Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
200,304
result(s) for
"Community research"
Sort by:
Community-Academic Partnerships: A Systematic Review of the State of the Literature and Recommendations for Future Research
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.
Journal Article
Community research for participation : from theory to method
\"This book bridges a major gap in knowledge by considering, through a range of reflexive chapters from different disciplinary backgrounds, both theoretical and practical issues relating to community research methodologies. The international contributors consider a number of key epistemological, ontological and methodological questions. They explore what community peer research means in a range of settings, for a range of people, for the quality of data and subsequent findings, and for the production of rigorous social research. The collection will also stimulate thinking about how methodological advancement can be made in the field. It is the first book of its kind to combine practical and methodological reflections with clearly presented recommendations about how the approach can be used.Presenting the latest thinking in the field and providing summaries, case studies and review questions, 'Community research for participation' will be invaluable to students, researchers, academics and practitioners who aim to place community members at the centre of their research.\"--Publisher's website.
Book
Achieving Research Impact Through Co-creation in Community-Based Health Services: Literature Review and Case Study
Context: Co-creation—collaborative knowledge generation by academics working alongside other stakeholders—reflects a \"Mode 2\" relationship (knowledge production rather than knowledge translation) between universities and society. Co-creation is widely believed to increase research impact. Methods: We undertook a narrative review of different models of co-creation relevant to community-based health services. We contrasted their diverse disciplinary roots and highlighted their common philosophical assumptions, principles of success, and explanations for failures. We applied these to an empirical case study of a community-based research-service partnership led by the Centre of Research Excellence in Quality and Safety in Integrated Primary-Secondary Care at the University of Queensland, Australia. Findings: Co-creation emerged independently in several fields, including business studies (\"value co-creation\"), design science (\"experience-based co-design\"), computer science (\"technology co-design\"), and community development (\"participatory research\"). These diverse models share some common features, which were also evident in the case study. Key success principles included (1) a systems perspective (assuming emergence, local adaptation, and nonlinearity); (2) the framing of research as a creative enterprise with human experience at its core; and (3) an emphasis on process (the framing of the program, the nature of relationships, and governance and facilitation arrangements, especially the style of leadership and how conflict is managed). In both the literature review and the case study, co-creation \"failures\" could often be tracked back to abandoning (or never adopting) these principles. All co-creation models made strong claims for significant and sustainable societal impacts as a result of the adaptive and developmental research process; these were illustrated in the case study. Conclusions: Co-creation models have high potential for societal impact but depend critically on key success principles. To capture the nonlinear chains of causation in the co-creation pathway, impact metrics must reflect the dynamic nature and complex interdependencies of health research systems and address processes as well as outcomes.
Journal Article
Community resilience, universities and engaged research for today's world
\"The increasing development of partnerships between universities and communities allows the research of academics to become engaged with those around them. This book highlights several case studies from a range of disciplines, such as psychology, social work and education to explore how these mutually beneficial relationships function. Engaged research can enhance community resilience due to the necessity of focusing on a local setting, the centrality of trust and exploring the boundaries between universities, industries and the community.\"--Page [4] of cover.
Book
Antiracism and Community-Based Participatory Research: Synergies, Challenges, and Opportunities
Structural racism causes stark health inequities and operates at every level of society, including the academic and governmental entities that support health research and practice. We argue that health research institutions must invest in research that actively disrupts racial hierarchies, with leadership from racially marginalized communities and scholars.
We highlight synergies between antiracist principles and community-based participatory research (CBPR), examine the potential for CBPR to promote antiracist research and praxis, illustrate structural barriers to antiracist CBPR praxis, and offer examples of CBPR actions taken to disrupt structural racism. We make recommendations for the next generation of antiracist CBPR, including modify health research funding to center the priorities of racially marginalized communities, support sustained commitments and accountability to those communities by funders and research institutions, distribute research funds equitably across community and academic institutions, amplify antiracist praxis through translation of research to policy, and adopt institutional practices that support reflection and adaptation of CBPR to align with emergent community priorities and antiracist practices.
