Article

Promotion and Tenure for Community-Engaged Research: An Examination of Promotion and Tenure Support for Community-Engaged Research at Three Universities Collaborating through a Clinical and Translational Science Award

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

Community-engaged health research, an approach to research which includes the participation of communities, promotes the translation of research to address and improve social determinants of health. As a way to encourage community-engaged research, the National Institutes of Health required applicants to the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) to include a community engagement component. Although grant-funding may support an increase in community-engaged research, faculties also respond to the rewards and demands of university promotion and tenure standards. This paper measures faculty perception of how three institutions funded by a CTSA support community-engaged research in the promotion and tenure process. At three institutions funded by a CTSA, tenure track and nontenure track faculty responded to a survey regarding perceptions of how promotion and tenure committees value community-engaged research. Faculty view support for community-engaged research with some reserve. Only 36% agree that community-engaged research is valued in the promotion and tenure process. Encouraging community-engaged scholarship requires changing the culture and values behind promotion and tenure decisions. Institutions will increase community-engaged research and more faculty will adopt its principles, when it is rewarded by promotion and tenure committees.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

... Establishment of strong mentorship structures for faculty is important. However, given the more recent emergence of this research approach, there are limited numbers of tenured faculty to provide CEnR mentorship to junior faculty (Marrero et al., 2013). One approach universities employ is the creation of mentorship programs that draw from the knowledge and skills of experienced community-engaged researchers as well as experienced community partners. ...
... Addressing this challenge may warrant revision of promotion and tenure policy, but the more effective strategy is to create a shift in the culture of promotion and tenure committees to broaden their assumptions about what constitutes high-quality research. Traditional values influence the senior faculty who make up promotion and tenure committees and are often unfamiliar with newer research methods (Ahmed et al., 2010;Marrero et al., 2013). The approach and research methods used in CEnR necessarily differ from what may be considered more traditional, conventional research. ...
... The approach and research methods used in CEnR necessarily differ from what may be considered more traditional, conventional research. For example, many CEnR projects are unlikely to be anchored by randomized control treatments, and because they integrate community partners in the research, CEnR can take much longer to complete and publish (Marrero et al., 2013). There is evidence that institutions with policy reforms that include regard for CEnR methods have something in common: they are more likely to employ a broader set of criteria to assess scholarship (O'Meara, 2005). ...
Chapter
This chapter illustrates how a large, decentralized institution can develop a strong climate for community-engaged research(CEnR). Based on the literatures of organizational climate, innovation adoption, and infrastructure for community engagement within institutions of higher education (IHEs), we offer an initial presentation of the CEnR Climate Framework. The framework includes the components necessary for building a strong climate for CEnR through an infrastructure that (a) ensures faculty have the requisite competencies to conduct CEnR, (b) provides incentives for the conduct of CEnR, and (c) addresses barriers to CEnR through policy and procedures (Kramer, 2000; see Figure 21.1). We describe each component of the CEnR Climate Framework and offer practical examples of how each component can be designed. The chapter then concludes with guidance on evaluating the effectiveness of the efforts to enhance the climate for CEnR, as well as the overall climate of CEnR.
... 8,9 Few tenure and promotion committees have formal written guidelines for what constitutes CES or routinely accept this form of scholarship as part of academic promotion or continuance. [10][11][12] Without clear incentives and recognition for this type of collaborative work, faculty have been reluctant to engage in an activity that may not be recognized by their peers. These problems, among others, have resulted in a delay in accepting this expanded definition of scholarship by the academy. ...
... Published literature on challenges to CES has been limited, although some documented challenges are quite formidable. 3,4,11 There is a lack of common definition and general understanding of CES that would clearly distinguish between service learning and clinical teaching components. Policies and practices differ across institutions with some fundamental concerns about liability, research integrity, conflict of interest, 13 as well as a traditional dependence upon clinical revenue for research support. ...
... Hofmeyer et al. 8 made recommendations about how the scholarship of integration and the scholarship of application (Boyer's categories 7 ) can be weighed in P&T considerations. Marrero et al. 11 described the relationship between communityengaged research and P&T at three CTSA-winning universities, and Nokes et al. 12 described faculty perceptions of this relationship. ...
Article
Full-text available
The Bylaws of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) charge the Research and Graduate Affairs committee (RGAC) with the development of the Association’s research, graduate education and scholarship agenda.1 To this end, the RGAC met in Crystal City, VA on October 28 and 29, 2013, to begin deliberating on the charges for 2013-14. The committee subsequently conducted frequent conference calls and electronic communications throughout the year to prepare this report.
... Prior reports have noted that an additional challenge, particularly for junior faculty, is that timelines for communityengaged research may not be aligned with tenure review timelines. [13][14][15][16] For all faculty, including NIH funded researchers, the length of time required to develop community partnerships and collect primary data, oft en in nonrandomized controlled trial (RCT) designs, may not be compatible with timelines for achieving traditional academic benchmarks of "progress" and accepted products, specifi cally high impact, peer-reviewed RCT publications and grants. 10,13,[16][17][18] Consistent with prior work, 10,13,[16][17][18] our survey revealed that about three-quarters of faculty noted lack of time, about half noted lack of funding as barriers to conducting community-engaged research, while slightly more than one-fi ft h listed lack of capacity/skill and access to community partners as barriers. ...
... [13][14][15][16] For all faculty, including NIH funded researchers, the length of time required to develop community partnerships and collect primary data, oft en in nonrandomized controlled trial (RCT) designs, may not be compatible with timelines for achieving traditional academic benchmarks of "progress" and accepted products, specifi cally high impact, peer-reviewed RCT publications and grants. 10,13,[16][17][18] Consistent with prior work, 10,13,[16][17][18] our survey revealed that about three-quarters of faculty noted lack of time, about half noted lack of funding as barriers to conducting community-engaged research, while slightly more than one-fi ft h listed lack of capacity/skill and access to community partners as barriers. As in prior reports describing low to moderate levels of support in valuing community-engaged research in the faculty promotion process at CTSAs, a signifi cantly greater percentage of pretenure (27.9%) than tenured faculty (19.2%) indicated lack of incentives was a barrier to learning about community-engaged research. ...
