how can research help the community

How Does Research Help the Community

Table of Contents

Research help the community by providing valuable insights that can inform evidence-based policies and interventions, fostering sustainable development and positive change. Research is a powerful tool that not only expands the horizons of human knowledge but also plays a pivotal role in shaping and transforming communities. In this article, we will explore the profound impact of research on communities and delve into the ways it contributes to the betterment of society. From understanding the community’s needs to addressing social and environmental challenges, research stands as a cornerstone for progress.

Understanding the Community

To understand the importance of research in community development, one must first grasp the complexities and dynamics of the community itself. A community isn’t just a place on a map; it’s like a woven fabric made up of different parts, like cultures, economies, and how people interact. Research in community psychology allows us to delve deep into these threads, unraveling the unique challenges, strengths, and aspirations that define a particular community.

By employing methods like surveys, interviews, and observational studies, researchers can gather valuable insights into the collective mindset of a community. This understanding forms the basis for tailoring interventions and initiatives that are not only effective but resonate with the community’s values.

Research helps the community in the following ways:

i. Enhancing Healthcare and Well-being

Research contributes significantly to the enhancement of healthcare and well-being within a community. By identifying prevalent health issues, assessing healthcare accessibility, and developing targeted interventions, research plays a pivotal role in improving the overall health of community members. For instance, a community facing a high prevalence of a particular disease can utilize research findings to implement preventive measures and ensure timely medical interventions.

ii. Advancing Education and Learning

Research in education is instrumental in advancing learning outcomes within a community. By conducting studies on educational methodologies, literacy rates, and learning environments, researchers can provide valuable insights that inform educational policies and practices. This, in turn, enhances the quality of education and equips community members with the necessary skills for personal and collective development.

iii. Promoting Economic Growth and Development

Economic growth and development are intricately linked to research within a community. Through studies on economic trends, employment patterns, and market dynamics, researchers can offer valuable information that guides economic policies and initiatives. For instance, a community aiming for sustainable economic development can use research findings to identify key sectors for investment, develop entrepreneurship programs, and attract businesses that align with the community’s goals.

iv. Addressing Social and Environmental Challenges

Communities often face numerous of social and environmental challenges, ranging from social inequality to climate change. Research serves as a powerful tool for understanding the complexities of these challenges and devising effective strategies for mitigation and adaptation.

For instance, in the face of social issues such as discrimination or inequality, research can uncover the underlying causes and propose evidence-based solutions. This might involve implementing community programs, raising awareness, or advocating for policy changes that address systemic issues. Similarly, in the realm of environmental challenges, research helps communities understand their ecological footprint, identify sources of pollution, and develop sustainable practices to preserve natural resources.

How Research Will Benefit the Community?

The benefits of research to a community are multi-dimensional. Firstly, it acts as a guiding light for policymakers and community leaders. Armed with evidence-based insights, decision-makers can formulate policies that are not only relevant but also responsive to the genuine needs of the community. This not only ensures the efficient allocation of resources but also fosters a sense of trust and collaboration between the community and its leaders. Additionally, research improves the quality of life for residents by identifying and addressing key factors that impact well-being, thus contributing to the overall health and prosperity of the community. Furthermore, research help the community by empowering residents with knowledge, enabling them to actively participate in decision-making processes and contribute to the overall well-being and development of their community.

Moreover, research acts as a catalyst for innovation and progress. It provides a platform for identifying emerging trends, understanding shifting demographics, and predicting future challenges. For instance, a community facing an aging population can utilize research findings to develop targeted healthcare programs, ensuring the well-being of its residents.

How Do Research Studies Help the Society?

Research studies are the foundation of societal progress, offering a systematic approach to understanding complex issues. They serve as a bridge between theoretical knowledge and practical solutions, transforming ideas into actionable strategies. In the context of communities, research studies offer a lens through which we can analyze and interpret the challenges and opportunities that shape their trajectory.

One of the key ways research studies contribute to society is by fostering a culture of continuous learning. By examining the outcomes of different interventions and policies, communities can adapt and refine their approaches, fostering an environment of resilience and adaptability.

What Is the Impact of Research in the Community?

The impact of research in a community is far-reaching, touching various aspects of daily life. One notable impact is the enhancement of healthcare and well-being. Research enables the identification of prevalent health issues, the assessment of healthcare accessibility, and the development of targeted interventions.

In addition to healthcare, research contributes significantly to the advancement of education and learning within a community. Studies on educational methodologies, literacy rates, and learning outcomes empower educators and policymakers to implement evidence-based strategies that improve the overall quality of education.

How Can Research Help the Community in Solving Such Problems?

Research not only identifies problems but also offers practical solutions. By adopting a problem-solving approach, communities can leverage research findings to devise effective strategies for overcoming challenges. For instance, in a community grappling with unemployment, research can pinpoint the root causes and inform the creation of job training programs, stimulating economic growth.

Furthermore, research facilitates collaboration between communities and external entities such as governmental organizations, NGOs, and academic institutions. This collaborative approach ensures a holistic understanding of problems and encourages the pooling of resources and expertise for comprehensive solutions.

How to Do Research in the Community?

Conducting research in a community requires a thoughtful and ethical approach. Researchers must engage with the community members, respecting their perspectives and involving them in the research process. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is an approach that emphasizes collaboration between researchers and community members, ensuring that the research is not only scientifically rigorous but also culturally sensitive.

Additionally, employing diverse research methods such as qualitative and quantitative approaches provides a comprehensive understanding of the community. Surveys, focus group discussions, and participatory observations are some of the tools that researchers can use to gather rich and varied data.

5 Purposes of Research

1. understanding:.

Involves gaining deep insights into the dynamics of the community.

2. Exploration:

Encompasses delving into unexplored realms of knowledge to uncover new perspectives and possibilities.

3. Description:

Focuses on accurately portraying the community, providing a detailed and realistic snapshot of its characteristics.

4. Explanation:

Seeks to comprehend the underlying causes and relationships within the community, unraveling the complexities that shape its dynamics.

5. Application:

Involves utilizing research findings as a practical tool for positive change within the community.

Importance of Research in Community

Here are the following 5 importance of research in the community:

1. Guiding Force:

Research serves as a guiding force, aiding communities in navigating the complexities of social, economic, and environmental challenges.

2. Informed Decision-Making:

The importance of research lies in its role as a catalyst for informed decision-making within communities, ensuring that choices are grounded in evidence and data.

3. Adaptability:

Research empowers communities to adapt to changing circumstances, providing the knowledge necessary to navigate evolving landscapes effectively.

4. Envisioning the Future:

It enables communities to envision a future that aligns with their collective aspirations, shaping a trajectory for purposeful and sustainable development.

5. Foundation for Growth:

Research establishes a robust foundation for community growth by offering insights that contribute to comprehensive and responsive development strategies.

In conclusion, the role of research in community development is indispensable. From understanding the intricate dynamics of a community to addressing social, economic, and environmental challenges, research serves as a guiding force for positive change. The benefits of research to a community are vast, spanning healthcare, education, economic development, and the overall well-being of community members.

In essence, research help the community in solving its problems by providing evidence-based strategies, fostering collaboration, and offering a systematic approach to understanding complex issues. It serves as a guiding force, supporting informed decision-making, adaptability, and envisioning a future aligned with collective aspirations.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Understanding Health Disparities
• What is Research?
• Importance of Diversity
• Final Thoughts
• Do You Know?
• Learning from the Past
• Protections Today
• Should I Participate?
• What is Informed Consent?
• Knowledge is Power
• What Can Research Do In Your Community?
• Getting Involved
• Being An Informed Consumer
• Being A Participant

What Can Research Do In Your Community?

Research takes place in many different settings.

Some research is done in clinical settings like a hospital or doctor’s office. Some may take place on a university campus. Other research happens in community settings where community members themselves may play a variety of roles in the research. This unit will present ideas about how you can get involved in research and work with researchers to improve the health and well-being of your community.

"It's going to take a community to really deal with these kinds of issues." - Dr. John Ruffin, Founding Director of the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD)

Below are examples of how communities and researchers have been able to work together in the United States.

u3-slide1.jpg

u3-slide2.jpg

u3-slide3.jpg

u3-slide4.jpg

u3-slide5.jpg

King County Healthy Homes, Seattle, WA

The King County Healthy Homes project was an intervention research project to help prevent asthma and encourage healthy indoor environments in Seattle.

The indoor home environment presents a range of health risks, including asthma triggers and exposures to toxics such as lead, pesticides, and volatile organics. Minority and low income populations are at increased risk for many of these exposures and children are most sensitive to their effects. Asthma is an important health consequence of these exposures, and its incidence and mortality appear to be steadily increasing, especially among low-income children.

The Seattle-King County Healthy Homes Project addressed these concerns. Paraprofessional Community Home Environmental Specialists (CHES) provided a comprehensive package of educational materials to reduce the total exposure burden of indoor environmental health risks. CHES conducted an initial home environmental assessment in low-income households with asthmatic children age 4-12. The home environmental specialists offered education and social support, encouraged behavior changes, provided materials to reduce exposures (bedding covers, vacuums, door mats, cleaning kits). This initial assessment was followed by five to nine visits over the next 12 months in which CHES worked with tenants, offering continued education and social support.

Community participation was an important component of this project. The project was developed by a partnership of community agencies, a tenant’s union, an environmental justice organization, the local health department, the CDC-sponsored Seattle Partners for Healthy Communities and the University of Washington. Primary funding was provided by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences with additional support from the Nesholm Foundation, the Seattle Foundation, and the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. The project ran from 1997-2005 and found that the homes receiving the educational materials and supports had lower rates of development and severity of asthma in their children and higher awareness of how to prevent asthma.

Source  http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/partnerships/sphc/projects.aspx

• King County Homes Project
• Healthy Mothers on the Move
• Vietnamese-American Cervical Cancer Screening
• Weact Northern Manhattan Food Survey

Questions to think about and discuss when reviewing the four examples.

• Who did the study aim to help?
• What problem was the study trying to address?
• When did the study take place?
• How did researchers and community groups work together?
• How did the study make a difference in the community?

Healthy Mothers on the Move, Detroit, MI

The Healthy Mothers on the Move project aimed to demonstrate the effectiveness of a social support healthy lifestyle intervention designed to reduce risk factors for Type 2 diabetes among pregnant and postpartum women. The project worked with Latina and African American pregnant and post-partum women in Detroit. Two intervention programs were offered. One intervention was a Healthy Lifestyle Program with education and support for a healthy diet and exercise. A second intervention was a Pregnancy Control Program that taught stress management and provided general care support but did not include information or support for diet and exercise. Women’s Health Advocates from the community interacted with the study participants. 

Among Latinas, there was almost 90% retention through pregnancy and more than 80% retention through six weeks postpartum. There was also high participant, Women’s Health Advocate, and host site satisfaction. Vegetable consumption in the Healthy Lifestyle group increased significantly. Other analyses are still ongoing.

Preliminary results suggest significant decrease in diabetes risk factors for the healthy lifestyle group. The Community Women’s Health Advocates were instrumental in conducting home visits and working with the women.

Source  http://www.detroiturc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15&Itemid=28

Cervical cancer screening, santa clara, ca.

Vietnamese-American women are five times more likely to develop cervical cancer than other American women. In Santa Clara, CA a REACH 2010 project aimed to increase Pap smear screening for early detection and prevention.  The researchers ran a media campaign on the importance of screening in the community. The University of California also worked with the Vietnamese REACH Health Coalition and lay health workers to encourage Vietnamese Americans to get screened for cervical cancer. The study concluded that the women who spoke with the community health workers were more likely to get screened than the women who were exposed to the media campaign alone.

An evaluation of coalition programs showed that 47.7% of participants who had never had a Pap test received one after meeting with a lay health worker. The evaluation also showed that 17.9% of participants received a mammogram and 27.9% received a clinical breast exam after meeting with a lay health worker, compared with 3.9% and 5.1%, respectively, of women who did not meet with a lay health worker. In addition, 52.1% of participants had a repeat Pap test within 18 months, and 4,187 women enrolled in a reminder system. The study took place from 2004-2007 and involved 105,000 Vietnamese-American women.

Source  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1494888/

Weact food justice initiative, new york, ny.

The goals of the Food Justice Initiative are to understand the challenges and opportunities that children, parents, school officials and residents face regarding healthy food choices in school and at home through research. The WEACT Food Justice Initiative works with community residents in Northern Manhattan grassroots groups and other New York organizations to help influence and develop programs, laws and policies that affect access to healthy food in Northern Manhattan. WEACT has conducted surveys with community residents and schools. They are currently investigating the supply chain of public school lunches to better understand the ingredients and nutritional makeup of the food purchased by the New York City Public School system. One key portion of the Food Justice Initiative is educating policy makers on food justice issues and providing recommendations for improved policies at the City, State and Federal levels.

In addition, WEACT works at the community level to involve parents, students, teachers, the school board, school administrators, and the public in development of the local wellness policies at several Northern Manhattan schools. Since nearly all Northern Manhattan public school students are low-income, this is a critical window of opportunity to empower the community work together to influence policy for greater equality.  WEACT educates and mobilizes the public school community to advocate for healthier policies at the NYC Board of Education, City Council, NYS Legislature and NYS Departments of Education and Health.

WEACT for Environmental Justice is a Northern Manhattan community-based organization whose mission is to build healthy communities by assuring that people of color and/or low-income participate meaningfully in the creation of sound and fair environmental health and protection policies and practices.

Source  http://www.weact.org/Programs/EnvironmentalHealthCBPR/NorthernManhattanFoodJusticeInitiative/tabid/206/Default.aspx

Additional resources, cdc healthy homes, community engaged scholarship 4 health, community-campus partnerships for health, developing and sustaining community-based participatory research partnerships: a skill building curriculum, healthy homes ii asthma project, king county healthy homes project, seattle, wa, reach cdc success stories, reach: the power to reduce health disparities, the community toolbox (university of kansas), important question.

What could research do in your community?

Please take some time to think about and discuss this question with your group or others.

to review Unit 2: Informed Decision-Making

Go to next page

to learn about how To Get Involved

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 28 November 2022

Community-engaged research is stronger and more impactful

• Gabrielle Wong-Parodi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5207-7489 1  

Nature Human Behaviour volume  6 ,  pages 1601–1602 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

838 Accesses

4 Citations

9 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Research management

Based on her own experience, Gabrielle Wong-Parodi describes how a community-engaged approach has the potential to strengthen research and increase its impact.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Clinical and Translational Science Awards Consortium Community Engagement Key Function Committee Task Force on the Principles of Community Engagement. Principles of Community Engagement (NIH publication no. 11-7782) (Department of Health and Human Services USA, 2011).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The OCOB project was developed under assistance agreement no. 84024001 awarded by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to G.W.-P. (Stanford University) and S.-H. Cho (RTI International). This World View has not been formally reviewed by the EPA. The views expressed in this document are solely those of G.W.-P. and do not necessarily reflect those of the agency. The EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this World View. OCOB is also supported by a National Science Foundation CAREER award (SES-2045129), Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences award and United States Parcel Service Endowment Fund at Stanford award to G.W.-P., and by a Stanford Impact Labs award to J. Suckale.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Earth System Science, the Woods Institute for the Environment, and Environmental Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Gabrielle Wong-Parodi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabrielle Wong-Parodi .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wong-Parodi, G. Community-engaged research is stronger and more impactful. Nat Hum Behav 6 , 1601–1602 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01494-5

Download citation

Published : 28 November 2022

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01494-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Financial incentives overcome ego-depletion effect in the waste separation task.

• Pingping Liu

Current Psychology (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

A newer edition of this book is available.

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

24 Community-Based Research: Understanding the Principles, Practices, Challenges, and Rationale

Margaret R. Boyd Bridgewater State University Bridgewater, MA, USA

• Published: 01 July 2014
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Community-based research challenges the traditional research paradigm by recognizing that complex social problems today must involve multiple stakeholders in the research process—not as subjects but as co-investigators and co-authors. It is an “orientation to inquiry” rather than a methodology and reflects a transdisciplinary paradigm by including academics from many different disciplines, community members, activists, and often students in all stages of the research process. Community-based research is relational research where all partners change and grow in a synergistic relationship as they work together and strategize to solve issues and problems that are defined by and meaningful to them. This chapter is an introduction to the historical roots and subdivisions within community-based research and discusses the core principles and skills useful when designing and working with community members in a collaborative, innovative, and transformative research partnership. The rationale for working within this research paradigm is discussed as well as the challenges researchers and practitioners face when conducting community-based research. As the scholarship and practice of this form of research has increased dramatically over the last twenty years, this chapter looks at both new and emerging issues as well as founding questions that continue to be debated in the contemporary discourse.

It is best to begin, I think, by reminding you, the beginning student, that the most admirable thinkers within the scholarly community you have chosen to join do not split their work from their lives. They seem to take both too seriously to allow such disassociation. — C.W. Mills, (1959 , 195)

Community-based research challenges the traditional research paradigm by recognizing that complex social problems today must involve multiple stakeholders in the research process—not as subjects but as co-investigators and co-authors. It has roots in critical pedagogy, as well as critical and feminist theory, and is research centered on social justice and community empowerment. Community-based research is not a methodology; it is an “orientation to inquiry” where researchers and community stakeholders collaborate to address community-identified problems and investigate meaningful and realistic solutions. Community-based research came out of a growing discontent among academics, researchers, and practitioners with the positivist research paradigm and instead argues that research must be “value based” not “value free.” It is relational research that fosters both individual and collective transformation. Community-based research also challenges disciplinary silos and instead fosters a transdisciplinary research paradigm.

There has been a growing interest and expectation within academia and community organizations that campus–community research partnerships provide benefits and challenges. We have seen a proliferation of research partnerships, courses, workshops and trainings on how to collaborate with community partners in community-driven research projects. There has also been a substantial increase in the literature (books and articles) describing best practices providing exemplars, and discussing methodologies. Israel, Eng, Schulz, and Parker (2005) argue that within the field of public health “researchers, practitioners, community members, and funders have increasingly recognized the importance of comprehensive and participatory approaches to research and intervention” (3).

This chapter begins with a discussion of the historical roots and theoretical background to this form of inquiry and a clarification of terminology. I include a discussion of the rationale and evaluation literature that offers convincing evidence for new and experienced researchers to consider this alternative research paradigm. Building on the work of others, I discuss seven core principles of community-based research and a list of skills often useful in the practice of engaged scholarship. This chapter argues that, as community-based research continues to grow, it is important that our scholarship includes exemplars, reflection, evaluation, and a critical discussion of best practices. This chapter hopes to contribute to this discourse.

I cannot think for others or without others, nor can others think for me. Even if the peoples thinking is superstitious or naïve, it is only as they rethink their assumptions in action that they can change. Producing and acting upon their own ideas—not consuming those of others. — Freire, 1970 , 108

The epistemology of community-based research can be traced back to many roots—Karl Marx, John Dewey, Paulo Freire, C.W. Mills, Thomas Kuhn, and Jane Addams to name but a few. Community-based research as it is practiced today has been enriched by the diversity of thoughts, methodologies, and practices that has been its foundation. The practice and scholarship of community-based research can found in many disciplines: sociology, psychology, economics, philosophy, education, public health, anthropology, urban planning and development, and social work. Different historical traditions and academic disciplines have led to contemporary differences in the form or focus of engaged scholarship, but what has united many practitioners and scholars is a social justice mission and the desire for personal and structural transformation. Lykes and Mallona (2008) argue:

Critical pedagogy (Freire) and liberation theologies (Berryman, Boff, Gutierrez, Ruether, Cone) and liberation psychologies (Martin-Baro, Watts, and Serrano-Garcia, Moane) emerged within relatively similar historical moments characterized by widespread social upheavals including armed struggle and broad- based non-violent social movements. A belief that the poor could be producers of knowledge and lead the transformation to a new social reality. [114]

Today you can find community-based research pedagogy, practices and scholarship across disciplines and collaboration between disciplines including new areas such as medicine, native or aboriginal research, conflict studies, history, and archeology. The expansion of community-engaged scholarship as epistemology reflects an important paradigm shift towards understanding multiple ways of knowing and experiential learning as critical to good research practices.

While it is not possible to include an extensive summary of the history and development of community-based research here, a brief review is necessary to provide the context and rationale for this major epistemological paradigm shift across multiple disciplines. Wicks, Reason, and Bradbury (2008) identify the influence of critical theory, civil rights, feminist movements, liberationists, and critical race theory—“critiques of domination and marginalization” and “critical examination of issues of power, identity and agency” (19). The historical roots and scholars who, I believe, have most influenced the development of community-based research are critical pedagogy (Paulo Freire and John Dewey), critical theory (Karl Marx and C.W. Mills), the epistemology of knowledge (Thomas Kuhn), and feminist theory (Jane Addams).

While Marx is noted for his writing about the conditions of the working class in Europe and his theories of alienation and oppression under capitalism, he was also an active participant in the French Revolution. According to Hall (cited in Ozerdem and Bowd, 2010 ) Marx was not only doing research and theorizing about the working classes but actively working with the workers to educate and raise consciousness. In addition to building theory, Marx and Engels sought to radically change and improve the political, economic, and social structure of society. The need to work with those most disadvantaged to challenge institutional inequality and power relationships is reflected in the principles of community-based research today. Many academics and scholars working from a critical theoretical perspective found a synergy with the principles and practices of community-based research.

Within education, John Dewey and Paulo Freire were reformers, activists, and key figures working to challenge traditional pedagogy and positivist research practices. Both were very influential in connecting research, theory, action, and refection to social reform. John Dewey (1859–1952) questioned the relevance of much of what was considered “education” by asking, “How many found what they did learn so foreign to the situations of life outside the school as to give them no power or control over the latter” (cited in Noll, 2010 , 8). Dewey saw educational institutions as agencies of social reform and social change through providing opportunities for learning and engagement with the world beyond the classroom. Summarizing Dewey, Peterson (2009) wrote:

Dewey believed that learning is a wholehearted affair; that is, you can’t sever knowing and doing, and with cycles of action and reflection, one’s greatest learning occurs. Dewey was interested in the learning that resulted from the mutual exchange between people and their environment. [542]

Dewey argued that learning—action and reflection—must take place in commune with one’s environment. Learning is co-created rather than unidirectional; a challenge to the traditional view of knowledge transfer from teacher to learner. Co-education and co-learning are key principles of community-based research.

Paulo Freire (1921–1997), the founder of critical pedagogy, also challenged conventional educational pedagogy and traditional research paradigms and saw education’s potential as liberation from oppression. His most famous and widely distributed book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) , was a call to action for both teacher and student to work together for social change and social reform. Freire saw learning as a two-way process involving “conscientization”—critical analysis and reflection leading to action. It is only through theory and practice, action and reflection, that real social change is possible. He also saw that the poor and oppressed can and must be leaders of their own liberation. Freire’s work—in challenging pedagogy and demanding researchers and academics to work with and learn from those most oppressed—has greatly influenced the practice of community-based research today.

Sociologist C.W. Mills also influenced critical pedagogy and engaged scholarship. In his classic work The Sociological Imagination (1959) he wrote:

An educator must begin with what interests the individual most deeply, even if it seems altogether trivial and cheap. He must proceed in such a way and with such materials as to enable the student to gain increasingly rational insight into these concerns, and into others he will acquire in the process of his education.... [187], We are trying to make the society more democratic. [189]

Similar to Freire, Mills challenged the social sciences to educate and through experiential education to foster democratic citizenry. Mills saw the connection between personal troubles and public issues and the role of sociology in helping others see the larger structures in society and how they reinforced inequality.

Another scholar who had a major influence on the development of community-based research is Thomas Kuhn in his classic book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1996). Kuhn’s work regarding the theory of the subjective nature of knowledge raised epistemological questions of “how we know what we know” and “what it is that we value as knowledge” (Wicks, Reason, & Bradbury, 2008 ). This became critically important in the development of engaged scholarship as academics and researchers began to respect and validate local knowledge, expertise, and other ways of thinking as equal to the knowledge and skills they could offer. Kuhn’s work led to questions about the privileged position of the researcher and how this privilege has denied or denigrated the experiential knowledge and understandings of oppressed groups.

It is also important to note the influence of feminist theory, in particular Jane Addams, on the development of community-based research and scholarship. Addams (1860–1935), a social activist and sociologist, played a key role in the development of engaged scholarship and community research. Naples (1996) writes that feminists argued for “a methodology designed to break the false separation between the subject of the research and the researcher” (160). Addams employed hundreds of women to go into their communities to interview, observe, and understand the experiences of other immigrant women in Chicago early in the twentieth century.

Addams also saw the need to make research relevant to the communities in which it originated. Much of the data gathered in Chicago was published as Hull House Maps and Papers (1895) and was for the benefit of the community, not for an academic audience. Her focus was social justice and social change, not theoretical conceptualizations of urban poverty. In writing about Jane Addams and the Chicago School, Deegan (1990) stated that Addams wrote “all the book’s royalties would be waived as we have little thought about the financial gain” (57). Deegan goes on to argue that Addams’ interests were in “empowering the community, the laborer, the elderly and youth, women and immigrants” (255). Addams, similar to Dewey and later Freire, was also very critical of traditional education, which reproduced inequality. Deegan (1990) writes that Addams articulated a goal of “generating reflective adults” (283).

Definitions, Terminology, and Subdivisions

We have exemplars of the methods of participatory research and canons for their practice, even if we cannot as yet agree on a single name. — Couto (2003 , 69)

Clarification of terminology is necessary before beginning a discussion of the principles and skills of community-based research,. Broadly defined, campus–community research collaboration can be referred to as community-based research (CBR), community-based participatory research (CBPR), collaborative research, engaged scholarship, participatory research (PR), participatory action research (PAR), action research (AR), aboriginal community research, popular education, participatory rural appraisal, public scholarship, university–community research collaboration, co-inquiry, and synergistic research. New terms and subdivisions continue to emerge. Strand, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoecker, and Donohue (2003a) suggest that practitioners of CBR come “from within and outside academia and work in areas throughout the world—all of which makes any commonly-accepted definition problematic” (6).

It is not my intent here to minimize or ignore the different historical roots or traditions reflected in the above forms of campus-community research, but a discussion of the distinct nature of each is beyond the scope of this chapter. Acknowledging that there are differences, this chapter will focus on commonalities and core principles that can apply broadly to campus—community research partnerships. Generally, the term “community-based research,” or CBR, is used here, although I have tried to include the terms used by authors when describing their own research. Other scholars have also focused on similarities rather than differences. Atalay (2010) suggests that, “regardless of the terminology used, the central tents remain the same” (419). CBR aims to connect academic researchers with individuals, groups, and community organizations to collaborate on a research project to solve community-identified and community-defined problems. CBR is intended to educate, empower, and transform at the individual, community, and structural level to challenge inequality and oppression.

