community research topics

Search NORC

Enter Search Value

The Community-Engaged Research Framework

Anmol Sanghera

• Sabrina Avripas
• Ashani Johnson-Turbes

For inquiries, email:

Download Equity Brief

Print Version

This Equity Brief describes the Community-Engaged Research Framework and highlights strategies for applying the principles of the Framework in practice. The Framework consists of six principles, grounded in theory and practice, that inform community engagement. It serves as a conceptual model to guide researchers in authentically engaging community members and organizations in social and behavioral science research.

Introduction

This Equity Brief describes the Community-Engaged Research (CEnR) Framework, or “the Framework,” six principles for engaging communities throughout the full research process and strategies for applying the principles in practice. The Framework is grounded in theory and existing community engagement literature and frameworks (e.g., inclusive research, community-based participatory research, community-based participatory action research, community-directed research, emancipatory research). [1-6] It serves as a conceptual model for researchers and communities to use to authentically engage each other in social and behavioral science research.

Community-Engaged Research

Community-engaged research is an approach to inclusive and equitable research [i] that joins researchers with communities as partners throughout the full cycle of the research process. [1,5,7,8] Its emphasis is on the relationship between researchers and communities, not on the methodological approach to conduct the research; teams [ii] can use both qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. [7,8] Community-engaged research may improve validity and relevance of data and results from the study, increase the data’s cultural relevance to community needs, enhance use of the data to create behavioral, social, services, or policy change, and increase the capacity of both communities and researchers. [7,8]

Exhibit 1: Continuum of Community Engagement in Research

Source: Adapted from the ATSDR Principles of Community Engagement and Wilder Involving Community Members in Evaluation: A Planning Framework

Community-engaged research exists along a continuum (Exhibit 1) that ranges in spectrum of community involvement from less (community as advisor) to more (community as equal partner or as leader) engagement. [1,5,7,8] Teams should strive to reach a level of shared leadership; however, time and resource constraints, historical mistrust, and competing priorities may make this level of engagement in every project difficult. [7-9]

The Community-Engaged Research Framework (Exhibit 2) consists of six principles for researcher and community partnerships to apply when engaging throughout the full research process. The inner circle displays the six principles essential to community engagement throughout each phase of the research process. The principles are not listed in any specific order and apply to all steps of the research process. These principles apply regardless of where a research study is on the continuum of community engagement. [1,7,8,10] The outer ring lists the phases of the research process, adapted from the Culturally Responsive Evaluation Framework, which centers both the theory and practice of “evaluation in culture” and ensures evaluation is responsive to values and beliefs. We have modified this evaluation framework to include the research process more broadly.

Exhibit 2: Community-Engaged Research Framework

© 2023 NORC. Source: Adapted from the Culturally Responsive Evaluation Framework and based on principles adapted from various frameworks for community-engaged research.

This section describes each principle and the actionable strategies teams can use to apply the principle throughout the research process. While we describe strategies within a specific principle, many are applicable across principles.

PRINCIPLE: AVOIDANCE OF HARM

All team members understand the immediate and broader implications of the research in context (e.g., community, society, systems) and actively avoid harming [iii] or marginalizing the communities in which the project is embedded. [5]

All team members recognize their own conscious and unconscious biases, how the research process can impact communities, and how the community and researchers benefit. [5,10-12] Avoidance of harm also requires listening to and respecting community expertise to better understand harm and strategies for avoidance. [5] Avoiding or doing no harm is especially important in research with historically and contemporarily marginalized and minoritized populations. [5,10]

Avoidance of harm prevents researchers from perpetuating a cycle of negative or exploitative interactions between communities and researchers, governments, and other systems, which has resulted in distrust among historically marginalized and minoritized communities. [5,8,9] It also helps teams develop appropriate protections to mitigate risks.

Actionable Strategies

Understand historical and contemporary contexts and their impact on community(ies). [5,10] Understanding communities’ context, needs, and sociopolitical environment is iterative; it requires remaining open, asking questions, conducting needs assessments, and stepping back when needed. [5,11]  

• Define community and harm in partnership with communities, and understand key principles and trauma.4,5 Understand how aspects of racism and other systems of oppression influence study design, implementation, and dissemination, and adapt research processes and analysis to this context. [5,13]
• Critically deliberate on and pursue opportunities that address inequities due to race, ethnicity, class, caste, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, and other social constructs. [4]
• Actively challenge systems of oppression and injustice, including those lingering in some research traditions, by improving coordination, enhancing existing services, and identifying, mobilizing, and strengthening assets and resources that enhance community’s capacity to make decisions.

Implement strategies to mitigate harm. Researchers’ actions may unknowingly or unintentionally harm communities. 

• Develop in partnership with communities or use existing frameworks [iv] to mitigate harm if there are adverse effects of research actions. 
• Prioritize the expertise of communities most affected by the harm when developing solutions to mitigate harms and challenges. 

Maintain community-researcher relationships beyond one project or funding period. Allocate adequate resources to maintain relationships with communities over the long-term. Continually reflect, assess, and communicate to maintain and deepen relationships for long-term action and sustainability. Take part in community meetings and events, meet community leaders, and build and foster relationships.

PRINCIPLE: SHARED POWER AND EQUITY IN DECISION-MAKING

All team members participate collaboratively, equitably, and cooperatively in all decisions within each phase of the research process. [5,14]

Shared power and equity in decision-making ensures teams incorporate the experiences and needs of communities into every aspect of the research process, from conception to dissemination, and use of findings to inform policies, programs, and services. Teams establish a governance structure that includes the voices of communities directly impacted by the issue or topic they are researching and employ equitable structures of decision-making and contribution. [4-6,13,14] This approach helps overcome non-participatory governance structures that are researcher-led with little room for community input or involvement, which can result in research that does not address community needs or interests. [2,7]  

Create a diverse and inclusive team. Include people with subject matter expertise and lived experiences to ensure the team reflects the community in which the project is embedded. Identify gaps in expertise and engage additional partners to fill gaps. [6]

Establish governance structures that eliminate Non-Participatory power hierarchies that de-value community experience and expertise.

• Create structures that promote equity and power sharing to overcome power differentials. Include avenues for shared decision-making (e.g., co-principal investigators, equal representation on steering committees). [4,5,13,14]
• Overcome relational dynamics that limit opportunities for economically and socially marginalized and disadvantaged groups that are part of project teams. Treat all team members with integrity and respect (e.g., do not undermine or invalidate people’s experiences, thoughts, or ideas; practice active listening; be considerate of others’ time, schedules, language, and cultural norms). [4,8,9]

Discuss up front what communities want to contribute and ultimately get from the research. Collectively establish parameters for data ownership and dissemination of findings. Be inclusive of communities’ right to access their collective data and research protocols by giving data and results back to the communities in which the research takes place. [6,14]

PRINCIPLE: TRANSPARENCY & OPEN COMMUNICATION

Researchers and community partners communicate openly and honestly about power dynamics and decision-making processes around project objectives and research processes, resources and finances, challenges and limitations, data, research findings, and dissemination strategies. [4,5,15]

Transparency and open communication require that all team members know who is involved in the study and why; the intent and purpose of a project; how resources are shared and allocated; and the apparent and hidden potential benefits, harms, and limitations of a project. [4,5]  

Lack of transparency may result in lack of trust if communities feel like they are being taken advantage of or do not understand researchers’ motivations and intentions. [16-18] Transparency and open communication create more authentic working relationships, build trust, and help mend relationships between researchers and communities; build on avoidance of harm to reduce the risk of unintentionally harming communities; demonstrate integrity for working through difficult issues; and improves investment in the relationship to promote sustainability. [16-18]

Collaboratively establish open communication approaches and channels. 

• Determine methods, cadence, and mode of communication and meeting coordination. 
• Set schedules, establish points of contacts and preferred formats for communication, and set timelines and frequencies of communication. 

Minimize hierarchy in communication processes, “gatekeepers,” and barriers to lines of communication. Share information readily with each member of the team about research processes and objectives, roles, motives, resources and finances, progress, timelines, etc. at every stage and at every level of the project. [4,5,17]

PRINCIPLE: MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY & RESPECT

Develop an equitable structure of incorporating input into decision-making processes, promoting commitment, and addressing discord directly.

Teams collaboratively define roles and decision-making authority, establishing a shared vision for the partnership and the research. [14,15] They also continually assess progress towards achieving that vision throughout the decision-making process. Teams facilitate discussions that allow for respectful discord and a process for reconciling discord in every phase of the research process. [4]

Non-participatory research that lacks mutual accountability and respect risks members losing interest and investment in the work, leading to a lack of respect for values and needs. Mutual accountability and respect promote a more equitable collaboration and continued involvement of members throughout all phases of the research. [19]

Collectively develop charters and establish ground rules. 

• Develop partnership arrangements (e.g., memorandum of understanding) that document the scope and nature of the partnership and align scope with each member’s capacity. Determine where on the continuum of engagement the study and relationships lie and set expectations for that relationship early and often.
• Delineate responsibilities and expectations for each person on the team. [14,15] Set realistic commitments and provide opportunities to share progress towards those commitments. [19]
• Develop a vision statement for the work and a charter for upholding and making progress towards that vision. Revise the charter as needed. [20]
• Create and implement decision-making protocols to promote follow through and commitment to roles and responsibilities, ways to track progress on achieving the goals and vision of the partnership, and continually share lessons learned. [20]

Establish structures to overcome discord. 

• Develop ground rules for reconciling discord. Make time and space for individuals to speak comfortably and express discord without fear. 
• Acknowledge missteps, challenges, and limitations and work openly to address them. Be willing to adapt throughout the partnership and process. [5]

PRINCIPLE: ACCESSIBILITY & DEMONSTRATED VALUE

Value time and contributions of all team members and develop flexible and equitable methods of engagement. [5,13]

Teams demonstrate accessibility and demonstrated value through fair and equitable compensation, reasonable and thoughtful requests for time, and flexibility and accessibility in methods of engagement and communication. [5,15]

Non-participatory research may prioritize researcher views, perspectives, and methods of engagement. Participatory research recognizes that each team member brings their own unique perspectives and skills and adds valuable experiences, resources, and social networks to the research process. [19] It also considers each team member’s barriers to engagement and establishes approaches to overcome those barriers. Accessibility and demonstrated value promote greater acceptance of alternative perspectives and trust, inclusivity, and engagement.

Acknowledge all team members and value their expertise, skills, and contributions. 

• Create a shared space that equally values all team members’ contributions and voices to facilitate co-design, co-creation, and shared decision-making, and to advance individual and collective development, growth, and learning. [15]
• Integrate opportunities for relationship-building activities, informal networking, team building, and engagement outside of project activities. [19]
• Ask how individuals and communities would like to be acknowledged and give credit for contributions. Create publication and data use guidelines.
• Collaboratively determine adequate compensation structures for all members’ contribution and time in their preferred method and form of value. [15]

Demonstrate cultural responsiveness [v]  and inclusivity. 

• Understand that engagement and relationship building take time. Allow sufficient time to establish relationships and account for the limited time some members have to engage in research. 
• Practice cultural humility. [vi] Conduct self-reflection about your own biases, power, and privileges. [4,5,10] Ask questions and take time to understand local and cultural practices and nuances. [4,5]
• Understand and address barriers to engagement. Provide accessible modalities of participation and access, including flexibility in meeting times and location, interpreters and translated materials, plain language materials, childcare, transportation, and technology support. [15] Conduct engagements at times and in places convenient to communities. Offer disability accommodations and be flexible with requests for time commitment and deadlines. [5,15]

PRINCIPLE: CAPACITY BRIDGING & CO-LEARNING

All team members learn from each other and engage in bi-directional feedback and conversation. [vii]

Capacity bridging and co-learning expands tools, resources, skills, and knowledge among all team members. [21–23] It also promotes sustainability beyond one research project or funding opportunity. [23] Embedded throughout the research process are educational opportunities for all team members to become agents for community change. Teams should work together to re-define the research process and relationship, not to transform community partners into researchers (unless that is the ask of community partners). [15] Non-participatory research that focus solely on building the capacity of community members fall short in fostering bi-directional knowledge, skills, and capacity. Researchers should learn about historical and contemporary local culture and context, lived experiences of community partners, and community engagement strategies. [14]

Facilitate the reciprocal transfer of knowledge, skills, and capacity. [21,22] Maintain open dialogue, conduct and receive trainings, and bi-directionally share information, tools, and data. [14]

Translate knowledge into action. Document and share lessons learned about what works and what does not work about the process, and partnership successes, weaknesses, and challenges to further facilitate co-learning. [19] Understand how results from the study can improve programs, policies, or services to benefit both the advancement of science and the community. [19]

Affirm community strengths and assets. Conduct activities like community asset mapping and strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analyses, and practice positive marginality [viii] to understand each team member’s perspectives, knowledge, and expertise. Highlight and affirm community strengths. [4] Employ multiple methods and forums for community involvement beyond inclusion of community members on the project team (e.g., advisory boards, town halls, listening sessions, public comment).

The Community-Engaged Research Framework is a conceptual model that guides community engagement using the following six key principles: (1) Avoidance of harm; (2) Shared Power and Equity in Decision-Making; (3) Transparency and Open Communication; (4) Mutual Accountability and Respect; (5) Accessibility and Demonstrated Value; and (6) Capacity Bridging and Co-learning. 

Applying these principles and their associated actionable strategies facilitates conduct of inclusive and equitable research and evaluation that centers people’s cultures and community. Community-engaged research will vary depending on the community, project, client, capacity, and available funding and resources. The Community-Engaged Research Framework is a model that teams can tailor as needed to their specific research, needs, context, and communities under inquiry. This Equity Brief shares NORC’s Community-Engaged Research Framework. A subsequent equity brief will discuss strategies for putting the framework into practice.

Download This Equity Brief

Acknowledgements.

This Community-Engaged Research Framework was made possible with funding from NORC’s Diversity, Racial Equity, and Inclusion (DREI) Research Innovation Fund. We thank the following:

• Work group members: Manal Sidi, Anna Schlissel, Chandria Jones, James Iveniuk, Jocelyn Wilder, and Stefan Vogler for their contributions to framework development. 
• NORC reviewers: Roy Ahn, Michelle Johns, Carly Parry, and Vince Welch. 
• External reviewers: Carmen Hughes, Health IT Division Director, National Center for Primary Care, Morehouse School of Medicine and Hager Shawkat, Program Director, Sauti Yetu Center for African Women. 

[i] Inclusive & Equitable Research are “the methods of practice for Equity Science that is collaborative research embracing a range of theoretical frameworks and mixed methods that are focused on centering and empowering people and communities under inquiry and democratizing the research process to promote equity.” Johnson-Turbes, A., Jones, C., Johns, M.M., & Welch, V. (2022). Inclusive and Equitable Research Framework [Unpublished Manuscript]. Center on Equity Research, NORC at the University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

[ii] A “team” consists of individuals, community-based organizations, researchers, evaluators, community leaders, and other key individuals or entities partners as determined by the project.

[iii] “Do No Harm,” a principle requiring healthcare providers to consider if the risk of their actions will hurt a patient versus improve a patient’s condition, is central to healthcare. Its origins trace back to the Hippocratic Oath and its development in the 1990s by Mary Anderson as an approach to working on conflict affected situations. The term is widely used (and sometimes, misused) to the design and conduct of research to ensure inclusivity and advance equity. In social science research, the interpretation of “do no harm” should also weigh the risk of harming an individual or potential benefits from data collection, analysis, or results dissemination. Like in medicine, the goal of research should be to advance equity and promote wellbeing, in line with beneficence. See Kinsinger FS. Beneficence and the professional’s moral imperative. J Chiropr Humanit. Published online 2009.

[iv] For example, Glover et al 2020’s Framework for Identifying and Mitigating the Equity Harms of COVID-19 Policy Interventions adapts the idea of “duty to warn” for research to inform communities about potential harm.

[v] Cultural responsiveness is the “ability to learn from and relate respectfully to people from your own and other cultures,” which promotes increased level of comfort, knowledge, freedom, capacity, and resources and knowledge. [23]

[vi] Cultural humility is the practice of self-evaluation and self-reflection to examine our own biases, acknowledgement and shift of power dynamics and imbalances, and accountability for one’s own actions as well as those of its organization or institution. [12]

[vii] Capacity building refers to building capacity, knowledge, and skills, of someone, usually a community person, to a research team. [21] Capacity bridging expands this notion to acknowledge that one person can bring many things to their position on a team. [21] It also acknowledges the reciprocity of knowledge sharing between academics, researchers, community-based researchers, and individuals—so that all members are learning from each other. [21] This term was coined by the AHA Centre. 

[viii] Positive Marginality promotes the idea that injustice is rooted in structural determinants rather than personal or community behavior. It promotes the idea that “belonging to a non-dominant cultural or demographic group can be advantageous rather than oppressive.” [24]

[1]  Wilder Foundation. Using a Framework for Community-Engaged Research. Published 2018. Accessed December 12, 2022.

[2] Nind M. What Is Inclusive Research. Bloomsbury Academic; 2014.

[3] International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research. What Is Participatory Health Research? (PDF) ; 2013. Accessed January 1, 2024.

[4] New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Community Engagement Framework (PDF) ; 2017. Accessed January 2, 2024.

[5] Michigan Public Health Institute (MPHI), Michigan Health Endowment Fund. Community Engagement & Collective Impact Phase 1 Environmental Scan (PDF). Accessed January 2, 2024.

[6] Black Health Equity Working Group. A Data Governance Framework for Health Data Collected from Black Communities in Ontario. ; 2021. Accessed January 2, 2024. 

[7] McDonald MA. Practicing Community-Engaged Research (PDF). Duke Center for Community Research. Published 2009. Accessed December 11, 2022. 

[8] NIH Publication No. 11-7782. Principles of Community Engagement Second Edition (PDF) ; 2011. Accessed December 12, 2022. 

[9] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATSDR’s Community Engagement Playbook (PDF). Accessed January 1, 2024.

[10] Ross L, Brown J, Chambers J, et al. Key Practices for Community Engagement in Research on Mental Health or Substance Use (PDF). Accessed December 11, 2022.

[11] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A Practitioners Guide for Advancing Health Equity: Community Strategies for Preventing Chronic Disease (PDF) ; 2013. Accessed December 12, 2022. 

[12] Hughes-Hassell S, Rawson CH, Hirsh K. Project READY: Reimagining Equity & Access for Diverse Youth, Module 8: Cultural Competence & Cultural Humility. University of North Carolina, Institute of Museum and Library Services. Accessed December 13, 2022. 

[13] NORC. Community Engagement Panel: Community Engagement through Participatory Analysis.

[14] Wilder J, Agboola F, Vogler S, Rugg G, Iveniuk J. Chicago Community Alliance: Guidelines for Creating Community Engaged Research.; 2022.

[15] Sheridan S, Schrandt S, Forsythe L, Hilliard T, Paez K, Advisory Panel on Patient Engagement (2013 inaugural panel). The PCORI Engagement Rubric: Promising Practices for Partnering in Research (PDF). Ann Fam Med. Published online 2017:165-170. Accessed February 14, 2024.

[16] Jamshidi E, Morasae EK, Shahandeh K, et al. Ethical Considerations of Community-based Participatory Research: Contextual Underpinnings for Developing Countries. Int J Prev Med. 2014;5(10):1328-1336.

[17] Jones Mcmaughan D, Dolwick Grieb SM, Kteily-Hawa R, Key KD. Promoting and Advocating for Ethical Community Engagement: Transparency in the Community-Engaged Research Spectrum (PDF). Accessed February 6, 2024. 

[18] Goodman LA, Thomas KA, Serrata JV, et al. Power through Partnerships: A CBPR Toolkit for Domestic Violence Researchers. National Resource Center on Domestic Violence ; 2017. Accessed February 6, 2024. 

[19] Marquez E, Smith S, Tu T, Ayele S, Haboush-Deloye A,, Lucero J. A Step-by-Step Guide to Community-Based Participatory Research (PDF) ; 2022. Accessed February 6, 2024.

[20] Lo L, Aron LY, Pettit KLS, Scally CP. Mutual Accountability Is the Key to Equity-Oriented Systems Change How Initiatives Can Create Durable Shifts in Policies and Practices Background and Mutual Accountability Framework.; 2021.

[21] AHA Centre. Capacity Bridging Fact Sheet ; 2018. 

[22] CDAC Network. The CDAC Capacity Bridging Initiative Facilitating Inclusion and Maximising Collaboration in CCE/AAP (PDF). Accessed February 6, 2024.

[23] Kozleski E, Harry B. Cultural, Social, and Historical Frameworks That Influence Teaching and Learning in U.S. Schools ; 2005.

[24] Streets VN. Reconceptualizing Women’s STEM Experiences: Building a Theory of Positive Marginality. Vol Dissertation ; 2016. Accessed December 13, 2022. 

NORC at the University of Chicago conducts research and analysis that decision-makers trust. As a nonpartisan research organization and a pioneer in measuring and understanding the world, we have studied almost every aspect of the human experience and every major news event for more than eight decades. Today, we partner with government, corporate, and nonprofit clients around the world to provide the objectivity and expertise necessary to inform the critical decisions facing society.

Research Divisions

• NORC Health

Departments, Centers & Programs

• Center on Equity Research
• Petry S. Ubri
• Health Equity

Want to work with us?

Explore NORC Health Projects

Incident-level data of police use of force.

Incident-level use of force and officer-involved shooting database across 26 law enforcement agencies spread across the U.S.

ASCEND for Veteran Suicide Prevention

A recurring national surveillance study to inform efforts to combat Veteran suicides

Dementia DataHub: Visualizing Diagnosed Dementia in Medicare

The nation’s first data system reporting cases of people with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 30 March 2021

Exploring community engaged research experiences and preferences: a multi-level qualitative investigation

• Hae-Ra Han   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9419-594X 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Ashley Xu 1 ,
• Kyra J. W. Mendez 1 ,
• Safiyyah Okoye 3 ,
• Joycelyn Cudjoe 4 ,
• Mona Bahouth 1 , 5 ,
• Melanie Reese 2 , 6 ,
• Lee Bone 2 , 3 &
• Cheryl Dennison-Himmelfarb 1 , 2  

Research Involvement and Engagement volume  7 , Article number:  19 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

20k Accesses

35 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

Community engagement may make research more relevant, translatable, and sustainable, hence improving the possibility of reducing health disparities. The purpose of this study was to explore strategies for community engagement adopted by research teams and identify areas for enhancing engagement in future community engaged research.

The Community Engagement Program of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research hosted a forum to engage researchers and community partners in group discussion to reflect on their diverse past and current experiences in planning, implementing, and evaluating community engagement in health research . A total of 50 researchers, research staff, and community partners participated in five concurrent semi-structured group interviews and a whole group wrap-up session. Group interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using content analysis.

Four themes with eight subthemes were identified. Main themes included: Community engagement is an ongoing and iterative process; Community partner roles must be well-defined and clearly communicated; Mutual trust and transparency are central to community engagement; and Measuring community outcomes is an evolving area. Relevant subthemes were: engaging community partners in various stages of research; mission-driven vs. “checking the box”; breadth and depth of engagement; roles of community partner; recruitment and selection of community partners; building trust; clear communication for transparency; and conflict in community engaged research.

The findings highlight the benefits and challenges of community engaged research. Enhanced capacity building for community engagement, including training and communication tools for both community and researcher partners, are needed.

Peer Review reports

Plain ENGLISH summary

Involving communities in the research process can make better the way research is planned, carried out, and used. With growing interest and support for community engagement, it is important to understand the views and insights of people who experienced community engaged research. To explore the key lessons learned by community engaged research teams, we held five group interview sessions with 50 research investigators, research staff, and community partners. Our findings showed that community engagement is not static but a dynamic, ongoing process. Community partners felt that involving them earlier and in all aspects of the research process would make for better science. Researchers were often torn between “checking the box” to meet community engagement requirements set by the funder of their research and engaging community partners in various stages of research to advance the scientific mission because of time pressure. There were strong themes around clearly defined community partner roles as well as mutual trust and transparency, as they were considered central to successful engagement of communities in research. Related, participants noted that conflict between the researchers and community partners is a familiar part of the community engaged research process. Two common sources of tension were misaligned research priorities between researchers and community partners and lack of communication about study results. Lastly, there was little agreement between researchers about how to measure community engaged research impact outcomes or which impact outcomes matter the most. Our findings support the need for training and communication tools for both community and researcher partners.

Introduction

Community engagement is defined as the process of meaningfully involving communities affected by a research finding in the research process [ 1 ]. Community engagement in research is recognized as a key process to improve the way the research is prioritized, translated, and used in a real-life setting, and can reduce health disparities [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Community engagement can occur across all stages of research including identifying study topics, planning and designing the study, strengthening recruitment strategies, collecting and analyzing data, and interpreting and disseminating findings. Several United States federal health agencies including the National Institutes of Health and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute offer funding for community and other stakeholder engaged research, highlighting growing interest and support at the national level [ 6 ].

While evidence regarding the methods of community engagement is increasing, detailed information about the role and scope of community engagement or specific approaches to successful community engagement across the full spectrum of the research cycle is still limited [ 7 ]. Additionally, a systematic review of clinical trials that report patient engagement for the purposes of research revealed that an estimated less than 1% of clinical trials engage patients in the research process and that engagement of minorities occurred in only about a quarter of trials [ 8 ]. Growing interest in the participation and contributions of community involvement make it an opportune time to examine the key success strategies adopted by research teams and other lessons learned, and to consider the implications for future community engaged health research.

One of the goals of the National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program is to promote knowledge translation by engaging patients and communities in the research process. The Community Engagement Program of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research—Hopkins CTSA—hosted a forum to engage researchers and community partners in a dialogue to reflect on their past and current experiences in a variety of aspects of community engaged research . This paper reports the main themes identified from semi-structured group discussions among diverse forum participants in relation to their past and current experiences in planning, implementing, and evaluating community engaged research .

Participants and setting

Group discussions were chosen to identify norms of research teams in their conduct of community engaged research. The forum was publicized to researchers, research staff, and community partners within the greater Maryland-Washington region through email invites using existing lists and word of mouth. In order to ensure diversity in our forum participants, we also sent out personal, verbal, and email invitations to 100 researchers and community partners conducting community engaged research. The forum was also publicized during the public announcement section of meetings hosted by community advisory boards and local agencies. A total of 36 researchers and 14 community members participated in five concurrent group discussion sessions. Researcher participants consisted of research staff (e.g., research program coordinators, research assistants), post-doctoral fellows, and faculty investigators. Community participants included patient consultants and prior study subjects. About 86% of forum participants indicated that they were involved in a community or other stakeholder engaged research project at the time of the forum, and 59% had prior exposure to community engaged research.

A planning committee was formed to develop the goals, agenda and format of the forum. The planning committee included key faculty and staff from the Hopkins CTSA. Also included were members of the Johns Hopkins Community Research Advisory Council—a research review committee consisting of community residents, representatives of local community organizations, and community advocates. The planning committee met over a 3-month time period for a total of 12 meetings and developed forum goals and objectives as well as format, content, and discussion methods. The planning committee set the main goal of the forum to bring together investigators, patients, community members, and other stakeholders to share their experiences working together on research that addresses health and social issues that impact Greater Baltimore, Maryland. The 3-h forum began with opening by Director of Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, followed by the keynote presentation by a director of one of the health disparities research centers at the Johns Hopkins University. Participants were then asked to join one of five breakout groups to discuss the following topics: 1) identification and selection of community partners; 2) community partner roles and responsibilities; 3) approaches to promoting community engagement; 4) process and impact evaluation of engagement; and 5) scope of community engagement (see Table  1 for example questions). The forum planning committee grouped the participants into five breakout discussion groups based on their topical preferences, past experiences, and their expertise that were collected during registration. Following the breakout sessions, forum participants reconvened and representatives from each breakout group briefly summarized their discussion and presented the key themes of their respective breakout group discussion.

Four of the five breakout groups included both researchers and community members. The fifth group included community members only in order to maximize comfort and sharing of relevant experiences by community members. Each breakout group included 7–11 members and had a moderator to facilitate the discussion (except for the community member-only group which had two co-moderators—one community leader and one researcher), a note taker to transcribe key discussion points for the facilitation of post breakout discussion report out, and two recording devices to record discussion content. Moderators were all well-established researchers with prior and/or current community engaged projects. They had experiences in working with community members and had prior experiences in moderating group discussions. The moderators had specific instructions with a semi-structured discussion guide to follow in order to maximize the exchange of information and facilitate productive discussion. The note takers were all doctoral students who had previous experiences in qualitative research. They were all briefed and trained on the forum purpose and methods. The duration of each group discussion was 1 h. Forum participants provided written permission to audio record the discussion and transcribe notes. The Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board considered this a quality improvement project and waived it from a full review.

Each group discussion was audio recorded and transcribed verbatim by the original note takers. Following transcription, qualitative content analysis was performed by identifying common themes across group discussions. A standard theme-based content analysis approach was used to analyze the discussion results [ 9 ]. Relevant phrases and statements from each group discussion were identified. Phrases and concepts expressed by more than one participant were considered validated and were included in the analysis, with all of the validated phrases and concepts sorted into thematic groups according to similarity. The transcriptions were then read multiple times, key phrases that provided specific information relevant to the research questions were highlighted, and key themes were identified and supported by direct quotes.

We identified four themes and eight subthemes from the forum. Main themes included: Community engagement is an ongoing and iterative process; Community partner roles must be well-defined and clearly communicated; Mutual trust and transparency are central to community engagement; and Measuring community engagement outcomes is an evolving area. Each theme with accompanying subthemes are detailed in the following section.

Community engagement is an ongoing and iterative process

Forum participants indicated that the amount of time community partners were engaged and the process of engaging community partners were different at various stages of research. The perceived importance and desire to be involved in the designing and planning stage was discussed more frequently than the desire to be involved in the other stages. Engaging in early phases of research was important to identify a problem and formulate the appropriate research questions. We identified three subthemes in relation to community engagement process: Engaging community in various stages of research, mission-driven vs. checking the box, and breadth and depth of engagement.

Engaging community partners in various stages of research

“We should be engaged in all stages of the research process” was a universal and oft-repeated sentiment within the Community partner group. Community partners felt researchers should be cognizant that community engagement is an iterative process, and that researchers’ ability to include community members and other stakeholders in all aspects of the research process is the key to success. In particular, community partners expressed that involving them earlier in the research process would make for better science:

“I think the framework is critical. The way that the research question is framed is critical. And I think that the community and the specific community, should be involved in developing the research question. Not too many folks would find fault with efforts to improve that disease or whatever may be, but if it’s not framed so that it applies … ” (Participant 6; Member of community research advisory council)

Researchers discussed actively engaging community partners in research through a series of ongoing, interactive process. Having open community forums (i.e., local forums of residents and community groups to identify issues faced by particular communities and neighborhoods and work together to address those issues) was one method to get community partners on same page, understand the needs of the community, and develop trust and rapport with the community. One researcher noted:

“I will say that the iterative process can actually be big advantage … I think that’s an incentive at least for most of the individuals that I have worked with that they really appreciate how their ideas have taken shape and how their input has been utilized. I think that can make things take a little bit more time but ultimately it is beneficial.” (Participant 1; Research investigator)

Mission-driven versus checking the box

Engaging community partners in all stages of research, however, was challenging at times. Participants discussed the importance of community engagement to advance the scientific mission. Yet, researchers stated that some grant mechanism requirements seem to have a list of community engagement requirements throughout the research study that may not always be productive to the project nor respectful of community partner time. Researchers noted that they do not want to waste community partners’ time unless there is a clear need for their feedback building on their skillset or life experiences. Valuing participant time was highlighted as one of the most difficult but important aspects of conducting research with community partners:

“I think the most challenging part of our current research is for the patients that I pushed so hard to get, for them to care about this really high level, you know, methodologic question … We don’t have monthly meetings … We try to call on them for mission driven things … We are very strategic about what we ask for [community partners] to provide input on … we don’t just waste their time just for the sake of checking a box.” (Participant 3; Research investigator)

Breadth and depth of engagement

Overall, community engagement was centered around identifying a research question or problem. Participants agreed that having communities identify research questions or problems is the most effective and pragmatic way of conducting community-based research. This process would ensure community buy-in when researchers decide to plan future studies in these same communities. One community member remarked on the good back and forth communication between community members and researchers present when she participated in a group of people living with high blood pressure that consulted researchers on relevant research questions:

“So that meant a lot to us for the fact, OK, you’re listening, and you’re actually developing something that’s going to, you know, cause I think what they did was they did something that was a consensus of what all of us had said. So we were really encouraged by it, and so when it comes time to actually do the study we want to be a part of the study, you know. ” (Participant 4; Patient).

Community partner roles must be well-defined and clearly communicated

Researchers expressed the need to consider the role of the community partners before beginning the research process—what is a community partner, the role of community partners, and the best ways to identify and recruit them. There were two subthemes directly addressing these questions: Roles of community partners and recruitment and selection of community partners.

