DESCRIPTION

Community-Based Participatory Research is a mode of co-produced research entailing collaboration between academic researchers and members of a community to explore issues relevant to that community, with collaboration potentially a feature of all stages of the research, from identification of research questions, through design, data collection and analysis, to the dissemination of results. In its focus on engaging the expertise and experiential knowledge of non-academic partners, CBPR may overlap with other participatory approaches such as Participatory Action Research (PAR), with the main distinctions being that PAR does not necessarily entail collaboration with pre-existing communities (Banks et al., 2013, 264) and may be more integrally focused on emancipatory action. As Wallerstein et al. note, 'CBPR and other forms of participatory research arose partially in response to historic research abuse on marginalized communities, where inequitable research relationships generated deep-seated mistrust' (2019, 20S). For this reason, CBPR is an approach often taken with Indigenous communities and other communities with a history of experiencing extractivist approaches.

CBPR approaches are used in social science fields including disability studies, education, and social work, in addition to adjacent fields such as psychology and health (Stack & McDonald, 2018; Kwan & Walsh, 2018; Hacker, 2017). They are also common in community geographies: partnerships between academic institutions and communities that may be focused on such issues as transportation, housing and urban planning (Fischer et al., 2021). As Minkler et al. note, 'CBPR is not a method per se but an orientation to research that may employ any of a number of qualitative and quantitative methodologies' (2004, 685). Specific methods and practices within CBPR may include workshops, community-conducted interviews and focus groups, diagramming, photovoice, participatory video and other arts-based approaches. Regardless of the specific methods used, proponents emphasise the importance of adhering to the guiding principles of CBPR, which include that CBPR 'fosters colearning and capacity building among all partners', 'integrates and achieves a balance between knowledge generation and intervention for the mutual benefit of all partners', 'disseminates results to all partners and involves them in the wider dissemination of results' and 'involves a long-term process and commitment to sustainability' (Israel et al., 2005, 10-11).

The notions of both 'community' and 'participation' in CBPR bear further exploration. As Nicolaidis and Raymaker note, '[d]efining a "community" in practice can pose significant challenges. Even readily identified communities, such as those defined by race or ethnicity, are never monolithic; even seemingly homogeneous units can have subgroups or political factions' (Nicolaidis & Raymaker, 2015, 170). CBPR approaches must remain cognisant of such heterogeneity and take this into account when seeking participants and/or appointing a Community Advisory Board. In terms of 'participation', opinions differ on the extent to which CBPR should entail collaboration at every stage of the research. While Nicolaidis and Raymaker suggest that collaboration in CBPR permeates 'all stages of the research process' (2015, 170), this is often hampered in practice by funding and ethical review processes which require a complete study design at an early stage (Banks et al., 2013, 265; for an example, see Greenwood et al., 2022). As Stanton (2014, 577) notes, approaches termed CBPR can be susceptible to criticism on the grounds of lack of meaningful collaboration as a result, and the term is sometimes applied in studies that in fact entail a minimal degree of participant involvement.

Like other participatory approaches such as PAR and Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs), the openness of CBPR largely consists in its openness to input from a broad range of social actors and ways of knowing, including Indigenous knowledges. As Minkler comments, '[e]xplicit throughout the CBPR process are the deconstruction of power and the democratization of knowledge such that the experiential knowledge of community members is valued and knowledge that previously was the purview of scholars is accessible physically and intellectually to community participants' (2004, 686). Cultural humility is hence a key orientation for academic researchers (Ross, 2010). CBPR also frequently results in open and accessible outputs; as well as practical outcomes that may include 'drafting legislation, developing budgets or designing programs and projects to tackle specific community identified issues' (Amauchi et al., 2022, 5), projects often entail community-directed forms of dissemination such as brochures, exhibitions or blogs.

