+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Co-researching complexities: Learning strategies for edge walking in community–university research partnerships

      Read this article at

          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.


          Community–university research partnerships (CURPs) comprise a diverse group of stakeholders who share differing capabilities and diverse insights into the same issues, and they are widely regarded as valuable to navigate the best course of action. Partnering as co-researchers is core to nurturing these partnerships, but it requires careful navigation of complexities. The different insider and outsider positionalities occupied by co-researchers highlight experiences of ‘walking on the edges’ of each other’s worlds. This not only challenges these collaborations, but also enables a depth of understanding that may not be achieved in CURPs where the luxury of, or effort in, building a team of co-researchers to collect, analyse and write up data is not present. This article focuses on learning strategies to advance the co-researching capacities of CURPs where stakeholders occupy divergent positions. The focus will be on lessons from a co-researching partnership comprising a university-affiliated academic researcher, a local Kenyan non-governmental organization (NGO) and members of a community in which the NGO worked. We argue that applying selected learning strategies may facilitate positive experiences of edge walking and enhance the meaningful two-way sharing required for cross-cultural CURPs. It is recommended that community and university research partners examine the utility of these learning strategies for strengthening co-researching in CURP contexts.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cultural humility versus cultural competence: a critical distinction in defining physician training outcomes in multicultural education.

          Researchers and program developers in medical education presently face the challenge of implementing and evaluating curricula that teach medical students and house staff how to effectively and respectfully deliver health care to the increasingly diverse populations of the United States. Inherent in this challenge is clearly defining educational and training outcomes consistent with this imperative. The traditional notion of competence in clinical training as a detached mastery of a theoretically finite body of knowledge may not be appropriate for this area of physician education. Cultural humility is proposed as a more suitable goal in multicultural medical education. Cultural humility incorporates a lifelong commitment to self-evaluation and self-critique, to redressing the power imbalances in the patient-physician dynamic, and to developing mutually beneficial and nonpaternalistic clinical and advocacy partnerships with communities on behalf of individuals and defined populations.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            The Action Research Dissertation: A Guide for Students and Faculty

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Keeping and using reflective journals in the qualitative research process

               M Ortlipp,  M Ortlipp (2008)

                Author and article information

                Research for All
                UCL Press (UK )
                16 February 2021
                : 5
                : 1
                : 157-173
                University of Auckland, New Zealand
                Kwacha Afrika Youth Empowerment Centre, Mombasa, Kenya
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Email: l.chubb@ 123456auckland.ac.nz
                Copyright © 2021 Chubb, Fouché and Sadeh Kengah

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY) 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 1, References: 38, Pages: 18


                Comment on this article

                Research for All
                Volume 5, Issue 1

                Similar content 122

                Most referenced authors 182