Roles of community partners

Often, a bidirectional relationship with the community helped researchers determine the role of community partners. Participants noted that it is important to distinguish the role of community partners, as they are the liaisons that bring the researchers into the community while also acting as advisors, decision makers, and validators. Some participants called a community partner, the “mayor of the block,” the person that people in the community go to or someone who would be recognized by the community, and could “hold their own” in discussions about the community. This person would assist in translating what is going on in the community and monitor checks and balances.

The researchers in this discussion underscored the importance of clear communication about each community partner’s role to assure use of common language and clarity of roles in order to optimize the partnership and research. A research staff member talked about the importance of clarity in communication about the community partner roles by stating:

“We can be clear … I feel sometimes that there is a sense of, um people because they [community partners] don’t know what’s expected of them, feeling like they are not doing what they are supposed to be doing or that they’re we’re not...so we want to avoid that.” (Participant 9; Research staff).

Recruitment and selection of community partners

Community participants discussed the various ways they first became involved in research and collaborated with research teams. A common theme was engagement in research as a form of advocacy for a medical condition of interest. A community partner, the parent of a child with autism, shared her experience:

“I knew about clinicaltrials.gov , discovered a trial, participated in that trial and then subsequently asked to share my PHI [protected health information] for further research purposes and that was sort of the first time that I felt like I was asked by the research community to share information about my son’s autism and how it affects our family and so forth.” (Participant 11; Parent of a patient).

From the researcher perspective, it was important to first identify the type of community partner that the study requires and then to discuss who is the individual community member. Funding announcements, dissemination and implementation strategies, and knowing the skill sets of the individual community members were useful for selecting community partners. Nevertheless, difficulty identifying the right people to serve as community partners was a common challenge identified by researchers. Participants acknowledged the importance of relying on community resources and various stakeholders to identify and recruit community partners. For example, working with spiritual leaders and health departments, as well as getting to know and building trust with a community helped to identify community partners. To this end, participants noted that it would be ideal to the research team to establish presence and courtship to the community of interest and establish a relationship. Being active, involved, and partnering with community-based organizations would increase exposure and, in turn, enhance community partner engagement.

“ Having a conversation early on about what are your networks and really documenting that and understanding the kinds of networks that everyone brings to the table and how you can connect with those kinds of individuals or groups so that you can have those relationships built in advance so that when you get to the end of the process you can talk about your findings, you are not scrambling. You’ve established that.” (Participant 13; Research staff).

Mutual trust and transparency are central to community engagement

Participants noted that central to conducting community engaged research is the need to develop trust and value the unique contributions of the community partners who are invested in the project. The need to develop trust between researchers and community partners was a universal priority for forum participants. Subthemes to discuss trust to promote community engagement were: building trust, clear communication for transparency, and conflict in community engaged research.

Building trust

Participants stressed the importance of building trust long-term with the community and not coming to the partnership without consideration of community partners’ agendas. Building trust among community members and other stakeholders was also noted as an important aspect of conducting ethical and effective health research:

“That does make a huge difference … when the community sees somebody there, not with their hands out but actually wanting to be there month in and month out so when you do come calling or knocking or you need support, you have the stakeholders that relationship built that you can go to the head, the leadership of the community and they know you and they trust you.” (Participant 8; Member of community advisory council).

Clear communication for transparency

Participants underscored that researchers must make the research process as transparent as possible to community members. This included clear, honest and transparent communication with community members about funding, study findings, study team commitment to the community, duration of the study, and the overall goals of the study. Some community members felt, however, there was a lack of information from researchers to participants regarding results of the study.

“They very often don’t even let you know what, why they collected it, and how it impacted the analysis and then what they’re going to do with it. We never hear that part …” (Participant 5; Patient and member of community research advisory council).

Conflict in community engaged research

Researchers acknowledged that conflict between the researchers and community partners is a familiar part of the community engaged research process. Two sources of tension discussed by community partners were misaligned research priorities between researchers and community partners and lack of communication about study results. Researchers and community partners noted, however, that conflict was not always reported. When it was reported, it was not always clear how to manage conflict:

“I’ve been thinking a lot about [conflict] in many different [ways], but … as with muscles and anything, it is essential for growth and you need pain and destruction to move on. That’s how you know how you exercise well. When your muscles are torn and they need to regrow and repair. Otherwise you haven’t worked out enough... It’s the same for group engagement ... So how to manage [conflict] I don’t know but … that’s key.” (Participant 17; Research investigator).

Measuring community engagement impact outcomes is an evolving area

Researchers discussed a variety of community engagement outcomes they believed should be measured, such as participant attendance at meetings or activities, community partner needs, conflicts and conflict resolution, the amount of money and funding raised by community partners, and community partner self-efficacy. The researchers acknowledged it is easier to measure and evaluate short-term community engaged research outcomes like impact on study design rather than impact on health or impact of community engaged research on a community. However, they noted the lack of a commonly accepted impact measurement framework to guide the measurement of community engaged research for its impact. There was little agreement between researchers about how to measure community engaged research impact outcomes or which impact outcomes matter the most. Community engaged research might lack a commonly accepted impact measurement framework because it is an emerging field or as a result of differing goals of engagement that guide the evaluation of impact outcomes between projects. In the discussion about impact measurement, a researcher stated:

“What if we did this on the principle of justice? How would you measure justice? We get back to what you said about the goals. The goal is to incorporate justice, and that’s really why we are doing it. Can you measure something like that or do you want to be democratic. Or how would you measure whether your process was democratic and just or to some extent inclusiveness? It’s very hard to measure these types of things.” (Participant 20; Research investigator).

Researchers and policy-makers alike increasingly recognize the importance of seeking diverse and inclusive perspectives in translational research. Nonetheless, limited information is available about the role and scope of community engagement or specific approaches to community engagement across the full spectrum of the research cycle [ 7 ]. In particular, this paper offers the diverse perspectives of research investigators, staff, and community partners actively involved in community engaged research. This forum discussion allowed these diverse forum participants an opportunity to share their experiences and perspectives about the benefits and challenges of community engaged research. Our participants noted that community engagement is an ongoing and iterative process to which mutual trust and transparency are central and that the roles of community partners must be well-defined and clearly communicated for the engagement to be successful. These main themes are overall consistent with the key principles of engagement (i.e., reciprocal relationships, partnerships, co-learning, and transparency-honesty-trust) as highlighted in the recent literature [ 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 ].

Whereas all forum participants recognized the benefits of community engaged research, some of the subthemes such as engaging community in various stages of research suggest the need for closer dialogue between researchers and community partners in earlier phases of research. It was interesting to note that researchers felt engagement should happen less, once the research started; it was important for them to not waste community partners’ time by focusing on “mission driven things.” We did not find a similar concern about time burden among community partners. An essential element of community engaged research is the meaningful participation of a broadly representative group of stakeholders whose contributions are sought through all phases of the research, beginning with the planning and research question [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Indeed, the researcher participants in the forum noted that the most effective community engaged research involved community partners to identify a problem and formulate the appropriate research questions. Some of the data driven approaches such as the discrete choice experiment—a quantitative technique to uncover how individuals value selected attributes of a program by asking them to state their choice over different hypothetical alternatives [ 15 ]—may be useful to elicit community preferences as a way of enhancing their engagement in the early phase of research. For example, a recent systematic review [ 16 ] revealed that the discrete choice experiment, when applied to designing and characterizing therapies in the planning phase of research, resulted in increased acceptability and appropriateness.

Engagement in “all stages of the research process” came through as a strong theme within the Community partner group. Community partners in the forum appreciated the “back and forth” interaction between researchers and community members. A mixed methods study [ 17 ] showed that researchers do not routinely give feedback to community partners. Yet, community partners who receive feedback are motivated for further engagement as they feel it supports their learning and development while prompting researchers to reflect on the impact of community partners [ 17 ]. One of the ways in which researchers can provide such feedback would be to bring study findings back to the community—a lacking area in the research process, as noted by the community members. A survey of 109 community partners involved in health research with academic institutions [ 18 ] reported “research results disseminated to the community” as one of the top indicators of successful community engagement. Taken together, these findings suggest the need for culturally relevant and appropriate strategies to promote mutual feedback and better integration of community partners in the research process.

Many of the challenges discussed by the forum participants in the subthemes of mission-driven vs. checking the box, breadth and depth of engagement, and conflict in community engaged research occurred because priorities, motivations, and ways of working differed between researchers and community partners, which caused conflict and power struggles. Some of the practical issues associated with these subthemes (e.g., difficulty recruiting a set of experienced partners well connected to the target community or patient group, long-term commitment needed from partners, and time and cost limits imposed on studies) were recognized in a focus group study [ 19 ] in which problems connecting with the right person at the right time, individual member reluctance, and lack of skills and training were identified as main barriers to stakeholder engagement.

As suggested by our participants, clear and transparent communication is central to resolving potential conflicts in community engaged research. In particular, transparency in communication between community partners and researchers in terms of budget and research administrative processes [ 20 ] has been noted as key factors for improved community engaged research partnerships. Additionally, shared training opportunities for community partners and researchers may be helpful to build community partner skills about research and facilitate engagement on both sides [ 19 ]. The subtheme of recruitment and selection of community partners underscores the importance and need for the development of community capacity to facilitate more meaningful engagement in research. At the policy level, community engaged research needs to build in appropriate time, and funders should acknowledge this need as part of providing an appropriate context and budget for community engagement, to create the conditions where engagement has the potential to have a positive impact.

Forum participants considered a variety of impact assessments for their research and overall reported positive impact of community engagement on research, ensuring its appropriateness and relevance. They noted that it was difficult to have a common impact measure because of differing goals of engagement between projects. Indeed, a recent review of 68 studies addressing measures of community engagement reported that most studies used narrative descriptions of impact data [ 21 ]. Similarly, a mixed-methods study in which documents of 200 primary care research projects were examined and 191 researchers were surveyed noted qualitative reporting of community engaged research impact for study processes (e.g., designing methods or developing participant information) or on individual principal investigators (e.g., developing the grant application, managing the research, conducting the research, or the reputation of the principal investigator’s institution) [ 22 ]. A qualitative investigation [ 23 ] in the United Kingdom also revealed diverse views among stakeholders on what to measure and how to measure their impact. Taken together, the evidence base as to what constitutes adequate impact measures of community engaged research seems evolving. The findings suggest further substantive methodological development in terms of the way in which the impact of community engaged research is measured and reported, a clearer conceptualization of the nature of “impact,” and qualitative and quantitative methods for assessment of impact [ 23 ].

There are a number of study limitations to discuss. First, this was a convenience sample that was created for the purpose of the forum. In particular, we targeted researchers and community members who were already supportive of the idea of community involvement in research. Therefore, generalizability of the findings is limited. Additionally, we did not collect detailed sociodemographic information about the forum participants. The interpretation of the qualitative data might have looked different had we had this information such as age, working status (working/retired), or other relevant characteristics (roles, past experiences, etc.). Finally, it is possible that some of the moderators and notetakers of the concurrent discussion groups may not have been independent of the participants in his/her group and might have influenced the discussion either positively or negatively. We attempted to minimize the potential bias and impact of moderators and notetakers on the nature and direction of the discussion in each group by training them prior to the forum and offering them with an interview guide.

Successful implementation of healthcare interventions relies on community engagement at every stage, ranging from assessing and improving the acceptability of innovations to the sustainability of implemented interventions. In order to optimize the implementation of healthcare interventions, researchers, administrators, and policymakers must weigh the benefits and costs of complex multidimensional arrays of healthcare policies, strategies, and treatments [ 24 ]. This cannot be accomplished without meaningful engagement of key community partners throughout the research process. Challenges identified by the study teams underscore the need for enhanced community engagement training, joint planning of engagement activities, agreeing upon community partner roles and expectations in the early-planning stages of the proposed study, and increased opportunities for community participation in the research process.

Availability of data and materials

The data (anonymized transcripts from the group interviews used for the purpose of this analysis) that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Clinical and Translational Science Awards

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, Suleman R. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):637–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Forsythe LP, Ellis LE, Edmundson L, Sabharwal R, Rein A, Konopka K, Frank L. Patient and stakeholder engagement in the PCORI pilot projects: description and lessons learned. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(1):13–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3450-z .

Wennerstrom A, Springgate BF, Jones F, Meyers D, Henderson N, Brown A, Niyogi A, Martin D, Smith, III J, Kirkland AL, Jones L, Norris KC. Lessons on patient and stakeholder engagement strategies for pipeline to proposal awards. Ethn Dis. 2018;28(Suppl 2):303–10. https://doi.org/10.18865/ed.28.S2.303 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kwon SC, Tandon SD, Islam N, Riley L, Trinh-Shevrin C. Applying a community-based participatory research framework to patient and family engagement in the development of patient-centered outcomes research and practice. Transl Behav Med. 2018;8(5):683–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibx026 .

Silberberg M, Martinez-Bianchi V. Community and stakeholder engagement. Prim Care. 2019;46(4):587–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pop.2019.07.014 .

Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. FAQs for applicants. http://www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/how-apply/faqs-applicants#RESEARCH%21WE%20FUND . Accessed 3 Dec 2020.

Manafo E, Petermann L, Mason-Lai P, Vandall-Walker V. Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of patient engagement in health research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0282-4 .

Fergusson D, Monfaredi Z, Pussegoda K, Garritty C, Lyddiatt A, Shea B, Duffett L, Ghannad M, Montroy J, Murad MH, Pratt M, Rader T, Shorr R, Yazdi F. The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4(1):17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-018-0099-x .

Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci. 2013;15(3):398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048 .

Forsythe LP, Frank LB, Hemphill R, Tafari AT, Szydlowski V, Lauer M, Goertz C, Clauser S. Researchers, patients, and stakeholders evaluating comparative-effectiveness research: a mixed-methods study of the PCORI reviewer experience. Value Health. 2018;21(10):1161–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.03.018 .

Granados-Santiago M, Valenza MC, López-López L, Prados-Román E, Rodríguez-Torres J, Cabrera-Martos I. Shared decision-making and patient engagement program during acute exacerbation of COPD hospitalization: a randomized control trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(4):702–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.12.004 .

Sheridan S, Schrandt S, Forsythe L, Hilliard TS. Paez KA; advisory panel on patient engagement (2013 inaugural panel). The PCORI engagement rubric: promising practices for partnering in research. Ann Fam Med. 2017;15(2):165–70. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2042 .

Haynes SC, Rudov L, Nauman E, Hendryx L, Angove RSM, Carton T. Engaging Stakeholders to Develop a Patient-centered Research Agenda: Lessons Learned From the Research Action for Health Network (REACHnet). Med Care. 2018;56(Suppl 10):S27–32.

Article   Google Scholar  

Concannon TW, Fuster M, Saunders T, Patel K, Wong JB, Leslie LK, Lau J. A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(12):1692–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-2878-x .

Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in health care. BMJ. 2004;328(7436):360–1. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7436.360 .

Salloum RG, Shenkman EA, Louviere JJ, Chambers DA. Application of discrete choice experiments to enhance stakeholder engagement as a strategy for advancing implementation: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0675-8 .

Mathie E, Wythe H, Munday D, Millac P, Rhodes G, Roberts N, Smeeton N, Poland F, Jones J. Reciprocal relationships and the importance of feedback in patient and public involvement: a mixed methods study. Health Expect. 2018;21(5):899–908. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12684 .

Skinner JS, Williams NA, Richmond A, Brown J, Strelnick AH, Calhoun K, de Loney EH, Allen S, Pirie A, Wilkins CH. Community experiences and perceptions of clinical and translational research and researchers. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2018;12(3):263–71. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2018.0050 .

Harrison JD, Anderson WG, Fagan M, Robinson E, Schnipper J, Symczak G, Hanson C, Carnie MB, Banta J, Chen S, Duong J, Wong C, Auerbach AD. Patient and family advisory councils (PFACs): identifying challenges and solutions to support engagement in research. Patient. 2018;11(4):413–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0298-4 .

Carter-Edwards L, Grewe ME, Fair AM, Jenkins C, Ray NJ, Bilheimer A, et al. Recognizing cross-institutional fiscal and administrative barriers and facilitators to conducting community-engaged clinical and translational research. Acad Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003893 .

Bowen DJ, Hyams T, Goodman M, West KM, Harris-Wai J, Yu JH. Systematic review of quantitative measures of stakeholder engagement. Clin Transl Sci. 2017;10(5):314–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12474 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Blackburn S, McLachlan S, Jowett S, Kinghorn P, Gill P, Higginbottom A, Rhodes C, Stevenson F, Jinks C. The extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in primary care research: a mixed methods study. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4(1):16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-018-0100-8 .

Crocker JC, Boylan AM, Bostock J, Locock L. Is it worth it? Patient and public views on the impact of their involvement in health research and its assessment: a UK-based qualitative interview study. Health Expect. 2017;20(3):519–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12479 .

Norris JM, White DE, Nowell L, Mrklas K, Stelfox HT. How do stakeholders from multiple hierarchical levels of a large provincial health system define engagement? A qualitative study. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0625-5 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

The study was supported, in part, by grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR003098 and U54AI108332). Additional funding was received from the National Institute of Nursing Research (P30NR018093) and National Institute on Aging (R01AG062649). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, USA

Hae-Ra Han, Ashley Xu, Kyra J. W. Mendez, Mona Bahouth & Cheryl Dennison-Himmelfarb

The Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Community Engagement Program, Baltimore, MD, USA

Hae-Ra Han, Melanie Reese, Lee Bone & Cheryl Dennison-Himmelfarb

The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

Hae-Ra Han, Safiyyah Okoye & Lee Bone

Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC, USA

Joycelyn Cudjoe

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

Mona Bahouth

Older Women Embracing Life, Baltimore, MD, USA

Melanie Reese

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

HRH conceived of the study. All authors contributed to data acquisition. HRH, AX, KJWM, SO, JC, and MB analyzed and interpreted the qualitative data regarding the community engaged research experiences and preferences. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hae-Ra Han .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board considered this a quality improvement project and waived it from a full review.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Han, HR., Xu, A., Mendez, K.J.W. et al. Exploring community engaged research experiences and preferences: a multi-level qualitative investigation. Res Involv Engagem 7 , 19 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00261-6

Download citation

Received : 15 December 2020

Accepted : 09 March 2021

Published : 30 March 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00261-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Community engaged research
• Qualitative
• Group interviews

Research Involvement and Engagement

ISSN: 2056-7529

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Duke NetID Login
• 919.660.1100
• Duke Health Badge: 24-hour access
• Accounts & Access
• Databases, Journals & Books
• Request & Reserve
• Training & Consulting
• Request Articles & Books
• Renew Online
• Reserve Spaces
• Reserve a Locker
• Study & Meeting Rooms
• Course Reserves
• Pay Fines/Fees
• Recommend a Purchase
• Access From Off Campus
• Building Access
• Computers & Equipment
• Wifi Access
• My Accounts
• Mobile Apps
• Known Access Issues
• Report an Access Issue
• All Databases
• Article Databases
• Basic Sciences
• Clinical Sciences
• Dissertations & Theses
• Drugs, Chemicals & Toxicology
• Grants & Funding
• Interprofessional Education
• Non-Medical Databases
• Search for E-Journals
• Search for Print & E-Journals
• Search for E-Books
• Search for Print & E-Books
• E-Book Collections
• Biostatistics
• Global Health
• MBS Program
• Medical Students
• MMCi Program
• Occupational Therapy
• Path Asst Program
• Physical Therapy
• Population Health
• Researchers
• Community Partners

Conducting Research

• Archival & Historical Research
• Black History at Duke Health
• Data Analytics & Viz Software
• Data: Find and Share
• Evidence-Based Practice
• NIH Public Access Policy Compliance
• Publication Metrics
• Qualitative Research
• Searching Animal Alternatives
• Systematic Reviews
• Test Instruments

Using Databases

• JCR Impact Factors
• Web of Science

Finding & Accessing

• COVID-19: Core Clinical Resources
• Health Literacy
• Health Statistics & Data
• Library Orientation

Writing & Citing

• Creating Links
• Getting Published
• Reference Mgmt
• Scientific Writing

Meet a Librarian

• Request a Consultation
• Find Your Liaisons
• Register for a Class
• Request a Class
• Self-Paced Learning

Search Services

• Literature Search
• Systematic Review
• Animal Alternatives (IACUC)
• Research Impact

Citation Mgmt

• Other Software

Scholarly Communications

• About Scholarly Communications
• Publish Your Work
• Measure Your Research Impact
• Engage in Open Science
• Libraries and Publishers
• Directions & Maps
• Floor Plans

Library Updates

• Annual Snapshot
• Conference Presentations
• Contact Information
• Gifts & Donations

A Researcher's Guide to Community Engaged Research: What is CEnR?

What is cenr.

• Recommended Reading from Our Community Partners
• Glossary of Terms
• Engaging with Government
• Duke Publications
• Recorded Trainings on Community Engaged Research Practices
• Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2024 Abstract Collection - Clinical Research Forum
• Artificial Intelligence, Science and Research

Introduction

This guide is an introduction to Community Engaged Research (CEnR), which is defined by the WK Kellogg Community Health Scholars Program as "begin[ning] with a research topic of importance to the community, [and] having] the aim of combining knowledge with action and achieving social change to improve health outcomes and eliminate health disparities."

Here at the Clinical and Translational Science Institute's Community Engaged Research Initiative (CERI) , Duke faculty and staff work with researchers and community members to develop relationships, improve research, and create better health outcomes in our communities, particularly for historically disadvantaged groups of people.

This guide provides resources targeted toward researchers who are looking to learn more about CEnR and implement it in their work, and includes resources about two key concepts in CEnR: cultural competence/humility and plain language .

Diagram Note: Outreach is a preparatory step that does not formally constitute community engagement. 

Foundational Principles

Principles of community engagement .

(Developed by the NIH, CDC, ATSDR, and CTSA)

Be clear about the purposes of engagement and the populations you wish to engage

Become knowledgeable about the community, establish relationships, collective self-determination is the responsibility and right of the community, partnering is necessary to create change and improve health, recognize and respect the diversity of the community, mobilize community assets and develop community capacity to take action, release control of actions and be flexible to meet changing needs, collaboration requires long-term commitment.

For more information, please consult: 

How-To Guides, Manuals, and Toolkits

Community involvement in research, what does community-engaged research look like.

• Community stakeholders on project steering committees and other deliberative and decision-making bodies
• Community advisory boards
• Compensation for the community's time and other contributions
• Dissemination of results back out to the community
• Takes time! 

What community-engaged research is NOT: 

• Focus groups or interviews
• A research methodology
• A one-size fits all approach
• Appropriate for all research
• Recruitment of minority research participants
• A relinquishing of all insight or control by researchers

Key Concept: Cultural Competence and Cultural Humility

Key concept: plain language, for more information.

The CTSI Community Engaged Research Initiative (CERI) facilitates equitable, authentic, and robust community-engaged research to improve health.  Contact CERI if you are a Duke researcher who wants more information about CEnR or to access CERI's services, which include consultation services and community studios, community partnerships and coalitions, and CEnR education and training.

For more information about the resources in this guide, contact Leatrice Martin ([email protected]).

• Next: What is CEnR? >>
• Last Updated: Jul 15, 2024 12:54 PM
• URL: https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/CENR_researchers
• Duke Health
• Duke University
• Duke Libraries
• Medical Center Archives
• Duke Directory
• Seeley G. Mudd Building
• 10 Searle Drive
• [email protected]

Search form

• Table of Contents
• Troubleshooting Guide
• A Model for Getting Started
• Justice Action Toolkit
• Best Change Processes
• Databases of Best Practices
• Online Courses
• Ask an Advisor
• Subscribe to eNewsletter
• Community Stories
• YouTube Channel
• About the Tool Box
• How to Use the Tool Box
• Privacy Statement
• Workstation/Check Box Sign-In
• Online Training Courses
• Capacity Building Training
• Training Curriculum - Order Now
• Community Check Box Evaluation System
• Build Your Toolbox
• Facilitation of Community Processes
• Community Health Assessment and Planning
• Section 2. Community-based Participatory Research

Chapter 36 Sections

• Section 1. A Framework for Program Evaluation: A Gateway to Tools
• Section 3. Understanding Community Leadership, Evaluators, and Funders: What Are Their Interests?
• Section 4. Choosing Evaluators
• Section 5. Developing an Evaluation Plan
• Section 6. Participatory Evaluation

• Main Section

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.

This section is about participatory action research: what it is, why it can be effective, who might use it, and how to set up and conduct it.

What is community-based participatory research?

In simplest terms, community-based participatory research (for convenience, we’ll primarily call it CBPR for the rest of this section) 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

The opposite end of the participatory research continuum from the first level described involves community members creating their own research group – although they might seldom think of it as such – to find out about and take action on a community issue that affects them directly.

In this section, we’ll concern ourselves with the latter two types of participatory research – those that involve community members directly in planning and carrying out research, and that lead to some action that can influence the issue studied. This is what is often defined as community-based participatory research . There are certainly scenarios where other types of participatory research are more appropriate, or easier to employ in particular situations, but it’s CBPR that we’ll discuss here.

Employing CBPR for purposes of either evaluation or long-term change can be a good idea for reasons of practicality, personal development, and politics.

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.

Two common political results of the CBPR process:

• Through community-based participatory research, citizens can take more control of the direction of their communities
• Community researchers – especially those who are poor or otherwise disadvantaged – come to be viewed differently by professionals and those in positions of power. They have vital information, and the ability to use it, and thus become accepted as contributing members of the community, rather than as voiceless observers or dependents. They have gained a voice, because they understand that they have something to say. Furthermore, the research and other skills and the self-confidence that people acquire in a community-based participatory research process can carry over into other parts of their lives, giving them the ability and the assurance to understand and work to control the forces that affect them. Research skills, discipline, and analytical thinking often translate into job skills, making participatory action researchers more employable. Most important, people who have always seen themselves as bystanders or victims gain the capacity to become activists who can transform their lives and communities.

Community-based participatory research has much in common with the work of the Brazilian political and educational theoretician and activist, Paulo Freire. In Freire’s critical education process, oppressed people are encouraged to look closely at their circumstances, and to understand the nature and causes of their oppressors and oppression. Freire believes that with the right tools – knowledge and critical thinking ability, a concept of their own power, and the motivation to act – they can undo that oppression. Many people see this as the “true” and only reason for supporting action research, but we see many other reasons for doing so, and list some of them both above and below.

Action research is often used to consider social problems – welfare reform or homelessness, for example – but can be turned to any number of areas with positive results.

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.

Just as it can be used for different purposes, CBPR can be structured in different ways. The differences have largely to do with who comes up with the idea in the first place, and with who controls, or makes the decisions about, the research. Any of these possibilities might involve a collaboration or partnership, and a community group might well hire or recruit as a volunteer someone with research skills to help guide their work.

Some common scenarios:

• Academic or other researchers devise and construct a study, and employ community people as data collectors and/or analysts.
• A problem or issue is identified by a researcher or other entity (a human service organization, for instance), and community people are recruited to engage in research on it and develop a solution.
• A community based organization or other group gathers community people to define and work on a community issue of their choosing, or to evaluate a community intervention aimed at them or people similar to them.
• A problem is identified by a community member or group, others who are affected and concerned gather around to help, and the resulting group sets out to research and solve the problem on its own.

Why would you use community-based participatory research?

We’ve already alluded to a number of reasons why CBPR could be useful in evaluating a community intervention or initiative or addressing a community issue. We’ll repeat them briefly here, and introduce others as well.

Action research yields better and more nearly complete and accurate information from the community.

• 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.

Involving the community in research is more likely to meet community needs .

Action research makes a reasonable resolution or accurate evaluation more probable in two ways. First, by involving the people directly affected by the issue or intervention, it brings to bear the best information available about what’s actually happening. Second, it encourages community buy-in and support for whatever plans or interventions are developed. If people are involved in the planning and implementation of solutions to community issues, they’ll feel they own the process, and work to make it successful. It’s equitable, philosophically consistent for most grassroots and community-based organizations, and practical in that it usually yields the best results

Action research, by involving community members, creates more visibility for the effort in the community .

Researchers are familiar to the community, will talk about what they’re doing (as will their friends and relatives), and will thus spread the word about the effort.

Community members are more likely to accept the legitimacy of the research and buy into its findings if they know it was conducted by people like themselves, perhaps even people they know.

Citizens are more apt to trust both the truthfulness and the motives of their friends and neighbors than those of outsiders.

Action research trains citizen researchers who can turn their skills to other problems as well.

People who discover the power of research to explain conditions in their communities, and to uncover what’s really going on, realize that they can conduct research in other areas than the one covered by their CBPR project. They often become community activists, who work to change the conditions that create difficulty for them and others. Thus, the action research process may benefit the community not only by addressing particular issues, but by – over the long term – creating a core of people dedicated to improving the overall quality of its citizens’ lives.

Involvement in CBPR changes people’s perceptions of themselves and of what they can do .

An action research project can have profound effects on community researchers who are disadvantaged economically, educationally, or in other ways. It can contribute to their personal development, help them develop a voice and a sense of their power to change things, and vastly expand their vision of what’s possible for them and for the community. Such an expanded vision leads to an increased willingness to take action, and to an increase in their control over their lives.

Skills learned in the course of action research carry over into other areas of researchers’ lives .

Both the skills and the confidence gained in a CBPR project can be transferred to employment, education, child-rearing, and other aspects of life, greatly improving people’s prospects and well-being.

A participatory action research process can help to break down racial, ethnic, and class barriers .

 CBPR can remove barriers in two ways. First, action research teams are often diverse, crossing racial, ethnic, and class lines. As people of different backgrounds work together, this encourages tolerance and friendships, and often removes the fear and distrust. In addition, as integral contributors to a research or evaluation effort, community researchers interact with professionals, academics, and community leaders on equal footing. Once again, familiarity breaks down barriers, and allows all groups to see how much the others have to offer. It also allows for people to understand how much they often misjudge others based on preconceptions, and to begin to consider everyone as an individual, rather than as “one of those.”

A member of the Changes Project, a CBPR project that explored the impact of welfare reform on adult literacy and ESOL (English as a Second or Other Language), learners wrote in the final report: “What I learned from working in this project first off is, none of us are so great that change couldn’t help us be better people... I walked into the first meeting thinking I was the greatest thing to hit the pike and found that I, too, had some prejudices that I was not aware of. I thought that no one could ever tell me I wasn’t the perfect person to sit in judgment of others because I never had a negative thought or prejudiced bone in my body. Well, lo and behold, I did, and seeing it through other people’s eyes I found that I, too, had to make some changes in my opinions.

Action research helps people better understand the forces that influence their lives .

Just as Paulo Freire found in his work in Latin America, community researchers, sometimes as a direct result of their research, and sometimes as a side benefit, begin to analyze and understand how larger economic, political, and social forces affect their own lives. This understanding helps them to use and control the effects of those forces, and to gain more control over their own destinies.

Community based action research can move communities toward positive social change .

All of the above rationales described reasons for employing CBPR act to restructure the relationships and the lines of power in a community. They contribute to the mutual respect and understanding among community members and the deep understanding of issues that in turn lead to significant and positive social change.

Who should be involved in community-based participatory research?

The short answer here is people from all sectors of the community, but there are some specific groups that, under most circumstances, are important to include..

• People most affected by the issue or intervention under study . These are the people whose inclusion is most important to a participatory effort – both because it’s their inclusion that makes it participatory, and because of what they bring to it. These folks, as we discussed earlier, are closest to the situation, have better access to the population most concerned, and may have insights others wouldn’t have. In addition, their support is crucial to the planning and implementation of an intervention or initiative. That support is much more likely to be forthcoming if they’ve been involved in research or evaluation.
• Other members of the affected population . People who may not themselves be directly affected by the issue or intervention, but who are trusted by the affected population, can be useful members of a CBPR team.

A businessman from the Portuguese community in a small city was an invaluable member of an action research team examining the need for services in that community. He was quite successful, had graduated from college in the US, and needed no services himself, but his fluency in Portuguese, his credentials as a trusted member of the community, and his understanding of both the culture of the Portuguese residents and the culture of health and human service workers brought a crucial dimension to data gathering, analysis, and general information about the community.

• Decision makers. Involving local officials, legislators, and other decision makers from the very beginning can be crucial, both in securing their support, and in making sure that what they support is in fact what’s needed. If they’re part of the team, and have all the information that it gathers, they become advocates not just for addressing the issue, but for recognizing and implementing the solution or intervention that best meets the actual needs of the population affected.
• Academics with an interest in the issue or intervention in question . Academics who have studied the issue often have important information that can help a CBPR team better understand the data it collects. They usually have research skills as well, and can help to train other team members. At the same time, they can learn a great deal from community-based researchers – about the community and communities in general, about approaching people, about putting assumptions and preconceptions aside – and perhaps, as a result, increase the effectiveness of their own research

It’s important that they be treated, and treat everyone else, as equals. Everyone on a team has to view other members as colleagues, not as superiors or inferiors, or as more or less competent or authoritative. This can be difficult on both sides – i.e. making sure that officials, academics, or other professionals don’t look down on community members, and that community members don’t automatically defer to (or distrust) them. It may take some work to create an environment in which everyone feels equally respected and valued, but it’s worth the effort. Both the quality of the research and the long-term learning by team members will benefit greatly from the effort. (There are some circumstances where actual equality among all team members is not entirely possible. When community members are hired as researchers, for instance, the academic or other researcher who pays the bills has to exercise some control over the process. That doesn’t change the necessity of all team members being viewed as colleagues and treated with respect.)