While using a broad brush to be inclusive of all campus–community research partnerships, it is important to address what I see as two important differences in the goals and outcomes within CBR. For many practitioners, the ideal is a long-term, collaborative, and egalitarian partnership that builds community, fosters transformation, and promotes social change. Academics conduct research with and for the community, and all participants teach and learn in a synergistic relationship. Clayton, Bringle, Senor, Huq, and Morrison (2010) argue that campus–community relationships can be short term (transactional) or, ideally, a partnership in which both parties grow and change because of a deeper and more sustained (transformative) relationship.

For others, (e.g., McNaughton & Rock, 2004 ; Nygreen, 2009 –2010) the relationship between academic researchers, the university, and the community is always contentious, and power is rarely equal. For this reason, some CBR practitioners advocate community members learn the skills and knowledge necessary to conduct their own research within their communities. Nyden, Figbert, Shibley, and Burrows (1997) write, “Participatory Action Research aims at empowering the community by giving it the tools to do its own research and not to be beholden to universities or university professors to complete the work” (17). Academic researchers within this tradition are looking to empower local communities to be researchers and authors of their own transformation. The goal is to foster self-determination and self-reliance of the disenfranchised and powerless so they can be self-sufficient ( Park, 1993 ).

From this perspective, a long-term or sustained partnership with academic researchers could be seen as exploitive and disempowering.

Another major difference is that. for many, the goal of CBR includes pedagogy ( Strand, 2000 ). CBR provides an opportunity to involve students in a research project with community partners, often as part of their curriculum requirement. Strand, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoecker, and Donohue (2003b , xxi) suggest CBR is a way to “unite the three traditional academic missions of teaching, research and service in innovative ways.” CBR as pedagogy can bring students together with faculty and community partners to address community problems, as well as learn valuable skills regarding democratic research processes, communication, and civic responsibility. Porpora (1999 , 121) considers CBR “the highest state of service learning” and important as a way to promote engaged citizenship among students. There is an extensive body of research discussing the benefits, challenges, and practice of CBR as pedagogy that has generally found substantial benefits to students.

What is meant by “community” within the term community-based research requires some clarification. Alinsky (1971 , 120) noted that “in a highly mobile, urbanized society the word ‘community’ means community of interest, not geographic location.” This suggests a collective identity with shared goals, issues, or problems, or a shared fate ( Israel, Eng, Schultz & Parker, 2005 ). This has been particularly evident in the growing number of international community–researcher collaborative partnerships. Pinto et al (2007) writes:

International researchers need to become members, even if from afar, of the communities that host their studies, so that they can be part of the interactions that affect social processes and people’s understanding of their behaviors and identities. These interactions may occur at physical, psycho-social and electronic levels, encompassing geographic and virtual spaces and behaviors, social and cultural trends, and psychological constructs and interpretations. [55]

Accepting that today individuals and groups can participate in numerous “communities of interest” at the local and global level, many exemplars of CBR are situated in geographically defined communities. The community, however, is rarely a unified or homogenous group. It often includes groups within groups, competing and contentious factions, and members with diverse perspectives, needs and expectations ( Atalay, 2010 ). The diversity of participants within CBR projects reflects both the strengths and the challenges of engaged scholarship and will be discussed later in this chapter.

A final clarification with regards to CBR is that it is not the same as community organizing or advocacy. CBR includes scientific investigation respecting research ethics, methodologies, and analysis. CBR practitioners and community partners are seeking knowledge and understanding through data collection and analysis. The findings will inform decisions as to community organizing, social action, or advocacy work. Fuentes (2009 –2010, 733) makes the distinction between “ community organizing ,” which usually focuses on the development and support of leaders and “ organizing community ,” which “centers on community building, collectivism, caring, mutual respect, and self-transformation.” CBR is about organizing community to create research partnerships to address inequalities. Another misconception is that CBR is a form of public service. Public service implies a one-way transfer of knowledge, expertise, and action from the campus to the community. CBR is a multi-directional process that results in shared and collaborative teaching, learning, action, reflection, and transformation.

We both know some things, neither of us knows everything. Working together, we will both know more, and we will both learn more about how to know. — Maguire (1987 37–38)

There is universal agreement that research is critical in terms of planning, implementing, and evaluating policies and programs. Nyden and Wiewel (1992 , 44) state, “research is a political resource that can be used as ammunition” to provide credible evidence regarding funding, programs, and or policy decisions. So why do CBR? For engaged scholars and activist working within a CBR paradigm, the reasons for doing so are numerous—personal and structural transformation, co-education, community empowerment, capacity building, and a belief in the need to democratize the research process. Even though engaged scholarship has not always been given the support and resources needed within academia, many argue that it is the only type of research that really makes a difference. Reason and Bradbury (2008) assert “indeed we might respond to the disdainful attitude of mainstream social scientists to our work that action research practices have changed the world in far more positive ways than conventional social science” (3). Rahman (2008) in summarizing the early work of Budd Hall in the 1970s states, “Participatory Action Research is a more scientific method of research because the full participation of the community in the research process facilitates a more accurate and authentic analysis of social reality” (51).

For many engaged scholars, ethical research requires working with and for individuals and groups, not doing research on or about subjects. Collaboration with multiple stakeholders allows for an opportunity to re-conceptualize problems and come up with innovative solutions. For many, this form of research is “more than creating knowledge; in the process it is educational, transformative and mobilization for action” ( Gaventa; 1993 ; xiv–xv). Community-based researchers acknowledge that this form of inquiry is not the only way, but often it is the best way to address the magnitude and complexity of contemporary social programs. It requires researchers across disciplines and from multiple perspectives, together with activists and community members, to join as equal partners and to think about and strategize solutions that are meaningful and beneficial to them. The benefits of combining scientific methods and lived experiences to re-conceptualize problems and find solutions are clear. Involving community stakeholders in all stages of the research process also increases the chances that solutions will be relevant and meaningful to community members. CBR is ideally situated to inform best practices as it is research generated from the ground up.

For more traditional social scientists, the reasons for considering CBR may reflect pressure from outside funders or community members. There has been a growing frustration with traditional research that the findings have not been applied or benefited the community or broader society. Nyden, Figert, Shibley, and Burrows (1997 , 3) state, “Traditional academic research has focused on furthering sociological theory and research” and not social action or social justice. Forty years ago, Fritz and Plog saw traditional research methods as no longer viable within archeology, stating:

We suspect that unless archaeologists find ways to make their research increasingly relevant to the modern world, the modern world will find itself increasingly capable of getting along without archaeologists. [ Cited in Atalay, 2010 , 419].

This concern has been raised within other disciplines and is reflected in the development of CBR and scholarship.

There are also very good reasons for institutions of higher education to align their mission to reflect a commitment to serve. Boyer (1994) suggests that the historical roots of higher education as a service to the community and a “public good” have diminished. He argues for the “New American College”—an institution that celebrates and fosters action, theory, practice, and reflection among faculty, students, and practitioners to solve the very real problems facing communities today. Colleges and universities must respond to and engage with communities to listen, learn, and work together on solutions. Netshandama (2010) describes how the University of Venda in South Africa changed over the course of four years to “align its vision and mission to the needs of the community at local, regional, national, continental and international levels” (72). Netshandama (2010) argues that the university did not just support faculty or add resources; their vision was to “integrate community engagement into the core business of the university” (72).

Methodology and a Transdisciplinary Paradigm

CBR is not a research methodology. Researchers and community members use a variety of methods to gather data about a community issue or problem and then seek solutions. It reflects a radical paradigm shift away from positivist methods of inquiry to what Leavy (2011) refers to as “a holistic, synergistic, and highly collaborative approach to research” (83). It can be best understood as a “ philosophy of inquiry ” ( Cockerill, Meyers, & Allman, 2000 ) or an “ orientation to inquiry ” ( Reason & Bradbury, 2008 ) that seeks to create participative communities of inquiry to collaborate to address community problems. Practitioners of CBR recognize and value multiple ways of knowing and do not privilege the knowledge or skills of the researcher over local experiences, skills, and methodologies. Torre and Fine (2011) suggest that PAR “represents a practice of research, a theory of method and an epistemology that values the intimate, painful and often shamed knowledge held by those who have most endured social injustice” (116). At its best, CBR reflects a democratization of the research process and a validation of multiple forms of knowledge, expertise, and methodologies. It is a shift away from research “subjects” to research collaborators and colleagues.

Although CBR is not a methodology, it does address the recent methodological questions concerning the role of “reflexivity” in research design and practice. Subramaniam (2009) states, “After adopting reflexivity as a valid research process, the researcher must make decisions about her status vis-à-vis those being researched and become conscious about their status in relation to her, the researcher” (203). This has led to further methodological questions concerning the validity of traditional binaries such as “researcher/researched,” “insider/outsider,” and “objective/subjective.” These statuses are addressed openly and critically in CBR projects. For example, critical psychologists often face an ethical dilemma when involved in CBR projects. Baumann, Rodriguez, and Parra-Cardona (2011 , 142) refer to this dilemma, citing the American Psychological Association (APA) Code of Ethics that states psychologists must refrain from “multiple and dual relationships with clients and community members.” For CBR practitioners, research is relational. Scientific “objectivity” is problematic and does not strengthen the validity of research outcomes.

CBR lends itself to mixed method design and often reflects a transdisciplinary research paradigm. According to Leavy (2011) , “Transdisciplanarity is a social justice oriented approach to research in which resources and expertise from multiple disciplines are integrated in order to holistically address a real-world issue or problem” (35). Leavy argues that “transdisciplanarity does not mean the abandonment of disciplines (34)” but rather knowledge gained through this form of inquiry transcends traditional disciplinary silos. I would agree that CBR reflects a “transdisciplanary research paradigm” and that this also includes community scholars outside academia.

Although data can result from many methods, there are core principles or tenets of CBR that are generally agreed upon by most practitioners. Scholars do disagree on the number of core principles. However, the unique nature of every CBR project allows for flexibility and differences. The principles represent guidelines or best practices, and are helpful for setting goals and for praxis,—continuous reflection, and action. They are also interconnected and interdependent. Each principle can be conceptualized along a continuum. For example, Schwartz (2010) suggests that PAR can include research that has minimal collaboration to projects that have full participation of all stakeholders in every stage of the research process with most projects falling somewhere in the middle.

Principles of Community-Based Research

Strand, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoecker, and Donohue (2003) suggested three core principles that define CBR: collaboration, democratization, and social action for social change and social justice. Atalay (2010) expands on these three and suggests five core principles of CBR: community driven, participatory, reciprocal, power sharing, and action oriented. As the number of community-based researchers, practitioners, projects, and disciplines involved has multiplied and the scholarship of CBR has increased, so have the number of core principles. Leavy (2011) suggests seven principles: collaboration; cultural sensitivity, social action and social justice; recruitment and retention; building trust and rapport; multiplicity and different knowledges, participation and empowerment; flexibility and innovation; and representation and dissemination. Still other practitioners have identified nine ( Puma, Bennett, Cutforth, & Tombari, 2009 ; Israel, Eng, Schultz, & Parker, 2005 ).

An understanding of the core principles that define CBR is important, but how each principle is negotiated and understood will reflect contextual, social, and historical differences within each project. Synthesizing and building on the work of others, I discuss seven principles of CBR that I believe represent best practices within this orientation to inquiry: collaboration, community driven, power sharing, a social action and social justice orientation, capacity building, transformative, and innovative. Summaries of CBR projects are also provided as brief case studies. They are intended to reflect the challenges and benefits of this work and how the principles of CBR are negotiated and reflected in unique ways.

Collaboration

Collaboration between the researcher and community is a fundamental principle of CBR. It is defined as working in partnership with all stakeholders to identify, understand, and solve real problems facing their community. Collaboration happens in all stages of the research process—including problem definition, methodological decisions, data collection and analysis, dissemination of the findings, and evaluation of the project. Collaboration between the researcher and the researched is a fundamental paradigm shift from the traditional scientific method. Within CBR, the distinction between the researcher and the researched is no longer valid or acceptable. This does not remove differences between stakeholders or between community members and researchers but rather recognizes and validates different ways of knowing, experiences, skills, and methods equally. Mandell (2010) states:

Ultimately, what the activist sociologist has to offer social change organizations is her or his detachment from the immersion in the work, grounding in social change theoretical perspectives and the power to ask questions and to make outside observations. The outsider perspective of an action researcher with the insider views of community partners makes for a powerful combination. [154]

To collaborate with community members it is critical that the project is transparent and inclusive of all stakeholders. It is a reflective process that continues throughout the project and is based on trust, respect, and equality between all participants. Mandell (2010) states that a “successful trust filled researcher-community partnership is built over time, through rigorous self-examination and regular communication” (154). Trust can often be fostered by researchers participating in additional community events and activities and by attending celebrations that are not directly related to the research project. Listening to and supporting participants ‘own professional and personal goals also fosters trust and builds collaboration ( Baumann, Rodriguez, & Parra-Cardona, 2011 ).

To foster collaboration, the researcher needs to understand some basic principles of group processes and group dynamics. CBR success depends on participatory democracy and open communication between members. This facilitates understanding and enables all members to share their strengths and skills, to set priorities, and to accomplish tasks. However, inclusivity and collaboration with multiple stakeholders can lead to questions about project size. Generally, large projects with multiple stakeholders can lead to hierarchies in decision making and discussion and may leave some voices silenced. Small projects with few members can lead to concerns about burnout and/or reinforcing power inequality within the community. There is no ideal size for maximum collaboration. Each project will need to negotiate and reflect upon collaboration and inclusivity in an ongoing dialogue or “multilogue” with the community. Sometimes community education about what CBR is may be necessary before collaboration is possible. This can add months or years to the expected timeline and may alter the original CBR project.

Case Study: A CBPR Project in Catalhoyuk, Turkey

Atalay (2010) was involved in an archeological excavation site in Catalhoyuk, Turkey, and wanted to include the community in a CBPR project. She stated that her first priority was to “[d]etermine if the community was interested in becoming a research partner, and what their level of commitment was. This required substantial up-front investment both to explain CBPR and to demonstrate how their role as collaborators would differ from their previous role as excavation labor or ethnographic informants” (422). In conducting interviews with local residents to invite collaboration, individuals felt they could not contribute to the research partnership until they received “archeology-based knowledge.” Atalay found that “contrary to what I had initially expected, the first several years of the project focused on community education rather than on developing and carrying out an archeology, heritage management or cultural tourism-related research design” (423).

The CBPR project started with archeology education that resulted in “an annual festival, archaeological lab-guide training for village children and young teen residents, a regular comic series (for children), and a newsletter (for adults)” (423). After some time, Atalay began moving the community towards a research partnership. The CBPR project initiated a local internship program and archeological theatre. Both were community-led and community-driven projects that fostered capacity-building and recognized the importance of local knowledge and experiences. Atalay acknowledged that the work was slow and did not take the direction she had initially intended. However, she argues that “collaborative research with communities in a participatory way offers a sustainable model, and one that enhances the way archeology will be practiced in the next century” (427).

This CBPR project illustrates that collaboration is only possible when partners are not only seen as equal by the researcher but when they experience it themselves. Freire (1970) reminds us we must always begin where the community is: “All work done for the masses must start from their needs and not from the desire of any individual, however well intentioned” (94). Atalay’s work also reflects the challenges and benefits of collaborative research partnerships. Problems and solutions are identified by the community and it is the community that is the primary beneficiary of the research project.

Community Driven

Classic social science research focused on social problems that the researcher and the academic community defined as important or worthy of study. Generally, a research project was initiated and controlled by the researcher. It was the researcher who benefited and subjects were often treated as objects. CBR was a response by engaged scholars and practitioners to end exploitive and oppressive research practices that left community problems intact, inequality unchallenged, and often community members feeling used. Ideally, community-based projects should be community driven from conception to dissemination of the findings and evaluation of the project. Comstock and Fox (1993) suggest that local communities and workplace groups should decide on the nature of the problem and participate in the investigation of local and extra-local forces sharing their lives. Collectively they may decide to take action based on the research findings.

However, Maguire (1987) suggest that “realistically, such projects are often initiated by outside researchers” (43). If many CBR projects do not originate within the community, how can practitioners and researchers foster community - driven projects? Whether the community is local or global, participants in CBR projects will often have conflicting interests, sentiments, expectations, and priorities. To be inclusive and have all stakeholders as participants in the research project means tension, conflict, and challenges are inevitable. Bowd, Ozerdem and Kassa (2010) remind us that:

Participation literature is also criticized for ‘essentializing’ the word community as a homogeneous entity where people have egalitarian interests to produce knowledge, work with partners and decide on matters of common good in undisputed manners. In reality however, communities are characterized by protracted ethnic, linguistic and professional cliques and interest groups. [6]

Engaged scholars and practitioners need practice, patience, skills, and knowledge to ensure all stakeholders are heard and encouraged to participate. Democratization of the research process requires participatory democracy within the community, and this cannot be expected or assumed.

It is also important to ask who speaks for the community. For example, community-based researchers and practitioners have been heavily criticized for not paying close attention to the exclusion of and silencing of women within many CBR projects—the continuing “androcentric paradigm” of social science research methods ( Maguire, 1987 ; Decker, 2010 ). Maguire (1987) writes, “Women are often invisible, submerged or hidden in case study reports or theoretical discussions. Gender is rendered indistinguishable by generic terms like ‘the oppressed,’ ‘the people,’ ‘the villagers,’ and ‘the community’” (48). The challenge of CBR is that often the most oppressed within the community lack any organizational structure or resources to participate in research projects. It is critical for engaged scholars and practitioners to be conscious of who is participating in, excluded from, or silenced in CBR projects and take responsibility for encouraging and supporting the most disenfranchised to participate equally. It is often the researcher or “outsider” who is best situated to see who is excluded and what must be done to rectify this.

Power Sharing

Knowledge, discussion, and reflection about power, power sharing, and power dynamics within the community are critical for successful partnerships. Engaged scholars and activists need to encourage, support, and foster a climate where all stakeholders and researchers share power. This can be difficult when researchers often have privileged statuses that can intimidate or silence community partners. For the researcher it is often difficult to cede power and control to community members who may have less formal education or training in research methods or less knowledge of the larger issue. However, Mdee (2010) address this problem in her PRA project in Tanzania and argues: “absolute equality in the process is an impossibility given imbalances in knowledge, power and resources, and it is not helpful to pretend otherwise” power sharing is necessary and fundamental to CBR partnerships. Shared decision making includes problem definition, methodological concerns, analysis and dissemination of the findings, funding and budgetary decisions, where and when to hold meetings, as well as ethical questions such as whether to pay participants. While community-based researchers and practitioners may believe in the principle of power sharing, they may be unaware of their privileged status that continues to influence and inhibit collaboration.

Case Study: Youth Empowerment at an Alternative High School

Nygreen (2009 –2010) discusses the challenges and dilemmas of a PAR project she undertook with recent graduates and current students in an alternative high school to “examine issues of social and educational inequality” (17). Nygreen found that, over the course of the two-year project, there was high turnover of student participation, several group conflicts, and although the youths said they learned a great deal, she saw little evidence of social change. Through reflection it became clearer that wanting and believing in equitable partnerships is not the same as achieving it. She found that, in working with youth on issues of social justice, understanding power dynamics was important. She said, “I insisted that we all had an equal voice in decision-making and we were all accountable to each other. In reality, though, my posture reflected a false egalitarianism that obscured and reinforced real power differences. Despite my promises that the youth could veto decisions they did not like, I was the only member of the group with absolute veto power.” (18)

Nygreen acknowledges that PAR in and of itself does not necessarily negate the problems related to power inequality. Although PAR seeks to equalize power between participants, “in practice PAR projects may quite easily reproduce and exacerbate power inequalities while obscuring these processes through a discourse of false egalitarianism (19).” She explains, “I conflated the political and ethical values of PAR with the practice and process of PAR. What I learned, instead, is that no series of methodological steps can protect a social scientist from the dilemmas of power, authorship, and scale” (28). She advocates a “de-coupling” of the method of PAR from the political and ethical values that inform it. This PAR project highlights the critical tensions she experienced between the values of PAR and the practice of PAR. Nygreen identified the dilemmas of power and privilege—including white privilege when university-based researchers work with historically oppressed communities—and reminds us that critical reflection through dialogue and the complexities of power relations must be understood.

Although much of the research concerning power within CBR projects has focused on the imbalance between the researcher and the community, we must understand the multifaceted and fluid nature of power as it is negotiated and experienced within communities. Bowd, Ozerdem, and Kassa (2010) suggest that “participation literature seems to be infested with binary models of power such as the urban elite and the rural poor, the uppers and lowers, the north and the south, academics and practitioners. Power relationships, however, are fluid and do not usually fall into such rigidly stated categories” (6). Participation within CBR projects can reflect local hierarchies, and therefore “empowering” the community may reinforce inequality. Bowd, Ozerdem, and Kassa (2010) state, “Whilst the theoretical basis for these approaches may be well intentioned, in practice participation is not an emancipatory exercise for many due to the fact power dynamics within societies and communities are not accurately and comprehensively understood by those who instigate the use of such approaches. Thus local knowledge is a construct of the powerful” (15). CBR practitioners and engaged scholars must better understand power and how it gets used and negotiated within the community and within the research partnership. This demands reflexivity, a willingness to cede power, and an ability to recognize and challenge powerful community individuals and groups. Capacity building is one way to begin to empower those most disadvantaged and silenced by building skills and knowledge at both the individual and community level.

Capacity Building

CBR practitioners seek to build capacity within the communities they work with. This means that the researcher and practitioner organize, facilitate, motivate, train, educate, and foster community members, groups, and organizations to become architects, leaders, and authors of their own histories. The principle of capacity building requires that researchers not only “do no harm” but that they also leave communities empowered and strengthened as a result of the research project. Participants co-learn research and advocacy skills, communication and group working skills, and about participatory democracy. The skills and knowledge learned can be transferred and applied to other projects or personal experiences. Capacity building extends the goals of CBR beyond the immediate project to the future. In doing this, community-based researchers recognize local knowledge, skills, expertise, and resources and help participants see these strengths within their community.

Social Change and Social Justice Orientation

The commitment to social change and social justice work within CBR projects is often multidimensional and multilayered; there is an expectation that participation in the project will lead to personal transformation, community empowerment, and macro-structural changes. Involving those most affected by issues and problems within their own communities in the research process is an act of social justice. Collaboration and power sharing within the research process is empowering. Fiorilla et al. (2009) summarize the experiences participants shared as a result of their involvement in a CBR project involving students and women who were experiencing homelessness.

The students report how growth and change in the relationship is accompanied by listening with warmth, and empathy, and genuineness. For Dawn and Laura, however, this is not enough. The research process for them must move beyond this to having their experiences and expertise acknowledged and applied to action, action aimed at developing solutions for the problems they see as meaningful in their lives and others within their community for whom they give voice. The student researchers also underlie the power of sharing stories as they begin to connect as co-researchers, co-creators and, as they articulate, most importantly, as women. [9]

It is important to acknowledge that CBR has primarily but not exclusively focused on empowering disenfranchised individuals and communities. Partners can cut across social categories—which can lead to both benefits and challenges for all participants. While CBR practitioners may see possibilities for change as a result of the research gathered, it is critical that the decision as to what will happen as a result of the findings rests with the community. Even if the decision is taken not to act, the expectation is that personal transformation and lasting benefits to the community are likely.

Transformative

Clayton, Bringle, Senor, Huq, and Morrison (2010) contend that “the terms ‘relationships’ and ‘partnerships’ are not interchangeable” (5). They argue that relationships are interactions between individuals and can be short in duration and transactional whereas partnerships are transformational and characterized by “relationships wherein both persons grow and change because of deeper and more sustainable commitments” (7).

Case Study: Exploring “Voice” and “Knowledge” With People Living in Poverty

Krumer-Nevo (2009) argues that, in the first decades of the state of Israel, poverty was denied as it did not resonate with the dominant Zionist social democratic ideology. Until the beginning of the twenty-first century, poverty was presented as “a temporary problem for new immigrants” (283). Krumer-Nevo writes that the “voices, the knowledge and the actual presence of people who live in poverty are absent from the public debate” (284). This PAR project was designed to give those living in poverty a “voice” equal to academics, policymakers, social practitioners, and social activists to change attitudes about the poor. Krumer-Nevo used her “privileged” status to raise the idea of creating a PAR partnership between four ethnic groups who had little contact or trust of the other.

What was particularly interesting is that Krumer-Nevo realized as the project continued that a lack of voice was not the problem. She explained, “Most of the participants were eager to take part in the initiative, wanting their voices and knowledge to be heard by powerful people” (287). They were willing to share their personal experiences and knowledge as well as articulate what needs to change. Krumer-Nevo states, “The lesson we learned was that the real challenge was not the ‘empowering’ of people in poverty, since they were eager to participate in the public debate, but the fashioning of the discourse to become not merely formally inclusive but truly and deeply so” (292).

Krumer-Nevo found that giving voice to those who live in poverty is not enough. What must also happen is transformation—a multidirectional exchange of ideas, experiences, knowledge, and understanding where all stakeholders grow and where change happens as a result of the partnership.

A final core principle of CBR is innovation: multidisciplinary groups including academics, practitioners, and community members are better able to think creatively and strategize how to research complex issues and problems. Morisky, Marlow, Tiglao, Lyu, Vissman, and Rhodes (2010) describe their use of “a CBPR framework in which the collective knowledge, perspectives, experiences, and resources of these diverse partners, representing a broad spectrum of community stakeholders, helped guide the development, implementation, and evaluation of the interventions designed to reduce HIV risk among female bar workers (FBWs)” (372). Previous intervention strategies had not been successful in reducing HIV risk within this population. Morisky, Marlow, Tigloa, Lyu, Vissman, and Rhodes (2010 , 381) argue that it was this innovative CBPR project that provided new ideas for intervention with this vulnerable group of women. They state:

We used a CBPR approach that included community members, organizational representatives, and academic researchers to design, implement, and evaluate the interventions. It seems clear that this type of partnership approach to research yielded interventions that were culturally congruent and highly acceptable to a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including: FBWs, establishment managers, floor supervisors, and customers. Coupled with their being informed by sound science and established health behavior theory, the developed interventions were as “informed” as possible. The approach also ensured that data collection methodologies were realistic to yield more valid and reliable data. [381]

Sessa and Ricci (2010) discussed their innovative PAR project involving scientists, citizens, and policymakers aimed at addressing what they see is a lack of “evidence-based policy-making and improve the science-policy interface” (50). Sessa and Ricci suggest that while the applied researcher acknowledges that the “legitimate” result of their research is to help policymakers make sound decisions that benefit individuals and communities, often there is a “lack of transfer” (5) of the research findings. They argue that the way to improve this transfer of research outcomes to policymakers is to involve a third party—citizens and stakeholders affected by the research. Research that involves all stakeholders is more likely to find solutions that are meaningful and applicable to the lives of those most affected by the data ( Goh et al. 2009 ).

