Worth the Risk? Muddled Relationships in Community-Based Participatory Research

Mayan, Maria; Daum, Christine

doi:10.1177/1049732315618660

Cited by 68 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(66 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Depending on the grant mechanism, this can be as brief as three to five years. Very rarely are the mechanisms of “CBPR gone wrong” examined, or are strategies described for righting relationships between differently positioned groups once these relationships have become “muddled” (Mayan & Daum, , pg. 69).…”

Section: Development Of Relationship In Cbpr With Indigenous Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

With a Spirit that Understands: Reflections on a Long‐term Community Science Initiative to End Suicide in Alaska

Rasmus

Charles

John

et al. 2019

American J of Comm Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights• Long-term CBPR requires preparation and resolution of crises when we lose key partners over time.• Relational cycles are a natural part of a CBPR process and impact upon the research in keys ways.• Long-term community-based participatory research allows the spirit to come into the science.Abstract This retrospective analysis of a long-term community-based participatory research (CBPR) process spans over two decades of work with Alaska Native communities. A call to action from Alaska Native leadership to create more effective strategies to prevent and treat youth suicide and alcohol misuse risk initiated a response from university researchers. This CBPR process transformed into a collaborative effort to indigenously drive and develop solutions through research. The People Awakening project started our team on this translational and transformational pathway through community intervention science in the Central Yup'ik region of Alaska. We examine more deeply the major episodes and their successes and struggles in maintaining a long-term research relationship between university researchers and members of Yup'ik Alaska Native communities. We explore ways that our CBPR relationship has involved negotiation and engagement with power and praxis, to deepen and focus attention to knowledge systems and relational elements. This paper examines these deeper, transformative elements of our CBPR relationship that spans histories, cultures, and systems. Our discussion shares vignettes from academic and community perspectives to describe process in a unique collaboration, reaching to sometimes touch upon rare ground in emotions, tensions, and triumphs over the course of a dozen grants and twice as many years. We conclude by noting how there are points where, in a long-term CBPR relationship, transition out of emergence into coalescing and transformation can occur.Keywords American Indian and Alaska Native Community-based participatory research indigenous intervention science indigenous knowledge ✉ Stacy M. Rasmus

show abstract

Section: Development Of Relationship In Cbpr With Indigenous Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

With a Spirit that Understands: Reflections on a Long‐term Community Science Initiative to End Suicide in Alaska

Rasmus

Charles

John

et al. 2019

American J of Comm Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…De vil også gjøre det lettere å rekruttere deltakere i forskningsprosjekter, ikke minst fra grupper som kan vaere vanskelige å få tilgang til. Dette styrker forskningens gyldighet og treffsikkerhet slik at det ikke brukes ressurser på å produsere kunnskap som vil ha liten nytteverdi for brukerne (Mayan & Daum, 2016;Case et al, 2014;Boote et al, 2002). En terapeutisk begrunnelse vektlegger at forskningen kan ha positiv innvirkning på personer som er eller har vaert brukere av velferdstjenester, og som nå involveres i forskningsprosessen (Hancock et al, 2012;McLaughlin, 2006).…”