... [13][14][15][16] For all faculty, including NIH funded researchers, the length of time required to develop community partnerships and collect primary data, oft en in nonrandomized controlled trial (RCT) designs, may not be compatible with timelines for achieving traditional academic benchmarks of "progress" and accepted products, specifi cally high impact, peer-reviewed RCT publications and grants. 10,13,[16][17][18] Consistent with prior work, 10,13,[16][17][18] our survey revealed that about three-quarters of faculty noted lack of time, about half noted lack of funding as barriers to conducting community-engaged research, while slightly more than one-fi ft h listed lack of capacity/skill and access to community partners as barriers. As in prior reports describing low to moderate levels of support in valuing community-engaged research in the faculty promotion process at CTSAs, a signifi cantly greater percentage of pretenure (27.9%) than tenured faculty (19.2%) indicated lack of incentives was a barrier to learning about community-engaged research. ...
Article
Community engagement is recommended to ensure the public health impact of NIH-funded science. To understand the prevalence of community-engaged research and faculty interest in and needs around this, from 2012 to 2013, an online survey (n = 3,022) was sent to UCLA Clinical and Translational Science Institute faculty. Among respondents, 45% reported community-engaged project participation in the last year and 64% an interest in learning about community-engaged research. Over 50% indicated career development and pilot grants would increase participation in community-engaged research. A greater percentage of pretenure than tenured faculty (pretenure 54.9%, tenured 42.2%, p = 0008) noted faculty promotion criteria incentivizing community-engaged research would increase participation. In adjusted analyses, African American (OR 4.06, CI 1.68-9.82, p = 0.002) and Latino (OR 1.91, CI 1.10-3.33, p = 0.022) faculty had higher odds of prior participation in community-engaged projects than Whites. Female faculty had greater odds of interest (OR 1.40, CI 1.02-1.93, p = 0.038) in learning about community-engaged research than males. African American (OR 4.31, CI 1.42-13.08, p = 0.010) and Asian/Pacific Islander (OR 2.24, CI 1.52-3.28, p < 0.001) faculty had greater interest in learning about community-engaged research than Whites. To build community-engaged faculty research capacity, CTSAs' may need to focus resources on female and minority faculty development. Clin Trans Sci 2015; Volume #: 1-7. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
... However, in other health-related fields (outside of environmental engineering), it has been observed that the use of community-engaged research methods is not valued as highly as traditional research in tenure and promotion processes. For example, a survey of 675 faculty across three universities within a clinical and translational sciences institute (Marrero et al., 2013) revealed that faculty opinions were split (nearly 50/50) about whether communityengaged research scholarship was recognized and rewarded in review/tenure/promotion (RTP) processes at their institutions. However, in the same study, most faculty respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the following statements: (1) that community-engaged research scholarship was explicitly included in RTP policies and procedures; (2) that the RTP process encouraged publication in outlets that regularly disseminate community-engaged research; and (3) that RTP committees understood the definition, nature, documentation, and assessment of community-engaged research scholarship. ...
... The use of CBPR in engineering is relatively new and the principles of CBPR may be unfamiliar to some engineering faculty, including those who serve on tenure and promotion review committees. Participants expressed concerns that a lack of understanding about CBPR by tenure and promotion review committees could hinder the appropriate valuation of its research impacts in engineering, as it has been documented for other fields (Nyden, 2003;Calleson et al., 2005;Teufel-Shone, 2011;Marrero et al., 2013). This would place additional burdens on URM faculty who are engaged in this type of research. ...
Article
Full-text available
Communities of color are disproportionately burdened by environmental pollution and by obstacles to influence policies that impact environmental health. Black, Hispanic, and Native American students and faculty are also largely underrepresented in environmental engineering programs in the United States. Nearly 80 participants of a workshop at the 2019 Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors (AEESP) Research and Education Conference developed recommendations for reversing these trends. Workshop participants identified factors for success in academia, which included adopting a broader definition for the impact of research and teaching. Participants also supported the use of community-based participatory research and classroom action research methods in engineering programs for recruiting, retaining, and supporting the transition of underrepresented students into professional and academic careers. However, institutions must also evolve to recognize the academic value of community-based work to enable faculty, especially underrepre-sented minority faculty, who use it effectively, to succeed in tenure promotions. Workshop discussions elucidated potential causal relationships between factors that influence the co-creation of research related to academic skills, community skills, mutual trust, and shared knowledge. Based on the discussions from this workshop, we propose a pathway for increasing diversity and community participation in the environmental engineering discipline by exposing students to community-based participatory methods, establishing action research groups for faculty, broadening the definition of research impact to improve tenure promotion experiences for minority faculty, and using a mixed methods approach to evaluate its impact.
... In fact, ∼20-50% of surveyed visitors to open courseware (OCW) websites identify as "self learners" 115 [52]. Educators also benefit from OCW sites, making up around a quarter of visitors from regions like 116 Latin America, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East and North Africa [53]. As an educator in Mexico, I use 117 open textbooks available through projects like OpenStax (openstax.org), ...
