essay about methodologies and approaches in community action

Advertisement

A Reflection on Community Research and Action as an Evolving Practice

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 12 November 2021
• Volume 30 , pages 535–544, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Stephen B. Fawcett   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4572-4208 1  

3515 Accesses

10 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Community research and action is an evolving field of practice with multiple influences. Its varied ways of knowing and doing reflect recombined elements from different disciplines, including behavioral science, community psychology, public health, and community development. This article offers a personal reflection based on my evolving practice over nearly 50 years. The focus is on three types of influence: (a) engaging with different communities, fields, and networks (e.g., discovering shared values, diverse methods); (b) building methods and capabilities for the work (e.g., methods for participatory research, tools for capacity building); and (c) partnering for collaborative research and action, locally and globally. This story highlights the nature of the field’s evolution as an increasing variation in methods. Our evolving practice of community research and action—individually and collectively—emerges from the recombination of ideas and methods discovered through engagement in a wide variety of contexts.

Similar content being viewed by others

A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis

Reimagining the language of engagement in a post-stakeholder world

Mixed methods research: what it is and what it could be

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Gradually, the observer realizes that these organisms are connected with each other, not linearly, but in a net-like, entangled fabric. —Alexander von Humboldt, German naturalist and explorer

In our professional lives, we follow branches from a field of origin—perhaps behavioral science or public health—into other related fields. In exchanges with others with different training and experience, we share ideas and methods that alter our practice and enrich our collective work. Like the “entangled life” of fungi (Sheldrake, 2020 ), we are connected in a web of relationships through which ideas and methods are shared and recombined in novel forms.

Community research and action is an evolving practice with multiple influences. Its varied activities result from exposure to, and selection for, different ways of knowing and doing. Recombined elements of research and practice reflect influences from different disciplines, including applied behavioral science, community psychology, public health, applied anthropology, urban planning, and community development, among others. For instance, if we are trained in behavioral science, we may especially value systematic methods of measurement and intervention. Exposure to community-oriented disciplines, such as community psychology or community development, may add an emphasis on participatory approaches, as represented in community-based participatory research and community engagement in designing and implementing strategies for action. Subsequent exposure to public health methods may add systems approaches and methods for changing conditions that affect health and health equity.

This article offers a reflection on the evolving practice of community research and action. Illustrated with my 50-plus years of experience, it focuses on three important mechanisms: (a) engaging with different communities, fields, and networks; (b) building methods and capabilities for the work; and (c) partnering for collaborative research and action.

Background and Context for Learning and Contributing

Personal background.

Personal backgrounds shape our openness to engaging people and seeing issues and concerns, as well as the possible ways of addressing them. My family and cultural background as an Irish Catholic led to exposure to Catholic social teaching. This called for a preferential option for the poor, solidarity with those who are marginalized, and a duty to pursue justice and address inequities. My undergraduate training in biology led to a lifelong interest in understanding mechanisms—how things work—including how community processes can produce changes in community conditions and outcomes.

After college, I joined the Volunteers in Service to America, where I lived and worked in low-income public housing in Kansas City. Going door to door, I met with and listened to people talk about what mattered to them. Through the kindness and wisdom of local guides (especially community leaders Myrtle Carter, Leotha Pinckney, and Freddie Coleman), I was led to see the community’s strengths and weaknesses, threats to progress, and opportunities for improvement through collective action. Together, we organized a tenants’ association to address community-determined concerns related to housing, education, violence, and building a good community for raising children. This experience in community organizing led to an appreciation for understanding the felt concerns of people in communities and their reality-based ideas for taking action.

During subsequent graduate/PhD training in applied behavioral science, I studied methods for measuring behavior and creating interventions and environmental conditions that can promote socially important behaviors and outcomes. I learned about methods to analyze personal and environmental factors contributing to problems and goals, and to design and implement effective interventions. Guides and mentors (e.g., Mont Wolf, Todd Risley, Jim Sherman, Keith Miller, and Dick Schiefelbusch) helped me see how the field could further systematic work in community research and action.

Each of us has our own combination of background, training, and experience that prepare us for the work of community research and action. However, curiosity and a desire for impact may lead us to search for additional methods that complement those acquired in early training and experience.

Context and Base for Learning and Contributing

Each of us has a different context for learning and contributing to community well-being. For many of us, this involves work at the individual level, listening and caring for family members, neighbors, and coworkers. Others may have public service roles or professional responsibilities related to improving conditions at the level of organizations, whole communities, or broader systems.

My professional mission has been to help understand and improve how people and organizations can work together to change conditions for improved health, well-being, and equity (Fawcett, Schultz, et al., 2010b ). In my role as a professor in a research university, I had the privilege of working in the field of community research and action. In my teaching, I tried to guide students in their learning about applied behavioral research and building healthy communities. With colleagues, I established an undergraduate program in community health and development and a joint PhD/MPH program (PhD in applied behavioral science, master’s in public health).

My primary base for learning and contributing was as founding director (in 1975) of the Work Group/Center for Community Health and Development at the University of Kansas (KU; https://communityhealth.ku.edu/ ). With generations of graduate students and colleagues, we sought to achieve the center’s mission of promoting community health and development through collaborative research, teaching, and public service. Since 2004, our KU center has valued its designation as a World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Community Health and Development, thereby connecting us with global partners with whom to exchange, learn, and contribute.

Mechanisms for Evolving Practice: Engagement, Methods Building, and Partnerships

Community work fosters humility. This is true because we so often fall short of the desired goal of achieving improved conditions and outcomes. This may lead us to search for people and methods to achieve a better result and to have a broader impact. In this section, I consider three such mechanisms for evolving practice: (a) engaging with different communities, fields, and networks; (b) building methods and capabilities; and (c) partnering for collaborative research and action.

Engagement With Different Communities, Fields, and Networks

Through involvement in varied contexts, we are exposed to different people and ideas, values, and methods. In my own work, I have had the opportunity to learn from and with communities locally, nationally, and globally. We see countless examples of people working together to improve conditions and outcomes. For instance, we can learn from those working in community organizations throughout the United States (Fawcett, 1999 ) or from community health workers engaged in different parts of the world (Fawcett, Abeykoon, et al., 2010a ). Working in solidarity with these colleagues, we note shared values in community work—for engagement, empowerment, equity, and attention to broader determinants of health and well-being.

Engagement with different disciplines and fields brings exposure to diverse methods for community research and action. If we bring only a critical eye from narrow training in a single discipline, we may fail to see the potential contribution of new methods to help understand the situation and improve conditions. By contrast, if we bring an appreciative stance, we can see how methods found in other contexts and disciplines can expand our approaches for engagement, assessment, planning, intervention, and evaluation of efforts.

My own experience reflects a layering of disciplinary influences over time. From 1969 to 1971, work in community organizing brought an appreciation for starting with the felt needs of local people and other valuable approaches in community development. Beginning in 1975, my teaching and research were grounded in PhD training in applied behavioral science. Particular strengths of this field include methods to measure behavior and assess conditions, analyze personal and environmental factors contributing to problems and goals, and design and implement effective interventions.

In pursuit of additional methods to inform community work, I sought out potential guides in the field of community psychology. Beginning in the late 1970s, this has been a career-long engagement, with attempts to integrate work in behavioral community psychology (e.g., Fawcett et al., 1980 ). Through the generosity of guides in community psychology (e.g., Lenny Jason, Rick Price, Tom Wolff, and Bill Berkowitz), I discovered inspiring people and work and new methods for community research and action. By seeking an integration of the fields of applied behavioral science and community psychology—a form of behavioral community psychology—we tried to bridge important values and standards of these two disciplines (Fawcett, 1990 , 1991 ).

