Can we Build on Social Movement Theories to Develop and Improve Community‐Based Participatory Research? A Framework Synthesis Review

Abstract

A long‐standing challenge in community‐based participatory research (CBPR) has been to anchor practice and evaluation in a relevant and comprehensive theoretical framework of community change. This study describes the development of a multidimensional conceptual framework that builds on social movement theories to identify key components of CBPR processes. Framework synthesis was used as a general literature search and analysis strategy. An initial conceptual framework was developed from the theoretical literature on social movement. A literature search performed to identify illustrative CBPR projects yielded 635 potentially relevant documents, from which eight projects (corresponding to 58 publications) were retained after record and full‐text screening. Framework synthesis was used to code and organize data from these projects, ultimately providing a refined framework. The final conceptual framework maps key concepts of CBPR mobilization processes, such as the pivotal role of the partnership; resources and opportunities as necessary components feeding the partnership's development; the importance of framing processes; and a tight alignment between the cause (partnership's goal), the collective action strategy, and the system changes targeted. The revised framework provides a context‐specific model to generate a new, innovative understanding of CBPR mobilization processes, drawing on existing theoretical foundations.

Conceptualising the initiation of researcher and research user partnerships: a meta-narrative review

“…1). The data extracted from each review is available in Additional file 3 [8,9,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44].…”

“…The 17 reviews were published between 1998 and 2017. Nine of the 17 reviews were published between 2012 to 2017 [8,9,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. Reviews included primary studies published from 1968 to 2015.…”

“…Reviews were conducted in the United States (n = 7) [32,33,35,39,41,42,44], Canada (n = 5) [8,9,30,31,37], the United Kingdom (n = 3) [34,38,43], Australia (n = 1) [40], and Uganda (n = 1) [36]. The types of reviews were classified using Paré et al's [27] definitions of systematic (n = 6) [33-35, 37, 38, 43], theoretical (n = 4) [30,39,40,42], narrative (n = 2) [41,44] and critical (n = 2) [31,32] reviews, followed by one each of descriptive [36], realist [8] and scoping [9] reviews. Ten reviews emerged from the healthcare literature in the traditions of medicine [33], nursing [35], public health [31,36,37,44] and health services research [8,9,32,43].…”

“…Ten reviews emerged from the healthcare literature in the traditions of medicine [33], nursing [35], public health [31,36,37,44] and health services research [8,9,32,43]. Seven reviews emerged from the social sciences literature in the traditions of the study of psychology [30,39], knowledge management [34,40], information systems [38], education [41] and organisational management [42]. Six reviews followed reporting criteria such as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews [9,33], framework synthesis recommendations [30], integrated review methodology [35], the Joanna Briggs Institute for Evidence Based Nursing and Midwifery's systematic reviews recommendations [37] and the National Health System's Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Recommendations [43] ( Table 1).…”

From victims to citizens: Emerging activist identities in the anti‐fracking movement in Bulgaria

“…The present study is focused on the emergence, construction, and political use of activist identities in the anti‐fracking movement in Bulgaria (AFM) and their crucial importance for wide mobilization, enduring group cohesion, and adaptive participation. I implemented two analytic lenses: the sociology of social movements and community psychology (CP), with the possibilities of their synergy to inform civic participation research (Tremblay, Martin, Macaulay, & Pluye, ). The field of sociology offers a long tradition of research and elaborate theoretical frameworks for describing and explaining a collective extrainstitutional challenge to dominant political structures and ideologies via the interplay of political context factors, organization mechanisms, and meaning‐making processes (McAdam, McCarthy, & Zald, ).…”