3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Power Dynamics in Community-Based Participatory Research: A Multiple–Case Study Analysis of Partnering Contexts, Histories, and Practices

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Epistemic Injustice

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Decolonization of knowledge, epistemicide, participatory research and higher education

            This article raises questions about what the word 'knowledge' refers to. Drawn from some 40 years of collaborative work on knowledge democracy, the authors suggest that higher education institutions today are working with a very small part of the extensive and diverse knowledge systems in the world. Following from de Sousa Santos, they illustrate how Western knowledge has been engaged in epistemicide, or the killing of other knowledge systems. Community-based participatory research is about knowledge as an action strategy for change and about the rendering visible of the excluded knowledges of our remarkable planet. Knowledge stories, theoretical dimensions of knowledge democracy and the evolution of community-based participatory research partnerships are highlighted.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Impact of Participatory Health Research: A Test of the Community-Based Participatory Research Conceptual Model

              Objectives A key challenge in evaluating the impact of community-based participatory research (CBPR) is identifying what mechanisms and pathways are critical for health equity outcomes. Our purpose is to provide an empirical test of the CBPR conceptual model to address this challenge. Methods A three-stage quantitative survey was completed: (1) 294 US CBPR projects with US federal funding were identified; (2) 200 principal investigators completed a questionnaire about project-level details; and (3) 450 community or academic partners and principal investigators completed a questionnaire about perceived contextual, process, and outcome variables. Seven in-depth qualitative case studies were conducted to explore elements of the model not captured in the survey; one is presented due to space limitations. Results We demonstrated support for multiple mechanisms illustrated by the conceptual model using a latent structural equation model. Significant pathways were identified, showing the positive association of context with partnership structures and dynamics. Partnership structures and dynamics showed similar associations with partnership synergy and community involvement in research; both of these had positive associations with intermediate community changes and distal health outcomes. The case study complemented and extended understandings of the mechanisms of how partnerships can improve community conditions. Conclusions The CBPR conceptual model is well suited to explain key relational and structural pathways for impact on health equity outcomes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Health Education & Behavior
                Health Educ Behav
                SAGE Publications
                1090-1981
                1552-6127
                September 24 2019
                October 2019
                September 24 2019
                October 2019
                : 46
                : 1_suppl
                : 19S-32S
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
                [2 ]University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
                [3 ]Stanford University, School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA
                [4 ]Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, USA
                [5 ]University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
                [6 ]Institute for Family Health, New York, NY, USA
                [7 ]University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA
                [8 ]New Mexico Department of Health, Santa Fe, NM, USA
                [9 ]Washington State University–Spokane, WA, USA
                [10 ]University of California San Francisco, CA, USA
                [11 ]National Congress on American Indians Policy Research Center, Washington, DC, USA
                [12 ]Suquamish Tribe, Suquamish, WA, USA
                [13 ]University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
                Article
                10.1177/1090198119852998
                31549557
                1a4bb16c-c2e5-4eb2-b112-09ab407e6dd4
                © 2019

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article