Beginning in the early 1990s, our work with the Kansas Health Foundation and a subsequent endowed professorship reoriented our center’s work to the field of public health. Through guides in public health (e.g., Marni Vliet, Larry Green, Marshall Kreuter, Michael McGinnis, and Bobbie Berkowitz), we discovered the shared values of social justice, evidence-based practice, and commitment to creating conditions for health and equity that are the pillars of this discipline.

Beginning in 2004 and still ongoing, our center was designated by the WHO as a Collaborating Centre for Community Health and Development. This allowed us to learn and contribute with colleagues from around the world, with encouragement and support from guides in global health (e.g., Bill Foege, Gauden Galea, Alfonso Contreras, Gerry Eijkemans, Peter Phori, and Rima Afifi). The WHO Collaborating Centre’s two primary objectives—building capacity for the work of community health and development and expanding the evidence base for collaborative action—continue to be a focus for our broader KU center.

These and other disciplines, and related interest groups and networks, have created a rich web of opportunities for many of us to learn how to engage in community research and action.

Building Methods and Capabilities for the Work

Every practitioner seeks to discover and adapt methods to make the work of promoting community health and development more effective. We develop tools and protocols, such as for assessment or intervention, to make the work easier for ourselves and others. We build capabilities, such as for workforce development or participatory evaluation, to enable others to do this work—without us, in their different contexts, long after we are gone.

Our KU center has focused its development efforts on two strategic capabilities: (a) tools for capacity building and (b) methods for participatory research and monitoring and evaluation.

Tools for Capacity Building: The Community Tool Box and Action Toolkits

In 1995, a team of colleagues (myself, Jerry Schultz, Vincent Francisco, Bill Berkowitz, and Tom Wolff) began building the Community Tool Box ( http://ctb.ku.edu/ ). That work continues with our KU center, under the leadership of Christina Holt. The Community Tool Box is now a massive (over 7,000-page), free, and open-source collection of tools for building capacity for this work. It features hundreds of learning modules—including task analyses, rationales, and application examples—for skills related to promoting community health and development. Learning modules aim to build capacity for core competencies in community research and action, including engagement, assessment, planning, intervention, advocacy, and evaluation. Available in English and Spanish, and partially in Arabic and Farsi, the open-source Community Tool Box reached over 6,000,000 unique users last year.

In recent years, we have also developed customized capacity-building resources, known as Action Toolkits, with a number of different partners. These online resources mix other content sources with curated content from the Community Tool Box—including its task analyses—to build skills for implementing a partner’s framework for action. For instance, the African Health Action Toolkit ( https://who-afro.ctb.ku.edu ), developed with partners at the WHO Regional Office for Africa, is intended to build capacity for addressing social determinants of health and furthering sustainable development goals in the region. The Healthy Cities Action Toolkit ( https://paho.ctb.ku.edu/ ), developed with the WHO/Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) Regional Office for the Americas and available in English and Spanish, aims to support efforts to promote healthy cities in the Americas. Partnering with a state health department, we built the Kansas Healthy Communities Action Toolkit ( https://ksactiontoolkit.ctb.ku.edu/ ) to further health-equity work. Other partnerships have produced an array of Action Toolkits, including those for improving community health, promoting racial justice, strengthening democratic action, and promoting compassionate communities.

Methods for Participatory Research and Monitoring and Evaluation

Our center also invested in developing a capability for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) that would allow us to work with partners locally and globally. The technology for this M&E system, known as the Community Check Box Evaluation System, supports the documentation of the intervention and participatory sensemaking to reflect on patterns in the data (Fawcett et al., 2017 ). With partners, we have used this M&E system to help understand and improve a variety of collaborative efforts.

Participatory M&E—a form of participatory action research—holds promise for understanding and addressing a variety of health and development issues. Capabilities that make this easier can be helpful in facilitating partnerships for community research. For instance, we have used this methodology to support evaluations of initiatives to (a) promote community health and development (e.g., Fawcett et al., 2016 ), (b) enhance care coordination for those with low incomes (e.g., Hassaballa et al., 2015 ), (c) prevent the spread of Ebola in Liberia (e.g., Munodawafa et al., 2018 ), (d) provide a health-systems response to COVID-19 (Holt et al., 2021 ), and (e) respond to COVID-19 in the WHO Africa Region. For instance, in the latter example, the WHO Regional Office for Africa used the M&E system to document the unfolding of COVID-19 response activities in African countries, support country partners’ reflections on patterns, and adjust its technical support for country efforts (Phori et al., manuscript under revision ).

The sensemaking protocol of the M&E system enables stakeholders—including those most affected and those responsible—to construct their own meaning of the data. They do so by systematically reflecting on (a) what we are seeing (i.e., in data patterns), (b) what it means (e.g., identifying factors and critical events associated with increases/decreases in measures), and (c) what the implications for adjustment and improvement are. We have seen the value of protocols for participatory M&E, and the related use of the Community Check Box Evaluation System, in an array of partnerships.

By building tools and platforms for making the work easier and more effective—and more participatory—we can strengthen engagement with partners and extend the learning, reach, and impact of our efforts.

Partnering for Collaborative Research and Action

Collaborative partnerships involve a sharing of resources, responsibilities, risks, and rewards (Himmelman, 2002 ). This requires trust and the experience borne of respectful engagement with different communities and fields. Capabilities that make the work easier and more effective, such as those for capacity building or evaluation, make it more likely that partners will choose to work together.

Our center has had the privilege of working with an array of partners on a variety of initiatives, typically in the roles of training, technical support, and evaluation. For instance, locally, in an over decade-long partnership with the Latino Health for All Coalition, we have provided technical support and evaluation for the coalition’s efforts to promote physical activity, healthy nutrition, and access to health services (e.g., Collie-Akers et al., 2013 ), including enhancing health access and culturally competent health services (Fawcett et al., 2018 ) and enrolling underserved groups in affordable health insurance (e.g., Fawcett, Sepers, et al., 2015b ). In a partnership with a state health department, we designed and supported the implementation of a maternal and child health M&E system to document and improve system changes related to improving conditions for population-level maternal and child health.

Nationally, we have used this systematic M&E capability to document and characterize the intensity of community efforts to prevent childhood obesity in the national Healthy Communities Study that involved over 300 communities (Fawcett, Collie-Akers, et al., 2015a ; Frongillo et al., 2017 ; Strauss et al., 2018 ). As evaluators of the Bristol Meyers Squibb Foundation’s national Together on Diabetes Program, we also used this M&E system to support the accountability and quality improvement of multiple partners working to address equity issues in diabetes care (e.g., Hassaballa et al., 2015 ).

Globally, in partnership with the WHO Regional Office for Africa, we have worked to expand the evidence base for how communities and countries respond to communicable disease outbreaks such as Ebola (e.g., Munodawafa et al., 2018 ). In a current project, the Community Check Box serves as the infrastructure for a WHO AFRO effort to document and better understand country-level responses to COVID-19 within the Africa region. This project uses the participatory sensemaking protocol to identify factors that enabled and impeded the response and associated effects on new cases of COVID-19 (Phori et al., manuscript under revision ).

Locally, and globally, the Community Tool Box—with over 6,000,000 unique users—has the broadest reach of the center’s projects and capabilities (Holt et al., 2013 ). It builds capacities to provide training and technical support for the workforce, including assessment, planning, intervention, advocacy, and evaluation. Its free and open-source materials support the work of millions of learners and practitioners from over 200 countries—including those working in their own communities and organizations, and in government, nongovernmental organizations, and civil society. Action Toolkits, based on the Community Tool Box, help serve the customized capacity-building needs of partners with extensive reach, such as the WHO’s Regional Office for the Americas/PAHO ( https://paho.ctb.ku.edu/ ), Regional Office for Africa ( https://who-afro.ctb.ku.edu ), and Regional Office for the Western Pacific ( https://who-wpro.ctb.ku.edu/engage/ ).