... The dominance of the journal article over other products as the "basic unit 408 of scholarship" [124] is also a problem lamented by faculty [60,125]. Surveys report that data, so ware, 409 online resources, and other digital products are o en relegated to "tool development", given "secondary 410 status", and may not count at all unless worked somehow into article format [60,116]. This can be true 411 even when there is interest in and use of the product by academic peers, creating a mismatch between 412 community and institutional recognition [60]. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Open scholarship, such as the sharing of articles, code, data, and educational resources, has the potential to improve university research and education, as well as increase the impact universities can have beyond their own walls. To support this perspective, I present evidence from case studies, published literature, and personal experiences as a practicing open scholar. I describe some of the challenges inherent to practicing open scholarship, and some of the tensions created by incompatibilities between institutional policies and personal practice. To address this, I propose several concrete actions universities could take to support open scholarship, and outline ways in which such initiatives could benefit the public as well as institutions. Importantly, I do not think most of these actions would require new funding, but rather a redistribution of existing funds and a rewriting of internal policies to better align with university missions of knowledge dissemination and societal impact.
... In fact, ∼20-50% of surveyed visitors to open courseware (OCW) websites identify as "self learners" 115 [52]. Educators also benefit from OCW sites, making up around a quarter of visitors from regions like 116 Latin America, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East and North Africa [53]. As an educator in Mexico, I use 117 open textbooks available through projects like OpenStax (openstax.org), ...
... The dominance of the journal article over other products as the "basic unit 408 of scholarship" [124] is also a problem lamented by faculty [60,125]. Surveys report that data, so ware, 409 online resources, and other digital products are o en relegated to "tool development", given "secondary 410 status", and may not count at all unless worked somehow into article format [60,116]. This can be true 411 even when there is interest in and use of the product by academic peers, creating a mismatch between 412 community and institutional recognition [60]. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Open scholarship, such as the sharing of articles, code, data, and educational resources, has the potential to improve university research and education, as well as increase the impact universities can have beyond their own walls. To support this perspective, I present evidence from case studies, published literature, and personal experiences as a practicing open scholar. I describe some of the challenges inherent to practicing open scholarship, and some of the tensions created by incompatibilities between institutional policies and personal practice. To address this, I propose several concrete actions universities could take to support open scholarship, and outline ways in which such initiatives could benefit the public as well as institutions. Importantly, I do not think most of these actions would require new funding, but rather a redistribution of existing funds and a rewriting of internal policies to better align with university missions of knowledge dissemination and societal impact.
... A number of scholars have identified a gap between rhetoric and actual practice when it comes to community-engaged scholarship in universities (e.g., Calleson et al., 2005;Harkavy, 2006). Scholars have described how assessments of scholarly productivity and policies regarding promotion and tenure create disincentives to community-engaged research and the transformation of the community-university relationship (e.g., Kecskes & Foster, 2013;Marrero et al., 2013). Cutforth (2013) has observed that professors engaging in communitybased work receive less institutional regard than the scholars whose university-based work gains national notoriety. ...
... Sturm, Eatman, Saltmarsh, and Bush (2011) attribute this to the university's "cultural architecture" (p. 4), so that change is required (Marrero et al., 2013) at a cultural level. Kecskes and Foster (2013) have considered this challenge and developed a theoretical framework for institutional transformation, drawing upon the work of Edmund T. Gordon, an anthropologist and black studies scholar, and building on the elaboration of Gordon's work by Kraehe, Foster and Blakes (2010). ...
Article
While substantial efforts are being made in some universities to democratize the production, ownership, and use of knowledge through partnership with the community, significant barriers to community-university partnership persist, maintained through inequitable research relations, reductionist definitions of knowledge, and disincentives for faculty who are interested in community-based scholarship. The perseverance of this disconnect, we argue, is indicative of an existential aversion to community that lies deep within the psyche of the university. We liken the aversion to that of a disgust response, a social response that creates distance from that which is perceived to be dangerous, which in this case serves to preserve the university’s privileged status as knowledge producer. In this paper we bring forward arguments for the importance of community-engaged scholarship to the university’s civic role, to the pursuit of knowledge, and to the principles of democracy. We highlight promising advances in how some universities are accommodating community partnership within their definitions of scholarship and academic production, and, drawing upon Gordon’s theory of structural transformation and Bourdieu’s conceptualization of agency and habitus, we consider how such changes might be brought about at a deeper, structural level within the university. [Full text open access: http://esj.usask.ca/index.php/esj/article/view/164]
... However, surveys show that faculty feel this support rarely translates into recognition in promotion and tenure. Pretenure faculty report being actively "discouraged" from spending time on community engagement or public outreach activities that take time away from producing "real scholarship," like peer-reviewed articles [60,[116][117][118]. Harley et al. conclude that academics who spend significant time on activities like writing for the general public may be "stigmatized for being 'public intellectuals‴ [60]. ...
... The dominance of the journal article over other products as the "basic unit of scholarship" [124] is also a problem lamented by faculty [60,125]. Surveys report that data, software, online resources, and other digital products are often relegated to "tool development," given "secondary status," and may not count at all unless worked somehow into article format [60,116]. This can be true even when there is interest in and use of the product by academic peers, creating a mismatch between community and institutional recognition [60]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Open scholarship, such as the sharing of articles, code, data, and educational resources, has the potential to improve university research and education as well as increase the impact universities can have beyond their own walls. To support this perspective, I present evidence from case studies, published literature, and personal experiences as a practicing open scholar. I describe some of the challenges inherent to practicing open scholarship and some of the tensions created by incompatibilities between institutional policies and personal practice. To address this, I propose several concrete actions universities could take to support open scholarship and outline ways in which such initiatives could benefit the public as well as institutions. Importantly, I do not think most of these actions would require new funding but rather a redistribution of existing funds and a rewriting of internal policies to better align with university missions of knowledge dissemination and societal impact.
... 23 in the promotion and tenure process. 33 Specific academic disincentives include those institutions that have a preference for single-authored publications, and lack of funding to support faculty time to build community relationships and community capacity for research. 34 Recommendations for ways to document and assess CBPR and other scholarship in promotion and tenure decisions have been developed. ...
