Interrogation, Negotiation, and Subversion of Power Differentials in Community-Based Participatory Research: A Scoping Review.

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Catalina Tang Yan, Yichen Jin, Emily Chalfin, Linda Sprague Martinez
{"title":"Interrogation, Negotiation, and Subversion of Power Differentials in Community-Based Participatory Research: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Catalina Tang Yan, Yichen Jin, Emily Chalfin, Linda Sprague Martinez","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To review empirical and peer-reviewed scholarly articles incorporating community-based participatory research approaches and examining discourses of how power differentials are interrogated, negotiated, and redressed within the partnerships using scoping review methodology following The Joanna Briggs Institute framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Articles were identified across five online databases: Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Keywords used in the search strategy were (\"Community-Based Participatory Research\" OR \"Participa-tory Action Research\"). Peer-reviewed scholarly articles discussing in-depth power differentials within the partnership published in English between 2010 and 2020 were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings indicate scholars use critical reflexive qualitative methodologies to recognize and raise relevant questions of power issues between researchers and community stakeholders. Examination of individual biases, assumptions, and exertion of hierarchical top-down power is identified extensively. There is limited analysis on institutional and interdependent power. As a result of raising questions regarding power issues, individual actions to address emerging tensions and conflicts were reported. However, discussions on researchers' efforts to effect institutional and structural changes to redress power imbalances were limited.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Building strong and equitable participatory action research collaborations between researchers and community stakeholders remains an arena of continuous struggle. This review offers some insights and relevant implications to better address power issues within participatory action research partnerships and inform the work of professionals engaged in the development, implementation, and evaluation of health promotion initiatives and policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":46970,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Community Health Partnerships-Research Education and Action","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Community Health Partnerships-Research Education and Action","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To review empirical and peer-reviewed scholarly articles incorporating community-based participatory research approaches and examining discourses of how power differentials are interrogated, negotiated, and redressed within the partnerships using scoping review methodology following The Joanna Briggs Institute framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

Data sources: Articles were identified across five online databases: Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science.

Review methods: Keywords used in the search strategy were ("Community-Based Participatory Research" OR "Participa-tory Action Research"). Peer-reviewed scholarly articles discussing in-depth power differentials within the partnership published in English between 2010 and 2020 were included.

Results: Findings indicate scholars use critical reflexive qualitative methodologies to recognize and raise relevant questions of power issues between researchers and community stakeholders. Examination of individual biases, assumptions, and exertion of hierarchical top-down power is identified extensively. There is limited analysis on institutional and interdependent power. As a result of raising questions regarding power issues, individual actions to address emerging tensions and conflicts were reported. However, discussions on researchers' efforts to effect institutional and structural changes to redress power imbalances were limited.

Conclusions: Building strong and equitable participatory action research collaborations between researchers and community stakeholders remains an arena of continuous struggle. This review offers some insights and relevant implications to better address power issues within participatory action research partnerships and inform the work of professionals engaged in the development, implementation, and evaluation of health promotion initiatives and policies.

基于社区的参与式研究中权力差异的质询、协商和颠覆:范围审查》。
目标按照乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(Joanna Briggs Institute)框架和系统综述和元分析首选报告项目(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses,PRISMA),使用范围界定法(scoping review methodology)审查经验性文章和经同行评审的学术文章,这些文章纳入了基于社区的参与式研究方法,并研究了在伙伴关系中如何质疑、协商和纠正权力差异的论述:在五个在线数据库中查找文章:Embase、ERIC、PsycINFO、PubMed 和 Web of Science:搜索策略中使用的关键词为("基于社区的参与式研究 "或 "参与式行动研究")。收录了 2010 年至 2020 年间用英语发表的、经同行评审的、深入讨论伙伴关系中权力差异的学术文章:研究结果表明,学者们使用批判性反思的定性方法来认识和提出研究者与社区利益相关者之间的权力问题。对个人偏见、假设和自上而下的等级权力的审查被广泛确认。对机构权力和相互依存权力的分析有限。由于提出了有关权力问题的问题,报告了为解决新出现的紧张局势和冲突而采取的个人行动。然而,关于研究人员为纠正权力失衡而进行制度和结构改革的努力的讨论却很有限:结论:在研究人员和社区利益相关者之间建立强大而公平的参与式行动研究合作关系,仍然是一个需要不断努力的领域。本综述为更好地处理参与式行动研究合作关系中的权力问题提供了一些见解和相关启示,并为从事健康促进计划和政策的制定、实施和评估工作的专业人员提供了参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
65
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信