In simplest terms, community-based participatory research
(CBPR) enlists those who are most affected by a community issue – typically in
collaboration or partnership with others who have research skills – to conduct
research on and analyze that issue, with the goal of devising strategies to
resolve it. In other words, community-based participatory research adds to or
replaces academic and other professional research with research done by
community members, so that research results both come from and go directly back
to the people who need them most and can make the best use of them.
There are several levels of participatory research. At one
end of the spectrum is academic or government research that nonetheless gathers
information directly from community members. The community members are those
most directly affected by the issue at hand, and they may (or may not) be asked
for their opinions about what they need and what they think will help, as well
as for specific information. In that circumstance, the community members don’t
have any role in choosing what information is sought, in collecting data, or in
analyzing the information once it’s collected. (At the same time, this type of
participatory research is still a long step from research that is done at
second or third hand, where all the information about a group of people is
gathered from statistics, census data, and the reports of observers or of human
service or health professionals.)
At another level, academic or other researchers recruit or
hire members of an affected group – often because they are familiar with and
known by the community – to collect data. In this case, the collectors may or
may not also help to analyze the information that they have gathered.
A third level of participatory research has academic,
government, or other professional researchers recruiting members of an affected
group as partners in a research project. The community members work with the
researchers as colleagues, participating in the conception and design of the
project, data collection, and data analysis. They may participate as well in
reporting the results of the project or study. At this level, there is usually
– though not always – an assumption that the research group is planning to use
its research to take action on an issue that needs to be resolved
ON THE PRACTICAL SIDE, COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH
CAN OFTEN GET YOU THE BEST INFORMATION POSSIBLE ABOUT THE ISSUE, FOR AT LEAST
REASONS INCLUDING:
• People in an
affected population are more liable to be willing to talk and give straight
answers to researchers whom they know, or whom they know to be in circumstances
similar to their own, than to outsiders with whom they have little in common
• People who
have actually experienced the effects of an issue – or an intervention – may
have ideas and information about aspects of it that wouldn’t occur to anyone
studying it from outside. Thus, action researchers from the community may focus
on elements of the issue, or ask questions or follow-ups, that outside
researchers wouldn’t, and get crucial information that other researchers might
find only by accident, or perhaps not at all
• People who
are deeply affected by an issue, or participants in a program, may know
intuitively, or more directly, what’s important when they see or hear it. What
seems an offhand comment to an outside researcher might reveal its real
importance to someone who is part of the same population as person who made the
comment.
• Action
researchers from the community are on the scene all the time. Their contact
both with the issue or intervention and with the population affected by it is
constant, and, as a result, they may find information even when they’re not
officially engaged in research.
• Findings may
receive more community support because community members know that the research
was conducted by people in the same circumstances as their own
When you’re conducting an evaluation, these advantages can
provide you with a more accurate picture of the intervention or initiative and
its effects. When you’re studying a community issue, all these advantages can lead
to a true understanding of its nature, its causes, and its effects in the
community, and can provide a solid basis for a strategy to resolve it. And
that, of course, is the true goal of community research – to identify and
resolve an issue or problem, and to improve the quality of life for the
community as a whole
In the personal development sphere, CBPR can have profound
effects on the development and lives of the community researchers, particularly
when those who benefit from an intervention, or who are affected by an issue,
are poor or otherwise disadvantaged, lack education or basic skills, and/or
feel that the issue is far beyond their influence. By engaging in research,
they not only learn new skills, but see themselves in a position of competence,
obtain valuable knowledge and information about a subject important to them,
and gain the power and the confidence to exercise control over this aspect of
their lives.
Some prime examples:
• The
environment. It was a community member who first asked the questions and
started the probe that uncovered the fact that the Love Canal neighborhood in
Niagara Falls, NY, had been contaminated by the dumping of toxic waste.
• Medical/health
issues. Action research can be helpful in both undeveloped and developed societies
in collecting information about health practices, tracking an epidemic, or
mapping the occurrence of a particular condition, to name three of numerous
possibilities.
• Political and
economic issues. Citizen activists often do their own research to catch corrupt
politicians or corporations, trace campaign contributions, etc.
WHY WOULD YOU USE COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH?
• People will
speak more freely to peers, especially those they know personally, than to
strangers.
• Researchers
who are members of the community know the history and relationships surrounding
a program or an issue, and can therefore place it in context.
• People
experiencing an issue or participating in an intervention know what’s important
to them about it – what it disrupts, what parts of their lives it touches, how
they have changed as a result, etc. That knowledge helps them to formulate
interview questions that get to the heart of what they – as researchers – are
trying to learn.
IN SUMMARY
Community-based participatory research is a process conducted
by and for the people most affected by the issue or intervention being studied
or evaluated. It has multiple purposes, including the empowerment of the
participants, the gathering of the best and most accurate information possible,
garnering community support for the effort, and social change that leads to the
betterment of the community for everyone
As with any participatory process, CBPR can take a great deal
of time and effort. The participants are often economically and educationally
disadvantaged, lacking basic skills and other resources. Thus, training and
support – both technical and personal – are crucial elements in any action
research process. With proper preparation, however, participatory action
research can yield not only excellent research results, but huge benefits for
the community over the long run.
Della Roberts worked as a nutritionist at the Harperville
Hospital. As an African American, she was concerned about obesity among black
children, and about the fact that many of Harperville’s African American
neighborhoods didn’t have access to healthy food in stores or restaurants. She
felt that the city ought to be doing something to change the situation, but
officials didn’t seem to see it as a problem. Della decided to conduct some
research to use as a base for advocacy.
Della realized that in order to collect accurate data, she
needed to find researchers who would be trusted by people in the neighborhoods
she was concerned about. What if she recruited researchers from among the
people in those neighborhoods? She contacted two ministers she knew, an African
American doctor who practiced in a black neighborhood, and the director of a
community center, as well as using her own family connections. Within two
weeks, she had gathered a group of neighborhood residents who were willing to
act as researchers. They ranged from high school students to grandparents, and
from people who could barely read to others who had taken college courses.
The group met several times at the hospital to work out how
they were going to collect information from the community. Della conducted
workshops in research methods and in such basic skills as how to record
interviews and observations. The group discussed the problem of recording for
those who had difficulty writing, and came up with other ways of logging
information. They decided they would each interview a given number of residents
about their food shopping and eating habits, and that they would also observe
people’s buying patterns in neighborhood stores and fast food restaurants. They
set a deadline for finishing their data gathering, and went off to learn as
much as they could about the food shopping and eating behavior of people in
their neighborhoods.
As the data came in, it became clear that people in the
neighborhoods would be happy to buy more nutritious food, but it was simply too
difficult to get it. They either had to travel long distances on the bus, since
many didn’t have cars, or find time after a long work day to drive to another,
often unfamiliar, part of the city and spend an evening shopping. Many also had
the perception that healthy food was much more expensive, and that they
couldn’t afford it.
Ultimately, the data that the group of neighborhood residents
had gathered went into a report written by Della and other professionals on the
hospital staff. The report helped to convince the city to provide incentives to
supermarket chains to locate in neighborhoods where healthy food was hard to
find.
The group that Della had recruited had become a
community-based participatory research team. Working with Della and others at
the hospital, they helped to determine what kind of information would be
useful, and then learned how to gather it. Because they were part of the
community, they were trusted by residents; because they shared other residents’
experience, they knew what questions to ask and fully understood the answers, as
well as what they were seeing when they observed.