Article
Full-text available
The National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Community Networks Program Centers (CNPCs) provide community-based participatory research (CBPR)-oriented mentoring and training to prepare early-stage/midcareer investigators and student trainees (trainees) in disparities reduction. This paper describes the academic, mentoring, training, and work-life balance experiences of CNPC-affiliated trainees. We used a collaborative and iterative process to develop a 57-item, web-based questionnaire completed by trainees from the 23 CNPCs between August 2012 and February 2013. Their CNPC mentors completed a 47-item questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were calculated. The final analytic sample included 189 of 269 individuals (70%) identified as active participants in CNPC research or training/mentoring. Mentors (n = 45) were mostly non-Hispanic White (77.8%) and 48.9% were male. Mentors published a median of 6 (interquartile range [IQR], 3-12) first-authored and 15 (IQR, 6-25) senior authored manuscripts, and secured 15 (IQR, 11-29) grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other sources in the previous 5 years. Most trainees (n = 144) were female (79.2%), 43.7% were underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities, and 36.8% were first-generation college graduates. Over the previous 5 years, trainees reported a median of 4 (IQR, 1-6) publications as first author and 4 (IQR, 2-8) as co-author; 27.1% reported having one or more NIH R01s. Trainees reported satisfaction with their CNPC mentor (79.1%) and confidence in demonstrating most CBPR competencies. The CNPC training program consists of a scientifically productive pool of mentors and trainees. Trainees reported rates of scholarly productivity comparable to other national training programs and provided insights into relationships with mentors, academic pressures, and professional-personal life balance.
... Although not raised by participants, current literature is rife with concerns regarding the lack of recognition toward community engagement activities during tenure and promotion reviews, consequently discouraging the participation of developing faculty struggling to find time for this form of commitment (Feenstra et al., 2006;Huang, 2002;Klein et al., 2011;Landry et al., 2009;Marrero et al., 2013; 1. Orient and engage community consultants earlier prior to the beginning of the course. 2. Provide insight/instruction on how community consultants can work with students. ...
Article
This article describes the development, implementation, and evaluation of an interdisciplinary undergraduate course embedded within a campus–community partnership initiative involving McMaster University School of Nursing, and three urban priority neighborhoods in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Students worked together with community residents and faculty to address selected priority community issues identified by neighborhood members. Using the qualitative interpretive description method, the evaluation explored different partners’ (students, community residents, and faculty) perceptions of the course (SWOT analysis: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, as well as outcomes) as a community engagement and knowledge exchange intervention. Results provide lessons learned and recommendations for future campus–community engaged courses that can be transferred to similar contexts. Access at http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/6/3/2158244016656392
... Policy barriers arise due to change and can require significant resources, such as funding, time, and knowledge of the policy making process. Finally, academy barriers, including the culture and values behind promotion and tenure decisions, may prevent researchers and scholars from engaging in community research [62]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Obesity is a pervasive global public health concern of utmost priority. Effective and efficient interventions are urgently needed to reverse current trends, especially among children. The past decade has witnessed increasing adoption and implementation of community-engaged and -participatory interventions that employ a bottom-up approach to identifying and realizing sustainable solutions within communities. It is argued herein that community-based approaches are most effective when implemented via a systems perspective that integrates across societal sectors. This approach seizes upon the synergistic effects that result from simultaneously mobilizing community assets at multiple levels. This paper provides an overview of the evolution and theory behind community-engaged, community-participatory, and systems-level interventions, discusses recent findings in the field, offers reflections based on first-hand experience, outlines advances in relevant resources, and lays forth potential and promising directions for future research. It emphasizes the centrality and necessity of community-engaged systems-level interventions in halting and reversing the obesity epidemic.
... Respondents focused their efforts on activities (e.g., publishing, grant writing) that are recognized and rewarded through promotion and tenure and prioritized by funding agencies. Although faculty focus mostly on tasks related to promotion and tenure, and avoid tasks that do not count toward promotion and tenure or does not help them secure funding [35,36], identifying ways to acknowledge and reward dissemination to the lay public are important steps to increasing the return of results to participants. ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction Research participants want to receive results from studies in which they participate. However, health researchers rarely share the results of their studies beyond scientific publication. Little is known about the barriers researchers face in returning study results to participants. Methods Using a mixed-methods design, health researchers ( N =414) from more than 40 U.S. universities were asked about barriers to providing results to participants. Respondents were recruited from universities with Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) programs and Prevention Research Centers (PRCs). Results Respondents reported the percent of their research where they experienced each of the four barriers to disseminating results to participants: logistical/methodological, financial, systems, and regulatory. A fifth barrier, investigator capacity, emerged from data analysis. Training for research faculty and staff, promotion and tenure incentives, and funding agencies supporting dissemination of results to participants were solutions offered to overcoming barriers. Conclusions Study findings add to literature on research dissemination by documenting health researchers’ perceived barriers to sharing study results with participants. Implications for policy and practice suggest that additional resources and training could help reduce dissemination barriers and increase the return of results to participants.
... CRR encompasses a set of methodologies that include community engagement, CBPR and other participatory approaches [13,14]. While CBPR emerged primarily in academic public health settings, [12], community-engaged research (CEnR) is a term more commonly seen in academic medical centers, perhaps stemming from requirements imposed by the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards program [13,15]. Like CEnR, CRR may include collaboration, co-learning, and mutual use and sharing of data between academic and community partners [16]. ...