Conclusion: Our Shared Story of Exchange and Variation

This article posits three mechanisms by which community research and practice evolves: (a) engaging with different communities, fields, and networks; (b) building methods and capabilities for the work; and (c) partnering for collaborative research and action. This personal reflection tells a story of evolution—of change and adaptation, of selection and recombination of elements, and ultimately of variation. This process of evolution seems to hold for us individually, and collectively as a community of practitioners developing and adapting ways of doing the work.

As with biological evolution, chance and opportunity play an important part in variation. For instance, although we may seek guides to help show the way in different communities and fields, they may not be available to us. Although we might hope to build capabilities to make the work easier, we may not find the resources to do so. Despite our interest in partnerships, our modest relationships and limited experience may not enable us to forge them. In addition, as with biological mutations, not all variations in community methods are good; there is a risk that change may not equal improvement.

Paleontologist and evolutionary scientist Stephen Jay Gould ( 1996 ) noted in Full House that the story line for biological evolution is more variation than progress. Chance events and related differential exposures, vulnerabilities, and capabilities lead to life-forms of great variety. Evolutionary history shows more evidence of variation than improved functioning. This might also apply to the field of community research and action. Analogously, rather than look for one approach as the pinnacle, we might do better to appreciate the accumulating variation that emerges from our collective engagements, methods building, and partnerships.

This personal reflection highlights the mechanisms that increase variation—and perhaps some progress—in the field of community research and action. Our evolving practice emerges from exchange among partners and the recombination of ideas and methods discovered through engagement with different communities and fields. This is the work of seekers—those with curiosity and openness to new methods and adaptations that may have a relative advantage. May we have “entangled” lives, ones that are enriched by a web of relationships through which we learn, change, and improve our collective contributions to community health, development, and equity.

Collie-Akers, V. L., Fawcett, S. B., & Schultz, J. A. (2013). Measuring progress of collaborative action in a community health effort. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública/Pan American Journal of Public Health, 34 (6), 422–428.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Fawcett, S. B. (1990). Some emerging standards for community research and action. In P. Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok, & L. E. Jason (Eds.), Researching community psychology: Integrating theories and methodologies (pp. 64–75). American Psychological Association.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Fawcett, S. B. (1991). Some values guiding community research and action. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24 , 621–636.

Article   Google Scholar  

Fawcett, S. B. (1999). Some lessons on community organization and change. In J. Rothman (Ed.), Reflections on community organization: Enduring themes and critical issues (pp. 314–334). F. E. Peacock Publishers.

Google Scholar  

Fawcett, S. B., Fletcher, R. K., & Mathews, R. M. (1980). Applications of behavior analysis in community education. In D. S. Glenwick & L. A. Jason (Eds.), Behavioral community psychology: Progress and prospects (pp. 108–142). Praeger.

Fawcett, S., Abeykoon, P., Arora, M., Dobe, M., Galloway-Gilliam, L., Liburd, L., & Munodawafa, D. (2010a). Constructing an action agenda for community empowerment at the 7th Global Conference on Health Promotion in Nairobi. Global Health Promotion, 17 (4).

Fawcett, S., Schultz, J., Watson-Thompson, J., Fox, M., & Bremby, R. (2010b). Building multisectoral partnerships for population health and health equity. Preventing Chronic Disease, 7 (6), Article A118 http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2010/nov/10_0079.htm

Fawcett, S. B., Collie-Akers, V., Schultz, J., & Kelley, M. (2015a). Measuring community programs and policies in the Healthy Communities Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49 (4), 636–641.

Fawcett, S. B., Sepers, C. E., Jones, J., Jones, L., & McKain, W. (2015b). Participatory evaluation of a community mobilization effort to enroll residents of Wyandotte County, Kansas residents through the Affordable Care Act. American Journal of Public Health, 105 (S3), S433–S437.

Fawcett, S. B., Schultz, J., Collie-Akers, V., Holt, C., & Watson-Thompson, J. (2016). Community development for population health and health equity. In P. Erwin & R. Brownson (Eds.), Scutchfield and Keck’s principles of public health practice (4th ed., pp. 443–460). Cengage Learning.

Fawcett, S. B., Schultz, J., Collie-Akers, V., Holt, C., Watson-Thompson, J., & Francisco, V. (2017). Participatory monitoring and evaluation of community health initiatives using the Community Check Box Evaluation System. In N. Wallerstein, B. Duran, J. Oetzel, & M. Minkler (Eds.), Community-based participatory research for health (3rd ed., pp. 399–404). Wiley.

Fawcett, S. B., Torres, J., Jones, L., Moffett, M., Bradford, K., Ramirez Mantilla, M., Cupertino, A. P., & Bravo de los Rios, J., & Collie-Akers, V. (2018). Assuring health access and culturally competent health services through the Latino Health for All Coalition. Health Promotion Practice, 19 (5), 765–774.

Frongillo, E. A., Fawcett, S. B., Ritchie, L. D., Arteaga, S., Loria, C. M., Pate, R. R., John, L. V., Strauss, W. J., Gregoriou, M., Collie-Akers, V. L., Schultz, J. A., Landgraf, A. J., & Nagaraja, J. (2017). Community policies and programs to prevent obesity and child adiposity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 53 , 576–583.

Gould, S. J. (1996). Full house: The spread of excellence from Plato to Darwin . Three Rivers Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Hassaballa, I., Ebekozien, O., Ogungbadero, A., Williams, F., Schultz, J., Hunter-Skidmore, J., Fawcett, S., & Watson-Thompson, J. (2015). Evaluation of a diabetes care coordination program for African-American women living in public housing. Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management, 22 (8), 365–372.

Himmelman, A. (2002). Collaboration for a change . Himmelman Consulting.

Holt, C. M., Fawcett, S. B., Schultz, J. A., Berkowitz, B., Wolff, T., & Francisco, V. T. (2013). Building community practice competencies globally through the Community Tool Box. Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, 4 (4), 1–8.

Holt, C. M., Fawcett, S. B., Hassaballa-Muhammad, R., Partridge, D., & Jordan, S. (2021). Participatory monitoring and evaluation of the COVID-19 response in a local public health system. Health Promotion Practice, 22 (6), 750–757.  https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399211041085

Munodawafa, D., Moeti, M., Phori, P. M., Fawcett, S. B., Hassaballa, I., Sepers, C., DiGennaro Reed, F., Schultz, J., & Chiriseri, E. T. (2018). Monitoring and evaluating the Ebola response effort in two Liberian communities. Journal of Community Health, 42 , 321–327.

Phori, P. M., Fawcett, S. B., Nidjergou, N. N., Silouakadila, C., Hassaballa, R., & Kakule, S. D. (manuscript under revision). Participatory monitoring and evaluation of the COVID-19 response in the Africa region.

Sheldrake, M. (2020). Entangled life: How fungi make our worlds, change our minds, and shape our futures . Random House.

Strauss, W. J., Nagarajal, J., Landgraf, A. J., Arteaga, S. S., Fawcett, S. B., Ritchie, L. D., John, L. V., Gregoriou, M., Frongillo, E. A., Loria, C. M., Weber, S. A., Collie-Akers, V. L., McIver, K. L., Schultz, J., Sagatov, R. D., Leifer, E. S., Webb, K., & Pate, R. R. (2018). The longitudinal relationship between community programmes and policies to prevent childhood obesity and BMI in children: the Healthy Communities Study. Pediatric Obesity .

