Chapters
4 Practices and Strategies for Ethically Engaging with Communities for Science
Learning Outcomes
This chapter focuses on developing strategies for engaging with communities for science.
Students will be able to
- Identify ethical and equitable practices for partnering with communities
- Identify common constraints and concerns in working with communities
- Select strategies to navigate common constraints and concerns in working with communities
- Create a road map for engaging with a community
4.2. Introduction
Adopting good community engagement practices not only benefits scientists and the communities who engage with science but also enhances the quality, reach, and impact of scientific research. This chapter provides key principles and strategies surrounding community engagement by employing ethical guidelines while considering mutual respect, inclusivity, and transparency. Respecting the self-sovereignty of a community includes the recognition and support of their voices in determining whether the community agrees to take part in the research and, if so, then deciding what will be done with the findings from that research [MacQueen et al., 2015]. It is important that researchers are clear about the reasons for the research, the methods they will use, the potential implications, and the anticipated results. Transparency is one of the keys leading to trust, so that community members know what they are involved with, and everyone can feel empowered to take ownership of their contribution [Lavery et al., 2010]. Building on the cultural contexts and values of the community is crucial. Researchers must be culturally competent through mindful considerations of the various cultural differences at play [Fisher and Ragsdale, 2006].
4.3. Ethical, Equitable Practices for Partnering with Communities
Crucially, researchers must establish effective partnerships with communities to ensure that research is conducted ethically. These partnerships should consider a community’s values, needs, and knowledge. Involving community members in every stage of the research process enhances the relevance and potential impact of the research because community members often have valuable knowledge and understanding of local realities [Israel et al., 2013]. Trust and mutual benefit should be fostered. But trust must first be earned. It is not given automatically just because someone has a Ph.D. or works for an important organization. In fact, those accolades might be barriers to trust in some contexts. Researchers should start with active listening and making connections. Applying those conversations to show that they are developing initiatives with mutual benefits and that community concerns and boundaries are being respected is one step toward building a long-term relationship, which can eventually lead to trust. But trust also goes both ways. If researchers do not show respect and trust to communities, then they will not earn the same.
Ensuring equitable participation means involving members of the community as equal partners throughout the research process, from the planning stages through actual implementation and then all stages of dissemination and evaluation. This method of researching is one way to address the power imbalance and ensures effective collaboration [Wallerstein and Duran, 2010]. Transparency and accountability are important, as trust can be built only through open communication. Researchers need to be open about their intentions, how they will conduct the research, who is funding the research, and any potential consequences of the research that could disrupt or harm communities. Transparency, which many participants identify as important, can serve to foster trust because regular updates and open conversations about progress and challenges establish an honest dialogue [Lavery et al., 2010].
Through equitable participation, an ethical partnership can be built. This fair and equitable partnership involves mutual benefit; researchers are not meant to use the community only for their research purposes. This principle helps to ensure that the community benefits directly from its participation, through gaining new knowledge, new skills, or new resources, and that researchers receive relevant new insights and collect new data at the same time [Cargo and Mercer, 2008]. Thus, there is also a shared commitment to achieving common goals. Community-based participatory research, as mentioned in Chapter 1, is a partnership approach in research that equitably involves community members, researchers, and others in all aspects of the research process and in which all partners contribute expertise and share decision-making and ownership. It emphasizes colearning, mutual benefit, and shared decision-making so that the research is relevant to the concerns of the community [Wallerstein and Duran, 2010].
Providing training and resources for community members potentially empowers them to better engage in the research process. It also empowers them to develop their own research projects, collect their own data, and advocate for their own issues without requiring scientists or researchers to arrange it. Learning how to test their soil for heavy metal contamination, for example, empowers communities to be able to continue testing after the project ends and to continue to ensure that existing and new agricultural plots are safe for growing food. Capacity building can include workshops, educational programs, and opportunities for skill development. Any of these activities should foster a sense of ownership and sustainability of the partnership [Horowitz et al., 2009]. With any vulnerable community, what matters is recognizing and honoring the cultural values, norms, and practices of the community. For research conducted within the community, researchers need to understand and work in partnership with the culture, learn about the community context, and adapt their approaches to be culturally important [Fisher and Ragsdale, 2006]. Continuous feedback loops between researchers and community members are the only way to keep the research aligned with community needs, as well as respectful of its norms and values. Conducting periodic feedback sessions can change and improve projects as a natural part of community input and a dynamic partnership [Peterson et al., 2012].
For example, one ethical and equitable partnership included residents collaborating with researchers on air and water quality in their neighborhoods. The result was a team of residents and scientists codeveloping strategies to reduce pollution and seek policy changes. This partnership brought about actual changes in environmental conditions in their places of residence [Corburn, 2005]. In Australia, community-based participatory research is used in collaborative projects with Indigenous Peoples to conduct research on aspects of culture with the aim of recording and revitalizing traditional culture and knowledge. Engagement of community elders and youth in the research process has served to maintain cultural heritage and foster intergenerational learning and community cohesion [Castleden et al., 2012].
Researchers can encourage strong, ethical, and equitable research partnerships by adhering to the principles of respect, equity, transparency, and mutual benefit, as well as through approaches that include community-based participatory research, capacity building, cultural competence, and iterative feedback. These methods not only produce better research but also contribute to social justice and community well-being.
4.4. Common Constraints and Concerns in Working with Communities
Although community involvement in research provides more than just a promise of eventual payback, there are constraints and sometimes well-founded concerns that must be cautiously attended to. These challenges need to be recognized so that researchers and communities can overcome them and create the environment necessary for fostering successful and ethical partnerships. Further, researchers need to be honest partners, including choosing not to pursue research when equitable, authentic partnerships cannot be established or when community interests and priorities are irreconcilably at odds with the research priorities, needs, and expectations. Among the main barriers to community engagement are limited resources: Many communities experience constraints, both financial and logistical, as well as in terms of human resources, in their capacity to participate in research [Israel et al., 2013]. Community involvement often depends on researchers finding new ways to provide a framework of the support and resources available to assist the community. Research and community engagement take a lot of time from researchers and from the community.
A particularly challenging aspect of timing includes balancing research timelines with the availability of the community, especially when the community cannot realistically prioritize other commitments and duties over participating in the study [Horowitz et al., 2009]. Language and cultural differences among the researchers and the groups they wish to study can serve as limitations on effective communication and comprehension. Often, these barriers can be overcome only through cultural competence, requiring translators or cultural mediators to achieve it [Fisher and Ragsdale, 2006]. Additionally, some communities are hard to reach, with remoteness and geographic dispersion making research logistics complex. The amount of travel time and physical effort to get to those kinds of communities can be quite limiting [MacQueen et al., 2015].
Research ethics include securing informed consent, ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of respondents, and preventing any form of exploitation or harm [Lavery et al., 2010]. The research needs to comply with ethical guidelines, and ethical review boards need to be involved. Power differentials between researchers and community members can make trust and participation problematic. Thus, researchers need to be aware of and reduce power imbalances to enhance community-engaged and community-respectful work [Wallerstein and Duran, 2010]. Another concern is the sustainability of engagement. Short-term projects have the potential to make people feel as if they have been left or abandoned once the research is completed. For trust to be sustained, as well as for impact to occur and be sustained, long-term engagement and support are essential [Cargo and Mercer, 2008]. Finally, research team members and community partners may approach the research project with different goals and expectations. This misalignment can result in conflicts and lower participation. Thus, providing clear, mutually understood objectives from the beginning is essential [Peterson et al., 2012].
4.5. Strategies to Navigate Common Constraints and Concerns in Working with Communities
Securing funding and providing community members with needed training and resources are potential ways to address resource constraints. Removing constraints enables community members to get more involved and have a say in the research process [Horowitz et al., 2009]. These funds could also be used to invest in cultural competence training for researchers and cultural mediators to help with overcoming cultural and linguistic hurdles. Different cultures require different approaches for good communication and cooperation [Fisher and Ragsdale, 2006]. Thus, studies need to meet standards for ethics, including proper informed consent and confidentiality. Researchers can build a deeper connection with communities through long-term collaboration, provision of follow-up support, and continuing to ensure that the benefits of the research remain for the community [Cargo and Mercer, 2008].
Geographical constraints and resource limitations are typical in remote and rural research locations. As an example, new knowledge about health services in urban and rural settings can potentially be applicable and transferable to policy. But that requires understanding that an urban-rural health disparity even exists and then using effective means to address this disparity. This can be accomplished through mobile health clinics and telehealth or by utilizing these vehicles to broaden access to important health research in remote communities [Castleden et al., 2012].
4.6. Creating a Road Map for Engaging with a Community
The initial step in crafting a road map is to specify achievable aims. The project’s objectives should align with the community’s requirements from the onset. For instance, in a public health initiative, aims might involve increasing knowledge about health issues, boosting participation in health programs, and bettering health outcomes [Rowe and Frewer, 2005]. Building a relationship with the community first is imperative. That relationship building includes identifying stakeholders. Identifying initial key stakeholders can help a researcher incorporate community participants, local organizations, government agencies, and other pertinent parties, and this type of relationship building is essential to establishing reciprocity with a community. Although researchers may have input (and initially need to choose someone to contact), the community should largely identify their own stakeholders. Collaboratively mapping out these stakeholders facilitates recognizing the community’s interests, impact, and possible contributions to the project, and engaging a diverse variety of stakeholders confirms that numerous viewpoints are taken into account [Reed et al., 2009].
