5 Codesign: Strategies for Practicing Science with Communities

5.2. Introduction

Effective community engagement in research requires not only identifying the issues that matter most to a population but also cocreating questions in a collaborative spirit. Having locals actively taking part in shaping the investigation rather than being passively subjected to it can symbolize progress toward a more democratic scientific practice [Minkler and Wallerstein, 2011]. Identifying what concerns a community fundamentally involves attentive listening and open dialogue with participants. These interactions help researchers comprehend lived realities, necessities, and worries through shared stories [Reed et al., 2009]. Additionally, methods like community mapping and photovoice can furnish valuable insights into what is important.

With mapping, or “participatory cartography,” residents participate in making visual portrayals of their surroundings, highlighting spaces of concern and enthusiasm. Photovoice, a participatory research method, encourages community individuals to capture and discuss images representing what they deem significant. These techniques not only pinpoint top priorities but also empower community members by allowing their voice to contribute [Wang and Burris, 1997]. Once top concerns are distinguished, the next step involves cocrafting queries that echo these worries. Coframing inquiries necessitates a cooperative process in which researchers and community members work as one to formulate questions that are meaningful and can prompt action. This process can follow principles of community-based participatory research, emphasizing joint knowledge formation and shared decision-making [Israel et al., 2013].

5.3. Identifying Community-Specific Needs, Priorities, and Interests

Successful scientific engagement with communities necessitates knowledge of communities’ unique needs, priorities, and interests. Balancing them ensures that any scientific undertakings are meaningful and contribute to the community to build collaboration together with trust. Community assessment or familiarization is the first step in understanding the context of the community. For example, by studying a community’s written and oral history and conducting surveys, interviews, focus groups, and public forums, more can be learned about community attitudes, beliefs, and practices [Green and Kreuter, 2005]. Asset mapping and the identification of local organizations, leaders, and institutions help researchers engage with these resources and begin to address identified needs [Kretzmann and McKnight, 1993]. This process reveals the most immediate concerns by sifting through both quantitative and qualitative data. Both can be analyzed through techniques such as thematic analysis and statistical methods and other social science qualitative analysis techniques [Creswell and Plano Clark, 2017].

Community priorities are areas deemed the most urgent and/or important by community members. Figuring out what they are necessitates listing key areas where further scientific research and public health interventions are needed to address any problems. Engaging in participatory prioritization can include using various methods like cognitive maps and the nominal group technique to obtain community consensus about what is important [Hsu and Sandford, 2007]. Cognitive mapping analyzes mental representations that people have of their environments, visually capturing group perception in the form of diagrams, sketches, or charts. The nominal group technique is structured group brainstorming that encourages participation from everyone and helps prioritize ideas and solutions. Stakeholders such as community leaders, local government officials, and nonprofit organizations provide important insight on community aspirations [Arnstein, 1969]. Establishing mechanisms for ongoing feedback from the community to dynamically adjust priorities as the community’s context and needs evolve is also crucial for success [Israel et al., 1998].

The process of learning from a community broadly about priorities, interests, and needs is one of the best ways to build trust, foster engagement in the research, and collaboratively design a research plan that authentically involves the communities at the levels that are selected by the community and needed for the research. These interests can be cultural, recreational, environmental, or educational in nature. Regular polls and surveys reveal community preferences. Understanding these preferences is important for creating projects that have strong relatability to the community [Fowler, 2013]. In the event that pressing issues are identified by researchers but the community has no interest in them, a challenging situation unfolds. Engaging in dialogue can aid in determining whether the lack of interest is due to a lack of awareness, distrust in external intervention, or previous negative experiences with researchers. Taking note and being respectful of the community’s cultural background and way of life are required. Cultural competency training for scientists and incorporating cultural mediators in this role should be employed [Betancourt et al., 2003]. Researchers must be willing to compromise on certain research objectives. A large component of the training includes understanding how to increase the depth of commitment to scientific projects via events and activities that are aligned with community interests. Workshops, science fairs for students, and local public exhibitions are all examples of these activities [Bonney et al., 2009]. For example, in the Chesapeake Bay, scientists collaborated with local fishermen to develop sustainable fishing practices that could improve both the environment and the local economy through community-based participatory research. Community members selected this joint venture to protect their livelihood and to maintain environmental health [Hartley and Robertson, 2009]. Another example is the Harlem Children’s Zone initiative, a nonprofit providing free support in the form of parenting workshops and child-oriented health programs; it was successful in increasing outcomes through alignment of educational programs with the needs and aspirations of the community [Tough, 2008]. The initiative employed a place-based strategy, focused on 100 blocks in Harlem, as well as evidence-based practices, in which data were regularly collected and analyzed to measure the effectiveness of the programs and adjustments were made to improve results.