• Health, human service, and public agency staff and volunteers .  Like the previous two groups, these people have both a lot to offer and – often – a lot to learn that will make them more sensitive and more effective at their jobs in the long run. They may have a perspective on issues in the community that residents lack because of their closeness to the situation. At the same time, they may learn more about the lives of those they work with, and better understand their circumstances and the pressures that shape their lives.
• Community members at large. This category brings us back to the statement at the beginning of this portion of the section that members of all sectors of the community should have the opportunity to be involved. That statement covers the knowledge, skills, and talent that different people bring to the endeavor; the importance of buy-in by all sectors of the community if any long-term change is to be accomplished; and what team members learn and bring back to their families, friends, and neighbors as a result of their involvement.

When should you employ community-based participatory research?

There are times when action research may not be appropriate, and there are times when it’s the best choice. how do you decide.

One criterion is the amount of time you have to do the research on the issue or intervention. Action research may take longer than traditional methods, because of the need for training, and because of the time it often takes for community researchers to adjust to the situation (i.e. to realize that their opinions and intuitions are important, even if they may not always be right, and that their conclusions are legitimate). If your time is limited, CBPR may not be the right option

Another consideration is the type of research that’s necessary. Action research lends itself particularly well to qualitative research. If you’re obligated to deliver complicated, quantitative results to a funder, for instance, you may want to depend on professional researchers or evaluators. Most CBPR isn’t oriented toward producing results couched in terms of statistical procedures. (This isn’t to say that action research teams can’t do quantitative research, but simply that it requires more training, and therefore time, and may require an outside source or an academic team member to crunch the numbers.)

Qualitative research

Relies on information that can’t be expressed in mathematical terms – descriptions, opinions, anecdotes, the comments of those affected by the issue under study, etc. The results of qualitative research are usually expressed as a narrative or set of conclusions, with the analysis backed up by quotes, observation notes, and other non-numerical data.

(Almost anything can be expressed in terms of numbers in some way. Interviewers, for instance, can count the number of references to a particular issue, or even record the number of times that an interviewee squirmed in his chair. Qualitative research, however, relies on elements that can’t be adequately – or, in many cases, at all – described numerically. The number of squirms may say something about how nervous an interviewee is, or it may indicate that he has to go to the bathroom. The interviewer will probably be able to tell the difference, but the numbers won’t.)

Quantitative research

 Depends on numbers – the number of people served by an intervention, for instance, the number that completed the program, the number that achieved some predetermined outcome (lowered blood pressure, employment for a certain period, citizenship), scores on academic or psychological or physical tests, etc. These numbers are usually then processed through one or more statistical operations to tell researchers exactly what they mean. (Some statistics may, for instance, help researchers determine precisely what part of an intervention was responsible for a particular behavior change.)

It may seem that quantitative research is more accurate, but that’s not always the case, especially when the research deals with human beings, who don’t always do what you expect them to. It’s often important to get other information in order to understand exactly what’s going on

Furthermore, sometimes there aren’t any numbers to work with. The Changes Project was looking at the possible effects of a change in the welfare system on adult learners. The project was conducted very early in the change process, in order to try to head off the worst consequences of the new system. There was very little quantitative information available at that point, and most of the project involved collecting information about the personal experiences of learners on welfare.

In other words, neither quantitative nor qualitative methods are necessarily “better,” but sometimes one is better than the other for a specific purpose. Often, a mix of the two will yield the richest and most accurate information.

It’s probably best and most effective to use action research when:

• There’s time to properly train and acclimate community researchers
• The research and analysis necessary relies on interviews, experience, knowledge of the community, and an understanding of the issue or intervention from the inside, rather than on academic skills or an understanding of statistics (unless you have the time and resources to teach those skills or the team includes someone who has them)
• You need an entry to the community or group from whom the information is being gathered
• You’re concerned with buy-in and support from the community
• Part of the purpose of using CBPR is to have an effect on and empower the community researchers
• Part of the purpose of using CBPR is to set the stage for long-term social change

How do you institute and carry out community-based participatory research?

Once you’ve decided to conduct an action research project, there are a number of steps to take to get it up and running. You have to find and train the participants; determine exactly what information you’re looking for and how to go about finding it; plan and carry out your research; analyze and report on your findings; translate the findings into recommendations; take, or bring about, action based on those recommendations; evaluate the process; and follow up

What follows assumes an ideal action research project with a structure, perhaps one initiated by a health or human service organization. A community group that comes together out of common interest probably would recruit by people already involved pulling in their friends, and probably wouldn’t do any formal training unless they invited a researcher to help them specifically in that way. The nature of your group will help you determine how – or whether – you follow each of the steps below.

Recruit a community research team

How you recruit a team will depend on the purpose of the project as well as on who might be most effective in gaining and analyzing information. A team may already exist, as in the example at the beginning of this section. Or a team may simply be a group that gets together out of common concerns. Many CBPR projects aim for a diverse team, with the idea that a mix of people will both provide the broadest range of benefit and allow for the greatest amount of personal learning for team members. Other projects may specifically draw only from a particular population – a language minority, those served by a certain intervention, those experiencing a particular physical condition.

It often makes sense for at least half the team to be composed of people directly affected by the issue or intervention in question. Those numbers both assure good contact with the population from which information needs to be gathered, and makes it less likely that community researchers will be overwhelmed or intimidated by other (professional) team members or by the task

Recruiting from within an organization or program may be relatively simple, because the pool of potential researchers is somewhat of a captive audience: you know where to find them, and you already have a relationship with them. Recruiting from a more general population , on the other hand, requires attention to some basic rules of communication.

• Use language that your audience can understand , whether that means presenting your message in a language other than English, or presenting it in simple, clear English without any academic or other jargon.
• Use the communication channels that your audience is most likely to pay attention to . An announcement in the church that serves a large proportion of your population, a program newsletter, or word-of-mouth might all be good channels by which to reach a particular population.
• Be culturally sensitive and appropriate . Couch your message in a form that is not only respectful of your audience’s culture, but that also speaks to what is important in that culture.
• Go where your audience is . Meet with groups of people from the population you want to work with, put out information in their neighborhoods or meeting places. Don’t wait for them to come to you.

Given all this, the best recruitment method is still face-to-face contact by someone familiar to the person being recruited.

Orient and train the research team

Orientation and training may be part of the same process, or they might be separate. The two have different purposes. Orientation is meant to give people a chance to ask questions and an overall picture of what is expected.

Orientation might include:

• Introductions all around, and an introductory activity to help team members get to know one another
• Explanation of community-based participatory research, and basic information about this project or evaluation
• Participants’ time commitment and the support available to them, if any. Are child care, transportation, or other support services provided or paid for?
• An opportunity to ask questions, or to discuss any part of the project or evaluation that team members don’t understand or agree with

Especially if the team is diverse, and especially if that diversity is one of education and research experience, an important aspect of the orientation is to start building the team, and to ensure that everyone sees it as a team of colleagues, rather than as one group leading or dominating or – even worse – simply tolerating another. Each person brings different skills and experience to the effort and has something to teach everyone else. Emphasizing that from the beginning may be necessary, not only to keep more educated members from dominating, but also to encourage less educated members not to be afraid to ask questions and give their opinions.

Training is meant to pass on specific information and skills that people will need in order to carry out the work of the research. There are as many models for training as there are teams to be trained. As noted above, orientation might serve as all or part of an introductory training session.   Training can take place all at once – in one or several multi-hour sessions on consecutive days – or over the whole period of the project, with each training piece leading to the activity that it concerns. It might be conducted by one person – who, in turn, could be someone from inside the organization or an outside facilitator – by a series of experts in different areas, or by the team members themselves. (In this last case, team members might, for instance, determine what they need to know, and then decide on and implement an appropriate way to learn it.)

Regardless of how it’s done, here are some general guidelines for training that are usually worth following:

• Find a comfortable space to hold the training
• Provide, or make sure that people bring, food and drink
• Take frequent, short breaks . It’s better for people’s concentration to take a three-minute break every half hour than a 20-minute break every three hours
• Structure the space for maximum participation and interaction - chairs in a circle, room to move around, etc.
• Vary the ways in which material is presented . People learn in a variety of ways – by hearing, by seeing, by discussion, by example (watching others), and by doing.  The more of these methods you can include, the more likely you are to hold people’s attention and engage everyone on the team.
• Use the training to build your team . Training is a golden opportunity for people to get to know and trust one another, and to absorb the guiding principles for the work.

The actual content of the training will, of course, depend on the project you’re undertaking, but general areas should probably include:

• Necessary research skills . These might include interview techniques, Internet searching, constructing a survey, and other basic research and information-gathering methods.
• Important information about the community or the intervention in question.
• Meeting and negotiation skills . Many of the people on your team may not have had the experience of participating in numerous meetings. They need time and support both to develop meeting skills – following discussion, knowing when it’s okay to interrupt, feeling confident enough to express their opinions – and to become comfortable with the meeting process.
• Preparing a report . This doesn’t necessarily mean drafting a formal document. Depending upon the team members, a flow chart, a slide show, a video, or a collage might be informative and powerful ways to convey research results, as might oral testimony or a sound recording.
• Making a presentation . Knowing what to expect, and learning how to make a clear and cogent presentation can make the difference between having your findings and recommendations accepted or rejected.

Determine the questions the research or evaluation is meant to answer

The questions you choose to answer will shape your research. There are many types of answers in either of these cases.

An evaluation can focus on process: What is actually being done, and how does that compare with what the intervention or initiative set out to do? It can focus on outcomes: Is the end result of the intervention what you intended it to be? Or it can try to look at both, and to decide whether the process in fact works to gain the desired outcome. An evaluation may also aim to identify specific elements of the process that have to be changed, or to identify a whole new process to replace one that doesn’t seem to be working

Research on a community issue also may be approached in a number of ways. You may simply be trying to find out whether a certain condition exists in your community, or to what extent it exists. You may be concerned with how, or how much, it affects the community, or what parts of the community it affects. You may be seeking a particular outcome, and the research questions you ask may be designed to help you reach that outcome.

Plan and structure your research activity

Given your time constraints, the capacity of your team, and the questions you’re considering, plan your research.

Your plan should include:

• The kind and amount of information-gathering that best suits your project (e.g., interviews, library research, surveys)
• Who will be responsible for what
• The timeline – i.e., deadlines for completing each phase of the plan
• How and by whom the information will be analyzed
• What the report of the research or evaluation will look like
• When, how, and to whom the report will be presented

Anticipate and prepare contingency plans for problems that might arise

An action research group, like any other, can have internal conflicts , as well as conflicts with external forces. People may disagree, or worse; some people may drop out, or may not do what they promised; people may not understand, or may choose not to follow the procedures you’ve agreed on. There will need to be guidelines to deal with each of these and other potential pitfalls.

Implement your research plan

Now that you've completed your planning, it's time to carry it out.

Prepare and present your report and recommendations

The report, as explained previously, may be a written document, or may be in some alternative form. If it’s an evaluation, it might be presented in one way to the staff of the intervention being evaluated, and in another to funders or the community, depending upon your purposes.

Some possibilities for presentation include:

• A press conference
• A community presentation
• A newspaper or newsletter article
• A written report to funders and/or other interested parties

Take, or try to bring about, appropriate action on the issue or intervention

Action can range from adjusting a single element of an intervention as a result of an evaluation, to writing letters to the editor, advocating with legislators, taking direct action (a demonstration, a lawsuit), and starting a community initiative that grows into a national movement. In most cases, a CBPR effort is meant to lead to some kind of action, even if that action is simply further research.

An action research project doesn’t end with the presentation, or even with action. The purpose of the research often has as much to do with the learning of the team members as it does with research results. Even where that’s not the case, the skills and methods that action researchers learn need to be cemented, so they can carry over to other projects.

• Evaluate the research process . This should be a collaborative effort by all team members, and might also include others (those who actually implement an evaluated intervention, for instance). Did things go according to plan? What were the strengths of the process? What were its weaknesses? Was the training understandable and adequate? What other support would have been helpful? What parts of the process should be changed?
• Identify benefits to the community or group that came about (or may come about) as a result of the research process . These may have to do with action, with making the community more aware of particular issues, or with creating more community activists.
• Identify team members’ learning and perceptions of changes in themselves . Some areas to consider are basic and other academic skills; public speaking; meeting skills; self-confidence and self-esteem; ability to influence the world and their own lives; and self-image (seeing themselves as proactive, rather than acted upon, for example).
• Maintain gains by keeping researchers involved . There are a number of ways to keep the momentum of a CBPR team going, including starting another project, if there’s a reason to do so; encouraging team members to be active on other issues they care about (and to suggest some potential areas, and perhaps make introductions that make it easier for them to do so); keeping the group together as a (paid) research consortium; or consulting, as a group, with other organizations interested in conducting action research.

CBPR is not always the right choice for an initiative or evaluation, but it’s always worthy of consideration. If you can employ it in a given situation, the rewards can be great.

Community-based participatory research can serve many purposes. It can supply accurate and appropriate information to guide a community initiative or to evaluate a community intervention. It can secure community buy-in and support for that initiative or intervention. It can enhance participants’ personal development and opportunities. It can empower those who are most affected by conditions or issues in the community to analyze and change them. And, perhaps most important, it can lead to long-term social change that improves the quality of life for everyone.

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.

Online Resources

The Action Catalogue is an online decision support tool that is intended to enable researchers, policy-makers and others wanting to conduct inclusive research, to find the method best suited for their specific project needs.

Action Research Electronic Reader  offers articles and links from the Graduate College of Management, Southern Cross University, New South Wales, Australia.

Appreciative Inquiry as a Mode of Action Research for Community Psychology by Neil M. Boyd and David S. Bright. In this article, the authors highlight the potential for rethinking approaches to community and social change interventions that draw on participatory action research at the organizational and community level.

Basic Guide to Evaluation  is a website that provides links to information about specific aspects of evaluation including methods, logic models, and overcoming major evaluation challenges.

Brown University Training Materials  include the  Community-Based Research and Environmental Justice Interventions: CBPR Best Practices and Intercultural Designs . The Northeast Education Partnership provides online access to PowerPoint training slides on topics in research ethics and cultural competence in environmental research. These have been created for professionals/students in environmental sciences, health, and policy; and community-based research. If you are interested in receiving an electronic copy of one the presentations, just download their Materials Request Form (found on the main Training Presentations page under "related files"), complete the form, and email it to [email protected] .

CBPR Toolkit  is a detailed resource provided by the AAPCHO. It is intended to be a handbook for community health centers and researchers interested in collaborative research activities.

CDC Evaluation Resources  provides an extensive list of resources for evaluation, as well as links to professional associations and key journals.

Chapter 6: Research Methods in the "Introduction to Community Psychology" describes the ecological lens in community research, the role of ethics, the differences between qualitative and quantitative research, and mixed methods research.

Chapter 18: Dissemination and Implementation in the "Introduction to Community Psychology" explains why “validated” and “effective” interventions are often never used, effective ways to put research findings to use in order to improve health, and advantages of participatory methods that provide more equitable engagement in the creation and use of scientific knowledge.

Community-Based Participatory Research  is a website designed by the National Institutes of Health to assist in integrating community-based participatory research into evaluation.

Developing and Sustaining Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships: A Skill Building Curriculum  provides guidance for developing and sustaining community-based participatory research partnerships.

Highlander Research and Education Center  is the grandfather of popular education and participatory action research organizations (founded in 1932). Highlander was a mainstay of the Civil Rights Movement in the US, and continues to provide training and support for participatory action research and social change.

The Society for Community Research and Action  (SCRA), Division 27 of the American Psychological Association, is an international organization devoted to advancing theory, research, and social action.

The  Interactive CBPR Conceptual Model  is a product of " Research for Improved Health: A National Study of Community-University Partnerships ", an in-depth investigation of promoters and barriers to successful Community Based Participatory Research. There are two ways to navigate the CBPR model. 1) an Instrument Matrix consisting of measurement tools that have been used, adapted or sampled by CBPR practitioners, and 2) a Variable Matrix consisting of specific individual items that have been used, adapted or sampled by CBPR practitioners based on literature.

International Center for Tropical Agriculture  provides information on the use of local action research groups to improve the lives of farmers and others in Latin America.

ISSE: Community Partnership Center  from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville links university resources with urban and rural grassroots community groups to understand and address the core problems facing low- and moderate-income communities.

Participatory Methods  is a website that provides resources to generate ideas and action for inclusive development and social change.

A Participatory Model for Evaluating Social Programs from the James Irvine Foundation.

Reflections on a Participatory Research Project: Young People of Refugee Background in an Arts-Based Program from Melbourne, Australia.

A Short Note on Participatory Research  provides a good synopsis of the principles of participatory research.

Skill-Building Curriculum  is an extensive online resource to community-based participatory research developed by the University of Washington.

Participatory Action Research by Caitlin Cahill.

Participatory Approach to Research  provides good information on levels of participatory involvement from the Community Adaptation and Sustainable Livelihoods program of the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Participatory Research  provides participatory research links from Dr. Bunyan Bryant, U. of Michigan.

Principles of Community Change, Second Edition , a CDC resource, is an online book that provides the principles for community engagement.

The  Research for Organizing  toolkit is designed for organizations and individuals that want to use participatory action research (PAR) to support their work towards social justice. PAR helps us to analyze and document the problems that we see in our communities; allows us to generate data and evidence that strengthens our social justice work and ensures that we are the experts about the issues that face our communities. In this toolkit you will find case studies, workshops, worksheets and templates that you can download and tailor to meet your needs.

The Role of Community-Based Participatory Research is a comprehensive website developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that is dedicated to providing information on CBPR.

Why the future belongs to community research is a video from TedX Talks, featuring Ronald Harvey. In his speech, he describes the role of community psychology in treating addiction.

Youth Participation in Evaluation Research - Urban Youth Building Community: Social Change and Participatory Research in Schools, Homes, and Community-Based Organizations.

Youth-led Participatory Action Research is an innovative approach to positive youth and community development based in social justice principles in which young people are trained to conduct systematic research to improve their lives, their communities, and the institutions intended to serve them.

Print Resources

Gosin, M., Dustman, P., Drapeau, A., & Harthun, M. (2003). Participatory action research: Creating an effective prevention curriculum for adolescents in the Southwestern US. Health Education Research, 18, 363-379.

Hacker, K., Tendulkar, S., A., Rideout, C., Bhuiya, N., Trinh-Shevrin, C., Savage, C. P….. DiGirolamo, A. (2012). Community capacity building and sustainability: Outcomes of community-based participatory research. Progress in community health partnerships: research, education, and action, 6(3), 349-360.

Ho, B. (2002). Application of participatory action research to family-school Intervention. (Research into Practice). School Psychology Review, 31(1), 106-121.

Jason, A., Christopher B., Renee R., & Davis, M.  (eds.) (2004). Participatory Community Research: Theories and Methods in Action . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (eds.) (2003).  Community-Based Participatory Research for Health . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Murphy, Frederick. (Ed.) (2013). Community Engagement, Organization, and Development for Public Health Practice . New York: Springer.

Newman, S. D., Andrews, J. O., Magwood, G. S., Jenkins, C., Cox, M., J., & Williamson, D. C. (2011). Community advisory boards in community-based participatory research: A synthesis of best processes. Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice, and Policy, 8(3), 1-11.

Ozer, E. J. & Douglas, L. (2012). The impact of participatory research on urban teens: An experimental evaluation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(1-2), 66-75.

Ozer, E. J., Ritterman, M., & Wanis, M. (2010). Participatory action research (PAR) in middle school: Opportunities, constraints, and key processes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1-2), 152-166.

Tolan, P., Christopher K., Chertok, F., & Jason, L. (eds.) (1990).  Researching Community Psychology: Issues of Theory and Methods . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 12 April 2018

Understanding community-based participatory research through a social movement framework: a case study of the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project

• Marie-Claude Tremblay   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4965-2515 1 ,
• Debbie H. Martin 2 ,
• Alex M. McComber 3 , 4 ,
• Amelia McGregor 3 &
• Ann C. Macaulay 4  

BMC Public Health volume  18 , Article number:  487 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

77k Accesses

104 Citations

24 Altmetric

Metrics details

A longstanding challenge of community-based participatory research (CBPR) has been to anchor evaluation and practice in a relevant theoretical framework of community change, which articulates specific and concrete evaluative benchmarks. Social movement theories provide a broad range of theoretical tools to understand and facilitate social change processes, such as those involved in CBPR. Social movement theories have the potential to provide a coherent representation of how mobilization and collective action is gradually developed and leads to systemic change in the context of CBPR. The current study builds on a social movement perspective to assess the processes and intermediate outcomes of a longstanding health promotion CBPR project with an Indigenous community, the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project (KDSPP).

This research uses a case study design layered on a movement-building evaluation framework, which allows progress to be tracked over time. Data collection strategies included document (scientific and organizational) review ( n  = 51) and talking circles with four important community stakeholder groups ( n  = 24).

Findings provide an innovative and chronological perspective of the evolution of KSDPP as seen through a social movement lens, and identify intermediate outcomes associated with different dimensions of movement building achieved by the project over time (mobilization, leadership, vision and frames, alliance and partnerships, as well as advocacy and action strategies). It also points to areas of improvement for KSDPP in building its potential for action.

While this study’s results are directly relevant and applicable to the local context of KSDPP, they also highlight useful lessons and conclusions for the planning and evaluation of other long-standing and sustainable CBPR initiatives. The conceptual framework provides meaningful benchmarks to track evidence of progress in the context of CBPR. Findings from the study offer new ways of thinking about the evaluation of CBPR projects and their progress by drawing on frameworks that guide other forms of collective action.

Peer Review reports

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is an approach to research that involves collective, reflective and systematic inquiry in which researchers and community stakeholders engage as equal partners in all steps of the research process with the goals of educating, improving practice or bringing about social change [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. At its core, CBPR questions the power relationships that are inherently embedded in Western knowledge production, advocates for power to be shared between the researcher and the researched, acknowledges the legitimacy of experiential knowledge, and focuses on research aimed at improving situations and practices [ 3 ]. This approach to research is recognized as particularly useful when working with populations that experience marginalization – as is the case for some Indigenous communities—because it supports the establishment of respectful relationships with these groups, and the sharing of control over individual and group health and social conditions [ 3 , 4 ].

A longstanding challenge of CBPR has been to anchor evaluation and practice in a relevant and comprehensive theoretical framework of community change [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Given the complex causal web linking CBPR projects to specific health outcomes, traditional measurement strategies may neither be sensitive enough nor adequate to assess change and document successes or failure at the community level [ 6 , 9 , 10 ]. In addition, our understanding of the processes that link community-based collaborative action to changes in systemic determinants of health outcomes is still limited [ 6 , 8 ]. To date, most evaluative frameworks of CBPR have focused on the internal characteristics of coalitions and partnerships [ 7 , 11 ], provided general guidance on implementation steps [ 8 , 12 ] or used logic models to map out desired outcome categories [ 13 ]. There is a need to articulate specific, concrete and sequential evaluation benchmarks for CBPR in a detailed and theoretically consistent framework [ 6 ].

Social movements, generally viewed as large group actions that promote social change [ 14 , 15 ], share a set of common features with CBPR, such as aiming to reverse unequal relations of power by creating broad social, policy and systemic changes [ 4 , 16 , 17 ]. The field of social movement research has produced a vast array of theoretical approaches, providing substantial theoretical tools to understand and facilitate collective action and social change [ 14 , 15 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. While many fields of research and action aimed at social betterment have been inspired by social movements [ 10 , 22 , 23 ], to our knowledge social movement theories have never been explicitly used to inform and better understand CBPR processes. We believe these theories can provide a coherent representation of how mobilization and collective action is gradually developed and leads to systemic change in the context of CBPR.

As a first step in assessing the relevance of social movement theories to understanding CBPR, we conducted a framework synthesis of illustrative CBPR projects (8) using a multidimensional social movement theory-based framework [ 24 ]. This synthesis, presented elsewhere [ 24 ], resulted in the development of a multidimensional framework through which to conceive and map community change processes in the context of CBPR. In addition, our synthesis demonstrated the relevance of using modern social movement theories, such as resource mobilization theory [ 15 , 20 , 25 , 26 ], political process theory [ 14 , 20 , 21 , 27 ] and framing theory [ 14 , 28 , 29 , 30 ], to understand and examine CBPR processes. More specifically, it demonstrated that CBPR projects, like social movements, can be envisioned as collective processes evolving dynamically and iteratively through a four-stage lifecycle: (1) emergence, (2) coalescence, (3) momentum, (4) maintenance, consolidation, integration or decline. Key elements of this four-stage process include capitalizing on resources, opportunities, and building partnership and collaboration among different organizations and entities. Just like a social movement, CBPR also makes strategic use of collective framing processes to define a representation of a social problem (cause), mobilize around the cause as well as to define a collective action strategy leading to system changes addressing the problem [ 24 ]. Here, we draw on the conclusions of our previous work to design and evaluate a specific CBPR project.

Purpose of the study

The goal of the current study is to assess the community-level processes and intermediate outcomes of a longstanding CBPR initiative developed with an Indigenous community, the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project (KSDPP), using a social movement theory perspective. More specifically, this research builds on a movement-building evaluation framework to assess the general process underlying KSDPP as well as intermediate outcomes related to core movement-building concepts. In keeping with the purpose of most evaluative research, this study aims to provide results that are directly relevant and applicable to KSDPP, but also to highlight useful lessons for CBPR planning and evaluation more broadly.

Conceptual framework

There are a range of evaluative frameworks and benchmarks used to assess social movement building, advocacy efforts and policy-change action [ 31 , 32 , 33 ]. Amongst them, Master and Osborn’s [ 31 ] comprehensive framework, which builds on a literature review of outcomes associated with social change, is particularly relevant for this study. Whereas many existing evaluative frameworks only provide end-of-project benchmarks, Master and Osborn’s framework provides a general perspective of how social movements can be conceived and allows for an meaningful exploration of movements’ development over time. This framework appeared particularly relevant to synthesize the most important concepts of social change.

Master and Osborn’s framework incorporates intermediate outcomes of five core components of movement building: base building and mobilization, leadership, vision, alliances, and advocacy infrastructure (Table  1 ). Each of these five components develop across four stages of movement building, facilitating a comprehensive and dynamic portrayal and assessment of a movement’s evolution over time. This comprehensive array of intermediate outcomes at different stages of a collective action process (distinct from impact outcomes related to a movement’s activities) are useful in the assessment of the development of a CBPR project over time.

The Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project

Kahnawake is a north-eastern Kanien’kehá:ka (Mohawk) community of 7859 residents (2017) that is situated on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River, 10 miles from downtown Montreal (Quebec, Canada). The Kanien’kehá:ka are part of the Haudenosaunee, or “People of the Longhouse”, historically known as the Five Nations, or Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. Traditional and cultural Haudenosaunee values emphasize collective thinking, shared responsibility, listening, taking into account the impact of current decisions on future generations, consensus decision-making, as well as a wholistic view of health, all of which provide a fertile ground for developing a CBPR project [ 34 ]. As a community, Kahnawake has demonstrated independence and autonomy in many domains, resulting in decentralization in the provision of a number of community services such as education, health, youth recreation programs for youth, and social services.

Despite this history of strength and independence, Kahnawake has been transformed by Western colonization, which has created social conditions that promote poorer food and lifestyle choices [ 35 ]. In 1985, two family physicians working in Kahnawake perceived high rates of Type 2 diabetes, and conducted a study to assess the prevalence of this condition in the community. Findings from the study showed that 12% of adults aged 45–64 had Type 2 diabetes, which was twice the rate of the general population [ 36 ]. Study findings also showed a high prevalence of diabetes related complications [ 37 , 38 ]. Based on these results, the physicians made a series of community presentations that raised awareness about diabetes, and shifted perceptions relating to the preventability of this disease [ 39 ]. Acting on this new awareness, community leaders mobilized and sought the expertise of academic researchers to develop a diabetes prevention program which became the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project (KSDPP), a CBPR project with a high degree of community involvement and ownership [ 40 , 41 , 42 ].

KSDPP aims to change the physical environment and social norms of the schools and community by promoting healthy eating and regular physical activity not only among children, but also parents, teachers, and all community members [ 43 , 44 ]. The project initially developed around a school-based component bolstered by community outreach interventions. The school-based component originally consisted of a health education curriculum delivered by teachers in Kahnawake elementary schools and a nutrition policy promoting healthy food choices at school. This policy was later expanded to include the promotion of physical activity and a whole range of healthy lifestyle activities. Community interventions include a variety of activities, many conducted in partnership with community organisations. The central goals of the community interventions are to create environments that support behavior change through activities tailored for parents, grand-parents and other community members [ 34 , 43 ]. While the program of activities is anchored in evidence-based theories of behavior and community change, the core of KSDPP’s actions are based on Kanien’kehá:ka values and traditions, and a wholistic view of health which incorporates the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual dimensions of life, true to a Haudenosaunee perspective of well-being [ 34 , 45 ]. For instance, the intervention’s primary target is elementary school children, which is consistent with the Kanien’kehá:ka value of taking responsibility to protect and promote the health of present and future generations (Seven Generations) [ 43 ]. The general approach of building supportive environments for health is in line with the Kanien’kehá:ka wholistic approach to education which takes into account the broader environment in which children develop [ 46 ]. In addition, KSDPP’s style of governance is deeply rooted in Kanien’kehá:ka values, which involve consensus in decision-making and a collective vision for the community [ 43 ].

Since the project’s inception, many studies have attempted to evaluate the impact of KSDPP on the health status and lifestyles of residents in the community. These studies have shown mixed results in the areas of physical activity, nutrition, weight and rates of diabetes [ 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ]. The present study applies social movement concepts to expand and enrich this examination by identifying intermediate outcomes of KSDPP in the area of community mobilization and change, dimensions that are viewed as highly relevant and meaningful by KSDPP stakeholders. The goal of this research evaluation project was to develop a new understanding of KSDPP’s evolution, identify potential areas of improvement, and action paths for further mobilization of community workers and members around the issue of diabetes prevention. Results of the study were meant to inform the work of KSDPP and the greater Kahnawake community.

Research approach and design

We used a case study design, which is a systemic approach to qualitative research that allows the researcher to examine in depth the holistic nature of contemporary phenomena in natural contexts, with a multitude of data sources [ 52 , 53 ]. The case observed is the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project (KSDPP), bounded in time from its first ideation (around 1987) to present.

In accordance with KSDPP principles, this study builds on a community-based participatory approach, involving partnership building, regular exchange among partners, and experience sharing between the researchers, KSDPP intervention staff and the Community Advisory Board (CAB) [ 54 ]. This study uses an interpretivist perspective, which holds that reality is constructed through the meanings developed by social actors, including the investigators. Thus, findings emerged through dialogue and negotiation of interpretations between the researchers and stakeholders involved in this study.

In 2012, the first author approached KSDPP to explore their interested in the innovative idea of evaluating the community level processes and outcomes of KSDPP using social movement theories. As a result, the first author was invited to join the KSDPP research team as a postdoctoral investigator, attend monthly meetings of the CAB and the research team, and to engage in KSDPP activities and with the community of Kahnawake. As a settler, the first author did not have any previous research experience in partnership with an Indigenous community, and therefore sought to immerse herself in the culture and realities of the community. During her work, she was supervised by and benefited from the valuable advice, insight and knowledge of community leaders (AMG and AMC). The research proposal was designed and developed in full partnership with the KSDPP team to ensure cultural relevancy, and benefits for both KSDPP and the broader community. Stakeholders were involved in developing the research questions and methodology, as well as in data collection, the interpretation of findings and dissemination of results.

Data collection

Two data collection strategies were used in this case study (1) document review and (2) talking circles with four important stakeholder groups (data sources are described in Table  2 ).

Included in the review were documents that provided a comprehensive portrait of KSDPP’s evolution since 1994 in terms of key aspects of collective action such as leadership, community mobilization, KSDPP’s discourse and meta-narrative, alliance and partnerships, as well as program of activities. Documents reviewed were past and current KSDPP summaries of activity or work plans covering the years 1994 to 2016 ( n  = 12), as well as published scientific papers stemming from the project ( n  = 39). Organizational documents dating from before 2006 were only available in paper format and were digitized. Scientific publications that included KSDPP as one of a number of cases and published abstracts were discarded ( n  = 6), since these publications only provided shallow descriptions of KSDPP and redundant information. A list of all included publications is presented in Additional file  1 . Scientific and organizational documents were collected in January 2016 through direct solicitation, or downloaded from KSDPP and the research team websites ( ksdpp.org ; pram.mcgill.ca ) as well as a bibliographical database.

