联盟建设:当外部促进者将CBPR原则付诸实践时会发生什么?马萨诸塞州HEALing社区研究的民族志实例

M. Drainoni, Galya Walt, Linda Martinez, R. Smeltzer, Savanna Santarpio, Rosie Munoz-Lopez, Craig J. McClay, Lauren Keisling, Aumani Harris, Faizah Gillen, Valerie El-Alfi, Erika L. Crable, Allyson F. Cogan, Jane F. Carpenter, Laura Barkoswki, Tracy A. Battaglia
{"title":"联盟建设:当外部促进者将CBPR原则付诸实践时会发生什么?马萨诸塞州HEALing社区研究的民族志实例","authors":"M. Drainoni, Galya Walt, Linda Martinez, R. Smeltzer, Savanna Santarpio, Rosie Munoz-Lopez, Craig J. McClay, Lauren Keisling, Aumani Harris, Faizah Gillen, Valerie El-Alfi, Erika L. Crable, Allyson F. Cogan, Jane F. Carpenter, Laura Barkoswki, Tracy A. Battaglia","doi":"10.54656/jces.v16i1.457","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The HEALing Communities Study (HCS) is a large-scale multisite study testing community engagement using coalition facilitation as an approach to addressing the worsening overdose crisis. Within community engagement, community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles guide researchers on best practices for working in partnership with communities, yet these principles have not been well researched in large, complex, multisite studies. This paper uses ethnographic methods to explore how coalitions operationalized CBPR principles during early coalition formation. Two coders independently analyzed 101 ethnographies from HCS coalition meetings in eight Massachusetts communities held between November 2019 and December 2020. Themes were developed through consensus between the coders, followed by group discussions among the authorship team. We found that mutual trust, shared goals, addressing power dynamics, meeting structure, and attending to the sociopolitical community context are critical elements that can either hinder or advance the use of CBPR principles in practice. These findings provide unique suggestions for future community-engaged multisite studies, and demonstrate the importance of research teams mitigating inherent power imbalances by acknowledging and creating spaces for community ownership. The findings also highlight the value of a community engagement facilitator (CEF) role, as well as strategies like transparency, uniting over shared interests, and bringing in a wide range of stakeholders when operationalizing CBPR principles.","PeriodicalId":73680,"journal":{"name":"Journal of community engagement and scholarship","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coalition Building: What Happens When External Facilitators Put CBPR Principles in Practice? Ethnographic Examples from the Massachusetts HEALing Communities Study\",\"authors\":\"M. Drainoni, Galya Walt, Linda Martinez, R. Smeltzer, Savanna Santarpio, Rosie Munoz-Lopez, Craig J. McClay, Lauren Keisling, Aumani Harris, Faizah Gillen, Valerie El-Alfi, Erika L. Crable, Allyson F. Cogan, Jane F. Carpenter, Laura Barkoswki, Tracy A. Battaglia\",\"doi\":\"10.54656/jces.v16i1.457\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The HEALing Communities Study (HCS) is a large-scale multisite study testing community engagement using coalition facilitation as an approach to addressing the worsening overdose crisis. Within community engagement, community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles guide researchers on best practices for working in partnership with communities, yet these principles have not been well researched in large, complex, multisite studies. This paper uses ethnographic methods to explore how coalitions operationalized CBPR principles during early coalition formation. Two coders independently analyzed 101 ethnographies from HCS coalition meetings in eight Massachusetts communities held between November 2019 and December 2020. Themes were developed through consensus between the coders, followed by group discussions among the authorship team. We found that mutual trust, shared goals, addressing power dynamics, meeting structure, and attending to the sociopolitical community context are critical elements that can either hinder or advance the use of CBPR principles in practice. These findings provide unique suggestions for future community-engaged multisite studies, and demonstrate the importance of research teams mitigating inherent power imbalances by acknowledging and creating spaces for community ownership. The findings also highlight the value of a community engagement facilitator (CEF) role, as well as strategies like transparency, uniting over shared interests, and bringing in a wide range of stakeholders when operationalizing CBPR principles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of community engagement and scholarship\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of community engagement and scholarship\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54656/jces.v16i1.457\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of community engagement and scholarship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54656/jces.v16i1.457","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

HEALing社区研究(HCS)是一项大规模的多站点研究,旨在测试社区参与度,将联盟促进作为解决日益恶化的服药过量危机的方法。在社区参与中,基于社区的参与性研究(CBPR)原则指导研究人员与社区合作的最佳实践,但这些原则尚未在大型、复杂、多站点的研究中得到很好的研究。本文采用人种学方法探讨了联盟在早期联盟形成过程中如何运作CBPR原则。两名编码员独立分析了2019年11月至2020年12月在马萨诸塞州八个社区举行的HCS联盟会议的101份民族志。主题是通过编码人员之间的协商一致制定的,然后是作者团队之间的小组讨论。我们发现,相互信任、共同目标、处理权力动态、会议结构和关注社会政治社区背景是可能阻碍或推动CBPR原则在实践中使用的关键因素。这些发现为未来社区参与的多站点研究提供了独特的建议,并证明了研究团队通过承认和创造社区所有权空间来缓解固有权力失衡的重要性。研究结果还强调了社区参与促进者(CEF)作用的价值,以及透明度、团结共同利益以及在实施CBPR原则时引入广泛利益相关者等战略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Coalition Building: What Happens When External Facilitators Put CBPR Principles in Practice? Ethnographic Examples from the Massachusetts HEALing Communities Study
The HEALing Communities Study (HCS) is a large-scale multisite study testing community engagement using coalition facilitation as an approach to addressing the worsening overdose crisis. Within community engagement, community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles guide researchers on best practices for working in partnership with communities, yet these principles have not been well researched in large, complex, multisite studies. This paper uses ethnographic methods to explore how coalitions operationalized CBPR principles during early coalition formation. Two coders independently analyzed 101 ethnographies from HCS coalition meetings in eight Massachusetts communities held between November 2019 and December 2020. Themes were developed through consensus between the coders, followed by group discussions among the authorship team. We found that mutual trust, shared goals, addressing power dynamics, meeting structure, and attending to the sociopolitical community context are critical elements that can either hinder or advance the use of CBPR principles in practice. These findings provide unique suggestions for future community-engaged multisite studies, and demonstrate the importance of research teams mitigating inherent power imbalances by acknowledging and creating spaces for community ownership. The findings also highlight the value of a community engagement facilitator (CEF) role, as well as strategies like transparency, uniting over shared interests, and bringing in a wide range of stakeholders when operationalizing CBPR principles.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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