The community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach is centered on being inclusive of community partners in the research process, in the effort to prevent or shift the imbalance of power between researchers and community members (Israel et al. 2010). It promotes community trust, sustainability, and cost-effectiveness through power-sharing, investment in community capacity, advocacy, and policy change (Israel et al. 2010). The CBPR approach may be helpful to researchers navigating power dynamics not only with community members, but also the varying degrees of power within the community itself.
Traditional research approaches have often framed researchers as outsiders with expertise and power using controversial practices to extract data from communities without allowing communities to have a voice in how the research or data is used. Though power dynamics are usually defined in terms of inside or outside of the community, they may also exist within the community. As a result, well-meaning researchers unaware of power imbalance among community members may involve individuals who are most willing or available to participate, but may not be representative of the community as a whole.
This type of non-representative community interaction with researchers presents a risk similar to selection bias in data collection, where participants in a study may be inherently different from those who do not participate. Such challenges are not new. Scholars of participatory decision-making have questioned the idea that “participatory” always means “representative” (Burke 1968). Various degrees of “participation” can range from merely symbolic efforts of inclusion (tokenism) to actual power redistribution (Arnstein 1969).
If power distribution within a community may be imbalanced, how can researchers navigate the local landscape? Some tips include:
- View the relationship between researcher and community members as a collaboration (Whyte 1979). As a researcher, intentionally plan for opportunities to incorporate community members’ perspectives and opinions, and be prepared to compromise some of your own initial plans.
- Select key informants (those who can speak as a representative of a group or community) and familiarize oneself with the setting/culture when entering a community (Bernard 1994).
- Avoid choosing gatekeepers in one faction within the community as means of gaining access to other community members (Bernard 1994).
- Do not assume that your first contacts in a community can speak as a representative of the community (Agar 1980).
- Actively seek out community members who are respected, neutral, and are able to connect one to various segments within the community (Agar 1980).
- Become familiar with the community’s setting, culture, and social organization (Center for Community Health and Development n.d.).
- Spend time with community members to build rapport over time (deMunck and Sobo 1998).
While these general guidelines can help researchers navigate working with diverse community partners, each context requires tailored approaches. Developing trusting relationships within the community may provide opportunities to ask questions about community history, norms, and power structures and to bring in perspectives of members across the power spectrum. Ultimately, the CBPR approach can help address power imbalances but requires time, work, discomfort, and the willingness to think critically.
For example, a researcher may set up a meeting to ask for feedback about what kinds of health issues are most relevant for the community. Based on feedback from the researcher’s initial community contact who works for a community-based organization serving a specific neighborhood, the meeting may be planned for and publicized in a specific part of the community, closest to the contact’s organization. As a result, community members in other neighborhoods may not hear about the meeting. In addition, based on the time or location of the meeting, participants may only include those who live near the meeting location, or do not work or need child care during the planned time. As a result, the researcher may only hear the perspectives of those who live near the meeting location and are available at the specific time.
Questions for the reader:
- What are some experiences you have had with power imbalance within the community, whether as a community member, organization, or a researcher? Were there any steps taken to shift power in these situations?
- Do you think it matters if the imbalance of power within communities is intentional or unintentional? Is it harder to shift power in one situation compared to the other? Why or why not?
- What are some additional tips for navigating power imbalance within communities in the context of research?
References
Agar, Michael H. 1980. The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. “A Ladder Of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Planning Association 35, no. 4: 216-224.
Bernard, H. Russell. 1994. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 2nd ed. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Burke, E. M. 1968. “Citizen Participation Strategies.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 34, (5): 287-294.
Center for Community Health and Development. n.d. Chapter 2: Understanding and Describing the Community. https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/assessment/ assessing-community-needs-and-resources/describe-the-community/main
deMunck, Victor C. and Elisa J. Sobo, eds. 1998. Using Methods in the Field: A Practical Introduction and Casebook. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Israel, Barbara, Chris M. Coombe, Rebecca R. Cheezum, Amy J. Schulz, Robert J. McGranaghan, Richard Lichtenstein, Angela G. Reyes, Jaye Clement, and Akosua Burris. 2010. “Community-Based Participatory Research: A Capacity-Building Approach for Policy Advocacy Aimed at Eliminating Health Disparities.” American Journal of Public Health, 10, no. 11 (November): 2094–2102.
Whyte, William F. 1979. “On Making the Most of Participant Observation.” The American Sociologist, 14 (February): 56-66.
Images:
Scale clipart image from here
Connection clipart image from here
Bio: Biblia Cha was a 4th year doctoral student in the Department of Public Health at the time that she was a 2019-2020 Newkirk Fellow with the Research Justice Shop. For more information contact: researchjustice@uci.edu
Key words: community-based participatory research, power, community participation, participatory decision-making,
Follow us