A critical application of CBPR principles offers pathways to transforming institutional practices that reproduce and reinforce racial inequities. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(1):70–78. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307114 )
Journal Article
Essentials of community-based research
\"Community-based research (CBR) is the most commonly used method for serving community needs and effecting change through authentic, ethical, and meaningful social research. In this brief introduction to CBR, the real-world approach of noted experts Vera Caine and Judy Mill helps novice researchers understand the promise and perils of engaging in this research tradition. This book -outlines the basic steps and issues in the CBR process-from collaboratively designing and conducting the research with community members to building community capacity; -covers how to negotiate complicated questions of researcher control and ethics; -includes a chapter written by community partners, among the examples from numerous projects from around the world\"-- Provided by publisher.
Book
Engage for Equity: A Long-Term Study of Community-Based Participatory Research and Community-Engaged Research Practices and Outcomes
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) and community-engaged research have been established in the past 25 years as valued research approaches within health education, public health, and other health and social sciences for their effectiveness in reducing inequities. While early literature focused on partnering principles and processes, within the past decade, individual studies, as well as systematic reviews, have increasingly documented outcomes in community support and empowerment, sustained partnerships, healthier behaviors, policy changes, and health improvements. Despite enhanced focus on research and health outcomes, the science lags behind the practice. CBPR partnering pathways that result in outcomes remain little understood, with few studies documenting best practices. Since 2006, the University of New Mexico Center for Participatory Research with the University of Washington’s Indigenous Wellness Research Institute and partners across the country has engaged in targeted investigations to fill this gap in the science. Our inquiry, spanning three stages of National Institutes of Health funding, has sought to identify which partnering practices, under which contexts and conditions, have capacity to contribute to health, research, and community outcomes. This article presents the research design of our current grant, Engage for Equity, including its history, social justice principles, theoretical bases, measures, intervention tools and resources, and preliminary findings about collective empowerment as our middle range theory of change. We end with lessons learned and recommendations for partnerships to engage in collective reflexive practice to strengthen internal power-sharing and capacity to reach health and social equity outcomes.
Journal Article
What are community studies?
\"In the age of globalization and the changing welfare state, community relations are now more important than ever. What are Community Studies? gives an overview of the community studies field, with particular focus on the research methods used, and how they have evolved in recent years. Defining the key terms in the field, it outlines the history of the methods used in community studies and uses examples and case studies to illuminate the theory.This book captures the organization of modern community life and shows how current researchers are working with broader and more imaginative definitions of community. Responding to criticisms of the field, What are Community Studies? challenges our traditional notions of communities and how they are analysed. Graham Crow's text will be a vital resource to researchers in the field\"--Publisher's summary.
Book
Power Dynamics in Community-Based Participatory Research
Community-based participatory research has a long-term commitment to principles of equity and justice with decades of research showcasing the added value of power-sharing and participatory involvement of community members for achieving health, community capacity, policy, and social justice outcomes. Missing, however, has been a clear articulation of how power operates within partnership practices and the impact of these practices on outcomes. The National Institutes of Health–funded Research for Improved Health study (2009-2013), having surveyed 200 partnerships, then conducted seven in-depth case studies to better understand which partnership practices can best build from community histories of organizing to address inequities. The diverse case studies represented multiple ethnic–racial and other marginalized populations, health issues, and urban and rural areas and regions. Cross-cutting analyses of the qualitative results focus on how oppressive and emancipatory forms of power operate within partnerships in response to oppressive conditions or emancipatory histories of advocacy within communities. The analysis of power was conducted within each of the four domains of the community-based participatory research conceptual model, starting from how contexts shape partnering processes to impact short-term intervention and research outputs, and contribute to outcomes. Similarities and differences in how partnerships leveraged and addressed their unique contexts and histories are presented, with both structural and relational practices that intentionally addressed power relations. These results demonstrate how community members draw from their resilience and strengths to combat histories of injustice and oppression, using partnership principles and practices toward multilevel outcomes that honor community knowledge and leadership, and seek shared power, policy, and community transformation changes, thereby advancing health equity.
Journal Article