Download references

Author Note

I am grateful to the many wonderful students, colleagues, and partners who were my teachers in this work. My academic home, the Department of Applied Behavioral Science at the University of Kansas, was a fine place to grow as a teacher and researcher. My research center home, the Work Group/Center for Community Health and Development and the Live Span Institute, at the University of Kansas, continues to provide a terrific base for learning, exploration, and contribution. Current and recent colleagues at the center—including Vincent Francisco, Christina Holt, Jerry Schultz, Vicki Collie-Akers, and Jomella Watson-Thompson—still make me feel appreciated in the role of senior advisor. Finally, thanks to my many guides in different communities and fields; you welcomed me, protected me, and showed me around. Your generosity allowed me to see the many and varied forms of community research and action. These gems of engagement remain available for our enchantment, selection, and reinvention for the common good.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Center for Community Health and Development, Life Span Institute, University of Kansas, 4082 Dole Center, 1000 Sunnyside Ave, Lawrence, KS, 66045, USA

Stephen B. Fawcett

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen B. Fawcett .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Fawcett, S.B. A Reflection on Community Research and Action as an Evolving Practice. Behav. Soc. Iss. 30 , 535–544 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-021-00083-x

Download citation

Accepted : 15 October 2021

Published : 12 November 2021

Issue Date : December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-021-00083-x

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

• Community research
• Participatory research
• Capacity building
• Behavioral science
• Community psychology
• Public health
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

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 9. Community Action Guide: Framework for Addressing Community Goals and Problems

Chapter 1 Sections

• Section 1. A Community Tool Box Overview and Gateway to the Tools
• Section 3. Our Model of Practice: Building Capacity for Community and System Change
• Section 5. Our Evaluation Model: Evaluating Comprehensive Community Initiatives
• Section 6. Some Core Principles, Assumptions, and Values to Guide the Work
• Section 7. Working Together for Healthier Communities: A Framework for Collaboration Among Community Partnerships, Support Organizations, and Funders
• Section 8. Some Lessons Learned on Community Organization and Change
• Section 10. Using Internet-Based Tools to Promote Community Health and Development
• Section 11. Participatory Evaluation
• Main Section

What is action planning?

How does action planning help a community, why is action planning important, when should you create an action plan, what are the components of an action plan framework.

Have you had the motivation to mobilize your community to address a problem that affects the local population, but just not known how to begin? You might wonder; “How do I investigate the problem?”, “Whom do I involve in the strategies to address the problem?”, “How do I successfully facilitate a group of diverse representatives from a community to reach consensus about a common vision and the actions that will turn ideas into results?”

This tool has the answers to these and other important questions. It will prepare you to lead your community in action planning.

The overall goal of action planning is to increase your community’s ability to work together to affect conditions and outcomes that matter to its residents—and to do so both over time and across issues of interest.

As your community works towards a broad vision of health for all, creating supportive conditions for change requires comprehensive efforts among diverse sectors of the community. These include health organizations, faith communities, schools, and businesses. Representatives of each sector come together to form a community coalition. Your community coalition can strive to influence systems changes—programs, policies, and practices that can enhance the community’s capacity to be a healthy environment.

A community coalition initiates its work by generating an action plan.

An action plan outlines what should happen to achieve the vision for a healthy community. Desirable changes and proposed activities (action steps), timelines, and assignment of accountability provide a detailed road map for collaborators to follow.

Regardless of the complexity of the problem at hand within your community, action planning helps you:

• Understand the community’s perception of both the issue at hand and its potential solutions
• Assure inclusive and integrated participation across community sectors in the planning process
• Build consensus on what can and should be done based on the community’s unique assets and needs
• Specify concrete ways in which members of the community coalition can take action

The list above describes how an action plan helps a community’s sectors and residents within those sectors work together to achieve a common vision. This tool will address each item and provide guidance for your action planning work that lies ahead.

Proper planning of any initiative is critical for yielding the best results or outcomes possible. An action plan, while a significant investment of time and energy, can be an effective tool that grounds all collaborators with a common purpose. Developing an action plan is a critical first step toward ensuring project success.

An action plan assures that:

• No detail is overlooked
• Proposed action steps are feasible and/or realistic
• Collaborators follow through with their commitments
• Measurable activities are documented and evaluated

Overall, action planning is important because it provides a reference point with a detailed time line and assignment of accountability for accomplishing tasks along the path to making a difference.

Research findings of the Center for Community Health and Development suggest that there are a number of factors that appear to have a positive effect on rates of community and system change—and one of those includes action planning:

• Analyzing Information About the Problem, Goals, and Factors Affecting Them
• Establishing Your Group's Vision and Mission
• Defining Organizational Structure and Operating Mechanisms
• Developing a Framework or Model of Change
• Developing and Using Strategic and Action Plans
• Arranging for Community Mobilizers
• Developing Leadership
• Implementing Effective Interventions
• Assuring Technical Assistance
• Documenting Progress and Using Feedback
• Making Outcomes Matter
• Sustaining the Work

Ideally, you should develop an action plan within the first six to twelve months of the start of an initiative or organization. Once an action plan is generated, it should be revisited frequently (e.g., as often as monthly but at least annually) so it can be modified to meet the changing needs of your community.

While some issues may be universal (for example, mental health issues), each community will have different assets and barriers for improving conditions for its residents. Therefore, each community’s intervention strategy for influencing programs, policies, and practices will be unique. However, a series of steps—a framework—helps guide the process of community action and change within the context of a community’s unique needs.

If you approach the action planning process as a manageable series of steps, you can take charge and help your community coalition work through each one with confidence.

Determine what people and sectors of the community to involve

As you begin your action planning process, you will need to accomplish three things:

• Document the problem or issue with information and statistics
• Learn more about your community
• Involve community members

How do you go about accomplishing these steps?

Listen to the community about issues and options . Conduct focus groups and public forums to obtain information about perceived issues and solutions within the community.

The key pieces of information you should gather in each listening session or focus group include:

• The perceived problem or issue
• Perceived barriers or resistance to addressing the issue
• Resources for change
• Recommend solutions and alternatives
• Current and past initiatives to address the problem or issue

Gather data to document the problem . In addition to hearing the community perspective on problems or goals related to the issue at hand, it is important to document the issue using existing information sources.

• "What are the issues related to the problem/topic in your community?"
• "What are the consequences of these issues?"
• "Who is affected?"
• "How are they affected?"
• "Are these issues of widespread concern?"

While the information that you collect can answer the questions above, remember that it will also play a key role in helping you determine how effective your group was in addressing the problem. You will use these baseline data—data that document the extent of the problem prior to implementation of your initiative—for comparison with data that document the extent of the problem after implementation of your initiative.

Listed below are helpful data sources that you may want to investigate. Keep in mind that not all of them will be relevant to your particular issue or problem.

• State or county health department data
• State social services department data
• Hospital admissions and exit records
• Police records
• Chamber of commerce data
• Nonprofit service agency data
• School district data
• Information from your local reference librarian
• Data from specialized local, statewide, or national organizations

Also see federal websites such as:

• The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s reportable disease files
• The National Center for Health Statistics’ Statistical Abstract of the United States
• Census data
• Maternal and Child Health Bureau, HRSA, Title V Block Grant Information System

Become aware of local resources and past and current efforts : If current efforts targeting your issue exist, think of ways in which they can become more effective via support, advocacy or other means.  Consider the following:

• Do current efforts have a parallel vision?
• How many people are they serving?
• Do the services and program meet local needs?

Particularly if pre-existing initiatives had a similiar mission and failed, seek to understand why and apply those lessons learned to your action planning.  You might gain valuable insight by talking with the agency or group with the failed initiative.

Involve key officials and grassroots leaders in a planning group : While you may easily identify key officials, service providers, or representatives from relevant agencies, extend the boundaries of your planning coalition to be as inclusive as possible. Remember that your planning group should reflect the diversity of the local community.

Your group might use interviews with both key officials and key grassroots leaders to answer the following questions:

• Who can make things happen on this issue?
• What individuals are in a position to create (or block!) change?
• What contact people within the initiative would be most successful in getting those key officials to become involved?
• What neighborhoods and ethnic and cultural communities are particularly affected by this issue?
• What individuals and groups make things happen in these neighborhoods?
• What contact people within the initiative would be most successful in involving members of these neighborhoods?