Talking circles are widely used to collect data in many Indigenous contexts, offering a means to collect data that encourages story-telling and collective listening – both important elements for sharing and gathering information within Indigenous contexts. Importantly, talking circles have been accepted by the Kahnawake community as a relevant data collection strategy. In a talking circle, participants sit in a circle and discuss specified topics until consensus is reached. An object (an eagle feather, a talking stick or a stone), is passed from one participant to another and the holder of the object has an opportunity to speak [ 55 ]. Talking circles were deemed useful in gathering stakeholder perceptions about the evolution of KSDPP, its collective action process and strategies, leadership, vision and partnerships. They also served to document the last stage of the project given the dearth of scientific publications after 2009. A talking circle guide, informed by the conceptual framework, was developed in partnership with the KSDPP team. This guide had questions about: (1) the importance of diabetes for the community; (2) the evolution of mobilization around diabetes in the community over the last 20 years; (3) community leaders (people or organizations) involved in diabetes prevention (4) perception of KSDPP and its impact over the last 20 years; (5) KSDPP’s vision (goal) (6) evolution of KSDPP’s action (7) community partners and collaborators of KSDPP; (8) strengths of KSDPP and actual challenges for diabetes prevention.

Participants involved in the study talking circles ( n  = 24) were also KSDPP stakeholders, i.e. individuals or groups with a vested interest in the focus of the evaluation or research [ 56 ]. They included: (1) KSDPP intervention staff and Community Advisory Board (CAB) members; (2) research team members; (3) community workers; (4) community members (see Table  2 for a full description). Recruitment of talking circle participants proceeded on a voluntary basis. Participants in the first two circles were recruited through a formal email invitation sent to current and past KSDPP staff members, CAB members and researchers, one month prior to the beginning of the study (the KSDPP team assisted in the creation of the lists). Participants in the remaining circles were recruited using general invitations mailed directly to a list of partner organizations created by the KSDPP team, announcements in the local newspaper, and direct solicitation of community members at community events, such as community walks.

In total, 5 talking circles were held between October and December 2015, each including 2 to 7 participants. In general, there was one talking circle for each stakeholder group, except the community worker group (group 3), which required 2 talking circles to fit the availability of participants. Talking circles were held in community facilities (community rooms and schools) over lunchtime to accommodate participants. Participants were provided with a light meal, which is a culturally appropriate manner in which to thank them for their participation. The average length of the talking circles, including the time spent explaining the study, was 2 h (range 1 h to 2 h 20 min). Talking circles provided a respectful and ordered structure through which to collect in-depth data, triangulate information, and build a common representation of events and times. Consensus was achieved when everyone felt that they could agree with the suggested statement. Following Kanien’kehá:ka decision making style, all participants came to ‘one mind’ as close as possible, all agreed to have a voice in the discussion.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

As with all KSDPP research projects, this project was conducted in accordance with the KSDPP Code of Research Ethics [ 57 ], which serves as a binding research agreement between the researchers and the community. Ethical approval was obtained first from the CAB and then from the McGill University ethics institutional review board. Participants in the talking circle provided individual written informed consent.

Data analysis

The analytic technique used in this study is framework analysis, a method for analysing primary data in applied social research that draws upon the work of Bryman and Burgess [ 58 ] and Miles and Huberman [ 59 ]. Framework analysis is useful for synthesizing knowledge from diverse sources [ 60 ]. This analysis technique typically involves five phases [ 61 ]: (1) familiarisation with the data; (2) identification of a relevant thematic framework; (3) application of the thematic framework by indexing all the data to specific themes; (4) organization of the data according to themes in a chart containing distilled summaries of views and experiences; (5) interpretation of findings, which involves mapping the range and nature of phenomena, creating typologies and finding association between themes.

Hard copies of publications (mostly organizational documents dated 2005 or earlier) were scanned and converted to PDF. All talking circles were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. To perform the analysis, a database including all sources of data (full-text scientific papers, organisational documents, and transcripts from the talking circles) was constructed using QSR NVivo 11 [ 62 ]. Using the framework analysis method, the first author immersed herself in the data, identifying key ideas (mobilization, leadership, goal and vision, collaboration and partnership, activities and strategies), and then searched the literature for a relevant thematic framework. Our work in this phase was informed by the results of a framework synthesis we conducted previously that demonstrated the relevance of modern social movement theories in the study of CBPR projects [ 24 ]. For the current study, we chose to use Master and Osborn’s movement-building framework, which provides a means to examine the development of various components of social movements over time. Based on Master and Osborn’s framework, the first author developed a coding grid and performed sentence by sentence coding to assign text to specific themes (components and stages). At this stage, we also added an inductive component building on thematic analysis to identify potential new themes from the data [ 59 ]. All coded material was organized in a chart presenting summaries of views and experiences for each theme, and facilitating a comprehensive interpretation of KSDPP process and intermediate outcomes in terms of movement building.

The first author conducted the majority of the analysis, but all provisional interpretations were discussed with the KSDPP research team, staff and CAB members. Two formal data interpretation sessions were held to discuss interpretations, add context to information collected, and facilitate a better understanding of project documentation. For instance, during these sessions participants built consensus on the start and end dates of each stage, as well as markers of change for each period (referred to as “benchmarks” in the framework). The resulting interpretation was therefore consensual and co-created by the different team members. Construct and internal validity of the study were ensured by triangulation of data sources and methods, member checking, and the in-depth involvement of the researcher in the field. Finally, reliability of the study was improved by the development and use of a case study protocol and the development of database and a chain of evidence [ 52 ].

Results show an innovative and chronological perspective of KSDPP’s evolution as seen through a social movement lens, as well as intermediate outcomes associated with different dimensions of movement building achieved by this project over time. The inductive component of the analysis suggests new benchmarks pertaining to some movement-building components (bolded in the table). The dates proposed for each stage are approximate and should be understood as temporal benchmarks, as phases often overlap.

The next section outlines the different stages of KSDPP in narrative style, describing the important benchmarks reached, which are summarized in Table  3 .

The emergence of KSDPP: from early 1987 to mid-1997

The first stage of KSDPP, which we call emergence, began in 1987 when community leaders first evoked the idea of developing an intervention to prevent type 2 diabetes in Kahnawake [ 39 ].

The first stage emerged following a shift in the perception of diabetes following a lengthy community awareness-building process implemented from the mid- to late-1980s [ 39 , 43 ]. During this process, baseline research results were shared with the community shifting the perception of diabetes from being a personal issue to a community issue. The idea that diabetes could be prevented was slowly articulated in the late 1980s and early 1990s [ 39 ].

Volunteer community leaders, including elders and family physicians who raised the alarm about diabetes, invited academic researchers with expertise in community research to join the effort of elaborating a project proposal and developing a partnership [ 43 ]. After a few unsuccessful attempts, the team secured national research and intervention funding in 1994, and formally initiated the project [ 41 ]. One of the early exercises of the team consisted in elaborating operating guidelines and conditions for the participatory research process underlying KSDPP through a Code of Ethics [ 43 , 57 ]. “The process of creating a KSDPP partnership involving community researchers, academic researchers, and the community has been facilitated and strengthened by the joint development of a Code of Research Ethics during the first year of the project” [ 41 ].

The underlying philosophy of KSDPP (a participatory research process) was easily implemented because it converged with a Kanien’kehá:ka tradition of consensus decision-making [ 43 ]. At the same time, the partners also defined an inspirational and shared vision for Kahnawake that portrayed a community free of diabetes, living healthily and in wholistic balance. This vision, which laid the ground for the elaboration of strategic goals, was framed according to important cultural values of the Kanien’kehá:ka, such as a collective concern for the welfare of future generations (Seven Generations) and a wholistic philosophy of health [ 34 ]. As mentioned by one talking circle participant, in the first stage of KSDPP, collective reflection around the project, its goals and processes was highly important and helped set the stage for future steps:

“It took a year, a year and a half to prepare things once we had the grant. I remember saying things like ‘We need to do things, it takes time that we are out there. If we want to have an effect, we need to do things’. So we did such things as developing a code [of research ethics], a vision, developing all those kinds of things that take a lot of time, take a lot of discussion of participatory nature (…). I think that the way we did things put a very solid foundation; that what is sustained there, this kind of vision, this kind of relationship, the code of research ethics, and those kinds of things are traceable through those times.” (group 2)

KSDPP developed from a partnership that was initially formed through an alliance of professionals from the Kahnawake Education Centre, the Kateri Memorial Hospital Centre and Kahnawake Shakotiia’takehnhas Community Services (social family services), as well as researchers from McGill University and Université de Montréal. A talking circle participant (group 1) discussed the importance KSDPP’s roots in community: “I think that the grassroots connection that KSDPP has from the beginning is a very important strength. It’s the people from the community that… we, people in the community who are associated with KSDPP”. Over the first three years, the partnership recruited around 40 volunteers from multiple local organizations who formed the KSDPP Community Advisory Board (CAB) [ 43 ]. This CAB was (and is still) responsible for supervising all aspects of the project, from the design of the intervention through implementation and assessment. Through this new structure, “partnerships among local health, education, recreation, and community service organisations were formed, enhancing community participation” [ 41 ] as well as collaborative leadership.

In the first years of program implementation (1994–1997), the intervention team was staffed by two full-time community members, selected for their leadership and their role as agents for change [ 43 ]. As evoked by a talking circle participant (group 3), the choice of these persons was strategic, because they “came from the education system, so not only they were from the community but they were teachers so everyone knows them in that circle”. These staff members participated in formal training activities in order to acquire new skills in health promotion or enhance their competencies [ 41 ]. The program also provided many opportunities for collaborators to acquire new competencies. For instance, KSDPP supported the implementation of a new health curriculum in the elementary schools. While the curriculum was created by nurses and a nutritionist it was developed to be delivered by teachers (as opposed to health care professionals) who assumed full responsibility for the program in 1997 [ 46 ].

Coalescence of KSDPP: from mid-1997 to 2000

Beginning in August 1997, KSDPP experienced a series of events prompting the partnership to reinforce, take shape and deepen its ties in the community.

As the initial 3-year intervention and research grant was coming to an end in mid-1997, KSDPP began to seek new sources of support [ 41 ]. In June 1997, community partners (the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake, Kahnawake Shakotiia’takehnhas Community Services, and the Kahnawake Education Center) provided funds to enable the project to continue for one year (1997–1998) (funding was for the intervention component of KSDPP) [ 63 ]. These new funding partners, who were essentially new constituencies, were fully committed to the project. For talking circle participants (group 1), the fact that community partners provided funds for KSDPP to continue is an indicator of the value given to KSDPP by community stakeholders, who “were highly mobilized by the cause and pooled resources”. Following the year of community funding, continuing funds were secured from external private foundations (1999–2001).

Already at this stage, the participatory decision-making process and collaborative governance of the project were well established. In fact, study findings for that period point to a participatory democracy or non-hierarchical decision-making process as the primary mode of KSDPP governance [ 42 , 64 ]. For instance, it was reported that “The influence of multiple partners in determining the overall direction of KSDPP demonstrates the responsiveness and accountability of the egalitarian leadership style promoted by project staff” (p. 184) [ 64 ]. In addition, in one of the talking circles (group 3), a participant from a community organization and former CAB member described the way KSDPP invited partners to join the CAB, emphasizing the leadership style that KSDPP put in place:

“(KSDPP) went up there, spoke and invited people to come and sit on the Community [Advisory] Board… [this] was a place where your ideas were acceptable. Like you had to be the ones to write the terms of reference, you had to be the one for this mission, (...) it was always like a corporate thing.”

KSDPP’s coalescence was characterized by the translation of KSDPP’s vision into a full and workable action strategy that builds on, and integrates traditional and cultural values: “Activity implementation was embedded within an overall program intervention cycle directed towards promoting living in balance, in turn, a reflection of local cultural values” [ 34 ]. Living in balance, which “reflects being well in mind, body, emotion, and spirit” [ 34 ] is congruent with the Haudenosaunee wholistic approach of health [ 34 , 46 ]. By 1997, the team had established the core intervention activities and had experience implementing activities in the community [ 65 ]. Through collaboration community partners leveraged and optimized resources, shared responsibilities and supported each other’s efforts [ 65 ]. At that time, the partnership broadened to other community partners (such as teachers teaching the new curriculum in 1997) [ 46 ] thereby extending awareness and commitment to the cause of KSDPP (talking circle, groups 1): “At that time, teachers began to be more comfortable with the new curriculum, and were very committed to the cause”.

An analysis of programming approaches implemented in 1996–1997 reveals that half of the activities were conducted by KSDPP independently whereas half resulted from collaborative partnerships with community organizations [ 65 ]. Interestingly, this analysis “found that more than two thirds of collaborations occurred in response to invitations received by KSDPP from other community entities” [ 65 ]. In these collaborations, community members and organisations “brought their knowledge of the community, and contributed ideas on how best to carry out the activities in which they were involved” [ 41 ]. According to talking circle participants (group 1), trust and respect characterized the relationship with the education system at that time.

KSDPP’s moment: from 2001 to 2006

Based on its experience in the second stage, KSDPP developed into a stronger organization in the third stage, with well-established partnerships in the community, a well-oiled program of activities and significant community and political recognition. During this period, KSDPP became a leader in Canada for addressing diabetes prevention among First Nations communities [ 50 ].

In 2001, KSDPP secured major funding for 5 years from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), permitting the hire of an additional 4 people (including a public relations officer) and the development of the KSDPP Center for Research and Training in Diabetes Prevention [ 43 , 66 , 67 ]. This grant, which acknowledged KSDPP’s experience, expertise and leadership in diabetes prevention and community mobilization, allowed the organization to further community mobilization within Kahnawake, while developing a community mobilization training program to disseminate its intervention model to over 30 Indigenous communities across Canada (from 2001 to 2014) [ 68 ]. Inside its own community, KSDPP also reached a high level of credibility owing to its participatory approach, as emphasized by some participants: “I think [that] a lot of the development of KSDPP was done alongside community members so it taught us to have credibility in community” (group 1). “The other organizations within the community have come around recognizing the central role that KSDPP can play in [health promotion and diabetes prevention]” (group 2). At that time, “KSDPP’s visibility in and acceptance by the community suggests that it is perceived as an accessible community resource for health promotion” [ 65 ].

During this stage KSDPP’s leaders acquired external recognition from public institutions. For example, in 1999, a KSDPP staff member who was also a community researcher was elected to the Board of Directors of the Canadian National Aboriginal Diabetes Association (NADA), serving as vice-chairperson until 2002 and eventually chairperson from 2002 to 2004. In the years 1999–2001, a physician-researcher deeply involved in KSDPP’s formation and work was elected president of the North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG). She was key in the development of a new policy promoting participatory research in this international organization. In 2010, KSDPP received a Partnership Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for their exemplary work [ 69 ]. Even if not specific to the third stage, this award recognized the strength of KSDPP’s work in these times, as well as its contribution to developing ethical agreements with Indigenous communities.

From 2001 to 2006, with funding from the CIHR and the National Aboriginal Diabetes Initiative (Health Canada), KSDPP became active on many levels and continued to extend its reach and vision [ 41 , 70 ]. As indicated in a scientific article describing KSDPP over this period, “this programme has grown, it has sustained itself and enriched itself in interaction with the community (…)” [ 41 ]. KSDPP’s staff disseminated information about the program locally, nationally and internationally by participating in national forums addressing diabetes and health issues for Indigenous people [ 41 ]. Inside the community, a KSDPP public relationship office was created to actively disseminate KSDPP’s news through radio shows, newsletters and other means of communication [ 70 ] (talking circle, group 1). In 2000, the local Onkwata’karitáhtshera Health and Social Service Research Council was created by the community health board to act as the community ethics board for all health and social research conducted in Kahnawake. This entity acknowledged KSDPP’s CAB as a valid and autonomous ethics authority to evaluate proposals for diabetes prevention research, and added KSDPP’s Code of Research Ethics to its original research agreement terms (talking circles, groups 1 and 2).

At that time, most activities of KSDPP were already collaborative in nature [ 34 ], capitalizing on a core of partner organizations that have “taken KSDPP to work together more or less systematically” (talking circle – group 2). They also developed new partnerships with organizations in the private sector of the community, including a local computer software company [ 66 ]. Collaborating with new partners allowed “the creation and production of new activities and activity tools (e.g., diabetes awareness booth, cooking demonstrations with students)” [ 34 ]. Respect among partners has allowed the program to consistently evolve: “Because each partner’s voice was heard and respected, constructive negotiation occurred allowing transformations in the programme in a way that did not threaten its identity” [ 41 ].

KSDPP’s momentum was characterized by the full achievement of its collective action strategy, building on a core program of activities that achieved maturity with the addition of other activity components. A paper describing KSDPP at this period emphasizes that the project “evolved by increasing both the reach and intensity of healthy living interventions” [ 43 ]. In addition to the core activities, KSDPP’s program expanded to include preschool children and also engaged adolescents in youth empowerment projects through the community high school [ 66 ]. By 2003, there were more than 100 different interventions per year, many in partnership with other community organizations [ 66 ]. A descriptive case study of KSDPP at this period highlights that: “There is continuous momentum in active participation of community members involved in diverse activities ranging from research to supporting interventions” [ 66 ].

KSDPP’s maintenance, integration and consolidation: from 2007 to present

The current stage of KSDPP can be characterized by the emergence of a new form of leadership, resource constraints, lower levels of community mobilization and sensitiveness to KSDPP’s message, as paradoxically KSDPP’s vision and goals have become more integrated inside the community and within the agendas and priorities of partner organisations.

Major decreases in funding since 2006 have resulted in the majority of the staff, including the public relations position, retiring from the project. This made it difficult for KSDPP to keep the momentum going in mobilizing the community, as explained by a participant: “(…) To me, [KSDPP brought] very positive changes, but then I guess because of decreased funding and decreased staff, the momentum didn’t keep going” (group 3). According to talking circle participants (group 1), the administrative environment in the community became less supportive of KSDPP activity. Decreases in resources, coupled with a lack of innovation, rendered KSDPP less visible. This phenomenon was highlighted by some community participants (group 4): “When it was very popular, like in the first years… the people knew about it, they were active in schools… Some people didn’t like some of the ideas they were bringing, but it was more known and now it’s very quiet, we don’t hear about it anymore”. An hypothesis evoked is that KSDPP’s action became so integrated into the community that it appeared less noticeable to community members. One participant (group 1) mentioned that “[KSDPP] has become part of the social fabric in the community”, which is, paradoxically, a form of success.

The current stage is characterized by the rise of a new generation of leaders in different parts of the partnership, including the KSDPP research team and KSDPP intervention staff. From a research team perspective, since 2006 the research team has been involved in smaller research projects (many led by postgraduate students, under the supervision of the KSDPP research team) and has included new determinants of diabetes prevention (i.e. food security, adequate sleep) (talking circle, group 2). From a staff perspective, this era is also seen as a turbulent one, with high levels of staff turnover and hiring based on programmatic activity and the availability of funding. New staff members have brought a fresh perspective on the KSDPP collective action strategy and vision, providing renewed energy, all the while ensuring continuity in KSDPP’s overall work (talking circle, group 1). As explained by one participant (group 3): “There have been many different people, different staff over the years, but I see now there are a few new young [people] who work for KSDPP and I see the exact same strength. It’s the way that they’re part of the community and the way that they go and mobilize all their contacts within the community”.

During this stage, the vision promoted by KSDPP (a healthy community, free of diabetes) and the norm underlying this vision (diabetes is a preventable disease) appeared as successfully disseminated in the community. Some participants described this shift in beliefs and norms: “There was a whole change (...), this idea of diabetes being preventable has now become the normal way of thinking…”(group 1). “I remember (...) people coming in and teaching you different things about eating healthier and being healthier and being active, it was sort of like new to us. And now it’s like normal for all the kids to have a nutrition policy in the schools” (group 4). Talking circle participants involved directly in KSDPP (group 1 and 2) were unambiguous about the role the project played in promoting this vision: “KSDPP certainly played the role of that catalyst [for diabetes prevention] in the community” (group 1). “KSDPP was the catalyst to the whole movement. They were the ones that caused this whole spark and this whole awareness and this [desire] to do something about it and the energy that just infiltrated the whole community” (group 2). However, the vision is still not shared by everyone in the community, with some interpreting KSDPP’s message and efforts to implement it as a form of policing: “(…) [some community organizations] have sodas and junk food and things like that in their vending machines. And again, it’s that response ‘It’s our choice to do that” (talking circle, group 1). “I think that there’s part of the population that think that health promotion and diabetes prevention is important but there’s a part of the population that don’t wanna hear about it” (talking circle, group 4).

Regarding the issue of collaboration, KSDPP has allowed many partners to build capacity, and these partners are now taking over some of the responsibilities initially held by KSDPP. For instance, a Masters student research project led to the development and implementation of a physical activity policy in the elementary schools (2011–2013) and a PhD student project conducted in collaboration with a multi-sectorial committee contributed to the development of an active school transportation project (2013–2015). These projects involved representatives of partner organizations, who are now assuming the leadership of these initiatives [ 71 , 72 ]. A staff member mentioned: “It’s intentionally with everything KSDPP does… we’re working this way, we’re putting ourselves in with everyone else, intentionally trying to mobilize people to take ownership of these issues for themselves” (group 1).

KSDPP’s continuous action has resulted in the integration of its collective action agenda, i.e. fostering healthy eating and physical activity, in some partnering organisations. For instance, the physical activity policy (2011–2013) was developed in close collaboration with the community elementary schools [ 73 ]. Participants emphasized the pervasiveness of KSDPP’s agenda on partner organisations: “People have talked about the importance of the wellness policies in the schools and I have a very strong feeling that those would never ever have happened in the early years of KSDPP” (group 2). “KSDPP as a separate entity is able to challenge either the utility of that direction or to explore other areas that perhaps the organisations aren’t focusing on at the moment” (group 1). However, participants (group 1) recognize that there is still resistance from some sectors of the community and some participants (group 2) highlighted the need to build stronger collaborations with some health organizations in the community to get funding instead of competing with each other.

New proposed benchmarks

Findings from the study point to potentially new benchmarks in the examination and assessment of the development of KSDPP (bolded in Table  3 ). For instance, in the third stage, a recurrent theme in the “vision and frames” component was broader dissemination of the KSDPP vision and approach across levels of implementation (i.e. local, national and international). This phenomenon has been emphasized both in KSDPP publications over this period, and by KSDPP stakeholders in the talking circles. We therefore propose that broadening dissemination of a project’s vision might be a significant benchmark at this stage. Using the same rationale, additional benchmarks are proposed for stage 3 (Alliances, partnerships, networks; Advocacy agenda and action strategy) and stage 4 (Base building and mobilization; Alliances, partnerships, networks).

KSDPP’s areas of potential improvement

By comparing the actions and processes of KSDPP to the chosen theoretical framework, this analysis has exposed potential areas of improvement for the initiative.

First, and as emphasized by participants, is the question of continuing leadership: “Looking ahead, [one thing to do] is nurturing the torch bearers for health promotion, diabetes prevention. I don’t know if we have enough of those still generated from KSDPP (…) We served our term and beyond (…) and there needs to be more.” (group 2). Even if some evidence shows a renewing of the research and intervention leadership in KSDPP, there is still some room to plan and foresee the future of the partnership leadership, which is essential in avoiding stagnation or dissipation in a movement. Such an exercise could involve “creating time for intellectual and spiritual reflection by leaders as well as a commitment to training a new generation of leadership” [ 74 ].

Second is the need to continuously review and redefine the partnership’s vision and strategies. For instance, one talking circle participant (group 1) suggested broadening the vision and collective action strategy to focus more generally on wellness: “I think one area that we have talked about is the area of wellness in general (…). I think KSDPP started where it was safe, around physical activity and healthy eating (...) we’ve already started to work with stress, mental health and wellness. So is this an area that KSDPP will develop more fully in the future?” Along similar lines, some participants (groups 3 and 4) suggested finding more efficient strategies to ingrain healthy behaviours in children, such as more systematic and direct engagement with parents: “I think sometimes where we miss the mark is that it was aimed primarily at the schools, but it’s the parents who are the role models, it’s the parents who are making the purchases of the food in the home and maybe sometimes there should be more emphasis put on the parents than on the children” (group 3). As suggested by some participants (group 2), renewing KSDPP strategies may also require scaling up or developing further alliances with the political and economic sectors of the community so as to tackle political and systemic determinants of diabetes prevention and health promotion that can’t be addressed by KSDPP alone:

“Something that we talked about (...) is working with the economic sector of the community on health promotion. (...) Because if we look at the people that are selling food, are providing food services, we know that they are supplying demand; the community is demanding salt, fat, sugar, carbs, etcetera. We want them to shift to something else but we always backed off from them.”

The end of this study coincided with KSDPP’S strategic planning exercise (“strategic conversations” with key community actors and members). The first author was invited to participate in the design of these conversations and integrated the results of this study, including potential area of improvement and action paths, in this reflection.

This framework analysis, based on a social movement-building framework [ 31 ], portrays the development of KSDPP in a four-stage process of emergence, coalescence, momentum and maintenance/integration; each stage assessed by the achievement of intermediate outcomes, and influenced at different levels and by different kinds of resources, and mobilization, partnership and collective action activities. Based on the framework benchmarks, we conclude that KSDPP has reached the last stage of movement-building, which is the maintenance and integration stage into the Kahnawake community.

Based on this analysis, we can see that KSDPP’s overall reach has expanded from its original vision which was focused on diabetes prevention. Framing KSDPP as a social movement, this study points to other significant processes and outcomes, such as creating awareness; shifting norms and beliefs about diabetes in the community; fostering community mobilization, collaboration and leadership around this issue; building community capacity, skills and expertise in diabetes prevention; creating culture of collaboration and resource sharing among community organizations and permeating the diabetes prevention agenda into other organizations. Previous studies that have looked at KSDPP’s outcomes have tended to provide a mixed picture of the project’s impact on health and the behaviors of residents. One could say that the design of these studies may have failed to capture events and trends in the broader context that influence people’s behaviors and health, such as the introduction of satellite television in the community in 2008, the increasing availability of fast-food restaurants over the last 20 years, as well as strong positive secular trends in the prevalence of obesity [ 47 ]. We believe that studies with an exclusive focus on health outcomes pose paradoxes to the very nature of CBPR, which is based on the ecological premise that “an individual’s behavior is shaped by a dynamic interaction with the social environment” [ 6 ]. In addition, community-level changes and processes in their own constitute valuable outcomes, and they sometimes have a “more profound impact on well-being than did the intended outcomes of planned interventions” [ 5 ]. Our study highlights important community-level processes and outcomes in Kahnawake, which can be considered as transitional steps towards health improvement.

A movement-building framework such as that by Masters and Osborn [ 31 ] is an applicable and innovative tool with which to understand and assess CBPR projects. Although the movement-building framework has been applied retrospectively in the current study, it can be used prospectively to encourage ongoing reflection and assessment in the context of CBPR [ 31 ]. Using the framework retrospectively can help coalitions situate and assess themselves with respect to the collective action they led and the progress made over the years. Using the framework prospectively can assist coalitions plan ahead by providing general guidance about aspects of the action that are important at a specific moment. While the phases of the framework are modeled on social movement development stages, they nonetheless provide useful markers to assess the development and progress of CBPR projects and other collective action strategies over time, Furthermore, the core concepts of movement-building (i.e. base building and mobilization; leadership; vision and frames; alliances, partnerships, networks; advocacy agenda and action strategy) resonate with the CBPR approach and allow an identification and examination of core CBPR processes and action. Moreover, the benchmarks associated with each phase help identify key accomplishments at each stage as well as areas where additional efforts need to be focused. For instance, it suggests that in the second stage (coalescence) of development, CBPR teams should not expect to pervade the agendas of collaborating organizations, but should rather focus on refining collective action goals; in addition, CBPR leaders should not expect to be recognized from the base, but rather should work at building and expanding core collaboration.

However, while the framework offers a number of distinct intermediate goals on which to focus, it does not provide strategies with which to achieve these goals, which might be a limitation to translating findings into implementation. For example, in the third stage (movement’s moment) of implementation the movement/CBPR project is supposed to see “public support of the meta-narratives increase”, but the framework doesn’t specify how to achieve this benchmark; it only offers examples of trackable progress.

We believe that social movement frameworks, such as the one used in this study, apply particularly well to long-standing, sustainable community-based projects. However, it is important to acknowledge that these frameworks may not be useful or relevant to all CBPR projects. In the case of KSDPP, the specificities of Kahnawake and the Mohawk culture favored the emergence of this form of large, sustainable community-based projects – one that is similar to social movements.

The current study assessed the processes and intermediate outcomes of the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project using a social movement building framework. This framework analysis describes the development of KSDPP’s in a four-stage process, each stage defined and described by the achievement of important intermediate outcomes and the identification of potential areas of improvement. The framework’s central concepts provide useful markers to situate long-standing and sustainable CBPR projects within its own life course, and inform the development of recommendations to provide guidance for future action. This study proposes some innovative insights regarding the evaluation of CBPR projects and the assessment of their progress by building on their similarities with other forms of collective action.

Abbreviations

Community Advisory Board

• Community-based participatory research

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project

National Aboriginal Diabetes Association

North American Primary Care Research Group

Green LW, George MA, Frankish DM, Herbert CJ, Bowie WR, O’Neill M. Recherche participative et promotion de la santé: Bilan et recommandations pour le développement de la recherche participative en promotion de la santé au Canada. Ottawa: Société royale du Canada; 1995.

Google Scholar  

Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:173–202.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Baum F, MacDougall C, Smith D. Glossary: participatory action research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(10):854–7.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cargo M, Mercer SL. The value and challenges of participatory research: strengthening its practice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29:325–50.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, Salsberg J, Bush PL, Henderson J, Sirett E, Wong G, Cargo M, Herbert CP, et al. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q. 2012;90(2):311–46.

Merzel C, D’Afflitti J. Reconsidering community-based health promotion: promise, performance, and potential. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(4):557–74.

Wallerstein N, Oetzel J, Duran B, Tafoya G, Belone L, Ra R. What predicts outcomes in CBPR? In: Minkler M, Wallerstein N, editors. Community-based participatory research for health: from processes to outcomes. San Franscico: Jossey-Bass; 2008. p. 317–92.

Fawcett S, Schultz J, Watson-Thompson J, Fox M, Bremby R. Building multisectoral partnerships for population health and health equity. Prev Chronic Dis. 2010;7(6):A118.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

McQueen DV, Anderson LM. What counts as evidence: issues and debates. WHO Reg Publ Eur Ser. 2001;92:63–81.

Nutbeam D. Evaluating health promotion-progress, problems and solutions. Health Promot Int. 1998;13(1):27–44.

Article   Google Scholar  

Schulz AJ, Israel BA, Lantz P. Instrument for evaluating dimensions of group dynamics within community-based participatory research partnerships. Eval Program Plann. 2003;26(3):249–62.

Institute of Medicine. Community. In: The future of the public’s health in the 21st century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2003.

Fawcett SB, Sterling TD, Paine-Andrews A, Francisco VT, Richter KP, Williams E, Copple B. Evaluating community efforts to prevent cardiovascular diseases. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; 1995.

Horn J. Gender and social movements overview report. In: Cutting edge. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies; 2013. p. 115.

Jenkins JC. Mobilization theory and the study of social movements. Annu Rev Sociol. 1983;9(1983):527–53.

Israel BA, Schultz J, Parker E, Becker AB, Allen AJ, Guzman JR. Critical issues in developing and following community based participatory research principles. In: Minkler M, Wallerstein N, editors. Community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2003.

Velasquez J, Knatterud-Hubinger N, Narr D, Mendenhall T, Solheim C. Mano a Mano: improving health in impoverished Bolivian communities through community-based participatory research. Fam Syst Health. 2011;29(4):303–13.

Wilkinson P. Social movements. London: Pall Mall; 1971.

Book   Google Scholar  

Tilly C. From mobilization to revolution. Reading: Addison Wesley; 1978.

McAdam D, McCarthy JD, Zald MN. Comparative perspectives on social movements. Boston: Cambridge University Press; 1996.

Mueller CM. Frontiers in social movement theory. In: Morris AD, Mueller CM, editors. Building social movement theory. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1992.

Maton KI. Making a difference: the social ecology of social transformation. Am J Community Psychol. 2000;28(1):25–57.

Minkler M, Wallerstein N. Improving health through community organization and community building. In: Minkler M, editor. Community organizing and community building for health. New Brunswick; New Jersey; London: Rugters University Press; 1997. p. 30–52.

Tremblay MC, Martin DH, Macaulay AC, Pluye P. Can we build on social movement theories to develop and improve community-based participatory research? A framework synthesis review. Am J Community Psychol. 2017;59(3–4):333–62.

