Trust in Participatory Action Community Engaged Partnerships: Relationships and Historic Trauma Matter

Engage! Pub Date : 2019-05-23 DOI:10.18060/22815
B. Pierce, Paige Klemme, Val Tate, M. Studley
{"title":"Trust in Participatory Action Community Engaged Partnerships: Relationships and Historic Trauma Matter","authors":"B. Pierce, Paige Klemme, Val Tate, M. Studley","doi":"10.18060/22815","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"University-community participatory action partnerships can be mutually beneficial. Universities often work alongside communities to establish new and innovative community-based programming and research that are intended to benefit communities from these efforts. However, mistrust has been found to be a major issue in creating and maintaining strong relationships. This paper will marry a model of trust that forms when partners exhibit relational capital, relational embeddedness, and transparency within the principles of trauma-informed care as established by the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) (2014). \nA group of university researchers and community activists/organizers analyzed their work on a project to bring a community engaged participatory action design team intervention to develop and implement trauma-responsive care in an established transitional African American community located in a large urban Midwestern city. Through our analysis we identified three major reasons for mistrust:  objectification of community members, lack of real change in the community, and lack of transparency.. Additionally, we found that paying attention to power differentials between the university researchers and community partners is key. Major findings around best practices mirrored the SAMHSA trauma-informed care principles and included developing “not just trust but trusting relationships”, sharing “voice and choice” with all who seek to participate, understanding the historical trauma within the community, using cultural guides and long time seasoned community organizers to facilitate processes, “showing up” and being interested in the community beyond the research or intervention by finding a way to give back to the community beyond the project.","PeriodicalId":93176,"journal":{"name":"Engage!","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engage!","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18060/22815","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

University-community participatory action partnerships can be mutually beneficial. Universities often work alongside communities to establish new and innovative community-based programming and research that are intended to benefit communities from these efforts. However, mistrust has been found to be a major issue in creating and maintaining strong relationships. This paper will marry a model of trust that forms when partners exhibit relational capital, relational embeddedness, and transparency within the principles of trauma-informed care as established by the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) (2014). A group of university researchers and community activists/organizers analyzed their work on a project to bring a community engaged participatory action design team intervention to develop and implement trauma-responsive care in an established transitional African American community located in a large urban Midwestern city. Through our analysis we identified three major reasons for mistrust:  objectification of community members, lack of real change in the community, and lack of transparency.. Additionally, we found that paying attention to power differentials between the university researchers and community partners is key. Major findings around best practices mirrored the SAMHSA trauma-informed care principles and included developing “not just trust but trusting relationships”, sharing “voice and choice” with all who seek to participate, understanding the historical trauma within the community, using cultural guides and long time seasoned community organizers to facilitate processes, “showing up” and being interested in the community beyond the research or intervention by finding a way to give back to the community beyond the project.
信任参与行动社区参与伙伴关系:关系和历史创伤问题
大学-社区参与性行动伙伴关系可以是互利的。大学经常与社区合作,建立新的和创新的社区规划和研究,旨在使社区从这些努力中受益。然而,人们发现不信任是建立和维持牢固关系的一个主要问题。本文将结合一种信任模型,这种模型是在物质滥用心理健康服务管理局(SAMHSA)(2014)建立的创伤知情护理原则中,当合作伙伴表现出关系资本、关系嵌入性和透明度时形成的。一群大学研究人员和社区活动家/组织者分析了他们在一个项目上的工作,该项目将社区参与到参与式行动设计团队干预中,以在位于中西部大城市的一个已建立的过渡时期非裔美国人社区中开发和实施创伤反应性护理。通过我们的分析,我们确定了不信任的三个主要原因:社区成员的客观化,社区缺乏真正的变化,以及缺乏透明度。此外,我们发现关注大学研究人员和社区合作伙伴之间的权力差异是关键。关于最佳实践的主要发现反映了SAMHSA创伤知情护理原则,包括发展“不仅是信任,而且是信任的关系”,与所有寻求参与的人分享“声音和选择”,了解社区内的历史创伤,使用文化指南和长期经验丰富的社区组织者来促进进程,通过寻找一种方式在项目之外回馈社区,“出现”并对社区感兴趣,而不仅仅是研究或干预。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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