Skills and Practice of CBR

To conduct CBR requires skills that are often not taught in traditional social science programs or research institutes. CBR requires a major paradigm shift in the way we think about research—what we research, why we do it, and when and how we do it. This paradigm shift requires community-based researchers to learn and practice new skills. Additional skills can include community organizing, group work skills, and relational skills. A preliminary list of skills useful for CBR is as follows:

Research skills —Knowledge of research methods, practices, and analysis are necessary for good CBR work. Methods can include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods design. The research may involve random sampling, case studies, historical data, and art-based research. Decker, Hemmerling, & Lankoande (2010) reviewed twelve completed CBPR health intervention projects and found that studies with the strongest outcomes had higher-quality research designs.

Communication skills —In partnering with communities and fostering their participation, it is critical that the researcher is able to communicate with and listen to all stakeholders and be able to foster communication between and within the community. Communication skills include written, oral, observational, and listening skills.

Relational Skills —The community is often weary of outsiders and mistrust academic or external researchers coming in to their communities, so forming and building relationships can take time. CBR is relational research yet researchers often do not get training in “how” to build relationships with community members. Trust, respect, care, humility, deference, and honesty are all skills and behaviors that can foster partnership and collaboration.

Reflexivity —Reflexivity is the awareness of and an analysis of self. It is being aware of who we are and how our behaviors, attitudes, values, and experiences influence how we think and behave with others. Without reflection there can be no action that is meaningful. Naples (1996 , 169) states, “Who we are personally affects how we go about our work. Whether we want to own that or not, whether we are self-conscious about this fact or not our standpoint shapes the way we proceed to gather information and draw conclusions from that information.” We must practice self-reflection and self- awareness and model it in our work. Community-based researchers recognize “a self-reflective, engaged and self-critical role” ( Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker, 1998 ; 181) is necessary.

Facilitation skills — Begun, Berger, Otto-Salaj, and Rose(2010 ; 560) suggest that for successful partnership “there is a need for all partners to successfully integrate their different backgrounds, expertise, values, and priorities” (52). They acknowledge that, while CBR requires the full and active participation of the community, there are often barriers to participation. These can include time, financial restraints, language, culture, feelings of intimidation, and burnout. The CBR practitioners must minimize barriers and facilitate participatory democracy.

Organizational and group work skills —Knowledge and skills related to group work and group processes is helpful for anyone working with community groups and organizations. There is extensive literature discussing group work skills, practices, and community organizing strategies that is helpful to know and understand. (See for example Staples, 2004 ).

  Motivational skills —Motivating community participants to engage in CBR projects can be difficult. Community members are often overstretched in terms of work and family commitments and/or they can be frustrated from previous research in their communities that provided few if any benefits. Motivation may also wane if community members leave or reduce their involvement and commitment for any number of reasons. The pace of CBR work can also be slow, and this too may require effort to keep participants engaged and involved.

Cultural competency —Working in communities with diverse individuals and groups requires an awareness of and sensitivity to differences in language, ethnicity, race, social class, gender, sexual orientation, and other statuses. There is a large body of research that addresses cultural competency that cannot be addressed here but it is important to know, understand, and reflect on one’s own, often privileged statuses as well as the cultural similarities and differences within and between our partners. Cultural awareness and competency is critical if CBR is to be inclusive, collaborative, and transformative. When involved in an international collaborative research project that takes place in a foreign country, the researcher must do intensive preparation work. Pinto (2000) suggests the researcher “start by studying the language, history, geography, social structures and politics of that country and of the specific community he or she proposes to study” (55).

Capacity-building skills —Capacity building skills include educating, supporting, mentoring, and acknowledging the experiences and different ways of knowing of all stakeholders. Engaged scholars foster co-learning, understanding, and application of all the skills listed above so that community partners can use them in multiple ways in the future.

Entering the Field

Anyone new to a CBR paradigm begins by asking, “How do I start?” Recognizing that campus–community partnerships ideally should be initiated by community members, researchers often begin the process of establishing a collaborative research partnership. There are many ways that researchers can “enter the field.” Naples (1996) suggests:

Some activist researchers search for a community-based site through which they might assist in the political agendas defined by community members. A second avenue develops when a group, community, or organization seeks outside assistance to generate research for social change. Another avenue to activist researchers occurs when we enter “the field” as participants who are personally affected by the issues that is the focus of our work. Many of us who choose to use our personal and community-based struggles as sites for activist research did not begin the work with a research agenda in mind.” (96)

Wallerstein, Duran, Minkler, & Foley (2005) confirm that it is always easier to form a research partnership with a community in which you have previous positive connections. If a connection has not been made, it is difficult and time consuming to build trust and foster a participatory and collaborative research partnership.

Building Trust

Researchers must gain knowledge of the community: individuals, groups, organizations, services, and the issues and concerns of residents. This can be through key informants, reports, census data, flyers, organizations, service providers, and spending time in the community and with community members. If the partnership is initiated by the researcher, one of the first tasks is to consider who is affected by or concerned about this problem. Netshandama (2010) acknowledges that identifying community stakeholders is not an easy task and suggests that the safest way of identifying community stakeholders is to pinpoint the most obvious participants without ruling out any groups and to make the process of selection open and transparent. Polanyi and Cockburn (2003) also identify that the initial stages of the CBR project can lead to some confusion and frustration as to the goals of the project. At the beginning of their CBR project with injured workers, some members were interested in research, but others felt they already had enough information and wanted to take action. Clarification and agreement to form a community-based research partnership is important; the distinction needs to be made between CBR, community organizing, and social action.

Questions for Consideration and Reflection

When beginning a CBR project, it can be helpful to think about questions and issues other practitioners have identified as important. A list of guiding questions is provided here for consideration, dialogue, negotiation, and reflection when beginning and throughout a CBR project (adapted from Mandell, 2010 , 153):

Is the CBR project transparent and inclusive of all stakeholders?

Do the researcher and community partners orient themselves within the same fundamental paradigm of social justice and social change?

Is there general agreement as to the nature of the social problem(s) and the range of possible solutions?

What is the scope of the research project including the research question(s), the methodologies, and the timeline for data collection, analysis, and final reporting? How will the findings be disseminated?

Have research ethics been addressed, including informed consent and confidentiality?

Have expectations, roles, responsibilities, and power sharing been discussed. Is there a sense of trust between partners?

Will there be collaboration at each stage of the project, including dissemination of the findings and co-authorship of any reports or journal articles?

In what ways will all stakeholders and the community benefit from participating in this research project?

Funding and Resources

Before beginning a CBR project, funding, resources, and budgets may be discussed. There are always benefits and challenges to receiving outside funding or grants. To participate in a CBR project takes time, money, and resources, and the scale of this will depend on the size of the project and what is already available from the campus or community. Projects can falter with little outside funding or resources. Resources can be administrative, including computers, meeting and office space, printing flyers and advertising materials, and research guides. Help with transportation may also be necessary to include all stakeholders. Resources can also include staffing; administrative help, and/or a project coordinator. A translator or cultural broker may also be necessary if one is working with individuals and groups from different cultural backgrounds. Polanyi and Cockburn (2003) state that the outside funding they received allowed them to “hire a (part-time) project coordinator, cover expenses for conferences and meetings with injured workers, and provide injured workers with an honorarium for their participation” (21). However, outside funders may require explicit details regarding the sample, research methods, and questions to be asked and the objectives and expected outcomes. This may leave little flexibility that most CBR projects require. Outside funders may also want a “principal investigator,” usually affiliated with an academic institution or agency, to be accountable for budgets, data collection and analysis, and the final report. Academic institutions and funding bodies may be supportive of collaborative research projects but still find it difficult to agree to collective decision making and shared responsibilities.

Flicker, Wilson, Travers, et al. (2009) developed a survey to investigate use and effectiveness of CBR, specifically looking at facilitating and barriers to CBR work with AIDS service organizations (ASOs) in Ontario, Canada. They found that increased funding was critical to facilitating CBR and that “lack of funding and resources (space, computers, time and staff)” and “too many competing demands” were the greatest barriers. The qualitative interviews with community organization staff also found:

The interviews revealed that issues surrounding funding are complex. Agencies were frustrated about how rare it was for community-based organizations to get compensated for their investment and contribution to partnered research endeavors. As such, the issue was not simply about increasing funding but also relocating and reconfiguring budgeting practices so that ASOs could (1) be the direct recipients of research grants and/or (2) increase their internal capacities to conduct research and maintain an active research programs. ( 95)

When decisions about resources are not shared, any intent to foster power sharing can reflect a “false egalitarianism” ( Nygreen, 2009 –2010) and generate mistrust. There is a need to educate funding organizations around issues of democratic decision making, collective responsibility, and capacity building.

Emerging Issues Research Ethics and Professional Boundaries:

Community-based researchers are similar to ethnographers: they need to “get up close and personal” to gain trust and establish a collaborative partnership. As we get to know our partners, questions and concerns can surface about professional boundaries. When is it appropriate to advocate or provide services to community members or to intervene into their personal lives? When does the CBR project end—after dissemination of the findings and the final report is completed or should community-based researchers continue their work into advocacy? How should we navigate our multiple roles, responsibilities, and relationships with our community partners to build trust, respect professional ethics and not exploit our partners? In reviewing the APA Code of Ethics, Baumann, Rodrilguez, & Parra-Cardona (2011) discuss the difficulties CBR practitioners have in negotiating their professional responsibilities. They state, “Establishing multiple and dual relationships with clients and community members carries the risk of becoming harmful and exploitive” (142). The APA Code of Ethics recommends “detached objectivity,” but CBR is about building trust and relationships.

There are also questions regarding the balance between scientific rigor and community needs. Baumann, Rodrilguez, & Parra-Cardona (2011) ask:

How can we balance science and community support? If methodology is changed based on community needs what are the implications to the validity of the methods? To the validity of the findings? (144–145)

The balance between scientific methods and community needs may be challenged at all stages of the research process—for example when community partners are eager to get the voices of certain community members yet random sampling is possible. Researchers may also find that their care and concern for their community partners makes scientific rigor sometimes difficult to uphold. For example, Schwartz (2010) asked students and community participants for their feedback on CBPR partnerships they were involved with and found that problems with communication and issues of power and control surfaced between partners, students, and the instructors. Students identified that they sometimes “felt pressure from their agencies to produce positive results” (8).

Another concern is confidentiality. Special consideration is needed when community members are involved in collecting data from their own communities that may be sensitive or stigmatizing. Smikowski, Dewane, Johnson, Brems, Bruss, & Roberts (2009 , 462) suggest caution:

Given the unique challenges presented in community—researcher partnerships, additional ethical issues arise that often put the researcher in conflict with more traditional research ethics. For example, when community members share in all aspects of the study, there may be difficulties maintaining confidentiality, or a heightened burden for participants with stigmatizing illnesses. [462]

This may require additional training and education regarding research ethics. While this training may extend the timeline for data collection, it builds capacity for future community-initiated research projects. Another dilemma that can arise is the pressure to collect data that fits with stakeholders’ experiences and/or expectations.

Collaboration or Exploitation

There needs to be a continuing discussion of the role of academia and power sharing within CBR partnerships. Can we have long-term and sustained partnerships between academics and community partners without them being exploitive or oppressive? Jackson and Kassam (1998) argue that participatory research programs have been “much criticized for becoming a new form of colonialism whereby western perspectives and priorities are imposed on oppressed groups” (cited in Ledwith & Springett 2010 ; 94). In discussing a PR project in Kyrgyzstan investigating health concerns, Jackson and Kassam discuss what they found: “Observations I made on a recent visit there indicate that the approach has had a substantial impact on the development of skills within rural communities. However, as the process has developed, agencies and government departments and the medical profession with their own agendas have tried to coerce communities into addressing needs that reflect their interests or perceptions” (cited in Ledwith & Springett 2010 ; 96).

Any discussion of power must include questions about “voice” and whose voice is heard and represented in CBR work. Community-based researchers must exercise caution when working with individuals or groups who may not represent the most oppressed or disenfranchised within the community. Working with community-based organizations or institutions can provide access to community members, but they may also function as “gatekeepers.” When we “partner up” with powerful community-based organizations, the staff may restrict access to less-powerful community residents if they are likely to challenge their position of dominance.

Case Study: A Thwarted CBR Project Concerning High School Dropout Rates and Absenteeism

In the spring of 2011, a senior staff member of a large public school department contacted our Office of Community-Based Learning to inquire about the possibilities of a CBR partnership to look into high dropout rates and absenteeism at an alternative high school. I was asked and agreed to meet with the senior coordinator of alternative education programs for the district to learn more about the alternative high school—the programs offered and the students, faculty, staff, and resources available. I was introduced to the background and history of alternative education generally and the specific history of this school. The public school department in this district was not an organization that I had partnered with before. Although many of our students had interned, volunteered, or completed student teaching at schools in the district, there had not been a connection with this particular school. The senior coordinator explained they were interested in learning from students, parents, teachers, staff, and truancy officers about why the alternative high school did not substantially reduce absenteeism and dropout rates as expected.

It was agreed that this could form the basis of a pilot study, a small CBR project with my students in an upper level sociology of education course that fall. They were interested in interviews, observations, and focus groups with multiple stakeholders involved in the research design, data collection, and analysis of the project. To get approval of this small CBR project, we needed to meet with the director of research and evaluation for the district. In meeting with the director, it was explained to us that, while it would be “interesting” to learn more about the high dropout rates and absenteeism from multiple stakeholders involved with the alternative high school, there was no “political will” to do so at this time. It was explained that the politics of public schools are complex and that the bureaucracy is extensive. He was confident that this was not the time to collect data about the successes or failure of any of their alternative education programs. He politely said we could submit a research proposal for this pilot CBR project, but we would be denied at this point in time. He could not say when might be a better time to explore this issue. It did not matter that the senior coordinator of alternative education programs had informal agreement from some parents and teachers to participate. The project ended before it even began.

This case study indicates that, while partnering with community-based organizations can provide benefits, they can also function as gatekeepers that reinforce power inequality within communities. It is necessary to continue to understand and reflect how power and privilege is negotiated, experienced, and challenged in dialogue and action. At this point, the CBR project is not being pursued.

Professional Barriers

Maguire (1987) lists difficulties often encountered by researchers doing PR work and suggests time as one of the greatest challenges for researchers and community partners. CBR can take a great deal of time—especially if one is partnering with a previously unknown organization or group. Building trust can take months or even years before collaboration and partnership are possible. Polanyi & Cockburn (2003 ; 23) in their work with injured workers also identified time commitments as extensive: “Academic participants spoke of how difficult it was to find the time needed to support this intensive process of collaborative inquiry, given heavy teaching, research, and publishing requirements.” Extensive time commitments may be necessary to build motivation and engage community members to establish a research partner. Tandon (cited in Maguire 1987 ) noted in reference to his personal assessment that most of his experience with PR had been a failure: “We simple underestimated people’s passivity” (42–43). Passivity can be experienced by both community members and faculty and can result from a number of factors, but to change this requires support—often institutional supports that are missing.

Institutional Barriers

There has been an increasing demand for academic institutions and funding bodies to facilitate CBR projects. Faculty often feel that their academic institutions do not recognize the scholarship of CBR in their tenure applications, the pedagogy of engaged scholarship, or their commitment to research and social justice work in their communities. Schwartz (2010) surveyed academics to get their feedback about CBR projects and found that faculty highlighted institutional barriers to CBR work as most problematic—time, lack of curriculum flexibility, resources, and the ethics approval process. Cancian (1996) makes the distinction between academic research and activist research and argues that to navigate both worlds of engaged scholar and academia is very difficult to do. She states:

Activist research is “for” women and other disadvantaged people and often involves close social ties and cooperation with the disadvantaged. In contrast, academic research aims at increasing knowledge about questions that are theoretically or socially significant. Academic research is primarily “for” colleagues. “It involves close ties with faculty and students and emotional detachment from the people being studied. Social researchers who do activist research and want a successful academic career thus have to bridge two conflicting social worlds.” [187] “[P]articipatory research is so strongly oriented to the community that it is difficult to maintain an academic career. It is especially difficult to produce the frequent publications required by a research university on the basis of research that faithfully follows the tenets of participatory research. [194]

Academic organizations must also recognize and support transdisciplinary research and scholarship within a CBR paradigm. Levin and Greenwood 2008 ) write, “Action Research’s democratizing agendas and necessary transdiscplinarity run right into the brick walls of academic professional silos and disciplinary control structures to preserve disciplinary power and monopolies over positions and terms of employment and promotion of their disciplines” (212). Votruba (2010) refers to this as the need to “institutionalize this work—provide campus leadership; faculty incentives and rewards; planning and budgeting; annual evaluation, awards, and recognitions; and public policy aligned to support the scholarship of engagement” (xiv).

Twenty-five years ago, Boyer (1996) argued that we should not expect institutions of higher education to lead in tackling some of the world’s greatest problems—that in fact they were part of the problem. He wrote:

[W]hat I find most disturbing... is a growing feeling in this country that higher education is, in fact, part of the problem rather than the solution. Going still further, that it’s become a private benefit, not a public good. Increasingly, the campus is being viewed as a place where students get credentialed and faculty get tenured while the overall work of the academy does not seem particularly relevant to the nation’s most pressing civic, social, economic, and moral problems. [11]

Today there has been much progress within many institutions, However, this must continue as institutional leadership is critical to expanding CBR to tackle contemporary social problems within our communities and globally. Glass and Fitzgerald (2010) have written a “Draft Recommendations for Engagement Benchmarks and Outcomes Indicator Categories” as a way to evaluate the extent to which institutions and faculty are involved and supported in campus–community partnerships. They suggest that the conceptualization of “scholars” and “scholarship” be broadened to reflect the community—creating “the community of scholars” and “community scholarship” to give full support and recognition of all partners.

CBR is difficult to evaluate in terms of assessing our successes and failures. What is a successful outcome of a CBR project? How can we assess or determine if “collaboration,” “empowerment,” or “capacity building” took place and to what extent? Peterson (2009) suggested that there is a growing body of research addressing the question of evaluation:

With the bulk of early research on community-based education focusing on the academic, civic, and moral benefits for students, many researchers in the late 1990s problematized the paltry research that had been conducted on the ways in which communities benefit or are burdened by the involvement of faculty and students in their community work. As a result, in the last 10 years a variety of studies have been conducted to assess this impact (544).

For example, in a comprehensive evaluation of published peer-reviewed articles related to the use and outcomes of CBPR in clinical health trials De Las Nueces, Hacker, DiGirolama and Hicks (2012) found CBPR projects “ had very high success rates in recruiting and retaining minority participants and achieving significant intervention effects” (1379). They also found that authors often reported community participation in detail but were less likely to discuss participant involvement in the interpretation and dissemination of the research findings.

However, evaluation research of engaged scholarship is still limited.

When projects take a very different direction than originally intended (as in Atalay, 2010 ), can it still be considered a successful CBR project? If the researcher does not see any evidence of transformation, but community members suggest they have learned a great deal (as discussed by Nygreen, 2009 –2010), is this still success? Votruba (2010) challenges us to critically look at how we determine success. He states:

We need to do a far better job of assessing our engagement work. We’ve made progress in this regard but, until we have reached agreement regarding what constitutes excellence in this domain, it will remain difficult to measure and reward. For example, should we focus on assessing activities or outcomes? What role does self-assessment play? How about peer assessment? Absent of appropriate and generally accepted standards for evaluating the scholarship of engagement, faculty members are less likely to embrace it because of the risk that it will not be recognized and rewarded. [xiii–xvi]

There are few guidelines as to how to evaluate CBR projects. As said previously, the core principles of CBR are not intended as evaluation criteria. A preliminarily question might be “who” decides on the guidelines and criteria for success? Bowl, Tully & Leahy (2010) suggest, “In reflecting views that some parties to the research would disagree with, we were vulnerable to charges of selectivity and bias. Ensuring the validity of our findings was a challenge.”( 47). They suggested an alternative way to approach validity in the research, by focusing on credibility rather than truth, stating, “Credibility entails a sense that researchers understand the field within which they research, and that they respect those with whom they research. The researchers themselves and not just their tools need to be ‘trustworthy’” (48).

As scholars and researchers working from a social justice and social change paradigm, we often reflect on whether our CBR work has made a significant difference and in what ways. Is social change an important criterion for evaluation of CBR projects? Lykes and Mallona (2008) suggest that engaged researchers and scholars have not been as successful as they might hope in making substantial, lasting change. They state, “A vast literature has emerged documenting and evaluating individual development projects and the ways in which they have or have not contributed to social change. Despite local contributions there is little evidence that the cumulative effect has either redressed social inequalities or reduced structural violence” (113). While this may be true, it suggests the need for continued reflection and action—praxis, not defeat. Small successes do matter, and the cumulative effects may still be emerging. We also need to “mainstream” CBR within academic institutions, communities, and funding bodies to increase opportunities through additional supports and resources.

There has been a huge increase in the scholarship of CBR for engaged scholars to learn from others in the field. Unfortunately, so much of the literature about CBR principles, strategies, and exemplars is written for an academic audience rather than written for community members. Couto (2003 , 71) In his review essay of Minkler and Wallerstein’s edited book Community-Based Participatory Research for Health , states, “Despite the wonderful examples of CBPR for and with community partners, we still have the challenge to develop methods that will permit community groups to conduct research of their own and by themselves. Only by striving to turn research for and with them into tools that community partners can use to do their own research will we really be pushing the cutting edge of concepts such as ‘empowerment,’ ‘community development,’ ‘community organizing,’ ‘representation,’ and ‘participation.’” Fuentes (2009 –2010) also challenges community groups not only to participate in research projects but to take ownership and control over research concerning their communities and recognize their capabilities of being both subjects and architects of research.

CBR is a collaborative research project between researchers, community members, and sometimes students to formulate problems and find solutions that are meaningful and practical for all stakeholders. It has a rich history in critical pedagogy, critical theory, feminist theory, and the epistemology of knowledge that continues to influence the principles and skills that define CBR. Today we have exemplars that help guide new practitioners in their consideration of and engagement with community partners to form a collaborative and transformative relationship. If we use subjective measures to determine “success,” we have an abundance of evidence that suggests CBR and engaged scholarship has had substantial success in finding innovative solutions to complex problems in our communities. Successful projects have occurred in disciplines such as public health, psychology, sociology, anthropology, urban development, and archeology. It has also included projects that are transdisciplinary in design and practice. Success has also been found within diverse communities of interest: children and youth, aboriginal peoples, female bar workers, HIV and AIDS clients, injured workers, and immigrant families to name just a few discussed here. Evaluation research suggests that this paradigm shift to a new “orientation to inquiry” has fostered campus-community partnerships that address the traditional inequities in the research process as a result of the positivist paradigm.

The strength of CBR and scholarship is its diversity and willingness to be transparent in addressing challenges. Practitioners and scholars of CBR continue to struggle with issues related to power and control—how power is used and experienced by the researcher, community members, and other community-based organizations. Questions continue to be raised about encouraging sustained partnerships or developing community scholars who do not need or want outside researchers from academic institutions. At this point, it seems that there is a growing awareness that academic institutions should revisit their public mission to serve, to collaborate with community partners on community-defined issues. I am not convinced that community organizations and/or community members are developing this same mission. However, if independence from academic institutions is a sign of capacity building, then “success” may result in continuously new partnerships. This may be more challenging for researchers and practitioners and warrants further consideration.

Alinsky, S. ( 1971 ). Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals . New York: Random House.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Atalay, S. ( 2010 ). We don’t talk about Catalhoyuk, we live it’: sustainable archeological practice through community-based participatory research.   Archeology and Contemporary Society . 42 (3), 418–429.

Baumann, A. , Rodriguez, M. D. , Parra-Cardona, J. ( 2011 ). Community based applied research with Latino Immigrant families: Informing practice and research according to ethical and social justice principles.   Family Process . 50 , 132–148.

Begun, A. , Berger, L. , Otto-Salaj, L. , &. Rose, S. ( 2010 ). Developing effective social work university—community research collaborations.   Social Work . 55 (1), 54–62.

Bowd, R. , Ozerdem, A. , & Kassa, D.G. ( 2010 ) A theoretical and practical exposition of participatory research methods. In Ozerdem, A. & Bowd, R. (Eds.) Participatory Research Methodologies: Development and Post-Disaster/Conflict Reconstruction . Farnham, England: Ashgate.

Bowl, M. , Tully, L. & Leahy, J. ( 2010 ). The complexity of collaboration: Opportunities and challenges in contracted research.   Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement . 3 , 38–54.

Boyer, E. ( 1994 ). Creating the new American college.   The Chronicle of Higher Education . March 9, A48.

Boyer, E. ( 1996 ). The scholarship of engagement.   Journal of Public Service and Outreach . 1 , 11–20

Cancian, F. ( 1996 ). Participatory research and alternative strategies for activist sociology.. In Heidi Gottfried (Ed) Feminism and Social Change: Bridging Theory and Practice . Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 160–186.

Clayton, P. , Bringle, R.   Senor, B.   Huq, J. & Morrison, M. ( 2010 ). Differentiating and assessing relationships in service-learning and civic engagement: Exploitive, transactional, or transformational.   Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning . Spring. 5–22.

Cockerill, R.   Myers, T. & Allman, D. ( 2000 ). Planning for community-based evaluation.   American Journal of Evaluation , 21 ,3: 351–357.

Comstock, D. & Fox, R. ( 1993 ). Participatory research as critical theory: The North Bonneville, USA experience. In Park, P. (Ed.) Voices of Change: Participatory Research in the United States and Canada . Westport, CT.: Bergin & Garvey. 103–124.

Couto, R. ( 2003 ). Review Essay. Community-based research: Celebration and concern.   Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning . Summer, 9(3), 69–74.

Decker, M. , Hemmerling, A. , & Lankoande, F. ( 2010 ). Women front and center: The opportunities of involving women in participatory health research worldwide.   Journal of Women’s Health . 19 (11), 2109–2114.

Deegan, M.J. ( 1990 ). Jane Addams and the Men of The Chicago School, 1892–1918 . New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

De Las Nueces, D. , Hacker, K. , DiGirolama, A. and Hicks, L. ( 2012 ). A systematic review of community-based participatory research to enhance clinical trials in racial and ethnic minority groups.   Health Services Research . 47 (3) Part II, 1363–1386.