Although identifying the needs, priorities, and interests of a community is crucial, a few challenges must be confronted. Communities are rarely homogeneous, and perspectives about what constitutes interests often differ from one community to another. The challenge is to achieve a voice that represents the majority, which requires facilitation or inclusive practice [Bryson et al., 2012]. Solving all of a community’s issues may be impossible; thus, it is important to focus on what can be achieved. Resource constraints limit researchers’ ability to conduct robust assessments and engage communities fully. Paying attention to resource allocation and securing funding from multiple venues are also crucial [Wallerstein and Duran, 2006]. In addition, networking events help scientists build trust with community members, which can be a slow process. Key to building and sustaining trust is establishing transparency, consistency, and respect for local knowledge [Cargo and Mercer, 2008].

5.4. Strategies to Develop Community-Driven Research Questions and Projects

Effective strategies for developing community-driven research questions include the following:

1. Listening sessions: Joining open forums, meetings, and listening sessions where scientists, by invitation, and community members, by choice, can share their concerns and ideas is important for understanding what community members themselves consider to be the major problems [Green and Kreuter, 2005].
2. Focus groups: Conducting focus groups with representatives from targeted groups to learn more on particular subjects provides a much greater level of insight and enables the identification of root causes of problems [Morgan, 1996].
3. Collaborative workshops and codesign sessions: In participatory workshops, community members and research stakeholders work together to identify, rank, and prioritize research questions. Methods to promote, gather, and refine ideas include approaches involving brainstorming or the nominal group technique [Hsu and Sandford, 2007].
4. Surveys and polls: Open-ended questions and Likert-scale items on the surveys themselves can help with obtaining a breadth of views [Fowler, 2013]. Digital platforms and social media can allow for short polls to collect feedback about research ideas. This method may be able to reach more people, especially the youth [Couper, 2000].

Different approaches can be employed to generate community-driven research projects, as outlined below.

Asset mapping involves identifying and mapping community assets (skills, knowledge, institutions, physical resources) as part of asset-based community development. This approach uses existing strengths and capacities to develop research projects [Kretzmann and McKnight, 1993], which also supports a good environment for research and empowerment [Mathie and Cunningham, 2003].

Approaching communities about joining their community advisory boards can aid in creating guidelines for the research effort. These boards can provide regular input, review project plans, and verify any cultural deficits and/or compatibility [Cargo and Mercer, 2008]. Meeting on a regular basis to review project progress, lessons learned, and new challenges ensures that the project stays responsive to what the community needs [Minkler and Wallerstein, 2003].

Participatory action research facilitates the training of community researchers, thereby also increasing the credibility and trustworthiness of the research and developing local capacity [Baum et al., 2006]. An ongoing process of iterative research in which community feedback is consistently integrated provides guidance toward flexible adaptation to emerging insights and community needs [Kemmis and McTaggart, 2005].

Choosing research methods that are broad in their approach and capable of changing according to the needs of the different communities involved falls in the realm of flexible and responsive project design. Researchers should create mechanisms whereby the community can provide regular feedback on an ongoing basis throughout the project lifecycle. These mechanisms can include surveys, town hall meetings, and informal check-ins [Israel et al., 1998].

