, and what the community wants.  

What if researchers really want to put the community in the driver’s seat?  

Sometimes, when communities are really involved with research, it is called  community-based participatory research or CBPR . In community-based participatory research projects, communities aren’t just doing research  with  a researcher – they are leading the research! Community-based participatory research is done through a true and equal partnership of community members and a researcher or research team. The ideas, research topic, study design…pretty much everything about the research…is driven by community members. They have the power to make decisions about all parts of the study and how the research is done. Community-based participatory research studies usually try to understand big issues impacting communities (maybe something like access to healthcare or poverty within a community) and try to find solutions through policy and social change. This type of research takes a lot of time, strong relationships, and trust between community partners and researchers.    

So, to wrap it all up…      

There are many researchers out there who work with communities on research. Working with communities to do research takes time, trust, and effort – but it makes the research so much better for everyone!   

Copyright © 2013-2022 The NC TraCS Institute, the integrated home of the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program at UNC-CH.  This website is made possible by CTSA Grant UL1TR002489 and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

Helpful Links

• My UNC Chart
• Find a Doctor
• Accessibility
• Privacy Policy

• Duke NetID Login
• 919.660.1100
• Duke Health Badge: 24-hour access
• Accounts & Access
• Databases, Journals & Books
• Request & Reserve
• Training & Consulting
• Request Articles & Books
• Renew Online
• Reserve Spaces
• Reserve a Locker
• Study & Meeting Rooms
• Course Reserves
• Digital Health Device Collection
• Pay Fines/Fees
• Recommend a Purchase
• Access From Off Campus
• Building Access
• Computers & Equipment
• Wifi Access
• My Accounts
• Mobile Apps
• Known Access Issues
• Report an Access Issue
• All Databases
• Article Databases
• Basic Sciences
• Clinical Sciences
• Dissertations & Theses
• Drugs, Chemicals & Toxicology
• Grants & Funding
• Interprofessional Education
• Non-Medical Databases
• Search for E-Journals
• Search for Print & E-Journals
• Search for E-Books
• Search for Print & E-Books
• E-Book Collections
• Biostatistics
• Global Health
• MBS Program
• Medical Students
• MMCi Program
• Occupational Therapy
• Path Asst Program
• Physical Therapy
• Researchers
• Community Partners

Conducting Research

• Archival & Historical Research
• Black History at Duke Health
• Data Analytics & Viz Software
• Data: Find and Share
• Evidence-Based Practice
• NIH Public Access Policy Compliance
• Publication Metrics
• Qualitative Research
• Searching Animal Alternatives
• Systematic Reviews
• Test Instruments

Using Databases

• JCR Impact Factors
• Web of Science

Finding & Accessing

• COVID-19: Core Clinical Resources
• Health Literacy
• Health Statistics & Data
• Library Orientation

Writing & Citing

• Creating Links
• Getting Published
• Reference Mgmt
• Scientific Writing

Meet a Librarian

• Request a Consultation
• Find Your Liaisons
• Register for a Class
• Request a Class
• Self-Paced Learning

Search Services

• Literature Search
• Systematic Review
• Animal Alternatives (IACUC)
• Research Impact

Citation Mgmt

• Other Software

Scholarly Communications

• About Scholarly Communications
• Publish Your Work
• Measure Your Research Impact
• Engage in Open Science
• Libraries and Publishers
• Directions & Maps
• Floor Plans

Library Updates

• Annual Snapshot
• Conference Presentations
• Contact Information
• Gifts & Donations

A Researcher's Guide to Community Engaged Research: What is CEnR?

What is cenr.

• Recommended Reading from Our Community Partners
• Glossary of Terms
• Engaging with Government
• Duke Publications
• Recorded Trainings on Community Engaged Research Practices
• Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2024 Abstract Collection - Clinical Research Forum

Introduction

This guide is an introduction to Community Engaged Research (CEnR), which is defined by the WK Kellogg Community Health Scholars Program as "begin[ning] with a research topic of importance to the community, [and] having] the aim of combining knowledge with action and achieving social change to improve health outcomes and eliminate health disparities."

Here at the Clinical and Translational Science Institute's Community Engaged Research Initiative (CERI) , Duke faculty and staff work with researchers and community members to develop relationships, improve research, and create better health outcomes in our communities, particularly for historically disadvantaged groups of people.

This guide provides resources targeted toward researchers who are looking to learn more about CEnR and implement it in their work, and includes resources about two key concepts in CEnR: cultural competence/humility and plain language .

Diagram Note: Outreach is a preparatory step that does not formally constitute community engagement. 

Foundational Principles

Principles of community engagement .

(Developed by the NIH, CDC, ATSDR, and CTSA)

Be clear about the purposes of engagement and the populations you wish to engage

Become knowledgeable about the community, establish relationships, collective self-determination is the responsibility and right of the community, partnering is necessary to create change and improve health, recognize and respect the diversity of the community, mobilize community assets and develop community capacity to take action, release control of actions and be flexible to meet changing needs, collaboration requires long-term commitment.

For more information, please consult: 

How-To Guides, Manuals, and Toolkits

Community involvement in research, what does community-engaged research look like.

• Community stakeholders on project steering committees and other deliberative and decision-making bodies
• Community advisory boards
• Compensation for the community's time and other contributions
• Dissemination of results back out to the community
• Takes time! 

What community-engaged research is NOT: 

• Focus groups or interviews
• A research methodology
• A one-size fits all approach
• Appropriate for all research
• Recruitment of minority research participants
• A relinquishing of all insight or control by researchers

Key Concept: Cultural Competence and Cultural Humility

Key concept: plain language, for more information.

The CTSI Community Engaged Research Initiative (CERI) facilitates equitable, authentic, and robust community-engaged research to improve health.  Contact CERI if you are a Duke researcher who wants more information about CEnR or to access CERI's services, which include consultation services and community studios, community partnerships and coalitions, and CEnR education and training.

For more information about the resources in this guide, contact Leatrice Martin ([email protected]).

• Next: What is CEnR? >>
• Last Updated: May 6, 2024 7:21 AM
• URL: https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/CENR_researchers
• Duke Health
• Duke University
• Duke Libraries
• Medical Center Archives
• Duke Directory
• Seeley G. Mudd Building
• 10 Searle Drive
• [email protected]

People and Communities

Community-engaged research brings people in local communities into the research process, especially people who will benefit from or be impacted by the research. The idea is that people and communities become equal partners in how the study is designed, conducted, analyzed, and shared with the world. Ongoing dialogue ensures that the communities' beliefs, cultures, languages, needs, and strengths are woven throughout the study’s process.  

People from the community bring their lived experiences, needs, and strengths to these studies to:

• Craft research questions and inform other specific study details. 
• Collect research data using community-informed strategies to engage participants and get meaningful data.
• Advise on policies and decisions related to safe and effective conduct of the research.  
• Co-create interventions or programs that have a good fit with the community. 
• Design appropriate materials tailored to specific cultures and languages. 
• Analyze and report data in ways that acknowledge unique strengths and challenges within specific populations and are understandable to community audiences.

Benefits of Community-Engaged Research

Community-engaged research can:

• Address health disparities by making sure the strategies and interventions studied speak to and meet the needs of the people most affected by the topics being addressed.
• Build trust in science by including people from the community as equal partners from the start through the end of research studies.
• Improve health knowledge by working with trusted messengers to address questions, worries, or fears in the community.

Importance of Inclusion

CEAL research involves people with different backgrounds and lived experiences. Culture, language, family history, where and how one lives or works, past exposures, and risk of future exposures are just some factors that can impact how well a program or intervention will function.  

CEAL is aligned with the conceptual model for community engagement published by the National Academy of Medicine.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

A newer edition of this book is available.

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

24 Community-Based Research: Understanding the Principles, Practices, Challenges, and Rationale

Margaret R. Boyd Bridgewater State University Bridgewater, MA, USA

• Published: 01 July 2014
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Community-based research challenges the traditional research paradigm by recognizing that complex social problems today must involve multiple stakeholders in the research process—not as subjects but as co-investigators and co-authors. It is an “orientation to inquiry” rather than a methodology and reflects a transdisciplinary paradigm by including academics from many different disciplines, community members, activists, and often students in all stages of the research process. Community-based research is relational research where all partners change and grow in a synergistic relationship as they work together and strategize to solve issues and problems that are defined by and meaningful to them. This chapter is an introduction to the historical roots and subdivisions within community-based research and discusses the core principles and skills useful when designing and working with community members in a collaborative, innovative, and transformative research partnership. The rationale for working within this research paradigm is discussed as well as the challenges researchers and practitioners face when conducting community-based research. As the scholarship and practice of this form of research has increased dramatically over the last twenty years, this chapter looks at both new and emerging issues as well as founding questions that continue to be debated in the contemporary discourse.

It is best to begin, I think, by reminding you, the beginning student, that the most admirable thinkers within the scholarly community you have chosen to join do not split their work from their lives. They seem to take both too seriously to allow such disassociation. — C.W. Mills, (1959 , 195)

Community-based research challenges the traditional research paradigm by recognizing that complex social problems today must involve multiple stakeholders in the research process—not as subjects but as co-investigators and co-authors. It has roots in critical pedagogy, as well as critical and feminist theory, and is research centered on social justice and community empowerment. Community-based research is not a methodology; it is an “orientation to inquiry” where researchers and community stakeholders collaborate to address community-identified problems and investigate meaningful and realistic solutions. Community-based research came out of a growing discontent among academics, researchers, and practitioners with the positivist research paradigm and instead argues that research must be “value based” not “value free.” It is relational research that fosters both individual and collective transformation. Community-based research also challenges disciplinary silos and instead fosters a transdisciplinary research paradigm.

There has been a growing interest and expectation within academia and community organizations that campus–community research partnerships provide benefits and challenges. We have seen a proliferation of research partnerships, courses, workshops and trainings on how to collaborate with community partners in community-driven research projects. There has also been a substantial increase in the literature (books and articles) describing best practices providing exemplars, and discussing methodologies. Israel, Eng, Schulz, and Parker (2005) argue that within the field of public health “researchers, practitioners, community members, and funders have increasingly recognized the importance of comprehensive and participatory approaches to research and intervention” (3).

This chapter begins with a discussion of the historical roots and theoretical background to this form of inquiry and a clarification of terminology. I include a discussion of the rationale and evaluation literature that offers convincing evidence for new and experienced researchers to consider this alternative research paradigm. Building on the work of others, I discuss seven core principles of community-based research and a list of skills often useful in the practice of engaged scholarship. This chapter argues that, as community-based research continues to grow, it is important that our scholarship includes exemplars, reflection, evaluation, and a critical discussion of best practices. This chapter hopes to contribute to this discourse.

I cannot think for others or without others, nor can others think for me. Even if the peoples thinking is superstitious or naïve, it is only as they rethink their assumptions in action that they can change. Producing and acting upon their own ideas—not consuming those of others. — Freire, 1970 , 108

The epistemology of community-based research can be traced back to many roots—Karl Marx, John Dewey, Paulo Freire, C.W. Mills, Thomas Kuhn, and Jane Addams to name but a few. Community-based research as it is practiced today has been enriched by the diversity of thoughts, methodologies, and practices that has been its foundation. The practice and scholarship of community-based research can found in many disciplines: sociology, psychology, economics, philosophy, education, public health, anthropology, urban planning and development, and social work. Different historical traditions and academic disciplines have led to contemporary differences in the form or focus of engaged scholarship, but what has united many practitioners and scholars is a social justice mission and the desire for personal and structural transformation. Lykes and Mallona (2008) argue:

Critical pedagogy (Freire) and liberation theologies (Berryman, Boff, Gutierrez, Ruether, Cone) and liberation psychologies (Martin-Baro, Watts, and Serrano-Garcia, Moane) emerged within relatively similar historical moments characterized by widespread social upheavals including armed struggle and broad- based non-violent social movements. A belief that the poor could be producers of knowledge and lead the transformation to a new social reality. [114]

Today you can find community-based research pedagogy, practices and scholarship across disciplines and collaboration between disciplines including new areas such as medicine, native or aboriginal research, conflict studies, history, and archeology. The expansion of community-engaged scholarship as epistemology reflects an important paradigm shift towards understanding multiple ways of knowing and experiential learning as critical to good research practices.

While it is not possible to include an extensive summary of the history and development of community-based research here, a brief review is necessary to provide the context and rationale for this major epistemological paradigm shift across multiple disciplines. Wicks, Reason, and Bradbury (2008) identify the influence of critical theory, civil rights, feminist movements, liberationists, and critical race theory—“critiques of domination and marginalization” and “critical examination of issues of power, identity and agency” (19). The historical roots and scholars who, I believe, have most influenced the development of community-based research are critical pedagogy (Paulo Freire and John Dewey), critical theory (Karl Marx and C.W. Mills), the epistemology of knowledge (Thomas Kuhn), and feminist theory (Jane Addams).

While Marx is noted for his writing about the conditions of the working class in Europe and his theories of alienation and oppression under capitalism, he was also an active participant in the French Revolution. According to Hall (cited in Ozerdem and Bowd, 2010 ) Marx was not only doing research and theorizing about the working classes but actively working with the workers to educate and raise consciousness. In addition to building theory, Marx and Engels sought to radically change and improve the political, economic, and social structure of society. The need to work with those most disadvantaged to challenge institutional inequality and power relationships is reflected in the principles of community-based research today. Many academics and scholars working from a critical theoretical perspective found a synergy with the principles and practices of community-based research.

Within education, John Dewey and Paulo Freire were reformers, activists, and key figures working to challenge traditional pedagogy and positivist research practices. Both were very influential in connecting research, theory, action, and refection to social reform. John Dewey (1859–1952) questioned the relevance of much of what was considered “education” by asking, “How many found what they did learn so foreign to the situations of life outside the school as to give them no power or control over the latter” (cited in Noll, 2010 , 8). Dewey saw educational institutions as agencies of social reform and social change through providing opportunities for learning and engagement with the world beyond the classroom. Summarizing Dewey, Peterson (2009) wrote:

Dewey believed that learning is a wholehearted affair; that is, you can’t sever knowing and doing, and with cycles of action and reflection, one’s greatest learning occurs. Dewey was interested in the learning that resulted from the mutual exchange between people and their environment. [542]

Dewey argued that learning—action and reflection—must take place in commune with one’s environment. Learning is co-created rather than unidirectional; a challenge to the traditional view of knowledge transfer from teacher to learner. Co-education and co-learning are key principles of community-based research.

Paulo Freire (1921–1997), the founder of critical pedagogy, also challenged conventional educational pedagogy and traditional research paradigms and saw education’s potential as liberation from oppression. His most famous and widely distributed book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) , was a call to action for both teacher and student to work together for social change and social reform. Freire saw learning as a two-way process involving “conscientization”—critical analysis and reflection leading to action. It is only through theory and practice, action and reflection, that real social change is possible. He also saw that the poor and oppressed can and must be leaders of their own liberation. Freire’s work—in challenging pedagogy and demanding researchers and academics to work with and learn from those most oppressed—has greatly influenced the practice of community-based research today.

Sociologist C.W. Mills also influenced critical pedagogy and engaged scholarship. In his classic work The Sociological Imagination (1959) he wrote:

An educator must begin with what interests the individual most deeply, even if it seems altogether trivial and cheap. He must proceed in such a way and with such materials as to enable the student to gain increasingly rational insight into these concerns, and into others he will acquire in the process of his education.... [187], We are trying to make the society more democratic. [189]

Similar to Freire, Mills challenged the social sciences to educate and through experiential education to foster democratic citizenry. Mills saw the connection between personal troubles and public issues and the role of sociology in helping others see the larger structures in society and how they reinforced inequality.

Another scholar who had a major influence on the development of community-based research is Thomas Kuhn in his classic book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1996). Kuhn’s work regarding the theory of the subjective nature of knowledge raised epistemological questions of “how we know what we know” and “what it is that we value as knowledge” (Wicks, Reason, & Bradbury, 2008 ). This became critically important in the development of engaged scholarship as academics and researchers began to respect and validate local knowledge, expertise, and other ways of thinking as equal to the knowledge and skills they could offer. Kuhn’s work led to questions about the privileged position of the researcher and how this privilege has denied or denigrated the experiential knowledge and understandings of oppressed groups.

It is also important to note the influence of feminist theory, in particular Jane Addams, on the development of community-based research and scholarship. Addams (1860–1935), a social activist and sociologist, played a key role in the development of engaged scholarship and community research. Naples (1996) writes that feminists argued for “a methodology designed to break the false separation between the subject of the research and the researcher” (160). Addams employed hundreds of women to go into their communities to interview, observe, and understand the experiences of other immigrant women in Chicago early in the twentieth century.

Addams also saw the need to make research relevant to the communities in which it originated. Much of the data gathered in Chicago was published as Hull House Maps and Papers (1895) and was for the benefit of the community, not for an academic audience. Her focus was social justice and social change, not theoretical conceptualizations of urban poverty. In writing about Jane Addams and the Chicago School, Deegan (1990) stated that Addams wrote “all the book’s royalties would be waived as we have little thought about the financial gain” (57). Deegan goes on to argue that Addams’ interests were in “empowering the community, the laborer, the elderly and youth, women and immigrants” (255). Addams, similar to Dewey and later Freire, was also very critical of traditional education, which reproduced inequality. Deegan (1990) writes that Addams articulated a goal of “generating reflective adults” (283).

Definitions, Terminology, and Subdivisions

We have exemplars of the methods of participatory research and canons for their practice, even if we cannot as yet agree on a single name. — Couto (2003 , 69)

Clarification of terminology is necessary before beginning a discussion of the principles and skills of community-based research,. Broadly defined, campus–community research collaboration can be referred to as community-based research (CBR), community-based participatory research (CBPR), collaborative research, engaged scholarship, participatory research (PR), participatory action research (PAR), action research (AR), aboriginal community research, popular education, participatory rural appraisal, public scholarship, university–community research collaboration, co-inquiry, and synergistic research. New terms and subdivisions continue to emerge. Strand, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoecker, and Donohue (2003a) suggest that practitioners of CBR come “from within and outside academia and work in areas throughout the world—all of which makes any commonly-accepted definition problematic” (6).

It is not my intent here to minimize or ignore the different historical roots or traditions reflected in the above forms of campus-community research, but a discussion of the distinct nature of each is beyond the scope of this chapter. Acknowledging that there are differences, this chapter will focus on commonalities and core principles that can apply broadly to campus—community research partnerships. Generally, the term “community-based research,” or CBR, is used here, although I have tried to include the terms used by authors when describing their own research. Other scholars have also focused on similarities rather than differences. Atalay (2010) suggests that, “regardless of the terminology used, the central tents remain the same” (419). CBR aims to connect academic researchers with individuals, groups, and community organizations to collaborate on a research project to solve community-identified and community-defined problems. CBR is intended to educate, empower, and transform at the individual, community, and structural level to challenge inequality and oppression.