Article
This study aims to contribute to the development of community-responsive research approaches by describing the research methods used in the RxHL study and the interprofessional and community-based collaboration that produced them. The mixed-method RxHL study was developed in close consultation with staff and providers at our research site, a federally qualified health center in Springfield, MA. We utilized quantitative methods including chart review, manual pill counts and self-report surveys to assess factors associated with medication adherence in a diverse population of low-income patients with chronic disease. We triangulated these results with findings from qualitative methods that included in-depth interviews, home visits and chronic disease diaries. We used the constant comparison method and interdisciplinary, participatory team meetings to integrate quantitative and qualitative findings. A community-responsive approach facilitated the recruitment and retention of a diverse sample of patients. Self-report surveys revealed the widespread scope of barriers to care such as medication costs and transportation, and limited health literacy among diverse groups. Qualitative research methods offered a deeper understanding of the social and environmental contexts in which medication adherence takes place. Prioritizing the needs of community partners and research participants facilitates rigorous data collection in clinical settings with maximum participation from community partners.
... In addition, researchers may have difficulty maintaining their academic credentials, gauged by grant portfolios and publication records. This is an important issue for CTSA program leadership locally and nationally, to advance changes in university tenure policies to encourage and promote health services, community-based, and community-engaged research [15]. To that end, sustained and systematic collaboration with local health departments can alleviate logistical barriers to community-engaged research to fulfill the CTSA mandate to promote research that informs policy and practice. ...
Article
Full-text available
Bridging the Gap Between Research, Policy, and Practice: Lessons Learned from Academic-Public Partnerships in the CTSA Network - Amytis Towfighi, Allison Zumberge Orechwa, Tomás J. Aragón, Marc Atkins, Arleen F. Brown, Jen Brown, Olveen Carrasquillo, Savanna Carson, Paula Fleisher, Erika Gustafson, Deborah K. Herman, Moira Inkela, Wylie Liu, Daniella Meeker, Tara Mehta, Doriane C. Miller, Rachelle Paul-Brutus, Michael B. Potter, Sarah S. Ritner, Brendaly Rodriguez, Dana Rusch, Anne Skinner, Hal F. Yee
... In addition, such work can be a valuable source of data for answering research questions of interest and furthering one's program of research. At the same time, it is time-consuming to be a good research partner, as true research/practitioner partnerships take a significant investment of time and energy to build trusting relationships and such partnerships require working toward goals that are not often rewarded in academia (Ahmed, Beck, Maurana, & Newton, 2004;Marrero et al., 2013). From the perspective of a junior academic researcher, what makes a community-partnered evaluation projects work well? ...
Article
Full-text available
The goals of this study are: (a) to share reflections from multiple stakeholders involved in a foundation‐funded community‐partnered evaluation project, (b) to share information that might be useful to researchers, practitioners, and funders considering the merits of researcher/practitioner evaluation projects, and (c) to make specific suggestions for funders and researcher/practitioner teams starting an evaluation project. Three stakeholders in a small‐scale research‐practice partnership (RPP) reflected on the evaluation project by responding to three prompts. A researcher, community organization leader, and funder at a small foundation share specific tips for those considering a small‐scale RPP. Engaging in a small‐scale RPPs can be a very meaningful experience for individual researchers and smaller organizations and funders. The benefits and challenges align and differ in many ways with those encountered in larger projects.
... The challenge of time commitment is often noted in the CBPR literature and can pertain both to academics and community partners (Cole, et al., 2013;Felder, et al., 2012;Wang, et al., 2017). Prior research also indicates that few faculty believe community-engaged research is valued in the promotion and tenure process (Marrero, et al., 2013), which may further discourage early career researchers. An additional challenge concerned the Core's ability to connect trainees with existing CBPR projects. ...
... The dominance of the journal 385 article over other products as the "basic unit of scholarship" [116] is also a problem lamented by faculty [53,117]. Surveys report that data, soware, online resources, and other digital products 387 are oen relegated to "tool development", given "secondary status", and may not count at all 388 unless worked somehow into article format [53,108]. This can be true even when there is interest 389 in and use of the product by academic peers, creating a mismatch between community and 390 institutional recognition [53]. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Open scholarship, such as the sharing of articles, code, data, and educational resources, has the potential to improve university research and education, as well as increase the impact universities can have beyond their own walls. To support this perspective, I present evidence from case studies, published literature, and personal experiences as a practicing open scholar. I describe some of the challenges inherent to practicing open scholarship, and some of the tensions created by incompatibilities between institutional policies and personal practice. To address this, I propose several concrete actions universities could take to support open scholarship, and outline ways in which such initiatives could benefit the public as well as institutions. Importantly, I do not think most of these actions would require new funding, but rather a redistribution of existing funds and a rewriting of internal policies to better align with university’s stated missions of dissemination of knowledge and societal impact.
Article
Interdisciplinary team science involves research collaboration among investigators from different disciplines who work interdependently to share leadership and responsibility. Although over the past several decades there has been an increase in knowledge produced by science teams, the public has not been meaningfully engaged in this process. We argue that contemporary changes in how science is understood and practiced offer an opportunity to reconsider engaging the public as active participants on teams and coin the term participatory team science to describe public engagement in team science. We discuss how public engagement can enhance knowledge within the team to address complex problems and suggest a different organizing framework for team science that aligns better with how teams operate and with participatory approaches to research. We also summarize work on public engagement in science, describe opportunities for various types of engagement, and provide an example of participatory team science carried out across research phases. We conclude by discussing implications of participatory team science for psychology, including changing the default when assembling an interdisciplinary science team by identifying meaningful roles for public engagement through participatory team science.