Fiorilla, L. , Connors, A. , Landry, D. , Loates, A. , Kuzmak, N. , Rutherford, G. , Smith, L. , & Walsh, C. ( 2009 ). Relationality and reflexivity in community-based research: Reflections from the field.   Transformative Dialogues Teaching and Learning Journal . 3 (2), 1–11.

Flicker, S. , Wilson, M. , Travers, R. , Bereket, T. , McCay, C. , Van der Meulen, A. , Guta, A. , Cleverly, S. , & Rourke, S. ( 2009 ). Community-based research in AIDS service organizations: What helps and what doesn’t?   AIDS Care . 21 (1), 94–102.

Freire, P. ( 2000 ). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th Anniversary ed . NY: Continuum.

Fuentes, E. ( 2009 –2010). Learning power and building community: parent-initiated participatory action research as a tool for organizing community.   Social Justice , 36 (4), 69–83.

Gaventa, J. ( 1993 ). “The powerful, the powerless, and the experts: knowledge struggles in an information age.” In Park, P. , Brydon-Miller M. , Hall, B. , & Jackson, T. (Eds.) Voices of Change: Participatory Research in the United States and Canada , 21–40. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Glass, C. , & Fitzgerald, H. ( 2010 ). Engaged scholarship: Historical roots, contemporary challenges. In Fitzgerald, H , Burack, C. , & Seifer, S. (Eds.). The Handbook of Engaged Scholarship: Contemporary Landscapes, Future Directions. Volume 1: Institutional Change . East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University.

Goh, Y.Y. , Bogart, L. , Sipple-Asher, B.K. , Uyeda, K. , Hawes-Dawes, J. , Olarita-Dhungana, J. , Ryan, G. , & Schuster, M. ( 2009 ). Using community-based participatory research to identify potential interventions to overcome barriers to adolescents’ healthy eating and physical activity.   Journal of Behavior Medicine . 32 , 491–502.

Israel, B. , Eng, E , Schultz, A. , & Parker, E. ( 2005 ). Methods in community-based participatory research for health . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Israel, B. , Schulz, A. , Parker, E. , & Becker, A. ( 1998 ). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health.   American Review of Public Health . 19 , 173–202.

Krumer-Nevo, M. ( 2009 ). From voice to knowledge: Participatory Action Research, inclusive debate and feminism.   International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education . 20 (3), 279–295.

Leavy, P. ( 2011 ). Essentials of Transdisciplanary Research: Using Problem-Centered Methodologies . Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Ledwith, M. & Springett, J. ( 2010 ). Participatory Practice: Community-Based Action for Transformative Change . Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

Levin, M. & Greenwood, D. ( 2008 ). The future of universities: Action reserch and the transformation of higher education. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H.   The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, 2nd ed . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 211–226.

Lykes, M.B. , & Mallona, A. ( 2008 ). Towards transformational liberation: Participatory and Action Research and praxis. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). The Sage Book of Action Research 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 106–120.

Maguire, P. ( 1987 ). Doing Participatory Research: A Feminist Approach . Amherst, MA: The Center for International Education.

Mandell, J. ( 2010 ). Advice to action research activists: Negotiating successful action research- community based social change partnerships.   Humanity and Society . 34, 141–156.

McNaughton, C. &. Rock, D. ( 2004 ). Opportunities in Aboriginal research: Results of SSHRC’s dialogue on research and Aboriginal Peoples.   Native Studies Review . 15 (2), 37–60.

Mdee, A. ( 2010 ). Who speaks for the community? Negotiating agency and voice in community-based resarch in Tanzania. In Ozerdem, A. & Bowd, R. (Eds.). Participatory Research Methodologies: Development and Post Disaster/Conflict Reconstruction . Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate 29–44.

Mills, C.W. ( 1959 ). The Sociological Imagination . NY: Oxford University Press.

Morisky, D. , Marlow, R. , Tiglao, T. , Lyu, S.Y. , Vissman, A. & Rhodes, S. ( 2010 ). Reducing sexual risk among Filipina female bar workers: Effects of a CBPR—developed structural and network intervention.   AIDS Education and Prevention . 22 (4), 371–385.

Naples, N. with Clark, E. ( 1996 ). “Feminist participatory research and empowerment: Going public as survivors of childhood sexual abuse.” In Heidi Gottfried (Ed) Feminism and Social Change: Bridging Theory and Practice . Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 160–186.

Netshandama, V. ( 2010 ). Quality partnerships.   International Journal of Community Research & Engagement . 3, 70–87

Noll, James W. ( 2010 ). Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Educational Issues . 15th Edition . NY. McGraw Hill.

Nyden, P. , Figert, A. , Shibley, M. , & Burrows, D. ( 1997 ). Building Community: Social Science in Action . Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Nyden, P. & Wiewel, W. ( 1992 ). Collaborative research: Harnessing the tensions between researcher and practitioner.   The American Sociologist . Winter, 23(4), 43–55

Nygreen, K. ( 2009 -2010). Critical dilemmas in PAR: Toward a new theory of engaged research for social change.   Social Justice , 36 (4), 14–35.

Ozerdem, A. &. Bowd, R. ( 2010 ). Participatory Research Methodologies: Development and Post-Disaster/Conflict Reconstruction . Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate.

Park, P. , Brydon-Miller, M. , Hall, B. , & Jackson, T. ( 1993 ). Voices of Change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Peterson, T.H. ( 2009 ). Engaged scholarship: Reflections and research on the pedagogy of social change.   Teaching in Higher Education . 14 (5), 541–552.

Pinto, R. M. , Schmidt, C. N. , Rodriguez, P.S. , & Solano, R. ( 2007 ). Using principles of community participatory research.   International Social Work . 50 (1): 53–65.

Polanyi, M. & Cockburn, L. ( 2003 ). Opportunities and pitfalls of community-based research: A case study.   Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning (Spring), 9(3), 16–25.

Porpora, D. ( 1999 ). “Action research: The highest Stage of service learning.” In Ostrow, J. , Hesser, G. , Erios, S. (Eds.). Cultivating the Sociological Imagination: Concepts, and Models for Service Learning . Sterling, Virginia: Stylus.

Puma, J. , Bennett, L. , Cutforth, N. , & Tombari, C. &. Stein, P. ( 2009 ). A case study of a community-based participatory evaluation research (CBPER) project: Reflections on promising practices and shortcomings.   Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning (Spring), 15(2), 34–47.

Rahman, Md. A. ( 2008 ). Some trends in the praxis of participatory action research. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H.   The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice 2nd Ed. . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 50–62

Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. ( 2008 ). The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Schwartz, K. ( 2010 ). Community engaged research: Student and community perspectives.   Partnerships: A Journal of Service learning & Civic Engagement , 1 (2),.1–16.

Sessa, C. & Ricci, A. ( 2010 ). Research Note: Working with and for the citizens.   Innovations—The European Journal of Social Science Research . 22 (1), 49–60.

Smikowski, J. , Dewane, S. , Johnson, M. , Brems, C. , Bruss, C. & Roberts, L. ( 2009 ). Community-based participatory research for improved mental health.   Ethics and Behavior . 19(6). 461–478

Staples, L. ( 2004 ). Roots to Power: A Manual for Grassroots Organizing. 2 ed . Westport, CT: Praeger.

Strand, K. ( 2000 ). Community-based research as pedagogy.   Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning . Fall, 7, 85–96.

Strand, K. , Marullo, S. , Cutforth, N. , Stoecker, R. & Donohue, P. ( 2003 a). Principles of best practices for community-based research.   Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning (Spring), 9(3), 5–15.

Strand, K. , Marullo, S.   Cutforth, N.   Stoecker, R. & Donohue, P. ( 2003 b) Community-Based Research and Higher Education: Principles and Practices . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Subramaniam, Mangala ( 2009 ) Negotiating the field in rural India: Location, organization, and identity salience. In Huggins, M. & Glebbeek, M.L (Eds.). Women Fielding Danger: Negotiating Ethnographic Identities in Field Research . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Torre, M. & Fine, M. ( 2011 ). A wrinkle in time: Tracing a legacy of public service through community self-surveys and Participatory Action Research.   Journal of Social Issues . 67(1), 106–121.

Votruba, J. ( 2010 ). Forward. In Fitzgerald, H. , Burack, C ,. & Seifer, S. (Eds.) The Handbook Engaged Scholarship: Contemporary Landscapes, Future Directions. Vol. 1 Institutional Change . East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. xi–xvi.

Wallerstein, N.   Duran, B. , Minkler, M. & Foley, K. ( 2005 ). Developing and maintaining partnerships with communities. In Istrael, B. , Eng, E. , Schultz, A. & Parker, E. (Eds.) Methods in Community Based Participatory Research Methods . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 31–51.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Find Studies

For Researchers

• Learn about Research

What does it mean to do research within a community?

Some researchers do studies in a lab. Some do studies in a clinic. Some do studies in hospitals. And some do studies within a community. You might be thinking, what does it mean to do research within a community? What do researchers even mean when they say “community”? Why do they want to do research with a community? How do they learn about communities? These are all great questions! 

“Community” can mean a lot of different things when it comes to research. Researchers think about communities in many different ways. A community could be people who live in the same area. It could be people who are in the same age group (like children, or older adults). It could be people who share the same identities, speak the same languages, work the same jobs, experience the same health issues, join the same social media groups, enjoy doing the same activities…or people who feel connected to each other for any of these reasons, and others!    

Just like there are many different types of communities, there are a lot of reasons why researchers might be interested in doing research with communities. Some researchers want to find out about how people live their lives within their communities to help improve everyday health. Some want to figure out what the most important health issues are in a community. And others want to see if a new program might help make communities healthier.     

How do researchers learn about communities?  

Imagine you just moved to a new town – how would you try to learn about your new home? Would you go to some events? Try to meet new people? Talk to your neighbors? Find groups that do activities you like? Now, if you were a researcher, how would you try to learn about a community you wanted to work with? If your answers seem similar, that’s because…well…they are. When researchers want to learn about communities, the best thing they can do is (you guessed it) get out there! As a researcher tries to learn more about a community, they might go to events, volunteer with community groups, or meet with people who are interested in the same health topics as they are. They might try to find out what research projects are already going on in a community by talking to other researchers. They might try to find out what health topics are most important to community members by looking at community health reports, or maybe even by trying to organize a listening session where community members come and share their thoughts and feelings about a research topic. The more time a researcher can spend learning about a community, the better their research can be! If you see a researcher out in your community before a research project starts, they might be trying to:  

• Build trust and relationships with community members  
• Choose a research topic that the community is interested in  
• Pick a type of study that the community wants to take part in  
• Learn what results community members want to see from the research   
• Figure out what might make it hard for community members to join a research study and what might make it easier  
• Learn if the community wants to help plan, do, or share the research  

How can researchers work with a community on a research project?  

One of the most important things a researcher can learn when they want to work with communities is how much a community wants to help plan, do, and share the research. Sometimes research projects happen  in  communities. Research that happens  in  communities is called  community-based research . You might also think of research as happening  on  communities (research should not feel like it is happening on you!). Well, research can happen  with  communities, too. Working  with  communities on a research project is called  community-engaged research .   

Even though community-engaged research is one type of research, these projects can all look really different. There are many ways to “engage” with communities on a research project. This is why it is so important for researchers to talk with communities about how involved they want to be in planning, doing, and sharing the research. Researchers can work with community members to…  

Researchers can work with communities on one part of a research project (like PLAN), or all parts of a research project (PLAN, DO, and SHARE). And sometimes researchers will work with the same communities on many different research projects! It all depends on the researcher, the study, and what the community wants.  

What if researchers really want to put the community in the driver’s seat?  

Sometimes, when communities are really involved with research, it is called  community-based participatory research or CBPR . In community-based participatory research projects, communities aren’t just doing research  with  a researcher – they are leading the research! Community-based participatory research is done through a true and equal partnership of community members and a researcher or research team. The ideas, research topic, study design…pretty much everything about the research…is driven by community members. They have the power to make decisions about all parts of the study and how the research is done. Community-based participatory research studies usually try to understand big issues impacting communities (maybe something like access to healthcare or poverty within a community) and try to find solutions through policy and social change. This type of research takes a lot of time, strong relationships, and trust between community partners and researchers.    

So, to wrap it all up…      

There are many researchers out there who work with communities on research. Working with communities to do research takes time, trust, and effort – but it makes the research so much better for everyone!   

Copyright © 2013-2022 The NC TraCS Institute, the integrated home of the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program at UNC-CH.  This website is made possible by CTSA Grant UL1TR002489 and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

Helpful Links

• My UNC Chart
• Find a Doctor
• Accessibility
• Privacy Policy

Community-engaged research can improve outcomes, and ultimately change the landscape of programs and policies in the U.S.

Meet the researchers who are working with communities to help close the gap between those proposing solutions to socioeconomic problems and those closest to the problems.

Distance and distrust often grow as researchers, policymakers, and philanthropic organizations – those who are framing and proposing solutions to socioeconomic problems – circulate recommendations and interventions on communities that are the subjects of research, but who are not involved in substantive discussion about the work.

Community-engaged research, in addition to improving research impact, applies intentional effort to mitigate the conditions that have created distance between researchers and community members.

In community-engaged research models:

• Researchers collaborate with members of the community who are closest to, or experiencing, the research questions or contexts being studied.
• Researchers uplift community ideas and perspectives.
• Community members are seen as experts in their own experiences.
• Participation of community members can improve research relevance and rigor.

Change research to change outcomes

As a long-time champion of entrepreneurial research, we at Kauffman believe we can improve outcomes by supporting community-engaged research.

The Foundation has developed new grant initiatives to fund this type of work, and we hope to learn from, and with, these researchers and community partners to not only disrupt the conversation about research and its application, but to disrupt the field itself. One such initiative is the Community-Engaged Entrepreneurship Research grant portfolio .

We believe that including the voices of our communities in the research process may produce more nuanced and robust findings that, ultimately, can serve as the basis to truly change the landscape of programs and policies in the United States.

Grantees and community partners joined us for an Entrepreneurship Issue Forum, “The Power of Partnership: Forming Strong Research and Community Partnerships,” to discuss and explore their work. The forum made space for them to share their experiences in designing research with partnerships in mind, forming strong community partnerships, as well as the challenges or pitfalls that other researchers should be aware of before engaging in this approach to research production.

“The community taught me how to be a community researcher,” said Jacob Wagner, faculty founder of the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) Center for Neighborhoods. “When I think back to the lessons I’ve learned, it was always from the community. You could take a class in it; that’s not the same thing as having the community really test you and see ‘how long are you here for?’ ‘What’s the purpose of your research?’ And ‘should I even get involved with you?’”

Alisha Small, a scholar at the McNair Center for Economic Growth, said community engagement is about investing in people within the community. “The community-engaged research model is very special because you’re building relationships – you can’t engage community by yourself, you need people.”

Learn more about the three-year research projects in the Community-Engaged Research portfolio.

• Brooklyn Communities Collaborative, Inc., and Hunter College, City University of New York (CUNY) Grant supports collaboration with both entrepreneurs and healthcare institutions, to develop a supplier diversity program in Brooklyn, New York. The project will create and disseminate guidebooks to better equip Black entrepreneurs to secure contracts with anchor healthcare institutions and to help institutions better support a more diverse contractor pool – ultimately contributing to more diverse and equitable entrepreneurial ecosystems across the United States.
• McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth Grant supports research on the economic impacts faced by small-business owners in gentrifying areas of Houston. The research will provide insight on how entrepreneurial ecosystems – locally and nationally – can better support incumbent small business owners when faced with socioeconomic pressures from gentrification.
• University of California at San Diego Grant supports research on community-accountable, employee-driven technology entrepreneurship in San Diego. The findings will offer insight into how ecosystems can better support worker-owned, community-strengthening ventures.
• University of Michigan and Jefferson East, Inc. Grant supports research and development on the efficacy of a program, which aims to improve the digital capacity of eastside Detroit-based entrepreneurs who require digital support for their businesses. The research and programming developed in this work will help address disparities in access to and use of technology that can exacerbate inequalities in entrepreneurial outcomes, particularly among lower income and older entrepreneurs.
• University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) Center for Neighborhoods Grant project explores place-based challenges faced by Black and Hispanic entrepreneurs in Kansas City, Missouri. Insights from this research will inform new programs, workshops, and trainings to better support Black and Hispanic entrepreneurs.
• Virginia Commonwealth University Grant supports research, in collaboration with entrepreneur support organization partners, into the experiences of entrepreneurs with racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds in Richmond, Virginia. The research will culminate in a community forum and the creation of an ecosystem equity action plan to engage the Richmond ecosystem in strengthening local entrepreneurial outcomes.

Read Community-Engaged Entrepreneurship Research: Methodologies to Advance Equity and Inclusion , written by Chhaya Kolavalli , senior program officer in Entrepreneurship, to learn more about Kauffman’s thinking around community-engaged research and the work of our grantees.

• Mission Statement
• How to Partner
• Citizen Participation in Technical Decisions
• Environmental Justice
• Ethics of Research
• Health Equity and Disparities
• Public Policy
• Public Education
• Participatory Action Research
• Popular Education
• Dialogue Sessions
• Citizen Panels
• Participatory Evaluation
• Alternative Dispute Resolution
• Current Projects
• Past Projects
• Case Studies from the Early Days
• Major Epistemological Currents after 1850
• Latest MEMES outline
• Bibliography

Problem Solving for Real Change and Empowerment

Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR), is a relatively recent innovation in problem solving and knowledge creation. CBPR addresses issues and solves problems of social, political, and health disparities where traditional research methods fail because it works with rather than for communities, taking into account specific social realities that often cause the disparities.

The creation of a fully participatory partnership between community members and technically trained experts and investigators is the critical component in any CBPR project; evidence from many sources suggests that what guarantees the production of good science is in fact the promotion of community-defined problem solving.

In the SCRC’s view community-based participatory research must include the following elements:

• Community Defined: the problem under investigation is defined by the community itself, or in collaboration with the formally trained researchers
•  Equitable Collaboration: power and decision-making are shared in all phases of the research and intervention processes
• Action Outcome: the project must include a component that enables direct action on the problem set under investigation

Grassroots communities and research agencies use CBPR to conduct equitable, transparent, and ethically sound research on community-defined problems. By undertaking research projects with community-defined questions, CBPR allows researchers to undertake only those research projects which are most relevant to a community in question, creating stakeholder relationships and buy-in that is otherwise often absent.

• Search for:

How To Partner

Our Friends

Cbpr resources, click here to see our current projects, click here to leave a comment, southeast community research center.

• SCRC is a 501(c)(3) organization. Support our important work with your tax-deductible donation.
• COPYRIGHT © 2023, SCRC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Search form

• Table of Contents
• Troubleshooting Guide
• A Model for Getting Started
• Justice Action Toolkit
• Best Change Processes
• Databases of Best Practices
• Online Courses
• Ask an Advisor
• Subscribe to eNewsletter
• Community Stories
• YouTube Channel
• About the Tool Box
• How to Use the Tool Box
• Privacy Statement
• Workstation/Check Box Sign-In
• Online Training Courses
• Capacity Building Training
• Training Curriculum - Order Now
• Community Check Box Evaluation System
• Build Your Toolbox
• Facilitation of Community Processes
• Community Health Assessment and Planning
• Section 15. Qualitative Methods to Assess Community Issues

Chapter 3 Sections

• Section 1. Developing a Plan for Assessing Local Needs and Resources
• Section 2. Understanding and Describing the Community
• Section 3. Conducting Public Forums and Listening Sessions
• Section 4. Collecting Information About the Problem
• Section 5. Analyzing Community Problems
• Section 6. Conducting Focus Groups
• Section 7. Conducting Needs Assessment Surveys
• Section 8. Identifying Community Assets and Resources
• Section 9. Developing Baseline Measures
• Section 10. Conducting Concerns Surveys
• Section 11. Determining Service Utilization
• Section 12. Conducting Interviews
• Section 13. Conducting Surveys
• Section 14. SWOT Analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
• Section 16. Geographic Information Systems: Tools for Community Mapping
• Section 17. Leading a Community Dialogue on Building a Healthy Community
• Section 18. Creating and Using Community Report Cards
• Section 19. Using Public Records and Archival Data
• Section 20. Implementing Photovoice in Your Community
• Section 21. Windshield and Walking Surveys
• Section 22. Using Small Area Analysis to Uncover Disparities
• Section 23. Developing and Using Criteria and Processes to Set Priorities
• Section 24. Arranging Assessments That Span Jurisdictions
• Main Section

What are qualitative methods of assessment?

Why use qualitative methods of assessment, when would you use qualitative methods of assessment, how do you use qualitative methods of assessment.

Using qualitative assessment methods rather than purely data-based information is crucial to understanding many community issues and needs. Numbers work well to show comparisons, progress, an statistics of community efforts, but they cannot express motives, opinions, feelings, or relationships. This section discusses how to use qualitative assessment methods and when to implement them into communtiy planning.

Qualitative methods of assessment are ways of gathering information that yield results that can’t easily be measured by or translated into numbers. They are often used when you need the subtleties behind the numbers – the feelings, small actions, or pieces of community history that affect the current situation. They acknowledge the fact that experience is subjective – that it is filtered through the perceptions and world views of the people undergoing it – and that it’s important to understand those perceptions and world views.

There are two major scientific ways of gathering information: quantitative methods and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods are those that express their results in numbers. They tend to answer questions like “How many?” or “How much?” or “How often?” When they’re used to compare things – the results of community programs, the effects of an economic development effort, or attitudes about a community issue – they do it by subjecting all of the things or people they’re comparing to exactly the same tests or to the same questions whose answers can be translated into numbers. That way, they can compare apples to apples – everything or everyone is measured by the same standard. Quantitative measures are often demanded by policy makers; they are considered trustworthy because their results can be measured against one another, and because they leave less room for bias.

Qualitative methods don’t yield numerical results in themselves. They may involve asking people for “essay” answers about often-complex issues, or observing interactions in complex situations. When you ask a lot of people for their reactions to or explanations of a community issue, you’re likely to get a lot of different answers. When you observe a complex situation, you may see a number of different aspects of it, and a number of ways in which it could be interpreted. You’re not only not comparing apples to apples, you may be comparing apples to bulldozers or waterfalls. As a result, researchers and policymakers sometimes see qualitative methods as less accurate and less legitimate than quantitative ones. That can be true, but, as we’ll see, if qualitative methods are used with care, they can also yield reliable information.

Qualitative and quantitative methods are, in fact, complementary. Each has strengths and weaknesses that the other doesn’t, and together, they can present a clearer picture of the situation than either would alone. Often, the most accurate information is obtained when several varieties of each method are used. That’s not always possible, but when it is, it can yield the best results.

There are a number of qualitative methods that can be used in assessment of issues or community needs. We’ll list the major ones here, and look at them in more detail later in the section.

They include:

• Individual interviews . These may be structured interviews, where the questions are determined beforehand, or unstructured conversations that are allowed to range wherever the interviewee wants to go in relation to the general topic. Even in structured interviews, there may be room for both interviewers and interviewees to pursue topics that don’t relate directly to answering the original questions. The difference, however, is that in a structured interview, all those questions are formally asked, and the interviewer does her best to make sure they’re answered.
• Group interviews . These are similar to individual interviews, but involve two or more interviewees at a time, rather than one. (Sometimes, these are unexpected – the interviewee’s mother and sister are present, and insist on being part of the conversation.) Group interviews have some advantages, in that interviewees can act as a check on one another (I remember that happening in a different way…), and stimulate one another’s thinking. At the same time, the interviewer has to be somewhat of a facilitator, making sure that no one person dominates, and that everyone gets a reasonable chance to speak.

A special case of group interviewing is a focus group . This is a group of about 6-10 people, led by a trained facilitator, assembled to answer a specific question or questions. An effort is sometimes made to make sure that group members don’t know one another, so that social pressures won’t influence them. If trained facilitators are available, focus groups can be a good way to get accurate information about an issue.

• Observation . Here, someone actually goes and looks at a place or event, watches situations or interactions, or takes part in the life of the community or a population while recording what he finds as a result.
• Community or other large meetings . These meetings allow a range of people a chance to express their opinions and react to others’. They can draw on a large pool of opinions and knowledge at one time, and uncover disagreements or differences that can then be discussed.
• Interpretation of records, transcripts, etc. This can range from qualitative analysis of quantitative data (like the assumption of the researcher in the introduction to this section that people who are doing well won’t be interested in an adult education program), to using quantitative data as a jumping-off point for qualitative assessment, to case studies (detailed examinations of individual cases). The last are not always useful in assessing community issues or needs, but they can be very effective in convincing policymakers or funders of the importance of those issues and needs.

Many types of qualitative information are turned into numerical results, although not always accurately. The transformation may miss important details, or the information may simply be too complex to fit easily into numerical constraints, unless you can create a computer model or similar number-based framework that has the capacity to take in an enormous amount of variety. There are many software programs – NVivo and Atlas.ti are fairly well-known, but there are many others, including some freeware – that are intended expressly for analyzing qualitative data.

Since qualitative methods give you results that are not always easy to compare, or even to check for accuracy, people who want hard and fast evidence often see them as suspect. In fact, both quantitative and qualitative measures are important and necessary, depending on the situation. When you’re assessing community issues, as we’ve discussed, you’ll often get closest to the complete picture by using both. The problem is convincing those who need to be convinced – policymakers, funders, etc. – that your qualitative measures are reliable.

There is a debate in the research community about how to judge qualitative methods. Some say they should be evaluated by the same standards as quantitative methods. Others maintain that, because they are intrinsically different from quantitative methods, qualitative methods need a set of standards that take into account their philosophical base and the kind of information they yield.

The British government, for instance, has developed a framework for demonstrating qualitative reliability, which includes a set of 18 questions that a qualitative assessment or study should be subjected to (see Tool #1 ).

Guidelines that can help you argue for the reliability of your qualitative assessment include:

• Report accurately and completely . Whether you’re interviewing, observing, or engaging in some other technique, you should faithfully record such details as the time and place of your activity, who was involved, what the situation was, etc. In that way, you can see similarities and differences, and make comparisons where they’re appropriate. The recording of interviews, observations, and other information should be as accurate and nearly complete as possible (e.g., word-for-word for interviews).
• Frame the right questions, and direct them appropriately . Occasionally, it works to go fishing for information, i.e. to start without any idea of what you want to find out In most instances, however, you should know what the important questions are, and where you need to look for answers. The clearer you can be – and the clearer it is that the questions you’re asking will lead to real understanding and effective action – the more credibility your inquiry will have.
• Use qualitative methods specifically to gain information you can’t easily get from quantitative methods . You can quantify how many members of a specific minority live in a particular neighborhood. It’s much harder to quantify a clear understanding of how well they get along with their neighbors, and why.
• Use the method(s) that can best help you answer the questions you’re asking . If you want to know the state of vacant lots in a city, you’re less likely to determine it by asking people than you are by going and looking at the lots themselves. On the other hand, you usually can gain more information about people’s opinions through talking to them than you can from observation.
• Sort out your own and others’ subjective feelings and comments from objective reality, and try to make sure that your findings are objective . It’s easy to get caught up in the passion of interviewees’ opinions, or in your own response to particular conditions. If you want your findings to be reliable, you have to screen out as much of the subjective as possible from what you find and record. (One way to approach this issue is to have more than one person record and analyze each interview or observation, and then to check on how well they agree, both in their recording of the data and in their interpretation.)

