Introduction
Often in traditional research, power is unequally distributed amongst researchers and those whom they are studying. When working with people, relationships are typically transactional; the researcher needs participants to complete the study and participants are often compensated in some way. While participants often must consent before partaking in a study, their power is limited. Community-based research though, seeks to build community power, by designing projects of mutual interest and value. Such projects can only exist with meaningful input from and collaboration with community members. However, such a dynamic does not always exist between researchers and community members. In order to build trusting relationships to start community based research, researchers must be conscious of power, often reflecting on histories of extractive, top-down relationships between researchers and communities. While such a task is challenging, there are a number of approaches community based researchers can take to navigate power in community-based research.
Strategies to Navigate Power
The dynamic of power in community-based research is something scholars have been exploring for a number of decades, offering useful strategies to consider. In a 2004 piece by Meredith Minkler, “Ethical Challenges for the ‘Outside’ Researcher in Community-Based Participatory Research”, she notes how even in community based-participatory research, which defines itself as collaborative and cooperative, there can still be issues of power. To mitigate these challenges, Minkler offers a number of suggestions for the structure of a community partnership that can attend to power. These include, ensuring the research agenda is community driven (as a means to shift control back to the community), navigating insider-outsider tensions by attending to differences in trust, power, timetables, and financial benefits, addressing racism at the institutional, interpersonal, and internal levels, with cultural humility for those who are white, attending to the limits of participation, by both designing spaces that make participation accessible and allow for equitable participation, and lastly by considering the community first in regard to findings. Overall, one way to attend to power in community based research is through intentional design of the partnership structure and interpersonal norms.
In addition to considering power in the design of one’s partnership, power can also be attended to in the formulation of the actual research questions. In Eve Tuck’s 2009 piece “Suspending Damage: A Letter to Communities”, she calls for a moratorium on what she describes as “damage-centered research”, which she defines as research that seeks to document pain and loss in communities that have historically been oppressed. While Tuck notes that such research has been used previously as a means to hold those in power accountable and advocate for change, this pattern of research contributes to a singular understanding of a community that is rooted in damage-centered ways, rather than an empowering one that uplifts a community’s strengths. By engaging in research that is empowering and asset based, power can again be addressed in community-based research.
A last possible way to attend to power in community-based research is through intentionality about roles. In Caitlin Farrell, Christopher Harrison, and Cynthia Coburn’s 2019 piece, “What the Hell Is This, and Who the Hell Are You?” Role and Identity Negotiation in Research-Practice Partnerships?” they focus on trust and social dynamics in research-practice partnerships in particular. They note that not everyone in the partnership will have the same amount of influence on its direction. To attend to this, they suggest negotiating roles with partners, as confusion in roles will impede the progress of research. Considering schools in particular, they talk about how unclear organizational identities and changes in staff can lead to role confusion. Moving forward, they suggest future work should consider how role negotiation is influenced by status and power. However, this still highlights that through intentional conversation and consideration to roles, power can be attended to in community-based research.
Conclusion
Navigating power is no easy task, as it is complex and nuanced. This is especially true in community-based research, where researchers must also be cognizant of histories of unequal power dynamics. However, attending to power is essential for community-based research truly being collaborative, equitable, and empowering. Luckily, there are a number of strategies community based researchers can use to attend to power. The first is through intentionally designing the structure of their partnership to attend to power, doing things like ensuring the research agenda is community driven and having community members determine how findings are shared. The second is through being conscious of power and histories of oppression in the selection of research questions, so as not to reinforce deficit views of communities. A last way is to be conscientious about roles amongst different members of the research team and the community. While attending to power is an ongoing task, such efforts and intentionality from researchers can help lay an equitable foundation for community-based research.
Follow us