Self-help research: Issues of power sharing.

Abstract

Few published articles or chapters delineate the complexities confronting researchers and self-help group (SHG) members involved in collaborative research. This chapter articulates limitations to reliance on collaborative (power sharing) and participatory action research (PAR) methods as the sole or primary methods for SHG research. It examines (through an empirical study of 17 selfhelp groups) the conditions under which SHG members and researchers have positive and negative experiences with collaborative and PAR approaches.Some scientists are open to power sharing with SHGs (and self-help clearinghouses as well) and to an action research orientation in general. However, other researchers trained in traditional research methods are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with collaborative research approaches. They debate whether professionals should "assist" SHGs through collaborative action research because of the possibilities of inhibiting the group's sense of self-responsibility or of losing scientific rigor. Although Borman (1979) and others have clearly outlined professional roles that support SHG autonomy, many of which include participatory or action research, the extent of power sharing varies across and within research projects.

“There’s Gotta Be Some Give and Take”

“…A conventional assumption of partnerships held by some researchers involves sharing power as a noble sacrifice (Isenberg, Loomis, Humphreys, & Maton, 2004). Isenberg et al (2004) challenged this notion, asserting that the collaborative partnership serves a crucial facilitative function in helping researchers create questions and procedures, gain community entrée, and gather and analyze data. Partnership development might require extra time, effort, and hard work, but ultimately, the partnership makes work easier for researchers and produces higher quality results.…”

“…Literature on partnerships mirrors this finding, indicating that community partners’ contributions of knowledge, practical insights, and access directly benefit researchers and the work of the partnership (Ferman & Hill, 2004; Rappaport, Alegria, Mulvaney-Day, & Boyle, 2008). A conventional assumption of partnerships held by some researchers involves sharing power as a noble sacrifice (Isenberg, Loomis, Humphreys, & Maton, 2004). Isenberg et al (2004) challenged this notion, asserting that the collaborative partnership serves a crucial facilitative function in helping researchers create questions and procedures, gain community entrée, and gather and analyze data.…”

Evidence to impact: A community knowledge mobilisation evaluation framework

“…passive information-sharing, audits and feedback, the voice of opinion leaders, cost analysis) have been applied to community settings despite a lack of evidence regarding their effectiveness in the community context (Kothari & Armstrong 2011;Miller & Shinn 2005). This is likely because of power imbalance between researchers and community/stakeholders (Isenberg et al 2004) which results in researchers selecting knowledge-to-action strategies based on assumptions that do not necessarily hold true in community settings (Miller & Shinn 2005).…”

Is Participatory Research Compatible with Graduate Research? Reflections From Three Stakeholders

“…Impact on the research. As previous literature has noted, there are many benefits of using participatory research (Isenberg et al, 2004) including better research questions, more accurate analysis, and community credibility. Community credibility was noteworthy for this project because the participants have the power to design how the prevention project operates and they were very inspired by the coresearcher model.…”