While using a broad brush to be inclusive of all campus–community research partnerships, it is important to address what I see as two important differences in the goals and outcomes within CBR. For many practitioners, the ideal is a long-term, collaborative, and egalitarian partnership that builds community, fosters transformation, and promotes social change. Academics conduct research with and for the community, and all participants teach and learn in a synergistic relationship. Clayton, Bringle, Senor, Huq, and Morrison (2010) argue that campus–community relationships can be short term (transactional) or, ideally, a partnership in which both parties grow and change because of a deeper and more sustained (transformative) relationship.

For others, (e.g., McNaughton & Rock, 2004 ; Nygreen, 2009 –2010) the relationship between academic researchers, the university, and the community is always contentious, and power is rarely equal. For this reason, some CBR practitioners advocate community members learn the skills and knowledge necessary to conduct their own research within their communities. Nyden, Figbert, Shibley, and Burrows (1997) write, “Participatory Action Research aims at empowering the community by giving it the tools to do its own research and not to be beholden to universities or university professors to complete the work” (17). Academic researchers within this tradition are looking to empower local communities to be researchers and authors of their own transformation. The goal is to foster self-determination and self-reliance of the disenfranchised and powerless so they can be self-sufficient ( Park, 1993 ).

From this perspective, a long-term or sustained partnership with academic researchers could be seen as exploitive and disempowering.

Another major difference is that. for many, the goal of CBR includes pedagogy ( Strand, 2000 ). CBR provides an opportunity to involve students in a research project with community partners, often as part of their curriculum requirement. Strand, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoecker, and Donohue (2003b , xxi) suggest CBR is a way to “unite the three traditional academic missions of teaching, research and service in innovative ways.” CBR as pedagogy can bring students together with faculty and community partners to address community problems, as well as learn valuable skills regarding democratic research processes, communication, and civic responsibility. Porpora (1999 , 121) considers CBR “the highest state of service learning” and important as a way to promote engaged citizenship among students. There is an extensive body of research discussing the benefits, challenges, and practice of CBR as pedagogy that has generally found substantial benefits to students.

What is meant by “community” within the term community-based research requires some clarification. Alinsky (1971 , 120) noted that “in a highly mobile, urbanized society the word ‘community’ means community of interest, not geographic location.” This suggests a collective identity with shared goals, issues, or problems, or a shared fate ( Israel, Eng, Schultz & Parker, 2005 ). This has been particularly evident in the growing number of international community–researcher collaborative partnerships. Pinto et al (2007) writes:

International researchers need to become members, even if from afar, of the communities that host their studies, so that they can be part of the interactions that affect social processes and people’s understanding of their behaviors and identities. These interactions may occur at physical, psycho-social and electronic levels, encompassing geographic and virtual spaces and behaviors, social and cultural trends, and psychological constructs and interpretations. [55]

Accepting that today individuals and groups can participate in numerous “communities of interest” at the local and global level, many exemplars of CBR are situated in geographically defined communities. The community, however, is rarely a unified or homogenous group. It often includes groups within groups, competing and contentious factions, and members with diverse perspectives, needs and expectations ( Atalay, 2010 ). The diversity of participants within CBR projects reflects both the strengths and the challenges of engaged scholarship and will be discussed later in this chapter.

A final clarification with regards to CBR is that it is not the same as community organizing or advocacy. CBR includes scientific investigation respecting research ethics, methodologies, and analysis. CBR practitioners and community partners are seeking knowledge and understanding through data collection and analysis. The findings will inform decisions as to community organizing, social action, or advocacy work. Fuentes (2009 –2010, 733) makes the distinction between “ community organizing ,” which usually focuses on the development and support of leaders and “ organizing community ,” which “centers on community building, collectivism, caring, mutual respect, and self-transformation.” CBR is about organizing community to create research partnerships to address inequalities. Another misconception is that CBR is a form of public service. Public service implies a one-way transfer of knowledge, expertise, and action from the campus to the community. CBR is a multi-directional process that results in shared and collaborative teaching, learning, action, reflection, and transformation.

We both know some things, neither of us knows everything. Working together, we will both know more, and we will both learn more about how to know. — Maguire (1987 37–38)

There is universal agreement that research is critical in terms of planning, implementing, and evaluating policies and programs. Nyden and Wiewel (1992 , 44) state, “research is a political resource that can be used as ammunition” to provide credible evidence regarding funding, programs, and or policy decisions. So why do CBR? For engaged scholars and activist working within a CBR paradigm, the reasons for doing so are numerous—personal and structural transformation, co-education, community empowerment, capacity building, and a belief in the need to democratize the research process. Even though engaged scholarship has not always been given the support and resources needed within academia, many argue that it is the only type of research that really makes a difference. Reason and Bradbury (2008) assert “indeed we might respond to the disdainful attitude of mainstream social scientists to our work that action research practices have changed the world in far more positive ways than conventional social science” (3). Rahman (2008) in summarizing the early work of Budd Hall in the 1970s states, “Participatory Action Research is a more scientific method of research because the full participation of the community in the research process facilitates a more accurate and authentic analysis of social reality” (51).

For many engaged scholars, ethical research requires working with and for individuals and groups, not doing research on or about subjects. Collaboration with multiple stakeholders allows for an opportunity to re-conceptualize problems and come up with innovative solutions. For many, this form of research is “more than creating knowledge; in the process it is educational, transformative and mobilization for action” ( Gaventa; 1993 ; xiv–xv). Community-based researchers acknowledge that this form of inquiry is not the only way, but often it is the best way to address the magnitude and complexity of contemporary social programs. It requires researchers across disciplines and from multiple perspectives, together with activists and community members, to join as equal partners and to think about and strategize solutions that are meaningful and beneficial to them. The benefits of combining scientific methods and lived experiences to re-conceptualize problems and find solutions are clear. Involving community stakeholders in all stages of the research process also increases the chances that solutions will be relevant and meaningful to community members. CBR is ideally situated to inform best practices as it is research generated from the ground up.

For more traditional social scientists, the reasons for considering CBR may reflect pressure from outside funders or community members. There has been a growing frustration with traditional research that the findings have not been applied or benefited the community or broader society. Nyden, Figert, Shibley, and Burrows (1997 , 3) state, “Traditional academic research has focused on furthering sociological theory and research” and not social action or social justice. Forty years ago, Fritz and Plog saw traditional research methods as no longer viable within archeology, stating:

We suspect that unless archaeologists find ways to make their research increasingly relevant to the modern world, the modern world will find itself increasingly capable of getting along without archaeologists. [ Cited in Atalay, 2010 , 419].

This concern has been raised within other disciplines and is reflected in the development of CBR and scholarship.

There are also very good reasons for institutions of higher education to align their mission to reflect a commitment to serve. Boyer (1994) suggests that the historical roots of higher education as a service to the community and a “public good” have diminished. He argues for the “New American College”—an institution that celebrates and fosters action, theory, practice, and reflection among faculty, students, and practitioners to solve the very real problems facing communities today. Colleges and universities must respond to and engage with communities to listen, learn, and work together on solutions. Netshandama (2010) describes how the University of Venda in South Africa changed over the course of four years to “align its vision and mission to the needs of the community at local, regional, national, continental and international levels” (72). Netshandama (2010) argues that the university did not just support faculty or add resources; their vision was to “integrate community engagement into the core business of the university” (72).

Methodology and a Transdisciplinary Paradigm

CBR is not a research methodology. Researchers and community members use a variety of methods to gather data about a community issue or problem and then seek solutions. It reflects a radical paradigm shift away from positivist methods of inquiry to what Leavy (2011) refers to as “a holistic, synergistic, and highly collaborative approach to research” (83). It can be best understood as a “ philosophy of inquiry ” ( Cockerill, Meyers, & Allman, 2000 ) or an “ orientation to inquiry ” ( Reason & Bradbury, 2008 ) that seeks to create participative communities of inquiry to collaborate to address community problems. Practitioners of CBR recognize and value multiple ways of knowing and do not privilege the knowledge or skills of the researcher over local experiences, skills, and methodologies. Torre and Fine (2011) suggest that PAR “represents a practice of research, a theory of method and an epistemology that values the intimate, painful and often shamed knowledge held by those who have most endured social injustice” (116). At its best, CBR reflects a democratization of the research process and a validation of multiple forms of knowledge, expertise, and methodologies. It is a shift away from research “subjects” to research collaborators and colleagues.

Although CBR is not a methodology, it does address the recent methodological questions concerning the role of “reflexivity” in research design and practice. Subramaniam (2009) states, “After adopting reflexivity as a valid research process, the researcher must make decisions about her status vis-à-vis those being researched and become conscious about their status in relation to her, the researcher” (203). This has led to further methodological questions concerning the validity of traditional binaries such as “researcher/researched,” “insider/outsider,” and “objective/subjective.” These statuses are addressed openly and critically in CBR projects. For example, critical psychologists often face an ethical dilemma when involved in CBR projects. Baumann, Rodriguez, and Parra-Cardona (2011 , 142) refer to this dilemma, citing the American Psychological Association (APA) Code of Ethics that states psychologists must refrain from “multiple and dual relationships with clients and community members.” For CBR practitioners, research is relational. Scientific “objectivity” is problematic and does not strengthen the validity of research outcomes.

CBR lends itself to mixed method design and often reflects a transdisciplinary research paradigm. According to Leavy (2011) , “Transdisciplanarity is a social justice oriented approach to research in which resources and expertise from multiple disciplines are integrated in order to holistically address a real-world issue or problem” (35). Leavy argues that “transdisciplanarity does not mean the abandonment of disciplines (34)” but rather knowledge gained through this form of inquiry transcends traditional disciplinary silos. I would agree that CBR reflects a “transdisciplanary research paradigm” and that this also includes community scholars outside academia.

Although data can result from many methods, there are core principles or tenets of CBR that are generally agreed upon by most practitioners. Scholars do disagree on the number of core principles. However, the unique nature of every CBR project allows for flexibility and differences. The principles represent guidelines or best practices, and are helpful for setting goals and for praxis,—continuous reflection, and action. They are also interconnected and interdependent. Each principle can be conceptualized along a continuum. For example, Schwartz (2010) suggests that PAR can include research that has minimal collaboration to projects that have full participation of all stakeholders in every stage of the research process with most projects falling somewhere in the middle.

Principles of Community-Based Research

Strand, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoecker, and Donohue (2003) suggested three core principles that define CBR: collaboration, democratization, and social action for social change and social justice. Atalay (2010) expands on these three and suggests five core principles of CBR: community driven, participatory, reciprocal, power sharing, and action oriented. As the number of community-based researchers, practitioners, projects, and disciplines involved has multiplied and the scholarship of CBR has increased, so have the number of core principles. Leavy (2011) suggests seven principles: collaboration; cultural sensitivity, social action and social justice; recruitment and retention; building trust and rapport; multiplicity and different knowledges, participation and empowerment; flexibility and innovation; and representation and dissemination. Still other practitioners have identified nine ( Puma, Bennett, Cutforth, & Tombari, 2009 ; Israel, Eng, Schultz, & Parker, 2005 ).

An understanding of the core principles that define CBR is important, but how each principle is negotiated and understood will reflect contextual, social, and historical differences within each project. Synthesizing and building on the work of others, I discuss seven principles of CBR that I believe represent best practices within this orientation to inquiry: collaboration, community driven, power sharing, a social action and social justice orientation, capacity building, transformative, and innovative. Summaries of CBR projects are also provided as brief case studies. They are intended to reflect the challenges and benefits of this work and how the principles of CBR are negotiated and reflected in unique ways.

Collaboration

Collaboration between the researcher and community is a fundamental principle of CBR. It is defined as working in partnership with all stakeholders to identify, understand, and solve real problems facing their community. Collaboration happens in all stages of the research process—including problem definition, methodological decisions, data collection and analysis, dissemination of the findings, and evaluation of the project. Collaboration between the researcher and the researched is a fundamental paradigm shift from the traditional scientific method. Within CBR, the distinction between the researcher and the researched is no longer valid or acceptable. This does not remove differences between stakeholders or between community members and researchers but rather recognizes and validates different ways of knowing, experiences, skills, and methods equally. Mandell (2010) states:

Ultimately, what the activist sociologist has to offer social change organizations is her or his detachment from the immersion in the work, grounding in social change theoretical perspectives and the power to ask questions and to make outside observations. The outsider perspective of an action researcher with the insider views of community partners makes for a powerful combination. [154]

To collaborate with community members it is critical that the project is transparent and inclusive of all stakeholders. It is a reflective process that continues throughout the project and is based on trust, respect, and equality between all participants. Mandell (2010) states that a “successful trust filled researcher-community partnership is built over time, through rigorous self-examination and regular communication” (154). Trust can often be fostered by researchers participating in additional community events and activities and by attending celebrations that are not directly related to the research project. Listening to and supporting participants ‘own professional and personal goals also fosters trust and builds collaboration ( Baumann, Rodriguez, & Parra-Cardona, 2011 ).

To foster collaboration, the researcher needs to understand some basic principles of group processes and group dynamics. CBR success depends on participatory democracy and open communication between members. This facilitates understanding and enables all members to share their strengths and skills, to set priorities, and to accomplish tasks. However, inclusivity and collaboration with multiple stakeholders can lead to questions about project size. Generally, large projects with multiple stakeholders can lead to hierarchies in decision making and discussion and may leave some voices silenced. Small projects with few members can lead to concerns about burnout and/or reinforcing power inequality within the community. There is no ideal size for maximum collaboration. Each project will need to negotiate and reflect upon collaboration and inclusivity in an ongoing dialogue or “multilogue” with the community. Sometimes community education about what CBR is may be necessary before collaboration is possible. This can add months or years to the expected timeline and may alter the original CBR project.

Case Study: A CBPR Project in Catalhoyuk, Turkey

Atalay (2010) was involved in an archeological excavation site in Catalhoyuk, Turkey, and wanted to include the community in a CBPR project. She stated that her first priority was to “[d]etermine if the community was interested in becoming a research partner, and what their level of commitment was. This required substantial up-front investment both to explain CBPR and to demonstrate how their role as collaborators would differ from their previous role as excavation labor or ethnographic informants” (422). In conducting interviews with local residents to invite collaboration, individuals felt they could not contribute to the research partnership until they received “archeology-based knowledge.” Atalay found that “contrary to what I had initially expected, the first several years of the project focused on community education rather than on developing and carrying out an archeology, heritage management or cultural tourism-related research design” (423).

The CBPR project started with archeology education that resulted in “an annual festival, archaeological lab-guide training for village children and young teen residents, a regular comic series (for children), and a newsletter (for adults)” (423). After some time, Atalay began moving the community towards a research partnership. The CBPR project initiated a local internship program and archeological theatre. Both were community-led and community-driven projects that fostered capacity-building and recognized the importance of local knowledge and experiences. Atalay acknowledged that the work was slow and did not take the direction she had initially intended. However, she argues that “collaborative research with communities in a participatory way offers a sustainable model, and one that enhances the way archeology will be practiced in the next century” (427).

This CBPR project illustrates that collaboration is only possible when partners are not only seen as equal by the researcher but when they experience it themselves. Freire (1970) reminds us we must always begin where the community is: “All work done for the masses must start from their needs and not from the desire of any individual, however well intentioned” (94). Atalay’s work also reflects the challenges and benefits of collaborative research partnerships. Problems and solutions are identified by the community and it is the community that is the primary beneficiary of the research project.

Community Driven

Classic social science research focused on social problems that the researcher and the academic community defined as important or worthy of study. Generally, a research project was initiated and controlled by the researcher. It was the researcher who benefited and subjects were often treated as objects. CBR was a response by engaged scholars and practitioners to end exploitive and oppressive research practices that left community problems intact, inequality unchallenged, and often community members feeling used. Ideally, community-based projects should be community driven from conception to dissemination of the findings and evaluation of the project. Comstock and Fox (1993) suggest that local communities and workplace groups should decide on the nature of the problem and participate in the investigation of local and extra-local forces sharing their lives. Collectively they may decide to take action based on the research findings.

However, Maguire (1987) suggest that “realistically, such projects are often initiated by outside researchers” (43). If many CBR projects do not originate within the community, how can practitioners and researchers foster community - driven projects? Whether the community is local or global, participants in CBR projects will often have conflicting interests, sentiments, expectations, and priorities. To be inclusive and have all stakeholders as participants in the research project means tension, conflict, and challenges are inevitable. Bowd, Ozerdem and Kassa (2010) remind us that:

Participation literature is also criticized for ‘essentializing’ the word community as a homogeneous entity where people have egalitarian interests to produce knowledge, work with partners and decide on matters of common good in undisputed manners. In reality however, communities are characterized by protracted ethnic, linguistic and professional cliques and interest groups. [6]

Engaged scholars and practitioners need practice, patience, skills, and knowledge to ensure all stakeholders are heard and encouraged to participate. Democratization of the research process requires participatory democracy within the community, and this cannot be expected or assumed.

It is also important to ask who speaks for the community. For example, community-based researchers and practitioners have been heavily criticized for not paying close attention to the exclusion of and silencing of women within many CBR projects—the continuing “androcentric paradigm” of social science research methods ( Maguire, 1987 ; Decker, 2010 ). Maguire (1987) writes, “Women are often invisible, submerged or hidden in case study reports or theoretical discussions. Gender is rendered indistinguishable by generic terms like ‘the oppressed,’ ‘the people,’ ‘the villagers,’ and ‘the community’” (48). The challenge of CBR is that often the most oppressed within the community lack any organizational structure or resources to participate in research projects. It is critical for engaged scholars and practitioners to be conscious of who is participating in, excluded from, or silenced in CBR projects and take responsibility for encouraging and supporting the most disenfranchised to participate equally. It is often the researcher or “outsider” who is best situated to see who is excluded and what must be done to rectify this.

Power Sharing

Knowledge, discussion, and reflection about power, power sharing, and power dynamics within the community are critical for successful partnerships. Engaged scholars and activists need to encourage, support, and foster a climate where all stakeholders and researchers share power. This can be difficult when researchers often have privileged statuses that can intimidate or silence community partners. For the researcher it is often difficult to cede power and control to community members who may have less formal education or training in research methods or less knowledge of the larger issue. However, Mdee (2010) address this problem in her PRA project in Tanzania and argues: “absolute equality in the process is an impossibility given imbalances in knowledge, power and resources, and it is not helpful to pretend otherwise” power sharing is necessary and fundamental to CBR partnerships. Shared decision making includes problem definition, methodological concerns, analysis and dissemination of the findings, funding and budgetary decisions, where and when to hold meetings, as well as ethical questions such as whether to pay participants. While community-based researchers and practitioners may believe in the principle of power sharing, they may be unaware of their privileged status that continues to influence and inhibit collaboration.

Case Study: Youth Empowerment at an Alternative High School

Nygreen (2009 –2010) discusses the challenges and dilemmas of a PAR project she undertook with recent graduates and current students in an alternative high school to “examine issues of social and educational inequality” (17). Nygreen found that, over the course of the two-year project, there was high turnover of student participation, several group conflicts, and although the youths said they learned a great deal, she saw little evidence of social change. Through reflection it became clearer that wanting and believing in equitable partnerships is not the same as achieving it. She found that, in working with youth on issues of social justice, understanding power dynamics was important. She said, “I insisted that we all had an equal voice in decision-making and we were all accountable to each other. In reality, though, my posture reflected a false egalitarianism that obscured and reinforced real power differences. Despite my promises that the youth could veto decisions they did not like, I was the only member of the group with absolute veto power.” (18)

Nygreen acknowledges that PAR in and of itself does not necessarily negate the problems related to power inequality. Although PAR seeks to equalize power between participants, “in practice PAR projects may quite easily reproduce and exacerbate power inequalities while obscuring these processes through a discourse of false egalitarianism (19).” She explains, “I conflated the political and ethical values of PAR with the practice and process of PAR. What I learned, instead, is that no series of methodological steps can protect a social scientist from the dilemmas of power, authorship, and scale” (28). She advocates a “de-coupling” of the method of PAR from the political and ethical values that inform it. This PAR project highlights the critical tensions she experienced between the values of PAR and the practice of PAR. Nygreen identified the dilemmas of power and privilege—including white privilege when university-based researchers work with historically oppressed communities—and reminds us that critical reflection through dialogue and the complexities of power relations must be understood.

Although much of the research concerning power within CBR projects has focused on the imbalance between the researcher and the community, we must understand the multifaceted and fluid nature of power as it is negotiated and experienced within communities. Bowd, Ozerdem, and Kassa (2010) suggest that “participation literature seems to be infested with binary models of power such as the urban elite and the rural poor, the uppers and lowers, the north and the south, academics and practitioners. Power relationships, however, are fluid and do not usually fall into such rigidly stated categories” (6). Participation within CBR projects can reflect local hierarchies, and therefore “empowering” the community may reinforce inequality. Bowd, Ozerdem, and Kassa (2010) state, “Whilst the theoretical basis for these approaches may be well intentioned, in practice participation is not an emancipatory exercise for many due to the fact power dynamics within societies and communities are not accurately and comprehensively understood by those who instigate the use of such approaches. Thus local knowledge is a construct of the powerful” (15). CBR practitioners and engaged scholars must better understand power and how it gets used and negotiated within the community and within the research partnership. This demands reflexivity, a willingness to cede power, and an ability to recognize and challenge powerful community individuals and groups. Capacity building is one way to begin to empower those most disadvantaged and silenced by building skills and knowledge at both the individual and community level.

Capacity Building

CBR practitioners seek to build capacity within the communities they work with. This means that the researcher and practitioner organize, facilitate, motivate, train, educate, and foster community members, groups, and organizations to become architects, leaders, and authors of their own histories. The principle of capacity building requires that researchers not only “do no harm” but that they also leave communities empowered and strengthened as a result of the research project. Participants co-learn research and advocacy skills, communication and group working skills, and about participatory democracy. The skills and knowledge learned can be transferred and applied to other projects or personal experiences. Capacity building extends the goals of CBR beyond the immediate project to the future. In doing this, community-based researchers recognize local knowledge, skills, expertise, and resources and help participants see these strengths within their community.

Social Change and Social Justice Orientation

The commitment to social change and social justice work within CBR projects is often multidimensional and multilayered; there is an expectation that participation in the project will lead to personal transformation, community empowerment, and macro-structural changes. Involving those most affected by issues and problems within their own communities in the research process is an act of social justice. Collaboration and power sharing within the research process is empowering. Fiorilla et al. (2009) summarize the experiences participants shared as a result of their involvement in a CBR project involving students and women who were experiencing homelessness.

The students report how growth and change in the relationship is accompanied by listening with warmth, and empathy, and genuineness. For Dawn and Laura, however, this is not enough. The research process for them must move beyond this to having their experiences and expertise acknowledged and applied to action, action aimed at developing solutions for the problems they see as meaningful in their lives and others within their community for whom they give voice. The student researchers also underlie the power of sharing stories as they begin to connect as co-researchers, co-creators and, as they articulate, most importantly, as women. [9]

It is important to acknowledge that CBR has primarily but not exclusively focused on empowering disenfranchised individuals and communities. Partners can cut across social categories—which can lead to both benefits and challenges for all participants. While CBR practitioners may see possibilities for change as a result of the research gathered, it is critical that the decision as to what will happen as a result of the findings rests with the community. Even if the decision is taken not to act, the expectation is that personal transformation and lasting benefits to the community are likely.

Transformative

Clayton, Bringle, Senor, Huq, and Morrison (2010) contend that “the terms ‘relationships’ and ‘partnerships’ are not interchangeable” (5). They argue that relationships are interactions between individuals and can be short in duration and transactional whereas partnerships are transformational and characterized by “relationships wherein both persons grow and change because of deeper and more sustainable commitments” (7).

Case Study: Exploring “Voice” and “Knowledge” With People Living in Poverty

Krumer-Nevo (2009) argues that, in the first decades of the state of Israel, poverty was denied as it did not resonate with the dominant Zionist social democratic ideology. Until the beginning of the twenty-first century, poverty was presented as “a temporary problem for new immigrants” (283). Krumer-Nevo writes that the “voices, the knowledge and the actual presence of people who live in poverty are absent from the public debate” (284). This PAR project was designed to give those living in poverty a “voice” equal to academics, policymakers, social practitioners, and social activists to change attitudes about the poor. Krumer-Nevo used her “privileged” status to raise the idea of creating a PAR partnership between four ethnic groups who had little contact or trust of the other.

What was particularly interesting is that Krumer-Nevo realized as the project continued that a lack of voice was not the problem. She explained, “Most of the participants were eager to take part in the initiative, wanting their voices and knowledge to be heard by powerful people” (287). They were willing to share their personal experiences and knowledge as well as articulate what needs to change. Krumer-Nevo states, “The lesson we learned was that the real challenge was not the ‘empowering’ of people in poverty, since they were eager to participate in the public debate, but the fashioning of the discourse to become not merely formally inclusive but truly and deeply so” (292).

Krumer-Nevo found that giving voice to those who live in poverty is not enough. What must also happen is transformation—a multidirectional exchange of ideas, experiences, knowledge, and understanding where all stakeholders grow and where change happens as a result of the partnership.

A final core principle of CBR is innovation: multidisciplinary groups including academics, practitioners, and community members are better able to think creatively and strategize how to research complex issues and problems. Morisky, Marlow, Tiglao, Lyu, Vissman, and Rhodes (2010) describe their use of “a CBPR framework in which the collective knowledge, perspectives, experiences, and resources of these diverse partners, representing a broad spectrum of community stakeholders, helped guide the development, implementation, and evaluation of the interventions designed to reduce HIV risk among female bar workers (FBWs)” (372). Previous intervention strategies had not been successful in reducing HIV risk within this population. Morisky, Marlow, Tigloa, Lyu, Vissman, and Rhodes (2010 , 381) argue that it was this innovative CBPR project that provided new ideas for intervention with this vulnerable group of women. They state:

We used a CBPR approach that included community members, organizational representatives, and academic researchers to design, implement, and evaluate the interventions. It seems clear that this type of partnership approach to research yielded interventions that were culturally congruent and highly acceptable to a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including: FBWs, establishment managers, floor supervisors, and customers. Coupled with their being informed by sound science and established health behavior theory, the developed interventions were as “informed” as possible. The approach also ensured that data collection methodologies were realistic to yield more valid and reliable data. [381]

Sessa and Ricci (2010) discussed their innovative PAR project involving scientists, citizens, and policymakers aimed at addressing what they see is a lack of “evidence-based policy-making and improve the science-policy interface” (50). Sessa and Ricci suggest that while the applied researcher acknowledges that the “legitimate” result of their research is to help policymakers make sound decisions that benefit individuals and communities, often there is a “lack of transfer” (5) of the research findings. They argue that the way to improve this transfer of research outcomes to policymakers is to involve a third party—citizens and stakeholders affected by the research. Research that involves all stakeholders is more likely to find solutions that are meaningful and applicable to the lives of those most affected by the data ( Goh et al. 2009 ).

Skills and Practice of CBR

To conduct CBR requires skills that are often not taught in traditional social science programs or research institutes. CBR requires a major paradigm shift in the way we think about research—what we research, why we do it, and when and how we do it. This paradigm shift requires community-based researchers to learn and practice new skills. Additional skills can include community organizing, group work skills, and relational skills. A preliminary list of skills useful for CBR is as follows:

Research skills —Knowledge of research methods, practices, and analysis are necessary for good CBR work. Methods can include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods design. The research may involve random sampling, case studies, historical data, and art-based research. Decker, Hemmerling, & Lankoande (2010) reviewed twelve completed CBPR health intervention projects and found that studies with the strongest outcomes had higher-quality research designs.

Communication skills —In partnering with communities and fostering their participation, it is critical that the researcher is able to communicate with and listen to all stakeholders and be able to foster communication between and within the community. Communication skills include written, oral, observational, and listening skills.

Relational Skills —The community is often weary of outsiders and mistrust academic or external researchers coming in to their communities, so forming and building relationships can take time. CBR is relational research yet researchers often do not get training in “how” to build relationships with community members. Trust, respect, care, humility, deference, and honesty are all skills and behaviors that can foster partnership and collaboration.

Reflexivity —Reflexivity is the awareness of and an analysis of self. It is being aware of who we are and how our behaviors, attitudes, values, and experiences influence how we think and behave with others. Without reflection there can be no action that is meaningful. Naples (1996 , 169) states, “Who we are personally affects how we go about our work. Whether we want to own that or not, whether we are self-conscious about this fact or not our standpoint shapes the way we proceed to gather information and draw conclusions from that information.” We must practice self-reflection and self- awareness and model it in our work. Community-based researchers recognize “a self-reflective, engaged and self-critical role” ( Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker, 1998 ; 181) is necessary.

Facilitation skills — Begun, Berger, Otto-Salaj, and Rose(2010 ; 560) suggest that for successful partnership “there is a need for all partners to successfully integrate their different backgrounds, expertise, values, and priorities” (52). They acknowledge that, while CBR requires the full and active participation of the community, there are often barriers to participation. These can include time, financial restraints, language, culture, feelings of intimidation, and burnout. The CBR practitioners must minimize barriers and facilitate participatory democracy.

Organizational and group work skills —Knowledge and skills related to group work and group processes is helpful for anyone working with community groups and organizations. There is extensive literature discussing group work skills, practices, and community organizing strategies that is helpful to know and understand. (See for example Staples, 2004 ).

  Motivational skills —Motivating community participants to engage in CBR projects can be difficult. Community members are often overstretched in terms of work and family commitments and/or they can be frustrated from previous research in their communities that provided few if any benefits. Motivation may also wane if community members leave or reduce their involvement and commitment for any number of reasons. The pace of CBR work can also be slow, and this too may require effort to keep participants engaged and involved.

Cultural competency —Working in communities with diverse individuals and groups requires an awareness of and sensitivity to differences in language, ethnicity, race, social class, gender, sexual orientation, and other statuses. There is a large body of research that addresses cultural competency that cannot be addressed here but it is important to know, understand, and reflect on one’s own, often privileged statuses as well as the cultural similarities and differences within and between our partners. Cultural awareness and competency is critical if CBR is to be inclusive, collaborative, and transformative. When involved in an international collaborative research project that takes place in a foreign country, the researcher must do intensive preparation work. Pinto (2000) suggests the researcher “start by studying the language, history, geography, social structures and politics of that country and of the specific community he or she proposes to study” (55).

Capacity-building skills —Capacity building skills include educating, supporting, mentoring, and acknowledging the experiences and different ways of knowing of all stakeholders. Engaged scholars foster co-learning, understanding, and application of all the skills listed above so that community partners can use them in multiple ways in the future.

Entering the Field

Anyone new to a CBR paradigm begins by asking, “How do I start?” Recognizing that campus–community partnerships ideally should be initiated by community members, researchers often begin the process of establishing a collaborative research partnership. There are many ways that researchers can “enter the field.” Naples (1996) suggests:

Some activist researchers search for a community-based site through which they might assist in the political agendas defined by community members. A second avenue develops when a group, community, or organization seeks outside assistance to generate research for social change. Another avenue to activist researchers occurs when we enter “the field” as participants who are personally affected by the issues that is the focus of our work. Many of us who choose to use our personal and community-based struggles as sites for activist research did not begin the work with a research agenda in mind.” (96)

Wallerstein, Duran, Minkler, & Foley (2005) confirm that it is always easier to form a research partnership with a community in which you have previous positive connections. If a connection has not been made, it is difficult and time consuming to build trust and foster a participatory and collaborative research partnership.

Building Trust

Researchers must gain knowledge of the community: individuals, groups, organizations, services, and the issues and concerns of residents. This can be through key informants, reports, census data, flyers, organizations, service providers, and spending time in the community and with community members. If the partnership is initiated by the researcher, one of the first tasks is to consider who is affected by or concerned about this problem. Netshandama (2010) acknowledges that identifying community stakeholders is not an easy task and suggests that the safest way of identifying community stakeholders is to pinpoint the most obvious participants without ruling out any groups and to make the process of selection open and transparent. Polanyi and Cockburn (2003) also identify that the initial stages of the CBR project can lead to some confusion and frustration as to the goals of the project. At the beginning of their CBR project with injured workers, some members were interested in research, but others felt they already had enough information and wanted to take action. Clarification and agreement to form a community-based research partnership is important; the distinction needs to be made between CBR, community organizing, and social action.

Questions for Consideration and Reflection

When beginning a CBR project, it can be helpful to think about questions and issues other practitioners have identified as important. A list of guiding questions is provided here for consideration, dialogue, negotiation, and reflection when beginning and throughout a CBR project (adapted from Mandell, 2010 , 153):

Is the CBR project transparent and inclusive of all stakeholders?

Do the researcher and community partners orient themselves within the same fundamental paradigm of social justice and social change?

Is there general agreement as to the nature of the social problem(s) and the range of possible solutions?

What is the scope of the research project including the research question(s), the methodologies, and the timeline for data collection, analysis, and final reporting? How will the findings be disseminated?

Have research ethics been addressed, including informed consent and confidentiality?

Have expectations, roles, responsibilities, and power sharing been discussed. Is there a sense of trust between partners?

Will there be collaboration at each stage of the project, including dissemination of the findings and co-authorship of any reports or journal articles?

In what ways will all stakeholders and the community benefit from participating in this research project?

Funding and Resources

Before beginning a CBR project, funding, resources, and budgets may be discussed. There are always benefits and challenges to receiving outside funding or grants. To participate in a CBR project takes time, money, and resources, and the scale of this will depend on the size of the project and what is already available from the campus or community. Projects can falter with little outside funding or resources. Resources can be administrative, including computers, meeting and office space, printing flyers and advertising materials, and research guides. Help with transportation may also be necessary to include all stakeholders. Resources can also include staffing; administrative help, and/or a project coordinator. A translator or cultural broker may also be necessary if one is working with individuals and groups from different cultural backgrounds. Polanyi and Cockburn (2003) state that the outside funding they received allowed them to “hire a (part-time) project coordinator, cover expenses for conferences and meetings with injured workers, and provide injured workers with an honorarium for their participation” (21). However, outside funders may require explicit details regarding the sample, research methods, and questions to be asked and the objectives and expected outcomes. This may leave little flexibility that most CBR projects require. Outside funders may also want a “principal investigator,” usually affiliated with an academic institution or agency, to be accountable for budgets, data collection and analysis, and the final report. Academic institutions and funding bodies may be supportive of collaborative research projects but still find it difficult to agree to collective decision making and shared responsibilities.

Flicker, Wilson, Travers, et al. (2009) developed a survey to investigate use and effectiveness of CBR, specifically looking at facilitating and barriers to CBR work with AIDS service organizations (ASOs) in Ontario, Canada. They found that increased funding was critical to facilitating CBR and that “lack of funding and resources (space, computers, time and staff)” and “too many competing demands” were the greatest barriers. The qualitative interviews with community organization staff also found:

The interviews revealed that issues surrounding funding are complex. Agencies were frustrated about how rare it was for community-based organizations to get compensated for their investment and contribution to partnered research endeavors. As such, the issue was not simply about increasing funding but also relocating and reconfiguring budgeting practices so that ASOs could (1) be the direct recipients of research grants and/or (2) increase their internal capacities to conduct research and maintain an active research programs. ( 95)

When decisions about resources are not shared, any intent to foster power sharing can reflect a “false egalitarianism” ( Nygreen, 2009 –2010) and generate mistrust. There is a need to educate funding organizations around issues of democratic decision making, collective responsibility, and capacity building.

Emerging Issues Research Ethics and Professional Boundaries:

Community-based researchers are similar to ethnographers: they need to “get up close and personal” to gain trust and establish a collaborative partnership. As we get to know our partners, questions and concerns can surface about professional boundaries. When is it appropriate to advocate or provide services to community members or to intervene into their personal lives? When does the CBR project end—after dissemination of the findings and the final report is completed or should community-based researchers continue their work into advocacy? How should we navigate our multiple roles, responsibilities, and relationships with our community partners to build trust, respect professional ethics and not exploit our partners? In reviewing the APA Code of Ethics, Baumann, Rodrilguez, & Parra-Cardona (2011) discuss the difficulties CBR practitioners have in negotiating their professional responsibilities. They state, “Establishing multiple and dual relationships with clients and community members carries the risk of becoming harmful and exploitive” (142). The APA Code of Ethics recommends “detached objectivity,” but CBR is about building trust and relationships.

There are also questions regarding the balance between scientific rigor and community needs. Baumann, Rodrilguez, & Parra-Cardona (2011) ask:

How can we balance science and community support? If methodology is changed based on community needs what are the implications to the validity of the methods? To the validity of the findings? (144–145)

The balance between scientific methods and community needs may be challenged at all stages of the research process—for example when community partners are eager to get the voices of certain community members yet random sampling is possible. Researchers may also find that their care and concern for their community partners makes scientific rigor sometimes difficult to uphold. For example, Schwartz (2010) asked students and community participants for their feedback on CBPR partnerships they were involved with and found that problems with communication and issues of power and control surfaced between partners, students, and the instructors. Students identified that they sometimes “felt pressure from their agencies to produce positive results” (8).

Another concern is confidentiality. Special consideration is needed when community members are involved in collecting data from their own communities that may be sensitive or stigmatizing. Smikowski, Dewane, Johnson, Brems, Bruss, & Roberts (2009 , 462) suggest caution:

Given the unique challenges presented in community—researcher partnerships, additional ethical issues arise that often put the researcher in conflict with more traditional research ethics. For example, when community members share in all aspects of the study, there may be difficulties maintaining confidentiality, or a heightened burden for participants with stigmatizing illnesses. [462]

This may require additional training and education regarding research ethics. While this training may extend the timeline for data collection, it builds capacity for future community-initiated research projects. Another dilemma that can arise is the pressure to collect data that fits with stakeholders’ experiences and/or expectations.