Article
Full-text available
BACKGROUND: Childhood and adolescent obesity is a worldwide public health concern. The New Moves program aims to change eating behavior (EB) and physical activity (PA). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention and predictors of better outcomes relating to EB and PA levels. DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary data from a cluster randomized controlled trial in 10 public schools in São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: 270 female adolescents, aged 12 to 14 years, were analyzed. Participation levels were categorized as presence in 1 to 9 sessions or 10 to 17 sessions, or control. Effectiveness was evaluated through improvement in disordered EB (DEB) and EB. Predictors of better outcomes relating to PA levels were evaluated through clustering of individual characteristics that affected changes in PA scores. RESULTS: Participation level was not significantly associated with changes in DEB or EB. Girls with higher body mass index percentile (BMI-P) percentile tended to have increases in sedentary lifestyles through the program. Girls with less body image dissatisfaction presented higher increases in daily PA. Girls with higher BMI-P percentile and higher self-esteem showed reductions in sedentary lifestyles. The program seemed to have more effect on daily PA among older girls than among younger girls. CONCLUSIONS: This program could be used as a structured action plan in schools, with the aims of improving eating behaviors and physical activity, in addition to promoting self-acceptance. The results indicate the importance of evaluating determinants of adherence, as these metrics might influence the effectiveness and future design of lifestyle programs.
Article
Full-text available
Background There has been a recent increase in interest in alternatives to randomisation in the evaluation of public health interventions. We aim to describe specific scenarios in which randomised trials may not be possible and describe, exemplify and assess alternative strategies. Methods Non-systematic exploratory review. Results In many scenarios barriers are surmountable so that randomised trials (including stepped-wedge and crossover trials) are possible. It is possible to rank alternative designs but context will also determine which choices are preferable. Evidence from non-randomised designs is more convincing when confounders are well-understood, measured and controlled; there is evidence for causal pathways linking intervention and outcomes and/or against other pathways explaining outcomes; and effect sizes are large. Conclusion Non-randomised trials might provide adequate evidence to inform decisions when interventions are demonstrably feasible and acceptable, and where evidence suggests there is little potential for harm, but caution that such designs may not provide adequate evidence when intervention feasibility or acceptability is doubtful, and where existing evidence suggests benefits may be marginal and/or harms possible. EVALUATING THE EFFECTS OF PUBLIC HEALTH INTERVENTIONS: BARRIERS TO RANDOMISED TRIALS AND ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely regarded as the 'gold standard' for estimating the causal effects of public health interventions on pre-dened outcomes in a dened population. 1 2 However, there has been increasing interest in non-randomised evaluations of public health interven-tions where RCTs are considered unfeasible 3e6 and guidelines for reporting these. 7 8 It has been argued that for certain decisions it is reasonable to infer intervention effects from non-randomised studies and that dismissing designs other than the RCT might lead to a marginalisation of intervention types not amenable to RCTs. 3e5 We organised a multi-disciplinary symposium in London in 2006 to review these issues and identify practical solu-tions. Our two papers summarise the arguments presented, drawing on examples from high-and low-income countries. It is important to determine which categories of intervention are not amenable to RCTs in order that decisions to use evidence from non-randomised designs are made based not on a wholesale or haphazard 'lowering of the bar ' regarding standards of evidence, but from a consid-ered assessment as to what interventions require this. It is also important to assess in detail the various alternatives to RCTs in order to determine their relative merits in different scenarios. Existing reviews have not aimed to describe comprehen-sively the diversity of different alternative designs available, but instead have aimed to discuss overall levels of evidence 3 4 or focused on particular alter-native designs. 6 We conclude by considering for what sorts of decisions non-randomised evalua-tions might provide adequate evidence and, conversely, when decisions require RCTs. This paper focuses on design while a companion paper considers analysis.
Article
Full-text available
Although randomized controlled trials are often a gold standard for determining intervention effects, in the area of practice-based research (PBR), there are many situations in which individual randomization is not possible. Alternative approaches to evaluating interventions have received increased attention, particularly those that can retain elements of randomization such that they can be considered "controlled" trials. Methodological design elements and practical implementation considerations for two quasi-experimental design approaches that have considerable promise in PBR settings--the stepped-wedge design, and a variant of this design, a wait-list cross-over design, are presented along with a case study from a recent PBR intervention for patients with diabetes. PBR-relevant design features include: creation of a cohort over time that collects control data but allows all participants (clusters or patients) to receive the intervention; staggered introduction of clusters; multiple data collection points; and one-way cross-over into the intervention arm. Practical considerations include: randomization versus stratification, training run in phases; and extended time period for overall study completion. Several design features of practice based research studies can be adapted to local circumstances yet retain elements to improve methodological rigor. Studies that utilize these methods, such as the stepped-wedge design and the wait-list cross-over design, can increase the evidence base for controlled studies conducted within the complex environment of PBR.
Article
Full-text available
Background Appreciating the need to better translate biomedical research into improved clinical care and health, the NIH Roadmap was initiated in 2003 to focus on this by strengthening NIH’s central role in clinical research and clinical research training. As part of the needed re-engineering, in 2006 NIH began the CTSA program. At this writing (Summer 2009), there are 39 CTSAs at leading universities across the United States, each having a clinical research graduate program and extensive resources for promoting clinical and translational research. Each of these, and the CTSA Consortium as a whole, are committed to transforming clinical and translational research to maximize impact on health. The CTSAs bring to this challenge an array of capacities, extensive research infrastructure, formal training and career development programs, community engagement of the public and of clinical practice communities, and informatics related to research and clinical practice. Various CTSAs have different areas of emphasis, including along the spectrum of translational research from bench to patient bedside (the first translational step, “T1”), from the bedside to general use in clinical practice (“T2”), and from clinical practice to public benefit and policy (“T3”). This broad array of activities has allowed the national consortium to be responsive to needs all along this path of translation of biomedical research into practice and public benefit. Although the activities of CER can be seen as primarily involving T2 and T3 research, they also can be seen as focusing on the optimal translation of T1 research into effective treatment, and thus the very epitome of work in which CTSAs should be deeply involved. This appreciation was reinforced by CER’s selection as a key Strategic Goal focus of the CTSA Consortium. In this context, the CER Strategic Goal of the CTSA Consortium is to promote the translation of the results of clinical and translational research into practice and public policy. In service of this, in two sections below, we review the span of CER resources across the CTSA Consortium and propose potential roles for CTSAs in supporting CER. As a point of reference for this White Paper, below are two important definitions of CER from reports released at the end of June 2009, from the IOM and from the FCC-CER: Definition from the IOM Report on Priorities for CER The generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care. The purpose of CER is to assist patients, clinicians, purchasers, and policy makers, and the public to make informed decisions that will improve healthcare at both the individual and population levels.
