Explore the vast range of titles available.

Context: Communities, funding agencies, and institutions are increasingly involving community stakeholders as partners in research. Community stakeholders can provide firsthand knowledge and insight, thereby increasing research relevance and feasibility. Despite the greater emphasis and use of community-academic partnerships (CAP) across multiple disciplines, definitions of partnerships and methodologies vary greatly, and no systematic reviews consolidating this literature have been published. The purpose of this article, then, is to facilitate the continued growth of this field by examining the characteristics of CAPs and the current state of the science, identifying the facilitating and hindering influences on the collaborative process, and developing a common term and conceptual definition for use across disciplines. Methods: Our systematic search of 6 major literature databases generated 1,332 unique articles, 50 of which met our criteria for inclusion and provided data on 54 unique CAPs. We then analyzed studies to describe CAP characteristics and to identify the terms and methods used, as well as the common influences on the CAP process and distal outcomes. Findings: CAP research spans disciplines, involves a variety of community stakeholders, and focuses on a large range of study topics. CAP research articles, however, rarely report characteristics such as membership numbers or duration. Most studies involved case studies using qualitative methods to collect data on the collaborative process. Although various terms were used to describe collaborative partnerships, few studies provided conceptual definitions. Twenty-three facilitating and hindering factors influencing the CAP collaboration process emerged from the literature. Outcomes from the CAPs most often included developing or refining tangible products. Conclusions: Based on our systematic review, we recommend using a single term, community-academic partnership, as well as a conceptual definition to unite multiple research disciplines. In addition, CAP characteristics and methods should be reported more systematically to advance the field (eg, to develop CAP evaluation tools). We have identified the most common influences that facilitate and hinder CAPs, which in turn should guide their development and sustainment.

Background Billions of dollars are lost annually in health research that fails to create meaningful benefits for patients. Engaging in research co-design – the meaningful involvement of end-users in research – may help address this research waste. This rapid overview of reviews addressed three related questions, namely (1) what approaches to research co-design exist in health settings? (2) What activities do these research co-design approaches involve? (3) What do we know about the effectiveness of existing research co-design approaches? The review focused on the study planning phase of research, defined as the point up to which the research question and study design are finalised. Methods Reviews of research co-design were systematically identified using a rapid overview of reviews approach (PROSPERO: CRD42019123034). The search strategy encompassed three academic databases, three grey literature databases, and a hand-search of the journal Research Involvement and Engagement . Two reviewers independently conducted the screening and data extraction and resolved disagreements through discussion. Disputes were resolved through discussion with a senior author (PB). One reviewer performed quality assessment. The results were narratively synthesised. Results A total of 26 records (reporting on 23 reviews) met the inclusion criteria. Reviews varied widely in their application of ‘research co-design’ and their application contexts, scope and theoretical foci. The research co-design approaches identified involved interactions with end-users outside of study planning, such as recruitment and dissemination. Activities involved in research co-design included focus groups, interviews and surveys. The effectiveness of research co-design has rarely been evaluated empirically or experimentally; however, qualitative exploration has described the positive and negative outcomes associated with co-design. The research provided many recommendations for conducting research co-design, including training participating end-users in research skills, having regular communication between researchers and end-users, setting clear end-user expectations, and assigning set roles to all parties involved in co-design. Conclusions Research co-design appears to be widely used but seldom described or evaluated in detail. Though it has rarely been tested empirically or experimentally, existing research suggests that it can benefit researchers, practitioners, research processes and research outcomes. Realising the potential of research co-design may require the development of clearer and more consistent terminology, better reporting of the activities involved and better evaluation.

Equitable partnership processes and group dynamics, including individual, relational, and structural factors, have been identified as key ingredients to successful community-based participatory research partnerships. The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate the key aspects of group dynamics and partnership from the perspectives of community members serving as co-researchers. Semistructured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 Latino immigrant co-researchers from an intervention project with Latinos Unidos por la Salud (LU-Salud), a community research team composed of Latino immigrant community members and academic investigators working in a health research partnership. A deductive framework approach guided the interview process and qualitative data analysis. The LU-Salud co-researchers described relationships, personal growth, beliefs/identity motivation (individual dynamics), coexistence (relational dynamics), diversity, and power/resource sharing (structural dynamics) as key foundational aspects of the community–academic partnership. Building on existing CBPR and team science frameworks, these findings demonstrate that group dynamics and partnership processes are fundamental drivers of individual-level motivation and meaning making, which ultimately sustain efforts of community partners to engage with the research team and also contribute to the achievement of intended research outcomes.

