Dataset Information

Using community-based participatory research and organizational diagnosis to characterize relationships between community leaders and academic researchers.

ABSTRACT: Sustaining collaborations between community-based organization leaders and academic researchers in community-engaged research (CEnR) in the service of decreasing health inequities necessitates understanding the collaborations from an inter-organizational perspective. We assessed the perspectives of community leaders and university-based researchers conducting community-engaged research in a medium-sized city with a history of community-university tension. Our research team, included experts in CEnR and organizational theory, used qualitative methods and purposeful, snowball sampling to recruit local participants and performed key informant interviews from July 2011-May 2012. A community-based researcher interviewed 11 community leaders, a university-based researcher interviewed 12 university-based researchers. We interviewed participants until we reached thematic saturation and performed analyses using the constant comparative method. Unifying themes characterizing community leaders and university-based researchers' relationships on the inter-organizational level include: 1) Both groups described that community-engaged university-based researchers are exceptions to typical university culture; 2) Both groups described that the interpersonal skills university-based researchers need for CEnR require a change in organizational culture and training; 3) Both groups described skepticism about the sustainability of a meaningful institutional commitment to community-engaged research 4) Both groups described the historical impact on research relationships of race, power, and privilege, but only community leaders described its persistent role and relevance in research relationships. Challenges to community-academic research partnerships include researcher interpersonal skills and different perceptions of the importance of organizational history. Solutions to improve research partnerships may include transforming university culture and community-university discussions on race, power, and privilege.

SUBMITTER: Wang KH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5498288 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Using community-based participatory research and organizational diagnosis to characterize relationships between community leaders and academic researchers.

Wang Karen H KH Ray Natasha J NJ Berg David N DN Greene Ann T AT Lucas Georgina G Harris Kenn K Carroll-Scott Amy A Tinney Barbara B Rosenthal Marjorie S MS

Preventive medicine reports 20170621

Sustaining collaborations between community-based organization leaders and academic researchers in community-engaged research (CEnR) in the service of decreasing health inequities necessitates understanding the collaborations from an inter-organizational perspective. We assessed the perspectives of community leaders and university-based researchers conducting community-engaged research in a medium-sized city with a history of community-university tension. Our research team, included experts in C ...[more]

PMID: 28706777

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatient engagement in research (also commonly referred to as patient or patient and public involvement in research) strives to transform health research wherein patients (including caregivers and the public) are regularly and actively engaged as multidisciplinary research team members (i.e. patient partners) working jointly towards improved health outcomes and an enhanced healthcare system. To support its mindful evolution into a staple of health research, this participatory study aimed to identify future directions for Canadian patient engagement in research and discusses its findings in the context of the international literature.MethodsThe study met its aim through a multi-meeting pan-Canadian virtual workshop. Participants (n = 30) included Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research-funded academic researchers and patient partners identified through a publicly available database, personal and professional networks and social media. All spoke English, could access the workshop virtually, and provided written informed consent. The workshop was composed of four, 1.5-3-h virtual meetings wherein participants discussed the current and preferred future states of Canadian patient engagement in research. Workshop discussions (i.e. data) were video and audio recorded. Themes were generated through an iterative process of inductive thematic analysis that occurred concurrently with the multi-week workshop.ResultsOur participatory and iterative process identified 10 targetable areas of focus for the future of Canadian patient engagement in research. Five were categorized as system-level (systemic integration; academic culture; engagement networks; funding models; compensation models), one as researcher-level (engagement processes), and four crossed both levels (awareness; diversity and recruitment; training, tools and education; evaluation and impact). System level targetable areas called for reshaping the patient engagement ecosystem to create a legitimized and supportive space for patient engagement to be a staple component of a learning health system. Researcher level targetable areas called for academic researchers and patient partners to collaboratively generate evidence and apply knowledge to inform values and behaviours necessary to foster and sustain supportive health research spaces that are accessible to all.ConclusionsFuture directions for Canadian patient engagement in research span 10 interconnected targetable areas that require strong leadership and joint action between patient partners, academic researchers, and health and research institutions if patient engagement is to become a ubiquitous component of a learning health system.