Article
Full-text available
There has been a recent increase in interest in alternatives to randomisation in the evaluation of public health interventions. We aim to describe specific scenarios in which randomised trials may not be possible and describe, exemplify and assess alternative strategies. Non-systematic exploratory review. In many scenarios barriers are surmountable so that randomised trials (including stepped-wedge and crossover trials) are possible. It is possible to rank alternative designs but context will also determine which choices are preferable. Evidence from non-randomised designs is more convincing when confounders are well-understood, measured and controlled; there is evidence for causal pathways linking intervention and outcomes and/or against other pathways explaining outcomes; and effect sizes are large. Non-randomised trials might provide adequate evidence to inform decisions when interventions are demonstrably feasible and acceptable, and where evidence suggests there is little potential for harm, but caution that such designs may not provide adequate evidence when intervention feasibility or acceptability is doubtful, and where existing evidence suggests benefits may be marginal and/or harms possible.
Article
Full-text available
The usual search for explanations and solutions for the research-practice gap tends to analyze ways to communicate evidence-based practice guidelines to practitioners more efficiently and effectively from the end of a scientific pipeline. This examination of the pipeline looks upstream for ways in which the research itself is rendered increasingly irrelevant to the circumstances of practice by the process of vetting the research before it can qualify for inclusion in systematic reviews and the practice guidelines derived from them. It suggests a 'fallacy of the pipeline' implicit in one-way conceptualizations of translation, dissemination and delivery of research to practitioners. Secondly, it identifies a 'fallacy of the empty vessel' implicit in the assumptions underlying common characterizations of the practitioner as a recipient of evidence-based guidelines. Remedies are proposed that put emphasis on participatory approaches and more practice-based production of the research and more attention to external validity in the peer review, funding, publication and systematic reviews of research in producing evidence-based guidelines.
Article
Full-text available
Research to improve the health of communities benefits from the involvement of community members. Accordingly, major federal and foundation funding agencies are soliciting health promotion/disease prevention programme proposals that require active community participation. However, creating such partnerships is difficult. Communities often perceive conventional research as paternalistic, irrelevant to their needs, manipulative, secretive and invasive of privacy. Many institutions and researchers view community knowledge as lacking in value. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative partnership approach to research that equitably involves community members, organizational representatives and researchers in all aspects of the research process. In this article the authors consider the barriers to institutional change and faculty participation in CBPR, and propose some steps for overcoming the barriers and making CBPR an integral part of a medical institution's research agenda. Training and supporting faculty in the philosophy and methods of this approach is the cornerstone of improved community-based research.
Article
Purpose: To understand the external and internal factors that either facilitated or were barriers to an academic health center's (AHC's) involvement in community-based education, research, and clinical care; community service; and community or economic development activities. Method: Eight AHCs in the United States were selected by objective criteria for their significant community involvement. Chief executive officers, vice chancellors, deans, and the individuals responsible for community-based education, research, and community service responded to written surveys. Responses were subjected to quantitative and qualitative analyses. Results: The overall response rate was 79% (n = 91). Public perception, an increased focus on a population health perspective, and an increased call for AHCs to be accountable to local and statewide constituents were cited as the most significant external factors contributing to an AHC's community involvement. Institutional leadership, familiarity with community-based organizations, institutional climate, faculty and student interest, and institutional structures were cited as the most significant internal facilitators of community involvement. Fiscal concerns, competition for community-based training sites, lack of collaboration across health professions schools, and inadequate faculty roles and rewards were viewed as the most significant barriers to community involvement. All respondents reported that their AHCs' orientations towards community service, and community-based teaching, research, and clinical care would increase in the next five years. Conclusion: Development of a strategic plan may increase the effectiveness of an institution's community involvement. Central to this plan should be a restructuring of faculty roles and reward polices and an increase in faculty release time to promote community involvement. The importance of involving the community in the planning and implementation of community—campus partnerships should not be underestimated.
Article
Science...seems an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies. No part of the aim of normal science is to call forth new sorts of phenomena; indeed those that will not fit the box are often not seen at all. Nor do scientists normally aim to invent new theories, and they are often intolerant of those invented by others. Thomas S. Kuhn [1]
Article
To determine the community-based participatory research (CBPR) training interests and needs of researchers interested in CBPR to inform efforts to build infrastructure for conducting community-engaged research. A 20-item survey was completed by 127 academic health researchers at Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Public Health, and Harvard affiliated hospitals. Slightly more than half of the participants reported current or prior experience with CBPR (58 %). Across all levels of academic involvement, approximately half of the participants with CBPR experience reported lacking skills in research methods and dissemination, with even fewer reporting skills in training of community partners. Regardless of prior CBPR experience, about half of the respondents reported having training needs in funding, partnership development, evaluation, and dissemination of CBPR projects. Among those with CBPR experience, more than one-third of the participants wanted a mentor in CBPR; however only 19 % were willing to act as a mentor. Despite having experience with CBPR, many respondents did not have the comprehensive package of CBPR skills, reporting a need for training in a variety of CBPR skill sets. Further, the apparent mismatch between the need for mentors and availability in this sample suggests an important area for development.