Something that’s objective – an observation, statement, opinion, research finding, etc. – is based on reality as it actually is. Scientists, for instance, aim to be objective, and to understand the way things really are, rather than the way the scientists or others want them to be, or think they might be. A subjective observation, statement, opinion, or research finding, on the other hand, is based on the thoughts and assumptions of the person issuing it. A researcher may be so appalled by the conditions in neighborhoods where violence is rampant that she may begin to feel that violence is in fact the only rational response, and slant her research in that direction. Especially in community assessment, objectivity is vitally important. Objectivity in looking at the community will help you understand how to most effectively address issues, maximize and use assets, and solve problems. Understanding your own subjective reactions – to difficult conditions, to particular individuals, to cultural practices – will help you to screen them out, thereby increasing the reliability of your findings.

The basic reason to use qualitative methods is that there are some kinds of questions and some dimensions of community assessment that can be better addressed by them than by quantitative methods. The methods you use should be determined by the questions you’re asking. Since it may be hard to convince policymakers and others that qualitative methods are useful, however, why bother to use them at all? Some of the major reasons:

• They answer some questions that quantitative measures can’t. Quantitative methods may tell you how many people do a certain thing, but they’re unlikely to tell you how or why they do it. Qualitative methods can better answer the how and why questions, and also provide other information in the process.
• They connect directly with the population and the community with which you’re concerned. In assessment, the best sources of information are those closest to what’s being assessed: they experience it more than anyone else. Qualitative methods generally go directly to those sources with more complex questions than quantitative methods.
• They can get at certain underlying realities of the situation. Once again, quantitative methods often don’t answer “why?” questions, while qualitative methods can tell you about the history of the community or issue, who the significant supporters and opponents of various ideas are, whom people in the community listen to, etc. In an assessment situation, these can be crucial pieces of information.
• They can involve the population of interest, or the community at large, in helping to assess the issues and needs of the community. This participation fosters a sense of ownership and support for the efforts.
• They often allow for a deeper examination of the situation or the community than quantitative methods do. Quantitative methods, although helpful, can tend to put people or events in specific categories, ask for yes-no or multiple-choice answers, often eliminating complexity. Qualitative methods allow for following promising directions (“Why do you say that?”), and can lead to the discovery of important information that quantitative results wouldn’t have touched on.
• They allow for the human factor. While the information obtained through qualitative methods is often subjective, it is also often identified as such, and can be analyzed accordingly.

Clearly, there are times when quantitative research will give you the information you need. So when do you use qualitative methods? It depends to a great extent on the question you’re asking. (The first four situations below are based on a USAID guide to using rapid appraisal methods, Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Tips .)

• When what you need is qualitative, descriptive information . Particularly in an assessment situation, what you’re often looking for is descriptive or analytical information that has little to do with quantitative measures. The type of information provided by qualitative methods is often exactly what you’re looking for in community assessment to decide on next steps.
• When you’re trying to understand the reasons and motivations for people’s behavior, or how they operate in particular situations . Why don’t people take advantage of human service programs for which they’re eligible? What are the differences in the ways people of different cultural backgrounds respond to services? These are the kinds of questions you’re likely to want to answer in a community assessment, and they often can’t be answered quantitatively.
• When you’re analyzing quantitative data. As mentioned above, much quantitative data can be analyzed using qualitative methods.

An odd set of numbers – a community that’s decidedly low-income, but where a vast majority of people own their own homes, for instance – might be the springboard for a qualitative examination of why this is so. A number of reasons are possible: The community is largely elderly, and people are living in long-since-paid-for houses they bought 40 or more years ago, when their income was higher and housing was less expensive. One or more local banks have made it a priority to help people buy houses, and provide low-interest mortgages and other subsidy programs to further that goal. While they may be low-income, the members of the community nonetheless scrimp on everything else in order to put away money for a house. This is often the case among immigrants from certain cultures, where people are willing to live very simply for many years in order to save for property and education. The community has been “written off” because of its substandard housing, dangerous streets, and lack of services, and houses as a result are ridiculously cheap. A combination of factors, some of which may not be listed here. By and large, quantitative methods won’t easily tell you the reasons for this unusual situation, but qualitative methods will.

• When you’re trying to develop suggestions and recommendations . Again, this is often the primary purpose of community assessment. How should you design a program or initiative to accomplish a major community goal or deal with an issue? What will people respond to? Qualitative data may give the best information here, or may be used in addition to qualitative information to provide a complete picture on which to base your strategy.
• When you want to involve the community in assessment as directly as possible . Involving community members directly leads to ownership and support of initiatives, and is also likely to generate the best and most effective solutions. Qualitative assessment methods, for the most part, collect information directly from community members themselves, and allow them to fill in the details as much as they can. By and large, being interviewed is more likely to leave someone feeling like part of the process than filling out a survey.
• When you’re doing community-based participatory research (i.e., involving the community directly in planning and implementing assessment). Community-based participatory research often relies greatly on qualitative assessment methods.
• When quantitative data are unavailable or unobtainable.
• When you don’t have the capacity to use quantitative methods . You may not have the proper training, the software or hardware that will make quantitative assessment useful for you, or the time to use quantitative methods properly.

Now that you’re convinced of the importance of using qualitative methods of assessment, how are you going to do it? There’s seldom one right way to do anything, but we’ll offer some steps to take in using qualitative methods, including some guidelines for doing interviews and observations, the two most common methods. (Most of these guidelines hold equally for using quantitative methods as well.)

Start by deciding what it is you want to know.

You may remember that this is also one of the guidelines for qualitative reliability. It may seem elementary, but it doesn’t happen anywhere near as often as it ought to. The importance of deciding what you want to know is that it determines the character of your assessment – what kinds of questions you ask, whom you ask them of, how you’ll go about it, etc. Without that minimal amount of structure, you’re likely to wind up with a confused and unorganized mass of information.

There are many ways to approach a community assessment, and, consequently, many questions you might choose to start your assessment with. You might even use more than one, but it’s important to be clear about exactly what you’re looking for.

Some possibilities:

• What is the most serious issue – either general or specific – the community faces (i.e., what should we turn our attention to?
• What services are most needed in the community? Who most needs them?
• Are people taking advantage of services that currently exist?
• What are the community’s significant assets? How can they be strengthened?
• Are there forces working against the good of the community that should be opposed? (You probably wouldn’t be asking this question unless you thought there were, and had some idea who or what they might be.)
• Who ought to be involved in a prospective coalition or initiative?

Choose the method best suited to finding the information you’re looking for.

If you want to learn about people’s public behavior, you would probably use direct observation. Observing mothers and children in a clinic waiting room, for example, might give you information about the mothers’ anxiety levels or child-rearing practices.

If you want to know people’s opinions or how they feel about issues, some type of interview would be appropriate.

Once you’ve chosen the right method, it’s important to carry it out properly. Be aware of what you can do with the resources you have. You can’t conduct thousands of interviews in a large city, for instance, without considerable money. If you’re a cash-strapped nonprofit, you might look for a grant to fund your interviews, or you might confine your assessment to one neighborhood. Perhaps you’d mobilize volunteers to conduct interviews, or interview groups rather than individuals. It’s better to do a limited community assessment well than a large one badly. In choosing your method, be aware also that, in some cases, quantitative methods may be more appropriate and more likely to tell you what you want to know.

Choose the people who will gather the information, and, if necessary, train them.

With qualitative methods, where contact is often personal, the question of who carries them out can be very important. Academics or others who are perceived by community members as “the other,” whether because of their behavior, their speech, or simply because they’re outsiders, may find it hard to gather accurate and complete information from a population that’s very conscious of class or cultural differences. Often, it makes more sense to train members of the population or others who are known and trusted by – or at least familiar to, in their behavior, dress, and speech –those who are being asked to contribute their opinions and observations.

Data collectors should be fluent in the language and culture of those they are interviewing. If you’re assessing commercial activity in a Hispanic neighborhood, you’ll miss most of what’s really happening unless you understand both the Spanish language and the normal ways in which Hispanic (or Dominican or Mexican or Puerto Rican) customers and merchants relate to one another.

If you recruit members of the community or of a specific population to do qualitative information gathering – because they relate to the population better, because they speak the language, because you’re engaged in a participatory effort, or simply because you think they’ll be good at it – you should provide them with training to make sure that the results they come up with are reliable. Depending on what kinds of methods they’ll be using, some of the elements of a training might be:

• What to record and how : It may not be obvious how important it is to record the time, place, details, and circumstances of an interview, observation, focus group, or larger meeting It may also be necessary, depending on a trainee’s experience, to learn to use a recorder or video camera, and/or to learn how to take efficient notes without losing the thread of the conversation or missing important points in an observation.
• Interview techniques , as well as exactly what purpose an interview serves, and how it fits into the larger assessment picture. The more clearly an interviewer understands not just what to do and how, but why she’s doing it, the better she’s likely to be at drawing out the information she’s seeking.
• Observation techniques : As with an interview, an observation will be far more useful if the observer understands not just what to do and how to do it, but exactly why he’s doing it, and how it will be used.
• Training in other methods : Focus groups, for instance, require specific skills and techniques.
• Training in how to think of themselves as researchers : Like those engaged in community-based participatory research , information gatherers should understand how researchers operate. Objectivity, attention to detail, curiosity, and the continuous processing of information in order to generate the next question or observation are all part of the investigative mindset, which they should be encouraged to develop.

Determine from whom or from where you need to gather information.

It may be that you want to hear from all sectors of the community, but some issues or circumstances demand more specific informants. Some possible interview subjects may be public officials, members of a specific population or cultural group, people from a particular geographic area, or people with certain characteristics (parents of young children, individuals with disabilities, males 18-24, people with high blood pressure).

Knowing whom you need to ask extends to any method in which you talk directly to people – focus groups, large community meetings, etc. Focus groups used by marketers are chosen extremely carefully, for example, with age, gender, income, place of residence, and even such factors as favored leisure activities considered.

Observation may or may not involve people. If it does, the question may not be whom you want to observe, but rather what activity or situation you want to observe. If it’s general – what kinds of street activity take place in various neighborhoods, how people use a public park – it’s not necessary to focus on a particular population, but rather on the place. If it’s more specific – back to commercial activity in that Hispanic neighborhood – you’ll need to be in the right place at the right time.

Gather the information.

Now it’s time for you or the people you’ve chosen to go out and collect the qualitative information you need.

As mentioned above, interviews can be structured or unstructured. In a strictly structured interview, the same questions in the same order are asked of everyone, with relatively little room for wandering off the specific topic. Semi-structured interviews may also be based on a list of specific questions, but – while trying to make sure that the interviewee answers all of them – the interviewer may pursue interesting avenues, or encourage the interviewee to talk about other related issues. An unstructured interview is likely to be more relaxed – more like a conversation than a formal interview.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. A structured interview may make the interviewee focus in on the questions and the interview process, take it more seriously, and thus provide excellent information. Because everyone is interviewed in the same way, a structured interview may be – or at least may look – reliable. It may also make an interviewee nervous, emphasize the differences between him and the interviewer, and lead to incomplete or less-than-truthful answers.

A semi- or unstructured interview may allow the interviewee to be more relaxed, and thus more forthcoming. It also leaves room for pursuing a topic that’s not directly related to the formal list of questions, but that might be important or even crucial. At the same time, because it can be far-ranging, a semi- or unstructured interview – particularly one that doesn’t start with a list of questions – is, or appears, less reliable than a structured one. It also, in the hands of an inexperienced or indecisive interviewer, may allow an interviewee to get sidetracked and never get back to the original questions.

What kind of interview you use depends on the nature of the information you’re looking for, the needs of the people you’re interviewing (e.g., whether comfort is more important than structure), and your own comfort. The author has conducted all three types of interviews, and has found that semi-structured interviews – having clear questions and goals for the interview, but conducting it in an informal way, with room for pursuing tangents and some simple friendly conversation – is generally productive. The following guidelines for interviewing reflect that view.

• Ask the interviewee to choose the space . You might give him a range of suggestions – his home or workplace, the office of a human service agency, a neutral space, such as a café or a park – and go with his choice. The more comfortable he is, the better and more informative the interview is likely to be.
• Choose your clothes for the comfort of the interviewee . In general, your clothes and hers should be similar: if she’s in jeans and a t-shirt, you shouldn’t be in a suit; if you’re interviewing a business executive at her office, you should be wearing a suit. Clothes send powerful messages, and the message you should be sending here is “We’re from the same planet; you can talk to me.”
• Talk beforehand with the interviewee if you’re planning to record or photograph the interview . Get permission before you show up with equipment It’s common courtesy, and it’s less likely to start the interview off awkwardly .

If the results of the interview are likely to be published, even if the interviewee will be anonymous, you might want to get a signed “informed consent” form, indicating that the interviewee understands the purpose of the interview, and gives permission for the material to be published or used in other ways.

• Record carefully the time, place, circumstances, and details of the interview . This includes a description of the location (the neighborhood as well as the space, if you’re interviewing a community member), other people present, any distractions (kids, pets, TV), other factors influencing the interview or the situation. Include a general description of the interviewee (married Hispanic woman, age 25, three children aged 6, 4, and 1).
• Think out and frame your questions carefully, and ask directly for the information you’re seeking . Memorize your basic questions (not necessarily word-for-word, but know what they are), so that you refer to notes as little as possible. Make your questions clear and unambiguous, so that questions aren’t vague or difficult to understand.
• Ask open-ended questions . These are questions that require an "essay" answer, rather than a yes-no response. For example, instead of asking "Did you enjoy being in the program?" you might ask "What was participating in the program like?" Try to give people the chance to answer as fully and thoughtfully as possible.
• Probe . Ask follow-up questions to get at what people are really saying, or to keep them talking about a topic. ("Why did you like it when the teacher asked your opinion?") Don't be afraid to pursue what may seem to be a sidetrack. Sometimes the best or most important information lies off the beaten path.

Some interviewees can manage one-word answers to nearly any question. They might answer "What was participating in the program like?" with “Good.” Don’t be afraid to probe these answers. “What does that mean?” or “How was it good?” might get you a flood of information. If it gets you another one-word answer, keep probing, unless you sense that the person is getting angry or frustrated. Then it’s probably time to move on to the next question, and hope that there’ll be an opportunity to return to this one for a fuller explanation. But be aware that some people are simply quieter – or less reflective – than others. You may never get much more than one-word answers from them.

• Don't cut people off too quickly . Their stories, or what you can read between the lines, may give you information as important as what they tell you directly.

At the same time, be aware when they’ve strayed too far from the topic. There’s a Mark Twain story that consists of the voice of a man telling an anecdote about a three-legged dog. Every other word reminds him of something else – another story – and he gets continually sidetracked, never finishing the story of the dog, or any of the others, either. Beware the Curse of the Three-Legged Dog: gently but firmly direct people back to the topic if they get too far afield.

• Confirm what you're told by checking with others to the extent that you can . Remember that you're getting people's perceptions, which aren't always the same as objective reality. In Rashomon, a film by the great Japanese director Akira Kurosawa, an incident is described from the perspectives of four participants, each of whom sees it totally differently. In fact, the phenomenon of Rashomon lurks everywhere; get everyone's side of the story.

Group interviews are both similar to and different from individual ones. The basic guidelines – being clear what you’re asking, open-ended questions, probing, etc. – still hold, but the group brings its own dynamic to the situation. The interview becomes more of a group discussion , and the interviewer’s concerns must extend to making sure that everyone gets heard, reining in individuals who dominate the discussion, and keeping the focus on ideas and information, rather than personalities. As with other methods, group interviews have advantages and disadvantages. The former include using the energy of the group to generate more information than might otherwise be forthcoming. Members may stimulate one another to come up with more and more useful material, as their thinking is prodded by the memories and conclusions of others. They can also act as a check on the accuracy of the information provided. In addition, the presence of other, often familiar, interviewees may help to break down shyness or nervousness, and create a relaxed atmosphere in which everyone feels comfortable talking. (The skills of the interviewer at making people comfortable – at least partially by being comfortable herself – are important here.) With these potential positives come the possible negatives of conflict, antagonism, or dislike among group members, as well as other negative feelings or history that can disrupt or twist discussion and make an interview all but useless. There are also problems that can arise from members of the group being too friendly: they may spend too much time in chit-chat, and have trouble focusing on the questions at hand. Group interviews may be useful when resources – and, as a result, interviewers – are limited, or when there are a large number of people who should be, or would like to be, interviewed. Groups probably shouldn’t be much larger than five or six, and interviewers should have, or be trained in, basic group facilitation skills .

Observation

What do we mean by “observation?” For our purposes, there are essentially two kinds: direct and participant observation.

Direct observation is the practice of examining or watching places, people, or activity without interfering or taking part in what’s going on. The observer is the proverbial fly on the wall, often unidentified, who does nothing but watch and record what she sees and/or hears. A direct observation to see how people use a public park, for instance, might consist of one or more observers simply sitting in one place or walking around the park for several hours, or even several days. Observers might come back at different times of day, on different days, or at different times of year, in order to understand as much as possible of what goes on in the park. They might occasionally ask questions of people using the park, but in as low-key and unobtrusive a way as possible, not identifying themselves as researchers.

Some kinds of direct observation – those where people are observed in situations they think are private – have the potential of violating privacy. In these instances, ethics generally demands that the observer obtain the permission of those being observed . In laboratory schools, for instance, where teachers are trained and new educational ideas tested, classes are often observed from behind one-way mirrors. In such cases, both the teachers and the parents of the students are generally informed that such observation may happen, and are asked to sign consent forms. They don’t know exactly when observation is taking place, but they understand that it’s part of the laboratory school environment, and are willing to allow it in order both to improve individual teachers’ skills and to foster the development of better educational methods.

Participant observation involves becoming to some extent part of the life of the people you’re observing – learning and taking part in their culture, their celebrations and rituals, and their everyday activities. A participant observer in the park above might introduce himself into the activities he observes – a regular volleyball game, winter cross-country skiing, dog walking, in-line skating – and get to know well the people who engage in those activities. He would also monitor his own feelings and reactions to using the park, in order to better understand how its users feel about it. He would probably ask lots of questions, and might well identify himself as a researcher.

An effective participant observer may take a long time (in some cases, years) to establish himself in this way. There are exceptions to this rule, of course. Some marketing firms and corporations employ trend-spotters as participant observers. Young, hip, and stylish themselves, these observers are able to identify and mingle with adolescent and young adult trend-setters in brief interactions, and determine what products, styles, and behaviors are likely to catch on soon with young people in general. You may able to do something similar, but it helps greatly if you’re already part of the group that you’re interested in observing, or if the group, like public park users, can include anyone.

Both direct and participant observation can be useful in community assessment. A participant observer in that situation is likely to be a member of the group being observed, because of the length of time it can take to establish an outsider as a participant observer. Direct observation is probably more common as an assessment tool.

Regardless of its type, your observation should be conducted so as to be reliable.

Some guidelines for reaching that goal:

• Think carefully about the questions you want your observation to answer . You may be looking at people’s behavior or interactions in a given place or situation, or the nature of social, physical, or environmental conditions in a particular place or circumstance. If you’re clear about what you want to find out, you can structure your observation to get the best information.
• Where and whom should you observe to answer these questions ? You wouldn’t normally look for evidence of homelessness in the wealthiest neighborhood in town, nor would you observe the residents of an Asian neighborhood to find out something about the Hispanic population.
• When and for how long should observation take place ? Observing commercial activity downtown on Sunday morning won’t get you a very accurate picture of what it’s actually like. You’d need to observe at both busy and slow times, and over a period of time, to get a real idea of the amount, intensity, and character of commercial activity.

What should you observe and record? That depends on the questions you’re trying to answer, but some basics include:

• The physical characteristics of the setting(s), including weather, if outdoors.
• The time of day, week, and year.

Clothing reflects the way people choose to present themselves to the world. A mohawk haircut, piercings, and black clothes represent an attitude and, to some extent, a world view, not just a fashion statement. The same is true for an expensive suit, or for an outfit of jeans, wool shirt, and hiking boots. Paying attention to such details can increase both your understanding and the reliability of your observation.

• The activities, events, and/or places or circumstances observed, and a description of each.
• The nature of interactions among people.
• People’s apparent attitudes toward a place, situation, activity, or event – positive or negative, happy, confused, angry, disappointed, etc.

At a neighborhood festival, for instance, an observer could be watching from a window high above the street, from a position just at the edge of the crowd, from within the crowd and the festival goings-on, as a participant in a festival activity, or even as a festival volunteer or organizer. What she would see and hear, what she would experience, and the information she would obtain would be different from each of these viewpoints.

• The observer’s own responses and attitudes, including the physical and psychological comfort of the observation. This should be separate from the recording of the observation itself, and, in the ideal, should not influence the objective recording of what was observed.

How do you record observations? That depends on the nature of the observation and on your resources. Video recording, unless it’s done from a concealed spot, or in a situation where such recording is expected (a tourist site, or that street festival, for example), can change people’s behavior or put the observer under some suspicion. Audio recording is much less obvious, but also provides less information, unless it’s specifically sound information that you’re seeking. In most cases, recording would be done with a notebook and pencil or with a laptop computer. If recording during the observation would be disruptive or out of place, you’d probably wait till after you had left the situation – but as soon after as possible, so as not to forget or confuse details.

Analyze the information.

Once you’ve gathered information by whatever qualitative method, you have to figure out what it tells you . Some of that will be obvious: if you’ve been interested in who uses that public park we were talking about earlier, and your observation tells you that it’s mostly young people, you have an answer to your initial question . Your next questions may be why other groups don’t use the park as much , and whether the fact that it’s largely used by young people keeps others away. When you’ve answered those questions, you may have generated others , or you may have a basis for planning a campaign to get more people using the park.

Make and carry out a plan to address the issue or problem you’ve identified or were concerned with.

The final step here is to use the information and analysis that came from your use of qualitative methods to change the community for the better. All the assessment in the world is useless if it doesn’t lead to some action that’s meant to create positive change.

Qualitative methods of gathering information – methods such as interviews, observation, focus groups, and community meetings that don’t always yield results that can be reduced to numbers, or that are used to capture a level of information difficult to get with quantitative methods – are often extremely useful in community assessment, especially when used together with quantitative methods, which do give numerical results. Qualitative methods can get at the things that numbers don’t, such as the reasons for people’s actions, or community history. They can help to identify community issues and needs, and provide a basis for planning community efforts that lead to long-term change.

Online Resources

The Action Catalogue is an online decision support tool that is intended to enable researchers, policy-makers and others wanting to conduct inclusive research, to find the method best suited for their specific project needs.

Chapter 6: Research Methods in the "Introduction to Community Psychology" describes the ecological lens in community research, the role of ethics, the differences between qualitative and quantitative research, and mixed methods research.

Harnessing Qualitative Data to Advance Health Equity is a presentation on how data has the potential to both paint an accurate picture of what sexual and intimate partner violence prevention practitioners and advocates know is happening on the ground  and  convey that reality to policymakers.

Qualitative assessment of the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services goals provides a summary of the results of focus groups conducted to explore the public's perception of relevant issues. This is a summary, but you can also download a PDF of the full report.

Qualitative Methods  provides brief descriptions of four standard qualitative research methods: participant observation, direct observation, unstructured interviews, and case studies.

Qualitative Research Methods  is a compendium of sites with papers, links, etc. to qualitative research methods.

Print Resources

Berg, B. (2007),  Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences  (6th edn.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Berkowitz, W. (1982).  Community impact . Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc.

Indigenous community research partnerships can help address health inequities

Assistant Professor, School of Rehabilitation Therapy, Queen's University, Ontario

Cameco Chair in Indigenous Health and Wellness, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan

Assistant Professor/Associate Director, Waakebiness-Bryce Institute for Indigenous Health, University of Toronto

Associate Director, Indigenous Peoples' Health Research Centre and Sessional Instructor, Department of Anthropology, University of Regina

Associate professor, Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Laurentian University

Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Health, Laurentian University

Educational Developer, Indigenous Pedagogies and Ways of Knowing, Queen's University, Ontario

Professor, University of Saskatchewan Community Health and Epidemiology, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University

Assistant Professor, Wilfrid Laurier University; Affiliate Scientist, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Wilfrid Laurier University

Acting director, Indigenous Peoples' Health Research Centre, University of Regina

Lawyer, Research Contracts Unit, Queen's University; Researcher (Adjunct Status), University of Alberta

Disclosure statement

Janet Jull receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. The training resource we discuss and link to in the article is funded by a grant from the Ontario SPOR Support Unit (#60152 OSSU POR).

Alexandra King, MD, FRCPC has an academic appointment at the University of Saskatchewan. She is the inaugural Cameco Chair in Indigenous Health and Wellness, an endowed research chair established by the Royal University Hospital Foundation through a generous donation from Cameco and from the Department of Medicine. She receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Liver Foundation, and pharmaceutical companies (Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, Merck). She is affiliated with the Sanctum Care Group (board member), and serves on a variety of local, national and international working groups and councils.

Angela Mashford-Pringle works for University of Toronto. She receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canadian Institutes of Health Research and eCampus Ontario.

Darrel Manitowabi receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Alberta Gambling Research Institute, the Ontario Ministry of Labour, and Indigenous Services Canada.

Jennifer Walker receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ontario SPOR Support Unit, the Government of Ontario, and the Public Health Agency of Canada. She is a Core Scientist with the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. She is also affiliated with the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging and the Health Data Research Network. She is on the Board of Directors for Research Canada.

Malcolm King is a Professor of Community Health and Epidemiology at the University of Saskatchewan and an Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University. Malcolm King receives funding from CIHR for Indigenous health research.

Melody E. Morton Ninomiya receives funding from Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council for community-partnered studies with Indigenous communities and Indigenous Knowledges in research, respectively.

Priscilla Ferrazzi consults to Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Law Society of Nunavut. She has received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and The Law Foundation of Ontario. Priscilla is a lawyer working at Queen's University and an Adjunct Professor in the School of Public Health and Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine a the University of Alberta. She is also an executive member of the Canadian Society for Circumpolar Health.