Jenkins JC, Perrow C. Insurgency of the powerless: farm worker movement (1946-1972). Am Sociol Rev. 1977;42:249–68.

Oberschall A. Social conflict and social movements. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1973.

Goodwin J, Jasper JM. Caught in a winding, snarling vine: the structural Bias of political process theory. Sociol Forum. 1999;14:1.

Benford RD, Snow DA. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annu Rev Sociol. 2000;26:661–39.

Gamson WA. The social psychology of collective action. In: Morris AD, Mueller CM, editors. Frontiers in social movement theory. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1992. p. 53–76.

De la Porta D, Diani M. Social movements: an introduction. 2nd ed. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 2006.

Masters B, Osborn T. Social movements and philanthropy: how foundations can support movement building. Found Rev. 2010;2(2):12–27.

Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice. Movement building indicators. Oakland: ACRJ; 2009.

Reisman J, Gienapp A, Stachowiak S. A guide to measuring policy and advocacy. Organizational Research Services: Seattle; 2007.

Delormier T, Cargo M, Kirby R, McComber A, Rice J, Potvin L. Activity implementation as a reflection of living in balance. Pimatziwin: J Aborig Indigenous Community Health. 2003;1(1):142–63.

Hovey R, Delormier T, McComber AM. Social-relational understandings of health and well-being from an indigenous perspective. Int J Indigenous Health. 2014;10(1):35–54.

Montour LT, Macaulay AC. High prevalence rates of diabetes mellitus and hypertension on a north American Indian reservation. Can Med Assoc J. 1985;132(10):1110.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Montour LT, Macaulay AC, Adelson N. Diabetes mellitus in Mohawks of Kahnawake, PQ: a clinical and epidemiologic description. CMAJ. 1989;141(6):549–52.

Macaulay AC, Montour LT, Adelson N. Prevalence of diabetic and atherosclerotic complications among Mohawk Indians of Kahnawake, PQ. CMAJ. 1988;139(3):221–4.

Bisset S, Cargo M, Delormier T, Macaulay AC, Potvin L. Legitimizing diabetes as a community health issue: a case analysis of an aboriginal community in Canada. Health Promot Int. 2004;19(3):317–26.

Cargo M, Delormier T, Lévesque L, Horn-Miller K, McComber AM, Macaulay AC. Can the democratic ideal of participatory research be achieved? An inside look at an academic-indigenous community partnership. Health Educ Res. 2008;23(5):904–14.

Potvin L, Cargo M, McComber A, Delormier T, Macaulay AC. Implementing participatory intervention and research in communities: lessons from the Kahnawake schools diabetes prevention project in Canada. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(6):1295.

Cargo MD, Delormier T, Lévesque L, McComber AM, Macaulay AC. Community capacity as an “inside job”: evolution of perceived ownership within a university-aboriginal community partnership. Am J Health Promot. 2011;26(2):96–100.

Macaulay AC, Cargo M, Bisset S, Delormier T, Lévesque L, Potvin L, McComber AM. Community empowerment for the primary prevention of type 11 diabetes: Kanien’kehá:ka (Mohawk) ways for the Kahnawake schools diabetes prevention project. In: Ferreira ML, Lang GC, editors. Indigenous peoples and diabetes: community empowerment and wellness. Durham: Carolina Academic Press; 2006. p. 407–58.

Bush PL, Hamzeh J, Macaulay AC. Community-based participatory research. Oxford Bibliographies. Retrieved 10 Apr. 2018, from http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756797/obo-9780199756797-0126.xml .

Murdoch J, Tremblay M-C, Hovey R, Delormier T, Gray-Donald K, Delaronde E, Macaulay AC. 2017. Understanding how Indigenous culturally-based interventions can improve participants’ health in Canada. Health Promotion International. Published online September 14th, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dax059 .

Cargo M, Salsberg J, Delormier T, Desrosiers S, Macaulay AC. Understanding the social context of school health promotion program implementation. Health Educ. 2006;106(2):85–97.

Paradis G, Levesque L, Macaulay AC, Cargo M, McComber A, Kirby R, Receveur O, Kishchuk N, Potvin L. Impact of a diabetes prevention program on body size, physical activity, and diet among Kanien’keha:ka (Mohawk) children 6 to 11 years old: 8-year results from the Kahnawake schools diabetes prevention project. Pediatrics. 2005;115(2):333–9.

Jimenez MM, Receveur O, Trifonopoulos M, Kuhnlein H, Paradis G, Macaulay AC. Comparison of the dietary intakes of two different groups of children (grades 4 to 6) before and after the Kahnawake schools diabetes prevention project. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103(9):1191–4.

Horn OK, Jacobs-Whyte H, Ing A, Bruegl A, Paradis G, Macaulay AC. Incidence and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in the first nation community of Kahnawá: ke, Quebec, Canada, 1986-2003. Can J Public Health. 2007;98(6):438–43.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Salmon L. Contribution of foods to nutrient intakes of grades 4–6 students participating in Kahnawake schools diabetes prevention project 1994, 1998 and 2002. Montreal: McGill University; 2004.

Trifonopoulos M, Kuhnlein HV, Receveur O. Analysis of 24-hour recalls of 164 fourth-to sixth-grade Mohawk children in Kahnawake. J Am Diet Assoc. 1998;98(7):814–6.

Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2009.

Stake RE. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1995.

Macaulay AC, Cross EJ, Delormier T, Potvin L, Paradis G, McComber A. Developing a Code of Research Ethics for research with a Native community in Canada: a report from the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project. Int J Circumpolar Health. 1998;57(Suppl 1):38-40.

Struthers R, Hodge FS, Geishirt-Cantrell B, De Cora L. Participant experiences of talking circles on type 2 diabetes in two Northern Plains American Indian tribes. Qual Health Res. 2013;13(8):1094–115.

Cousins JB, Whitmore E. Framing participatory evaluation. N Dir Eval. 1988;80(Winter 1988):5–23.

Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project. Code of research ethics. Kahnawá:ke: Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project; 2007.

Bryman A, Burgess RG. Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge; 1994.

Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1994.

Pope C, Mays N, Popay J. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative health evidence: a guide to methods. UK: McGraw-Hill Education; 2007.

Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care: analysing qualitative data. Br Med J. 2000;320(7227):114–6.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Version 11. [ http://www.qsrinternational.com /]. Accessed 11 Apr 2018.

Macaulay AC, Delormier T, McComber AM, Cross EJ, Potvin LP, Paradis G, Kirby RL, Saad-Haddad C, Desrosiers S. Participatory research with native community of Kahnawake creates innovative code of research ethics. Can J Public Health. 1998;89(2):105–8.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cargo M, Levesque L, Macaulay AC, McComber A, Desrosiers S, Delormier T, Potvin L, Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project Community Advisory B. Community governance of the Kahnawake schools diabetes prevention project, Kahnawake territory, Mohawk nation, Canada. Health Promot Int. 2003;18(3):177–87.

Lévesque L, Guilbault G, Delormier T, Potvin L. Unpacking the black box: a deconstruction of the programming approach and physical activity interventions implemented in the Kahnawake schools diabetes prevention project. Health Promot Pract. 2005;6(1):64–7.

Macaulay AC, Harris SB, Lévesque L, Cargo M, Ford E, Salsberg J, McComber A, Fiddler R, Kirby R, Hanley AJG, et al. Primary prevention of type 2 diabetes: experiences of 2 aboriginal communities in Canada. Can J Diabetes. 2003;27(4):464–75.

KSDPP. KSDPP annual summary of activities. Kahnawake: Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project; 2002. p. 6.

KSDPP. KSDPP annual summary of activities. Kahnawake: Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project; 2014. p. 6.

KSDPP. KSDPP annual summary of activities. Kahnawake: Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project; 2010. p. 6.

KSDPP. KSDPP annual summary of activities. Kahnawake: Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project; 2001. p. 6.

Macridis S, García Bengoechea E, McComber AM, Jacobs J, Macaulay AC, The Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project’s School Travel Planning Committee. Active transportation to support diabetes prevention: expanding school health promotion programming in an indigenous community. Eval Program Plann . 2016; In press.

Salsberg J, Parry D, Pluye P, Macridis S, Herbert CP, Macaulay AC. Successful strategies to engage research partners for translating evidence into action in community health: a critical review. J Environ Public Health. 2015;2015:191856.

Hogan L, Bengoechea EG, Salsberg J, Jacobs J, King M, Macaulay AC. Using a participatory approach to the development of a school-based physical activity policy in an indigenous community. J Sch Health. 2014;84:786–92.

Ortiz R, Pastor M. Making change: how social movements work and how to support them. Los Angeles: Program for Environmental and Regional Equity; University of Southern California; 2009. p. 55.

Download references

Acknowledgements

MCT gratefully thanks the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project and the community of Kahnawake for their support and their contribution to this project. Special thanks are owed to Judi Jacobs (KSDPP general manager), who provided a helpful support with data collection logistics and community research review. The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of Selma Chipenda-Dansokho, who carefully reviewed the manuscript for English.

MCT was awarded a postdoctoral fellowship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Research in First Nations, Métis and/or Inuit Health (302299).

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the KSDPP research agreement, but are available from KSDPP on reasonable request ([email protected]). KSDPP retains ownership of all data, and control over data and their use is managed by the KSDPP Community Advisory Board. Scientific publications analyzed in this study is presented in Additional file  1 .

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Office of Education and Continuing Professional Development, Université Laval, 1050, de la Médecine, Pavillon Ferdinand-Vandry, 2881-F, Québec, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada

Marie-Claude Tremblay

School of Health and Human Performance, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

Debbie H. Martin

Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project, Kahnawake, QC, Canada

Alex M. McComber & Amelia McGregor

Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

Alex M. McComber & Ann C. Macaulay

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

This research has been first designed and developed by the principal author (MCT) in collaboration with co-authors (AM, DH, AMC) and KSDPP. MCT mainly collected the data and carried out the first analysis. Results have been interpreted and discussed by all authors (MCT, AM, DH, AMC, AMG). MCT wrote a first version of the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie-Claude Tremblay .

Ethics declarations

As with all KSDPP research projects, this project has been conducted in accordance with the KSDPP Code of Research Ethics ( http://www.ksdpp.org/elder/code_ethics.php ), which serves as a binding research agreement between the researcher and the community. Full ethical approval was obtained first from the Community Advisory Board of KSDPP and then from the McGill University ethics institutional review board (project A11-B52-14A). Participants in the talking circle provided individual written informed consent.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Additional file

Additional file 1:.

List of scientific and organisational documents included in the document review (n = 51). (DOCX 25 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Tremblay, MC., Martin, D.H., McComber, A.M. et al. Understanding community-based participatory research through a social movement framework: a case study of the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project. BMC Public Health 18 , 487 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5412-y

Download citation

Received : 08 May 2017

Accepted : 05 April 2018

Published : 12 April 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5412-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social movements
• Collective action
• Process evaluation
• Program evaluation
• Indigenous health
• Health promotion
• Diabetes prevention

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Am J Public Health
• v.100(8); Aug 2010

Community Engagement in Research: Frameworks for Education and Peer Review

Both authors conceptualized, wrote, and edited the article.

Community engagement in research may enhance a community's ability to address its own health needs and health disparities issues while ensuring that researchers understand community priorities. However, there are researchers with limited understanding of and experience with effective methods of engaging communities. Furthermore, limited guidance is available for peer-review panels on evaluating proposals for research that engages communities.

The National Institutes of Health Director's Council of Public Representatives developed a community engagement framework that includes values, strategies to operationalize each value, and potential outcomes of their use, as well as a peer-review framework for evaluating research that engages communities.

Use of these frameworks for educating researchers to create and sustain authentic community–academic partnerships will increase accountability and equality between the partners.

THE SIGNIFICANT RENAISSANCE of community engagement in research stems from demands by community leaders, policymakers, and funders for meaningful community involvement to address health problems facing communities. The published peer-reviewed literature and numerous reports point to the many potential benefits of community engagement in research. 1 – 16 According to the Institute of Medicine, for example, community-based participatory research increases community understanding of the issues under study and enhances researchers' ability to understand community priorities, the importance of addressing community priorities, and the need for culturally sensitive communications and research approaches. 17

Several models for community engagement in research exist, including community-based participatory research, 18 , 19 empowerment evaluation, 20 , 21 participatory or community action research, 22 and participatory rapid appraisal. 23 Some confusion exists about the definition of community engagement in research, however, because many researchers use the terms interchangeably.

Researchers conducting community engagement in research need appropriate education and training not typically offered by traditional doctoral and master's level curricula. The field clearly needs long-term programs that integrate the knowledge and skills of experienced community and researcher partners in high-quality participatory research to build the capacity of young and traditionally trained researchers and scientists interested in pursuing community engagement in research. 24

Funding agencies often find it difficult to assess participatory research proposals, especially if they use traditional review criteria that are not necessarily applicable to participatory research. 25 A 2004 review 26 points out that when reviewers in typical study sections are not familiar with community-based participatory research or are even skeptical about the approach's merits, investigators find it challenging to obtain funding for their community-based participatory research projects through conventional peer-review mechanisms.

Many funders include members of the lay public in their peer-review panels to evaluate proposals from the patient's or family member's perspective. 27 , 28 Lay public reviewers help scientists understand the impact of the research on the community and help them make appropriate funding recommendations that address the needs and concerns of patients, health care providers, and family members. 29 However, many scientists are concerned that lay peer reviewers do not have the scientific expertise required to offer an appropriate evaluation. 30 , 31 A survey of the National Cancer Institute of Canada's scientific grant review panel members found that not all scientists value lay contributions and many lay members feel insecure about the importance of their contributions. 32

Because of these barriers, community engagement in research is probably underused. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director's Council of Public Representatives (COPR), a federal advisory committee to the NIH director, addressed these issues and produced this article to advance community engagement in research. We describe approaches that funders and educational institutions can use to develop community engagement in research training programs and peer-review processes that can expand the community engagement in research field.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN RESEARCH AT THE NIH

Many of NIH's 27 institutes and centers encourage some investigators to engage the public in their research. For example, NIH sponsored the Partners in Research Program, which supports partnerships between academic or scientific institutions and community organizations to study methods for improving public understanding of research and enhance outreach to the public by scientists. 33

Several NIH institutes and centers, particularly institutes with large clinical research portfolios, offer training in community engagement for NIH-sponsored investigators. 34 , 35 However, NIH has no centralized training programs dedicated to enhancing researcher or community skills in community engagement in research.

Although NIH-sponsored investigators are not required to include community members in clinical research, except as research participants, some NIH institutes and centers encourage community participation in some of their programs. The NIH has no centralized policy, however, requiring the involvement of communities in NIH-funded clinical research when community engagement is relevant to the study.

The NIH sometimes creates a special emphasis panel or an ad hoc committee to review applications submitted in response to a request for applications or a very specific research topic. 26 These reviewers are typically experts in the request for applications focus area and receive specific instructions related to the proposals that they are asked to review. The NIH also includes public representatives in some of its peer-review panels.

Several NIH institutes and centers have developed special review criteria for proposals involving community participation in research. For example, reviewers of the Clinical and Translational Science Award proposals are asked to consider whether the centers will effectively involve the Clinical and Translational Science Award's community in “clinical and translational research priority setting, participation, and follow-up.” 36

In 2007, NIH initiated a formal review of its peer-review system. The final draft of the 2007–2008 Peer Review Self-Study for NIH included “continue piloting the use of patients and their advocates in clinical research review” as one recommended action to enhance reviewer quality. 37

THE ROLE OF COPR IN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN RESEARCH

The NIH Director's Council of Public Representatives consists of 21 members of the public who advise, recommend, and consult with the NIH director on medical research, NIH policies, and programs that involve the public. This group has a deep interest in community engagement in research, as illustrated by the 2004 workshop, “Inviting Public Participation in Clinical Research: Building Trust Through Partnerships,” that COPR sponsored in partnership with the NIH Public Trust Initiative. The council issued the workshop proceedings and a report with recommendations. 38 , 39 In addition, two COPR members, Marjorie Mau, MD, and Syed Ahmed, MD, DrPH (one of the coauthors of this article), were members of the Working Group of the Advisory Committee to the NIH Director on NIH Peer Review.

In discussions with former NIH Director Elias Zerhouni, MD, COPR emphasized the importance of participation in research and recommended that the NIH adopt a fourth “P,” for “participation,” in NIH's vision of medicine as being “more Predictive, Personalized, Preemptive, and Participatory.” 40 The council went further to establish the Role of the Public in Research work group to explore how to operationalize the fourth “P” and address concerns about community engagement in research by producing the following deliverables:

• Definitions and operating principles of “community engagement” and “public participation,”
• Guidelines for educating researchers and the lay public on community engagement, and
• Criteria and guidance that peer-review panels can use to gauge community engagement.

We present COPR's three deliverables.

COPR FRAMEWORKS FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN RESEARCH EDUCATION AND PEER REVIEW

The Role of the Public Work Group was formed in 2006 to produce COPR's community engagement in research deliverables. The work group included approximately 10 COPR members who volunteered to join the group because of their experience as academic or community partners in research or because of a strong interest in community engagement in research.

COPR's Methodology

The work group explored the value of public participation in research in 2006 through 2008. The group invited community and academic experts representing many sectors in community engagement, public participation in research, grant administration, training, peer review, ethics, and community-based research to meet with the work group. At these meetings, the work group learned, for example, that understanding a community's social and cultural characteristics, as identified by community members, improves research quality, ensures the research's relevance, addresses health disparities, and enhances the research's impact. However, presenters and members identified several concerns, including limited researcher understanding of public participation in research's value, limited researcher experience in this area, and limited guidance for peer-review panels on evaluating community engagement proposals.

The work group conducted a very broad search of PubMed and the Internet using many search terms (such as “participatory action research,” “peer review,” “partnership,” and “collaboration”) and combinations of these terms. This search generated approximately 650 peer-reviewed journal articles, reports from government agencies and nonprofit organizations, course and curriculum descriptions, bibliographies, and Web sites from around the world.

The work group produced initial drafts of its deliverables based on its internal discussions in 2007 and 2008 (including four face-to-face meetings and many teleconferences), discussions with invited experts, COPR's previous reports on public trust and human participants in research, and literature search results. Specifically, the work group reviewed definitions of “community engagement” 41 – 55 and “public participation” 56 , 57 created by NIH and other experts to produce the first deliverable. The group developed the second and third deliverables by identifying relevant strategies for educating researchers and criteria for peer review of community engagement in research proposals from the literature. The group refined these strategies and criteria by combining or eliminating some and revising others to produce the frameworks.

Work group members reviewed and presented drafts of each deliverable to the full COPR before the committee's approval of the final version. In October 2008, COPR presented its frameworks to Raynard Kington, MD, PhD, acting director and deputy director of NIH. He accepted the frameworks on behalf of NIH and recommended that NIH form an internal work group to implement the framework. The work group cochairs subsequently developed the current article, with input from the entire COPR, to present the frameworks and describe the methods used to develop them.

Public Participation

Public participation is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process. 58 , 59 Public participation is the process by which an organization consults with interested or affected individuals, organizations, and government entities before making a decision. Public participation is a two-way communication and collaborative problem-solving process with the goal of achieving better and more acceptable decisions.

Community Engagement

Community engagement in research is a process of inclusive participation that supports mutual respect of values, strategies, and actions for authentic partnership of people affiliated with or self-identified by geographic proximity, special interest, or similar situations to address issues affecting the well-being of the community of focus. 45 , 48 , 60 , 61

Community engagement is a core element of any research effort involving communities. It requires academic members to become part of the community and community members to become part of the research team, creating a unique working and learning environment before, during, and after the research.

Operating Principle

Community engagement is a process that requires power sharing, maintenance of equity, and flexibility in pursuing goals, methods, and time frames to fit the priorities, needs, and capacities within the cultural context of communities. Community engagement in research is often operationalized in the form of partnerships, collaboratives, and coalitions that do the following: help mobilize resources and influence systems, change relationships among partners, and serve as catalysts for changing policies, programs, and practices.

Core Principles for Education on Community Engagement in Research

The NIH Director's Council of Public Representatives' framework for education on community engagement in research targets investigators and communities. The framework is built on 5 core principles. Corresponding values are listed in Table 1 .

Values, Strategies, and Outcomes of Community Engagement in Research (CER)

Note. COPR=National Institutes of Health Director's Council of Public Representatives.

Definition and scope of community engagement in research (values 1 and 5).

Community and academic partners need to understand the definition of “community” and what community engagement involves in their program. New investigators should understand the community engagement activity and communities and academic partners must identify the project's goals, which should be based on a relevant community issue.

Strong community–academic partnership (values 2 and 8).

Successful partnerships are based on a mutual understanding of partners' needs, capacities, and goals. Developing a partnership takes time, skill, and mutual respect. A formal agreement is helpful but not sufficient because relationships must extend beyond legal documents.

Equitable power and responsibility (values 3 and 4).

Community engagement projects can involve community partners in all aspects of the research process, recognizing that both community and academic partners bring expertise. Depending on available expertise, infrastructure support, and interest levels, partners should take responsibility for advancing different research aspects. This creates mutual respect, willingness to share power, and accountability for each project aspect. Community engagement projects encourage, instead of merely tolerating, diverse populations and perspectives.

Capacity building (values 6, 7, and 13).

Community and academic partners share resources and funding. Communities increase their capacity to address their health issues by learning about different aspects of the research process. Academics increase their own capacity to conduct community engagement research, enhance the authenticity of their data, and obtain assistance in recruiting and retaining research participants.

Effective dissemination plan (values 9, 10, 11, and 12).

Bidirectional, continuous communication keeps community engagement projects moving. Transparency in all activities builds trust and both partners must own all data gathered. Partners must make joint decisions on disseminating their research results. The translation of findings into policies or programs must be based on the research project's agreed-upon goals.

Framework for Education on Community Engagement in Research

The first framework ( Table 1 ) describes 13 values that are relevant to community engagement and identifies strategies to operationalize each value and potential outcomes from those strategies. The process for training researchers in community engagement should be based on the five principles and the framework.

Framework for Peer Review of Community Engagement Proposals

Table 2 provides suggested criteria for reviewers to use as a framework when they are reviewing proposals involving community engagement as a key component of the research. Principal investigators might come from an academic institution, whereas coinvestigators might come from an academic institution or a community organization. This table addresses both types of investigators because an effective arrangement is one in which community engagement research projects are led by a team of academic and community partners as coinvestigators.

Criteria for Applications for Research Involving Communities

The NIH Director's Council of Public Representatives developed its frameworks for community engagement in research after reviewing its previous reports on human participants and public trust in research, meeting with experts in a range of related fields, and conducting an extensive review of published and unpublished literature. The council's research results highlight the importance of educating investigators and communities on how to engage communities in research and ensuring that reviewers are familiar with the principles of community engagement in research and understand the value of this approach. In addition, COPR recognizes that the frameworks should be evaluated and the results used to refine the frameworks and increase their utility.

By incorporating the frameworks presented in this article, NIH, other funders, researchers, and communities will help expand the cadre of researchers who are well prepared to form authentic partnerships with communities and ensure that proposals for community engagement research receive a fair and appropriate review. We hope that this will increase the amount of high-quality community engagement research that researchers and communities conduct and that NIH supports. This will, in turn, have a positive impact on the health of communities.

Acknowledgments

Both authors acknowledge the current and former Council of Public Representatives (COPR) members for their participation, suggestions, and comments throughout the process: Naomi Cottoms, MS Arkansas; Craig Beam, BA, and James S. Wong, PhD, California; Brent M. Jaquet, BA, and Michael Manganiello, MPA, Washington, DC; Nicole Johnson, MA, MPH, and John W. Walsh, BS, Florida; Carlos A. O. Pavão, BA, MPA, Georgia; Marjorie Mau, MD, MS, Hawaii; Micah L. Berman, JD, and Elmer R. Freeman, MSW, Massachusetts; Christina Clark, MA, MBA, Michigan; Valda Boyd Ford, MPH, MS, RN, and Beth Furlong, PhD, JD, RN, Nebraska; Lora M. Church, BS, New Mexico; Wendy Chaite, Esq, Matthew Margo, LLM, and James H. Wendorf, MA, New York; Cynthia Lindquist Mala, PhD, MPA, North Dakota; Nicolas Linares-Orama, PhD, Puerto Rico; Rep Eileen Naughton, JD, Rhode Island; Linda Crew-McNamara, MBA, RN, South Carolina; and Anne Muñoz-Furlong, BA, Virginia. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Debby Berlyne, PhD, with this article. In addition, the authors thank Kelli L. Carrington, MA, executive secretary, COPR, for her perspective and support to produce this document.

Exploring Community Health Nursing Research Topics: A Comprehensive Guide for Nursing Students

• Carla Johnson
• August 25, 2023
• Essay Topics and Ideas

Community health nursing is a dynamic and vital field within the nursing profession, focused on providing holistic care to populations within a defined community. This specialized branch of nursing goes beyond individual patient care, extending its reach to families, groups, and entire communities. This article will delve into community health nursing, explore its significance, and provide valuable resources for nursing students to engage in research, evidence-based practice (EBP) projects, capstone projects, research paper topics, research questions, and essay ideas.

What You'll Learn

Understanding Community Health Nursing: A Holistic Approach

Community health nursing emphasizes preventive care , health promotion, and disease prevention within a specific community. This holistic approach involves understanding the community’s unique needs, cultures, and challenges to provide targeted interventions that improve health outcomes. As nursing students, you will find this field to be a gateway to understanding the broader healthcare landscape and the interconnectedness of various factors that influence health.

PICOT Questions on Community Health Nursing

• P: Adult population in psychiatric care ; I: Implementation of daily RS questionnaire; C: Units without the daily survey; O: Reduction in utilization of restraint and seclusion; T: 6 months. Can the implementation of a daily RS (Restraint and Seclusion) questionnaire for adults in psychiatric care lead to a significant decrease in the utilization of restraint and seclusion within a period of 6 months?
• P: Pediatric population in school settings; I: Introduction of daily exercise regimen; C: Schools without daily exercise; O: Improvement in BMI and overall fitness; T: 1 academic year. Does introducing a daily exercise regimen in school settings for pediatric populations result in a noticeable improvement in BMI and overall fitness over the course of 1 academic year?
• P: Elderly population in assisted living facilities; I: Implementation of fall prevention program; C: Facilities without fall prevention program; O: Reduction in fall-related injuries; T: 1 year. Is there a significant reduction in fall-related injuries among the elderly residing in assisted living facilities after the implementation of a comprehensive fall prevention program within 1 year?
• P: Low-income pregnant women; I: Provision of prenatal education classes; C: Those without access to prenatal education; O: Increase in prenatal knowledge and healthier pregnancy outcomes; T: Throughout gestation. Can providing prenatal education classes to low-income pregnant women lead to increased prenatal knowledge and improved pregnancy outcomes when compared to those without access to such education?
• P: Diabetic population within the community; I: Establishment of a mobile diabetic clinic; C: No mobile clinic available; O: Enhanced diabetic management and reduced hospitalizations; T: 2 years. Does the establishment of a mobile diabetic clinic within the community lead to better diabetic management and a decrease in hospitalizations over a span of 2 years?
• P: Adolescent population in schools; I: Implementation of comprehensive sexual education; C: Schools with standard sexual education; O: Reduction in teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs); T: 3 years. Over a period of 3 years, does the implementation of comprehensive sexual education in schools result in a significant decrease in the rates of teen pregnancies and STIs among adolescents compared to schools with standard sexual education?
• P: Homeless population; I: Launch of mobile healthcare unit; C: No access to regular healthcare; O: Improvement in overall health status and decrease in emergency room visits; T: 1 year. Can the introduction of a mobile healthcare unit for the homeless population improve their overall health status and a noticeable reduction in emergency room visits within a year?
• P: Rural elderly population; I: Initiation of telehealth services ; C: Lack of telehealth services; O: Enhanced access to healthcare and better management of chronic conditions; T: 18 months. Does the introduction of telehealth services for the rural elderly population lead to increased access to healthcare services and improved management of chronic conditions over the course of 18 months?
• P: New mothers; I: Implementation of postpartum support groups; C: No postpartum support groups available; O: Reduction in postpartum depression rates and improved maternal well-being; T: 1 year. Can the implementation of postpartum support groups for new mothers lead to a significant reduction in postpartum depression rates and an overall improvement in maternal well-being within a year?
• P: LGBTQ+ youth; I: Creating safe spaces in schools; C: Absence of designated safe spaces; O: Decreased mental health challenges and higher academic achievement; T: Ongoing. Does creating safe spaces within schools for LGBTQ+ youth lead to a noticeable decrease in mental health challenges and a rise in academic achievement over an ongoing period?

Evidence-Based Practice Projects Ideas

• Evaluating the effectiveness of community-wide vaccination drives in reducing vaccine-preventable diseases.
• Assessing the impact of a smoke-free policy in public spaces on community members’ respiratory health.
• Investigating the outcomes of a nutrition education program in improving dietary habits among low-income families.
• Analyzing the effectiveness of a community-based mental health awareness campaign in reducing stigma and increasing help-seeking behavior.
• Exploring the outcomes of a diabetes management intervention using mobile health apps in urban communities.
• Studying the effects of a community gardening initiative on physical activity levels and nutrition awareness.
• Investigating the utilization and impact of telemedicine services in remote rural areas.
• Assessing the benefits of a community fitness program on cardiovascular health and overall well-being.
• Evaluating the effectiveness of a school-based anti-bullying campaign on students’ mental health.
• Analyzing the outcomes of a community-driven initiative to increase access to clean drinking water in underserved areas.

Nursing Capstone Project Ideas

• Developing a comprehensive disaster preparedness plan for a local community.
• Designing and implementing a culturally sensitive prenatal care program for immigrant populations.
• Creating a curriculum for training community health workers in identifying and addressing social determinants of health.
• Establishing a support network for caregivers of elderly individuals living at home.
• Designing a mental health first aid training program for community leaders and volunteers.
• Implementing a community-based program to promote physical activity among children with obesity.
• Creating a resource guide for LGBTQ+ youth to access healthcare services without discrimination.
• Developing a community-wide initiative to combat opioid misuse and overdose.
• Establishing a telehealth platform for remote health consultations in underserved regions.
• Designing a comprehensive sexual education curriculum for high schools to address varying cultural norms.

Nursing Research Paper Topics

• The impact of community health nursing interventions on reducing health disparities .
• Exploring the role of community health nurses in disaster response and recovery.
• Analyzing the effectiveness of school-based health clinics in improving student health outcomes.
• Investigating the barriers and facilitators of healthcare access in underserved rural communities.
• The role of community health nursing in promoting healthy aging and elderly care.
• Addressing mental health stigma through community-based interventions led by nurses.
• Analyzing the outcomes of community health education programs on reducing tobacco use .
• Exploring the relationship between community engagement and positive maternal-child health outcomes.
• The effectiveness of telehealth services in bridging healthcare gaps in remote areas.
• Investigating the impact of community health nursing in preventing and managing chronic diseases.

Community Health Nursing Research Questions

• How does the presence of community health nurses influence health outcomes in underserved urban neighborhoods?
• What are the key components of successful school-based vaccination programs , and how do they impact disease prevention?
• How do cultural competence and sensitivity affect the effectiveness of community health nursing interventions?
• What are the main challenges community health nurses face in addressing social determinants of health ?
• How does community engagement contribute to the sustainability of community health initiatives led by nurses?
• What strategies effectively promote mental health awareness and reduce stigma within communities?
• How do telehealth services improve access to healthcare for individuals in geographically isolated regions?
• What role do community health nurses play in detecting and managing chronic diseases ?
• How do community health interventions impact healthcare utilization patterns and costs?
• What are the outcomes of community health nursing programs focused on improving maternal and child health?

Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

• The Role of Community Health Nursing in Promoting Population Health.
• Addressing Health Disparities: The Impact of Community Health Nursing.
• Community-Based Approaches to Preventing Teenage Pregnancy .
• Telehealth: Bridging Healthcare Gaps in Underserved Communities.
• Cultural Competence in Community Health Nursing: Challenges and Strategies.
• Disaster Preparedness and Response: The Critical Role of Community Health Nurses.
• The Influence of Social Determinants of Health on Community Health Nursing Interventions.
• Community Health Education: Strategies for Promoting Healthy Lifestyles.
• Exploring the Connection Between Mental Health and Community Well-being.
• Innovations in Community Health Nursing: Harnessing Technology for Better Outcomes.