Convene a planning group

Once you identify and include interested participants for the planning group, publicize planning sessions to assure that they are open to all group members. As facilitator, you should extend additional courtesies to planning group members, such as starting and ending meetings on time, using an agenda, and covering items in as little time as possible. Other responsibilities that you might have as a facilitator include:

Managing conflict . The richness of diverse views represented within your planning group may also lead to conflict among members. group leaders may need to elevate discussions to a higher level on which there may be a basis for agreement. Leaders can also remind group members of the shared vision as a means of fostering discussion on a common gound.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Planned Approach to Community Health (PATCH) documentation includes suggestions for reaching consensus in group meetings:

• Avoid the “one best way” attitude, and opt for that which reflects the best collective judgment of the group
• Avoid “either/or” thinking; often the best solution combines several approaches
• A majority vote may not always be the best solution. When participants give and take, several viewpoints can be combined.
• Healthy conflict may actually help participants reach a consensus; do not end conflict prematurely.
• Problems are best solved when all participants try to communicate and listen.

Conflict resolution is the process of settling disagreements among group members . The CDC recommends trying one of four approaches to resolve conflicts about goals, plans, activities, or procedures:

• Avoidance: While this can be a temporary solution, particularly if a conflict does not seem important enough to discuss, be sure to reassess the problem at a later date.
• Accommodation: Use tact and discretion to ask participants to yield or conform to the positions of others.
• Compromise: When a consensus cannot be reached, compromise may be the only solution. With compromise, everyone both wins and gives up something.
• Collaboration: While this may be the best approach, reserve it for issues of greatest importance. Collaboration requires all group members to acknowledge the conflict, consider many possible solutions and the consequences of each, and select the alternatives that best meet the needs of the group.

Creating a supportive context for planning and action . Several aspects of your community group can influence the element of support in the planning environment. They are: leadership, size and structure, organization, and diversity and integration.

• Leadership – Although a single person may accept overall responsibility, effective organizations usually have a number of leaders who work with constituents to fulfill the group’s mission. Leaders should have a clear vision and the capacity for listening and relating to others in the group.
• Size and Structure – A maximum group size of 15 is recommended. If this seems prohibitive given the number of persons interested in participation, you can also structure smaller groups such as “task forces” for specific functions within the action plan.
• Organization – If your planning group or surrounding community is particularly large, you may want to allocate work to subcommittees for each sector of the community to be involved (e.g., health organizations, businesses, schools). If your planning group or surrounding community is relatively small, the group might work as a whole to accomplish action planning.
• Diversity and Integration – Include all types of participants: persons in positions of authority, grassroots leaders, and local residents with experience.

Offering ongoing encouragement . Throughout the planning process, let group members know when they are doing a good job. Positive feedback is very important—especially when people are volunteering their time and energy.

If you find it challenging or intimidating to facilitate planning sessions in which diverse ideas and opinions are spoken, try applying some of the information below to your situation. Having a “plan” for effective facilitation will help you yield the most positive outcomes and best ideas from your planning meetings.

Tips for Group Facilitation

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Planned Approach to Community Health (PATCH) documentation offers the following suggestions for facilitating meetings:

• Create an environment conducive to communication by seating participants around small tables or in semicircles.
• Make participation an expectation; ask questions frequently and use open-ended questions to encourage thought and participation.
• Create opportunities for participants to work in teams.
• Give small assignments in advance, and ask participants to come to meetings prepared to share their work.
• Encourage participants to evaluate the group’s working dynamic and offer solutions to improving interaction if needed.
• Talk with quiet participants during breaks, and help them express their ideas and share their thoughts with the group.
• Use flip charts or overhead transparencies to record comments, but face participants while writing or ask someone else to do it.
• Suggest the “next step” if a meeting seems to be stagnating.
• Walk around to gain attention, but look directly at participants.
• Expect to make some mistakes! Acknowledge them, correct them, and move on.

Lead brainstorming sessions . Brainstorming is a problem-solving technique that encourages all members of a group to contribute ideas. You may find this technique of idea generation particularly helpful in the early phases of action planning. There are three common approaches to brainstorming:

• Freewheeling: Participants randomly call out suggestions, which are then recorded on a flip chart. Some group members may dominate in this setting.
• Round robin: Each member is called upon for a suggestion in turn, and ideas are recorded on a flip chart. This is a more organized approach and prevents domination of the session by only a few individuals.
• Slip: Each member submits anonymous suggestions on a slip of paper, and ideas are then recorded on a flip chart.

CDC suggests that a group facilitator follow these guidelines for a brainstorming meeting:

• No critical remarks allowed; evaluation comes later
• Give the thought only; explanation comes later
• Give only one idea at a time
• Adding to or improving on someone else’s idea is appropriate
• Give all participants a chance to share ideas.
• Ask one or two people to record ideas.
• Keep a lively tempo to the process.
• Praise the quantity versus quality of ideas.

Convening and facilitating a planning group for a common vision, mission, or purpose can be challenging yet rewarding. Participation of diverse individuals can require skilled facilitation. However, you can successfully facilitate a group meeting by applying the guidelines presented above. The more meetings you lead throughout the action planning process, the more confident you will become!

Develop an action plan to address proposed changes

Your planning meetings, brainstorming sessions, and other group discussions will yield an extensive compilation of great ideas (and maybe some that are not so great!).

What do you do with all of that information? How do you sort through the pile of rocks to find the gems?

First, you will need to distill the many ideas and voices into a common vision and mission. Next, you will need to refine the relevant ideas into objectives with corresponding strategies and actions.

As you distill the large number of ideas into a common vision, the VMOSA process (vision, mission, objectives, strategies, and action) will help your planning group develop a blueprint for moving from dreams to actions to positive outcomes for your community. VMOSA gives both direction and structure to your initiative. The five components of VMOSA should be completed in the order in which they are presented here.

Your planning group needs a vision statement to serve as a unifying statement for your effort, help communicate you goals and attract participants, remind participants of the desired outcome, and guide important decisions. The vision statement should be a few short phrases or a sentence. Catchy phrases such as "Healthy teens," "Safe streets, safe neighborhoods" and "Education for all" illustrate the common characteristics of a vision statement.

Craft a vision statement that is:

• Understood and shared by members of the community
• Broad enough to include a diverse variety of perspectives
• Inspiring and uplifting
• Easy to communicate

Your planning group’s mission statement will be more specific than the vision . As the next step in the action planning process, it expresses the "what and how" of your effort, describing what your group is going to do to make your vision a reality. An example of a mission statement: "Our mission is to develop a safe and healthy neighborhood through collaborative planning, community action, and policy advocacy."

While your vision statement inspires people to dream, your mission statement should inspire them to action.

Create your mission statement to be:

• Outcome-oriented

Objectives are the specific, measurable steps that will help you achieve your mission. Develop objectives that are SMART+C: specific, measurable, achievable (eventually), relevant to your mission, and timed (with a date for completion). The +C reminds you to add another important quality to your goals: make them challenging!

Strategies explain how your group will reach its objectives.

Broad strategies for change include:

• Coalition building
• Community development
• Policy or legislative change.

The big picture

Charting a logical pathway for community and system change: A key question to ask as your group formulates strategies is, “What combination of changes in programs, policies, and practices are necessary to make a difference with the mission of promoting health for all?” Your group will want to take inventory of potential community and system changes for addressing the problem or issue of interest. To do this, sort your “inventory” of ideas and objectives generated via the planning group into five specific strategy categories:

• Providing information and enhancing skill
• Altering incentives and disincentives
• Modifying access, barriers, and opportunities
• Enhancing services and support
• Modifying policies and practices

To facilitate the process of thinking about how ideas fit most logically together, you may want to draft a one page flowchart that forms pathways leading logically to widespread behavior change and elimination or reduction of the problem to be addressed. You might want to think of this flow chart as a way to double check for any gaps that may remain despite your extensive planning and discussion up to this point. Furthermore, as you look at the pathways and linkages along the way to change, the visual representation may prompt you to think of potential resources and barriers for accomplishing objectives. These noted resources and barriers will be applied to the development of action steps—the last piece of your action plan (to be discussed in the next section).