Collaboration or Exploitation

There needs to be a continuing discussion of the role of academia and power sharing within CBR partnerships. Can we have long-term and sustained partnerships between academics and community partners without them being exploitive or oppressive? Jackson and Kassam (1998) argue that participatory research programs have been “much criticized for becoming a new form of colonialism whereby western perspectives and priorities are imposed on oppressed groups” (cited in Ledwith & Springett 2010 ; 94). In discussing a PR project in Kyrgyzstan investigating health concerns, Jackson and Kassam discuss what they found: “Observations I made on a recent visit there indicate that the approach has had a substantial impact on the development of skills within rural communities. However, as the process has developed, agencies and government departments and the medical profession with their own agendas have tried to coerce communities into addressing needs that reflect their interests or perceptions” (cited in Ledwith & Springett 2010 ; 96).

Any discussion of power must include questions about “voice” and whose voice is heard and represented in CBR work. Community-based researchers must exercise caution when working with individuals or groups who may not represent the most oppressed or disenfranchised within the community. Working with community-based organizations or institutions can provide access to community members, but they may also function as “gatekeepers.” When we “partner up” with powerful community-based organizations, the staff may restrict access to less-powerful community residents if they are likely to challenge their position of dominance.

Case Study: A Thwarted CBR Project Concerning High School Dropout Rates and Absenteeism

In the spring of 2011, a senior staff member of a large public school department contacted our Office of Community-Based Learning to inquire about the possibilities of a CBR partnership to look into high dropout rates and absenteeism at an alternative high school. I was asked and agreed to meet with the senior coordinator of alternative education programs for the district to learn more about the alternative high school—the programs offered and the students, faculty, staff, and resources available. I was introduced to the background and history of alternative education generally and the specific history of this school. The public school department in this district was not an organization that I had partnered with before. Although many of our students had interned, volunteered, or completed student teaching at schools in the district, there had not been a connection with this particular school. The senior coordinator explained they were interested in learning from students, parents, teachers, staff, and truancy officers about why the alternative high school did not substantially reduce absenteeism and dropout rates as expected.

It was agreed that this could form the basis of a pilot study, a small CBR project with my students in an upper level sociology of education course that fall. They were interested in interviews, observations, and focus groups with multiple stakeholders involved in the research design, data collection, and analysis of the project. To get approval of this small CBR project, we needed to meet with the director of research and evaluation for the district. In meeting with the director, it was explained to us that, while it would be “interesting” to learn more about the high dropout rates and absenteeism from multiple stakeholders involved with the alternative high school, there was no “political will” to do so at this time. It was explained that the politics of public schools are complex and that the bureaucracy is extensive. He was confident that this was not the time to collect data about the successes or failure of any of their alternative education programs. He politely said we could submit a research proposal for this pilot CBR project, but we would be denied at this point in time. He could not say when might be a better time to explore this issue. It did not matter that the senior coordinator of alternative education programs had informal agreement from some parents and teachers to participate. The project ended before it even began.

This case study indicates that, while partnering with community-based organizations can provide benefits, they can also function as gatekeepers that reinforce power inequality within communities. It is necessary to continue to understand and reflect how power and privilege is negotiated, experienced, and challenged in dialogue and action. At this point, the CBR project is not being pursued.

Professional Barriers

Maguire (1987) lists difficulties often encountered by researchers doing PR work and suggests time as one of the greatest challenges for researchers and community partners. CBR can take a great deal of time—especially if one is partnering with a previously unknown organization or group. Building trust can take months or even years before collaboration and partnership are possible. Polanyi & Cockburn (2003 ; 23) in their work with injured workers also identified time commitments as extensive: “Academic participants spoke of how difficult it was to find the time needed to support this intensive process of collaborative inquiry, given heavy teaching, research, and publishing requirements.” Extensive time commitments may be necessary to build motivation and engage community members to establish a research partner. Tandon (cited in Maguire 1987 ) noted in reference to his personal assessment that most of his experience with PR had been a failure: “We simple underestimated people’s passivity” (42–43). Passivity can be experienced by both community members and faculty and can result from a number of factors, but to change this requires support—often institutional supports that are missing.

Institutional Barriers

There has been an increasing demand for academic institutions and funding bodies to facilitate CBR projects. Faculty often feel that their academic institutions do not recognize the scholarship of CBR in their tenure applications, the pedagogy of engaged scholarship, or their commitment to research and social justice work in their communities. Schwartz (2010) surveyed academics to get their feedback about CBR projects and found that faculty highlighted institutional barriers to CBR work as most problematic—time, lack of curriculum flexibility, resources, and the ethics approval process. Cancian (1996) makes the distinction between academic research and activist research and argues that to navigate both worlds of engaged scholar and academia is very difficult to do. She states:

Activist research is “for” women and other disadvantaged people and often involves close social ties and cooperation with the disadvantaged. In contrast, academic research aims at increasing knowledge about questions that are theoretically or socially significant. Academic research is primarily “for” colleagues. “It involves close ties with faculty and students and emotional detachment from the people being studied. Social researchers who do activist research and want a successful academic career thus have to bridge two conflicting social worlds.” [187] “[P]articipatory research is so strongly oriented to the community that it is difficult to maintain an academic career. It is especially difficult to produce the frequent publications required by a research university on the basis of research that faithfully follows the tenets of participatory research. [194]

Academic organizations must also recognize and support transdisciplinary research and scholarship within a CBR paradigm. Levin and Greenwood 2008 ) write, “Action Research’s democratizing agendas and necessary transdiscplinarity run right into the brick walls of academic professional silos and disciplinary control structures to preserve disciplinary power and monopolies over positions and terms of employment and promotion of their disciplines” (212). Votruba (2010) refers to this as the need to “institutionalize this work—provide campus leadership; faculty incentives and rewards; planning and budgeting; annual evaluation, awards, and recognitions; and public policy aligned to support the scholarship of engagement” (xiv).

Twenty-five years ago, Boyer (1996) argued that we should not expect institutions of higher education to lead in tackling some of the world’s greatest problems—that in fact they were part of the problem. He wrote:

[W]hat I find most disturbing... is a growing feeling in this country that higher education is, in fact, part of the problem rather than the solution. Going still further, that it’s become a private benefit, not a public good. Increasingly, the campus is being viewed as a place where students get credentialed and faculty get tenured while the overall work of the academy does not seem particularly relevant to the nation’s most pressing civic, social, economic, and moral problems. [11]

Today there has been much progress within many institutions, However, this must continue as institutional leadership is critical to expanding CBR to tackle contemporary social problems within our communities and globally. Glass and Fitzgerald (2010) have written a “Draft Recommendations for Engagement Benchmarks and Outcomes Indicator Categories” as a way to evaluate the extent to which institutions and faculty are involved and supported in campus–community partnerships. They suggest that the conceptualization of “scholars” and “scholarship” be broadened to reflect the community—creating “the community of scholars” and “community scholarship” to give full support and recognition of all partners.

CBR is difficult to evaluate in terms of assessing our successes and failures. What is a successful outcome of a CBR project? How can we assess or determine if “collaboration,” “empowerment,” or “capacity building” took place and to what extent? Peterson (2009) suggested that there is a growing body of research addressing the question of evaluation:

With the bulk of early research on community-based education focusing on the academic, civic, and moral benefits for students, many researchers in the late 1990s problematized the paltry research that had been conducted on the ways in which communities benefit or are burdened by the involvement of faculty and students in their community work. As a result, in the last 10 years a variety of studies have been conducted to assess this impact (544).

For example, in a comprehensive evaluation of published peer-reviewed articles related to the use and outcomes of CBPR in clinical health trials De Las Nueces, Hacker, DiGirolama and Hicks (2012) found CBPR projects “ had very high success rates in recruiting and retaining minority participants and achieving significant intervention effects” (1379). They also found that authors often reported community participation in detail but were less likely to discuss participant involvement in the interpretation and dissemination of the research findings.

However, evaluation research of engaged scholarship is still limited.

When projects take a very different direction than originally intended (as in Atalay, 2010 ), can it still be considered a successful CBR project? If the researcher does not see any evidence of transformation, but community members suggest they have learned a great deal (as discussed by Nygreen, 2009 –2010), is this still success? Votruba (2010) challenges us to critically look at how we determine success. He states:

We need to do a far better job of assessing our engagement work. We’ve made progress in this regard but, until we have reached agreement regarding what constitutes excellence in this domain, it will remain difficult to measure and reward. For example, should we focus on assessing activities or outcomes? What role does self-assessment play? How about peer assessment? Absent of appropriate and generally accepted standards for evaluating the scholarship of engagement, faculty members are less likely to embrace it because of the risk that it will not be recognized and rewarded. [xiii–xvi]

There are few guidelines as to how to evaluate CBR projects. As said previously, the core principles of CBR are not intended as evaluation criteria. A preliminarily question might be “who” decides on the guidelines and criteria for success? Bowl, Tully & Leahy (2010) suggest, “In reflecting views that some parties to the research would disagree with, we were vulnerable to charges of selectivity and bias. Ensuring the validity of our findings was a challenge.”( 47). They suggested an alternative way to approach validity in the research, by focusing on credibility rather than truth, stating, “Credibility entails a sense that researchers understand the field within which they research, and that they respect those with whom they research. The researchers themselves and not just their tools need to be ‘trustworthy’” (48).

As scholars and researchers working from a social justice and social change paradigm, we often reflect on whether our CBR work has made a significant difference and in what ways. Is social change an important criterion for evaluation of CBR projects? Lykes and Mallona (2008) suggest that engaged researchers and scholars have not been as successful as they might hope in making substantial, lasting change. They state, “A vast literature has emerged documenting and evaluating individual development projects and the ways in which they have or have not contributed to social change. Despite local contributions there is little evidence that the cumulative effect has either redressed social inequalities or reduced structural violence” (113). While this may be true, it suggests the need for continued reflection and action—praxis, not defeat. Small successes do matter, and the cumulative effects may still be emerging. We also need to “mainstream” CBR within academic institutions, communities, and funding bodies to increase opportunities through additional supports and resources.

There has been a huge increase in the scholarship of CBR for engaged scholars to learn from others in the field. Unfortunately, so much of the literature about CBR principles, strategies, and exemplars is written for an academic audience rather than written for community members. Couto (2003 , 71) In his review essay of Minkler and Wallerstein’s edited book Community-Based Participatory Research for Health , states, “Despite the wonderful examples of CBPR for and with community partners, we still have the challenge to develop methods that will permit community groups to conduct research of their own and by themselves. Only by striving to turn research for and with them into tools that community partners can use to do their own research will we really be pushing the cutting edge of concepts such as ‘empowerment,’ ‘community development,’ ‘community organizing,’ ‘representation,’ and ‘participation.’” Fuentes (2009 –2010) also challenges community groups not only to participate in research projects but to take ownership and control over research concerning their communities and recognize their capabilities of being both subjects and architects of research.

CBR is a collaborative research project between researchers, community members, and sometimes students to formulate problems and find solutions that are meaningful and practical for all stakeholders. It has a rich history in critical pedagogy, critical theory, feminist theory, and the epistemology of knowledge that continues to influence the principles and skills that define CBR. Today we have exemplars that help guide new practitioners in their consideration of and engagement with community partners to form a collaborative and transformative relationship. If we use subjective measures to determine “success,” we have an abundance of evidence that suggests CBR and engaged scholarship has had substantial success in finding innovative solutions to complex problems in our communities. Successful projects have occurred in disciplines such as public health, psychology, sociology, anthropology, urban development, and archeology. It has also included projects that are transdisciplinary in design and practice. Success has also been found within diverse communities of interest: children and youth, aboriginal peoples, female bar workers, HIV and AIDS clients, injured workers, and immigrant families to name just a few discussed here. Evaluation research suggests that this paradigm shift to a new “orientation to inquiry” has fostered campus-community partnerships that address the traditional inequities in the research process as a result of the positivist paradigm.

The strength of CBR and scholarship is its diversity and willingness to be transparent in addressing challenges. Practitioners and scholars of CBR continue to struggle with issues related to power and control—how power is used and experienced by the researcher, community members, and other community-based organizations. Questions continue to be raised about encouraging sustained partnerships or developing community scholars who do not need or want outside researchers from academic institutions. At this point, it seems that there is a growing awareness that academic institutions should revisit their public mission to serve, to collaborate with community partners on community-defined issues. I am not convinced that community organizations and/or community members are developing this same mission. However, if independence from academic institutions is a sign of capacity building, then “success” may result in continuously new partnerships. This may be more challenging for researchers and practitioners and warrants further consideration.

Alinsky, S. ( 1971 ). Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals . New York: Random House.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Atalay, S. ( 2010 ). We don’t talk about Catalhoyuk, we live it’: sustainable archeological practice through community-based participatory research.   Archeology and Contemporary Society . 42 (3), 418–429.

Baumann, A. , Rodriguez, M. D. , Parra-Cardona, J. ( 2011 ). Community based applied research with Latino Immigrant families: Informing practice and research according to ethical and social justice principles.   Family Process . 50 , 132–148.

Begun, A. , Berger, L. , Otto-Salaj, L. , &. Rose, S. ( 2010 ). Developing effective social work university—community research collaborations.   Social Work . 55 (1), 54–62.

Bowd, R. , Ozerdem, A. , & Kassa, D.G. ( 2010 ) A theoretical and practical exposition of participatory research methods. In Ozerdem, A. & Bowd, R. (Eds.) Participatory Research Methodologies: Development and Post-Disaster/Conflict Reconstruction . Farnham, England: Ashgate.

Bowl, M. , Tully, L. & Leahy, J. ( 2010 ). The complexity of collaboration: Opportunities and challenges in contracted research.   Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement . 3 , 38–54.

Boyer, E. ( 1994 ). Creating the new American college.   The Chronicle of Higher Education . March 9, A48.

Boyer, E. ( 1996 ). The scholarship of engagement.   Journal of Public Service and Outreach . 1 , 11–20

Cancian, F. ( 1996 ). Participatory research and alternative strategies for activist sociology.. In Heidi Gottfried (Ed) Feminism and Social Change: Bridging Theory and Practice . Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 160–186.

Clayton, P. , Bringle, R.   Senor, B.   Huq, J. & Morrison, M. ( 2010 ). Differentiating and assessing relationships in service-learning and civic engagement: Exploitive, transactional, or transformational.   Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning . Spring. 5–22.

Cockerill, R.   Myers, T. & Allman, D. ( 2000 ). Planning for community-based evaluation.   American Journal of Evaluation , 21 ,3: 351–357.

Comstock, D. & Fox, R. ( 1993 ). Participatory research as critical theory: The North Bonneville, USA experience. In Park, P. (Ed.) Voices of Change: Participatory Research in the United States and Canada . Westport, CT.: Bergin & Garvey. 103–124.

Couto, R. ( 2003 ). Review Essay. Community-based research: Celebration and concern.   Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning . Summer, 9(3), 69–74.

Decker, M. , Hemmerling, A. , & Lankoande, F. ( 2010 ). Women front and center: The opportunities of involving women in participatory health research worldwide.   Journal of Women’s Health . 19 (11), 2109–2114.

Deegan, M.J. ( 1990 ). Jane Addams and the Men of The Chicago School, 1892–1918 . New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

De Las Nueces, D. , Hacker, K. , DiGirolama, A. and Hicks, L. ( 2012 ). A systematic review of community-based participatory research to enhance clinical trials in racial and ethnic minority groups.   Health Services Research . 47 (3) Part II, 1363–1386.

Fiorilla, L. , Connors, A. , Landry, D. , Loates, A. , Kuzmak, N. , Rutherford, G. , Smith, L. , & Walsh, C. ( 2009 ). Relationality and reflexivity in community-based research: Reflections from the field.   Transformative Dialogues Teaching and Learning Journal . 3 (2), 1–11.

Flicker, S. , Wilson, M. , Travers, R. , Bereket, T. , McCay, C. , Van der Meulen, A. , Guta, A. , Cleverly, S. , & Rourke, S. ( 2009 ). Community-based research in AIDS service organizations: What helps and what doesn’t?   AIDS Care . 21 (1), 94–102.

Freire, P. ( 2000 ). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th Anniversary ed . NY: Continuum.

Fuentes, E. ( 2009 –2010). Learning power and building community: parent-initiated participatory action research as a tool for organizing community.   Social Justice , 36 (4), 69–83.

Gaventa, J. ( 1993 ). “The powerful, the powerless, and the experts: knowledge struggles in an information age.” In Park, P. , Brydon-Miller M. , Hall, B. , & Jackson, T. (Eds.) Voices of Change: Participatory Research in the United States and Canada , 21–40. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Glass, C. , & Fitzgerald, H. ( 2010 ). Engaged scholarship: Historical roots, contemporary challenges. In Fitzgerald, H , Burack, C. , & Seifer, S. (Eds.). The Handbook of Engaged Scholarship: Contemporary Landscapes, Future Directions. Volume 1: Institutional Change . East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University.

Goh, Y.Y. , Bogart, L. , Sipple-Asher, B.K. , Uyeda, K. , Hawes-Dawes, J. , Olarita-Dhungana, J. , Ryan, G. , & Schuster, M. ( 2009 ). Using community-based participatory research to identify potential interventions to overcome barriers to adolescents’ healthy eating and physical activity.   Journal of Behavior Medicine . 32 , 491–502.

Israel, B. , Eng, E , Schultz, A. , & Parker, E. ( 2005 ). Methods in community-based participatory research for health . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Israel, B. , Schulz, A. , Parker, E. , & Becker, A. ( 1998 ). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health.   American Review of Public Health . 19 , 173–202.

Krumer-Nevo, M. ( 2009 ). From voice to knowledge: Participatory Action Research, inclusive debate and feminism.   International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education . 20 (3), 279–295.

Leavy, P. ( 2011 ). Essentials of Transdisciplanary Research: Using Problem-Centered Methodologies . Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Ledwith, M. & Springett, J. ( 2010 ). Participatory Practice: Community-Based Action for Transformative Change . Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

Levin, M. & Greenwood, D. ( 2008 ). The future of universities: Action reserch and the transformation of higher education. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H.   The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, 2nd ed . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 211–226.

Lykes, M.B. , & Mallona, A. ( 2008 ). Towards transformational liberation: Participatory and Action Research and praxis. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). The Sage Book of Action Research 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 106–120.

Maguire, P. ( 1987 ). Doing Participatory Research: A Feminist Approach . Amherst, MA: The Center for International Education.

Mandell, J. ( 2010 ). Advice to action research activists: Negotiating successful action research- community based social change partnerships.   Humanity and Society . 34, 141–156.

McNaughton, C. &. Rock, D. ( 2004 ). Opportunities in Aboriginal research: Results of SSHRC’s dialogue on research and Aboriginal Peoples.   Native Studies Review . 15 (2), 37–60.

Mdee, A. ( 2010 ). Who speaks for the community? Negotiating agency and voice in community-based resarch in Tanzania. In Ozerdem, A. & Bowd, R. (Eds.). Participatory Research Methodologies: Development and Post Disaster/Conflict Reconstruction . Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate 29–44.

Mills, C.W. ( 1959 ). The Sociological Imagination . NY: Oxford University Press.