As nursing students, you are poised to become the next generation of community health nurses, armed with the knowledge and skills to impact the health and well-being of diverse populations positively. Community health nursing offers numerous opportunities for research, practice, and advocacy. By delving into PICOT questions, evidence-based practice projects, capstone projects, research paper topics, and research questions, you can deepen your understanding of this vital field and contribute to its growth. Don’t hesitate to seek our writing services if you need assistance with your community health nursing assignments or essays. We understand the demands of nursing education and are here to support you in your academic journey. Your dedication to improving community health is commendable, and together, we can pave the way for healthier, more vibrant communities.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Community Health Nursing

• Is community health nursing the same as nursing? Community health nursing is a specialized branch of nursing that focuses on providing holistic care to populations within specific communities. While nursing is a broader field encompassing various specialties, community health nursing is distinct in its emphasis on preventive care and health promotion within communities.
• What are the qualifications of a community health nursing? To practice community health nursing, one typically needs a registered nurse (RN) license. Many community health nurses also hold a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) degree, and advanced practice may require additional education such as a Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) with a specialization in community health.
• Do community health nurses work in hospitals? While community health nurses primarily work in community settings like public health departments, schools, and clinics, they can also collaborate with hospitals to provide education, preventive care, and continuity of care to patients transitioning from hospital to home.
• Can a community health nurse become a doctor? Community health nurses can certainly pursue further education and career advancement, but the path to becoming a doctor is different. Becoming a doctor requires completing medical school and earning a medical degree (MD) or a doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO) degree, whereas community health nursing involves nursing education and training.

Start by filling this short order form order.studyinghq.com

And then follow the progressive flow. 

Having an issue, chat with us here

Cathy, CS. 

New Concept ? Let a subject expert write your paper for You​

Yet to start your paper have a subject expert write for you now, test our paper writing service for less, already began delegate the remaining part to our professional writers.

📕 Studying HQ

Typically replies within minutes

Hey! 👋 Need help with an assignment?

🟢 Online | Privacy policy

WhatsApp us

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Public Health

Volume 19, 1998, review article, review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health.

• Barbara A. Israel 1 , Amy J. Schulz 1 , Edith A. Parker 1 , and Adam B. Becker 1
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1420 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2029; e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
• Vol. 19:173-202 (Volume publication date May 1998) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173
• © Annual Reviews

Community-based research in public health focuses on social, structural, and physical environmental inequities through active involvement of community members, organizational representatives, and researchers in all aspects of the research process. Partners contribute their expertise to enhance understanding of a given phenomenon and to integrate the knowledge gained with action to benefit the community involved. This review provides a synthesis of key principles of community-based research, examines its place within the context of different scientific paradigms, discusses rationales for its use, and explores major challenges and facilitating factors and their implications for conducting effective community-based research aimed at improving the public's health.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• Altman DG . 1995 . Sustaining interventions in community systems: on the relationship between researchers and communities.. Health Psychol. 14 : 526– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Andrews H , Goldberg D , Wellen N , Pittman B , Struening E . 1995 . Predictions of special education placement from birth certificate data.. Am. J. Prev. Med. 11(Suppl.) : 55– 66 [Google Scholar]
• Antonovsky A . 1985 . Health, Stress and Coping . San Francisco: Jossey Bass [Google Scholar]
• Archer L , Whitaker D . 1994 . Developing a culture of learning through research partnerships.. See Ref. 142A 10 163– 86
• Argyris C , Putnam R , Smith DM . 1985 . Action Science: Concepts, Methods and Skills for Research and Intervention . San Francisco: Jossey Bass 480 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Bailey D . 1992 . Using participatory research in community consortia development and evaluation: lessons from the beginning of the story.. Am. Sociol. 23 : 71– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Barnett K . 1993 . Collaboration for community empowerment: re-defining the role of academic institutions .. Cent. Commun. Health, Sch. Public Health, Univ. Calif., Berkeley
• Berger PL , Neuhouse RJ . 1977 . To Empower People: The Role of Mediating Structures in Public Policy . Washington, DC: Am. Enterp. Inst. Public Policy Res 45 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Bishop R . 1994 . Initiating empowering research?. NZ J. Ed. Stud. 29 : 175– 88 [Google Scholar]
• Bishop R . 1996 . Addressing issues of self-determination and legitimation in Kaupapa Maori research. In Research Perspectives in Maori Education , ed. B. Webber 143–60. Wellington, NZ: Counc. Educ. Res [Google Scholar]
• Blankenship KM , Schulz AJ . 1996 . Approaches and dilemmas in community- based research and action . Presented at Annu. Meet. Soc. Study Soc. Probl., New York: NY [Google Scholar]
• Bracht N , Finnegan JR , Rissel C , Weisbrod R , Gleason J . et al. 1994 . Community ownership and program continuation following a health demonstration project.. Health Educ. Res. 9 : 243– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Brown ER . 1991 . Community action for health promotion: a strategy to empower individuals and communities.. Int. J. Health Serv. 21 : 441– 56 [Google Scholar]
• Brown P . 1995 . The role of the evaluator in comprehensive community initiatives.. See Ref. 24A 201– 25
• Brown LD , Tandon R . 1983 . Ideology and political economy in inquiry: action research and participatory research.. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 19 : 277– 94 [Google Scholar]
• Buchanan DR . 1996 . Building acade-mic-community linkages for health promotion: a case study in Massachusetts.. Am. J. Health Promot. 10 : 262– 69 [Google Scholar]
• Butterfoss FD , Goodman RM , Wandersman A . 1993 . Community coalitions for prevention and health promotion.. Health Educ. Res. 8 : 315– 30 [Google Scholar]
• Cancian FM . 1993 . Conflicts between activist research and academic success: participatory research and alternative strategies.. Am. Sociol. 24 : 92– 106 [Google Scholar]
• Cent. Dis. Control Prevent. Initiative 1994 . Urban Center(s) for Applied Research in Public Health, No. 515 .
• Clark NM , Baker EA , Chawla A , Maru M . 1993 . Sustaining collaborative problem solving: strategies from a study in six Asian countries.. Health Educ. Res. 8 : 385– 402 [Google Scholar]
• Clark NM , McLeroy KR . 1995 . Creating capacity through health education: What we know and what we don't.. Health Educ. Q. 22 : 273– 89 [Google Scholar]
• Collins PH . 1990 . Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment . Boston: Unwin Hyman 265 pp. [Google Scholar]
• COMMIT Research Group 1995 . Community intervention trial for smoking cessation-I.. Am. J. Public Health 85 : 183– 92 [Google Scholar]
• COMMIT Research Group 1995 . Community intervention trial for smoking cessation-II: changes in adult cigarette smoking prevalence.. Am. J. Public Health 85 : 193– 200 [Google Scholar]
• Connell JP , Kubisch AC , Schorr LB , Weiss CH . eds 1995 . New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives . Washington, DC: Aspen [Google Scholar]
• Connors K , Seifer SD . 1997 . Overcoming a century of town-gown relations: redefining relationships between communities and academic health centers. Expanding boundaries: building civic responsibility within higher education. Washington, DC: Corp. Natl. Serv..
• Cornwall A . 1996 . Towards participatory practice: participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and the participatory process.. See Ref. 31 9 94– 107
• Cosier J , Glennie S . 1994 . Supervising the child protection process: a multidisciplinary inquiry.. See Ref. 142A 99– 119
• Cousins JB , Earl LM . eds 1995 . Participatory Evaluation: Studies in Evaluation Use and Organizational Learning . London: Falmer 185 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Cunningham B . 1976 . Action research: toward a procedural model.. Hum. Rel. 29 : 215– 38 [Google Scholar]
• Davies JK , Kelly MP . eds 1993 . Healthy Cities: Research and Practice . New York: Routledge 188 pp. [Google Scholar]
• deKoning K , Martin M . 1996a . Participatory Research in Health: Issues and Experiences . London: Zed Books 242 pp. [Google Scholar]
• deKoning K , Martin M . 1996 . Participatory research in health: setting the context.. See Ref. 31 1 1– 18
• De Venney-Tiernan M , Goldband A , Rackham L , Reilly N . 1994 . Creating collaborative relationships in a co-operative inquiry group.. See Ref. 142A 8 120– 37
• Denzin NK . 1994 . The art and politics of interpretation.. See Ref. 34A 31 500– 15
• Denzin NK , Lincoln YS . eds 1994 . Handbook of Qualitative Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 643 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Dockery G . 1996 . Rhetoric or reality? Participatory research in the National Health Service, UK.. See Ref. 31 15 164– 76
• Dressler WW . 1993 . Commentary on “Community Research: Partnership in Black Communities”.. Am. J. Prev. Med. 9(Suppl.) : 32– 34 [Google Scholar]
• Durie MH . 1994 . Whaiora: Maori Health Development . Auckland: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Durie MH . 1996 . Characteristics of Maori health research . Presented at Hui Whakapiripiri: A Hui to Discuss Strateg. Dir. Maori Health Res., Eru Pomare Maori Health Res. Cent., Wellington Sch. Med., Univ. Otago, Wellington, NZ [Google Scholar]
• Eisen A . 1994 . Survey of neighborhood-based comprehensive community empowerment initiatives.. Health Educ. Q. 21 : 235– 52 [Google Scholar]
• Elden M , Levin M . 1991 . Cogenerative learning.. See Ref. 193 9 127– 42
• Eng E , Blanchard L . 1990–1 . Action-oriented community diagnosis: a health education tool.. Int. Q. Commun. Health Educ. 11(2) : 93– 110 [Google Scholar]
• Eng E , Parker EA . 1994 . Measuring community competence in the Mississippi Delta: the interface between program evaluation and empowerment.. Health Educ. Q. 21 : 199– 220 [Google Scholar]
• Fals-Borda O , Rahman MA . 1991 . Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action Research . New York: Intermed. Technol. Publ/Apex 182 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Farquhar JW , Fortmann SP , Flora JA , Taylor CB , Haskell WL . et al. 1990 . Effects of community-wide education on cardiovascular disease risk factors.. JAMA 264 : 359– 65 [Google Scholar]
• Fawcett SB , Paine-Andrews A , Francisco VT , Schultz JA , Richter KP . et al. 1996 . Empowering community health initiatives through evaluation.. See Ref. 47 161– 87
• Feagin JR , Feagin CB . 1994 . Social Problems: A Critical Power-Conflict Perspective . Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall. 4th ed 482 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Fetterman DM , Kaftarian SJ , Wandersman A . eds 1996 . Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment and Accountability . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 411 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Fisher EB Jr . 1995 . The results of the COMMIT trial.. Am. J. Public Health 85 : 159– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Flick LH , Resse CG , Rogers G , Fletcher P , Sonn J . 1994 . Building community for health: lessons from a seven-year-old neighborhood/university partnership.. Health Educ. Q. 21 : 369– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Flynn BC . 1993 . Healthy cities within the American context.. See Ref. 30 9 112– 26
• Francisco VT , Paine AL , Fawcett SB . 1993 . A methodology for monitoring and evaluating community health coalitions.. Health Educ. Res. 8 : 403– 16 [Google Scholar]
• Freire P . 1972 . Pedagogy of the Oppressed . London: Penguin 186 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Freire P . 1987 . Education for Critical Consciousness . New York: Continuum 164 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Frenk J . 1993 . The new public health.. Annu. Rev. Public Health 14 : 469– 90 [Google Scholar]
• Freudenberg N . 1978 . Shaping the future of health education: from behavior change to social change.. Health Educ. Monogr. 6 : 372– 377 [Google Scholar]
• Gaventa J . 1993 . The powerful, the powerless, and the experts: knowledge struggles in an information age.. See Ref. 128 2 21– 40
• Glanz K , Lewis FM , Rimer BK . eds 1990 . Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass 496 pp. 2nd ed [Google Scholar]
• Goodman RM , Burdine JN , Meehan E , McLeroy KR . eds 1993 . Community coalitions for health promotion.. Health Educ. Res. 8 : 305– 453 [Google Scholar]
• Gottlieb NH , McLeroy KR . 1994 . Social health. In Health Promotion in the Workplace , ed. MP O'Donnell, JS Harris 17 459– 93 Albany, NY: Delmar. 554 pp. 2nd ed [Google Scholar]
• Green LW , Kreuter MW . 1991 . Health Promotion Planning: An Educational and Environmental Approach . Mountain View, CA: Mayfield 506 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Green LW , Kreuter MW . 1992 . CDC's planned approach to community health as an application of PRECEDE: an inspiration for PROCEED.. J. Health Educ. 23 : 140– 47 [Google Scholar]
• Green LW , George MA , Daniel M , Frankish CJ , Herbert CJ . et al. 1995 . Study of Participatory Research in Health Promotion . Univ. BC, Vancouver: R. Soc. Can [Google Scholar]
• Green LW , Richard L , Potvin L . 1996 . Ecological foundations of health promotion.. Am. J. Health Promot. 10(4) : 270– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Greene JC . 1994 . Qualitative program evaluation: practice and promise.. See Ref. 34A 530– 44
• Guba EG , Lincoln YS . 1989 . Fourth Generation Evaluation . Newbury Park, CA: Sage 294 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Guba EG , Lincoln YS . 1994 . Competing paradigms in qualitative research.. See Ref. 34A 6 105– 17
• Gustavsen B . 1985 . Workplace reform and democratic dialogue.. Econ. Ind. Democr. 6 : 461– 79 [Google Scholar]
• Hall BL . 1975 . Participatory research: an approach to change.. Convergence 11 : 25– 27 [Google Scholar]
• Hall B . 1981 . Participatory research, popular knowledge and power: a personal reflection.. Convergence 14(3) : 6– 17 [Google Scholar]
• Hall BL . 1992 . From margins to center? The development and purpose of participatory research.. Am. Sociol. 23 : 15– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Hancock T . 1993 . The Healthy City from concept to application: implications for research.. See Ref. 30 2 14– 24
• Hatch J , Moss N , Saran A , Presley-Cantrell L , Mallory C . 1993 . Community research: partnership in Black communities.. Am. J. Prev. Med. 9(Suppl.) : 27– 31 [Google Scholar]
• Healthy People 2000 1990 . Washington, DC: US, DHHS, (PHS) 91–50212, GPO
• Heron J . 1993 . Group Facilitation: Theories and Models of Practice . London: Kogan Page [Google Scholar]
• Himmelman AT . 1992 . Communities working collaboratively for a change .. Humphrey Inst. Public Aff., Univ. Minn., Minneapolis, MN
• Hollister RG , Hill J . 1995 . Problems in the evaluation of community-wide initiatives.. See Ref. 24A 127– 72
• hooks b . 1984 . Educating women: a feminist agenda.. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center . Boston: South End 174 pp.
• House E . 1994 . Integrating the quantitative and qualitative. In The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives , ed. CS Reichardt, SF Rallis. New Dir. Program Eval 61 13– 22 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 98 pp [Google Scholar]
• Hugentobler MK , Israel BA , Schurman SJ . 1992 . An action research approach to workplace health: integrating methods.. Health Educ. Q. 19 : 55– 76 [Google Scholar]
• Israel BA , Schurman SJ , House JS . 1989 . Action research on occupational stress: Involving workers as researchers.. Int. J. Health Serv. 19(1) : 135– 155 [Google Scholar]
• Israel BA , Schurman SJ . 1990 . Social support, control and the stress process.. See Ref. 56A 9 179– 205
• Israel BA , Schurman SJ , Hugentobler MK , House JS . 1992 . A participatory action research approach to reducing occupational stress in the United States. In Preventing Stress at Work: Conditions of Work Digest , ed. V DiMartino 2 152– 63 Geneva: Int. Labor Off [Google Scholar]
• Israel BA , Schurman SJ , Hugentobler MK . 1992 . Conducting action research: relationships between organization members and researchers.. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 28 : 74– 101 [Google Scholar]
• Israel BA , Checkoway B , Schulz AJ , Zimmerman MA . 1994 . Health education and community empowerment: conceptualizing and measuring perceptions of individual, organizational, and community control.. Health Educ. Q. 21 : 149– 70 [Google Scholar]
• Israel BA , Cummings KM , Dignan MB , Heaney CA , Perales DP . et al. 1995 . Evaluation of health education programs: current assessment and futuredirections.. Health Educ. Q. 22 : 364– 89 [Google Scholar]
• James SA . 1993 . Racial and ethnic differences in infant mortality and low birth weight: a psychosocial critique.. Ann. Epidemiol. 3 : 130– 36 [Google Scholar]
• James SA . 1993 . Racial differences in preterm delivery.. Am. J. Prev. Med. 9(Suppl.) : v– vi [Google Scholar]
• James SA . 1994 . Addressing the public health needs of a diverse America .. Presented at Annu. Minority Health Conf., 8th, Sch. Public Health, Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor
• Johnson DW , Johnson FP . 1991 . Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills . Boston: Allyn & Bacon 530 pp. 4th ed [Google Scholar]
• Kark SL , Steuart GW . eds 1962 . A Practice of Social Medicine: A South African Team's Experiences in Different African Communities . Edinburgh: Livingstone 372 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Kawachi I , Kennedy BP , Lochner K , Prothrow-Stith D . 1997 . Social capital, income inequality, and mortality.. Am. J. Public Health 87 : 1491– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Kelly MP , Davies JK , Charlton BG . 1993 . A modern problem or a post-modern solution?. See Ref. 30 12 159– 67
• Klein DC . 1968 . Community Dynamics and Mental Health . New York: Wiley 224 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Klitzner M . 1993 . A public health/dyn-amic systems approach to community-wide alcohol and other drug initiatives. In Drugs and the Community , ed. RC Davis, AJ Lurigo, DP Rosenbaum 10 201– 24 Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. 307 pp [Google Scholar]
• Koepsell TD , Wagner EH , Cheadle AC , Patrick DL , Martin DC . et al. 1992 . Selected methodological issues in evaluating community-based health promotion and disease prevention programs.. Annu. Rev. Public Health 13 : 31– 57 [Google Scholar]
• Krieger N . 1994 . Epidemiology and the web of causation: Has anyone seen the spider.. Soc. Sci. Med. 39 : 887– 903 [Google Scholar]
• Krieger N , Rowley DL , Herman AA , Avery B , Phillips MT . 1993 . Racism, sexism and social class: implications for studies of health, disease and well-being.. Am. J. Prev. Med. 9(Suppl.) : 82– 122 [Google Scholar]
• Kuhn TS . 1970 . The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press 210 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Kumpfer KL , Turner C , Hopkins R , Librett J . 1993 . Leadership and team effectiveness in community coalitions for the prevention of alcohol and other drug abuse.. Health Educ. Res. 8 : 359– 74 [Google Scholar]
• Labonte R . 1994 . Health promotion and empowerment: reflections on professional practice.. Health Educ. Q. 21 : 253– 68 [Google Scholar]
• Lalonde M . 1974 . A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians . Ottawa, ON: Minist. Supply Serv 82 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Lather P . 1986 . Research as praxis.. Harv. Educ. Rev. 56 : 259– 77 [Google Scholar]
• Levine DM , Becker DM , Bone LR , Stillman FA , Tuggle MB II, et al . 1992 . A partnership with minority populations: a community model of effectiveness research.. Ethn. Dis. 2 : 296– 305 [Google Scholar]
• Levine DM , Becker DM , Bone LR , Hill MN , Tuggle MB II et al . 1994 . Community-academic health center par-tnerships for underserved minority populations.. JAMA 272 : 309– 11 [Google Scholar]
• Lewin K . 1946 . Action research and minority problems.. J. Soc. Issues 2(4) : 34– 46 [Google Scholar]
• Light DW . 1997 . The rhetorics and realities of community health care: the limits of countervailing powers to meeting the health care needs of the 21 st century.. J. Health Polit. 21(1) : 105– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Lillie-Blanton M , Hoffman SC . 1995 . Conducting an assessment of health needs and resources in a racial/ethnic minority community.. Health Serv. Res. 30 : 225– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Lincoln YS . 1992 . Sympathetic connections between qualitative methods and health research.. Qual. Health Res. 2 : 375– 91 [Google Scholar]
• Lincoln YS , Guba EG . 1985 . Naturalistic Inquiry . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage 416 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Lincoln YS , Reason P . 1996 . Editor's introduction.. Qual. Inq. 2 : 5– 11 [Google Scholar]
• Maguire P . 1987 . Doing Participatory Research: A Feminist Approach . Sch. Educ., Amherst, MA: Univ. Mass 253 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Maguire P . 1996 . Considering more feminist participatory research: What's congruency got to do with it?. Qual. Inq. 2 : 106– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Marin G , Marin BV . 1991 . Research with Hispanic Populations . Newbury Park, CA: Sage 130 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Marin G , Burhansstipanov L , Connell CM , Gielen AC , Helitzer-Allen D . et al. 1995 . A research agenda for health education among underserved populations.. Health Educ. Q. 22 : 346– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Martin M . 1996 . Issues of power in the participatory research process.. See Ref. 31 8 82– 93
• McKinlay JB . 1993 . The promotion of health through planned sociopolitical change: challenges for research and policy.. Soc. Sci. Med. 36 : 109– 17 [Google Scholar]
• McKnight JL . 1987 . Regenerating community.. Soc. Policy 17 : 54– 58 [Google Scholar]
• McKnight JL . 1994 . Politicizing health care. In The Sociology of Health and Illness: Critical Perspectives , ed. P Conrad, R Kern 437– 41 New York, NY: St. Martin's. 4th. ed. 545 pp [Google Scholar]
• McLeroy KR , Clark NM , Simons-Morton BG , Forster J , Connell CM . et al. 1995 . Creating capacity: establishing a health education research agenda for special populations.. Health Educ. Q. 22 : 390– 405 [Google Scholar]
• Mies M . 1993 . Feminist research: science, violence and responsibility. In Ecofeminism , ed. M Mies, V Shiva 36– 54 London: Zed Books. 328 pp [Google Scholar]
• Minkler M . 1989 . Health education, health promotion and the open society: an historical perspective.. Health Educ. Q. 16 : 17– 30 [Google Scholar]
• Minkler M , Wallerstein N . 1997 . Improving health through community organization and community building.. See Ref. 56A 12 241– 69
• Mittelmark MB , Hunt MK , Heath GW , Schmid TL . 1993 . Realistic outcomes: lessons from community-based research and demonstration programs for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases.. J. Public Health Policy 14 : 437– 62 [Google Scholar]
• Mulling L . 1992 . Race, Class and Gender: Representations and Reality .. Cent. Res. Women, Memphis State Univ., Memphis, TN
• Network for Cancer Control Research Among American Indian and Alaska Native Populations 1994 . Cancer Prevention and Control Research Among American Indians and Alaska Natives: A Strategic Plan for State Public Health Agencies . Washington, DC: Natl. Cancer Inst [Google Scholar]
• Novotny TE , Healton CG . eds 1995 . Research linkages between academia and public health practice.. Am. J. Prev. Med. 11(Suppl.) : 1– 61 [Google Scholar]
• Nyden PW , Wiewel W . 1992 . Collaborative research: harnessing the tensions between researcher and practitioner.. Am. Sociol. 24 : 43– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Nyswander DB . 1955 . The dynamics of planning in health education.. California's Health 13(7). Reprinted in The Collected Works of Dorothy B Nyswander . 1982:55–63. Sch. Public Health, Univ. Hawaii, Manoa
• Park P , Brydon-Miller M , Hall B , Jackson T . eds 1993 . Voices of Change: Participatory Research in the United States and Canada . Westport, CT: Bergin, Garvey [Google Scholar]
• Parker EA , Schulz AJ , Israel BA , Hollis R . 1998 . Eastside Village Health Worker Partnership: community-based health advisor intervention in an urban area.. Health Educ. Behav. 25(1) [Google Scholar]
• Parker EA , Eng E , Laraia B , Ammerman A , Dodds J , Margolis L . 1997 . Coalition building for prevention: lessons learned from the North Carolina Community-Based Public Health Initiative.. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. In press [Google Scholar]
• Patton MQ . 1980 . Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods . Newbury Park: Sage. 2nd ed [Google Scholar]
• Pearce N . 1996 . Traditional epidemiology, modern epidemiology and public health.. Am. J. Public Health 86 : 678– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Peters M , Robinson V . 1984 . The origins and status of action research.. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 29(2) : 113– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Petras EM , Porpora DV . 1993 . Participatory research: three models and an analysis.. Am. Sociol. 24 : 107– 26 [Google Scholar]
• Pew Health Professions Commission 1993 . Health Professions Education for the Future: Schools in Service to the Nation . San Francisco: UCSF Cent. Health Prof [Google Scholar]
• Plaut T , Landis S , Trevor J . 1992 . Enhancing participatory research with the community oriented primary care model: a case study in community mobilization.. Am. Sociol. 23 : 56– 70 [Google Scholar]
• Plough A , Olafson F . 1994 . Implementing the Boston healthy start initiative: a case study of community empowerment and public health.. Health Educ. Q. 21 : 222– 34 [Google Scholar]
• Putnam RD . 1993 . Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy . Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press 258 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Raeburn JM . 1986 . Toward a sense of community: comprehensive community projects and community houses.. J. Commun. Psychol. 14 : 391– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Reardon K , Welsh J , Kreiswirth B , Forester J . 1993 . Participatory action research from the inside: community development practice in East St. Louis.. Am. Sociol. 24 : 69– 91 [Google Scholar]
• Reason P . ed 1988 . Human Inquiry in Action: Developments in New Paradigm Research . London: Sage 242 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Reason P . 1994 . Three approaches to participative inquiry.. See Ref. 34A 20 324– 39
• Reason P . ed 1994 . Participation in Human Inquiry . London: Sage 220 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Reason P . 1994 . Human inquiry as discipline and practice.. See Ref. 142A 4 40– 56
• Reason P , Rowan J . eds 1981 . Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research . Chichester: Wiley 530 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Remington RD , Axelrod D , Bingham E , Boyle J , Breslow L . et al. 1988 . The Future of Public Health . Inst. Med. Publ., Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press 225 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Rivo ML , Gray K , Whitaker M , Coward R , Liburd LC . et al. 1992 . Implementing PATCH in public housing communities: the District of Columbia experience.. J. Health Educ. 23 : 148– 52 [Google Scholar]
• Robertson A , Minkler M . 1994 . New health promotion movement: a critical examination.. Health Educ. Q. 21 : 295– 312 [Google Scholar]
• Rogers T , Howard-Pitney B , Feighery EC , Altman DG , Endres JM . et al. 1993 . Characteristics and participant perceptions of tobacco control coalitions in California.. Health Educ. Res. 8 : 345– 57 [Google Scholar]
• Rosenberg Z , Findley S , McPhillips S , Penachio M , Silver P . 1995 . Commun-ity-based strategies for immunizing the“hard-to-reach” child: the New York sta-te immunization and primary health care initiative.. Am. J. Prev. Med. 11(Suppl.) : 14– 20 [Google Scholar]
• Sarason SB . 1984 . The Psychological Sense of Community: Prospects for a Community Psychology . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass [Google Scholar]
• Schensul SL . 1985 . Science, theory and application in anthropology.. Am. Behav. Scient. 29 : 164– 185 [Google Scholar]
• Schensul JJ , Denelli-Hess D , Borreo MG , Bhavati MP . 1987 . Urban comadronas: maternal and child health research and policy formulation in a Puerto Rican community. In Collaborative Research and Social Change: Applied Anthropology in Action , ed. DD Stull, JJ Schensul 9– 32 Boulder, CO: Westview. 265 pp [Google Scholar]
• Schmitz CC , Johnson CM , Himmelman AT , Wunderlich M . 1996 . Cluster evaluation of the community-based public health initiative .. Annu. Rep. Final Summ. Univ. Minnesota [Google Scholar]
• Schulz AJ . 1996 . Evaluation Report to the School of Public Health Community-Based Public Health Committee .. Ann Arbor, MI
• Schulz AJ , Israel BA , Selig SM , Bayer IS , Griffin CB . 1997 . Development and implementation of principles for community-based research in public health.. J. Commun. Pract. In press [Google Scholar]
• Schulz AJ , Parker EA , Israel BA , Becker AB , Maciak B . et al. 1997 . Conducting a participatory community-based survey: collecting and interpreting data for a community health intervention on Detroit's east side.. J. Public Health Manage. Pract. In press [Google Scholar]
• Schulz AJ , Israel BA , Becker AB , Hollis RM . 1997 . It's a twenty-four hour thing…a living for each other concept: identity, networks and community in an urban Village Health Worker project.. Health Educ. Behav. 24(4) : 465– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Schurman SJ , Israel BA . 1995 . Redesigning work systems to reduce stress: a participatory action research approach to creating change.. In Job Stress Interventions: Current Practices and New Directions , ed. L Murphy, JJ Hurrell, S Sauter, GP Keita. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc 439 pp.
• Schwartz RM . 1994 . The Skilled Facilitator: Practical Wisdom for Developing Effective Groups . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass [Google Scholar]
• Singer M . 1993 . Knowledge for use: anthropology and community-centered substance abuse research.. Soc. Sci. Med. 37(1) : 15– 25 [Google Scholar]
• Singer M . 1994 . Community-centered praxis: toward an alternative non-dominative applied anthropology.. Human Organ. 53 : 336– 44 [Google Scholar]
• Smithies J , Adams L . 1993 . Walking the tightrope.. See Ref. 30 5 55– 70
• Steckler AB , Dawson L , Israel BA , Eng E . 1993 . Community health development: an overview of the works of Guy W Steuart.. Health Educ. Q. Suppl 1 : S3– S20 [Google Scholar]
• Steckler AB , McLeroy KR , Goodman RM , Bird ST , McCormick L . eds 1992 . Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods.. Health Educ. Q. 19(1) Spec. issue [Google Scholar]
• Steuart GW . 1969 . Scientist and professional: the relations between research and action.. Health Educ. Monogr. 29 : 1– 10 [Google Scholar]
• Steuart GW . 1993 . Social and cultural perspectives: community intervention and mental health.. Health Educ. Q. Suppl 1 : S99– S111 [Google Scholar]
• Stoecker R , Bonacich E . eds 1992 . Participatory research, part I.. Am. Sociol. 23 : 3– 115 [Google Scholar]
• Stoecker R , Bonacich E . eds 1993 . Participatory research, part II.. Am. Sociol. 24 : 3– 126 [Google Scholar]
• Stokols D . 1992 . Establishing and maintaining healthy environments: toward a social ecology of health promotion.. Am. Psychol. 47 : 6– 22 [Google Scholar]
• Stokols D . 1996 . Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion.. Am. J. Health Promot. 10 : 282– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Stokols D , Allen J , Bellingham RL . eds 1996 . Social ecology.. Am. J. Health Promot. 10(4) : 244– 328 Spec. issue [Google Scholar]
• Stringer ET . 1996 . Action Research: A Handbook for Practitioners . Thousand Oaks: Sage 169 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Susser M . 1995 . The tribulations of trials-intervention in communities.. Am. J. Public Health 85 : 156– 58 [Google Scholar]
• Susser M , Susser E . 1996 . Choosing a future for epidemiology: I eras and paradigms.. Am. J. Public Health 86 : 668– 73 [Google Scholar]
• Susser M , Susser E . 1996 . From blackbox to Chinese boxes and eco-epidemi-ology.. Am. J. Public Health 86 : 674– 77 [Google Scholar]
• Tandon R . 1981 . Participatory evaluation and research: main concepts and issues. In Participatory Research and Evaluation , eds. W Fernandes, R Tandon 1 15– 34 New Delhi: Indian Soc. Inst. 216 pp [Google Scholar]
• Tandon R . 1996 . The historical roots and contemporary tendencies in participatory research: implications for health care.. See Ref. 31 2 19– 26
• Tarlov AR , Kehrer BH , Hall DP . et al. 1987 . Foundation work: the health promotion program of the Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation.. Am. J. Health Promot. 2 : 74– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Terris M . 1987 . Epidemiology and the public health movement.. J. Public Health Pol. 7 : 315– 29 [Google Scholar]
• Traylen H . 1994 . Confronting hidden agendas: cooperative inquiry with health visitors.. See Ref. 142A 5 59– 81
• Treleaven L . 1994 . Making a space: a collaborative inquiry with women as staff development.. See Ref. 142A 9 138– 62
• Trostle J . 1986 . Anthropology and epidemiology in the twentieth century: a selective history of collaborative projects and theoretical affinities, 1920–1970. In Anthropology and Epidemiology , ed. CR Janes, R Stall, SM Gifford 59– 94 Norwell, MA: Reidel. 349 pp [Google Scholar]
• Ugarte CA , Duarte P , Wilson KM . 1992 . PATCH as a model for development of a Hispanic health needs assessment: the El Paso experience.. J. Health Educ. 23 : 153– 56 [Google Scholar]
• Univ. North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Public Health 1994 . Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure Manual .. Adopted Oct. 1
• Vega WA . 1992 . Theoretical and pragmatic implications of cultural diversity for community research.. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 20 : 375– 91 [Google Scholar]
• Wall S . 1995 . Epidemiology for prevention.. Int. J. Epidemiol. 24 : 655– 64 [Google Scholar]
• Wallerstein N . 1992 . Powerlessness, empowerment, and health: implications for health promotion programs.. Am. J. Health Promot. 6 : 197– 205 [Google Scholar]
• Wallerstein NM , Bernstein E . eds 1994 . Community empowerment, participatory education and health—part I.. Health Educ. Q. 21 : 141– 268 [Google Scholar]
• Wallerstein NM , Bernstein E . eds 1994 . Community empowerment, participatory education and health—part II.. Health Educ. Q. 21 : 279– 419 [Google Scholar]
• Weiss HB , Greene JC . 1992 . An empowerment partnership for family support and education programs and evaluations.. Fam. Sci. Rev. 5 : 131– 49 [Google Scholar]
• Whitehead M . 1993 . The ownership of research.. See Ref. 30 7 83– 89
• Whitmore E . 1994 . To tell the truth: working with oppressed groups in participatory approaches to inquiry.. See Ref. 142A 6 82– 98
• Whyte WF . 1991 . Participatory Action Research . Newbury Park, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
• WK Kellogg Foundation 1992 . Comm-unity-Based Public Health Initiative .. Battle Creek, MI
• Williams DR , Collins C . 1995 . US socioeconomic and racial differences in health: patterns and explanations.. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 21 : 349– 86 [Google Scholar]
• World Health Organization 1946 . Constitution . New York: WHO [Google Scholar]
• World Health Organization 1986 . Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion .. Copenhagen, WHO
• World Health Organization 1987 . Healthy Cities: Action Strategies for Health Promotion . Copenhagen: WHO Reg. Off. Eur [Google Scholar]
• Yeich S , Levine R . 1992 . Participatory research's contribution to a conceptualization of empowerment.. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 22 : 1894– 908 [Google Scholar]
• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, nature and health, measuring social class in us public health research: concepts, methodologies, and guidelines, the epidemiology of depression across cultures, acute respiratory effects of particulate air pollution, racism and health: evidence and needed research, the social determinants of health: coming of age, the role of behavioral science theory in development and implementation of public health interventions, mediation analysis: a practitioner's guide, the prescription opioid and heroin crisis: a public health approach to an epidemic of addiction.