Determining strategies within your community’s context

Once your planning group has a clear vision and mission and has chosen community and system changes to be sought, you will have the foundation for making informed decisions regarding types of strategies to implement. The information below is a guide to talking through the development of strategies as they relate to the priorities and desired changes in the context of your community.

When developing strategies to accompany your objectives, consider the following factors:

• Population levels to be affected
• Universal versus targeted outreach
• Personal and environmental factors
• Which community sectors can benefit from and contribute to efforts
• Behavioral strategies to be used.

The levels to be targeted (individuals vs. families and kinship groups vs. organizations and sectors vs. broader systems).

Whether the strategy will be universal (e.g., include all of those who may be at risk or may benefit) or targeted (e.g., targets those who may be at greater risk for the problem):

• Universal example : targeting all men ages 40 and over in the community regarding the importance of prostate cancer screening.
• Targeted example : targeting all men ages 40 and over in the community with a family history of prostate cancer.

The personal and environmental factors to be addressed by the initiative:

• Personal factors : knowledge, beliefs, skills, education and training, experience, cultural norms and practices, social status, cognitive or physical abilities, gender, age.
• Environmental factors : social support, available resources and services, barriers (including financial, physical, and communication), social approval, policies, environmental hazards, living conditions, poverty.

Individuals who can most benefit and contribute and how they can be reached or involved in the effort .

• Targets of change - those who may at particular risk for the issue and those whose actions (or omission of actions) contribute to the problem.
• Agents of change - those who may be in a position to (and have a responsibility to) contribute to the solution or initiative (includes targets of change)
• Community sectors through which targets and agents of change can be reached or involved

The behavior change strategies to be used. Approaches may include:

• Providing information and enhancing skills - Delivery of information or training through media, courses, workshops, webinars or other modes.
• Enhancing services and supports - Increasing, improving or expanding assistance or social or technical supports related to the identified goal(s). This could include expanding or changing components or offerings such as mental health or social services or expanding hours or to new locations.
• Modifying access, barriers, and opportunities - Changes in the environment (e.g., changes in office hours, reduced entry fees, changes to the built environment such as trails or lighting) that reduce barriers and improve access.
• Changing consequences - Changing the incentives or disincentives for outcomes. This might include public recognition or tax breaks. This might also take the form of implementation of policies that call for consequences to actions, such as a junk food tax.
• Modifying policies and broader systems - Changing existing policies or regulations at the organizational or governmental level to promote desired behaviors/ outcomes. This might take the form of written regulations or organizational policies.

For each strategy, consider what programs, policies, and/or practices should be created or modified. Make a list, keeping in mind how they work together to address the problem or goal. And finally, review your planning group’s strategies for:

• Consistency with the overall vision, mission, and objectives
• Goodness of fit with the resources and opportunities available
• Anticipated resistance and barriers and how they can be minimized
• Whether those who are affected will actually be reached
• Whether those who can contribute will be involved

Building consensus on proposed strategies for change Once you think that the strategies are finalized and in place, you will want to build consensus on proposed changes within your planning group. Keeping in mind the fact that multiple sectors of the community are represented in the planning group, you should complete two types of review:

• Taken together, do these proposed changes maximize this sector’s contribution to the mission
• What other changes in programs, policies, or practices could or should be made in this sector
• Would all changes, taken together, be sufficient to reduce the problem?
• What other changes in programs, policies, or practices could or should be made within the community or system?
• “Is this proposed change important to the mission?”
• “Is this proposed change feasible?”

You can even put these two questions into a survey format and create a table for planning group members to respond to. Before administering the survey, set criteria for which sought changes will be kept or eliminated with a ranking score system.

You can see below that a sample ranking system ranging from ‘1’ for “Not at All [Important or Feasible]” to ‘5’ for “Very [Important or Feasible]” has been used. We suggest that you set criteria of an average value of 3 or higher for a proposed change to be retained.

How do you calculate the average ranking score using a scale like the one in the table above?

Example: For a proposed change, 20 planning group members select one of the score values in their response. Of those, you have: 10 responding “3” 4 responding “2” 6 responding “4” Given the suggested criteria of an average ranking of 3 or higher, will you keep or toss the proposed change? Step 1. 10(3) + 4(2) + 6(4) = 62 Step 2. 62 / 20 responses = an average ranking of 3.1 Step 3. Based on the scoring criteria, you determine to keep the proposed change since the overall consensus via the survey is 3.1.

What is most important about the process demonstrated above is that each group member participates in the consensus vote on each proposed change. And when you are finished, your community will be armed with a targeted action plan that has the approval of all community sector representatives.

The Grande Finale – The Complete Action Plan!

By now, you have come a long way in your action planning process. You have gathered information, involved key community members, outlined a vision, mission, objectives, and developed appropriate strategies for your community. In this final step of action plan development, you will specify in detail who will do what, by when, to make what changes happen. The action plan will also note the resources needed, potential barriers or resistance, and collaborators or communication lines that need to be active. You can rely on this plan to know what actions you should take day by day.

Action Step Criteria

Your action plan will consist of numerous action steps needed to bring about change in the community. Each action step should outline:

• What actions or changes will occur
• Who will carry out those changes
• By when the changes will take place, and for how long
• What resources are needed to carry out proposed changes
• Communication (who should know what?)

Drafting Action Steps

Action steps are similar to well-written objectives in their structure and content, but include some additional information. First, let’s start by looking at how to draft a strong objective. Then, we will take it one step further and write a comparable action step. You may already be working from objectives in a funded grant proposal. If that is the case, you have a time saving, solid foundation for your action steps.

The best action steps have several characteristics in common with well-written objectives. Those parallel characteristics are:

• Specific . That is, they tell how much (e.g., 40 %) of what is to be achieved (e.g., what behavior of whom or what outcome) by when (e.g., by 2010)?
• Measurable . Information concerning the objective can be collected, detected, or obtained from records (at least potentially).
• Achievable . Not only are the objectives themselves possible, it is likely that your organization will be able to pull them off.
• Relevant to the mission . Your organization has a clear understanding of how these objectives fit in with the overall vision and mission of the group.
• Timed . Your organization has developed a timeline (a portion of which is made clear in the objectives) by which they will be achieved.
• Challenging . They stretch the group to set its aims on significant improvements that are important to members of the community.

Example: Your community is working to establish on-site childcare for community health clinic clients by the year 2010. Based on the desired systems change, here is a sample action statement: “By June 2009, all necessary regulatory permits will be obtained.”

Now, let’s take this information and generate a complete action step. In addition to the criteria for well-written objectives, action steps address resources needed, anticipated barriers, and a communication plan. Now we will complete the five action step criteria (what, who, by when, what resources, and communication) using the sample, “By June 2009. . . “

Criteria 1 : What actions or changes will occur?

    All necessary regulatory permits will be obtained [for the on site provision of child care for health clinic clients.

Criteria 2: Who will carry out those changes?

    Danelda Jackson and Tom Glinn, staff of the community health clinic

Criteria 3: By when will the changes take place, and for how long?

    2009, in order to open in 2010. They will be renewed annually after that.

Criteria 4: What resources are needed to carry out the proposed changes? (For example, resources may be material, financial, or temporal).

Contractors

What potential barriers might affect this action step? Barriers to success might include:

• Faltering commitment on behalf of collaborators
• Key individuals or groups opposing efforts
• Lack of sustained interest in the initiative at the community level
• Simultaneous events such as economic downturn or parallel or competing initiatives
• City staff may resist providing a permit because it may appear to intensify the use of the clinic site.