Cheyanne Desnomie, Lindsay Brant, and Moses Gordon do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Toronto , University of Alberta , and Queen's University, Ontario provide funding as founding partners of The Conversation CA.

Simon Fraser University and University of Regina provide funding as members of The Conversation CA.

Queen's University, Ontario , University of Regina , Simon Fraser University , University of Alberta , and University of Toronto provide funding as members of The Conversation CA-FR.

View all partners

Building equitable research partnerships is a strong starting point for self-determination of Indigenous communities. Research is critical to inform policies that advance reconciliation and support Indigenous sovereignty.

Society relies on research to develop and contribute knowledge that can be translated into improved health and wellness. Research can also help identify, understand and address health inequities , that is, differences in health that are unnecessary, avoidable and unjust . When it is done appropriately, research contributes to more effective and sustainable health services and care products, resulting in a more equitable and strengthened health system .

We are an interdisciplinary team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers. Our goal is to promote community-centred research approaches that privilege Indigenous ways of knowing, doing and being through all aspects of the research lifecycle. To assist with this, we have developed an open-access online training resource called Indigenous Community Research Partnerships .

The training resource provides guidance to researchers and others embarking on partnered research with urban, rural or remote Indigenous communities.

Whether you have lots of experience in community-based research or are a newcomer to the field, we believe our training resource has a lot to offer on your journey of learning about community-centred research. Our aim is to assist the research community to develop equitable partnerships that prioritize Indigenous ways of knowing and ensure that Indigenous communities are the primary benefactors.

Failure of western-oriented research approaches

In our society, the bias of colonial, or western-oriented and western-constructed knowledge dominates the conduct of research. The evidence derived from this standpoint reflects the structural racism that privileges knowledge derived from western methodologies . This knowledge is then used to inform the development of the policies and processes that organize our health and social systems.

Consequently, western-oriented academic approaches fail to promote Indigenous perspectives and ways of knowing in policies that affect these communities. For example, biomedical health-care models reflect values , knowledge systems, research and care practices that do not meet the needs of Indigenous people . Western-oriented academic research is often focused on disparities and deficit-based approaches identified by researchers. The approach, driven by the outside looking in, fails to consider and prioritize community needs. As well, many researchers are trained within a system that is dominated by (western-oriented) perspectives that do not allow for, or even recognize, alternate ways of thinking or worldviews .

Indigenous people demonstrate tremendous cultural resilience and capacity to innovate , and Indigenous ways of knowing can be a way forward to improve health and wellness .

Indigenous people are more likely than the general population to experience ongoing marginalization and poor health . Ineffective policies perpetuate these health and social inequities.

Principled partnerships

Research conducted with authentic partnerships and full community engagement with Indigenous people is urgently needed to address health inequities. Many researchers may not understand how to work with Indigenous communities and lack resources to guide them in conducting research that is equitable, inclusive and respectful of diverse Indigenous knowledge, ethics, practice and research sovereignty.

A principled approach to research engages different parties who may use or be recipients of research outcomes or be impacted by them. A principled approach promotes active reflection upon principles that all parties agree are important and prioritizes relationships in research partnerships . The purpose of a principled approach is to promote community relevance, participation, ownership and reciprocal capacity building, and to ensure that research will benefit Indigenous communities , centre on partnerships with Indigenous people and prioritize Indigenous ways of knowing.

A principled approach begins with following the key principle of Reconciliation of Ethical Spaces :

“Protecting Indigenous ethical space involves a series of stages of dialogue starting with conversations prior to the design of research through to the dissemination of results and perhaps even afterwards. Fundamental to this process is an ongoing respect for both parties’ ethical spaces and a continual questioning of ‘is this ethical?’”

Research that benefits Indigenous communities

Effective research requires a deeply engaged and relationally accountable approach to partnerships with Indigenous communities. In academic and learning institutions, researchers must learn to cultivate and invest in genuine relationships to generate useful and relevant evidence.

The Indigenous Community Research Partnerships training resource was developed to educate researchers and researchers-in-training in the development of respectful research partnerships with Indigenous communities that can lead to the conduct of research that advances societal change. The intent is to prepare researchers to work in ways that are important to Indigenous communities and individuals, who will be the ultimate beneficiaries of research.

Read more: How a university can embed Indigenous knowledge into the curriculum and why it matters

The Indigenous Community Research Partnerships training resource complements other important initiatives to advance health equity and societal change . There are also important policy level initiatives in academic institutions .

Academic research can be conducted to better benefit Indigenous communities. Research partnerships are central to building the research evidence that meets Indigenous community-level needs. Researchers can support work that leads to societal change and opportunities for everyone to achieve optimal health and wellness.

A principled approach to research will contribute to what should be the ultimate goal, namely, health for all.

We thank the following people for their support and contributions to the article: Melissa Ireland, director and interim senior advisor, Office of Indigenous Initiatives at Wilfrid Laurier University; Penny Moody-Corbett, retired associate dean research, Northern Ontario School of Medicine; doctoral student Andrew Forbes at the University of Ottawa; professor Ian Graham at the University of Ottawa and lead of the Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network; Rebecca Sweetman and Julian Enright who are members of the Arts and Science Online Multimedia Team at Queen’s University.

• Indigenous health
• Health equity
• Indigenous communities
• Indigenous peoples
• Health research
• Health inequity
• social inequities
• Indigenous researchers

Senior Lecturer - Earth System Science

Strategy Implementation Manager

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Deputy Social Media Producer

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

• 日本語 ( Japanese )
• 한국어 ( Korean )
• Home  / 
•  / “How Does the Research Benefit Society?”

“How Does the Research Benefit Society?”

Makoto Yuasa shares his views on the impact of, well, impact assessment.

• Opinion Article
• March 1, 2020

“How does your research benefit society?” “I do not quite understand the question. What does it mean?”

This famous exchange between Takaaki Kajita, a professor at the University of Tokyo and a Nobel laureate in Physics, and students at an event after his Nobel win received widespread attention online, and many researchers expressed agreement with Professor Kajita.

I remember the incident well. I have personally interviewed Professor Kajita and I asked him about it. “Basic research does not aim to benefit society in a visible way,” Professor Kajita had said. I agree with this view. It’s a widely accepted opinion that pursuing the truth is the primary intent of a researcher, and if one wants to create something that will benefit the world, one should become a researcher in the private sector.

However, given that many countries today fund universities with large amounts of public funds and invest in academic activities as well as scientific and technological development, it is not untoward to expect academia to give back to society.

There are around 160 universities in the UK, almost all of which are national universities. As they are publicly funded, the subject of whether they have a responsibility to give back to society has sparked intense debate. Universities in the UK have now come under more rigorous scrutiny, and the government has implemented policies compelling them to introduce reforms.

The UK’s impact assessment mechanism has set a precedent where the government urges universities to bring about reform in a specific manner in response to the demands of society. Impact assessment is not necessarily about compelling researchers in every field to create a social impact—a view that kept resurfacing in our interviews with impact officers. Rather, it carries the government’s intent to produce a culture shift in academia, which includes researchers being mindful of the social impact when conducting research activities with the end goal that researchers and universities are perceived as entities that contribute to society.

Changing the culture of a university is a major undertaking that has its challenges. We must applaud the UK government and university staff who undertook such daring reforms despite knowing the risks of introducing impact assessment.

I have met various researchers from numerous countries, and in every country I have visited, I got the impression that universities are considered sacred institutions. The UK government’s call to researchers to show how their research contributes to society is truly innovative. Australia and Hong Kong have followed in the UK’s footsteps and have introduced an impact assessment framework. This is likely to become a global movement. In September 2019, I conducted a seminar on impact assessment at an event in Japan; the topic stoked interest in quite a few members in the audience. Judging by the trend worldwide, it will not be surprising

If, at some point, a similar system is introduced in countries like Japan, South Korea, and China where the volume of research is the highest in Asia.

If relatively unknown research is explained in a manner that is accessible to the general public and if its social impact is understood, the public’s support for the research is likely to increase, and the research is likely to attract financial support in the form of donations and research grants. People who currently frequent a university campus for a short period may find reasons to spend more time there as the university will have a lot more to offer. Stanford University has become a launchpad for startups in the United States. In the same way, research and society may become more connected through information, and there may be more universities that become known for a unique characteristic as they attract more people outside of academia.

Impact assessment may help answer the question “How does research benefit society?” As captured in this issue, the cases that underwent an impact assessment showed impact in areas that are not easily comprehensible, such as economic impact and medical development, and impact was seen in the state of affairs, mentality, behavior, and people’s knowledge. One of the impact officers we interviewed said, “Every researcher always considers the significance of the research when formulating a research plan. That is the starting point of the impact of their research.” Another impact officer noted, “Following the introduction of impact evaluation, it became a norm for researchers to debate social impact when discussing a research plan. That in and of itself is a major impact.”

If we consider impact in a broad sense, can we not argue that all research offers some benefit, albeit in different forms? We need to wait and watch how this initiative, which started in the UK, spreads across the globe. I would like to see how Hong Kong and Australia implement their versions of impact assessment in the long run.

This article is a part of ScienceTalks Magazine issue Making Research Impact Exciting: What Universities Can Learn from REF 2014.

• Takaaki Kajita

Related post

Using experience and expertise to bring change, partnering to bring impact awareness and culture change, the first lady of research impact.

• ARC North Thames >
• News and Events >
• April 2024 >
• 5 ways research can better support the future of public health

5 ways research can better support the future of public health: Reflections from the Local Authority Public Health Research Network conference 2024

From the registration desk at LAPHRN 2024

"The pandemic really brought to the fore the need to do public health research in a different way" said Kevin Fenton CBE in his opening keynote for our inaugural Local Authority Public Health Research Network (LAPHRN) Conference on 26 th March.  

This is why this network was born. We wanted to bring local authorities and public health researchers together to build healthier futures for people and communities.  

The day was packed with insights. Still, five main themes stood out during the day that will influence our practice. If you’re working in public health – whether in academic or local authorities – we hope these inspire you.  

Download a summary of the conference talks

Panel discussion on the future for Applied Research in London and North Thames 

1. Create more inclusive research  

Public health research really needs to be multidisciplinary and intersectoral. Part of that means ensuring as many people as possible can contribute to and shape research. That requires us to ask vital questions, like: how can an antiracist approach to research help us tackle ethnic health inequalities? how can we rebalance the power in setting public health priorities?   

Inclusivity in research also means embracing a broad view of research that captures what’s needed for the here and now. We need to get beyond just public health and outside of our own sectors. This may require us to leave our organisational or disciplinary ‘hats’ at the door – dropping jargon and being open to doing things differently.  

2. Harness the power of communities  

We need to bring the public into public health.  

Many local authorities and partners are seeking to do just that – actively working with local communities in a range of ways, from setting the priorities to training and involving them actively as community researchers.   

Often this means working with the tensions. Like: how do we make sure action arises from what communities are telling us? Or: How do we define the outcomes that people and communities are looking for? Especially when these outcomes can be quite different to the outcomes ‘experts’ want to see.      

3. Share research more widely  

The conference provided a forum for people to share practice and ideas. In many sessions we also heard that delegates wanted to keep up to date with what was going on in research and in local authorities.  

This field is changing, with developments making it easier to find out what’s going on – e.g., NIHR’s public health research page - are making this easier. But this is where networks, publications (both peer reviewed and otherwise), and connecting beyond our usual audiences are also needed.  

Poster presentations at LAPHRN 2024

4. Look to the future    

Having a strong vision for a healthier future for people and communities helps us get beyond silos and competition. It helps us think more radically about how research can be done differently to overcome our health inequalities.  

Emerging technology can help support this vision – from machine learning to data linkage, the possibilities are as great as the public health challenges we face.  

It helps to get together to step back and look ahead to where we want to go together.  

5. Build networks and partnerships  

Conference attendees told us they were largely motivated to come along to meet others. It was palpable to see colleagues throughout the day exchanging contact details, ideas, and tips. It’s clear the value of this to the work of public health – none of the solutions we need for better public health can be achieved alone.  

That was the reason we established the network: we believe a lot can be gained from sharing insights and exchanging ideas. We look forward to the next step of turning those forming and developing networks into research collaborations.  

Article by Dr Leonora Weil and Dr Jessica Sheringham, the co-chairs of the Local Authority Public Health Research Network. With thanks to the LAPHRN (London and North Thames) Conference Committee and notetakers from all of the session for their reflections.

Afternoon keynote speech from Lucy Chappel, CEO of NIHR and Chief Scientific Advisor at the Department of Health and Social Care

Social Life

The importance of community, a community can help us to feel connected to something larger than ourselves..

Posted July 18, 2023 | Reviewed by Ray Parker

• Experiencing a sense of belonging is vital for our psychological well-being.
• A community can provide us with a sense of belonging, support, and identity.
• There are specific ways that everyone can connect to and create a community.

Experiencing a sense of belonging is vital for our psychological well-being. Being a part of a healthy community can help us feel connected to others, as well as feel we’re part of something larger than ourselves.

This is especially important for people who’ve experienced trauma or loss, or who are feeling isolated, marginalized, bullied, or alone. For those, and for all of us, a community can provide that necessary sense of belonging.

A community provides belonging, support, and identity

Being a part of a healthy community can also provide us with support. When we’re going through a difficult time, it can be enormously helpful to have people who we can turn to. Community members can offer us emotional support, practical help, and advice. They can also help us to feel we aren’t alone in our struggles.

A community can also help us to develop a sense of identity . When we’re part of a community, we learn about shared values and beliefs. We also learn about our history and culture. This can help us feel we have a place in the world, and that we are part of something important.

Community reduces stress and isolation

Finally, a community can also help to reduce stress and isolation. When we’re part of a community, we have people to talk to and connect with. This can help us to feel less alone—and therefore less stressed —as well as help us feel we’re part of something larger than ourselves. Research shows that people who are part of strong communities tend to have lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol levels, and a lower risk of obesity. They are also more likely to exercise regularly and eat a healthy diet .

Thus, community helps reduce stress and isolation and, ultimately, benefits our physical health in addition to our mental health.

There are a number of ways to connect

There are a number of ways to connect to a community. Joining a club or organization with people who share your identity or values can be a ready-made way to connect. Joining a church or spiritual community can be a way to connect with people who share your values and beliefs. Support groups—led by mental health professionals, lay-led, or meetings such as 12-step programs—can provide support, reduce stress, and promote mental health.

Another avenue for community connection is through volunteering your time or attending community events. Even getting to know your neighbors and building relationships with them can provide a sense of belonging and reduce feelings of isolation.

Finding community can feel a little daunting, but it’s well worth the effort, providing relief from the pain that lack of connection, support, and experiences of isolation can bring.

Samantha Stein , Psy.D., is a psychologist in private practice in San Francisco. She works with couples and individuals, specializing in intimacy, sexuality, and self-realization.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Black Americans Have a Clear Vision for Reducing Racism but Little Hope It Will Happen

Many say key U.S. institutions should be rebuilt to ensure fair treatment

Table of contents.

• Black Americans see little improvement in their lives despite increased national attention to racial issues
• Few Black adults expect equality for Black people in the U.S.
• Black adults say racism and police brutality are extremely big problems for Black people in the U.S.
• Personal experiences with discrimination are widespread among Black Americans
• Black adults see voting as the most effective strategy for moving toward equality in the U.S.
• Some Black adults see Black businesses and communities as effective remedies for inequality
• Black Americans say race matters little when choosing political allies
• The legacy of slavery affects Black Americans today
• Most Black adults agree the descendants of enslaved people should be repaid
• The types of repayment Black adults think would be most helpful
• Responsibility for reparations and the likelihood repayment will occur
• Black adults say the criminal justice system needs to be completely rebuilt
• Black adults say political, economic and health care systems need major changes to ensure fair treatment
• Most Black adults say funding for police departments should stay the same or increase
• Acknowledgments
• Appendix: Supplemental tables
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand the nuances among Black people on issues of racial inequality and social change in the United States. This in-depth survey explores differences among Black Americans in their views on the social status of the Black population in the U.S.; their assessments of racial inequality; their visions for institutional and social change; and their outlook on the chances that these improvements will be made. The analysis is the latest in the Center’s series of in-depth surveys of public opinion among Black Americans (read the first, “ Faith Among Black Americans ” and “ Race Is Central to Identity for Black Americans and Affects How They Connect With Each Other ”).

The online survey of 3,912 Black U.S. adults was conducted Oct. 4-17, 2021. Black U.S. adults include those who are single-race, non-Hispanic Black Americans; multiracial non-Hispanic Black Americans; and adults who indicate they are Black and Hispanic. The survey includes 1,025 Black adults on Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP) and 2,887 Black adults on Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel. Respondents on both panels are recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses.

Recruiting panelists by phone or mail ensures that nearly all U.S. Black adults have a chance of selection. This gives us confidence that any sample can represent the whole population (see our Methods 101 explainer on random sampling). Here are the questions used for the survey of Black adults, along with its responses and methodology .

The terms “Black Americans,” “Black people” and “Black adults” are used interchangeably throughout this report to refer to U.S. adults who self-identify as Black, either alone or in combination with other races or Hispanic identity.

Throughout this report, “Black, non-Hispanic” respondents are those who identify as single-race Black and say they have no Hispanic background. “Black Hispanic” respondents are those who identify as Black and say they have Hispanic background. We use the terms “Black Hispanic” and “Hispanic Black” interchangeably. “Multiracial” respondents are those who indicate two or more racial backgrounds (one of which is Black) and say they are not Hispanic.

Respondents were asked a question about how important being Black was to how they think about themselves. In this report, we use the term “being Black” when referencing responses to this question.

In this report, “immigrant” refers to people who were not U.S. citizens at birth – in other words, those born outside the U.S., Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories to parents who were not U.S. citizens. We use the terms “immigrant,” “born abroad” and “foreign-born” interchangeably.

Throughout this report, “Democrats and Democratic leaners” and just “Democrats” both refer to respondents who identify politically with the Democratic Party or who are independent or some other party but lean toward the Democratic Party. “Republicans and Republican leaners” and just “Republicans” both refer to respondents who identify politically with the Republican Party or are independent or some other party but lean toward the Republican Party.

Respondents were asked a question about their voter registration status. In this report, respondents are considered registered to vote if they self-report being absolutely certain they are registered at their current address. Respondents are considered not registered to vote if they report not being registered or express uncertainty about their registration.

To create the upper-, middle- and lower-income tiers, respondents’ 2020 family incomes were adjusted for differences in purchasing power by geographic region and household size. Respondents were then placed into income tiers: “Middle income” is defined as two-thirds to double the median annual income for the entire survey sample. “Lower income” falls below that range, and “upper income” lies above it. For more information about how the income tiers were created, read the methodology .

More than a year after the murder of George Floyd and the national protests, debate and political promises that ensued, 65% of Black Americans say the increased national attention on racial inequality has not led to changes that improved their lives. 1 And 44% say equality for Black people in the United States is not likely to be achieved, according to newly released findings from an October 2021 survey of Black Americans by Pew Research Center.

This is somewhat of a reversal in views from September 2020, when half of Black adults said the increased national focus on issues of race would lead to major policy changes to address racial inequality in the country and 56% expected changes that would make their lives better.

At the same time, many Black Americans are concerned about racial discrimination and its impact. Roughly eight-in-ten say they have personally experienced discrimination because of their race or ethnicity (79%), and most also say discrimination is the main reason many Black people cannot get ahead (68%).  

Even so, Black Americans have a clear vision for how to achieve change when it comes to racial inequality. This includes support for significant reforms to or complete overhauls of several U.S. institutions to ensure fair treatment, particularly the criminal justice system; political engagement, primarily in the form of voting; support for Black businesses to advance Black communities; and reparations in the forms of educational, business and homeownership assistance. Yet alongside their assessments of inequality and ideas about progress exists pessimism about whether U.S. society and its institutions will change in ways that would reduce racism.

These findings emerge from an extensive Pew Research Center survey of 3,912 Black Americans conducted online Oct. 4-17, 2021. The survey explores how Black Americans assess their position in U.S. society and their ideas about social change. Overall, Black Americans are clear on what they think the problems are facing the country and how to remedy them. However, they are skeptical that meaningful changes will take place in their lifetime.

Black Americans see racism in our laws as a big problem and discrimination as a roadblock to progress

Black adults were asked in the survey to assess the current nature of racism in the United States and whether structural or individual sources of this racism are a bigger problem for Black people. About half of Black adults (52%) say racism in our laws is a bigger problem than racism by individual people, while four-in-ten (43%) say acts of racism committed by individual people is the bigger problem. Only 3% of Black adults say that Black people do not experience discrimination in the U.S. today.

In assessing the magnitude of problems that they face, the majority of Black Americans say racism (63%), police brutality (60%) and economic inequality (54%) are extremely or very big problems for Black people living in the U.S. Slightly smaller shares say the same about the affordability of health care (47%), limitations on voting (46%), and the quality of K-12 schools (40%).

Aside from their critiques of U.S. institutions, Black adults also feel the impact of racial inequality personally. Most Black adults say they occasionally or frequently experience unfair treatment because of their race or ethnicity (79%), and two-thirds (68%) cite racial discrimination as the main reason many Black people cannot get ahead today.

Black Americans’ views on reducing racial inequality

Black Americans are clear on the challenges they face because of racism. They are also clear on the solutions. These range from overhauls of policing practices and the criminal justice system to civic engagement and reparations to descendants of people enslaved in the United States.

Changing U.S. institutions such as policing, courts and prison systems

About nine-in-ten Black adults say multiple aspects of the criminal justice system need some kind of change (minor, major or a complete overhaul) to ensure fair treatment, with nearly all saying so about policing (95%), the courts and judicial process (95%), and the prison system (94%).

Roughly half of Black adults say policing (49%), the courts and judicial process (48%), and the prison system (54%) need to be completely rebuilt for Black people to be treated fairly. Smaller shares say the same about the political system (42%), the economic system (37%) and the health care system (34%), according to the October survey.

While Black Americans are in favor of significant changes to policing, most want spending on police departments in their communities to stay the same (39%) or increase (35%). A little more than one-in-five (23%) think spending on police departments in their area should be decreased.

Black adults who favor decreases in police spending are most likely to name medical, mental health and social services (40%) as the top priority for those reappropriated funds. Smaller shares say K-12 schools (25%), roads, water systems and other infrastructure (12%), and reducing taxes (13%) should be the top priority.

Voting and ‘buying Black’ viewed as important strategies for Black community advancement

Black Americans also have clear views on the types of political and civic engagement they believe will move Black communities forward. About six-in-ten Black adults say voting (63%) and supporting Black businesses or “buying Black” (58%) are extremely or very effective strategies for moving Black people toward equality in the U.S. Smaller though still significant shares say the same about volunteering with organizations dedicated to Black equality (48%), protesting (42%) and contacting elected officials (40%).

Black adults were also asked about the effectiveness of Black economic and political independence in moving them toward equality. About four-in-ten (39%) say Black ownership of all businesses in Black neighborhoods would be an extremely or very effective strategy for moving toward racial equality, while roughly three-in-ten (31%) say the same about establishing a national Black political party. And about a quarter of Black adults (27%) say having Black neighborhoods governed entirely by Black elected officials would be extremely or very effective in moving Black people toward equality.

Most Black Americans support repayment for slavery

Discussions about atonement for slavery predate the founding of the United States. As early as 1672 , Quaker abolitionists advocated for enslaved people to be paid for their labor once they were free. And in recent years, some U.S. cities and institutions have implemented reparations policies to do just that.

Most Black Americans say the legacy of slavery affects the position of Black people in the U.S. either a great deal (55%) or a fair amount (30%), according to the survey. And roughly three-quarters (77%) say descendants of people enslaved in the U.S. should be repaid in some way.

Black adults who say descendants of the enslaved should be repaid support doing so in different ways. About eight-in-ten say repayment in the forms of educational scholarships (80%), financial assistance for starting or improving a business (77%), and financial assistance for buying or remodeling a home (76%) would be extremely or very helpful. A slightly smaller share (69%) say cash payments would be extremely or very helpful forms of repayment for the descendants of enslaved people.

Where the responsibility for repayment lies is also clear for Black Americans. Among those who say the descendants of enslaved people should be repaid, 81% say the U.S. federal government should have all or most of the responsibility for repayment. About three-quarters (76%) say businesses and banks that profited from slavery should bear all or most of the responsibility for repayment. And roughly six-in-ten say the same about colleges and universities that benefited from slavery (63%) and descendants of families who engaged in the slave trade (60%).

Black Americans are skeptical change will happen

Even though Black Americans’ visions for social change are clear, very few expect them to be implemented. Overall, 44% of Black adults say equality for Black people in the U.S. is a little or not at all likely. A little over a third (38%) say it is somewhat likely and only 13% say it is extremely or very likely.

They also do not think specific institutions will change. Two-thirds of Black adults say changes to the prison system (67%) and the courts and judicial process (65%) that would ensure fair treatment for Black people are a little or not at all likely in their lifetime. About six-in-ten (58%) say the same about policing. Only about one-in-ten say changes to policing (13%), the courts and judicial process (12%), and the prison system (11%) are extremely or very likely.

This pessimism is not only about the criminal justice system. The majority of Black adults say the political (63%), economic (62%) and health care (51%) systems are also unlikely to change in their lifetime.

Black Americans’ vision for social change includes reparations. However, much like their pessimism about institutional change, very few think they will see reparations in their lifetime. Among Black adults who say the descendants of people enslaved in the U.S. should be repaid, 82% say reparations for slavery are unlikely to occur in their lifetime. About one-in-ten (11%) say repayment is somewhat likely, while only 7% say repayment is extremely or very likely to happen in their lifetime.

Black Democrats, Republicans differ on assessments of inequality and visions for social change

Party affiliation is one key point of difference among Black Americans in their assessments of racial inequality and their visions for social change. Black Republicans and Republican leaners are more likely than Black Democrats and Democratic leaners to focus on the acts of individuals. For example, when summarizing the nature of racism against Black people in the U.S., the majority of Black Republicans (59%) say racist acts committed by individual people is a bigger problem for Black people than racism in our laws. Black Democrats (41%) are less likely to hold this view.

Black Republicans (45%) are also more likely than Black Democrats (21%) to say that Black people who cannot get ahead in the U.S. are mostly responsible for their own condition. And while similar shares of Black Republicans (79%) and Democrats (80%) say they experience racial discrimination on a regular basis, Republicans (64%) are more likely than Democrats (36%) to say that most Black people who want to get ahead can make it if they are willing to work hard.