Community Psychology Research Paper Topics

This page provides a comprehensive list of community psychology research paper topics , serving as a crucial resource for students dedicated to exploring the intersection of psychology, community development, and social justice. Recognized for its focus on the systemic issues that influence individual and community well-being, community psychology offers a rich tapestry of research areas aimed at enhancing the quality of life for communities worldwide. From examining the psychological underpinnings of community engagement and empowerment to developing interventions that address societal inequalities and promote mental health, these topics encourage students to delve into research that not only advances academic understanding but also has practical implications for societal improvement. This collection aims to inspire students to pursue research topics that are both meaningful and transformative, contributing to the ongoing growth of community psychology as a field dedicated to social change and the betterment of society as a whole.

100 Community Psychology Research Paper Topics

Community psychology stands at the crossroads of individual well-being and societal health, aiming to bridge the gap between psychological understanding and social action. It is a discipline deeply rooted in the principles of social justice, equity, and the empowerment of marginalized communities. By focusing on the dynamics of power, oppression, and resilience within communities, community psychology seeks to address and solve the complex social issues that impact mental health and community well-being. The diversity of research topics within this field reflects its interdisciplinary nature, drawing from psychology, sociology, public health, and environmental studies, among others. These topics encourage a holistic approach to research, emphasizing the importance of context, culture, and community in the pursuit of psychological health and social change.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

• Historical development of community psychology
• Key theories and models in community psychology
• Principles of ecological systems theory
• The role of empowerment theory in community psychology
• Community psychology and social capital
• The concept of resilience in communities
• Sense of community and community cohesion
• Critical psychology perspectives in community research
• The intersection of community psychology and social justice
• Participatory action research in community psychology
• Strategies for effective community organizing
• Community asset mapping and resource identification
• The psychology of community leadership
• Models of community engagement and participation
• Building sustainable community partnerships
• Community development projects and mental health
• The impact of gentrification on community well-being
• Rural and urban community psychology differences
• Community advocacy and capacity building
• Technology and social media in community organizing
• Psychological underpinnings of social movements
• Mental health advocacy in community settings
• Addressing systemic inequalities through community psychology
• The role of community psychologists in policy advocacy
• Grassroots activism and community mobilization
• Intersectionality and its implications for community psychology
• Gender justice in community psychology practice
• Advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights in communities
• Anti-racism strategies in community interventions
• Disability rights and inclusivity in community projects
• Community mental health services and access issues
• Stigma reduction strategies in community mental health
• Peer support and self-help groups in communities
• Trauma-informed community practices
• Substance abuse prevention and treatment in communities
• Suicide prevention strategies in community settings
• Integrating mental health care into primary health care settings
• Cultural considerations in community mental health
• The role of spirituality in community mental health
• Mental health literacy and education in communities
• Community-based prevention programs
• Designing interventions for at-risk youth in communities
• Violence prevention and conflict resolution in communities
• School-based interventions and community psychology
• Early childhood development programs in communities
• Preventive interventions for elder mental health
• Community responses to natural disasters and crises
• Sexual health education and community interventions
• Nutrition and physical health programs in community settings
• Digital interventions and e-mental health strategies
• Principles and practices of participatory research in communities
• Engaging communities in research design and implementation
• Ethical considerations in community-based participatory research
• Building trust and rapport in community research
• Participatory methods for data collection and analysis
• Action research projects in community psychology
• Collaborative knowledge production with communities
• Challenges and barriers in participatory research
• Case studies of successful community-based research projects
• Evaluating the impact of participatory research on communities
• Developing cultural competence in community psychology practice
• Multiculturalism and diversity in community settings
• Addressing cultural conflicts within communities
• Indigenous methods and perspectives in community psychology
• Cultural adaptations of psychological interventions
• Language barriers and communication in diverse communities
• Racial and ethnic identity development in communities
• Immigrant and refugee communities: Challenges and supports
• Cultural humility and self-reflection in community work
• Promoting inclusivity and diversity in community programs
• The psychological impact of community environments
• Green spaces, nature, and community well-being
• Community design and accessible spaces
• Environmental justice and community health disparities
• The role of community gardens in social cohesion
• Urban planning and psychological health
• Community responses to environmental crises
• The psychology of place attachment
• Sustainable community initiatives and psychological outcomes
• Environmental stressors and their community impact
• Methods for evaluating community programs and interventions
• Community needs assessments and asset evaluations
• Logic models and theories of change in community programming
• Qualitative and quantitative methods in program evaluation
• Participatory evaluation approaches
• Outcome and process evaluation strategies
• Measuring community well-being and quality of life
• Feedback mechanisms and community input in evaluations
• Challenges in community program evaluation
• Case studies of effective program evaluations
• Community psychology’s influence on public policy
• Advocating for community needs in policy-making processes
• Policies to promote community health and well-being
• The role of community psychologists in legislative advocacy
• Developing policy briefs and position statements
• Collaborating with policymakers and stakeholders
• Social policies and their impact on community dynamics
• Policy analysis and critique from a community psychology perspective
• Grassroots policy development and community empowerment
• Evaluating the effectiveness of community-focused policies

The exploration of community psychology research paper topics provides students with a unique opportunity to delve into issues that are at the heart of societal health and individual well-being. By choosing to engage deeply with these diverse and meaningful topics, students can contribute significantly to the field of community psychology, impacting real-world issues and promoting positive change. This list serves not only as a guide for academic exploration but also as an invitation to participate in the ongoing conversation about how psychological principles can be applied to address complex social problems, enhance community resilience, and foster environments where all individuals can thrive.

What is Community Psychology

A Unique Field of Study

The Significance of Research in Advancing the Principles and Practices

Research in community psychology is vital for advancing the field’s core principles and translating them into effective practices and interventions. By investigating the factors that contribute to community well-being, researchers can identify strategies to mitigate social problems, enhance public health, and foster environments that support mental health. Research in this field often adopts participatory approaches, involving community members in the research process to ensure that studies are culturally sensitive and directly applicable to the communities involved. This collaborative approach not only enriches the research but also empowers communities, making them active agents in their transformation. Through rigorous investigation, community psychology research uncovers the intricate dynamics of social change, informing policies and programs that promote equity and access to resources for all community members.

The Variety of Research Topics within Community Psychology

The research topics within community psychology are as varied as the communities the field aims to serve. Topics range from the evaluation of community-based mental health services to the study of environmental influences on psychological well-being. Research in social justice and advocacy explores mechanisms to combat oppression and inequality, while studies in cultural competence seek to enhance the sensitivity and effectiveness of psychological interventions across diverse populations. Other critical areas of inquiry include the development and assessment of prevention and intervention strategies to address issues such as substance abuse, domestic violence, and homelessness. By focusing on these diverse topics, community psychology research directly impacts real-world issues, offering evidence-based solutions to enhance community health and resilience.

Recent Advancements in Community Psychology Research

Recent advancements in community psychology research reflect the field’s dynamic nature and its responsiveness to current social challenges. Innovations in participatory and action research methodologies have strengthened the engagement of community members in addressing local issues, ensuring that interventions are culturally relevant and sustainable. Technological advancements have also facilitated the collection and analysis of large-scale community data, allowing for more nuanced understandings of community dynamics and needs. Furthermore, interdisciplinary collaborations have expanded the scope of community psychology, integrating insights from environmental science, urban planning, and digital technology to address complex issues such as climate change, urbanization, and the digital divide. These advancements underscore the field’s commitment to innovation and its potential to effect meaningful social change.

Ethical Considerations in Conducting Research

Conducting community psychology research involves navigating a complex landscape of ethical considerations. Central to these is the need to respect the autonomy, dignity, and cultural values of community members. Ethical research practices require transparency, informed consent, and sensitivity to power imbalances between researchers and participants. Protecting the confidentiality and privacy of participants is paramount, especially in small or stigmatized communities where anonymity can be challenging to maintain. Moreover, ethical considerations extend beyond the research process to include the implications and applications of research findings, ensuring that the knowledge generated contributes positively to the communities involved and does not exacerbate existing inequalities or injustices.

Future Directions and Emerging Themes

Looking ahead, community psychology research is poised to address a range of emerging themes and challenges. One critical area is the examination of global migration patterns and their psychological impact on both newcomers and host communities, requiring innovative approaches to foster integration, resilience, and mutual understanding. Another important direction is the exploration of digital communities and the role of social media in shaping identity, belonging, and mental health. As environmental concerns become increasingly pressing, research on the psychological aspects of climate change, environmental justice, and sustainable living will also gain prominence. These future directions highlight the field’s adaptability and its potential to contribute valuable insights into some of the most pressing issues facing society today.

The Role of Research in Shaping Effective Community Interventions and Policies

Research in community psychology plays a crucial role in shaping interventions and policies that promote the well-being of communities worldwide. By grounding practices in empirical evidence and prioritizing the voices and needs of community members, the field ensures that interventions are both effective and culturally relevant. Research findings not only inform the development of programs and services but also influence public policy, advocating for systemic changes that address the root causes of social issues. As community psychology continues to evolve, research will remain integral to its mission, guiding efforts to build more equitable, resilient, and healthy communities. Through continued inquiry and innovation, community psychology research has the power to transform societies, making it an essential pillar in the pursuit of social justice and collective well-being.

iResearchNet’s Writing Services

At iResearchNet, we understand the unique challenges and complexities that come with conducting research in community psychology. Our tailored writing services are specifically designed to support students navigating this multidisciplinary field, offering expert assistance in crafting research papers that delve into the societal, cultural, and psychological facets of communities. Whether you’re exploring the impact of social justice initiatives, evaluating community-based mental health programs, or investigating the dynamics of community resilience, our team is equipped to provide comprehensive support. Our mission is to empower your academic journey, ensuring that your research not only meets but exceeds academic standards.

• Expert Writers with Degrees in Community Psychology and Related Fields : Our team is comprised of professionals who bring a deep understanding of community psychology, enriched by their academic backgrounds and research experience.
• Custom Written Works That Align with Specific Research and Academic Requirements : Each paper is crafted to match your individual research focus and academic criteria, ensuring a personalized approach to your topic.
• In-Depth Research Incorporating the Most Recent Community Psychology Studies and Theories : Leveraging the latest research, studies, and theories in community psychology, we ensure that your paper is informed by current insights and knowledge.
• Adherence to Academic Formatting Guidelines (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard) : Our writers are proficient in all major academic formatting styles, guaranteeing that your paper meets the rigorous standards required by your institution.
• Commitment to Delivering Superior Quality Scholarly Work : Quality is at the forefront of our services. We’re dedicated to producing work that reflects thorough research, critical analysis, and scholarly rigor.
• Personalized Solutions for Each Unique Research Topic : Recognizing the diversity of research topics within community psychology, we offer solutions tailored to the specific nuances and requirements of your chosen area of study.
• Affordable Pricing Structured with Student Budgets in Mind : We provide competitively priced services designed to be accessible to students, ensuring you receive high-quality assistance without financial strain.
• Ability to Meet Urgent Deadlines Without Compromising on Quality : Our efficient process and dedicated team enable us to handle urgent deadlines, delivering your research paper on time without sacrificing quality.
• Assurance of Timely Delivery for All Projects : We understand the importance of deadlines and pledge to deliver your project within the agreed timeframe, helping you stay on track with your academic schedule.
• 24/7 Support for Any Inquiries, Updates, or Assistance Needed : Our support team is available around the clock to answer your questions, provide updates on your order, and offer any assistance you may require throughout the process.
• Strict Privacy Policy to Protect All Personal and Project Information : We prioritize your privacy and confidentiality, employing stringent measures to safeguard your personal and project details.
• Easy-to-Use Platform for Tracking the Progress of Orders : Our user-friendly platform allows you to easily monitor the progress of your order, offering transparency and peace of mind.
• Money-Back Guarantee for Projects That Do Not Meet Client Satisfaction : Your satisfaction is our priority. If the final product does not meet your expectations, we offer a money-back guarantee, underscoring our commitment to quality and service.

At iResearchNet, we are deeply committed to supporting the academic pursuits of students within the field of community psychology. Our high-quality, custom writing services are designed to provide you with the resources and support needed to navigate the complexities of your research topics confidently. By choosing iResearchNet, you are securing a partner dedicated to empowering your academic and professional growth in community psychology. Let us help you make a meaningful impact with your research, contributing to the advancement of communities and the field at large.

Empower Your Research with iResearchNet!

Embark on a journey of meaningful exploration and impactful research in the field of community psychology with the dedicated support of iResearchNet behind you. Our expert writing services are specifically designed to cater to your unique needs in community psychology research, providing you with the tools and resources to dive deep into the issues that matter most to communities worldwide. Whether you’re tackling complex social justice issues, evaluating the efficacy of community interventions, or exploring the dynamics of community resilience, iResearchNet is here to ensure your research not only meets but exceeds academic expectations.

Take the first step towards enriching your academic journey in community psychology by choosing iResearchNet for your research paper needs. Our streamlined ordering process makes it simple and stress-free to get started, ensuring you can focus on what truly matters—your research. Alongside, you’ll benefit from our comprehensive support system, designed to guide you through each stage of your project, from initial concept to final submission.

Don’t miss the opportunity to elevate your research and make a lasting impact in the field of community psychology. With iResearchNet, you’re not just completing an assignment; you’re contributing valuable knowledge to a discipline that has the power to transform communities for the better. Begin today, and empower your academic and professional journey with the unparalleled support of iResearchNet.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Community Psychology: 20+ Theories & Interventions

To achieve constructive change in a community, it is vital to see the links between individual needs and global politics, economics, and cultural development (Riemer, Reich, Evans, Nelson, & Prilleltensky, 2020).

Community psychology theories and models help understand the environment’s potential and interventions to improve people’s health and wellbeing through a series of coordinated changes.

This article looks at the values, research findings, and goals of community psychology and its capacity to change lives individually and on a much larger scale.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download a few Positive Psychology Exercises for free . These science-based exercises explore fundamental aspects of positive psychology, including strengths, values, and self-compassion, and will give you the tools to enhance your clients’ or community’s wellbeing.

This Article Contains:

What is community psychology, core values and popular topics, 4 real-life examples, 5 evidence-based theories and models, a look at 3 research findings, helpful interventions and skills for community psychologists.

• 5 Valuable Resources and Tools

Training Opportunities: 4 Programs and Master’s Options

3 books on the topic, a take-home message.

Community psychology is a complex, interdisciplinary field – more a perspective than a fixed entity. Its goals are easier to define, and they are both bold and admirable. Community psychology aims to have:

“a strong, global impact on enhancing wellbeing and promoting social justice for all people by fostering collaboration where there is division, and empowerment where there is oppression.”

(What is SCRA?)

Building such a prosocial community relies on everyone’s commitment to work toward their own and each other’s wellbeing – at the community, society, and global level. Attention is focused less on the individual and more on how people feel and think as they work together toward a better world (Burton, Boyle, Harris, & Kagan, 2007).

While connected to psychology, community psychology is less formal. It is a way of thinking that brings people from many backgrounds and disciplines together via a shared set of values (Riemer et al., 2020). And it is more easily understood when we consider some of the issues it attempts to address, such as immigration, homelessness, and environmental stability .

Community psychology acts as a lens through which challenges can be viewed. It tries to understand the broader context rather than the situation of the individual in isolation. For example, typical questions to address complex issues include (modified from Riemer et al., 2020):

Immigration

• What challenges will an immigrant face in a new country?
• How can they be supported?
• How will the community respond to the arrival of immigrants?

Homelessness

• What sorts of problems, issues, and situations lead to homelessness?
• What should the focus of an intervention be?
• Is there a way to prevent homelessness?
• How can the community support people in this situation?

Environmental sustainability

• How can we support communities campaigning for environmental issues?
• What are the environmental issues that affect local communities (often at the margins of society; for example, racialized, low-income, and indigenous communities)?

Community psychology is very often action oriented. And it needs to be; the need for change in each of the above issues is typically high.

Community psychologists must continually reassess the boundaries of the discipline and consider new, sometimes radical ways of thinking.

Therefore, it is valuable to begin by asking questions regarding how society might look if we were to create it from scratch without interference from existing people, politics, or prejudice.

Ask yourself:

• What might the ideal society look like?
• Who would make decisions, and how would the decision-makers be chosen?
• How would basic needs be met (housing, food, and healthcare)?

It is both an insightful and creative exercise that can lead us to question the injustices in the world.

As we delve deeper, it soon becomes clear that solutions to societal-level problems are complex and interdisciplinary. Solving them typically requires consideration beyond borders, race, religion, gender, sexuality, and other arbitrary divisions.

So, what are the enduring beliefs and values that underpin community psychology?

Community psychology’s values are drawn from the guiding principles that led to its development: to work toward justice, wellbeing, and equality within society by addressing injustice and oppression.

Rather than being objective, values are subjective and rely on the individuals and wellbeing of the communities they serve. Positive wellbeing can only truly be created by synergy and the balance between addressing personal , relational , and collective needs (Riemer et al., 2020).

Let’s take each in turn.

Values for personal wellbeing

The following values and objectives promote the needs of the individual’s wellbeing.

• Self-determination : the opportunity to pursue personal goals
• Caring and compassion : the expression of care for the wellbeing of the self and others
• Health : the protection of our own and others’ wellbeing through physical and emotional health

For personal wellbeing, all three values must be present in the individual and the communities that support them.

Values for relational wellbeing

It isn’t easy to imagine purely personal happiness; after all, it is intertwined with others’ wellbeing (Riemer et al., 2020).

The following relational values and objectives are, therefore, crucial:

• Respect for diversity : the freedom for people to define themselves and be respected for doing so
• Participation and collaboration : the meaningful engagement of both adults and children in decisions that impact their lives

Diversity and identity must be respected and recognized as human needs. Where conflicts arise, ways must be found to resolve the differences.

Values for collective wellbeing

Social resources are crucial for satisfying the above individual aims and may be met by the following collective values and objectives (Riemer et al., 2020):

• Support for community structure : sufficient support for personal and community goals
• Social justice and accountability : resources and bargaining power for all, including the oppressed

Good health is not possible without resources. Hence, social justice – the equality of rights, opportunities, and equity in living conditions – is essential (Bales, 2017). Indeed, justice is broader than the law or the economy and must consider the healthy relationships between groups and society.

Community psychology is clear about the importance of the values it serves, as they shape the interaction with the community. As a result, the values shape how we see the world and the actions we take to address the issues we identify.

Fairweather Lodge

In the 1960s, psychologist George Fairweather recognized that patients often struggled when they left psychiatric facilities. In response, he created the Fairweather Lodge to encourage personal wellbeing by allowing patients to live in the community rather than in a psychiatric institution.

Patients were each given roles to fulfill in their new home, and with appropriate support, they successfully took on community jobs, formed social connections, and became part of their community (Fairweather, Sanders, Maynard, & Cressler, 1969; Riemer et al., 2020).

Partners in Policy Making

Partners in Policy Making  provides training for family members of those with disabilities to better understand disability issues and become successful advocates for change at a local and government level.

Through an ecological model of disability advocacy, Partners in Policy Making considers the experiences of the person (and others within the community) with a disability and the local and national policies that need to change (Jimenez, Hoffman, & Grant, 2019).

Mini-grants

A community program provided small grants to residents to improve local neighborhoods, including cleaning up parks, fixing broken windows, repairing schools, etc. The results extended beyond aesthetic and physical benefits and led to increased community communication and the building of relationships  (Jimenez et al., 2019).

Community gardening

Gardening and time spent in nature have well-known benefits for psychological and physiological wellbeing. Indeed, community gardening and other similar programs encourage educational skills and opportunities for positive engagement with other community members. The resource requirements are relatively low, and it is sustainable and leads to healthy food production.

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Exercises (PDF)

Enhance wellbeing with these free, science-based exercises that draw on the latest insights from positive psychology.

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Community psychology theories help us analyze social problems and develop community interventions by thinking of the individual within the context of their environment and community.

Their goal is to promote a social justice agenda by focusing on how individuals can shape, and be shaped by, the environment. They offer a powerful and practical way to understand marginalized populations’ needs and social issues (Jimenez et al., 2019).

The following theories provide a lens through which we can better understand (and change) the relationships between the individual and the ecological factors that affect them.

A recent survey suggested there are over 30 theories in community psychology. We have included a brief description of some of the more prominent ones below (Jimenez et al., 2019; Jason et al., 2016).

Behavior setting theory

Each ecological environment has differing influences on how behaviors evolve (Barker, 1968). Behavior settings explain the relationship between an individual’s dynamic behavior within a stable social structure.

The theory illustrates why specific settings have similar adverse outcomes (e.g., prisons).

Ecological theory

This theory describes how environmental factors play a vital role in how people interact (Kelly, 1966). The four principles of the theory guide the development and evaluation of preventative community interventions.

• Interdependence – is the interrelatedness of all aspects of the system. Changing one aspect impacts all others.
• Adaptation  – explains why behavior is effective in one environment but not others.
• Cycling of resources – describes the process of developing and using resources (skills, expertise, equipment, social support, etc.) that impact the advancement of a community.
• Succession  – relates to the state of constant change within communities and its impact on adaptation requirements.

Sense of community theory

This theory captures the feeling of being part of a large and dependable group or community and the sense of belonging it offers (Sarason, 1974). Four factors measure it:

• Membership – who is inside the community
• Influence – the individual’s sense of being able to influence the practices of the community
• Integration and fulfillment of needs – feeling of shared values, exchanged resources, and needs met within the community
• Shared emotional connection – involvement in rituals, ceremonies, and celebrations as part of the wider group

Social climate theory

This theory explores the two-way adaptation between people and their social environment (Moos, 2003; Jimenez et al., 2019). It is valuable for understanding the experiences of people in a setting by focusing on how:

• The setting organizes peoples’ perceptions of social relationships
• It supports maintaining norms and change processes
• People feel supported in their personal development

Social climate assessment scores are strong indicators of individual wellbeing.

Liberation psychology

Developed in Latin America during the 1970s to understand wellbeing in oppressed and impoverished societies, its focus is on assisting people to gain control over their lives, particularly where an individual or group has power over another (Jimenez et al., 2019). Core components include:

• Praxis – a tool for making a theory more grounded by integrating with practice
• Dialectics – developing knowledge of the world while bringing about change

Ultimately a change to the status quo can only happen through dialogue between the oppressed and those who hold power.

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

We look at the research findings of various community projects.

Colombian Peace Process

The Colombian Peace Process victim assistance program measured what it was like to be part of a community suffering from post-traumatic stress (Maya-Jariego, De La Peña-Leiva, Arenas-Rivera, & Alieva, 2019).

Interviews with 143 community leaders suggested strong, positive relationships between the density of people’s networks and their psychological sense of community. They concluded that housing policies that led to segregation within communities were an obstacle to reintegrating armed conflict victims and ex-military into community life.

Homelessness and vulnerability to climate change

In a 2010 study by Wandel et al. that included team members with experiences of homelessness, one individual told of how they cut their arms to be admitted to a psychiatric hospital as a way of getting out of the cold. Their research raised awareness of the challenges of homelessness in confronting the effects of climatic change and subsequently influenced decision-making at all levels.

Supported housing programs for homelessness

Tsemberis, Gulcur, and Nakae, (2004) explored the complex challenges faced by people experiencing homelessness and mental illness, finding that while providing psychiatric help is essential, so is offering choice regarding the accommodation provided.

It is essential to see people experiencing homelessness as people with needs and choices, rather than as statistics.

Christine Robinson – community psychology

Community psychologists fulfill a vital role, and we offer guidance to assist with the important work being done.

Interventions

To create a positive impact, community psychologists push for changes from both within an organization and from outside in the forms of amelioration , where support is given within the existing structure, and transformation , which is more extreme and goes to the source of the problem (Riemer et al., 2020).

Ultimately community psychology interventions aim to transform the circumstances of individuals, groups, and communities and improve their wellbeing. This is achieved by satisfying both the subjective needs (for example, a sense of control and being valued) and objective needs (food and shelter, etc.) of the individual and community.

There are several different types of intervention (Riemer et al., 2020):

• Social intervention Changes to systems, policies, resource distribution, allocation of power, etc. to positively improve the community’s wellbeing. Community psychologists often work within governments and NGOs.
• Organizational and community interventions Many of the efforts for wellbeing and liberation occur in organizations and communities, so it is essential to build appropriate coalitions for ameliorative and transformative interventions.
• Individual and small group interventions Individuals and small groups (possibly emotionally and socially damaged) can be connected to larger groups to effect social transformation.

Skills for the community psychologist

The community psychologist is less of an expert  and more of a trained professional with a collection of skills and competencies. They must combine values, expertise, research, and theoretical skills to collaborate successfully with community groups and ensure appropriate interventions.

The Society for Community Research and Action , part of the American Psychological Association, provides a full list of 18 competencies involved in community psychology practice. Here are just a few:

• Empowerment Empower marginalized communities attempting to access and participate in community decision making.
• Program development, implementation, and management Partner with appropriate stakeholders in the community to plan, develop, and implement sustainable programs.
• Community leadership and mentoring Help community members lead and develop their strengths.
• Consultation and organizational development Support an organization’s growth to reach its goals.
• Community development Develop a vision to direct the actions needed to become a healthy community.

4 Valuable Resources and Tools

• Introduction to Community Psychology – an insightful discussion of community psychology theories
• Society for Community Research and Action, part of the American Psychological Association (APA) – includes its vision, mission statement, and guiding concepts
• Community Advocacy: A psychologist’s toolkit for state and local advocacy – science-based advocacy toolkit created by the APA for intervention by grassroots psychologists
• Sense of Community Index – commonly used by social sciences to measure the sense of community

There are several degrees and master’s courses that include community psychology; here are a few:

• Public Health and Community Psychology , MA – Georgia State University, US
• Community Counseling , MA – Loyola University Chicago, US
• Community Psychology , MA – Russell Sage College, US
• Community Psychology , MA – Brighton University, UK

17 Top-Rated Positive Psychology Exercises for Practitioners

Expand your arsenal and impact with these 17 Positive Psychology Exercises [PDF] , scientifically designed to promote human flourishing, meaning, and wellbeing.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

To know more about the topic, the following books are all focused on community psychology.

1. Community Psychology: In Pursuit of Liberation and Well-Being – Manuel Riemer, Stephanie M. Reich, Scotney D. Evans, Geoffrey Nelson, and Isaac Prilleltensky

This book offers a valuable introduction to the field of community psychology.

The authors use vital issues such as climate change, affordable housing, homelessness, and immigration to explain the available theories and interventions.

This is an essential read for anyone interested in or studying community psychology.

Find the book on Amazon .

2. Community Psychology – John Moritsugu, Elizabeth Vera, Frank Y. Wong, and Karen Grover Duffy

An easy-to-navigate yet comprehensive review of the field of community psychology.

Split into three parts, this book includes the concepts, interventions, and application behind the key theories.

It also describes the latest insights into current issues such as grit and life success, technology, social movements, and justice.

3. Community Psychology: Linking Individuals and Communities – Bret Kloos, Jean Hill, Elizabeth Thomas, Andrew D. Case, Victoria C. Scott, and Abraham Wandersman

A fascinating overview of community psychology, including research, methodologies, theory, and how to promote change within communities.

The chapter summaries are excellent, referencing videos and other resources, and the marginal glossary highlights the key concepts.

Community psychology is a large, complex, interdisciplinary field of study with far-reaching and positive effects on communities. One of its most exciting aspects and critical strengths is its field-based approach of working with communities within the context of their environment.

Community psychology is vital for tackling crises that impact groups of people and offers a practical approach for exploring ongoing growth and communities’ overall wellbeing through supporting mental health.

To create sustainable social change and address society’s many social inequalities, community psychology and its values must enter public awareness and our professional practices.

Success will be based on the ability of those working in the field of community psychology and beyond to recognize the unique experiences of marginalized people and promote social justice and social transformation.

While this article serves only as a brief introduction, the field is fascinating, vast, and worthy of further attention.

We hope you enjoyed exploring this challenging topic. Don’t forget to download our free Positive Psychology Exercises .

• Bales, S. (2017). Social justice and library work . Chandos Publishing.
• Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior . Stanford University Press.
• Burton, M., Boyle, S., Harris, C., & Kagan, C. (2007). Community psychology in Britain. International Community Psychology , 219–237.
• Fairweather, G. W., Sanders, D. H., Maynard, H., & Cressler, D. L. (1969). Community life for the mentally ill: An alternative to institutional care . Aldine Publishing Company.
• Hoffman, A. J. (2019). Creating a culture of transformation in Guatemala: One fruit tree at a time. Electronic Green Journal , 1 (40).
• Jason, L. A., Stevens, E., Ram, D., Miller, S. A., Beasley, C. R., & Gleason, K. (2016). Theories in the field of community psychology. Global Journal of Community Psychology , 7 (2), 1–27.
• Jimenez, T. R., Hoffman, A., & Grant, J. (2019). Theories. Rebus Community. Retrieved October 28, 2020, from https://press.rebus.community/introductiontocommunitypsychology/chapter/theories/
• Kelly, J. G. (1966). Ecological constraints on mental health services. American Psychologist , 21 , 535–539.
• Kloos, B., Hill, J., Thomas, E., Case, A. D., Scott, V. C., & Wandersman, A. (2020).  Community psychology: Linking individuals and communities  (4th ed.). American Psychological Association.
• Maya‐Jariego, I., De La Peña-Leiva, A., Arenas-Rivera, C., & Alieva, D. (2019). Personal networks, social media, and community cohesion in the strategies of peace‐building agents in Colombia to counteract the segregation of displaced populations. Journal of Community Psychology , 47 (6) 1300–1312.
• Moos, R. H. (2003). Social contexts: Transcending their power and their fragility. American Journal of Community Psychology , 31 , 1–13.
• Moritsugu, J., Vera, E., Wong, F. Y., & Grover Duffy, K. (2019).  Community psychology (6th ed.). Routledge.
• Riemer, M., Reich, S. M., Evans, S. D., Nelson, G., & Prilleltensky, I. (Eds.) (2020). Community psychology: In pursuit of liberation and wellbeing (3rd ed). Springer.
• Sarason, S. B. (1974). The Psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community psychology . Brookline Books.
• Tsemberis, S., Gulcur, L., & Nakae, M. (2004). Housing first, consumer choice, and harm reduction for homeless individuals with a dual diagnosis. American Journal of Public Health , 94 (4), 651–656.
• Wandel, J., Riemer, M., de Gomez, W., Klein, K., De Schutter, J., & Singleton, C. (2010). A report from the study on the vulnerability to global climate change of people experiencing homelessness in Waterloo Region . Waterloo, ON.
• What is SCRA? (n.d.). Community Psychology. Retrieved October 28, 2020, from https://www.communitypsychology.com/who-is-the-society-for-psychology-research-and-action/

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Hi, I would like to quote some of these paragraphs if possible in an essay paper, when were they written?

Hi Michelle,

You are more than welcome to quote us in your essay! For your citation, this article was written on the 11th of November, 2020.

Hope this helps!

– Nicole | Community Manager

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Hierarchy of Needs: A 2024 Take on Maslow’s Findings

One of the most influential theories in human psychology that addresses our quest for wellbeing is Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. While Maslow’s theory of [...]

Emotional Development in Childhood: 3 Theories Explained

We have all witnessed a sweet smile from a baby. That cute little gummy grin that makes us smile in return. Are babies born with [...]