Project description:Background:There is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields. Methods:We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then combined these into a top five ranking of most detrimental research misbehaviours at the aggregate level, stratified by disciplinary field. Second, in focus group interviews, participants from each academic rank and disciplinary field were asked to reflect on the most relevant research misbehaviours for their disciplinary field. We used participative ranking methodology inducing participants to obtain consensus on which research misbehaviours are most detrimental. Results:In total, 1080 researchers completed the survey (response rate: 15%) and 61 participated in the focus groups (3 three to 8 eight researchers per group). Insufficient supervision consistently ranked highest in the survey regardless of disciplinary field and the focus groups confirmed this. Important themes in the focus groups were insufficient supervision, sloppy science, and sloppy peer review. Biomedical researchers and social science researchers were primarily concerned with sloppy science and insufficient supervision. Natural sciences and humanities researchers discussed sloppy reviewing and theft of ideas by reviewers, a form of plagiarism. Focus group participants further provided examples of particular research misbehaviours they were confronted with and how these impacted their work as a researcher. Conclusion:We found insufficient supervision and various forms of sloppy science to score highly on aggregate detrimental impact throughout all disciplinary fields. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities also perceived nepotism to be of major impact on the aggregate level. The natural sciences regarded fabrication of data of major impact as well. The focus group interviews helped to understand how researchers interpreted 'insufficient supervision'. Besides, the focus group participants added insight into sloppy science in practice. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities added new research misbehaviours concerning their disciplinary fields to the list, such as the stealing of ideas before publication. This improves our understanding of research misbehaviour beyond the social and biomedical fields.

Project description:BackgroundOrganizational Participatory Research (OPR) seeks organizational learning and/or practice improvement. Previous systematic literature reviews described some OPR processes and outcomes, but the link between these processes and outcomes is unknown. We sought to identify and sequence the key processes of OPR taking place with and within healthcare organizations and the main outcomes to which they contribute, and to define ideal-types of OPR.MethodsThis article reports a participatory systematic mixed studies review with qualitative synthesis A specialized health librarian searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase Classic + Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, Social Work Abstracts and Business Source Complete, together with grey literature data bases were searched from inception to November 29, 2012. This search was updated using forward citation tracking up to June 2014. Reporting quality was appraised and unclear articles were excluded. Included studies clearly reported OPR where the main research related decisions were co-constructed among the academic and healthcare organization partners. Included studies were distilled into summaries of their OPR processes and outcomes, which were subsequently analysed using deductive and inductive thematic analysis. All summaries were analysed; that is, data analysis continued beyond saturation.ResultsEighty-three studies were included from the 8873 records retrieved. Eight key OPR processes were identified. Four follow the phases of research: 1) form a work group and hold meetings, 2) collectively determine research objectives, 3) collectively analyse data, and 4) collectively interpret results and decide how to use them. Four are present throughout OPR: 1) communication, 2) relationships; 3) commitment; 4) collective reflection. These processes contribute to extra benefits at the individual and organizational levels. Four ideal-types of OPR were defined. Basic OPR consists of OPR processes leading to achieving the study objectives. This ideal-type and may be combined with any of the following three ideal-types: OPR resulting in random additional benefits for the individuals or organization involved, OPR spreading to other sectors of the organization and beyond, or OPR leading to subsequent initiatives. These results are illustrated with a novel conceptual model.ConclusionThe model provides operational guidance to help OPR stakeholders collaboratively address organizational issues and achieve desired outcomes and more.Review registrationAs per PROSPERO inclusion criteria, this review is not registered.

Dataset Information

Using community-based participatory research and organizational diagnosis to characterize relationships between community leaders and academic researchers.

Publications

Using community-based participatory research and organizational diagnosis to characterize relationships between community leaders and academic researchers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets