Chapters
2 Understanding Community for Researchers
2.1. Learning Outcomes
This chapter focuses on fostering skills, knowledge, and mindset to support engaging communities around scientific research.
Students will be able to
- Articulate their own political, social, and cultural context
- Articulate how the social and political context brought to engaging with a community might influence relationships and connections with a community
- Identify common concepts that can be used to define community
2.2. Introduction
Within a justice-centered framework, researchers have an ethical obligation to ensure their research is not complicit in the creation of harm or injustice, especially in the communities they serve. Community is a concept that is complex and layered, causing its interpretation to be wide and varied. Where do I belong? Who are my people? What are the ingredients that bring people together? In the most basic terms, a community is a group of individuals who share common attributes or beliefs and who interact with each other. Other characteristics of community commonly include a shared sense of identity and connected interests. Community may also be defined by shared boundaries, geographic or virtual; shared experiences; and common history or culture. For instance, a community might be formed through a shared resource, such as a river, lake, or water source, or a common concern. Flint, Michigan, is an example of a community that includes many of these characteristics: geographic boundaries, shared resources, shared interests, and a common concern around its lead-contaminated water and the lack of governmental support regarding this issue.
As we consider science from a justice-centered perspective, we need to think about communities: how communities are impacted by science and the phenomena we are studying and the questions we ask, the methods we use to conduct research, and what we do with the research. Even more, we should consider what roles an impacted community can and should play in research and how to partner with a community ethically and equitably in science. Spending time learning about and understanding community as a construct and how to understand the specifics of a particular community allows us to be intentional, equitable, and authentic in engaging with communities. Being an authentic partner with a community or communities as part of the practice of science allows us to avoid extractive and transactional science and provides an opportunity for engaging in participatory science that has the potential to advance solutions that matter significantly to a community as well as contributing to new discoveries. Community in modern discourse now encompasses virtual and global dimensions. Thanks to the advent of digital information technology, community is no longer confined to geography. With the help of online communities, people who share common interests may join together from all over the world and work together across great distances [Wellman and Gulia, 1999]. In this chapter, we explore how we understand community and how we understand our relationship to communities we might engage with as part of research. This is a key element to advancing justice-centered science.
Although definitions may vary, the following are several key characteristics that commonly define communities:
- Shared identity: Members of a community often identify with a common set of beliefs, values, or interests. Despite differences in ethnicity, nationality, or socioeconomic status, the LGBTQ+ community is bonded in this manner.
- Interaction: Regular interaction among members, whether in person or virtual, sustains community bonds. A neighborhood serves as a good example: Residents in the same geographic area regularly interact to address concerns while also improving their local environment.
- Mutual support: Communities typically provide support systems for their members, offering assistance and resources in times of need. A tutoring program at a university, perhaps between academics and athletes, is an example of a community built on principles of collaboration and mutual growth.
- Boundaries: Even in the broadest sense, communities have some form of boundary, whether physical, legal, social, or psychological, that distinguishes members from nonmembers. A university campus has a physical boundary that helps promote community cohesion, creating a sense of belonging and identity given shared spaces such as lecture halls, dining halls, and on-campus dormitories.
Approaching science from a community perspective helps us to visualize how to effectively address real-world problems in ways that are meaningful to the communities themselves. Scientific explorations often involve social, economic, and political factors, and a community perspective can help enrich scientific thinking throughout the process.
Discussion Questions
- What communities do you belong to?
- How would you describe those communities?
- What characteristics define those communities?
- What issues or topics are important within those communities?
2.3. How Social-Political Context Brought to Community Impacts Engagement
An important perspective for considering how scientists engage with a community is the social and political context that scientists, as individuals, bring to a space because it shapes the way they understand, interpret, and make sense of that space. Some scientists might like to believe that science is neutral and that the scientific method makes science an objective practice by providing a structured process designed to remove all subjectivity from the exploration of a phenomenon. However, as humans, we all bring a personal lens to our work; that lens is framed by unconscious beliefs. Those unconscious beliefs shape how we understand and interpret the world and influence how we interact with the world. Those unconscious beliefs have many sources: our culture, our families, our friends, our upbringing, our education, our beliefs, our religion, our experiences, our preferences, our gender, our sexuality, and our politics. Even when we intend to be objective, what we notice, what we believe, what we value, and what we have experienced in our lives shape how we interpret or make sense of phenomena, the questions we ask, the details we notice, and what we prioritize in scientific exploration. We can minimize the influence of our implicit beliefs through self-reflection, ongoing self-checking, and other intentional actions to challenge those beliefs once they have been identified.