Morisky, D. , Marlow, R. , Tiglao, T. , Lyu, S.Y. , Vissman, A. & Rhodes, S. ( 2010 ). Reducing sexual risk among Filipina female bar workers: Effects of a CBPR—developed structural and network intervention.   AIDS Education and Prevention . 22 (4), 371–385.

Naples, N. with Clark, E. ( 1996 ). “Feminist participatory research and empowerment: Going public as survivors of childhood sexual abuse.” In Heidi Gottfried (Ed) Feminism and Social Change: Bridging Theory and Practice . Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 160–186.

Netshandama, V. ( 2010 ). Quality partnerships.   International Journal of Community Research & Engagement . 3, 70–87

Noll, James W. ( 2010 ). Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Educational Issues . 15th Edition . NY. McGraw Hill.

Nyden, P. , Figert, A. , Shibley, M. , & Burrows, D. ( 1997 ). Building Community: Social Science in Action . Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Nyden, P. & Wiewel, W. ( 1992 ). Collaborative research: Harnessing the tensions between researcher and practitioner.   The American Sociologist . Winter, 23(4), 43–55

Nygreen, K. ( 2009 -2010). Critical dilemmas in PAR: Toward a new theory of engaged research for social change.   Social Justice , 36 (4), 14–35.

Ozerdem, A. &. Bowd, R. ( 2010 ). Participatory Research Methodologies: Development and Post-Disaster/Conflict Reconstruction . Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate.

Park, P. , Brydon-Miller, M. , Hall, B. , & Jackson, T. ( 1993 ). Voices of Change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Peterson, T.H. ( 2009 ). Engaged scholarship: Reflections and research on the pedagogy of social change.   Teaching in Higher Education . 14 (5), 541–552.

Pinto, R. M. , Schmidt, C. N. , Rodriguez, P.S. , & Solano, R. ( 2007 ). Using principles of community participatory research.   International Social Work . 50 (1): 53–65.

Polanyi, M. & Cockburn, L. ( 2003 ). Opportunities and pitfalls of community-based research: A case study.   Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning (Spring), 9(3), 16–25.

Porpora, D. ( 1999 ). “Action research: The highest Stage of service learning.” In Ostrow, J. , Hesser, G. , Erios, S. (Eds.). Cultivating the Sociological Imagination: Concepts, and Models for Service Learning . Sterling, Virginia: Stylus.

Puma, J. , Bennett, L. , Cutforth, N. , & Tombari, C. &. Stein, P. ( 2009 ). A case study of a community-based participatory evaluation research (CBPER) project: Reflections on promising practices and shortcomings.   Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning (Spring), 15(2), 34–47.

Rahman, Md. A. ( 2008 ). Some trends in the praxis of participatory action research. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H.   The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice 2nd Ed. . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 50–62

Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. ( 2008 ). The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Schwartz, K. ( 2010 ). Community engaged research: Student and community perspectives.   Partnerships: A Journal of Service learning & Civic Engagement , 1 (2),.1–16.

Sessa, C. & Ricci, A. ( 2010 ). Research Note: Working with and for the citizens.   Innovations—The European Journal of Social Science Research . 22 (1), 49–60.

Smikowski, J. , Dewane, S. , Johnson, M. , Brems, C. , Bruss, C. & Roberts, L. ( 2009 ). Community-based participatory research for improved mental health.   Ethics and Behavior . 19(6). 461–478

Staples, L. ( 2004 ). Roots to Power: A Manual for Grassroots Organizing. 2 ed . Westport, CT: Praeger.

Strand, K. ( 2000 ). Community-based research as pedagogy.   Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning . Fall, 7, 85–96.

Strand, K. , Marullo, S. , Cutforth, N. , Stoecker, R. & Donohue, P. ( 2003 a). Principles of best practices for community-based research.   Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning (Spring), 9(3), 5–15.

Strand, K. , Marullo, S.   Cutforth, N.   Stoecker, R. & Donohue, P. ( 2003 b) Community-Based Research and Higher Education: Principles and Practices . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Subramaniam, Mangala ( 2009 ) Negotiating the field in rural India: Location, organization, and identity salience. In Huggins, M. & Glebbeek, M.L (Eds.). Women Fielding Danger: Negotiating Ethnographic Identities in Field Research . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Torre, M. & Fine, M. ( 2011 ). A wrinkle in time: Tracing a legacy of public service through community self-surveys and Participatory Action Research.   Journal of Social Issues . 67(1), 106–121.

Votruba, J. ( 2010 ). Forward. In Fitzgerald, H. , Burack, C ,. & Seifer, S. (Eds.) The Handbook Engaged Scholarship: Contemporary Landscapes, Future Directions. Vol. 1 Institutional Change . East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. xi–xvi.

Wallerstein, N.   Duran, B. , Minkler, M. & Foley, K. ( 2005 ). Developing and maintaining partnerships with communities. In Istrael, B. , Eng, E. , Schultz, A. & Parker, E. (Eds.) Methods in Community Based Participatory Research Methods . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 31–51.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 28 November 2022

Community-engaged research is stronger and more impactful

• Gabrielle Wong-Parodi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5207-7489 1  

Nature Human Behaviour volume  6 ,  pages 1601–1602 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

848 Accesses

4 Citations

9 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Research management

Based on her own experience, Gabrielle Wong-Parodi describes how a community-engaged approach has the potential to strengthen research and increase its impact.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Clinical and Translational Science Awards Consortium Community Engagement Key Function Committee Task Force on the Principles of Community Engagement. Principles of Community Engagement (NIH publication no. 11-7782) (Department of Health and Human Services USA, 2011).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The OCOB project was developed under assistance agreement no. 84024001 awarded by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to G.W.-P. (Stanford University) and S.-H. Cho (RTI International). This World View has not been formally reviewed by the EPA. The views expressed in this document are solely those of G.W.-P. and do not necessarily reflect those of the agency. The EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this World View. OCOB is also supported by a National Science Foundation CAREER award (SES-2045129), Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences award and United States Parcel Service Endowment Fund at Stanford award to G.W.-P., and by a Stanford Impact Labs award to J. Suckale.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Earth System Science, the Woods Institute for the Environment, and Environmental Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Gabrielle Wong-Parodi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabrielle Wong-Parodi .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wong-Parodi, G. Community-engaged research is stronger and more impactful. Nat Hum Behav 6 , 1601–1602 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01494-5

Download citation

Published : 28 November 2022

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01494-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Financial incentives overcome ego-depletion effect in the waste separation task.

• Pingping Liu

Current Psychology (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• What is CER
• CBPR Principles
• Researcher Qualities
• Forming Partnerships
• Logistical Concerns
• Getting Started
• Research Projects
• News & Events
• Get Involved
• Publications

INFORMATION FOR

• Residents & Fellows
• Researchers

Benefits of Community Engaged Research

Community engagement in research has enabled ACADEMIC RESEARCHERS to:

• Increase the validity within the study by improving accuracy of measurements
• Conduct research that can be implemented in partnership with the studied communities
• Design meaningful and effective community interventions that are culturally and linguistically appropriate for communities

Community engagement in research has enabled COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS to:

• Ask questions that are meaningful to their community members
• Develop and evaluate effective programs for their clients
• Demonstrate effectiveness of their programs for future funding opportunities
• Increase the legitimacy of their work among funders, policy-makers and other stakeholders

Principles of Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR)

One type of community engaged research is community-based participatory research (CBPR), also known as participatory action research and community-partnered participatory research.

CBPR is an approach to research that is rooted in the principles of equity, justice, and fairness and that aims to ensure that all the partners in a research project obtain what they need from the research project.

• FOCUS on public health issues relevant to the community, including those influenced be social and economic determinants
• DISSEMINATE results to all partners and identify stakeholders who can influence chance
• BUILD on strengths and expertise within the community
• FACILITATE an equitable partnership in all phases of the research that aims to both empower & share power
• RECOGNIZE the community as a unity of identity with shared experiences related to race, socioeconomic status, occupation, etc.
• FOSTER co-learning and capacity building among all partners
• COMMIT to a sustainable, and when possible, long term investment in the partnership
• INTEGRATE a balance between knowledge generation and action

Building a Research Community

• First Online: 06 September 2022

Cite this chapter

• Aaron M. Ellison   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4151-6081 3 &
• Manisha V. Patel 3  

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Education ((BRIEFSEDUCAT))

159 Accesses

Being part of a professional community of collegial researchers is critical to long term success in any STEMM field. This first of three chapters on mentoring students through their undergraduate research experience focuses on how to build, organize, and manage an inclusive community of researchers. The emphasis in this chapter is on research communities that include one or more undergraduates or other new researchers in a single research group or in an undergraduate research program, but the principles described are applicable to any research group. The value of connecting one’s mentees to networks of STEMM practitioners and professionals is of key importance. These networks extend well beyond the groups of graduate students, post-docs, and faculty studying and working in colleges and universities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bennett, L. M., Gadlin, H., & Marchand, C. (2010). Collaboration and team science: A field guide . Bethesda: National Institutes of Health.

Google Scholar  

Cheruvelil, K. S., Soranno, P. A., Weathers, K. C., Hanson, P. C., Goring, S. J., Filstrup, C. T., & Read, E. K. (2014). Creating and maintaining high-performing collaborative research teams: The importance of diversity and interpersonal skills. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,   12 (1), 31–38.

Article   Google Scholar  

Dahlin, K. M., Zarnetske, P. L., & Record, S. (2019). Hear every voice - working groups that work. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,   17 (9), 493–494.

Ellison, A. (2021). Harvard forest summer research program in ecology student surveys 2016-2021 ver 2. Environmental Data Initiative. Retrieved September 16, 2021.

Garbee, E. (2017). The problem with the “pipeline”. Retrieved September 10, 2021, from https://slate.com/technology/2017/10/the-problem-with-the-pipeline-metaphor-in-stem-education.html .

Guimerà, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro, J., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2005). Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science,   308, 697–702.

Hampton, S. E., & Parker, J. N. (2011). Collaboration and productivity in scientific synthesis. BioScience,   61 (11), 900–910.

Institute of Medicine. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing america for a brighter economic future . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

McDevitt, A. L., Patel, M. V., & Ellison, A. M. (2020). Lessons and recommendations from three decades as an nsf reu site: A call for systems-based assessment. Ecology & Evolution,   10, 2710–2738.

National Science Board. (2015). Revisiting the STEM Workforce, a companion to science and engineering indicators 2014 . Arlington: National Science Foundation.

Pennington, D. D. (2011). Collaborative, cross-disciplinary learning and co-emergent innovation in eScience teams. Earth Science Informatics,   4, 55–68.

Pentland, A. (2010). The new science of building great teams. Harvard Business Review,   90, 60–70.

Stokols, D., Hall, K. L., Taylor, B. K., & Moser, R. P. (2008a). The science of team science: Overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal of Preventative Medicine,   35 (2S), S77–S89.

Stokols, D., Misra, S., Moser, R. P., Hall, K. L., & Taylor, B. K. (2008b). The ecology of team science: Understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. American Journal of Preventative Medicine,   35 (2S), S96–S115.

Uriarte, M., Ewing, H. A., Eviner, V. T., & Weathers, K. C. (2007). Constructing a broader and more inclusive value system in science. BioScience,   57 (1), 71–78.

van der Wal, J. E. M., Thorogood, R., & Horrocks, N. P. C. (2021). Collaboration enhances career progression in academic science, especially for female researchers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B,   288, 20210219.

Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science,   316, 2036–1039.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Sound Solutions for Sustainable Science LLC, Boston, MA, USA

Aaron M. Ellison & Manisha V. Patel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aaron M. Ellison .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Ellison, A.M., Patel, M.V. (2022). Building a Research Community. In: Success in Mentoring Your Student Researchers. SpringerBriefs in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06645-0_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06645-0_4

Published : 06 September 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-06644-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-06645-0

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

• Virtual Tour
• Staff Directory
• En Español

You are here

Impact of nih research.

Serving Society

Societal Benefits from Research

NIH-supported research findings result in changes that benefit society and the economy.

Neighborhoods and Health

Societal-benefits-research--neighborhoods-health.jpg.

NIH-supported research shows that children who move from a high-poverty neighborhood to a low poverty neighborhood are more likely to attend college and earn over 30% more as young adults. This has prompted changes in policies at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and other U.S. agencies.

Image credit: Jonathan Bailey, NHGRI

• Individuals living in low-poverty neighborhoods have improved health and employment compared to individuals living in high-poverty neighborhoods.
• Moving from a high-poverty neighborhood to a low-poverty neighborhood resulted in improved well-being, mental health, and physical health, such as increased rates of employment, decreased substance use and exposure to neighborhood violence, and reduced prevalence of extreme obesity and diabetes. 
• This evidence led policymakers to begin reducing systemic barriers for families to live in areas with more opportunities and lower levels of poverty.

Importance of Sleep

Societal-benefits-research--importance-sleep-cropped.jpg.

NIH-funded research shows the importance of sleep in boosting productivity at work and school. For example, a later school start time increases sleep duration and can lead to a 4.5% increase in grades. Because of this research, some states already enacted laws mandating later school start times.

Image credit: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH

• NIH-funded research shows that workplaces with health promotion programs have increased employee sleep duration and subsequent increased daytime performance. 
• Similarly, in school settings, later school start times can increase students’ median sleep time by 34 minutes and improve school attendance, resulting in a 4.5% rise in median grades. 
• A 60-minute delay in school start times also reduces car crash rates by 16.5%, as young drivers have a higher crash risk when sleep deprived.

Air Pollution and Health

Societal-benefits-research--air-pollution-health.jpg.

NIH-funded research found strong associations between exposure to air pollution and mortality. This research contributed to new Clean Air Act regulations in 1990, which resulted in air quality improvements that reached an economic value of $2 trillion by 2020 and prevented 230,000 early deaths in 2020 alone.

Image credit: Elisabeth De la Rosa, University of Texas Health Science Center, NCATS

• The net improvement in economic welfare due to new Clean Air Act regulations is projected to occur because cleaner air leads to better health and productivity for American workers, as well as savings on medical expenses for air pollution-related health problems. 
• The beneficial economic effects of better health and savings on medical costs alone are projected to more than offset the expenditures for pollution control.

Dietary Guidelines

Societal-benefits-research--dietary-guidelines.jpg.

Thanks to NIH-supported research, our understanding of how dietary intake contributes to health outcomes has expanded, and a more accurate way to measure metabolism in humans is now available. This has informed dietary guidelines for all Americans, including guidance on school lunches and labels for food and menus.

Image credit: Nancy Krebs University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO

• NIH-supported research has improved our understanding of the relationships between dietary intake, human development, and risk of chronic diet-related health conditions in the U.S. 
• The development of doubly labeled water (DLW)—a safe, non-invasive way to measure energy expenditure in humans—was funded by NIH and has revolutionized the measurement of metabolism in humans. 
• DLW is essential for the establishment of dietary reference intakes, which are the basis for updating dietary guidelines for all Americans.

Taxes for Public Health

Societal-benefits-research--taxes-public-health.jpg.

Several U.S. cities have imposed a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, based on research funded by NIH. In Berkeley, CA, this tax resulted in more than $9 million of revenue from 2015-2019, for public health campaigns and promotion for the city.

Image credit: Dr. Ehsan Shokri Kojori, NIAAA

• Implemented in 2015, the Berkeley tax on sugar-sweetened beverages impacted consumer spending, leading to a 10% drop in purchases of unhealthy beverages within a year.
• It also supported a public health intervention that led to improved health outcomes.

Housing and COVID-19

Societal-benefits-research--housing-covid-19.jpg.

NIH-funded research supported federal policies that prevented evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, reducing the spread of COVID-19 and preventing excess deaths.

Image credit: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH

• Lifting eviction moratoria in the spring and summer of 2020 was associated with 433,700 excess COVID-19 cases and 10,700 excess deaths. These findings were cited in decisions by other U.S. federal agencies to extend eviction moratoria.
• CDC cited NIH research when extending the federal eviction moratorium in January 2021, and in subsequent extensions, which may have had positive downstream impacts on productivity, employment, housing, and health costs.

Nurse Workload

Societal-benefits-research--nurse-workload.jpg.

NIH research demonstrated that when hospital nurses’ workloads are increased, there are higher rates of death for patients in that hospital. This research has informed proposed or passed legislation in almost 25 states that addresses nurse staffing levels, reduces workloads, and saves lives.

Image credit: National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, NIH

• NIH-supported research found that each patient added to a nurse’s workload was associated with a 7% increase in patient mortality.
• This research has guided state-mandated nurse-to-patient ratios in California hospitals. After these guidelines went into effect, NIH researchers found that when compared to states without mandated nurse staffing levels, California nurse workloads were lower, which was associated with fewer patient deaths.

Nursing Education

Societal-benefits-research--nursing-education.jpg.

NIH-supported research showed that a more educated nurse workforce is associated with improvements in patient outcomes in hospitals. This informed recommendations from the National Academy of Medicine on nurse education, leading to an almost 10% increase in nurses with a bachelor’s degree or higher from 2011-2019.