Criteria 5 : Communication (who should be informed about these actions?)

    Clinic staff and patrons and community residents should be made aware of the availability of on site child care at the clinic.

Note: You may find it most helpful to set up a template for a table in a word processing program so you can efficiently record each action step generated by your planning group. The table below has been filled in with the criteria and sample information listed above.

Review your action plan for completeness

Once the planning process is complete, be sure to obtain review and approval of the final action plan from all group members.

Assess the action plan for:

• Comprehensiveness
• Feasibility
• Flexibility

Remember that the action plan will be revisited from time to time for modifications, as a community’s needs change. However, ultimately, this “blueprint for action” will be used over time, across sectors of the community, and across issues of interest. Therefore, strive to make it a powerful tool for community change.

Follow Through

Your completed action plan may contain many action steps . And while you will have mapped those out carefully along a timeline, you will probably have action steps that should occur simultaneously. Furthermore, you may sense a need to prioritize the order in which you execute action steps that are supposed to take place in the first six months of your initiative.

You may find it easier to determine that ordering or prioritization strategy if you ask the following questions:

• Which changes are the most important or key to the initiative's objectives?
• Which changes would inspire and encourage participants and build credibility within the community?
• Which changes need to be completed before others can? For example, some changes may require other changes and relationships to be established.
• Which changes are easier or quicker? Could completing them give the planning group’s members a sense of success?

Part of following through with proposed action steps will be the task of maintaining collaborator commitment and interest. An invaluable approach to fostering this working relationship is communication: communication about timelines, upcoming planning meetings, progress, results, intermediary feedback, etc.

Communicate progress

Communication is paramount to continued support and commitment within all sectors of the community. Continue to hold planning group meetings and additional public forum meetings, making sure to publicize these appropriately via local newspapers, email listservs, etc. Communicate with all relevant audiences, and let them know how their feedback was used to modify the action plan when relevant. You may want to refer back to the “communication” column of your action step table to make sure that you have corresponded with all people who need to know about the status of a particular action step.

It is best to include a communication plan in your action plan, and regularly share information about progress and outcomes relevant to the initiative. And the best means of having sound information to report is an evaluation plan.

Document progress

After you have worked so hard to plan and implement action steps, your community group will most certainly want a means of measuring progress towards the vision. It is important to evaluate your initiative toward that end.

The purpose of evaluation is to document and measure the completion or success of action steps. From your action planning group’s perspective:

• Evaluation may help you clarify action steps so they are measurable.
• Documentation and evaluation help you continually refine your program. Remember—an action plan is an ever-changing blueprint that can be modified according to community needs. If evaluation of action steps reveals successes, failures, or other lessons learned, that information should be applied to future planning cycles or revision of the overall action plan.
• Evaluation data provide information about the relative costs and effort for tasks so activity and budget adjustments can be made as needed.

It is important to include evaluation components as you develop your action plan versus as you implement it. Be sure that your action plan details how information will be collected, analyzed, and communicated. Because the action plan will be implemented over a long period of time, you may want to document intermediary accomplishments on a monthly basis. Such cumulative records help you identify trends in rates of community and system change over a number of years

Celebrate progress and revisit/renew the action plan

Even the most effective initiatives can benefit from reflection on their accomplishments. Therefore, you should review your action plan as frequently as needed, but at least annually. Arrange for ongoing review and discussion of group progress and proposed changes in the action plan. And, when new and important changes occur (e.g., a long-awaited policy change by a major employer), celebrate them.

Overall, focus on “small wins” versus creating “the perfect program.” This approach will:

• Reward outcomes versus actions
• Provide multiple opportunities for celebration
• Allow coalition partners to work together by asking each other to do their part while not demanding that everyone be locked into a single course of action
• Provide a sensitive measure of progress that can be monitored periodically to support improvement and accountability

Throughout evaluation of progress, celebration of progress, and renewal of the action plan as the community environment changes over time, maintain this key perspective:

Your community coalition is a catalyst for change, helping to bring about a series of community and system changes related to the mission, rather than simply the delivery of a single program or service. While evaluation has its place in all initiatives, try to focus more on contribution rather than attribution as your community implements its action plan.

Action planning includes:

• Key officials
• Grassroots leaders
• Representatives of key sectors
• Representatives from all parts of the community, including diverse ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic groups
• Listening to the community
• Documenting problems that affect healthy youth development
• Identifying risk and protective factors
• Developing a framework for action
• Becoming aware of local resources and efforts
• Refining your group's vision, mission, objections, and strategies
• Refining your group' s choice of targets and agents of change
• Determining what community sectors should be involved in the solution
• Developing a tentative list of changes to be sought in each sector
• Building consensus on proposed changes
• Outlining action steps for proposed changes
• Documenting progress on bringing about community and system changes
• Renewing your group' s efforts along the way

When you complete these activities, celebrate (for now)   You have developed a blueprint for action.

• Understand the community’s perception of both the issue at hand and its potential solutions.
• Assure inclusive and integrated participation across community sectors in the planning process.
• Build consensus on what can and should be done based on the community’s unique assets and needs.
• Specify concrete ways in which members of the community coalition can take action.

Myles Horton, the late founder of the Highlander Center, talked about "making the road by walking." The work of transforming communities and systems to promote healthy youth development will be made by joining with local people who care enough to make needed changes. As we do this important work, we realize that we walk the path of those before us. And, eventually, with those who will carry on this cause after we are gone.

Online Resources

Concerns Report Handbook: Planning for Community Health

Preventing Adolescent Substance Abuse: An Action Planning Guide for Community-Based Initiatives

Preventing Adolescent Pregnancy: An Action Planning Guide for Community-Based Initiatives

Preventing Youth Violence: An Action Planning Guide for Community-Based Initiatives

Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect: An Action Planning Guide for Community-Based Initiatives

Promoting Child Well-Being: An Action Planning Guide for Community-Based Initiatives

Promoting Health for All: Improving Access and Eliminating Disparities in Community Health

Promoting Healthy Living and Preventing Chronic Disease: An Action Planning Guide for Communities

Promoting Urban Neighborhood Development: An Action Planning Guide for Improving Housing, Jobs, Education, Safety and Health, and Human Development

Reducing Risk for Chronic Disease: An Action Planning Guide for Community-Based Initiatives

Youth Development: An Action Planning Guide for Community-Based Initiatives

Print Resources

Fawcett, S., Carson, V., Collie, V., Bremby, R., & Raymer, K. (May 2000). Promoting Health for All: An Action Planning Guide for Improving Access and Eliminating Disparities in Community Health. KU Work Group on Health Promotion & Community Development, Lawrence, Kansas.

Francisco, V., Holt, C., Swenson, J., & Fawcett, S. (November 2002). Youth Development: An Action Planning Guide for Community-Based Initiatives . KU Work Group on Health Promotion & Community Development, Lawrence, Kansas.

Puddy, R., Fawcett, S., & Francisco, V. (July 2002). Promoting Child Well-Being: An Action Planning Guide for Community-Based Initiatives . KU Work Group on Health Promotion & Community Development, Lawrence, Kansas.

Tarlov, A., & St. Peter, R. (2000 ). The Society and Population Health Reader: A State and Community Perspective . New York: The New Press. Chapter Four: Fawcett, S., Francisco, V., Hyra, D., Paine-Andrews, A., Shultz, J., Russos, S., Fisher, J., & Evensen, P. Building Healthy Communities.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Planned Approach to Community Health: Guide for the Local Coordinator . Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser.