When we have unexamined beliefs, those underlying influences shape the way we approach our world, and we are not even aware of it. Although we cannot fully eliminate our biases, we can check for them, articulate them, and reduce them by intentionally listening to others and seeking out alternative perspectives. This personal exploration not only advances science; it is the foundation from which to build relationships with communities to advance justice-centered science.
Merrick [1989] illustrated a classic example of how preconceived notions can impact research findings using king bees, as documented in “Royal Bees: The Gender Politics of the Beehive in Early Modern Europe.” The study of bees stretches back to Aristotelian science, and these findings show up in medicine, scripture, and law through the 1800s, when the king bee myth was debunked. The finding of “king bees” was based on anthropomorphic and patriarchal beliefs about the natural order applied to bee behaviors and society; beginning with Aristotle, the observation of bees identified a bigger, differently colored bee that performed different activities from the rest of the hive and revealed that the hives could not survive without this bee. Although Aristotle postulated that bees were asexual, he ascribed “ruler” and male qualities to the queen bee. These findings stuck over centuries because the findings aligned with scientists’ beliefs about the natural order and gendered, patriarchal beliefs. In the 17th century, some researchers began to challenge the belief that bees were asexual, and they began to describe the queen bee as female, with king attributes, but it took centuries to challenge this inaccurate understanding of bees.
As researchers, especially as researchers who want to engage in justice-centered science and who want to engage with communities as partners, taking some time to inventory our implicit beliefs is an important practice for developing an open perspective and enhancing our understanding of the phenomena we are studying. In the social sciences, it is common practice to articulate positionality, or the various beliefs, values, and attitudes we bring to our engagement with the world. This type of self-reflective exercise is not a one-time activity and should be renewed each time we approach a topic or a community and perhaps at various stages throughout our research. This type of reflective activity, coupled with a written statement of a personal code of research ethics, benefits natural scientists too. Understanding our positionality will help us have a broader perspective on research topics; it will help us build innovative conclusions and solutions. More importantly, it will help us practice justice-centered science and engage authentically and equitably with communities as partners.
Activity
- Picture a scientist in your mind. What does this person look like? Why did you picture them this way? Compare your mental picture of a scientist with a partner.
- Imagine you are applying to a job at a new lab. What are two practices or conditions you would like to see in a laboratory space to feel welcome there? What are two practices or conditions that would make you feel unwelcome? Compare with a partner.
- You have applied for a job as a researcher in a lab. (You, or your instructor, can choose the details of the lab, type of position, location, topic of research, etc.) As part of your application, you are asked to articulate your beliefs about science. Answer the following questions in your statement:
- How should science be practiced?
- What role does science play in society?
- How should science be used?
- Who should practice science?
- What is your experience with science as either a student, researcher, or community member?
- What are your core beliefs about the value of science?
2.3.1. Considering the Political and Social Structure of a Community
Spending time learning about a community from that community is an essential practice for working with communities. Understanding the dynamics behind the actions, behaviors, and decisions of individual community members or certain subsets of members is important to building a relationship. Key to building that relationship is listening to and learning from community members about their political, cultural, social, and economic contexts. The political context refers to the governance structures, balance of power, policies, and political ideologies that affect a community or society. To articulate this, knowledge of the form of government, key institutions, and roles and interactions is crucial. Who holds the power? Who are the key political actors (e.g., political parties, interest groups, influential individuals)? How is the power distributed and enforced? Is there a history of high-profile struggles for power among rulers or groups?
Social context is used to refer to the social structures, relationships, and norms that identify a community. Articulating social structure includes describing significant social institutions (such as family, education, religion, and the labor market), as well as considering how they all interact, are interconnected, and are influential. Demographics includes a summary of who the population consists of (e.g., ages, genders, ethnic backgrounds) and where each group stands in terms of socioeconomic status. Demographic information could display disparities within a community. It is also important to explore what social norms and values are prevalent in a given community and guide people’s behaviors and interactions. These social norms and values could involve issues related to the attitude of people toward gender roles, opportunities for social mobility, and participation in community activities. Finally, describing some of the most prominent social issues and social movements (e.g., inequality, discrimination) calling for change in a community is useful because this knowledge facilitates focusing on challenges and opportunities in the community that are presented by these problems [Tilly, 2004].