Section: Hvem Er Brukerne Og Hvorfor Skal De Medvirke?unclassified

1. Samproduksjon i forskning – hva er det, oghva innebærer det?

Askheim¹,

Lid²,

Østensjø³

2019

Samproduksjon I Forskning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SAMMENDRAG Det er i dag økende krav om og forventninger til at brukerne av forskning skal gis innflytelse over forskningen gjennom å involvere dem i forskningsprosessen. Ikke minst gjelder dette på helse-og velferdsområdet. I dette kapitlet tar vi opp hva som er bakgrunnen for at slike krav har kommet så tydelig på dagsordenen de senere årene, og vi går inn på hvilke begrunnelser som ligger bak slike utviklingstrekk. Vi stiller videre spørsmålet om hvem som defineres som brukere, og hva som ligger i medvirkningsbegrepet. Begrepet «samproduksjon» er valgt som overskrift for boka og kapitlet. Vi legger derfor vekt på å plassere samproduksjonsbegrepet i forhold til andre begreper som brukes om forskning som involverer brukerne i forskningsprosessen. NØKKELORD: forskning | brukerinnflytelse | samproduksjon | bakgrunn | begrunnelserABSTRACT Not least in the welfare area, there are increasingly expectations and claims that the recipients and users of research should have influence over and take part in the research process. The chapter discusses what the background for this development is and goes closer into what are the arguments for the development. Further, the question is asked who are defined as users and how participation is defined. The concept «co-production» is chosen as the heading for the book and the chapter. Therefore, space is used to relate the co-production concept to other concepts used to describe and discuss research where recipients and users are involved in the research process.

show abstract

“…Despite the emerging discussions on its importance and availability of case studies, an immaculate CBPR is seldom achieved in reality (Blumenthal 2011), as it demands (1) mutual understanding and respectful trust between community partners and academia; (2) commitment to partnership development and sustainability; (3) acknowledgement and reduction of power imbalances and tension in relationships and (4) operationalization of equity among partners (Winterbauer and Myers, 2013), all of which must be built upon quality, cooperative and sustainable relationships between community partners and academics (Mayan and Daum, 2016;Wang et al, 2017).…”

Section: Knowledge Gapmentioning

confidence: 99%

Literature Review on Relationship Building for Community-academic Collaboration in Health Research and Innovation

Chak

2018

MATEC Web Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to European Commission Horizon 2020’s call for ‘science-for-and-with-community’, scholars have recognized the need to conduct ‘responsible research and innovation’ and engage more with communities to combat today’s complex health challenges. Hence, higher priority has been placed to cooperate with communities in health research and innovation development to better match societal values, needs and expectations. Accordingly, the approach of community-based participatory research (CBPR), the ‘gold standard’ within the community-engaged research spectrum, is the most widely discussed. However, it is seldom achieved in reality, as it requires establishment and maintenance of open, transparent, trustful and ongoing relationships between community partners and academia to succeed. Paradoxically, despite of the significance of quality collaborative relationship to the quality and success of community-academic collaboration, the key elements to achieve it were seldom discussed.Herein, the literature review aimed to (1) discuss the previous experiences and challenges in building and sustaining community-academic collaborative relationships; (2) examine the relationship building strategies for quality collaborative relationships; and (3) identify the potential research gaps for future research.Focusing on the area of health research and innovation, peer-reviewed articles, books and grey literature related to building and sustaining relationships in community-academic collaboration published between 1998 and 2018 were identified using the Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar bibliographic databases and Google search engine. Literature available in full-texts and English language with a focus on relationship aspects of community-academic collaboration were examined. Previous literature suggested thatacademics and community members encountered common challenges in experiencing inequitable relationships, distrust, divide between academia and community, uncommon norms of power sharing, dissemination of results and lack of resources for maintaining long-term relationships. Two approaches of relationship building: (1) personal qualities and competence, and (2) actions for relationship building from the beginning to the end stages of collaborative relationship were discussed. Literature revealed that the ways that academics approach, collaborate, communicate with and maintain in the community had significant impact on both current and future collaborative relationships. In addition, academics differed in acceptance and readiness towards community engagement, which could be attributed to the differences in personal qualities and competence. Future research should target on identifying the factors contributing to such individual differences and compare its impact on the quality of relationship with community, so as to better cultivate individuals’ readiness and capacity towards community engagement and effective relationship building with community.

show abstract

Worth the Risk? Muddled Relationships in Community-Based Participatory Research

Cited by 68 publications

References 40 publications

With a Spirit that Understands: Reflections on a Long‐term Community Science Initiative to End Suicide in Alaska

With a Spirit that Understands: Reflections on a Long‐term Community Science Initiative to End Suicide in Alaska

1. Samproduksjon i forskning – hva er det, oghva innebærer det?

Literature Review on Relationship Building for Community-academic Collaboration in Health Research and Innovation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About