Example image of PAR from https://www.communityscot.org.uk/content/community-participatory-action-research-cpar

5.5. Creating a Research Plan That Employs Practices and Principles of Community Science

After the community communicates a problem that must be addressed through scientific research, implement a research plan to create a clear picture of what you are trying to achieve in your research. This means establishing objectives and questions. The overarching goal should be to develop better understanding, which can be achieved with a variety of methods, including new models and theories that address issues of importance in a particular community while advancing broader scientific and societal knowledge. Engaging with communities ensures that research is relevant to their needs and interests [Wiggins and Crowston, 2011]. Recruit scientists, community members, and volunteers for these efforts. The team should represent the diversity of the community and have a breadth of skills and viewpoints. Good partnership between scientists studying physical and social aspects of a particular research problem often depends on the roles, responsibilities, and forums for dialogue all being developed early [Bonney et al., 2014].

The details of procedures, such as methods for data collection and analysis, should include community feedback and address all practical aspects (e.g., resources, participant training, logistical support). This transparency in plans also assists with the building of trust and engagement [Dickinson et al., 2012]. Select data collection strategies that the community can easily access and comprehend. Additionally, training sessions for volunteers will allow those from the community who are interested to gain necessary skills that guarantee good data quality and consistency. The development of user-friendly tools could result in increasing the participation of a larger community [Newman et al., 2012].

Follow up with participants continuously by providing regular updates, addressing concerns, and getting feedback. This stage of research demands flexibility in response to unexpected issues and benefits [Cooper et al., 2007]. Engaging community members in analysis and interpretation of community data is important, as is providing ongoing training as needed. This engagement ensures integration of local knowledge in the analysis and increases credibility of results [Haklay, 2013].

Finally, disseminate the results of this research for both science and the public. Reach a broad range of audiences through different formats and channels (e.g., academic publications, community meetings, social media services). Transparent reporting plays a role in building trust and encourages future participation [McKinley et al., 2017].

A case study of citizen science is the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s eBird project, which receives bird observations from around the world and maintains a huge database on where birds are distributed. In addition to serving the scientific community as a key source of bird data, it has also engaged millions of citizen scientists in learning about birds and helping with conservation [Sullivan et al., 2009]. This project illustrates how citizens can participate in science and benefit from that participation, but it is an example of a project that was initiated and owned by the researchers, although the results of the researchers are disseminated and shared broadly

A research plan that incorporates community science principles needs to be developed, with ample forethought and potential for collaboration. It should promote inclusive and transparent actions. Such a plan will provide a more appropriate and relevant research outcome that is beneficial from the public perspective while at the same time enhancing scientific literacy and engagement with researchers and communities.

5.6. Conclusions

Effective community engagement in research includes identifying pressing issues that matter most to a community and then cocreating research questions in collaboration with its members. This process empowers communities because it makes them active participants in research rather than passive subjects and is essential for a more democratic scientific practice. Techniques including mapping and photovoice can help identify priorities in a community by allowing residents to express their concerns in a visual manner. Once these priorities have been established, together researchers and community members can reframe research questions that address these concerns, ensuring that the research is relevant to the community as well as actionable. Successful engagement requires understanding the specific interests, needs, and priorities of the community, as well as using strategies like focus groups, workshops, and asset mapping to develop projects. Challenges like resource constraints, cultural differences, and varied community perspectives can be navigated with cultural competence, transparency, and ongoing dialogue. Ultimately, creating a research plan that incorporates community input and adheres to community science principles ensures that the research is meaningful, beneficial, and trusted by the community.

References

Arnstein, S. R. (1969), A ladder of citizen participation, J. Am. Plann. Assoc., 35(4), 216–224, https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.

Baum, F., C. MacDougall, and D. Smith (2006), Participatory action research, J. Epidemiol. Community Health, 60(10), 854–857, https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.028662.

Betancourt, J. R., A. R. Green, J. E. Carrillo, and E. R. Park (2003), Cultural competence and health care disparities: Key perspectives and trends, Health Affairs, 24(2), 499–505, https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.24.2.499.

Bonney, R., H. Ballard, R. Jordan, E. McCallie, T. Phillips, J. Shirk, and C. C. Wilderman (2009), Public participation in scientific research: Defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education, CAISE Inquiry Group Report, Cent. for Adv. of Informal Sci. Educ., Washington, D.C.