Cultural context entails the beliefs, practices, and other symbolic aspects that give meaning to a way of life. A community’s cultural context can include their language, traditions, and heritage. Articulating this cultural contact paints a picture of how members all identify with that sense of belonging. Additionally, identifying the main cultural beliefs, rituals, and related community actions, such as religious beliefs, festivals, and daily customs, and looking at the symbols and artifacts that maintain cultural importance, such as national flags, monuments, and traditional dress, can reveal culturally deep signifiers. Finally, it is also important to identify and discuss how a culture is changing in response to internal and external factors (e.g., the spread of modernity and globalization) as a result of technological progress or interaction with different cultures [Appadurai, 1996].
Political, social, and cultural contexts should not be treated in isolation of each other. Social structures can also be the result of political decisions, and political ideologies often stem from cultural beliefs. By incorporating all these elements of context, we might just get a better idea of a particular community and its society.
As we consider our own beliefs about the communities we might engage with, we also need to recognize that each person brings with them into their community political opinions and worldviews, including beliefs or nonbeliefs in parties, governance issues, and civic duties. Politics also include the social dynamics of a context in which there are power differentials and the ways that plays out, including the politics of research labs and community leadership organizations and even the politics of getting marginalized communities to work with researchers. This political context affects how each member views community issues and the approach to solving such problems. Individuals with different political priorities may emphasize varying community needs and support conflicting solutions, shaping the direction and substance of projects [Dalton, 2008].
The common factor in effective community engagement practice is acknowledging and understanding the social and political community environment, both the researcher’s and that of the community. Spending time on this kind of reflection and analysis prepares the way for building authentic, genuine, equitable relationships with communities. Some community engagement strategies that help encourage inclusive and meaningful engagement include the following:
- Giving community members resources
- Removing obstacles to getting involved
- Making safe spaces that embrace all voices
- Treating communities as valued partners
Fostering dialogue that is open and respectful among community members who have varying political beliefs can generate understanding and cooperation. Town hall meetings and other public venues where one side of the story can reach a larger audience are examples of methods that can achieve this goal. Besides the community members, it is important to also acknowledge the role of authorities who (ideally) promote the well-being of the community and ensure effective functioning and support for their more vulnerable populations. If trust between the community, its authorities, and potential researchers is undermined, then overall engagement will be weaker. If researchers want to avoid harm, they must understand complex power dynamics and cultural contexts. Not only can failing to recognize cultural norms result in failure to succeed at the research, but it can also create risky and harmful situations for participants and members of the community. If a researcher interviews participants about behaviors that are stigmatized or even illegal within a particular society, then they need to understand those concerns and risks to determine appropriate ways to build trust and protect participants.
2.4. How Does a Researcher Engage with Communities Around Scientific Research?
There are a range of approaches to engaging communities in research in an equitable and respectful way. That spectrum can be understood through several key variables: who initiated the research, who is leading the research, and how involved each party is in the overall decision-making and enactment of the research plan. Codesigned research projects, also referred to as participatory or collaborative research, are characterized by researchers working hand in hand with community partners from the outset—from formulating the research question and methods to interpreting the results. Codesign practices ensure that the research is addressing an issue that matters to the communities involved and that if there are benefits from the research, they are being shared fairly. Designing research with communities inevitably involves a process of trust building, collaboration development, and dialogue moderation between all the participants from the outset and along the way.
The foundation of any successful codesigned research project includes building a strong, trusting relationship between researchers and community members. Building this type of relationship takes time, self-reflection, good listening and communication skills, and authentic engagement. Taking time to observe and learn about the community from the community and articulating your own beliefs about that community through a positionality exploration are essential to building a healthy, trusting reciprocal relationship. Learning from the community leaders, through focus groups and informal discussion, allows researchers to learn from the community. As research is codesigned with the community, the research questions, goals, and plan should reflect the needs and interests of the community, and the research plan, process, and outcomes should be shared transparently. Transparency on any boundaries or restrictions that arise is essential to keeping community members fully informed [Cargo and Mercer, 2008].
Identifying the goals and objectives of the research collaboratively ensures alignment with a community’s priorities. Conducting a needs assessment to learn what the community’s most pressing issues are can include polls and other participatory mapping activities [Wallerstein and Duran, 2010]. Developing a shared idea of what success will look like for the project that reflects both the community’s identity and the specific needs and responsibilities of researchers is also key.