The philosophical underpinning of Community-Engaged Research (CEnR) entails a collaborative partnership between academic researchers and the community. The Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) model is the partnership model most widely discussed in the CEnR literature and is the primary model we draw upon in this discussion of the collaboration between academic researchers and the community. In CPBR, the goal is for community partners to have equal authority and responsibility with the academic research team, and that the partners engage in respectful negotiation both before the research begins and throughout the research process to ensure that the concerns, interests, and needs of each party are addressed. The negotiation of a fair, successful, and enduring partnership requires transparency and understanding of the different assets, skills and expertise that each party brings to the project. Delineating the expectations of both parties and documenting the terms of agreement in a memorandum of understanding or similar document may be very useful. This document is structured to provide a \"points- to-consider\" roadmap for academic and community research partners to establish and maintain a research partnership at each stage of the research process.

The Colorado Immersion Training in Community Engagement (CIT) program supports a change in the research trajectory of junior faculty, early career researchers, and doctoral students toward Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR). CIT is within the Community Engagement and Health Equity Core (CEHE) at the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CCTSI), an NIH-funded Clinical and Translational Science award. This Translational Science Case Study reports on CIT’s impacts from 2010 to 2019. A team from The Evaluation Center at the University of Colorado Denver utilized four primary data sources: administrative records, participant written reflections, participant and Community Research Liaison (CRL) interviews, and community partner surveys. Data were analyzed using the framework of CBPR principles and the conceptual logic model. CIT trained 122 researchers in CBPR through embedded education within various Colorado communities. CIT Alumni secured ∼$8,723,000 in funding between CCTSI Pilot Grants and external funding. Also, CIT alumni implemented CBPR into curricula and community programming and developed deep, lasting relationships. Further key learnings include the crucial role of CRLs in building relationships between university and community partners and how CIT may serve as a mechanism to improve historical mistrust between communities and universities.

We conducted an international survey of 211 scholars with expertise in business ethics. Each respondent was asked to identify the three most important issues that business ethics academia will face in the coming decade. Using content analytic procedures, responses were categorized and analyzed for commonalities. The results suggest that the most important issues facing business ethics academia in the future will be the following: (1) issues relating to business ethics education such as curriculum, pedagogy, faculty, and accreditation (2) the credibility of the business ethics field, (3) environmental issues, (4) issues relating to business ethics research such as research tools and quality of business ethics research (5) the decline of ethical behavior in society and organizations, (6) corporate social responsibility (CSR), (7) globalization, and (8) the institutionalization of ethics into business. We maintain that these issues have important teaching and research implications for the future sustainability of the business ethics discipline.

Maximizing the utility and equity of genomic sequencing integration in clinical care requires engaging patients, their families, and communities. The NCGENES 2 study explores the impact of engagement between clinicians and caregivers of children with undiagnosed conditions in the context of a diagnostic genomic sequencing study. A Community Consult Team (CCT) of diverse parents and advocates for children with genetic and/or neurodevelopmental conditions was formed. Early and consistent engagement with the CCT resulted in adaptations to study protocol and materials relevant to this unique study population. This study demonstrates valuable contributions of community stakeholders to inform the implementation of translational genomics research for diverse participants.

We present the findings of a worldwide survey that was administered to business ethic scholars to better understand journal quality within the business ethics academic community. Based upon the data from the survey, we provide a ranking of the top 10 business ethics journals. We then provide a comparison of business ethics journals to other mainstream management journals in terms of journal quality. The results of the study suggest that, within the business ethics academic community, many scholars prefer to publish in the top business ethics academic journals over other mainstream management journals. Furthermore, the results of the study suggest that within the business ethics academic field there are two dominant academic communities: one in Europe and one in North America. Each of these academic communities has its own preferred publication outlets, suggesting a potentially problematic bifurcation of business ethics scholarship.

In the 30 years since the Belmont Report, the role of the community in research has evolved and has taken on greater moral significance. Today, more and more translational research is being performed with the active engagement of individuals and communities rather than merely upon them. This engagement requires a critical examination of the range of risks that may arise when communities become partners in research. In attempting to provide such an examination, one must distinguish between established communities (groups that have their own organizational structure and leadership and exist regardless of the research) and unstructured groups (groups that may exist because of a shared trait but do not have defined leadership or internal cohesiveness). In order to participate in research as a community, unstructured groups must develop structure either by external means (by partnering with a Community-Based Organization) or by internal means (by empowering the group to organize and establish structure and leadership). When groups participate in research, one must consider risks to well-being due to process and outcomes. These risks may occur to the individual qua individual, but there are also risks that occur to the individual qua member of a group and also risks that occur to the group qua group. There are also risks to agency, both to the individual and the group. A 3-by-3 grid including 3 categories of risks (risks to well-being secondary to process, risks to well-being secondary to outcome and risks to agency) must be evaluated against the 3 distinct agents: individuals as individual participants, individuals as members of a group (both as participants and as nonparticipants) and to communities as a whole. This new framework for exploring the risks in community-engaged research can help academic researchers and community partners ensure the mutual respect that communityengaged research requires.