LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Salway, Sarah; Chowbey, Punita; Such, Elizabeth; Ferguson, Beverly (2015)
Publisher: Springer Nature
Journal: Research Involvement and Engagement
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Participation, Health inequalities, Research Article, Identity, Ethics, Community Researchers, Methodology
Plain English summary Public health research sometimes uses members of communities as researchers. These are called Community Researchers. The advantage of using Community Researchers is that it enables people who live in communities to participate in research by designing the research, gathering data and being involved in analysis. This ‘participatory’ approach also has the potential to reach communities that might otherwise not be included in research. There are few studies that report the experiences of Community Researchers who take part in such research. This study helps fill this gap by exploring the issues and challenges faced by Community Researchers involved in a study of health and poverty in ethnically mixed areas of east London, UK. Through the accounts of 12 researchers, the study reveals that being a community ‘insider’ had advantages: many felt they had been able to gain the trust of respondents and access people for the research that would have otherwise been missed. The role of Community Researcher was, however, difficult to manage with some researchers feeling burdened by their role and the increased knowledge they had about the lives of those in their community. In addition to the personal challenges for the Community Researchers, the findings raise various ethical and methodological issues that need consideration in participatory research. Abstract Background Inclusive research approaches are increasingly employed by public health researchers. Recent methodological development includes the engagement of Community Researchers (CRs), who use their knowledge and networks to facilitate research with the community with which they identify. Few studies have explored the experiences of CRs in the research process, an important element of any comprehensive assessment of the pros and cons of such research endeavours. We report here on the experiences of CRs engaged in a study of health inequalities and poverty in ethnically diverse and disadvantaged areas of London, UK. Methods We draw on the experiences of 12 CRs. Two sets of data were generated, analysed and integrated: debriefing/active reflection exercises throughout the 18-month research process and individual qualitative interviews with CRs, conducted at the end of the project (n = 9). Data were organised using NVivo10 and coded line-by-line using a framework developed iteratively. Synthesis and interpretation were achieved through a series of reflective team exercises involving input from 4 of the CRs. Final consolidation of key themes was conducted by SS and ES. Results Being an ‘insider’ to the communities brought distinct advantages to the research process but also generated complexities. CRs highlighted how ‘something would be lost’ without their involvement but still faced challenges in gathering and analysing data. Some CRs found it difficult to practice reflexivity, and problems of ethnic stereotyping were revealed. Conflict between roles as community members and investigators was at times problematic. The approach promoted some aspects of personal empowerment, but CRs were frustrated by the limited impact of the research at the local level. Conclusions Working with CRs offers distinct practical, ethical and methodological advantages to public health researchers, but these are limited by a range of challenges related to ‘closeness’, orthodox research structures and practices and the complexities of dynamic identities. For research of this type to meet its full potential and avoid harm, there is a need for careful support to CRs and long-term engagement between funders, research institutions and communities.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Ahmed SM, Palermo AG. Community engagement in research: frameworks for education and peer review. Am J Pubic Health. 2010;100(8):1380-7.
    • 2. Flynn M, Grant G, Ramcharan P. Emancipatory and participatory research: how far have we come? In: Emerson E, Hatton C, Thompson T, Parmenter T, editors. The international handbook of applied research in intellectual disabilities. London: Wiley; 2004. p. 83-111.
    • 3. Street J, Duszynski K, Krawczyk S, Braunack-Mayer A. The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision-making: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2014;109:1-9.
    • 4. Popay J. Community empowerment and health improvement: the English experience. In: Morgan A, Davies M, Ziglio E, editors. Health Assets in a Global Context: Theory, Methods, Action. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 183-97.
    • 5. Wallerstein N, Durran B. Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(S1):S40-6.
    • 6. Chambers, R. Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and development. IDS working paper no. 2. Brighton: IDS; 1994 http://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/123456789/1761/ rc81a.pdf?sequence=1 Accessed 8 June 2015.
    • 7. Cornwall A. Democratising engagement: what the UK can learn from international experience. London: DEMOS; 2008. http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/democratisingengagement. Accessed 8 June 2015.
    • 8. Mir G, Salway S, Kai J, Karlsen S, Bhopal R, Ellison GTH, et al. Principles for research on ethnicity and health: the Leeds Consensus Statement. Eur J Pubic Health. 2012;23(3):504-10.
    • 9. Cameron, J and Gibson, N. Shifting focus: alternative pathways for communities and economies, a resource kit. 2001. http://www.communityeconomies.org/site/assets/media/old%20website%20pdfs/action%20research/ Shifting%20Focus.pdf Accessed June 8 2015.
    • 10. Wright DNM, Corner JL, Hopkinson JB, Foster CL. The case for user involvement in research: the research priorities of cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9 Suppl 2:S3.
    • 11. Fletcher C. Community based participatory research relationships with aboriginal communities in Canada: an overview of context and process. Pimatziwin. 1910;2003:32-61.
    • 12. Cornwall A, Jewkes R. What is participatory research? Soc Sci Med. 1995;41(12):1167-676.