Image credit: John Powell

• NIH-supported research showed that for every 10% increase in nurses with bachelor’s degrees, there is a related 5-7% decrease in the likelihood of death for patients in hospitals.
• This research contributed to the 2011 National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) recommendation that 80% of nurses hold a bachelor’s degree by 2020.
• Since these recommendations, the proportion of nurses in the U.S. with a bachelor’s degree or higher increased from 50% in 2011 to 59% in 2019.
• Ludwig J, et al.  N Engl J Med . 2011 Oct 20;365(16):1509-19. PMID:  22010917 . 
• Ludwig J, et al.  Science . 2012 Sep 21;337(6101):1505-10. PMID:  22997331 . 
• Fauth R, et al.  Soc Sci Med . 2004 Dec;59(11):2271-84. PMID:  15450703 . 
• Chetty R, et al.  Am Econ Rev . 2016;106(4):855-902. PMID:  29546974 .
• Thornton RLJ, et al.  Health Aff (Millwood) . 2016;35(8):1416-23. PMID:  27503966 . 
• Housing Choice Voucher Mobility Demonstration -- HUD invites comments to OMB on Phase 1 Evaluation (by 11/22):  https://www.aeaweb.org/forum/2181/housing-voucher-mobility-demonstration-comments-evaluation
• Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:  https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/what-are-housing-mobility-programs-and-why-are-they-needed
• Robbins R, et al.  Am J Health Promot . 2019;33(7):1009-1019. PMID:  30957509 . 
• Watson NF, et al.  J Clin Sleep Med . 2017;13(4):623-625. PMID:  28416043 .
• Dockery DW, et al.  N Engl J Med . 1993;329(24):1753-9. PMID:  8179653 .
• Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-2020, the Second Prospective Study:  https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/benefits-and-costs-clean-air-act-1990-2020-second-prospective-study
• Schoeller DA, et al.  J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol . 1982;53(4):955-9. PMID:  6759491 .
• Pontzer H, et al.  Science . 2021;373(6556):808-812. PMID:  34385400 .
• Rhoads TW, et al.  Science . 2021;373(6556):738-739. PMID:  34385381 .
• Doubly Labelled Water Method:  https://doubly-labelled-water-database.iaea.org/about
• Scientific Report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee:  https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/2020-advisory-committee-report
• Falbe J, et al.  Am J Public Health . 2020;110(9):1429-1437. PMID:  32673112 .
• Kansagra SM, et al.  Am J Public Health . 2015;105(4):e61-4. PMID:  25713971 .
• State and Local Backgrounders on Soda Taxes:  https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/soda-taxes
• Leifheit KM, et al.  Am J Epidemiol . 2021;190(12):2503-2510. PMID:  34309643 . 
• Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19. February 2021 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/03/2021-02243/temporary-halt-in-residential-evictions-to-prevent-the-further-spread-of-covid-19
• Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19. March 2021.  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/03/31/2021-06718/temporary-halt-in-residential-evictions-to-prevent-the-further-spread-of-covid-19
• Supreme Court of the Unites States. No. 21A23. 2021.  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf
• Article: The Coming Wave of Evictions Is More Than a Housing Crisis.  https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/09/cdc-eviction-ban-housing-crisis/619960/
• Article: Nurse staffing and education linked to reduced patient mortality:  https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nurse-staffing-education-linked-reduced-patient-mortality    
• Article: Linda Aiken, Whose Research Revealed the Importance of Nursing in Patient Outcomes, Receives Institute of Medicine’s 2014 Lienhard Award:  https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2014/10/linda-aiken-whose-research-revealed-the-importance-of-nursing-in-patient-outcomes-receives-institute-of-medicines-2014-lienhard-award    
• Article: Nurses, and patients, have this woman to thank:  https://www.uff.ufl.edu/gators/nurses-patients-woman-thank/   
• Aiken LH, et al.  JAMA . 2002;288(16):1987-93. PMID:  12387650 .  
• Aiken LH, et al.  Lancet . 2014;383(9931):1824-30. PMID:  24581683 .  
• Aiken LH, et al.  Health Serv Res . 2010;45(4):904-21. PMID:  20403061 .
• Learning From the California Experience:  https://www.nationalnursesunited.org/learning-california-experience
• Aiken LH, et al.  JAMA . 2003;290(12):1617-23. PMID:  14506121 .
• Friese CR, et al.  Health Serv Res . 2008;43(4):1145-63. PMID:  18248404 . 
• Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Initiative on the Future of Nursing, at the Institute of Medicine.  The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health . 2011.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209880/
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.  The Future of Nursing 2020-2030: Charting a Path to Achieve Health Equity . 2021. (page 200)  https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25982/the-future-of-nursing-2020-2030-charting-a-path-to

This page last reviewed on March 1, 2023

Connect with Us

• More Social Media from NIH

How Does Research Help the Community

Table of Contents

Research help the community by providing valuable insights that can inform evidence-based policies and interventions, fostering sustainable development and positive change. Research is a powerful tool that not only expands the horizons of human knowledge but also plays a pivotal role in shaping and transforming communities. In this article, we will explore the profound impact of research on communities and delve into the ways it contributes to the betterment of society. From understanding the community’s needs to addressing social and environmental challenges, research stands as a cornerstone for progress.

Understanding the Community

To understand the importance of research in community development, one must first grasp the complexities and dynamics of the community itself. A community isn’t just a place on a map; it’s like a woven fabric made up of different parts, like cultures, economies, and how people interact. Research in community psychology allows us to delve deep into these threads, unraveling the unique challenges, strengths, and aspirations that define a particular community.

By employing methods like surveys, interviews, and observational studies, researchers can gather valuable insights into the collective mindset of a community. This understanding forms the basis for tailoring interventions and initiatives that are not only effective but resonate with the community’s values.

Research helps the community in the following ways:

i. Enhancing Healthcare and Well-being

Research contributes significantly to the enhancement of healthcare and well-being within a community. By identifying prevalent health issues, assessing healthcare accessibility, and developing targeted interventions, research plays a pivotal role in improving the overall health of community members. For instance, a community facing a high prevalence of a particular disease can utilize research findings to implement preventive measures and ensure timely medical interventions.

ii. Advancing Education and Learning

Research in education is instrumental in advancing learning outcomes within a community. By conducting studies on educational methodologies, literacy rates, and learning environments, researchers can provide valuable insights that inform educational policies and practices. This, in turn, enhances the quality of education and equips community members with the necessary skills for personal and collective development.

iii. Promoting Economic Growth and Development

Economic growth and development are intricately linked to research within a community. Through studies on economic trends, employment patterns, and market dynamics, researchers can offer valuable information that guides economic policies and initiatives. For instance, a community aiming for sustainable economic development can use research findings to identify key sectors for investment, develop entrepreneurship programs, and attract businesses that align with the community’s goals.

iv. Addressing Social and Environmental Challenges

Communities often face numerous of social and environmental challenges, ranging from social inequality to climate change. Research serves as a powerful tool for understanding the complexities of these challenges and devising effective strategies for mitigation and adaptation.

For instance, in the face of social issues such as discrimination or inequality, research can uncover the underlying causes and propose evidence-based solutions. This might involve implementing community programs, raising awareness, or advocating for policy changes that address systemic issues. Similarly, in the realm of environmental challenges, research helps communities understand their ecological footprint, identify sources of pollution, and develop sustainable practices to preserve natural resources.

How Research Will Benefit the Community?

The benefits of research to a community are multi-dimensional. Firstly, it acts as a guiding light for policymakers and community leaders. Armed with evidence-based insights, decision-makers can formulate policies that are not only relevant but also responsive to the genuine needs of the community. This not only ensures the efficient allocation of resources but also fosters a sense of trust and collaboration between the community and its leaders. Additionally, research improves the quality of life for residents by identifying and addressing key factors that impact well-being, thus contributing to the overall health and prosperity of the community. Furthermore, research help the community by empowering residents with knowledge, enabling them to actively participate in decision-making processes and contribute to the overall well-being and development of their community.

Moreover, research acts as a catalyst for innovation and progress. It provides a platform for identifying emerging trends, understanding shifting demographics, and predicting future challenges. For instance, a community facing an aging population can utilize research findings to develop targeted healthcare programs, ensuring the well-being of its residents.

How Do Research Studies Help the Society?

Research studies are the foundation of societal progress, offering a systematic approach to understanding complex issues. They serve as a bridge between theoretical knowledge and practical solutions, transforming ideas into actionable strategies. In the context of communities, research studies offer a lens through which we can analyze and interpret the challenges and opportunities that shape their trajectory.

One of the key ways research studies contribute to society is by fostering a culture of continuous learning. By examining the outcomes of different interventions and policies, communities can adapt and refine their approaches, fostering an environment of resilience and adaptability.

What Is the Impact of Research in the Community?

The impact of research in a community is far-reaching, touching various aspects of daily life. One notable impact is the enhancement of healthcare and well-being. Research enables the identification of prevalent health issues, the assessment of healthcare accessibility, and the development of targeted interventions.

In addition to healthcare, research contributes significantly to the advancement of education and learning within a community. Studies on educational methodologies, literacy rates, and learning outcomes empower educators and policymakers to implement evidence-based strategies that improve the overall quality of education.

How Can Research Help the Community in Solving Such Problems?

Research not only identifies problems but also offers practical solutions. By adopting a problem-solving approach, communities can leverage research findings to devise effective strategies for overcoming challenges. For instance, in a community grappling with unemployment, research can pinpoint the root causes and inform the creation of job training programs, stimulating economic growth.

Furthermore, research facilitates collaboration between communities and external entities such as governmental organizations, NGOs, and academic institutions. This collaborative approach ensures a holistic understanding of problems and encourages the pooling of resources and expertise for comprehensive solutions.

How to Do Research in the Community?

Conducting research in a community requires a thoughtful and ethical approach. Researchers must engage with the community members, respecting their perspectives and involving them in the research process. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is an approach that emphasizes collaboration between researchers and community members, ensuring that the research is not only scientifically rigorous but also culturally sensitive.

Additionally, employing diverse research methods such as qualitative and quantitative approaches provides a comprehensive understanding of the community. Surveys, focus group discussions, and participatory observations are some of the tools that researchers can use to gather rich and varied data.

5 Purposes of Research

1. understanding:.

Involves gaining deep insights into the dynamics of the community.

2. Exploration:

Encompasses delving into unexplored realms of knowledge to uncover new perspectives and possibilities.

3. Description:

Focuses on accurately portraying the community, providing a detailed and realistic snapshot of its characteristics.

4. Explanation:

Seeks to comprehend the underlying causes and relationships within the community, unraveling the complexities that shape its dynamics.

5. Application:

Involves utilizing research findings as a practical tool for positive change within the community.

Importance of Research in Community

Here are the following 5 importance of research in the community:

1. Guiding Force:

Research serves as a guiding force, aiding communities in navigating the complexities of social, economic, and environmental challenges.

2. Informed Decision-Making:

The importance of research lies in its role as a catalyst for informed decision-making within communities, ensuring that choices are grounded in evidence and data.

3. Adaptability:

Research empowers communities to adapt to changing circumstances, providing the knowledge necessary to navigate evolving landscapes effectively.

4. Envisioning the Future:

It enables communities to envision a future that aligns with their collective aspirations, shaping a trajectory for purposeful and sustainable development.

5. Foundation for Growth:

Research establishes a robust foundation for community growth by offering insights that contribute to comprehensive and responsive development strategies.

In conclusion, the role of research in community development is indispensable. From understanding the intricate dynamics of a community to addressing social, economic, and environmental challenges, research serves as a guiding force for positive change. The benefits of research to a community are vast, spanning healthcare, education, economic development, and the overall well-being of community members.

In essence, research help the community in solving its problems by providing evidence-based strategies, fostering collaboration, and offering a systematic approach to understanding complex issues. It serves as a guiding force, supporting informed decision-making, adaptability, and envisioning a future aligned with collective aspirations.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Research management

Sponsored by

Directing research to engage and support local communities

Helen Szoor-McElhinney and colleagues describe how academics can shape their research around key community needs and encourage participation from multidisciplinary faculty, students and local people

Helen Szoor-McElhinney

.css-76pyzs{margin-right:0.25rem;} ,, alette willis, liam gilchrist.

• More on this topic

Elsevier helps researchers and healthcare professionals advance science and improve health outcomes for the benefit of society.

Discover elsevier.

Created in partnership with

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} Analytical testing is the key to industry collaborations

Is it time to turn off turnitin, use ai to get your students thinking critically, taming anxiety around public speaking, emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn.

All universities have a responsibility to engage with and support the communities in which they are located. This can be done in many ways but a key tool in any university’s repertoire is its research.

So, how can universities shape research projects to ensure benefits are felt by local communities? One way is by inviting community participation in research projects that seek to address key issues or challenges faced by local people and groups.

These will vary according to the institution’s remit and its locality. So, the starting point for any university or academic looking to develop such a project must be a thorough understanding of local issues or major challenges faced by local people.

Shaping research to community needs

Use existing networks: When initiating new community-university research partnerships it can be helpful to draw upon existing research networks that have connections to targeted groups within the community. The Our Health programme, which aims to reduce health inequalities through community-based participatory research, has built upon relationships that have emerged out of associated clinical research grants. Doing this not only reduces the initial workload in terms of seeking out community partners but it almost always leads to a “natural fit” around shared research interests and long-term goals.

Clarify the research focus:  To effectively shape your research to respond to community needs, it is important to be clear about what, and how, you are seeking to investigate. The Our Health team focuses on research related to health and well-being. We work in partnership with socio-economically disadvantaged communities to improve health literacy through participatory research and empower patient and community groups to take greater control of their own health. 

By establishing the overall aim of the community engagement and understanding the research methods involved in achieving that aim, you will be better placed to keep the community engagement on track and participants working as a cohesive, strong and motivated research team.

Use existing resources: A valuable starting point for any academic or practitioner who seeks to understand community needs around health and well-being would be resources such as the James Lind Alliance (JLA), which has useful guidelines for forming and working in research priority-setting partnerships. The Our Health team were guided by the evidence base the JLA had compiled of health-related research questions posed by the wider public, as well as conducting our own focus groups with local community groups to hear directly what research needs they felt were important and would want to participate in.

Make it interdisciplinary

We have shown through a qualitative case study of the Our Health programme that interdisciplinarity enhances community-based participatory research processes by providing flexibility and more research solutions and options through the range of disciplinary knowledge. When interdisciplinarity crossed a wide range of disciplines from the sciences and social sciences the shared learning environment provided was particularly rich. 

We would encourage others who are interested in setting up their own community-based participatory research programmes to harness the power of interdisciplinary collaboration. It is possible to facilitate meaningful local change by bringing together teams of researchers and mixed-level students from across the university to work on university-community research partnerships.

Embed community research into curricula

Students participate in these projects because they want rich experiential learning and skills training. They want to make a difference in the communities in which they live and study. We have found that students report gaining confidence in conducting research, in working outside their disciplines and engaging with professionals and the wider public. To offer these experiences to a wide and diverse student body and maximise impact, these opportunities should be embedded within the curriculum with sufficient financial and staffing support. 

Think long term

Developing community-university research partnerships takes time. If you want to reap the many benefits that these partnerships offer, you need to think and plan for the long term. The research relationships need to be fostered and respected and this means that all participants need to commit their time and energy to ensuring the relationships remain healthy and productive.

The real-world research questions presented by community-based research are complex and often problematic. Unpacking questions of this complexity may take several years but doing so provides potent, long-term learning experiences for community partners and students. The length of time it takes to answer community-posed questions and the length of university programmes means that students come and go from teams. This can be a challenge in terms of building relationships  between community partners and students. 

To mitigate this, try to ensure there is a constant, core team of academic staff. This will allow a natural student and community partner turnover to occur without disrupting the overall programme.

Helen Szoor-McEIhinney is Our Health programme lead, Alette Willis is senior lecturer in Health in Social Science and Liam Gilchrist is Our Health research associate, all at the University of Edinburgh .

Analytical testing is the key to industry collaborations

A framework to teach library research skills, contextual learning: linking learning to the real world, how hard can it be testing ai detection tools, chatgpt’s impact on nursing education and assessments, how to tackle the phd dissertation.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

How public libraries help build healthy communities

Subscribe to the economic studies bulletin, marcela cabello and marcela cabello former research analyst - economic studies stuart m. butler stuart m. butler senior fellow - economic studies @stuartmbutler.

March 30, 2017

They say you can’t judge a book by its cover. Increasingly in the United States, you also can’t judge a library’s value to its community by simply its books. Let us explain.

In a previous blog post, we’ve noted the importance of “third places” in strengthening communities – meaning those places that are neither one’s home (first place) nor workspace (second place). A range of such third places, from churches to beauty salons, play an important role in community building. They are the informal spaces that are often mainstays in a neighborhood, places where both random and intentional in-person relationships are made.

Related Content

Stuart M. Butler, Carmen Diaz

September 14, 2016

Several things are necessary for a particular place to play this role. Location and accessibility are important, of course. But so are trust and a sense of neutrality; they are usually the keys to success, whether the place is a house of worship, a family-owned diner, or a barbershop.

As the earlier piece explained, public spaces and buildings can become important and successful third places. And one particularly interesting, emerging and important example is the public library.

Public libraries exist in urban, suburban, and rural neighborhoods, and typically they have a long history in their community. According to a 2015 Pew survey, almost two-thirds of adult Americans say that closing their local library would have a major impact on their community . As Pew found, over 90 percent of adults think of public libraries as “welcoming and friendly places,” and about half have visited or otherwise used a public library in the last 12 months.

Reimagining the Librarian

A reason public libraries are seen as such important third-place institutions is that they and their librarians have gradually taken on other functions well beyond lending out books. In many communities, librarians are also ad hoc social workers and navigators. They help local people figure out the complexities of life, from navigating the health system to helping those with housing needs. This “go-to” role has influenced library programming and events, with libraries providing advice and connections to health, housing, literacy, and other areas.

Other sectors, such as health care, increasingly see public libraries as a critical link to a community. For instance, the National Library of Medicine is helping local librarians to be more effective local navigators by regularly hosting webinars and training sessions for local librarians on how to navigate social services, aging, mental health, welfare and public assistance, housing resources, health care, and education and employment resources.

A reason public libraries are seen as such important third-place institutions is that they and their librarians have gradually taken on other functions well beyond lending out books.

Of course, most librarians were not trained to handle many of the issues and requests they now encounter, such as providing guidance on resources for substance abuse and mental health issues. In response, some libraries have hired in-house social workers to help address the needs of visitors. San Francisco Public Library, where an estimated 15 percent of the library’s visitors are homeless, was one of the first . A case worker is able to do a full assessment, and help arrange case management and housing assistance, in a respectful and neutral safe space.

Addressing Population Health

Other cities have followed suit. A recent study from researchers at the University of Pennsylvania explains how Philadelphia’s libraries, as a trusted local institution, have partnered with the University to address population health and social determinants of health. With librarians now trained as “community health specialists,” the libraries offer programs and assistance for people of all ages and socio-economic backgrounds. In 2015, almost 10 percent of the libraries’ 5.8 million in-person visitors accessed specialized programs and assistance in such areas as nutrition, trauma and mental health resources, youth leadership and healthy behaviors. As the researchers conclude, “Libraries and librarians contribute two particular strengths to advance a culture of health: accessibility and trustworthiness.”

Related Books

Gerard Caprio, Jonathan L. Fiechter, Robert E. Litan, Michael Pomerleano

January 7, 2005

C. Eugene Steuerle, Van Doorn Ooms, George E. Peterson, Robert D. Reischauer

June 1, 2000

Nicolas P. Retsinas, Eric S. Belsky

August 13, 2002

Many libraries have become front-line institutions in addressing the needs of the homeless. For instance, the Dallas Public Library in 2013 launched a Homeless Engagement Initiative . The emphasis is on making all library visitors feel welcome. The library runs a Homeless Engagement and Leadership Program (HELP) Desk where customers can obtain one-on-one assistance with job applications and resumes, food and housing referrals, legal aid, and library music and arts programs.

Libraries focus on a wide range of populations with particular needs, including seniors, veterans, and immigrants. The Hartford Public Library in Connecticut, for instance, has created The American Place (TAP), a free program that supports and assists new immigrants acclimate to their new city. TAP partners with community leaders and organizations to provide employment services, English as a new language classes, legal orientation programs, Know-Your-Rights forums, and referrals to other services, in five different languages. Meanwhile the Queens Borough Public Library in New York, has partnered with the Queens Health Network, the largest healthcare provider in the area, to design health-related and community-centered programming targeting the needs of its immigrant populations.

Libraries as Key Hubs

In health care and other areas, libraries are combining the access and trust characteristics of a third place with a hub role in the community – using partnerships with other institutions to connect people with services and help. There are plenty of challenges with this role. Community needs and the requests of visitors are increasingly straining or overwhelming library funds; and although many libraries are retraining staff, achieving the appropriate mix of skills is difficult. But as the University of Pennsylvania study found, “public libraries are dynamic, socially responsive institutions, a nexus of diversity, and a lifeline for the most vulnerable among us.” More policymakers and government officials need to recognize this, and incorporate libraries into budgets and plans to build a culture of health and upwardly mobile communities.