A detailed assessment of the community’s demographics, needs, assets, and challenges is fundamental. Practicing active, intentional listening is foundational to conducting an equitable, effective assessment. This type of assessment can be achieved through questionnaires, focus groups, and public meetings. The assessment should also consider historical and cultural contexts to ensure that involvement strategies are culturally sensitive and suitable [Minkler and Wallerstein, 2011]. Depending on the community appraisal, researchers should develop tailored involvement strategies. These strategies may involve utilizing newsletters, social websites, and community meetings to share information; seeking input through surveys, focus groups, and public forums; and working directly with community members in decision-making processes and project execution [Arnstein, 1969].
Building trust is key to successful community involvement. It involves plainly communicating intentions, processes, and potential effects; regularly engaging with the community and following through on commitments; and valuing community knowledge and treating all members with respect [Bovaird and Loeffler, 2012]. Implementing involvement activities as planned is crucial for maintaining momentum and interest. Monitoring these activities helps in assessing their effectiveness and making necessary adjustments. Regular feedback from the community is invaluable for this process [Rowe and Frewer, 2005].
After the project activities are completed, researchers should work with the community to conduct a thorough evaluation, which includes measuring the impact of involvement on the project’s goals and community well-being. They should evaluate what worked well and what could be improved. The latter can be achieved by keeping detailed records of the involvement process and outcomes to inform future efforts [Reed et al., 2009]. Sustaining involvement beyond the initial project is important for long-term success. This step can be fulfilled by keeping the community informed about ongoing and future initiatives. Finally, researchers should empower community members with skills and resources to continue involvement independently and work on developing lasting relationships with local organizations and stakeholders.
4.7. Conclusions
Involving communities in scientific research is crucial because it can improve the quality and impact of the work while also benefiting both researchers and the communities involved. This chapter outlined key principles for ethical engagement, emphasizing inclusivity, mutual respect, and transparency. While working in the community, researchers should respect community members’ sovereignty and ensure their voices guide the research process and its outcomes. Building trust through open communication, cultural competence, and equitable participation is of utmost importance. Ethical partnerships require collaboration at all stages, from planning the research to dissemination of results, ensuring mutual benefits. Challenges include cultural differences, power imbalances, and resource constraints. These must be addressed through strategies like providing training, fostering long-term relationships, and securing further funding. A well-thought-out road map for community engagement involves setting clear mutual goals, identifying stakeholders, assessing community needs, and maintaining ongoing involvement to sustain trust and ensure the success of the research.
References
Arnstein, S. R. (1969), A ladder of citizen participation, J. Am. Inst. Planners, 35(4), 216–224, https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.
Bovaird, T., and E. Loeffler (2012), From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value, Voluntas Int. J. Voluntary Nonprofit Organ., 23(4), 1119–1138, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6.
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.
Castleden, H., V. S. Morgan, and C. Lamb (2012), “I spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples, Can. Geogr., 56(2), 160–179, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00432.x.
Corburn, J. (2005), Street Science: Community Knowledge and Environmental Health Justice, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6494.001.0001.
Fisher, C. B., and K. Ragsdale (2006), A goodness-of-fit ethic for informed consent to research involving vulnerable populations, IRB Ethics Human Res., 28(3), 1–6.
Horowitz, C. R., M. Robinson, and S. Seifer (2009), Community-based participatory research from the margin to the mainstream: Are researchers prepared? Circulation, 119(19), 2633–2642, https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.729863.
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.
Lavery, J. V., P. O. Tinadana, T. W. Scott, L. C. Harrington, J. M. Ramsey, C. Ytuarte-Nuñez, and A. A. James (2010), Towards a framework for community engagement in global health research, Trends Parasitol., 26(6), 279–283, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2010.02.009.
MacQueen, K. M., A. Bhan, J. Frohlich, J. Holzer, and J. Sugarman (2015), Evaluating community engagement in global health research: The need for metrics, BMC Med. Ethics, 16(1), 44, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0033-9.
Minkler, M., and N. Wallerstein (Eds.) (2011), Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes, John Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.
Peterson, J. C., K. G. Powell, P. C. Treitler, M. Q. Wang, J. Dimmitt Champion, and A. Bhattacharya (2012), Involving communities in community violence research: The value and challenges of participatory research, Int. J. Child Youth Fam. Stud., 3(3/4), 385–402.
Reed, M. S., et al. (2009), What is social learning?, Ecol. Soc., 15(4), r1, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03564-1504r01.
Rowe, G., and L. J. Frewer (2005), A typology of public engagement mechanisms, Sci. Technol. Human Values, 30(2), 251–290, https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724.
Wallerstein, N., and B. Duran (2010), Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: The intersection of science and practice to improve health equity, Am. J. Public Health, 100(S1), S40–S46, https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.184036.