Article
Despite an increasing arsenal of effective treatments, there are mounting challenges in developing strategies that prevent and control cardiovascular diseases, and that can be sustained and scaled to meet the needs of those most vulnerable to their impact. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is an approach to conducting research by equitably partnering researchers and those directly affected by and knowledgeable of the local circumstances that impact health. To inform research design, implementation and dissemination, this approach challenges academic and community partners to invest in team building, share resources, and mutually exchange ideas and expertise. CBPR has led to a deeper understanding of the myriad factors influencing health and illness, a stream of ideas and innovations, and there are expanding opportunities for funding and academic advancement. To maximize the chance that CBPR will lead to tangible, lasting health benefits for communities, researchers will need to balance rigorous research with routine adoption of its conduct in ways that respectfully, productively and equally involve local partners. If successful, lessons learned should inform policy and inspire structural changes in healthcare systems and in communities.
Article
Over the last several decades, epidemiological studies have been enormously successful in identifying risk factors for major diseases. However, most of this research has focused attention on risk factors that are relatively proximal causes of disease such as diet, cholesterol level, exercise and the like. We question the emphasis on such individually-based risk factors and argue that greater attention must be paid to basic social conditions if health reform is to have its maximum effect in the time ahead. There are two reasons for this claim. First we argue that individually-based risk factors must be contextualized, by examining what puts people at risk of risks, if we are to craft effective interventions and improve the nation's health. Second, we argue that social factors such as socioeconomic status and social support are likely "fundamental causes" of disease that, because they embody access to important resources, affect multiple disease outcomes through multiple mechanisms, and consequently maintain an association with disease even when intervening mechanisms change. Without careful attention to these possibilities, we run the risk of imposing individually-based intervention strategies that are ineffective and of missing opportunities to adopt broad-based societal interventions that could produce substantial health benefits for our citizens.
Article
To understand the external and internal factors that either facilitated or were barriers to an academic health center's (AHC's) involvement in community-based education, research, and clinical care; community service; and community or economic development activities. Eight AHCs in the United States were selected by objective criteria for their significant community involvement. Chief executive officers, vice chancellors, deans, and the individuals responsible for community-based education, research, and community service responded to written surveys. Responses were subjected to quantitative and qualitative analyses. The overall response rate was 79% (n = 91). Public perception, an increased focus on a population health perspective, and an increased call for AHCs to be accountable to local and statewide constituents were cited as the most significant external factors contributing to an AHC's community involvement. Institutional leadership, familiarity with community-based organizations, institutional climate, faculty and student interest, and institutional structures were cited as the most significant internal facilitators of community involvement. Fiscal concerns, competition for community-based training sites, lack of collaboration across health professions schools, and inadequate faculty roles and rewards were viewed as the most significant barriers to community involvement. All respondents reported that their AHCs' orientations towards community service, and community-based teaching, research, and clinical care would increase in the next five years. Development of a strategic plan may increase the effectiveness of an institution's community involvement. Central to this plan should be a restructuring of faculty roles and reward polices and an increase in faculty release time to promote community involvement. The importance of involving the community in the planning and implementation of community-campus partnerships should not be underestimated.
Article
Recognizing the need to overcome the obstacles of traditional university- and discipline-oriented research approaches, a variety of incentives to promote community-based participatory research (CBPR) are presented. Experiences of existing CBPR researchers are used in outlining how this methodological approach can appeal to faculty: the common ground shared by faculty and community leaders in challenging the status quo; opportunities to have an impact on local, regional, and national policy; and opening doors for new research and funding opportunities. Strategies for promoting CBPR in universities are provided in getting CBPR started, changing institutional practices currently inhibiting CBPR, and institutionalizing CBPR. Among the specific strategies are: development of faculty research networks; team approaches to CBPR; mentoring faculty and students; using existing national CBPR networks; modifying tenure and promotion guidelines; development of appropriate measures of CBPR scholarship; earmarking university resources to support CBPR; using Institutional Review Boards to promote CBPR; making CBPR-oriented faculty appointments; and creating CBPR centers.
Article
Since Ernest Boyer's landmark 1990 report, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, leaders in higher education, including academic medicine, have advocated that faculty members apply their expertise in new and creative ways in partnership with communities. Such community engagement can take many forms, including community-based teaching, research, clinical care, and service. There continues to be a gap, however, between the rhetoric of this idea and the reality of how promotion and tenure actually work in health professions schools. The Commission on Community-Engaged Scholarship in the Health Professions was established in October 2003 with funding from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to take a leadership role in creating a more supportive culture and reward system for community-engaged faculty in the nation's health professions schools. The authors prepared this article to inform the commission's deliberations and to stimulate discussion among educators in the health professions. The authors define the work that faculty engage in with communities, consider whether all work by faculty in community-based settings is actually scholarship, and propose a framework for documenting and assessing community-engaged scholarship for promotion and tenure decisions. They conclude with recommendations for change in academic health centers and health professions schools.
Community-Engaged Scholarship Toolkit : Community-Campus Partnerships for Health
  • D Calleson
  • J Kauper-Brown
  • Sd Seifer
Calleson D, Kauper-Brown J, Seifer SD. Community-Engaged Scholarship Toolkit. Seattle, WA : Community-Campus Partnerships for Health ; 2005. http://ctsacorus.org/resources/190.
Building Capacity for Community Engagement: Institutional Self-Assessment
  • S B Gelmon
  • S D Seifer
  • J Kauper-Brown
  • M Mikkelsen
Gelmon SB, Seifer SD, Kauper-Brown J, Mikkelsen M. Building Capacity for Community Engagement: Institutional Self-Assessment. Seattle, WA : Community-Campus Partnerships for Health ; 2005. http://ctsacorus.org/resources/205. Accessed September 28, 2012.
Community-Campus Partnerships for Health
  • D Calleson
  • J Kauper-Brown
  • S D Seifer
Calleson D, Kauper-Brown J, Seifer SD. Community-Engaged Scholarship Toolkit. Seattle, WA : Community-Campus Partnerships for Health ; 2005. http://ctsacorus.org/resources/190. Accessed September 28, 2012.