On the other hand, Black Democrats are more likely than Black Republicans to focus on the impact that racial inequality has on Black Americans. Seven-in-ten Black Democrats (73%) say racial discrimination is the main reason many Black people cannot get ahead in the U.S, while about four-in-ten Black Republicans (44%) say the same. And Black Democrats are more likely than Black Republicans to say racism (67% vs. 46%) and police brutality (65% vs. 44%) are extremely big problems for Black people today.

Black Democrats are also more critical of U.S. institutions than Black Republicans are. For example, Black Democrats are more likely than Black Republicans to say the prison system (57% vs. 35%), policing (52% vs. 29%) and the courts and judicial process (50% vs. 35%) should be completely rebuilt for Black people to be treated fairly.

While the share of Black Democrats who want to see large-scale changes to the criminal justice system exceeds that of Black Republicans, they share similar views on police funding. Four-in-ten each of Black Democrats and Black Republicans say funding for police departments in their communities should remain the same, while around a third of each partisan coalition (36% and 37%, respectively) says funding should increase. Only about one-in-four Black Democrats (24%) and one-in-five Black Republicans (21%) say funding for police departments in their communities should decrease.

Among the survey’s other findings:

Black adults differ by age in their views on political strategies. Black adults ages 65 and older (77%) are most likely to say voting is an extremely or very effective strategy for moving Black people toward equality. They are significantly more likely than Black adults ages 18 to 29 (48%) and 30 to 49 (60%) to say this. Black adults 65 and older (48%) are also more likely than those ages 30 to 49 (38%) and 50 to 64 (42%) to say protesting is an extremely or very effective strategy. Roughly four-in-ten Black adults ages 18 to 29 say this (44%).

Gender plays a role in how Black adults view policing. Though majorities of Black women (65%) and men (56%) say police brutality is an extremely big problem for Black people living in the U.S. today, Black women are more likely than Black men to hold this view. When it comes to criminal justice, Black women (56%) and men (51%) are about equally likely to share the view that the prison system should be completely rebuilt to ensure fair treatment of Black people. However, Black women (52%) are slightly more likely than Black men (45%) to say this about policing. On the matter of police funding, Black women (39%) are slightly more likely than Black men (31%) to say police funding in their communities should be increased. On the other hand, Black men are more likely than Black women to prefer that funding stay the same (44% vs. 36%). Smaller shares of both Black men (23%) and women (22%) would like to see police funding decreased.

Income impacts Black adults’ views on reparations. Roughly eight-in-ten Black adults with lower (78%), middle (77%) and upper incomes (79%) say the descendants of people enslaved in the U.S. should receive reparations. Among those who support reparations, Black adults with upper and middle incomes (both 84%) are more likely than those with lower incomes (75%) to say educational scholarships would be an extremely or very helpful form of repayment. However, of those who support reparations, Black adults with lower (72%) and middle incomes (68%) are more likely than those with higher incomes (57%) to say cash payments would be an extremely or very helpful form of repayment for slavery.

• Black adults in the September 2020 survey only include those who say their race is Black alone and are non-Hispanic. The same is true only for the questions of improvements to Black people’s lives and equality in the United States in the October 2021 survey. Throughout the rest of this report, Black adults include those who say their race is Black alone and non-Hispanic; those who say their race is Black and at least one other race and non-Hispanic; or Black and Hispanic, unless otherwise noted. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Black Americans
• Criminal Justice
• Discrimination & Prejudice
• Economic Inequality
• Race, Ethnicity & Politics

A look at Black-owned businesses in the U.S.

8 facts about black americans and the news, black americans’ views on success in the u.s., among black adults, those with higher incomes are most likely to say they are happy, fewer than half of black americans say the news often covers the issues that are important to them, most popular, report materials.

• American Trends Panel Wave 97

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Futurity is your source of research news from leading universities.

• About Futurity
• Universities
• Environment

Community pharmacies can help people quit smoking

"Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians play a pivotal role in providing effective support for tobacco treatment and other related health issues," says Robin Corelli. "Being part of the local community is important and we need sustainable models for providing these services." (Credit: Getty Images )

You are free to share this article under the Attribution 4.0 International license.

Community pharmacies may play a key role in helping people quit smoking, a new study shows.

The findings provide valuable insights into the implementation of tobacco cessation services within community pharmacies while identifying barriers to further improvements.

Tobacco use remains a leading preventable cause of death. Although two thirds of people who smoke would like to quit, many individuals trying to quit on their own are not successful . To address this gap, the study explored how pharmacists and pharmacy technicians could assist in providing tobacco cessation support.

The study, published in the journal Pharmacy , involved seven independent community pharmacies in California affiliated with the Community Pharmacy Enhanced Services Network. A total of 22 California pharmacists and 26 pharmacy technicians who underwent tobacco cessation training participated.

“Community pharmacies are important partners to expand access to tobacco cessation services,” says Elisa Tong, an internist ate University of California Davis Health and director of the cancer center’s Tobacco Cessation Policy Research Center. “By state law, pharmacists can furnish all forms of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) without a provider prescription.”

California’s law allowing pharmacists to provide the cessation tool took effect in 2014. Eligible pharmacists must complete two hours of tobacco training and follow the state-approved protocol, which consists of reviewing patients’ current tobacco use and prior quit attempts, screening for appropriateness of NRT, providing medication counseling, and addressing or referring patients for behavioral counseling.

Tobacco cessation has been integrated into the curricula of California pharmacy schools since 2000, and many other training programs are available for pharmacies.

“After completing tobacco treatment training, our research showed that pharmacies successfully initiated cessation services,” says senior author Karen Hudmon from Purdue University College of Pharmacy. “Compatibility with existing workflows, staff buy-in, and the crucial role of pharmacy technicians significantly helped.”

Continued research efforts are underway to study policy implementation strategies, especially for pharmacist reimbursement. California’s law authorizes Medi-Cal and private insurance to pay pharmacies for enhanced services including education and medication management.

“ Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians play a pivotal role in providing effective support for tobacco treatment and other related health issues,” says coauthor Robin Corelli, a UC San Francisco pharmacy faculty member. “Being part of the local community is important and we need sustainable models for providing these services.”

Given that 89% of Americans live within five miles of a community pharmacy, they can be convenient locations for receiving health care services. Pharmacists have shown to be effective in helping patients quit. They can reach uninsured and under-resourced patients as well as patients living in rural areas who might experience barriers to accessing primary care. However, the study showed certain barriers exist to making pharmacy cessation programs effective.

The research showed that billing complexities, software limitations, and training gaps for handling complicated patient cases all pose challenges to successful implementation of tobacco cessation services at pharmacies.

However, the data collected implied a forward-thinking health care model where the pharmacists and their staff can play a fundamental and dynamic role in local health management , and ultimately, in cultivating a healthier population. The study serves as a valuable resource for policymakers, health care professionals and stakeholders in population health efforts to combat tobacco use.

The National Cancer Institute and the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, which also supports the Tobacco Cessation Policy Research Center at UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, funded the work.

The cancer center’s new Tobacco Cessation Policy Research Center will continue to examine the role of pharmacies in helping people quit smoking. The center is also studying the integration of tobacco treatment at substance use disorder facilities. Other tobacco-related research focuses on equal access to tobacco treatment provided by public insurance plans and engaging with enforcement of flavored tobacco sales restrictions.

Additional coauthors are from Indiana University, the University of Wyoming, Western University of Health Services, and Purdue University.

Source: UC Davis

Primary care clinics help control ‘Essential Eight’ heart disease risks

Cigarette smoking is more common among rural americans, pharmacists connect people with opioid use disorder meds, stay connected. subscribe to our newsletter..

Add your information below to receive daily updates.

• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Community Interventions to Promote Mental Health and Social Equity

Enrico g. castillo.

1 Jane and Terry Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA USA

2 Center for Social Medicine and Humanities, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA USA

3 Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health, Los Angeles, CA USA

Roya Ijadi-Maghsoodi

4 Division of Population Behavioral Health, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA USA

5 VA Health Service Research and Development Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation, and Policy, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA USA

Sonya Shadravan

Elizabeth moore, michael o. mensah, iii, mary docherty.

6 Harkness Fellow in Healthcare Policy and Practice, New York State Psychiatric Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY USA

Maria Gabriela Aguilera Nunez

Nicolás barcelo, nichole goodsmith, laura e. halpin, isabella morton, joseph mango.

7 Center for Health Services and Society, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA USA

Alanna E. Montero

Sara rahmanian koushkaki, elizabeth bromley.

8 UCLA Department of Anthropology, Los Angeles, CA USA

9 Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA USA

10 VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA USA

Bowen Chung

11 Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA USA

12 Healthy African American Families II, Los Angeles, CA USA

Felica Jones

Sonya gabrielian, lillian gelberg.

13 Department of Family Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA USA

14 UCLA Jonathan Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA USA

Jared M. Greenberg

Ippolytos kalofonos.

15 UCLA International Institute, Los Angeles, CA USA

Sheryl H. Kataoka

16 Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA USA

Jeanne Miranda

Harold a. pincus.

17 Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, New York State Psychiatric Institute, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, Irving Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, New York, NY USA

Bonnie T. Zima

Kenneth b. wells, associated data, purpose of review.

We review recent community interventions to promote mental health and social equity. We define community interventions as those that involve multi-sector partnerships, emphasize community members as integral to the intervention, and/or deliver services in community settings. We examine literature in seven topic areas: collaborative care, early psychosis, school-based interventions, homelessness, criminal justice, global mental health, and mental health promotion/prevention. We adapt the social-ecological model for health promotion and provide a framework for understanding the actions of community interventions.

Recent Findings

There are recent examples of effective interventions in each topic area. The majority of interventions focus on individual, family/interpersonal, and program/institutional social-ecological levels, with few intervening on whole communities or involving multiple non-healthcare sectors. Findings from many studies reinforce the interplay among mental health, interpersonal relationships, and social determinants of health.

There is evidence for the effectiveness of community interventions for improving mental health and some social outcomes across social-ecological levels. Studies indicate the importance of ongoing resources and training to maintain long-term outcomes, explicit attention to ethics and processes to foster equitable partnerships, and policy reform to support sustainable healthcare-community collaborations.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11920-019-1017-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction

Families, workplaces, schools, social services, institutions, and communities are potential resources to support health. In 1948, the World Health Organization defined health as a “state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” [ 1 ]. Multi-sector and community-based mental healthcare approaches can help address health and social inequities by promoting social well-being and addressing structural determinants of mental health (public policies and other upstream forces that influence the social determinants of mental health).

A 2015 Cochrane review described three assumptions that underlie community interventions [ 2 •]. The first is an awareness of the multiple forces that exist at all social-ecological levels (i.e., individual, interpersonal, organizational/institutional, community, and policy) that facilitate or obstruct mental health [ 3 ]. The second is investment in community participation to provide resources and inform interventions, recognizing expertise outside of the healthcare system. The third is prioritization of community mental health and social outcomes.

This review focuses on recent developments in community interventions to promote mental health. We highlight major developments and trends, rather than providing a comprehensive systematic review. Our review defines community interventions as those that involve multi-sector partnerships, include community members (e.g., lay health workers) as part of the intervention, and/or involve the delivery of services in community settings (e.g., schools, homes). We include interventions focused on traditional mental health outcomes (e.g., depression remission) and studies that include a wider range of outcomes including mental health-related knowledge, quality of life, and social well-being. We do not include substance use interventions, which warrant a separate review.

To complete our review, we enlisted a large team of experts and trainees with experience in pertinent intervention areas. Our review focuses on interventions published in peer-reviewed medical journals from 2015 to 2018, with additional studies identified through reference mining and expert recommendations. We concentrate on seven topic areas, chosen for their salience and quality of evidence in recent literature: multi-sector collaborative care, early psychosis interventions, school-based interventions, homeless services, criminal justice, global mental health, and mental health promotion and secondary prevention. We selected studies for their design, outcomes, and/or impact (Appendix A ). These were chosen from a larger number of relevant community interventions (Appendix B ).

Multi-sector Collaborative Care

Collaborative care models in mental health have historical roots in the Chronic Care Model (CCM) of chronic disease management [ 4 , 5 ••]. The CCM envisioned a combination of health system reforms and community-based resources to support the ability of healthcare settings to improve outcomes for those with chronic illnesses [ 4 ]. Many collaborative care studies, often for depression, have focused on incorporating mental health services to varying degrees within primary care settings [ 6 – 10 ]. Adaptations exist for other target populations (e.g., children) and settings (e.g., obstetrics/gynecology practices, mental health clinics) [ 5 ••, 11 – 13 ]. Studies have noted the importance of community organizations and social services, particularly when inequities play a large role in determining outcomes and require services beyond the healthcare sector, for example for underresourced populations and natural disasters [ 5 ••, 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ••].

Community Partners in Care (CPIC) was a depression collaborative care study that involved 95 programs in five sectors: outpatient primary care, outpatient mental health, substance use treatment services, homeless services, and other community services (e.g., senior centers, churches) [ 18 •]. A 2015 Cochrane review identified CPIC as the only “high-quality study” that “specifically evaluated the added value of a community engagement and planning intervention (i.e. a coalition-led intervention) over and above resource enhancement and community outreach” [ 2 •] (page 32). CPIC was a group-level randomized study that compared two program-level quality improvement interventions: Community Engagement and Planning (CEP) and Resources for Services (RS). RS programs received a depression care toolkit with technical assistance and consultation to implement a community-wide approach to depression care. CEP programs received the same resources within a multi-sector coalition approach to co-leading, implementing, and monitoring multi-sector depression services (e.g., encouraging community programs to be active in psychoeducation and screening, with streamlined referrals to clinics and social services) [ 19 ]. CPIC’s community-partnered participatory research approach and development of community partnerships are described in detail in several articles [ 19 – 24 ].

Unlike many collaborative care studies, CPIC focused on a predominantly under-resourced racial/ethnic minority sample ( n  = 1018, 46% African American, 41% Latino, 74% with family incomes below federal poverty level) and had few exclusion criteria, enrolling many participants with co-morbid substance use disorders and serious mental illnesses in the study [ 25 , 26 ]. At 6-month follow-up, participants in CEP ( n  = 514) compared to RS ( n  = 504) had significantly improved health-related quality of life, increased physical activity, reduced homelessness risk factors, and reduced behavioral health hospitalizations [ 18 •]. Sub-group analyses and follow-up studies at 12 and 36 months support some significant beneficial effects of CEP over RS, with main effects seen predominantly during the first 6 months post-intervention and diminishing over time [ 25 , 27 – 34 , 35 •].

Since CPIC, only a handful of collaborative care studies have included non-healthcare partners [ 36 – 38 , 39 •]. Hankerson et al. conducted depression screenings in three predominantly African American Christian “mega churches” (≥ 2000 worshippers per weekend) in New York City, using a community coalition approach, including faith-based organizations and local government [ 38 ]. Investigators screened 122 community members at 3 church events in 2012. Notably, 19.7% of those screened reported moderate depression (PHQ-9 ≥ 10), in which the authors noted is higher than is seen in African American community samples. Moreover, none of the participants who screened positive requested community mental health referrals, even though these were offered, demonstrating the importance of churches as sites for depression screening, counseling (i.e., Mental Health First Aid), and referral [ 38 , 39 •].

Early Intervention Services for Psychosis

There is a large and growing body of literature on coordinated specialty care programs for people with early psychosis, including the RAISE Early Treatment Program/NAVIGATE and OnTrackNY [ 40 – 47 , 48 •]. Germane to our community intervention focus, several early psychosis interventions summarized in a 2014 review by Nordentoft et al. adapted Assertive Community Treatment (ACT), an evidence-based service delivery model that emphasizes outreach-based services [ 48 •, 49 ].

Secher et al. published the 10-year follow-up results of the Danish OPUS trial, a two-site RCT of a 2-year ACT-based assertive early intervention [ 50 ]. Services were delivered by a multidisciplinary team (psychiatrist, psychologists, nurses, social workers, vocational therapist, physiotherapist, 10:1 patient-to-staff ratio) in patients’ homes, other community locations, or clinic, based on patients’ preferences. Intensive services at this early critical stage were hypothesized to yield lasting effects by teaching individuals the skills to best manage their psychotic illnesses. OPUS results at 2 years showed significant positive outcomes compared to services as usual: decreased positive and negative psychotic symptoms, reduced substance use, improved treatment adherence, lower antipsychotic medication dosage, higher treatment satisfaction, and reduced family burden. At 10-year follow-up, however, most of these outcome differences had dissipated. Investigators conclude that longer duration of specialized assertive early intervention treatment, booster sessions, or the addition of an early detection program to reduce duration of untreated psychosis would aid the consolidation of early treatment gains.

An initiative by a London Early Intervention Service (EIS) sought to decrease duration of untreated psychosis and increase referrals from the community through early psychosis psychoeducational workshops with 36 community organizations (e.g., housing and social services, youth services, cultural and faith groups, police, colleges, employment agencies) [ 51 •]. EIS staff conducted 41 half-day workshops at community organizations; monthly follow-up meetings and an additional session were offered; EIS promotional materials were made available; and EIS referral processes were streamlined for community organizations, including a linkage worker as a community liaison. Although the majority of community staff were in contact with people experiencing early psychosis in the past year (59.4%) and attitudes toward EIS as a first referral destination improved (37% pre- to 68% post-workshop), the study results were negative. Comparing EIS referrals in the year pre-/post-interventions, there was no significant difference in duration of untreated psychosis (295 vs. 396 days, p  = 0.715) and, contrary to expectations, referred patients experienced significantly more contacts with intermediate healthcare/non-healthcare programs in their pathway to EIS treatment (2.06 vs. 2.45 steps, p  = 0.002), reflecting a less streamlined referral process. In follow-up interviews, the authors note the barriers of mental health stigma, high community staff turnover, and resistance by EIS clinic staff to community-based work. Similar to CPIC, both of these studies suggest the importance of resources to sustain lasting change.

School-Based Interventions

Research shows that youth, especially under-resourced youth, are most likely to receive mental healthcare in schools, given barriers to obtaining community mental health services [ 52 ••, 53 ]. School infrastructures also allow for large-scale implementation of prevention interventions [ 54 ••]. Given the number of factors involved in delivering school interventions, however, experts urge consideration of policies, school culture and climate, and leadership structure when delivering interventions [ 55 , 56 ]. Academic outcomes can be difficult for researchers to collect given the unique requirements of Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and HIPAA [ 57 ]. Further, developing sustainable interventions in schools that are truly responsive to the needs of students may require years of building academic-community partnerships [ 58 ].

Skryabina et al. assessed educational outcomes in an RCT of a universal school-based cognitive behavioral therapy prevention program, called FRIENDS [ 59 ]. FRIENDS is a manualized program that teaches emotional regulation, anxiety management, and problem solving, led by trained school staff or other designated health leaders. Forty-one schools were randomized to three arms ( n  = 1343): health-led FRIENDS, school-led FRIENDS, and a comparison group of Personal, Social, and Health Education (PSHE, emotional regulation, and self-awareness skills with less focus on anxiety management) which was provided by school staff. Health-led FRIENDS was more effective in decreasing social anxiety, generalized anxiety, and total Revised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Scale scores as compared to school-led FRIENDS and PSHE. There were no intervention effects on math, reading, or writing standardized assessment test scores.

Several studies implemented preventive interventions in the pre-kindergarten years. One such study evaluated developmental trajectories of youth, including behavioral, social, and learning measures over a 5-year period after receiving an enriched Head Start Curriculum [ 60 ]. This study is notable for its goal to address disparities and for the measures used to evaluate effects on development, which included social and learning behaviors and interpersonal relationships. In this RCT, 25 Head Start Centers were stratified and randomly assigned to receive usual Head Start vs. REDI intervention. REDI comprised dialogic reading, sound games, an interactive alphabet activity, and implementation of the Preschool Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies curriculum focused on social emotional skills, with added professional development for teachers. Outcomes were obtained for 325 children who were followed for 5 years post-preschool. Children in the Head Start REDI intervention vs. control group were significantly more likely to follow optimal developmental trajectories in social behavior, aggressive-oppositional behavior, learning engagement, attention problems, student-teacher closeness, and peer rejection. This and other studies illustrate the importance of intervening at the levels of the classroom and whole school.

Homeless Services

Individuals experiencing homelessness are at increased risk for mental illness, trauma, suicide, and medical comorbidities, along with a reduced life expectancy compared with the general population [ 61 – 64 ]. The recent focus on Housing First in community-based research on homelessness largely reflects an increasing embrace of that model [ 65 ]. Housing First is an approach to providing permanent housing without requirements for pre-placement sobriety or treatment participation [ 65 ]. Studies have demonstrated that Housing First yields quicker and more sustained housing retention compared to continuum housing approaches (transitional housing +/- sobriety or treatment requirements) [ 66 ••].

In the Canadian At Home/Chez Moi study, a multi-city RCT of the Housing First model compared with usual care, Aubry et al. followed 950 homeless or precariously housed adults with serious mental illness [ 67 ••]. The study found that participants in Housing First, compared with usual care, more quickly entered housing (within 73 vs. 220 days), retained housing for longer durations (281 vs. 115 days), and rated the quality of their housing more positively at 2-year follow-up. They also had significantly higher gains in community functioning and quality of life in the first year.

Several family-focused studies addressed homelessness. Nath examined the impact of drop-in homeless service centers for children in New Delhi, India [ 68 ]. They found that for every month of attendance at a drop-in center, children experienced 2.1% fewer ill health outcomes per month and used 4.6% fewer substances. Shinn et al. focused on social and mental health outcomes in children within newly homeless families with mental health or substance use disorders [ 69 ]. They compared usual care with a family-adapted critical time intervention, which combined housing and case management to connect families leaving shelters with community services. Youth in both groups exhibited reductions in psychosocial and mental health symptoms over time. Children ages 6–10 and 11–16 receiving the intervention compared to usual care were less likely at 24-month follow-up to self-report school troubles (i.e., suspension, being sent to the principal’s office, and being sent home with a note). Other studies have begun to analogously assess homeless interventions for broader social outcomes, including community functioning, arrests, public and other service use (e.g., food banks, shelters, prison time), employment, and income [ 70 – 74 ]. Future studies would benefit from expanded exploration of social outcomes that are important to individuals who have experienced homelessness.

Criminal Justice

Nearly 40% of jail and prison inmates self-report a history of mental illness, and this prevalence is higher among those with more arrests and time served in a correctional facility [ 75 ]. Community interventions in collaboration with the criminal justice system are well positioned to address health disparities experienced by justice-involved populations and the vulnerabilities to justice involvement experienced by those with mental illness in the community. The studies below collaborated with the justice system to alter institutional (e.g., police, court) processes for those with mental illness and/or addressed upstream social and structural recidivism risk factors [ 76 ].

In Monroe County, New York, adults with psychotic disorders charged with misdemeanors were conditionally released and randomized to usual treatment ( n  = 35) or Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) ( n  = 35) [ 77 ]. FACT employed high-fidelity ACT services with the following adaptations: a 6-h training in criminal justice collaboration for clinicians, screening for criminogenic risk factors among enrollees, weekly court appearances, and meetings to discuss barriers to success with the supervising judge, public defender, and district attorney. Over a year, FACT enrollees had significantly fewer convictions (0.4 ± 0.7 vs 0.9 ± 1.3, p  = .023), days in jail (21.5 ± 25.9 vs 43.5 ± 59.2, p  = .025), and more days in outpatient mental health treatment (305.5 ± 92.1 versus 169.4 ± 139.6, p  < .001) compared to treatment as usual.

A pilot study examined a social worker-administered decision-making intervention for police encountering people with mental illness [ 78 •]. During the study period, any police officer who ran a background check on a detained enrollee was notified of enrollee participation in the program and was given the option to call a linkage specialist, usually a social worker employed by a community mental health agency. Linkage specialists provided mental health history (e.g., treatment participation, medication history) and treatment referral options. While this feasibility study lacked statistical power, the authors suggest that these results show the promise of a cross-sector approach to reducing arrests in this population.

Other interventions addressed risk factors for justice involvement like lack of insurance, unemployment, emotional regulation, and academic achievement [ 79 – 81 , 82 •, 83 ]. Two quasi-experimental studies focused on healthcare access, examining the downstream service use and recidivism effects of expedited Medicaid enrollment for recent prison releasees with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder in Washington State ( n  = 3086) [ 79 , 80 ]. Twelve months post-implementation, 81% of the expedited group and 43% of the services as usual group were enrolled in Medicaid, ( p  < .01). Community mental health (69% vs. 37%, p  < .01), outpatient primary care (64% vs. 42%, p  < .01), and emergency room use (55% vs. 35%, p  < .01) significantly increased in the intervention group compared to services as usual. Unexpectedly, there was a significantly greater proportion of those in the intervention versus comparison group that spent any days in jail (43 vs. 34%, p  < .01) and state prison (56% vs. 46%, p  < .01), with no significant difference in the proportion with any arrests (59% vs. 54%) at follow-up. The investigators suggest that while healthcare access is an important determinant for mental health, future interventions and policies must intentionally address the larger ecosystem of social/structural determinants of criminal justice involvement.

Global Mental Health

Global mental health is “an area for study, research and practice that places a priority on improving health and achieving equity in health for all people worldwide” [ 84 ] (pg. 1995). We reviewed community interventions in international settings, acknowledging the shared social, structural, and mental health challenges that exist across nations. Many of the reviewed studies involve lay health worker (LHW) interventions [ 85 •, 86 – 90 ]. Barnett et al. in their 2018 review of LHW interventions describe that LHWs elevate demand for services by increasing awareness of services and mental health literacy and by reducing stigma and barriers to care [ 85 •]. Further, LHW interventions increase the supply of services in under-resourced areas by enlarging the workforce of culturally appropriate providers.

In 2017, Patel et al. published the first trial of a psychological intervention in primary care delivered by LHWs for moderate/severe depression in a low/middle income country [ 91 •]. In that RCT, 495 participants in Goa, India, were assigned to the Healthy Activity Program (HAP) plus Enhanced Usual Care (EUC) intervention or EUC alone (usual care plus depression screenings and guideline-based primary care treatment of depression). In order to deliver the HAP (6–8 sessions on principles of behavioral activation), counselors received a 3-week training and 6-month internship under supervision of local mental health workers, who were trained by an expert on behavioral activation. At 3 months, HAP participants demonstrated significantly reduced depression symptom severity, suicidal ideation, disability, days out of work, and intimate partner violence and significantly higher rates of depression remission and improved behavioral activation compared to the EUC group.