Economic Studies

Tedros Adhanom-Ghebreyesus

May 9, 2024

Online only

1:30 pm - 4:00 pm EDT

Andrew Atkeson, Stephen Kissler

March 27, 2024

• Understanding Health Disparities
• What is Research?
• Importance of Diversity
• Final Thoughts
• Do You Know?
• Learning from the Past
• Protections Today
• Should I Participate?
• What is Informed Consent?
• Knowledge is Power
• What Can Research Do In Your Community?
• Getting Involved
• Being An Informed Consumer
• Being A Participant

What Can Research Do In Your Community?

Research takes place in many different settings.

Some research is done in clinical settings like a hospital or doctor’s office. Some may take place on a university campus. Other research happens in community settings where community members themselves may play a variety of roles in the research. This unit will present ideas about how you can get involved in research and work with researchers to improve the health and well-being of your community.

"It's going to take a community to really deal with these kinds of issues." - Dr. John Ruffin, Founding Director of the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD)

Below are examples of how communities and researchers have been able to work together in the United States.

u3-slide1.jpg

u3-slide2.jpg

u3-slide3.jpg

u3-slide4.jpg

u3-slide5.jpg

King County Healthy Homes, Seattle, WA

The King County Healthy Homes project was an intervention research project to help prevent asthma and encourage healthy indoor environments in Seattle.

The indoor home environment presents a range of health risks, including asthma triggers and exposures to toxics such as lead, pesticides, and volatile organics. Minority and low income populations are at increased risk for many of these exposures and children are most sensitive to their effects. Asthma is an important health consequence of these exposures, and its incidence and mortality appear to be steadily increasing, especially among low-income children.

The Seattle-King County Healthy Homes Project addressed these concerns. Paraprofessional Community Home Environmental Specialists (CHES) provided a comprehensive package of educational materials to reduce the total exposure burden of indoor environmental health risks. CHES conducted an initial home environmental assessment in low-income households with asthmatic children age 4-12. The home environmental specialists offered education and social support, encouraged behavior changes, provided materials to reduce exposures (bedding covers, vacuums, door mats, cleaning kits). This initial assessment was followed by five to nine visits over the next 12 months in which CHES worked with tenants, offering continued education and social support.

Community participation was an important component of this project. The project was developed by a partnership of community agencies, a tenant’s union, an environmental justice organization, the local health department, the CDC-sponsored Seattle Partners for Healthy Communities and the University of Washington. Primary funding was provided by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences with additional support from the Nesholm Foundation, the Seattle Foundation, and the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. The project ran from 1997-2005 and found that the homes receiving the educational materials and supports had lower rates of development and severity of asthma in their children and higher awareness of how to prevent asthma.

Source  http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/partnerships/sphc/projects.aspx

• King County Homes Project
• Healthy Mothers on the Move
• Vietnamese-American Cervical Cancer Screening
• Weact Northern Manhattan Food Survey

Questions to think about and discuss when reviewing the four examples.

• Who did the study aim to help?
• What problem was the study trying to address?
• When did the study take place?
• How did researchers and community groups work together?
• How did the study make a difference in the community?

Healthy Mothers on the Move, Detroit, MI

The Healthy Mothers on the Move project aimed to demonstrate the effectiveness of a social support healthy lifestyle intervention designed to reduce risk factors for Type 2 diabetes among pregnant and postpartum women. The project worked with Latina and African American pregnant and post-partum women in Detroit. Two intervention programs were offered. One intervention was a Healthy Lifestyle Program with education and support for a healthy diet and exercise. A second intervention was a Pregnancy Control Program that taught stress management and provided general care support but did not include information or support for diet and exercise. Women’s Health Advocates from the community interacted with the study participants. 

Among Latinas, there was almost 90% retention through pregnancy and more than 80% retention through six weeks postpartum. There was also high participant, Women’s Health Advocate, and host site satisfaction. Vegetable consumption in the Healthy Lifestyle group increased significantly. Other analyses are still ongoing.

Preliminary results suggest significant decrease in diabetes risk factors for the healthy lifestyle group. The Community Women’s Health Advocates were instrumental in conducting home visits and working with the women.

Source  http://www.detroiturc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15&Itemid=28

Cervical cancer screening, santa clara, ca.

Vietnamese-American women are five times more likely to develop cervical cancer than other American women. In Santa Clara, CA a REACH 2010 project aimed to increase Pap smear screening for early detection and prevention.  The researchers ran a media campaign on the importance of screening in the community. The University of California also worked with the Vietnamese REACH Health Coalition and lay health workers to encourage Vietnamese Americans to get screened for cervical cancer. The study concluded that the women who spoke with the community health workers were more likely to get screened than the women who were exposed to the media campaign alone.

An evaluation of coalition programs showed that 47.7% of participants who had never had a Pap test received one after meeting with a lay health worker. The evaluation also showed that 17.9% of participants received a mammogram and 27.9% received a clinical breast exam after meeting with a lay health worker, compared with 3.9% and 5.1%, respectively, of women who did not meet with a lay health worker. In addition, 52.1% of participants had a repeat Pap test within 18 months, and 4,187 women enrolled in a reminder system. The study took place from 2004-2007 and involved 105,000 Vietnamese-American women.

Source  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1494888/

Weact food justice initiative, new york, ny.

The goals of the Food Justice Initiative are to understand the challenges and opportunities that children, parents, school officials and residents face regarding healthy food choices in school and at home through research. The WEACT Food Justice Initiative works with community residents in Northern Manhattan grassroots groups and other New York organizations to help influence and develop programs, laws and policies that affect access to healthy food in Northern Manhattan. WEACT has conducted surveys with community residents and schools. They are currently investigating the supply chain of public school lunches to better understand the ingredients and nutritional makeup of the food purchased by the New York City Public School system. One key portion of the Food Justice Initiative is educating policy makers on food justice issues and providing recommendations for improved policies at the City, State and Federal levels.

In addition, WEACT works at the community level to involve parents, students, teachers, the school board, school administrators, and the public in development of the local wellness policies at several Northern Manhattan schools. Since nearly all Northern Manhattan public school students are low-income, this is a critical window of opportunity to empower the community work together to influence policy for greater equality.  WEACT educates and mobilizes the public school community to advocate for healthier policies at the NYC Board of Education, City Council, NYS Legislature and NYS Departments of Education and Health.

WEACT for Environmental Justice is a Northern Manhattan community-based organization whose mission is to build healthy communities by assuring that people of color and/or low-income participate meaningfully in the creation of sound and fair environmental health and protection policies and practices.

Source  http://www.weact.org/Programs/EnvironmentalHealthCBPR/NorthernManhattanFoodJusticeInitiative/tabid/206/Default.aspx

Additional resources, cdc healthy homes, community engaged scholarship 4 health, community-campus partnerships for health, developing and sustaining community-based participatory research partnerships: a skill building curriculum, healthy homes ii asthma project, king county healthy homes project, seattle, wa, reach cdc success stories, reach: the power to reduce health disparities, the community toolbox (university of kansas), important question.

What could research do in your community?

Please take some time to think about and discuss this question with your group or others.

to review Unit 2: Informed Decision-Making

Go to next page

to learn about how To Get Involved

• Current Students

Collaboration is key to pioneering research with youth experiencing homelessness

Coco Auerswald’s work sheds light on the health of some of the nation’s most disadvantaged youth

• By Sheila Kaplan
• 12 min. read ▪ Published April 24
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Facebook
• Share on X (Twitter)

Rebecca Alturk had all the qualifications that Dr. Coco Auerswald was looking for in a researcher for her work on youth homelessness in Berkeley. She was smart, determined—and had her own experience with homelessness.

To Auerswald, a UC Berkeley School of Public Health professor of community health sciences, Alturk was just the right fit—an undergraduate who could build trust with teens in similar situations. Alturk had experienced homelessness and housing insecurity with her mother growing up. She also had to leave home when she gave birth to her son as a senior in high school. But none of that got in Alturk’s way. She enrolled as a freshman at Cal when her son was just a few weeks old.

To Alturk, Auerswald’s lab became a home.

“She made me feel not so alone,” said Alturk, in an interview from her University Village apartment, where she lives with her now 10-year-old son and her mother. “I went my entire undergraduate career not knowing any research about this topic. I thought I was one of the very few people on campus silently experiencing homelessness, or who had experienced it.”

Their collaboration was a typical one for Auerswald. A pediatrician who overcame academic bias against studying homeless youth, Auerswald quickly emerged as a national leader in the field, who partners with students and youth with lived experience of homelessness and mentors them in public health research skills.

Since 1997, when Auerswald began her groundbreaking research on youth experiencing homelessness, her work has shed light on the social determinants of health of some of the nation’s most disadvantaged youth, and proposed structural interventions to improve their lives.

“I wanted to have influence on the influences that were affecting the health of my patients,” she said. “I could tell if I didn’t do that I would go nuts. If you keep seeing the same kind of train wrecks you want to do something about the trains.’’

Nearly 30 years since she started her research, Auerswald’s research lab is still expanding. She is co-director of i4Y ( Innovations for Youth ), a cross-disciplinary UC Berkeley School of Public Health research hub addressing issues of youth equity through community collaborative research and youth engagement. She also founded its offshoot: Youth and Allies Against Homelessness (YAAH).

“When I started doing this work, there were very few people doing research on youth homelessness,” Auerswald said. “What I’ve done—even if I’m not the most highly-funded researcher—is to prove that it’s possible to do research not only about but with youth experiencing homelessness.”

Looking back, Auerswald believes that any naysayers were guilty of “house-ism,” a phrase she coined, referring to biases against people who are unhoused. Tha bias once included researchers who wanted to study them, but Auerswald’s work has helped push the field from the fringes to mainstream.

This spring, Auerswald won three coveted grants in recognition of her achievements: a million-dollar contract to evaluate the impact of California state funding on services for youth experiencing homelessness; a $240,000 grant for a collaboration with Covenant House International ; and $300,000 from Blue Shield of California Foundation to expand her internships for youth experiencing homelessness.

Auerswald’s Lab was recruited for the state evaluation project based on its past research, particularly a report on the impact of COVID-19 on youth experiencing homelessness in the Bay Area. The Covenant House collaboration seeks to revise best practices for preventing youth homelessness, focusing on equity.

Auerswald is thrilled by each of the grants, but the $300,000 Blue Shield award came as a real surprise.

“It was, honestly, like deus ex machina ,” she said, in an interview on a rare day off. “It was literally just out of heaven that this money came. Now I can expand the pipeline —moving youth experiencing homelessness into research as a way to mentor them into careers where they are able to apply their lived experience to make the world a better place.”

Alturk is well on her way. She completed her B.A. while working as a researcher on Auerswald’s study of the impact of COVID-19 on providers for youth experiencing homelessness . After graduating, Alturk worked for the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services as a program manager supervising a COVID-19 team of over 50 nurses, EMTs, and community outreach workers who collected data and provided vaccines and testing for people living in encampments, shelters, or on the street. She then returned to Berkeley Public Health to enroll in the dual MCP/MPH program. “I came back for Coco,” she said.

Auerswald said, “It’s been amazing to see Rebecca [Alturk] go from an undergraduate, tentatively trying out her wings in an academic research lab to being someone who has run major programs to address the needs of the most vulnerable in our community. I’m incredibly proud of the work she has accomplished.”

Studying medicine in the age of AIDS

For a doctor graduating from medical school in 1992—especially in San Francisco—there was no bigger health crisis than AIDS. Auerswald did her residency at UC San Francisco, treating AIDS patients and working with the LGBTQ+ community, an experience which laid the groundwork for her current research with historically marginalized and at-risk populations.

After her residency, Auerswald worked as a pediatrician at non-profit hospitals and community clinics around the Bay Area. After doing everything from delivering babies to counseling young people considering suicide, Auerswald returned to academia, hoping to mitigate the problems facing her patients.

“I was trying to do work that could help prevent HIV, but was also just focused on adolescent health,” Auerswald said. “I ended up going into academia, because I really enjoyed doing community-engaged research with young people. The work I initially did as a fellow is what really got me hooked.”

“It is amazing to look back and know that my work has been touched and supported by so many leaders in adolescent health and health equity. I feel very grateful,” she said.

As a young physician trained in medical anthropology, Auerswald set her sights on conducting research regarding youth experiencing homelessness during her fellowship in Adolescent Medicine. Alarmed, the faculty tried to dissuade her. However, with the support of an anthropology faculty member, Prof. Steve Eyre, she pressed on.

“By the time I was a third year fellow I was given a slot to give a plenary presentation about my research at the national conference in adolescent health, which was a really big deal,” Auerswald said. “After that, my faculty supported the work. When I gave the plenary, some members of the audience were concerned about the safety of my work. People were just really afraid of these very young people. There has always been pushback about how this research was not going to work. ”

She published that first study in Social Science and Medicine . That led to an NIH K-23 career development award, which she used to study nearly 300 young people living on the street in San Francisco. That study was also a big success, with a rare 92% retention rate of the young participants. In a clinical trial, by comparison, an 80% retention rate would be considered excellent, Auerswald said.

“We were recruiting people in the Haight, and downtown on Market Street, and we’d find them again six months later for follow up. They knew us, so they trusted us,” she said.

The study led her to recognize the importance of social capital, and how it affects health.

“It’s basically your degree of connection to people who have access to resources in your life,” Auerswald said. “You could have social networks, but if they are all connecting you to people who are also excluded, it’s not really going to help you. So, to what degree you have strong social capital is really important in terms of whether a young person can succeed.”

Currently, about half the 16 researchers in Auerswald’s lab have once experienced homelessness. Most lab members are undergraduates whose contributions are essential to the lab research and dissemination activities.

“Youth homelessness is distinct from adults,” said Maddy Cuyler, research coordinator for Youth and Allies Against Homelessness, under the Innovations for Youth umbrella. “There is more couch surfing and doubling up. There’s such a range of experiences.”

Moving the Needle on Youth Homelessness

Claire Genese, a long time graduate student researcher in the lab, shared her experience.

“My mom lost our home during the foreclosure crisis,” Genese said. “After that I couch surfed for two months. I worked full-time, went to school, and had a car, but couldn’t afford a place of my own.”

Genese eventually found a job as a front desk clerk for a supportive housing center, then worked for neighborhood development projects and eventually as the lead for programs for youth experiencing homelessness for the San Francisco Department of Homelessness.

“That’s how I met Coco,” she said. “One of my mentors knew her and connected me because I had been accepted to Cal.”

Now, Genese is in the final year of the joint MCP/MPH program, in which students earn two concurrent degrees: master of city planning and master of public health, in the college of environmental design. Genese, Meti Sima, a MPH epidemiology student who joined the lab in January; and Cuyler are leading the state-funded evaluation project the YAAH Lab is conducting for the California Interagency Council on Homelessness, investigating the impact of state funding on services for youth experiencing homelessness.

Auerswald hopes that the project will move the needle on youth homelessness in California.

The lab’s first product from the project, “ Guidelines for Preventing, Addressing, and Ending Youth Homelessness ” is a summary of current recommendations for jurisdictions receiving state funding for youth experiencing homelessness.

The guidelines were vetted by youth leaders from around the state along with allies, including advocates, providers, and public servants who work in youth homelessness. “The guidelines we’ve created are an important tool for communities to implement evidence-based practice,” she said. “We hope that our evaluation work of state funding will help the state of California understand the ways in which youth homelessness needs to be evaluated and funded differently than adult homelessness to have the greatest effect.”

The project will focus on a group of communities including the cities of San Benito, Oakland, Salinas, Long Beach, and San Diego, and the counties of Monterey, Alameda and Kings/Tulare. Prof. Auerswald estimates that over two dozen students and up to 20 community interns will participate over the two-year course of the project. Some of the undergraduates who will be conducting research with the project connected to Auerswald through her undergraduate class on homelessness, entitled “Seeing People.”

Because for Auerswald, that’s what doing research with—not on—youth experiencing homelessness is all about, making them visible.

“I’ve tried to move things forward in terms of methods and youth inclusion,” she said. “And I’m proud of that.”

People of BPH found in this article include:

• Colette Auerswald Professor, Community Health Sciences

More in category “Research Highlights”:

New study differentiates perinatal risks of covid-19 infection from pandemic era societal changes, surgery in a hospital doesn’t necessarily lead to better outcomes than surgery in a surgical center, exposure to wildfire smoke during pregnancy increases risk of preterm birth, rosemarie de la rosa tracks how childhood exposure to environmental pollutants and social stress has lifelong affect.

Explore Shelterforce

Explore Articles View All

Featured Topics View All

Reported Article Moving Community Development Forward

New Research Gives Different—But Complementary—Looks at the Community Development Field

Three fascinating research projects take very different approaches to learning more about the sector, but many of the storylines they are surfacing are related.

'Tiny Houses,' Processed with VSCOcam with hb2 preset. Credit: Michał Koralewski, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

This article is part of the Under the Lens series

Moving Community Development Forward

This is an important time for the community development field. Affordable housing, something many community developers work on, is on the national agenda. A huge amount of funding to help slow climate change and address its effects is about to be flowing through community development financial institutions. The frequency of acute disasters—climate, health, infrastructure failure—is increasing without equivalent additional investment in the systems that handle them, meaning the importance of local organizations that have both the resident connections and network and the capacity and expertise to manage the aftereffects is becoming ever more crucial.

But who are these community-based development organizations? What sort of work do they do, where are they getting their funding, and how well is the field in which they are embedded doing at not accidentally reproducing the same harms it was formed to correct?

These are big, important questions, and for a long time the answers have been largely anecdotal.

Beginning in the late 1960s, a movement of community-based organizations sprung up across the U.S. These organizations aimed to address economic development, disinvestment, and community needs in ways that communities had a say in, bringing in investment to places that had little market investment.  Since that time  these community-based development organizations have taken on many different roles, including affordable housing development, service provision, and advocacy. The  conversation  about what is and isn’t community development is longstanding and unresolved. We encourage you to join it by sending your definition of “community development,” along with your name and organization, to  [email protected]  for possible inclusion in a short video.

But recent years have provided a cornucopia of complementary research. Last year the results of the second phase of the Grounding Values in Research project were released. (See our coverage of the first phase here .) This hefty project includes results from an in-depth survey that reached 596 community-based development organizations, with statistical analysis provided by the Urban Institute, a think tank that conducts economic and social policy research, and some special topic briefs highlighting particular findings released this year. (Note: I served as a volunteer on an advisory task force that helped shape the Grounding Values survey.)

Alongside this quantitative research come two qualitative, intensive interview-based projects from ThirdSpace Action Lab. The first, Toward an Anti-Racist Paradigm in Community Development , grew out of interviews with over 80 people with long histories in community development—whether in community-based development organizations (CBDOs) themselves or through the various other types of institutions that make up the field—funders, government, intermediaries, and so forth. The resulting report teases out from these practitioners’ experiences and observations a number of damaging narratives that are prevalent within community development and limit its ability to advance anti-racism, and spells out what different narratives would look like.

