Community-Based Participatory Research as Worldview or Instrumental Strategy: Is It Lost in Translation(al) Research?
- SourceAvailable from: Bonnie Duran
Critical Sociology 01/2014; DOI:10.1177/0896920513516025
- "Research equity has been also challenged by the variability of research goals. A recent editorial has raised important concerns regarding a potential schism or, at a minimum, a continuum of CBPR research goals, between CBPR as an 'instrumental strategy' or as a broader 'worldview', based in social justice and community capacity-building (Trickett, 2011). Reflecting on the growth of community engagement within Community Translational Science Awards (CTSA, see National Center for Research Resources, 2010), Trickett challenges researchers to clarify their own goals and purposes, recognizing that CTSA community engagement processes can range between minimal outreach to shared leadership (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011). "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "All of the third arms that were developed varied in form, but they all adhered to the basic principles and goals of the Housing First model. The form-function distinction ''… free[s] the RCT from a literal definition of standardization-as-repetition of the same activities across diverse communities'' (Trickett 2011, p. 1354) and helps to move past the idea that fidelity and adaptation are in opposition to one another. The hybrid models presented by Barrera et al. (2011) and the findings from this study are good examples of how both are important and can be achieved. "
ABSTRACT: This research focused on the relationships between a national team and five project sites across Canada in planning a complex, community intervention for homeless people with mental illness called At Home/Chez Soi, which is based on the Housing First model. The research addressed two questions: (a) what are the challenges in planning? and (b) what factors that helped or hindered moving project planning forward? Using qualitative methods, 149 national, provincial, and local stakeholders participated in key informant or focus group interviews. We found that planning entails not only intervention and research tasks, but also relational processes that occur within an ecology of time, local context, and values. More specifically, the relationships between the national team and the project sites can be conceptualized as a collaborative process in which national and local partners bring different agendas to the planning process and must therefore listen to, negotiate, discuss, and compromise with one another. A collaborative process that involves power-sharing and having project coordinators at each site helped to bridge the differences between these two stakeholder groups, to find common ground, and to accomplish planning tasks within a compressed time frame. While local context and culture pushed towards unique adaptations of Housing First, the principles of the Housing First model provided a foundation for a common approach across sites and interventions. The implications of the findings for future planning and research of multi-site, complex, community interventions are noted.American Journal of Community Psychology 09/2012; 51(3-4). DOI:10.1007/s10464-012-9554-2 · 1.74 Impact Factor
Milbank Quarterly 02/2012; · 5.06 Impact Factor
- "These diverse PR practices could be explored in a further review. Additionally, although the recruitment advantage in PR was shown to benefit all stakeholders, a critical view may reveal that some funding or research institutions' reasons for pursuing PR are to increase enrollment in clinical trials, reduce refusals, boost sample sizes for surveys, acquire community support for random assignment to control groups, or increase knowledge translation activities only (Trickett 2011). While these issues require serious attention, our results are applicable solely to " full participation " PR, which emphasizes equity and co-governance with community stakeholders who have formal power to challenge and change the research agenda. "