A study in the Eastern Cape, South Africa, was the first to examine the effectiveness of a child abuse prevention program for adolescents in a low/middle income country [ 92 ••]. Most of the participating adolescents and caregivers ( n  = 115 dyads) from six under-resourced rural and peri-urban communities were referred to the study by non-governmental organizations, schools, clinics, chieftans, and social workers based on a history of family conflicts. Sixty percent of adolescent participants at baseline had either an HIV-positive caregiver or were orphaned by AIDS, 63% experienced pre-intervention child abuse, and 50% of caregivers at baseline endorsed intimate partner violence. Participants completed a 12-week parenting program delivered by local childcare workers. The study yielded significant improvements in social outcomes: reduced child abuse (63.0% to 29.5%, p  < .001), reduced adolescent delinquency/aggressive behavior, reduced witnessed violence by adolescents, improved positive and involved parenting (adolescent and caregiver self-report), and improved social support (adolescent and caregiver self-report). The study also demonstrated significantly improved mental health outcomes, specifically decreased caregiver substance use, reduced adolescent and caregiver depression, and reduced parenting stress. These findings illustrate the interplay among social determinants, family dynamics, and caregiver-adolescent mental health.

Multiple recent studies consider the effects of war and broad structural forces on mental health [ 87 – 89 , 93 ]. Cilliers et al. assessed the individual and community mental and social well-being outcomes associated with truth and reconciliation commissions (TRCs) in 200 Sierra Leone villages [ 94 ]. TRCs are community forums created to uncover wrongdoing by governments or other actors in the aftermath of major conflicts. The authors measured “societal healing” indicators, including forgiveness of perpetrators, trust, strength of social network, and community engagement, and “individual healing” indicators: PTSD, anxiety, and depression symptoms ( n  = 2383). They found that TRCs yielded improvements in societal healing, but worsened individuals’ health (worsened psychological health, depression, anxiety, and PTSD). The authors suggest policy implications such as integrated counseling in TRCs, reducing delays in holding TRCs after war, and exploring alternative post-conflict unification methods.

Mental Health Promotion and Prevention

Communities That Care (CTC) is a community-level prevention planning and implementation system with primary foci on preventing youth (school grades 6–9) substance use, violence, and delinquency and secondary foci on depression, suicide, and other mental health outcomes. The CTC system involves five phases: identification of community stakeholders, formation of a community coalition, development of a community profile to identify risk and protective factors related to youth health and behavior problems, creation of a community action plan, and implementation and evaluation [ 95 ]. Communities implement evidence-based programs from the Building Healthy Youth Development registry, maintained by the University of Colorado Boulder’s Center for the Study of Prevention and Violence [ 96 ]. The Community Youth Development Study was a community-randomized study of CTC involving 24 communities ( n  > 14,000) in Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Washington State [ 97 – 99 ]. CTC has also been implemented in Pennsylvania and rural Massachusetts [ 100 – 102 ]. In CTC versus control communities, results showed improved individual outcomes at eighth grade: reduced substance use, delinquency, and violence; later initiation of alcohol use, tobacco use, and delinquency; and lower prevalence of risky behaviors (past-year delinquency, past 2-week delinquency, and past-month alcohol and tobacco use) [ 103 •]. Many of these results persisted to grades 10–12, despite few CTC programs focused on these grade levels. Fewer results (greater lifetime abstinence from antisocial behavior; greater lifetime abstinence from drug use and violence in male but not female participants) persisted to age 19 [ 103 •, 104 ].

CTC investigators recently published follow-up results for participants at age 21 ( n  = 4002, 91% of the initial sample from grades 5–6), 11 years after initial CTC implementation [ 103 •]. By age 21, CTC vs. control communities showed increased likelihood of lifetime abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use (ARR 1.49; 95% CI 1.03, 2.16), increased abstinence from antisocial behavior (ARR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02, 1.37), and decreased lifetime incidence of violence (ARR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79, 0.99). In male participants, CTC versus control communities also showed increased likelihood of sustained abstinence from tobacco, marijuana, and inhalant use.

Social protection studies investigate mental health and other outcomes associated with direct provision of resources in the forms of cash and food transfers [ 105 , 106 •, 107 •, 108 , 109 ]. A neighborhood cluster RCT in Ecuador investigated the effects of such resources on mental well-being and intimate partner violence [ 106 •, 109 ]. Colombian refugees and low-income households in northern Ecuador were randomized to cash, food vouchers, food, or control arms. Treatment arms received the equivalent of $40 per month per household for 6 months, which represents 11% of pre-transfer monthly consumption. Food vouchers were redeemable at local supermarkets for a pre-approved list of nutritious foods. Food transfers were in the form of rice, lentils, vegetable oil, and canned sardines. Pooled results from all treatment arms showed the intervention significantly decreased the probability of controlling behaviors and physical and/or sexual violence by 6 to 7 percentage points compared to controls, with even greater reductions in the prevalence of any physical/sexual violence for women with low baseline ratings of household decision-making power [ 106 •]. Qualitative interviews with participants indicated that improved family well-being, reduced marital stress and conflict, and women’s increased freedom of movement and decision-making power contributed to the decrease in violence. Similar studies include a large cluster RCT of cash transfers in Kenya’s program for at-risk youth and a cluster RCT of greening urban vacant land; both showed significant improvements in depression outcomes compared to control communities. These studies highlight the importance of addressing social inequities to achieve mental health gains in under-resourced communities [ 107 •, 110 •].

Actions of Community Interventions by Social-Ecological Level

The community interventions above (Appendix A ), drawn from a larger selection (Appendix B ), highlight the successes and promise of these interventions to promote mental health and broader outcomes at all social-ecological levels: individual, interpersonal/family, organizational/institutional, community, and policy [ 3 ]. Community involvement is represented in varied ways in the form of individuals (lay health workers), settings (churches, schools), leaders (community-based participatory research), and multi-sector coalitions [ 35 •, 37 , 38 , 39 •, 85 •, 86 – 90 , 91 •, 103 •]. Many studies examined the interplay among mental health services, social and structural determinants, and mental health outcomes. Some explicitly assessed social outcomes like intimate partner violence, housing retention, academic performance, parent-child interactions, “societal healing,” and other contributors to mental and social well-being [ 67 ••, 92 ••, 94 , 111 ].

Figure ​ Figure1 1 summarizes the actions of community interventions by social-ecological level to promote mental health and social well-being. We found that most interventions reviewed promoted mental health at the individual level. LHW interventions extend access and increase acceptability of mental health services by leveraging trusted relationships. For example, Patel et al. demonstrated the successful delivery of behavioral activation for depression by LHWs through relatively brief training to a population with significant barriers to healthcare access [ 91 •]. Some studies adapted evidence-based models (e.g., Forensic Assertive Community Treatment) to deliver treatments in non-traditional locations, such as jails, churches, and senior centers [ 77 ]. Many individual-level interventions also simultaneously acted at the organizational/institutional level. In the successful RCT of Head Start REDI, teachers were provided with professional development and mentoring to deliver an enriched curriculum [ 60 ].

Overview of community intervention processes by social-ecological level (adapted from McElroy, KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1988;15:351–377)

A second group of interventions intervened at the interpersonal level (e.g., parent and family interventions). The effective child abuse prevention program in South Africa focused on the parent-child dyad through individual and joint sessions [ 92 ••]. Additionally, a strength of this intervention was its delivery by local child care workers. A third group of interventions functioned at the organizational/institutional level by enhancing the processes by which non-healthcare programs serve those with mental illness. These interventions enlisted non-healthcare entities and trusted community leaders to be active in mental healthcare, such as providing a depression screening intervention in churches [ 38 , 39 •]. Several successful school-based interventions operated at the organizational level, such as Warschburger and Zitzmann’s universal school-based prevention program for eating disorders in Germany and other whole school approaches [ 111 , 112 ].

We found only a small number of studies that intervened at the level of whole communities. Most interventions reviewed here included one non-healthcare sector collaborator as opposed to collaborating with communities more broadly. Examples of community-level interventions include CPIC, which involved 95 organizations in 5 sectors to develop community-wide plans for managing depression, and CTC that supports communities to develop multi-sector coalitions to prevent youth substance use, violence, and delinquency [ 35 •, 103 •]. Other studies acted at the community level by directly providing or influencing resources on a large scale, through cash/food transfers or land revitalization efforts [ 94 , 105 , 106 •, 107 •, 108 , 109 , 110 •].

A fifth group of interventions are health and public policies. Policies that promote mental health equity are beyond the scope of this review but are detailed in our recent review on this topic [ 113 •]. Policies as varied as mental health insurance parity, assisted outpatient treatment statutes, quality metrics for social determinants of health, value-based payment reforms, and the integration of funds and services for health and social care have the potential to improve access to treatment and improve outcomes [ 114 – 117 , 118 •, 119 – 121 ]. Policies facilitating multi-sector health collaborations include the Accountable Health Communities model, California’s Whole Person Care pilots, the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics Demonstration Program, New York’s Home and Community-based Services, the UK’s Social Impact Bonds Trailblazers, and the National Health Service England’s social prescribing teams [ 122 – 127 ]. Nation-level efforts to promote shared values for mental and social well-being are Australia’s mental health anti-stigma campaign, the US National Prevention Strategy’s focus on emotional well-being, and the UK’s Campaign to End Loneliness [ 128 – 130 ]. Thrive NYC is an example of large-scale action to promote mental health at the civic level, with a budget of $850 million and 54 initiatives across all public agencies and departments, with special emphases on community partnerships and prevention [ 131 , 132 •].

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations are of importance to many community interventions given the focus on marginalized and under-resourced populations [ 24 , 133 ]. Research on interventions for at-risk individuals with stigmatized conditions (e.g., incarceration, homelessness) should build trust with participants and recognize structural forces that place them at higher risk for these conditions (e.g., discriminatory policing and housing policies), to avoid inadvertently worsening stigma. Involving community stakeholders in equitable arrangements for interventions and research requires the necessary time and processes to develop effective partnerships. The expertise of community leaders and other stakeholders can be integrated equitably with that of researchers with trust, respect, and two-way knowledge exchange [ 134 , 135 ]. Community-based organizations, social services, and healthcare agencies also have different funding streams and incentives. Efforts to sustain interventions should include a focus on funding and other enabling infrastructures (e.g., training, technology) for community groups to participate in intervention-related activities.

Conclusions

There is evidence for the effectiveness of community interventions in multiple topic areas and acting at all social-ecological levels. International lay health worker interventions, a parenting intervention to reduce child abuse, a whole-school cognitive behavioral therapy prevention program, adapted ACT teams for early psychosis and justice-involved populations, Housing First services, and multi-sector collaborative care and prevention services are examples of effective community interventions. Studies indicate the importance of ongoing resources and training to maintain long-term outcomes and the need for policy reform to support healthcare-community partnerships. Future research should further define best practices for multi-sector collaborations and partnership structures, identify strategies for sustainable change after the end of research activities, and clarify the types of health and social problems that are best ameliorated through community interventions [ 2 •]. In close and equitable partnerships with communities and policy leaders, future community interventions in mental health should seek to improve health and achieve large-scale social outcomes through initiatives that address mental health, structural, and social inequities.

(DOCX 24 kb)

(DOCX 104 kb)

Grant Support

Grant Support By the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (award R01MD00721), the Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute (award 1501-26518), and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health (award K12DA000357). The content and views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the US Department of Veterans Affairs the National Institutes of Health or the United States Government.

Conflict of Interest

Enrico G. Castillo is employed by UCLA and Los Angeles Department of Mental Health and reports grants pending from UCLA CTSI and School of Medicine Seed Grant Program. Dr. Castillo has received travel reimbursement from the American Psychiatric Association.

Roya Ijadi-Maghsoodi is employed by the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and receives funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K12DA000357.

Nicolás Barcelo reports a Minority Fellowship Award from the APA/SAMHSA.

Joseph Mango reports a grant from the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD).

Alanna E. Montero reports grants pending from the NIMHD.

Sara Rahmanian Koushkaki reports a grant from the NIMHD.

Bowen Chung is a consultant for the Center for Law and Social Policy and on the advisory board for a Medicaid mental health project. Dr. Chung is a full-time employee of County of Los Angeles Department of Mental Health. Dr. Chung reports a grant pending from NIHMH R01 and a grant from PCORI (Award No. 1501-26518) and has received payment for technical assistance training from Baton Rouge Area Foundation and Maimonides Medical Center (contract to RAND Corporation for CIPIC implementation). Dr. Chung has received travel reimbursement from the City of New York Mayor’s Office and PCORI.

Jeanne Miranda reports honoraria from Annapolis Coalition and Baymark Health Services and is employed by UCLA Psychiatry. Dr. Miranda reports grants from NIH/NIMH, SAMHSA, NIMH, NIMHD, and PCORI.

Bonnie T. Zima is employed by UCLA and reports grants from Illinois Children’s Healthcare Foundation, PCORI, SAMHSA, California DHCS, and MHSOAC.

Kenneth B. Wells reports a grant from the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) and potential dissemination grants related to effective community interventions.

Sonya Shadravan, Michael O. Mensah, III, Mary Docherty, Maria Gabriela Aguilera Nunez, Nichole Goodsmith, Isabella Morton, Elizabeth Bromley, Felica Jones, Sonya Gabrielian, Lillian Gelberg, Jared M. Greenberg, Ippolytos Kalofonos, Sheryl H. Kataoka, and Harold A. Pincus each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Public Policy and Public Health

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

Facility for Rare Isotope Beams

At michigan state university, frib researchers lead team to merge nuclear physics experiments and astronomical observations to advance equation-of-state research, world-class particle-accelerator facilities and recent advances in neutron-star observation give physicists a new toolkit for describing nuclear interactions at a wide range of densities..

For most stars, neutron stars and black holes are their final resting places. When a supergiant star runs out of fuel, it expands and then rapidly collapses on itself. This act creates a neutron star—an object denser than our sun crammed into a space 13 to  18 miles wide. In such a heavily condensed stellar environment, most electrons combine with protons to make neutrons, resulting in a dense ball of matter consisting mainly of neutrons. Researchers try to understand the forces that control this process by creating dense matter in the laboratory through colliding neutron-rich nuclei and taking detailed measurements.

A research team—led by William Lynch and Betty Tsang at FRIB—is focused on learning about neutrons in dense environments. Lynch, Tsang, and their collaborators used 20 years of experimental data from accelerator facilities and neutron-star observations to understand how particles interact in nuclear matter under a wide range of densities and pressures. The team wanted to determine how the ratio of neutrons to protons influences nuclear forces in a system. The team recently published its findings in Nature Astronomy .

“In nuclear physics, we are often confined to studying small systems, but we know exactly what particles are in our nuclear systems. Stars provide us an unbelievable opportunity, because they are large systems where nuclear physics plays a vital role, but we do not know for sure what particles are in their interiors,” said Lynch, professor of nuclear physics at FRIB and in the Michigan State University (MSU) Department of Physics and Astronomy. “They are interesting because the density varies greatly within such large systems.  Nuclear forces play a dominant role within them, yet we know comparatively little about that role.” 

When a star with a mass that is 20-30 times that of the sun exhausts its fuel, it cools, collapses, and explodes in a supernova. After this explosion, only the matter in the deepest part of the star’s interior coalesces to form a neutron star. This neutron star has no fuel to burn and over time, it radiates its remaining heat into the surrounding space. Scientists expect that matter in the outer core of a cold neutron star is roughly similar to the matter in atomic nuclei but with three differences: neutron stars are much larger, they are denser in their interiors, and a larger fraction of their nucleons are neutrons. Deep within the inner core of a neutron star, the composition of neutron star matter remains a mystery. 

  “If experiments could provide more guidance about the forces that act in their interiors, we could make better predictions of their interior composition and of phase transitions within them. Neutron stars present a great research opportunity to combine these disciplines,” said Lynch.

Accelerator facilities like FRIB help physicists study how subatomic particles interact under exotic conditions that are more common in neutron stars. When researchers compare these experiments to neutron-star observations, they can calculate the equation of state (EOS) of particles interacting in low-temperature, dense environments. The EOS describes matter in specific conditions, and how its properties change with density. Solving EOS for a wide range of settings helps researchers understand the strong nuclear force’s effects within dense objects, like neutron stars, in the cosmos. It also helps us learn more about neutron stars as they cool.

“This is the first time that we pulled together such a wealth of experimental data to explain the equation of state under these conditions, and this is important,” said Tsang, professor of nuclear science at FRIB. “Previous efforts have used theory to explain the low-density and low-energy end of nuclear matter. We wanted to use all the data we had available to us from our previous experiences with accelerators to obtain a comprehensive equation of state.”   

Researchers seeking the EOS often calculate it at higher temperatures or lower densities. They then draw conclusions for the system across a wider range of conditions. However, physicists have come to understand in recent years that an EOS obtained from an experiment is only relevant for a specific range of densities. As a result, the team needed to pull together data from a variety of accelerator experiments that used different measurements of colliding nuclei to replace those assumptions with data. “In this work, we asked two questions,” said Lynch. “For a given measurement, what density does that measurement probe? After that, we asked what that measurement tells us about the equation of state at that density.”   

In its recent paper, the team combined its own experiments from accelerator facilities in the United States and Japan. It pulled together data from 12 different experimental constraints and three neutron-star observations. The researchers focused on determining the EOS for nuclear matter ranging from half to three times a nuclei’s saturation density—the density found at the core of all stable nuclei. By producing this comprehensive EOS, the team provided new benchmarks for the larger nuclear physics and astrophysics communities to more accurately model interactions of nuclear matter.

The team improved its measurements at intermediate densities that neutron star observations do not provide through experiments at the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research in Germany, the RIKEN Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science in Japan, and the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory (FRIB’s predecessor). To enable key measurements discussed in this article, their experiments helped fund technical advances in data acquisition for active targets and time projection chambers that are being employed in many other experiments world-wide.   

In running these experiments at FRIB, Tsang and Lynch can continue to interact with MSU students who help advance the research with their own input and innovation. MSU operates FRIB as a scientific user facility for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC), supporting the mission of the DOE-SC Office of Nuclear Physics. FRIB is the only accelerator-based user facility on a university campus as one of 28 DOE-SC user facilities .  Chun Yen Tsang, the first author on the Nature Astronomy  paper, was a graduate student under Betty Tsang during this research and is now a researcher working jointly at Brookhaven National Laboratory and Kent State University. 

“Projects like this one are essential for attracting the brightest students, which ultimately makes these discoveries possible, and provides a steady pipeline to the U.S. workforce in nuclear science,” Tsang said.

The proposed FRIB energy upgrade ( FRIB400 ), supported by the scientific user community in the 2023 Nuclear Science Advisory Committee Long Range Plan , will allow the team to probe at even higher densities in the years to come. FRIB400 will double the reach of FRIB along the neutron dripline into a region relevant for neutron-star crusts and to allow study of extreme, neutron-rich nuclei such as calcium-68. 

Eric Gedenk is a freelance science writer.

Michigan State University operates the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB) as a user facility for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC), supporting the mission of the DOE-SC Office of Nuclear Physics. Hosting what is designed to be the most powerful heavy-ion accelerator, FRIB enables scientists to make discoveries about the properties of rare isotopes in order to better understand the physics of nuclei, nuclear astrophysics, fundamental interactions, and applications for society, including in medicine, homeland security, and industry.

The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States and is working to address some of today’s most pressing challenges. For more information, visit energy.gov/science.

• MyU : For Students, Faculty, and Staff

Hannah Kenagy and Melissa Ramirez join Department of Chemistry

MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (04/22/2024) – The Department of Chemistry will welcome Dr. Hannah Kenagy and Dr. Melissa Ramirez to the faculty in January 2025. Both chemists will enter the department as Assistant Professors. 

Hannah S. Kenagy will join the department in January 2025 after completion of her postdoctoral training at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where she currently works as an NSF AGS Postdoctoral Fellow with Prof. Jesse Kroll and Prof. Colette Heald. Prior to her current position at MIT, Kenagy completed her PhD at the University of California Berkeley in 2021 with Ronald Cohen and her BS in Chemistry and the University of Chicago in 2016. 

At the University of Minnesota, the Kenagy research group will focus on atmospheric chemistry. Kenagy’s research explores how emissions into the atmosphere get physically and chemically transformed into gases and particles with impacts on air quality and climate. “We will use an integrated toolset for thinking about these questions, including lab experiments, field observations, and multi-scale modeling,” Kenagy says. “In particular, we’ll focus on questions regarding how atmospheric chemistry and composition are changing as we reduce our reliance on fossil fuel combustion and as temperatures continue to rise with climate change. Integrating measurements and models together will enable us to push forward our understanding of this changing chemistry.”

Kenagy is passionate about integrating environmental chemistry learning opportunities in her classrooms to make real-world connections for students. “Because so much of my research is relevant to air quality and climate – things that impact people’s daily lives, often inequitably – outreach is a really key component of my group’s work,” Kenagy says. She also engages in ongoing efforts to make science more accessible, and to ensure all students have the resources they need to thrive and develop a sense of belonging in science.

The UMN Department of Chemistry’s strong focus on environmental chemistry and the opportunities to engage in interdisciplinary research make the move to Minnesota particularly exciting for Kenagy. “I’m looking forward to joining a university with atmospheric scientists in a variety of departments across both the Minneapolis and St. Paul campuses. I also plan to make some measurements of urban chemistry across the Twin Cities, a unique environment that is impacted by agricultural and biogenic emissions in addition to more typical urban emissions. This mix of emissions makes the Twin Cities an interesting place to study the air!”

When she’s not busy in the office and lab, Kenagy loves being outside, hiking and swimming. She also loves music – she plays piano and sings – and cooking.  You can read more about Kenagy here.

Melissa Ramirez will also make her move to Minnesota in January of 2025. Currently, Ramirez is an NIH K99/R00 MOSAIC Scholar, NSF MPS-Ascend Fellow, and Caltech Presidential Postdoctoral Scholar in the laboratory of Prof. Brian Stoltz at the California Institute of Technology, where her research focuses on enantioselective quaternary center formation using experiments and computations. Before her postdoctoral position, Ramirez completed her PhD in Organic Chemistry at the University of California, Los Angeles with Prof. Ken Houk and Prof. Neil Garg in 2021 and her BA in Chemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 2016. 

The Ramirez laboratory at UMN will develop experimental and computational approaches to address challenges associated with efficiency in the synthesis of pharmaceutically relevant small molecules. “The mission of my research program will be to establish synthetic methods in the areas of main group catalysis, asymmetric organocatalysis, and transition metal photochemistry with the aid of computations,” Ramirez writes. “Students trained in my lab will develop strong skills in synthetic and computational organic chemistry with a focus on reaction development. This synergistic skillset in synthesis and computations will also give rise to a range of opportunities for collaboration with the broader scientific community.” Ramirez aims to bridge synthesis and catalysis research with computational chemistry at UMN.

Ramirez says an important goal for her as a professor will be to challenge students, support them, and make them feel connected to the classroom regardless of their background. “Throughout my academic career, some of the most effective teachers I have had are those who believed in my potential even when I experienced self-doubt or failure,” Ramirez says. She is also looking forward to collaborating with the Chemistry Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee to explore ways to better connect students with resources to help remove barriers to their science education and career. “I am excited to help recruit a diverse student body by helping organize the  CheMNext session and by continuing my close relationship with organizations such as the Alliance for Diversity in Science and Engineering and Científico Latino, which I have served on the organizational board for during my postdoc,” Ramirez says.

When she’s not on campus, Ramirez enjoys staying active. She’s an avid runner, loves Peloton, and likes taking high-intensity interval training (HIIT) classes.  You can learn more about Ramirez here.

The hiring of Kenagy and Ramirez follows the recent announcement of Dr. Jan-Niklas Boyn and Dr. Kade Head-Marsden joining the faculty in Fall 2024 . These four incoming Gophers will bring the Department of Chemistry total of new faculty hires to nine over the past three years. We are excited for these outstanding chemists to join our community, and be part of the ongoing growth of the College of Science and Engineering on the UMN-TC campus.

Related news releases

• hUMNs of Chemistry #14
• hUMNs of Chemistry #13
• Jan-Niklas Boyn and Kade Head-Marsden join Department of Chemistry
• hUMNs of Chemistry #11
• Professor Peter Carr retires after over 45 years on Department of Chemistry faculty
• Future undergraduate students
• Future transfer students
• Future graduate students
• Future international students
• Diversity and Inclusion Opportunities
• Learn abroad
• Living Learning Communities
• Mentor programs
• Programs for women
• Student groups
• Visit, Apply & Next Steps
• Information for current students
• Departments and majors overview
• Departments
• Undergraduate majors
• Graduate programs
• Integrated Degree Programs
• Additional degree-granting programs
• Online learning
• Academic Advising overview
• Academic Advising FAQ
• Academic Advising Blog
• Appointments and drop-ins
• Academic support
• Commencement
• Four-year plans
• Honors advising
• Policies, procedures, and forms
• Career Services overview
• Resumes and cover letters
• Jobs and internships
• Interviews and job offers
• CSE Career Fair
• Major and career exploration
• Graduate school
• Collegiate Life overview
• Scholarships
• Diversity & Inclusivity Alliance
• Anderson Student Innovation Labs
• Information for alumni
• Get engaged with CSE
• Upcoming events
• CSE Alumni Society Board
• Alumni volunteer interest form
• Golden Medallion Society Reunion
• 50-Year Reunion
• Alumni honors and awards
• Outstanding Achievement
• Alumni Service
• Distinguished Leadership
• Honorary Doctorate Degrees
• Nobel Laureates
• Alumni resources
• Alumni career resources
• Alumni news outlets
• CSE branded clothing
• International alumni resources
• Inventing Tomorrow magazine
• Update your info
• CSE giving overview
• Why give to CSE?
• College priorities
• Give online now
• External relations
• Giving priorities
• Donor stories
• Impact of giving
• Ways to give to CSE
• Matching gifts
• CSE directories
• Invest in your company and the future
• Recruit our students
• Connect with researchers
• K-12 initiatives
• Diversity initiatives
• Research news
• Give to CSE
• CSE priorities
• Corporate relations
• Information for faculty and staff
• Administrative offices overview
• Office of the Dean
• Academic affairs
• Finance and Operations
• Communications
• Human resources
• Undergraduate programs and student services
• CSE Committees
• CSE policies overview
• Academic policies
• Faculty hiring and tenure policies
• Finance policies and information
• Graduate education policies
• Human resources policies
• Research policies
• Research overview
• Research centers and facilities
• Research proposal submission process
• Research safety
• Award-winning CSE faculty
• National academies
• University awards
• Honorary professorships
• Collegiate awards
• Other CSE honors and awards
• Staff awards
• Performance Management Process
• Work. With Flexibility in CSE
• K-12 outreach overview
• Summer camps
• Outreach events
• Enrichment programs
• Field trips and tours
• CSE K-12 Virtual Classroom Resources
• Educator development
• Sponsor an event