Importance of Local Community Action in Shaping Development

Introduction

The need for local participation and the organization of local residents to meet the challenges facing their communities is of increasing importance. Extension professionals and policy-makers are more frequently faced with the task of establishing programs in settings characterized by conflict among different groups of stakeholders with very different needs, values, and policy preferences. In many communities, these conflicts are often rooted in differences between groups that seek to protect community quality and those that seek to exploit local resources (especially the local workforce and natural resource base) as a means of achieving economic development. Equally common is the consistent transfer of responsibilities for services from government agencies to the private community sector. Such conditions have resulted in local residents taking on a greater role in providing services and planning for future needs. 

In response to the pressures and changes in our communities, activists, grassroots social change organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and coalitions of concerned community groups have emerged to shape and guide the development process. Similarly organized local residents have played instrumental roles in identifying new development options in localities that historically were presented with few such options. Small-scale civil society organizations (SCSOs) sometimes develop in communities with holistic responses to community needs (McGovern, 2013; Olson and Brennan, 2018; Olson and Brennan, 2017). These and other types of community-based action in these and other settings is seen as essential to community development and to the social and economic well-being of the locale.

Community and the Action Process

The emergence of community involves both interaction among residents and community action.  Community action refers to the process of building social relationships in pursuit of common community interests and maintaining local life (Wilkinson, 1991).  Community action is seen as being the foundation of the community development process because it encompasses deliberate and positive efforts designed to meet the general needs of all local residents.  This process represents multiple and diverse interests in the locality, and consequently provides a more comprehensive approach to community development (Wilkinson, 1991). Therefore, the action process is intended to benefit the entire community and to cut across divides that may exist (class, race, social), often arising from an emotional or social need (Phillimore & McCabe, 2015).

In the process of community development, local action focuses on the improvement of social well-being and involves people working together in pursuit of their general interests.  This power is manifested in the ability of individuals to come together and work toward common goals. When diverse individuals and their organizations interact with one another, they begin to mutually understand the needs and wants that are common to all residents (Wilkinson, 1991; Bridger, Brennan, and Luloff, 2011; McGovern, 2013; Phillimore & McCabe, 2015).  Such action provides local residents with the ability to retain community identities, maintain local control over decision-making, and address their own development needs. It is a central component of community and social well-being.

The existence of community action directs attention to the fact that local people acting together often have the power to transform and change their community (Gaventa, 1980; Bridger, Brennan, and Luloff, 2011; Olson and Brennan, 2018; Olson and Brennan, 2017; McGovern, 2013). Community action and corresponding development can be seen as the process of building relationships that increase the adaptive capacity of local people within a common territory.  This adaptive capacity is reflected in the ability of people to manage, utilize, and enhance those resources available to them in addressing their local issues (Wilkinson, 1991; Bridger, Brennan, and Luloff, 2011; Luloff and Bridger, 2003; Phillimore & McCabe, 2015; McGovern, 2013). As long as people care about each other and the place they live, every community has the potential for such collective action.  This ability allows distinctions to be made between simple aggregates of people and actual communities.

The Community Action Process

To impact social well-being, community action must seek the development of community, not simply the individual elements within it (Summers, 1986; Christenson and Robinson, 1989; Wilkinson, 1991; McGovern, 2013; Olson and Brennan, 2018; Olson and Brennan, 2017). The community action process can be seen as containing far more than simple individual actions and efforts (Wilkinson, 1991; Seyfang & Smith, 2007; McGovern, 2013). Most effective action efforts proceed through a series of steps that focus on solving specific problems and bringing residents closer together.  Five stages of accomplishment, including initiation, organization of sponsorship, goal setting, recruitment, and implementation, can be identified within this process (Wilkinson, 1970; Wilkinson, 1991):

The first stage, initiation, focuses on promoting awareness of the issue related to the action. Initiation and spread of interest occur when community members recognize and define an issue as being a problem or need, and begin to discuss it as a potential focus for group action.

The second stage focuses on the organization of sponsorship. This step addresses the structures, organizations, and resources available within and outside of the community.  Such factors are important in relation to assessing community needs and the development of action efforts to address perceived problems.

The third stage is goal setting and strategy development. This stage develops targets for action and identifies strategies for achieving community-decided goals.

The fourth stage is recruitment and mobilization of needed resources including people, money, and materials.  Community members possess a variety of experience, skills, funding, materials, networks, and other resources vital to achieving desired community goals.  Organizing and maximizing these resources significantly impacts the success of community action efforts.

The final stage involves the application of these resources in the implementation of plans to achieve the desired goals.  At this stage, specific actions are taken, assessed, adjusted, and implemented again.

Community action and the emergence of community should not be seen as representing romantic or idealized notions of local harmony and solidarity (Wilkinson, 1991; Bridger, Brennan, and Luloff, 2011; Luloff and Bridger, 2003; McGovern, 2013; Olson and Brennan, 2018; Olson and Brennan, 2017). The truth is that focused and deliberate action represents something far different. Action emerges out of interaction between diverse social groups, who often have clashing or at least distinctly different points of view. Interaction facilitates the coming together of such groups to assess their common and general needs. From this they form plans for action that benefit all involved, and ultimately the community in general.

The importance of organizing diverse local residents to help shape local development cannot be overstated.  By providing a comprehensive assessment of local conditions that represents all segments of the community, more efficient and successful programs can be developed.  The input and guidance from local residents allows development to build on the unique conditions and character of the community and allow local decision making to remain in the locale.  All of these create an environment where active local residents directly shape the community and its well-being.

Bridger, J.C., Brennan, M.A., and Luloff, A.E. 2011. "The Interactional Approach to Community", Chapter 9, p. 85-100 included in J. Robinson and G. Green (eds.), New Perspectives in Community Development. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

Christenson, J. A. and J. W. Robinson. 1989. Community Development in Perspective. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

Gaventa, J. 1980. Power and Powerlessness:  Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Luloff, A.E., and J. Bridger. 2003.  Community Agency and Local Development.  Pp. 203-213 in, Challenges for Rural America in the Twenty-First Century, edited by D. Brown and L. Swanson. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

McGovern, Pauline. 2013. "Cross-sector partnerships with small voluntary organizations: some reflections from a case study of a mutual support group." Voluntary Sector Review 4 (2): 223-240.

Olson, B. and Brennan, M.  2018. "From Community Engagement to Community Emergence: The Holistic Program Design Approach."  International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement. 5(1): 5-19. 

Olson, B. and Brennan, M. 2017.  "From Community Engagement to Community Emergence:  A Conceptual Framework and Model to Rethink Youth-Community Interaction".  In:  The Comprehensive Handbook for Community Development. R. Phillips and B. McGrath, Editors. Taylor & Francis Publishers. 

Phillimore, J., & McCabe, A. 2015. Small-scale civil society and social policy: the importance of experiential learning, insider knowledge and diverse motivations in shaping community action. Voluntary Sector Review, 6(2), 135-151.

Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental politics, 16(4), 584-603.

Summers, G. 1986. "Rural Community Development." Annual Review of Sociology. 12:341-371.

Wilkinson, K. 1970. "Phases and roles in community action." Rural Sociology. 35 (1): 54-68.

Wilkinson, K. 1991. The Community in Rural America. New York, NY: Greenwood Press, 1991.

Useful Websites and Resources

Center for Economic and Community Development

Center for Regional Development

The Community Development Society

Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development

Southern Rural Development Center

UNESCO Chair in Community, Leadership, and Youth Development Program at Penn State

• Community and Leadership Development
• International Development
• Research Methods and Statistics
• Social Change/Social Movements
• Rural Sociology
• Environmental/Natural Resource Sociology

You may also be interested in ...

Susquehanna County Ag Day

Extension Memories of the Twentieth Century

Grant Writing: How to Find Funds and Write a Winning Proposal

Gender in Agricultural Programs: Filling the GAP

Agriculture: Working for You

Positive Youth Development / Strategies for Creating a 4-H Welcoming Environment

The Farmer Stress Management Toolbox Part 2

How to Become a Community Leader

The Joy of Farm Watching: A Roadside Guide to Pennsylvania Agriculture

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.