CBPR has been identified as benefiting communities by fostering community empowerment (Stack & McDonald, 2018, 80) and aiding in capacity-building and community organising (Balazs & Morello-Frosch, 2013, 10). It is also considered to improve the quality and relevance of research (Resnik & Kennedy, 2010, 199) through its emergence from direct engagement with the needs of often hard-to-reach communities. Challenges include time demands, the need for compromise and negotiation, and concerns about the generalisability or transferrability of the knowledge produced. The risk of disagreement or misunderstanding may be assuaged by the development of a Memorandum of Understanding, agreed by all parties at the outset, which formalises expectations, including around roles and expectations, deliverables and ownership of research data (Hacker, 2017, 77). Specific challenges also lie in the disjunction of CBPR and some other participatory approaches with ethical review and funding application processes. As regards the former, proponents such as Banks et al. have suggested that the focus of regulatory ethics mechanisms on responsibilities to individuals rather than communities, and on pre-planned research trajectories rather than emergent processes, highlights their limitations in the context of approaches such as CBPR, which instead require a consideration of relational and character-based 'everyday ethics' – 'the daily practice of negotiating the ethical issues and challenges that arise through the life of CBPR projects' (2013, 266). Kia-Keating et al. (2017) suggest the need for a balanced approach in which the vulnerability of participants is weighed against the potential for empowerment when evaluating research risks; while Koster et al. (2012) have commented on the importance of considering participants' wishes to be identified and credited for their contributions rather than being automatically ascribed anonymity.

References

Amauchi, J.F.F. et al. (2022). 'The Power of Community-Based Participatory Research: Ethical and Effective Ways of Researching', Community Development (Columbus, Ohio), 53(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1936102

Balazs, C., and Morello-Frosch, R. (2013). 'The Three Rs: How Community-Based Participatory Research Strengthens the Rigor, Relevance, and Reach of Science'. Environmental Justice, 6.1, 9-16. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2012.0017

Banks, S. et al. (2013). 'Everyday Ethics in Community-Based Participatory Research', Contemporary Social Science, 8(3), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2013.769618

Fischer, H., et al. (2021). 'Doing Community Geography'. Geojournal, 87(S2), 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-021-10457-8

Greenwood, M. et al. (2022). '"Let's Grow Together": Understanding the Current Provision of Early Childhood Development and Education for Children with Disabilities in Rural Malawi through Community-Based Participatory Research', International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 69(4), 1200–1215. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1786021

Hacker, K. (2017). Community-Based Participatory Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd

Israel, B., et al. (2005). 'Chapter One: Introduction to Methods for CBPR for Health'. In Israel, B., et al. (eds), Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. pp. 3-37

Kia‐Keating, M., et al. (2017). 'Photography and Social Media Use in Community‐Based Participatory Research with Youth: Ethical Considerations', American Journal of Community Psychology, 60(3–4), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12189

Koster, R., et al. (2012). 'Moving from Research ON, to Research WITH and FOR Indigenous Communities: A Critical Reflection on Community-Based Participatory Research', The Canadian Geographer, 56(2), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00428.x

Kwan, C. and Walsh, C. (2018). 'Ethical Issues in Conducting Community-Based Participatory Research: A Narrative Review of the Literature', Qualitative Report, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3331

Minkler, M. (2004) 'Ethical Challenges for the "Outside" Researcher in Community-Based Participatory Research', Health Education & Behavior, 31(6), 684–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198104269566

Nicolaidis, C. and Raymaker, D. (2015). 'Community-Based Participatory Research with Communities Defined by Race, Ethnicity, and Disability: Translating Theory to Practice', in H. Bradbury (ed), The Sage Handbook of Action Research, 3rd ed. London: Sage. pp. 167–178. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473921290.n17

Resnik, D.B. and Kennedy, C.E. (2010). 'Balancing Scientific and Community Interests in Community-Based Participatory Research', Accountability in Research, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2010.493095

Ross, L. (2010). 'Notes From the Field: Learning Cultural Humility Through Critical Incidents and Central Challenges in Community-Based Participatory Research', Journal of Community Practice, 18(2–3), 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2010.490161

Stack, E.E. and McDonald, K. (2018). 'We Are "Both in Charge, the Academics and Self‐Advocates": Empowerment in Community‐Based Participatory Research', Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 15(1), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12236

Stanton, C.R. (2014). 'Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research', Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413505541

Wallerstein, N. et al. (2019). 'Power Dynamics in Community-Based Participatory Research: A Multiple–Case Study Analysis of Partnering Contexts, Histories, and Practices', Health Education & Behavior, 46(1_suppl), pp. 19S-32S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198119852998