Interacting with a specific community, listening actively to the community’s interests and priorities, and building authentic relationships with the community are essential to developing culturally sensitive, equitable research methods. Culturally sensitive, equitable research practices may include changing the traditional designs of scientific methods in a way that adapts better to the realities, needs, culture, knowledge, practices, and environment of the community [Israel et al., 1998]. Members of a community can play an important role in codeveloping research goals and plans. Scientists, in return, should listen to and incorporate community members’ voices regarding values, concerns, priorities, and potential impacts related to a collaboration. Clarifying and agreeing on roles for researchers and community members in the collaboration ensure that everyone knows what they are supposed to do and how effectively they can do it. Training to collect and analyze data enables community members to play an active part in the research and helps develop local capacity [Wallerstein and Duran, 2010]. Finally, analyzing and interpreting data should not be solely a researcher’s task and can also involve community members to ensure that findings are grounded in the community’s context and experiences [Minkler and Wallerstein, 2008].
At the conclusion of the research, it is important to present the findings to the community in an easily understandable fashion, such as through a community meeting, workshop, and/or visual presentation [Israel et al., 1998]. Research results may even go a step further in helping to guide and develop recommendations for policy and practice from a community-based perspective based on the findings. Continuing the work to maintain relationships and collaborations developed during the research project can provide long-term benefits. Such benefits include new projects that emerge from the current one and some sustaining form of interaction [Wallerstein and Duran, 2010]. Reflecting regularly on research processes and outcomes with communities allows researchers to learn from those communities and their experience with the research allows the researcher to enhance any future collaborative research exercises [Minkler and Wallerstein, 2008].
2.5. Conclusions
Researchers have moral and ethical responsibilities to make sure that their work does not cause harm or perpetuate injustices, particularly within the communities in which they serve. Thus, understanding what makes up a community is crucial. Engaging with communities from a justice-centered perspective requires researchers to consider how their questions, methods, and findings potentially impact those communities. It also requires involving the communities meaningfully, throughout the research process. True codesign includes building trust and acknowledging any social and political contexts that impact the community, the researcher, and the collaboration between the community and the researcher. By actively partnering with communities and tending to their concerns throughout the research process, extractive and/or exploitative practices can be avoided, and trust and understanding can be built up instead. By understanding their own biases and having a statement and awareness of positionality, researchers can more authentically and effectively engage with communities, fostering mutual trust and collaboration. This approach also ensures that research benefits are equitably distributed, ultimately contributing to more just and effective solutions to real-world problems.
Activity
Consider a community of which you identify as a member. Describe that community and what an outsider would need to know about the community if they wanted to partner with the community. Consider the following questions:
- How would you describe this community?
- Who belongs to this community?
- How do people become members of this community?
- Are there any important norms, shared beliefs, customs, or other commonalities?
References
Anderson, B. (1983), Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Verso, London.
Anderson, B., and M. J. Milligan (2006), Social capital and community building, in Community Development: Creating Community Alternatives—Vision, Analysis, and Practice, edited by B. D. Adam and S. Duyvendak, pp. 49–66, Routledge, London.
Appadurai, A. (1996), Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, University of Minn. Press, Minneapolis.
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.
Dalton, R. J. (2008), Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation, Political Stud., 56(1), 76–98, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00718.x.
Heywood, A. (2017), Political Ideologies: An Introduction, 6th ed., Palgrave Macmillan, London, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-60604-4.
Israel, B. A., A. J. Schulz, 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.
Merrick, J. (1989), Royal bees: The gender politics of the beehive in early modern Europe, Stud. Eighteenth Century Cult., 18(1), 7–37, https://doi.org/10.1353/sec.1989.0003.
Minkler, M., and N. Wallerstein (Eds.) (2008), Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif.
Putnam, R. D. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Touchstone, New York, https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.361990.
Skocpol, T., and M. P. Fiorina (Eds.) (1999), Civic Engagement in American Democracy, Brookings Inst. Press, Washington, D.C.
Tilly, C. (2004), Social Movements, 1768–2004, Paradigm, Boulder, Colo.
Tönnies, F. (1887), Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, Fues’s Verlag, Leipzig, https://www.deutschestextarchiv.de/book/show/toennies_gemeinschaft_1887.
Verba, S., K. L. Schlozman, and H. E. Brady (1995), Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass., https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1pnc1k7.
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.
Wellman, B., and M. Gulia (1999), Virtual communities as communities: Net surfers don’t ride alone, in Communities in Cyberspace, edited by M. A. Smith and P. Kollock, pp. 167–194, Routledge, London.