ThirdSpace also carried out research on resident perceptions of CBDOs , grounded in dozens of interviews with resident leaders and less-involved residents in the service areas of four different community development groups.

A massive number-crunching research project looking specifically at CBDOs themselves, field-wide qualitative research, and a deep dive into resident perceptions in four specific localities might seem like they don’t have a ton in common. But one of the many interesting things to come out of all this research is how some of the findings directly reflect each other, providing numbers to go with observations, or potential explanations to wrap around numbers.

I spoke with Frank Woodruff of the Community Opportunity Alliance (formerly NACEDA), which commissioned the Grounding Values and Storied Communities research projects, and Dominique Miller of ThirdSpace, which carried out the Anti-Racist Community Development and Storied Communities, Community Stories projects. We spoke about some of the research highlights and particularly which overlaps jumped out at them, as well as some places where their findings might seem, at first look, to diverge.

There are several instances where Grounding Values data help to disprove some of the problematic narratives that Anti-Racist Community Development teased out.

Leadership Trends

Take for example, the “magic leadership” narrative, which holds that merely having a leader of color will immediately fix anything inequitable about an organization. In reality, the Grounding Values research backed up the perceptions of the ThirdSpace interviewees that organizations with leaders of color are still at a disadvantage when receiving resources, an imbalance that is made even worse because on average they are carrying out a larger variety of services for their communities. Respondents to the Grounding Values census also agreed overwhelmingly (figure 14) with the ThirdSpace findings that leaders of color in the sector need more support—not training, which implies a deficit of skill that isn’t empirically backed up—but support , such as better access to mentors and cohorts of peers.

There’s this thing about wanting to just basically plop leaders of color into these leadership roles. It’s like all of a sudden equity is just going to fall into place in these big, sometimes historically white or predominantly white institutions. But it doesn’t work that way.  Dominique Miller

“There’s this thing about wanting to just basically plop leaders of color into these leadership roles,” says Miller. “It’s like all of a sudden equity is just going to fall into place in these big, sometimes historically white or predominantly white institutions. But it doesn’t work that way. How do you create an enabling environment in these larger organizations . . . so the environment is actually welcoming and a leader of color can actually advance that institution in the right way?”

At first glance the two reports seem to differ on trends in what is actually happening to the diversity of leadership in the field. The Anti-Racist Paradigm report found widespread perception that the field’s leadership is getting less racially diverse. Grounding Values data, compared over time with previous community development surveys, found a steady percentage of leaders of color and a steady average age of 55 (meaning new younger leaders are coming in). People of color filled a third of leadership roles in 2005 and a third today. Miller notes, however, that given the average education level of professionals of color has increased over that time and the percentage of organizations serving communities of color is still significantly higher than the share of leaders of color, then a static percentage is still indicative of a problem.

Equity and scale were intimately connected for many of the participants in all the research. Woodruff says the Grounding Values results show that despite longstanding debate around and pressure for “scale,” defined as “produce as much as you can, with as few resources as you can,” that’s just not how community-based development organizations operate.

Grounding Values found that the average organization does nine different types of activities with a budget of $3 million, most including a mix of direct services, development, planning, and advocacy or organizing. Organizations focusing on communities with higher proportions of residents of color or that have leaders of color carry out more kinds of activities. “It’s questionable if you can do one thing with $3 million at scale, even the most liberal definition of scale,” says Woodruff. “From my point of view, the average organization, they’ve been pushed to achieve scale from a funder’s definition of scale. They haven’t done it. And I want them to be OK with that. Because that’s not what they were doing. They were trying to be accountable to the communities that they were serving.”

Woodruff says that being clear about this will help the field ask the right questions. Whether community development organizations should be trying to achieve scale or be focused on community accountability is not the point, he says. “They are accountability organizations, that’s what they are. . .  Therefore, let’s set up a system that supports them in that effort, because the system is not set up to support them in that way.”

Miller says ThirdSpace’s interviews back up both the idea that the system is not supporting the work that community-based organizations and their constituents most want done and the idea that discussions of “scale” among funders and policy makers typically miss the point. “What we were hearing,” she says, “is pushback on how impact is defined, [on] this idea that bigger inherently means more impact.” For a field that is so strongly based on local representation, local connection, and local solutions, Miller notes, there’s a surprisingly strong set of top-down narratives at work about how solutions, best practices, equity initiatives, and funding should flow. Towards an Anti-Racist Paradigm in Community Development calls this the “sanctity of scale” narrative—the argument that needs are so great that resident control and desires should be subsumed by whatever development can be brought in the fastest and largest.

The implications of this for the structure of the field, and particularly the role of intermediaries, is a matter of some debate. The ThirdSpace interviewees spoke of significant frustration over intermediaries acting as gatekeepers, being interposed into what had been or could have been a direct relationship between a funder and a frontline organization, and skimming off a significant percentage of the available funding for themselves in the process. This was especially galling for longtime leaders of color who reported working with intermediary staff who had far less connection to their communities or experience in the work, or who lacked an explicit anti-racist lens to their approach.

The Grounding Values research, on the other hand, suggested a need for a more robust intermediary structure that would be better able to reach more places. Only slightly more than 20 percent of census respondents got core operating support from intermediaries, and the largest organizations have a far easier time accessing funding, so the report concluded that a larger number of more varied intermediaries could help connect those smaller organizations that struggle to access traditional funding and financing to capital sources that do not themselves have the connections and understanding to fund at a local level. But it should be done in such a way as to support local solutions, not displace them, says Woodruff.

“These bigger institutions have the capacity, they have grant writers, they just have all of those resources to be able to continue to bring in funds and go after funds,” acknowledges Miller. “It’d be interesting to get more insight into what are those intermediaries like for folks that have positive experiences. Is there a particular set of characteristics of those intermediaries?”

Meanwhile, all three reports emphasized that resources are hardest to find for the work that is in many ways most core to community development—supporting residents in taking action for self-determination and in organizing around and implementing changes to the root causes of poor conditions in their communities. At least 60 percent of CBDOs were doing some kind of community organizing work, and advocacy was the top activity that they wanted time and resources to work on, but didn’t have.

While community development is not exempt from the struggles to be more equitable—internally and externally—that face every sector in this country, these reports also show a field that is strong, interested in improvement, and doing a lot of crucial work.

Explore more of the outcomes, recommendations, and follow-up materials from this research: Grounding Values and ThirdSpace research .

About the Author

• Miriam Axel-Lute

Miriam Axel-Lute is CEO/editor-in-chief of Shelterforce . She lives in Albany, New York, and is a proud small-city aficionado.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Don’t miss an upcoming series

Under the Lens collections are Shelterforce’s deep dives into a single topic or theme. Join our mailing list for more.

Other Articles in this Series

Which Way Community Development?

The community development field is in an interesting and challenging spot right now. Our new Under the Lens series zooms in and explores this moment in the field.

Social Life

The importance of community, a community can help us to feel connected to something larger than ourselves..

Posted July 18, 2023 | Reviewed by Ray Parker

• Experiencing a sense of belonging is vital for our psychological well-being.
• A community can provide us with a sense of belonging, support, and identity.
• There are specific ways that everyone can connect to and create a community.

Experiencing a sense of belonging is vital for our psychological well-being. Being a part of a healthy community can help us feel connected to others, as well as feel we’re part of something larger than ourselves.

This is especially important for people who’ve experienced trauma or loss, or who are feeling isolated, marginalized, bullied, or alone. For those, and for all of us, a community can provide that necessary sense of belonging.

A community provides belonging, support, and identity

Being a part of a healthy community can also provide us with support. When we’re going through a difficult time, it can be enormously helpful to have people who we can turn to. Community members can offer us emotional support, practical help, and advice. They can also help us to feel we aren’t alone in our struggles.

A community can also help us to develop a sense of identity . When we’re part of a community, we learn about shared values and beliefs. We also learn about our history and culture. This can help us feel we have a place in the world, and that we are part of something important.

Community reduces stress and isolation

Finally, a community can also help to reduce stress and isolation. When we’re part of a community, we have people to talk to and connect with. This can help us to feel less alone—and therefore less stressed —as well as help us feel we’re part of something larger than ourselves. Research shows that people who are part of strong communities tend to have lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol levels, and a lower risk of obesity. They are also more likely to exercise regularly and eat a healthy diet .

Thus, community helps reduce stress and isolation and, ultimately, benefits our physical health in addition to our mental health.

There are a number of ways to connect

There are a number of ways to connect to a community. Joining a club or organization with people who share your identity or values can be a ready-made way to connect. Joining a church or spiritual community can be a way to connect with people who share your values and beliefs. Support groups—led by mental health professionals, lay-led, or meetings such as 12-step programs—can provide support, reduce stress, and promote mental health.

Another avenue for community connection is through volunteering your time or attending community events. Even getting to know your neighbors and building relationships with them can provide a sense of belonging and reduce feelings of isolation.

Finding community can feel a little daunting, but it’s well worth the effort, providing relief from the pain that lack of connection, support, and experiences of isolation can bring.

Samantha Stein , Psy.D., is a psychologist in private practice in San Francisco. She works with couples and individuals, specializing in intimacy, sexuality, and self-realization.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

The Center for Global and Community Nursing

The center for global & community nursing.

Welcome to the Center for Global and Community Nursing (CGCN)! In the contemporary world, human health and wellbeing are no longer confined to local boundaries—they are profoundly affected by and intertwined with a multitude of global changes and issues. Global engagement in healthcare professions including nursing has become an absolute mandate. Lessons learned from global engagement and community activities can be mutually beneficial. 

Contact Information: For questions, please email us at [email protected] .

Our Mission

To support The University of Texas at Austin School of Nursing’s mission through community and global partnership.

Find the mission of UT Austin School of Nursing.

The CGCN serves as a central hub for engaging local and international partnerships with the UT Austin School of Nursing. We aim to connect nursing education stakeholders from the local communities and around the world.

Hyekyun Rhee, PhD, RN, FAAN

Associate Dean & Director

Julie Zuniga, PhD, RN, FAAN

Associate Director

Julie Westerman, M.Ed.

Center Coordinator

• Texas Global - Global Funding Opportunities : Faculty and scholars can find resources to support a variety of global engagement activities.
• Texas Global - Find a Program : Students looking for education abroad opportunities to complement or fulfill their academic coursework.
• Texas Global - Scholarships : Students searching for ways to offset the costs of studying or interning abroad can find more information about scholarships and resources.
• Faculty Opportunities: Options include sponsoring a visiting scholar, co-publishing, guest lecturing or presenting abroad, and joint grant applications. Please email [email protected] for more information.

If you are in the beginning stages of exploring your visit, please submit a general inquiry form to explore possible options available within the School of Nursing.

Submit A General Inquiry Form

• Short term summer course
• Systematic review course
• Research design course
• For information about International Student & Scholar Services, please visit the Texas Global: International Student and Scholar Services (ISSS) .
• For information about the J-1 immigration status, please visit the Texas Global: J-1 Exchange Visitors .

If you are interested in visiting UT Austin to meet with university leadership and learn more about the school, please contact the CGCN at [email protected] .

Coming Soon

General Inquiry Form for International Student and Faculty Visitors

Ut austin school of nursing news.

Celebrating Nurses Week 2024

Congratulations to the Class of Spring 2024!

Mentoring the Next Generation of Nurses

Providing Self-Management Tools for Underserved Populations

Do research responsibly and ethically on marginalized communities such as LGBTQ+ people

Working together while recognizing each other’s strengths is how we create equitable and impactful community change..

Finn Shelp-Peck is the transgender and gender expansive justice specialist at inclusion tennessee who moved from North Carolina to Nashville in 2022 for graduate school at Vanderbilt University.

As activism and community-centered research evolves, we have a chance to turn a new page in ethical commitments to data collection, distribution, and implementation.

In the last six years I have conducted over 3,000 hours of research in multiple different fields ranging from reproductive and cellular biology to social science and community health.

I have attended and spoken at conferences, written and edited publications, and analyzed and disseminated data. Thankfully, I have been lucky to have incredible mentors who have taught me and guided me through these endeavors.

Through this time I have noticed an opportunity for research to take a more community-centric approach.

Data has been collected on marginalized communities with little regard for their well-being

I love the ways that activism informs research projects and strategies, just as research is informed, inspired, and shaped by social movements and community needs. In Nashville, 48% of LGBT people don’t feel a sense of belonging, showcasing the disconnect between place, community, and purpose.

All of the researchers I know are passionate about what they are doing and the communities they work with. Similarly, all of the activists, advocates, and organizers I know love the communities they serve with every cell of themselves. These fields seem different and separate, but really are deeply dependent on one another.

Historically , marginalized communities have had information and data collected from them without a regard for the physical, emotional, and mental lasting impact of such actions. Those in positions of power and privilege have taken this information for their benefit and often do not implement change using the extracted data but rather leave that to professionals and organizers in different fields.

Data is not subjective, but rather infused with bias shaped by the creator – no matter how hard they try to neutralize it. Big Data and machine learning is not without bias, but inevitably reinforces existing stereotypes and biases because it is created to generalize populations.

In chapter one of her book, "Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy," Cathy O’Neil talks about mathematical models as being mere simplifications which “reflect the judgments and priorities of its creators” (page 21). She goes on to discuss the impact of bias on predictive models for events as benign as the outcome of a baseball game to viciously harmful engrained systems like racism.

More: Tennessee lawmakers prefer to target transgender citizens than solve real-world problems

These four important steps will produce ethical and community-oriented results

Given the history and pattern of Big Data, apprehension about participating in data collection is understandable and expected. This is where I think there is a poignant opportunity for those collecting data to more ethically partner with communities, activists, and organizers to create equitable and impactful programming and resources.

• This starts by including community members, advocates, activists, and organizers in the process of creating surveys and collecting data. Better collaboration will lead to more empathetic and trustworthy surveys.
• Next, there needs to be an intentional and active effort to appropriately compensate participants and organizers for their time and contributions. Taking a survey that asks you to disclose personal and delicate information about yourself is taxing in many ways, asking someone to spend valuable time and remain uncompensated is unethical.
• The third step is making sure that people who participate in the research projects are the first to receive results and are not left guessing about what will come of their time and information. This is an important step in conducting community-centric research.
• Finally, there need to be collaborative efforts in using gathered data to implement impactful programming. While research is important, if the information taken from a community is not given back then it can be harmful and perpetuate an existing power imbalance. This collaboration can look like mutual aid, information sharing, or program development to name a few.

Ultimately, activism and research support one another and are inextricably linked. An effort needs to be made to actively collaborate and support more sustainable and ethical practices. Working together while recognizing each other’s strengths is how we create equitable and impactful community change.

Announcements

Updates on campus events, policies, construction and more.

• A Call to Inclusion symposium May 21: Centering disability inclusion 
• 2024 Commencement ceremonies: May 10 – 13
• Dean’s 2023 State of the School address available online
• Notice of data security incident
• COVID-19: Medical Campus updates

close  

Information for Our Community

Whether you are part of our community or are interested in joining us, we welcome you to Washington University School of Medicine.

• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Alumni & Friends
• Administrators
• Researchers
• Job Seekers

Passion to help other postdocs drives Sade Williams Clayton to promote inclusivity

Scientist recognized by National Postdoctoral Association for commitment to community service, outreach

by Marta Wegorzewska • May 10, 2024

Sade Williams Clayton, PhD (left), a postdoctoral research scholar at Washington University in St. Louis, reviews microscopy slides with her mentee Laura Mpofu, a graduating senior at Washington University.

The sprawling, rural landscape of Girard, Ga. – population 202 – offered young Sade Williams Clayton free range to play. Meanwhile, the tight-knit community brought her a sense of comfort and belonging.

But her small-town upbringing didn’t prepare her for the roughly 22,500 undergraduate students she would be surrounded by at the University of Georgia in Athens, Ga. When culture shock challenged her, support and kindness from a mentor launched her on a fulfilling scientific career path. Now, as a successful scientist working at a leading research institution, she creates opportunities to help others.

For her work advocating and building community for postdoctoral research trainees, Clayton, PhD, a postdoctoral research scholar at Washington University in St. Louis, received the inaugural National Postdoc of the Year Award  from the  National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) . The award is one of three top honors the NPA bestows.

“I’m thankful that the NPA is setting a precedent to communicate that the advocacy and outreach work that postdocs do to better the academic community is important,” Clayton said. “To have the service work that defines who I am as a person affirmed and congratulated is rewarding. I’m humbled that I was selected as the award’s first recipient.”

Together with postdoc Valene Garr-Barry, she created the Washington University Black Postdoctoral Association (WUSTLBPA) , a group that collaborates with the larger Washington University Postdoc Society . WUSTLBPA works to provide visibility, inclusivity and unity for its 43 members who identify as Black, African and African American and their allies. It also offers career-development training and peer-to-peer mentorship. Because postdocs tend to be more comfortable confiding in each other, such a group allows them to share struggles, learn about available resources and create solutions when support is lacking, Clayton explained — especially for the international postdocs who face additional challenges. International postdocs make up 70% of Washington University’s postdocs.

Clayton joined Washington University to work with Simon Tang, PhD , an associate professor of orthopedic surgery , and Lori Setton, PhD , the Lucy and Stanley Lopata Distinguished Professor and chair of the Department of Biomedical Engineering . Interested in regenerative medicine, Clayton works to understand spine degeneration – a process that leads to loss of the spine’s structure and function, and is responsible for back and neck pain. As a graduate student at the University of Alabama at Birmingham in Birmingham, Ala., she studied the role of a signaling molecule – transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) – in spine formation.

Clayton thrives on sharing her passion for developmental biology with budding scientists. Through science outreach opportunities offered at Washington University in collaboration with different organizations in the St. Louis community, Clayton helps to provide middle and high school students access to hands-on science. They build model spines and apply compressive loads to learn how the spine reacts to such loads when injured.

Clayton’s small-town upbringing didn’t afford access to hands-on science experiences. Her parents weren’t scientists and didn’t know any. Instead, her curiosity and hard work led her to mentors such as Scott T. Dougan, PhD, as associate professor of cellular biology at the University of Georgia, whose developmental biology course inspired Clayton’s interest in cell biology. His support empowered her to change her major to cell biology, from biochemistry, late in college.

“My scientific trajectory involved a lot of meandering and some wrong turns,” she said. “Supportive mentors saw the potential in my curiosity and passion. That support has been instrumental to my personal and scientific growth.”

Now, Clayton is inspired and determined to help others find their purpose. She has made it a priority to be a supportive presence in a world that is often divided, she explained.

“I’m fortunate to be in a position to make some change,” said Clayton, who is pursuing a tenure-track faculty position that will value service, outreach and teaching. “It’s important to advocate for others. A small change can change somebody’s life. That’s big to me.”

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Editors' Picks

April 19, 2024

Gift from Andy Newman supports world-changing research on the gut microbiome.

Medical Campus & Community, News Release

April 12, 2024

WashU Medicine, BJC HealthCare timeline focuses on shared racial history, desegregation.

Medical Campus & Community

April 2, 2024

NIH-funded study seeks to fill gap in knowledge of exercise’s effects in people who use wheelchairs.