    • 13. Cooke B, Kothari U. The case for participation as tyranny. In: Cooke B, Kothari U, editors. Participation: The New Tyranny? New York: Zed Books; 2001. p. 1-15.
    • 14. Drevdahl D. Coming to voice: the power of emancipatory community interventions. Adv Nurs Sci. 1995;18(2):13-24.
    • 15. Cacari-Stone L, Wallerstein N, Garcia AP, Minkler M. The promise of community-based participatory research for health equity: a conceptual model for bridging evidence with policy. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(9):1615-23.
    • 16. Owen, J. Users, research and 'evidence' in social care. In Burr, J and Nicholson P, editors. Researching Health Care Consumers, Critical Approaches. Basingstoke: Palgrave (MacMillan); 2005.p.155-179.
    • 17. Shippee, ND, Garces, JPD, Prutsky Lopez, GJ, Wang, Z, Elraiyah, TA, Nabhan, M et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesised framework. Health Expect. 2013; doi: 10.1111/hex.12090
    • 18. Attree P, French B, Milton B, Povall S, Whitehead M, Popay J. The experience of community engagement for individuals: a rapid review of evidence. Health Soc Care Community. 2011;19(3):250-60.
    • 19. Boynton PM. Life on the streets: the experiences of community researchers in a study of prostitution. J Comm App Soc Psyc. 2002;12(1):1-12.
    • 20. Goodson L, Phillimore J. A community research methodology: working with new migrants to develop a policy related evidence base. Social Policy and Society. 2010;9:489-501.
    • 21. Warwick-Booth L. Using community-based research within regeneration. The role of the researcher within community-based approaches - exploring experiences within Objective 1 South Yorkshire. Community, Work & Family. 2014;17(1):79-95.
    • 22. Ryan L, Kofman E, Aaron P. Insiders and outsiders: working with peer researchers in researching Muslim communities. Int J Soc Res Meth. 2011;14(1):49-60.
    • 23. Brownlie J. Researching, not playing, in the public sphere. Sociology. 2009;43(4):699-716.
    • 24. Wainright, D Can sociological research be qualitative, critical and valid? The qualitative report. 1997;3(2). www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/wain.html. Accessed 8 June 2015.
    • 25. Salway S, Platt L, Chowbey P, Harriss K, Bayliss E. Long-term Ill health, poverty and ethnicity. Bristol: Policy Press; 2007. http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/1995-health-ethnicity-poverty.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2015.
    • 26. Kai J, Hedges C. Minority ethnic community participation in needs assessment and service development in primary care: perceptions of Pakistani and Bangladeshi people about psychological distress. Health Expect. 1999;2(1):7-20.
    • 27. Rowe A. The effect of involvement in participatory research on parent researchers in a Sure Start programme. Health Soc Care Community. 2006;14:465-73.
    • 28. Elam G, Chinouya M. Feasibility study for health surveys among black African populations living in the UK: stage 2-diversity among black African communities. London: National Centre for Social Research; 2000.
    • 29. Wright, MT, Brito, I, Cook, T, Harris, J, Kleba, ME, Springett, J et al. What is participatory research? Berlin: ICPHR. 2013. http://www.icphr.org/uploads/2/0/3/9/20399575/ichpr_position_paper_1_defintion_- _version_may_2013.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2015.
    • 30. Dennis CL. Peer support within a health care context: a concept analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2003;40(3):321-32.
    • 31. Maiter S, Simich L, Jacobson N, Wise J. Reciprocity: an ethic for community-based participatory action research. Action Res. 2008;6(3):305-25.
    • 32. Campbell J. A critical appraisal of participatory methods in development research. Int J Soc Res Method. 2002;5(1):19-29.
    • 33. Choudhry UK, Jandu S, Mahal J, Sinngh R, Sohi-Pabla H, Mutta B. Health promotion and participatory action research with South Asian women. J Nurs Scholarship. 2002;34(1):75-8.
    • 34. Gibson A, Britten N, Lynch J. Theoretical directions for an emancipatory concept of patient and public involvement. Health. 2012;16(5):531-47.
    • 35. Eder MM, Carter-Edwards L, Hurd TC, Rumala BB, Wallerstein N. A logic model for community engagement within the clinical and translational science awards consortium: can we measure what we model? Acad Med. 2013;88(10):1430-6.
    • 36. Hammersley M. Reading ethnographic research: a critical guide. New York: Longman; 1990.
    • 37. Lundy P, McGovern M. The ethics of silence: action research, community 'truthtelling' and post-conflict transition in the North of Ireland. Action Res. 2006;4(1):49-64.
    • 38. Gunaratnam Y. Researching 'race' and ethnicity, methods, knowledge and power. London: Sage; 2003.
    • 39. Tritter JQ. Revolution or evolution: the challenges of conceptualizing patient and public involvement in a consumerist world. Hlth Expect. 2009;12:275-87.
    • 40. Popay J, Escorel S, Hernandez M, Johnston H, Mathieson J, Rispel L. Understanding and tackling social exclusion: final report of the social exclusion knowledge network of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008. http://www.who.int/social_determinants/knowledge_networks/ final_reports/sekn_final%20report_042008.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2015.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article