Bonney, R., T. B. Phillips, H. L. Ballard, and J. W. Enck (2014), Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science?, Public Understanding Sci., 25(1), 2–16, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515607406.

Bryson, J. M., K. S. Quick, C. S. Slotterback, and B. C. Crosby (2012), Designing public participation processes, Public Admin. Rev., 73(1), 23–34, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02678.x.

Cargo, M., and S. L. Mercer (2008), The value and challenges of participatory research: Strengthening its practice, Annu. Rev. Public Health, 29, 325–350, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.091307.083824.

Cooper, C. B., J. Dickinson, T. Phillips, and R. Bonney (2007), Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems, Ecol. Soc., 12(2), 11, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02197-120211.

Couper, M. P. (2000), Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches, Public Opinion Q., 64(4), 464–494, https://doi.org/10.1086/318641.

Creswell, J. W., and V. L. Plano Clark (2017), Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif.

Dickinson, J. L., B. Zuckerberg, and D. N. Bonter (2012), Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 43, 149–172, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636.

Fowler, F. J. (2013), Survey Research Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif.

Green, L. W., and M. W. Kreuter (2005), Health Program Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Haklay, M. (2013), Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: Overview and typology of participation, in Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge, edited by D. Z. Sui, S. Elwood, and M. F. Goodchild, pp. 105–122, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4587-2_7.

Hartley, T. W., and R. A. Robertson (2009), Stakeholder engagement, cooperative fisheries research and democratic science: The case of the Northeast Consortium, Human Ecol. Rev., 16(2), 342–353.

Hsu, C. C., and B. A.  Sandford (2007), The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus, Pract. Assess. Res. Eval., 12(1), 10,  https://doi.org/10.7275/pdz9-th90.

Israel, B. A., A. J. Schultz, E. A. Parker, and A. B. Becker (1998), Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health, Annu. Rev. Public Health, 19(1), 173–202, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173.

Israel, B. A., E. Eng, A. J. Schulz, and E. A. Parker (Eds.) (2013), Methods for Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, John Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.

Kemmis, S., and R. McTaggart (2005), Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere, in The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 559–603, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif.

Kretzmann, J. P., and J. McKnight (1993), Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community’s Assets, ACTA Publ., Chicago, Il.

Mathie, A., and G. Cunningham (2003), From clients to citizens: Asset-based community development as a strategy for Community-driven development, Dev. Pract., 13(5), 474–486, https://doi.org/10.1080/0961452032000125857.

McKinley, D. C., et al. (2017), Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection, Biol. Conserv., 208, 15–28, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.015.

Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (Eds.). (2003). Community based participatory research for health. Jossey-Bass/Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.

Minkler, M., and N. Wallerstein (Eds.) (2011), Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes, John Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.

Morgan, D. L. (1996), Focus groups, Annu. Rev. Sociol., 22(1), 129–152, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129.

Newman, G., A. Wiggins, A. Crall, E. Graham, S. Newman, and K. Crowston (2012), The future of citizen science: Emerging technologies and shifting paradigms, Front. Ecol. Environ., 10(6), 298–304, https://doi.org/10.1890/110294.

Reed, M. S., et al. (2009), What is social learning?, Ecol. Soc., 15(4), r1, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03564-1504r01.

Sullivan, B. L., C. L. Wood, M. J. Iliff, R. E. Bonney, D. Fink, and S. Kelling (2009), eBird: A citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences, Biol. Conserv., 142(10), 2282–2292, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.05.006.

Tough, P. (2008), Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada’s Quest to Change Harlem and America, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston, Mass.

Wallerstein, N., and B. Duran (2006), Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities, Health Promot. Pract., 7(3), 312–323, https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839906289376.

Wallerstein, N., B. Duran, J. Oetzel, and M. Minkler (Eds.) (2008), Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: Advancing Social and Health Equity, John Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.

Wang, C., and M. A. Burris (1997), Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment, Health Educ. Behav., 24(3), 369–387, https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819702400309.

Wiggins, A., and K. Crowston (2011), From conservation to crowdsourcing: A typology of citizen science, in 2011 Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1–10, IEEE, Piscataway, N.J., https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2011.207.