Using Classical Conditioning for Treating Phobias & Disorders

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell? Classical conditioning, a psychological phenomenon first discovered by Ivan Pavlov in the late 19th century, has proven to [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (52)
• Coaching & Application (39)
• Compassion (23)
• Counseling (40)
• Emotional Intelligence (21)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (18)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (16)
• Mindfulness (40)
• Motivation & Goals (41)
• Optimism & Mindset (29)
• Positive CBT (28)
• Positive Communication (23)
• Positive Education (37)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (16)
• Positive Parenting (14)
• Positive Psychology (21)
• Positive Workplace (35)
• Productivity (16)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (39)
• Self Awareness (20)
• Self Esteem (37)
• Strengths & Virtues (29)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (33)
• Theory & Books (42)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (54)

3 Positive Psychology Tools (PDF)

• Library Home
• Research Guides

Community Development

Library research guide, developing a topic, narrow your topic, too broad or narrow.

• Search Strategies
• Professional Organizations
• Government Resources
• Finding & Using Images
• Copyright Basics

It can be difficult to choose the right topic for your research in community development . Here are some questions to ask yourself:

• What are you interested in?
• What do you know about the topic?
• Is there a specific time period you want to cover?
• Is there a geographic region or country on which you want to focus?
• Is there a particular aspect of the topic that interests you?

Produced by K-State Libraries   Video Transcript

If you have learned what to do when your topic is too broad, consider another scenario:

Though having a topic that is too broad is a common problem, you also need to make sure your topic is not too narrow. If your topic is so limited by geographical area, details, or is very current, you may not be able to find any information about it when researching. 

Below is a table that shows examples of topics that are too broad, too narrow and just right.

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Keywords >>
• Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 3:31 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.k-state.edu/commdev

K-State Libraries

1117 Mid-Campus Drive North, Manhattan, KS 66506

785-532-3014 | [email protected]

• Statements and Disclosures
• Accessibility
• © Kansas State University

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Research Topics

• Affirmative Action
• Age, Generations & Tech
• American News Pathways 2020 Project
• American Trends Panel
• Angela Merkel
• Artificial Intelligence
• Asian Americans
• Atheism & Agnosticism
• Audio, Radio & Podcasts
• Authoritarianism
• Age & Generations
• Baby Boomers
• Barack Obama
• Beliefs & Practices
• Bilateral Relations
• Bill Clinton
• Birth Rate & Fertility
• Black Americans
• Border Security & Enforcement
• Bots & Misinformation
• Business & Workplace
• Catholicism
• Children & Tech
• China Global Image
• Christianity
• Citizenship
• Civic Activities Online
• Climate, Energy & Environment
• Comparison of Age Groups
• Comparison of Generations
• Comparison of Religions
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• COVID-19 in the News
• COVID-19 & Politics
• COVID-19 & Science
• COVID-19 & Technology
• COVID-19 & the Economy
• Criminal Justice
• Cyberattacks
• Data Science
• Death & Dying
• Death Penalty
• Defense & National Security
• Demographic Research
• Demographics & Politics
• Digital Divide
• Digital News Landscape
• Disasters & Accidents
• Discrimination & Prejudice
• Donald Trump
• Drug Policy
• Economic Conditions
• Economic Inequality
• Economic Policy
• Economic Systems
• Economics, Work & Gender
• Economy & Work
• Education & Gender
• Education & Learning Online
• Education & Politics
• Educational Attainment
• Election 2002
• Election 2004
• Election 2006
• Election 2008
• Election 2010
• Election 2012
• Election 2014
• Election 2016
• Election 2018
• Election 2020
• Election 2022
• Election 2024
• Election News
• Election System & Voting Process
• Elections Before 2008
• Emerging Technology
• Employee Benefits
• Entertainment
• Environment & Climate
• European Union
• Evangelicalism
• Facts & Fact Checking
• Family Caregiving
• Family & Relationships
• Family Reunification
• Federal Government
• Food Science
• Free Speech & Press
• Freedom of the Press
• Friendships
• Future of the Internet (Project)
• Future of Work
• Gender Equality & Discrimination
• Gender Identity
• Gender & Leadership
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Gender Pay Gap
• Gender & Politics
• Gender & Religion
• Gender Roles
• Gender & Tech
• Gender & Work
• Gene Editing
• Generation X
• Generation Z
• Generations
• Generations, Age & Politics
• George W. Bush
• Gig & Sharing Economies
• Global Balance of Power
• Global Economy & Trade
• Global Health
• Global Image of Countries
• Global Religious Demographics
• Global Tech & Cybersecurity
• Global Trade
• Government Spending & the Deficit
• Greatest Generation
• Happiness & Life Satisfaction
• Health Care
• Health Policy
• Healthcare Online
• High-Skilled Immigration
• Higher Education
• Hispanic/Latino Demographics
• Hispanic/Latino Identity
• Hispanic/Latino Voters
• Hispanics/Latinos
• Hispanics/Latinos & Income
• Hispanics/Latinos & Language
• Hispanics/Latinos & Education
• Historically Black Protestantism
• Homeownership & Renting
• Household Structure & Family Roles
• Human Enhancement
• Human Rights
• Immigrant Populations
• Immigration Attitudes
• Immigration & Economy
• Immigration Issues
• Immigration & Language Adoption
• Immigration & Migration
• Immigration Trends
• Income & Wages
• Income, Wealth & Poverty
• Integration & Identity
• Interreligious Relations
• Intermarriage
• International Affairs
• International Issues
• International Political Values
• International Religious Freedom & Restrictions
• International Survey Methods
• International Technology
• International Terrorism
• Internet Connectivity
• Internet of Things
• Internet & Technology
• Israel Global Image
• Issue Priorities
• Journalists
• Kamala Harris
• Knowledge & Education
• Layoffs & Employment
• Legal Immigration
• LGBTQ Acceptance
• LGBTQ Attitudes & Experiences
• Lifestyle & Relationships Online
• Mainline Protestantism
• Marriage & Divorce
• Media Attitudes
• Media Industry
• Media Layoffs & Employment
• Media Polarization
• Media & Society
• Medicine & Health
• Methodological Research
• Middle Class
• Migration Issues
• Military & Veterans
• Millennials
• Millennials & Other Age Groups
• Misinformation
• Misinformation Online
• More Leaders
• More Platforms & Services
• More Racial & Ethnic Groups
• Motherhood & Fatherhood
• Muslim Americans
• Muslims Around the World
• Narendra Modi
• National Conditions
• Nationalism
• Net Neutrality
• News Audience Demographics
• News Content Analysis
• News Coverage
• News Habits & Media
• News Knowledge
• News Media Trends
• News Platforms & Sources
• Non-Religion & Secularism
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Nonprobability Surveys
• Nuclear Weapons
• Occupational Groups
• Older Adults & Aging
• Older Adults & Tech
• Online Activism
• Online Dating
• Online Harassment & Bullying
• Online Privacy & Security
• Online Random Sample Surveys
• Online Search
• Online Services
• Online Surveys
• Organizations, Alliances & Treaties
• Orthodox Christianity
• Other Religions
• Other Topics
• Partisanship & Issues
• Party Identification
• Pentecostalism
• Personal Finances
• Personal Life
• Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures Project
• Platforms & Services
• Political Animosity
• Political & Civic Engagement
• Political Discourse
• Political Ideals & Systems
• Political Issues
• Political Parties
• Political Parties & Polarization
• Political Polarization
• Political Typology
• Politics & Media
• Politics Online
• Politics & Policy
• Pope Benedict XVI
• Pope Francis
• Pope John Paul II
• Presidential Approval
• Presidents & Press
• Privacy Rights
• Protestantism
• Protests & Uprisings
• Public Knowledge
• Race & Ethnicity
• Race, Ethnicity & Politics
• Race, Ethnicity & Religion
• Race Relations
• Racial Bias & Discrimination
• Racial & Ethnic Groups
• Racial & Ethnic Groups Online
• Racial & Ethnic Identity
• Racial & Ethnic Shifts
• Racial Intermarriage
• Recessions & Recoveries
• Refugees & Asylum Seekers
• Religion & Government
• Religion & Abortion
• Religion & Bioethics
• Religion & Death Penalty
• Religion & LGBTQ Acceptance
• Religion & Politics
• Religion & Race
• Religion & Science
• Religion & Social Values
• Religious Characteristics of Demographic Groups
• Religious Commitment
• Religious Demographics
• Religious Freedom & Restrictions
• Religious Identity & Affiliation
• Religious Knowledge & Education
• Religious Leaders & Institutions
• Religious Typology
• Religiously Unaffiliated
• Remittances
• Research Explainers
• Romance & Dating
• Rural Residents & Tech
• Rural, Urban and Suburban Communities
• Same-Sex Marriage
• Science Funding & Policy
• Science Issues
• Science Knowledge
• Science News & Information
• Scientists' Views
• Segregation
• Sexual Misconduct & Harassment
• Silent Generation
• Size & Demographic Characteristics of Religious Groups
• Smartphones
• Social Media
• Social Media & the News
• Social Relations & Tech
• Social Security & Medicare
• State & Local Government
• State of the News Media (Project)
• STEM Education & Workforce
• Stresses & Distraction Online
• Student Loans
• Supreme Court
• Survey Basics
• Survey Methods
• Tech Companies
• Technology Adoption
• Technology & Immigration
• Technology Policy Issues
• Teens & Tech
• Teens & Youth
• Telephone Surveys
• Trust, Facts & Democracy
• Trust in Government
• Trust in Institutions
• Trust in Media
• Trust in Science
• Twitter (X)
• U.S. Census
• U.S. Democracy
• Unauthorized Immigration
• Unemployment
• United Nations
• Unmarried Adults
• U.S. Elections & Voters
• U.S. Global Image
• U.S. Religious Demographics
• User Demographics
• Visas & Employment
• Vladimir Putin
• Voter Demographics
• Voter Files
• Voter Participation
• Voters & Voting
• War & International Conflict
• World Elections
• World Leaders
• Younger Adults

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Choose Your Test

• Search Blogs By Category
• College Admissions
• AP and IB Exams
• GPA and Coursework

113 Great Research Paper Topics

General Education

One of the hardest parts of writing a research paper can be just finding a good topic to write about. Fortunately we've done the hard work for you and have compiled a list of 113 interesting research paper topics. They've been organized into ten categories and cover a wide range of subjects so you can easily find the best topic for you.

In addition to the list of good research topics, we've included advice on what makes a good research paper topic and how you can use your topic to start writing a great paper.

What Makes a Good Research Paper Topic?

Not all research paper topics are created equal, and you want to make sure you choose a great topic before you start writing. Below are the three most important factors to consider to make sure you choose the best research paper topics.

#1: It's Something You're Interested In

A paper is always easier to write if you're interested in the topic, and you'll be more motivated to do in-depth research and write a paper that really covers the entire subject. Even if a certain research paper topic is getting a lot of buzz right now or other people seem interested in writing about it, don't feel tempted to make it your topic unless you genuinely have some sort of interest in it as well.

#2: There's Enough Information to Write a Paper

Even if you come up with the absolute best research paper topic and you're so excited to write about it, you won't be able to produce a good paper if there isn't enough research about the topic. This can happen for very specific or specialized topics, as well as topics that are too new to have enough research done on them at the moment. Easy research paper topics will always be topics with enough information to write a full-length paper.

Trying to write a research paper on a topic that doesn't have much research on it is incredibly hard, so before you decide on a topic, do a bit of preliminary searching and make sure you'll have all the information you need to write your paper.

#3: It Fits Your Teacher's Guidelines

Don't get so carried away looking at lists of research paper topics that you forget any requirements or restrictions your teacher may have put on research topic ideas. If you're writing a research paper on a health-related topic, deciding to write about the impact of rap on the music scene probably won't be allowed, but there may be some sort of leeway. For example, if you're really interested in current events but your teacher wants you to write a research paper on a history topic, you may be able to choose a topic that fits both categories, like exploring the relationship between the US and North Korea. No matter what, always get your research paper topic approved by your teacher first before you begin writing.

113 Good Research Paper Topics

Below are 113 good research topics to help you get you started on your paper. We've organized them into ten categories to make it easier to find the type of research paper topics you're looking for.

Arts/Culture

• Discuss the main differences in art from the Italian Renaissance and the Northern Renaissance .
• Analyze the impact a famous artist had on the world.
• How is sexism portrayed in different types of media (music, film, video games, etc.)? Has the amount/type of sexism changed over the years?
• How has the music of slaves brought over from Africa shaped modern American music?
• How has rap music evolved in the past decade?
• How has the portrayal of minorities in the media changed?

Current Events

• What have been the impacts of China's one child policy?
• How have the goals of feminists changed over the decades?
• How has the Trump presidency changed international relations?
• Analyze the history of the relationship between the United States and North Korea.
• What factors contributed to the current decline in the rate of unemployment?
• What have been the impacts of states which have increased their minimum wage?
• How do US immigration laws compare to immigration laws of other countries?
• How have the US's immigration laws changed in the past few years/decades?
• How has the Black Lives Matter movement affected discussions and view about racism in the US?
• What impact has the Affordable Care Act had on healthcare in the US?
• What factors contributed to the UK deciding to leave the EU (Brexit)?
• What factors contributed to China becoming an economic power?
• Discuss the history of Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies  (some of which tokenize the S&P 500 Index on the blockchain) .
• Do students in schools that eliminate grades do better in college and their careers?
• Do students from wealthier backgrounds score higher on standardized tests?
• Do students who receive free meals at school get higher grades compared to when they weren't receiving a free meal?
• Do students who attend charter schools score higher on standardized tests than students in public schools?
• Do students learn better in same-sex classrooms?
• How does giving each student access to an iPad or laptop affect their studies?
• What are the benefits and drawbacks of the Montessori Method ?
• Do children who attend preschool do better in school later on?
• What was the impact of the No Child Left Behind act?
• How does the US education system compare to education systems in other countries?
• What impact does mandatory physical education classes have on students' health?
• Which methods are most effective at reducing bullying in schools?
• Do homeschoolers who attend college do as well as students who attended traditional schools?
• Does offering tenure increase or decrease quality of teaching?
• How does college debt affect future life choices of students?
• Should graduate students be able to form unions?

• What are different ways to lower gun-related deaths in the US?
• How and why have divorce rates changed over time?
• Is affirmative action still necessary in education and/or the workplace?
• Should physician-assisted suicide be legal?
• How has stem cell research impacted the medical field?
• How can human trafficking be reduced in the United States/world?
• Should people be able to donate organs in exchange for money?
• Which types of juvenile punishment have proven most effective at preventing future crimes?
• Has the increase in US airport security made passengers safer?
• Analyze the immigration policies of certain countries and how they are similar and different from one another.
• Several states have legalized recreational marijuana. What positive and negative impacts have they experienced as a result?
• Do tariffs increase the number of domestic jobs?
• Which prison reforms have proven most effective?
• Should governments be able to censor certain information on the internet?
• Which methods/programs have been most effective at reducing teen pregnancy?
• What are the benefits and drawbacks of the Keto diet?
• How effective are different exercise regimes for losing weight and maintaining weight loss?
• How do the healthcare plans of various countries differ from each other?
• What are the most effective ways to treat depression ?
• What are the pros and cons of genetically modified foods?
• Which methods are most effective for improving memory?
• What can be done to lower healthcare costs in the US?
• What factors contributed to the current opioid crisis?
• Analyze the history and impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic .
• Are low-carbohydrate or low-fat diets more effective for weight loss?
• How much exercise should the average adult be getting each week?
• Which methods are most effective to get parents to vaccinate their children?
• What are the pros and cons of clean needle programs?
• How does stress affect the body?
• Discuss the history of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
• What were the causes and effects of the Salem Witch Trials?
• Who was responsible for the Iran-Contra situation?
• How has New Orleans and the government's response to natural disasters changed since Hurricane Katrina?
• What events led to the fall of the Roman Empire?
• What were the impacts of British rule in India ?
• Was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?
• What were the successes and failures of the women's suffrage movement in the United States?
• What were the causes of the Civil War?
• How did Abraham Lincoln's assassination impact the country and reconstruction after the Civil War?
• Which factors contributed to the colonies winning the American Revolution?
• What caused Hitler's rise to power?
• Discuss how a specific invention impacted history.
• What led to Cleopatra's fall as ruler of Egypt?
• How has Japan changed and evolved over the centuries?
• What were the causes of the Rwandan genocide ?

• Why did Martin Luther decide to split with the Catholic Church?
• Analyze the history and impact of a well-known cult (Jonestown, Manson family, etc.)
• How did the sexual abuse scandal impact how people view the Catholic Church?
• How has the Catholic church's power changed over the past decades/centuries?
• What are the causes behind the rise in atheism/ agnosticism in the United States?
• What were the influences in Siddhartha's life resulted in him becoming the Buddha?
• How has media portrayal of Islam/Muslims changed since September 11th?

Science/Environment

• How has the earth's climate changed in the past few decades?
• How has the use and elimination of DDT affected bird populations in the US?
• Analyze how the number and severity of natural disasters have increased in the past few decades.
• Analyze deforestation rates in a certain area or globally over a period of time.
• How have past oil spills changed regulations and cleanup methods?
• How has the Flint water crisis changed water regulation safety?
• What are the pros and cons of fracking?
• What impact has the Paris Climate Agreement had so far?
• What have NASA's biggest successes and failures been?
• How can we improve access to clean water around the world?
• Does ecotourism actually have a positive impact on the environment?
• Should the US rely on nuclear energy more?
• What can be done to save amphibian species currently at risk of extinction?
• What impact has climate change had on coral reefs?
• How are black holes created?
• Are teens who spend more time on social media more likely to suffer anxiety and/or depression?
• How will the loss of net neutrality affect internet users?
• Analyze the history and progress of self-driving vehicles.
• How has the use of drones changed surveillance and warfare methods?
• Has social media made people more or less connected?
• What progress has currently been made with artificial intelligence ?
• Do smartphones increase or decrease workplace productivity?
• What are the most effective ways to use technology in the classroom?
• How is Google search affecting our intelligence?
• When is the best age for a child to begin owning a smartphone?
• Has frequent texting reduced teen literacy rates?

How to Write a Great Research Paper

Even great research paper topics won't give you a great research paper if you don't hone your topic before and during the writing process. Follow these three tips to turn good research paper topics into great papers.

#1: Figure Out Your Thesis Early

Before you start writing a single word of your paper, you first need to know what your thesis will be. Your thesis is a statement that explains what you intend to prove/show in your paper. Every sentence in your research paper will relate back to your thesis, so you don't want to start writing without it!

As some examples, if you're writing a research paper on if students learn better in same-sex classrooms, your thesis might be "Research has shown that elementary-age students in same-sex classrooms score higher on standardized tests and report feeling more comfortable in the classroom."

If you're writing a paper on the causes of the Civil War, your thesis might be "While the dispute between the North and South over slavery is the most well-known cause of the Civil War, other key causes include differences in the economies of the North and South, states' rights, and territorial expansion."

#2: Back Every Statement Up With Research

Remember, this is a research paper you're writing, so you'll need to use lots of research to make your points. Every statement you give must be backed up with research, properly cited the way your teacher requested. You're allowed to include opinions of your own, but they must also be supported by the research you give.

#3: Do Your Research Before You Begin Writing

You don't want to start writing your research paper and then learn that there isn't enough research to back up the points you're making, or, even worse, that the research contradicts the points you're trying to make!

Get most of your research on your good research topics done before you begin writing. Then use the research you've collected to create a rough outline of what your paper will cover and the key points you're going to make. This will help keep your paper clear and organized, and it'll ensure you have enough research to produce a strong paper.

What's Next?

Are you also learning about dynamic equilibrium in your science class? We break this sometimes tricky concept down so it's easy to understand in our complete guide to dynamic equilibrium .

Thinking about becoming a nurse practitioner? Nurse practitioners have one of the fastest growing careers in the country, and we have all the information you need to know about what to expect from nurse practitioner school .

Want to know the fastest and easiest ways to convert between Fahrenheit and Celsius? We've got you covered! Check out our guide to the best ways to convert Celsius to Fahrenheit (or vice versa).

These recommendations are based solely on our knowledge and experience. If you purchase an item through one of our links, PrepScholar may receive a commission.

Trending Now

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

ACT vs. SAT: Which Test Should You Take?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Get Your Free

Find Your Target SAT Score

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect SAT Score, by an Expert Full Scorer

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading and Writing

How to Improve Your Low SAT Score

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading and Writing

Find Your Target ACT Score

Complete Official Free ACT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect ACT Score, by a 36 Full Scorer

Get a 36 on ACT English

Get a 36 on ACT Math

Get a 36 on ACT Reading

Get a 36 on ACT Science

How to Improve Your Low ACT Score

Get a 24 on ACT English

Get a 24 on ACT Math

Get a 24 on ACT Reading

Get a 24 on ACT Science

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Christine graduated from Michigan State University with degrees in Environmental Biology and Geography and received her Master's from Duke University. In high school she scored in the 99th percentile on the SAT and was named a National Merit Finalist. She has taught English and biology in several countries.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Free & Trending Dissertation Topics.

• We have shared online many free sample topics as listed on our website.
• Most of the listed dissertation topics are sample ideas and for reference purposes.
• Where you need the latest, unique & original dissertation topics; reach out and we shall develop three to six sample topics from which you can select the best.
• Our research support team is well conversant with the dissertation paper writing needs & so capable to offer you comprehensive support even with the entire project. 

Our service Advantage

01. - Develop a Relevant Research Topic.

You need to have a great research idea that addresses a relevant research gap. We are more than willing to support you, let us know.

02. - Defend & have your Topic Approved.

If possible, review or have your topic approved by your supervisor or senior research advisor so that you do not start and later stall midway.

03. - You can now Start your Research Process.

When your topic has finally been approved & is researchable, you can now start the research process : We can help you Step by Step.

 What to Consider When Writing & Developing a Dissertation Topic!

Our Service Process

Community Development Research Topics & Dissertation Titles

Topic suggestions for research in community development.

With our unique capability to suggest relevant and timely topics, we act as a compass, guiding individuals and organizations to areas of utmost significance. By offering a roadmap of pertinent themes and dialogues, we not only foster informed conversations but also catalyze meaningful transformations within communities. Whether one is a beginner keen on understanding the basics or a seasoned expert looking to explore deeper facets, our topic suggestions offer clarity, direction, and inspiration, ensuring community development initiatives are both impactful and well-informed. Our help serves as a pivotal resource for those venturing into the sphere of community development research topics.

✔  Effects of Cultural practices and Knowledge systems on community development:  The study will examine how cultural practices within a community affect community development. In addition, the researcher will examine the impact of knowledge systems within a community on development.  The research will also recommend the best ways to employ cultural practices and knowledge systems in promoting community development. 

✔  Gender responsibilities in community development :  In many societal settings, different genders are assigned different roles. These roles are also assigned based on age and the strength of individuals within the community. This research will assess the role of shared gender responsibilities toward community development.

✔  Effects of technology on indigenous community development .:  Indigenous communities engage in traditional methods of doing things. This study will focus on changes that indigenous communities go through with the introduction of technology, how they adapt to such changes, and their influence on community development. 

✔  Impact of religion and socio-economic differences on community development: A Case study:  There are many religious practices all over the world and with the freedom of worship; people within a community choose the religion that suits them. Some communities have different religious beliefs as well as socioeconomic statuses. This study will assess the impact that those differences have on the growth of a community.

✔  Understanding the differences between urban and rural community development:  Urban and rural community settings do not have equal opportunities in terms of resources, technology, and knowledge. This study will compare the two community settings and how the differences in the two communities present an opportunity for them to grow together. Request  help with a dissertation topic in MA community development from our firm and you will get credible services.

✔  The interrelations between community development and availability of health services:  This study will use multiple case studies to gather data from two communities. The study will examine the differences in community development based on the availability of healthcare services. It will, therefore, be determined whether better health services lead to better community development and vice versa.

To come up with a great topic means that you need to first have some idea or area of interest that you prefer and even where you may need expert help to fine-tune that; this way you will be able to  write and defend a research proposal on community development  and even where you may need us to assist, it will be easier for you.

The Gravity of an Impactful Research Title about Community

In the realm of research, the title is the first point of contact for potential readers. An impactful research title not only piques interest but also succinctly encapsulates the essence of your study on community. It's a window into the study's objectives, offering a snapshot of its scope, methodology, and anticipated outcomes. Understanding how to develop a defendable title is a very crucial step in the research process.

The emphasis is on the critical role that a well-crafted research title plays in attracting attention, generating interest, and conveying the significance of community-focused research. A compelling title should not only be catchy but also reflect the depth and importance of the study, drawing the audience into the research topic. Before identifying a great title, it is significant to identify research gaps in the context of community and this involves a systematic approach. Researchers can begin by conducting a comprehensive literature review to understand the existing body of work. This process helps in identifying what has already been studied, published, and established within the field. By analyzing the existing literature on community, researchers can pinpoint areas where there is a lack of sufficient information, conflicting findings, or unanswered questions and so come up with appealing titles for further research about community.

To settle for the most suitable title for a community-focused research project, one should consider other key factors. For instance, the title should be clear and concise, providing a glimpse into the central theme of the study. It should effectively communicate the research's purpose, scope, and potential contributions. Additionally, a compelling title often incorporates keywords that resonate with the target audience and reflect the core concepts of the research. Moreover, a suitable research title for a community-oriented study should be relevant and timely. It should address current issues or gaps in knowledge within the community context, demonstrating the research's potential to make a meaningful impact. The inclusion of terms that evoke a sense of community, collaboration, and social relevance can enhance the title's resonance.

Furthermore, researchers should strive for creativity and originality in their titles. A unique and memorable title can set a research project apart and generate interest. However, it is crucial to balance creativity with clarity to avoid confusion or misinterpretation.

Ideally, the gravity of an impactful research title about community lies in its ability to attract attention, convey the research's essence, and contribute to its overall impact. By considering factors such as clarity, relevance, and creativity, researchers can identify a title that not only captures the essence of their work but also resonates with the broader community and academic audience.

Navigating Community Research Topics: A Comprehensive Guide

1. unraveling research topics related to community problems.

Every community, irrespective of its size or location, grapples with challenges. Addressing these community problems through focused research can lead to actionable insights. Delving into this realm can encompass:

• Socio-economic Dynamics: Analyze how rising unemployment rates might fracture community ties or how economic disparities influence communal cohesion.
• Healthcare Access: Investigate the ripple effects of inadequate healthcare facilities on community well-being, emphasizing physical and mental health outcomes.
• Urbanization Concerns: Examine the impacts of gentrification, assessing its implications for original community members and exploring potential solutions for harmonious urban development.

2. Spotlight on Community Based Research Topics

Community-based research signifies a collaborative approach, integrating community members into the heart of the research process. This approach ensures the results resonate with the community's authentic experiences. Potential topics include:

• Community Agriculture Initiatives: Delve into how community gardens or urban farming projects impact local engagement, nutrition, and environmental consciousness.
• Educational Outreach: Assess the effectiveness and long-term impacts of community-driven educational initiatives, focusing on both children and adult learners.
• Conservation Collaborations: Explore how local communities perceive, participate in, and benefit from conservation projects, ensuring sustainable ecological futures.

3. Diverse Avenues of Community Related Research Topics

Beyond immediate community issues, there's a broader universe of community research encompassing various forms of communal gatherings:

• Digital Communities: Investigate how online communities, from social media groups to professional networks, shape individual identities, foster connections, and occasionally exacerbate societal divides.
• Professional Cohorts: Dive into niche professional communities, like healthcare or arts, to comprehend their internal dynamics, challenges, and contributions to the larger societal fabric.
• Cultural Cohesion: Study the role of community arts, music, and literature programs in promoting intercultural understanding, preserving traditions, and fostering a sense of shared identity.

Community research topics are as diverse as communities themselves. While the challenges each community faces are unique, the common thread is the pursuit of understanding and improvement. As we immerse ourselves in detailed research, we are not only gaining knowledge but also paving the path for actionable insights and tangible change. Embracing these topics with depth and dedication can lead to a more informed and cohesive societal fabric.

Topics for a Dissertation on Community - Based Problems

Different subject areas.

• B.Ed . |  B.A . 
• B.Com  |  BSc  
• BSN  |  DBa  
• DNP  |  Doctoral
• Ed.D  |  M.Ed  |  RN  
• Masters  |  MBA  
• MBus  |  MCom
• MEntr  |  Msc  
• MSN  |  PhD  
• Post graduate  
• Undergraduate

Client Testimonials

Thanks a lot for the research topic writing Services!

Read More...

Quality & Reliable Services

• Recent Topic Ideas
• Dissertation Project Ideas
• Case Study Topics 
• Topic Writing Tips
• Secrets to a Great Topic 
• Literature Review Topics
• Urgent Research Ideas Help
• Topic Brief Assistance
• Relevant Research Ideas
• Thesis Title Defence
• Topic Reviewing Aid
• Significance in a Title
• Base Paper Help

Topic Ideas by Paper Type

• Dissertation Topics
• Thesis Topics
• Proposal Topics
• Research Paper Topics
• Capstone Project Topics

Remarkable Help

There are some services that we recommend for related services, they are reliable but subject to your review.

• Literature Review Help
• Methodology Writing Aid
• Research Proposals Help
• Research Writing Service
• Best Thesis Writing  Help

Latest Research Areas on Community Development

Best-Programs-Community-Development-Courses-Online.pdf   |   Universities-that-offer-Masters-in-Community-Development.pdf   |   Why-Studying-Community-Development-is-Such-important.pdf

More Free Sample Research Topics On Community Development

• A study on the interrelations between community development and availability of health services.
• The Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility in Organizational Performance and Success.
• The Benefits of Local Government Administration on Community Development.
• Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Sustainable Management Activities towards Customer Satisfaction.
• An Investigation into the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Sustainability of Organizations.
• The Impact of Labor Training and development on the Performance of an Organization
• An Investigation into the Contribution of Public Infrastructure towards Community Development.
• An Investigation into the Role of Non- governmental Organizations in Community Development.
• The Benefits of Organizational Involvement in Transformative Community Development.
• An Investigation into the Factors Influencing Women Empowerment and Community Development.
• The Benefits of Using Technology for Economic Advancement and its Impact on the Development of the Community.

Try our services...

How to Conduct a Great Research Project on Comm. Development

As a scholar, you are likely to view the community development course as the appreciation of a balanced community that has people with a similar vision. Development in itself is the process of improving the strengths of a particular community. In general, development means that the people of a community are responsible to see that change takes place. In the modern world, people have rested all the responsibility for the development of a community on their leaders. As a scholar, you have a task to evaluate a vital area within community development. Here are some hints on writing a great MA community development dissertation project : community development as a course that is crucial to return the communal responsibility, discussing the state in the current world where people in communities are living in fear, shame, and silence, ways in which virtues such as sharing, kindness, honesty, and others can be restored in a community, the evaluation of community development on history, traditions, and social structures, discussing the process of ownership, control, decision-making, and participation in a community, and the evaluating why people give power to their leaders.It is imperative to avoid a dissatisfactory topic if you want to write a master's dissertation that your instructor will award a high grade. Take a significant step towards your academic excellence by working on a suitable dissertation topic. You need to give an account of how collective action can be taken to address the problems affecting the community; however, this can only happen if you have a very relevant topic. 

RESEARCH TOPIC HELP.

[email protected]

 +1(813)489-6985  | Chat with Us

Reliable & Legit

100% original help.

We do not Plagiarize

We help Edit Plagiarism

Terms & Conditions

Copyright © 2024 Research Topic Help. All Rights Reserved

Let us know how we can help...

Switch language:

In Association with PCM Trials

• Partner Content

Community research 101: Everything you need to know about mobile visits and community sites

After years of steady use, decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) gained sudden traction during the pandemic as a way of delivering studies safely and conveniently in a global crisis. Now, they have become a well-regarded method of integrating trials into the participant’s everyday life, reducing the burden of participation and removing several barriers to access.

• Share on Linkedin
• Share on Facebook

DCTs seek to reduce the number of visits a participant is required to make to a clinical trial site – the traditional location where consent forms are signed, treatments dosed, samples collected, assessments performed, and support provided. With many participants traveling considerable distances to their nearest sites, which are often located in large urban areas, DCTs aim to bring these activities closer to participants’ homes through a multifaceted strategy commonly referred to as community research.

Many DCTs now follow a hybridized design deploying a mixture of conventional site visits and community research methodologies.

Go deeper with GlobalData

Digital Health Market Size, Share and Trends Analysis by Region, Pr...

Clinical trials - the movement towards decentralized clinical trials, data insights.

The gold standard of business intelligence.

Find out more

In the first seven months of 2024, 1,170 studies included one or more elements of decentralization in their trial protocol, according to GlobalData’s Clinical Trials database. This was 26% higher than the figure for the first seven months of 2023, representing the growing popularity of the DCT model. Below, we break down three key approaches to community research – mobile visits, community sites, and technology – to discuss the benefits of each.  

1. Mobile nurse visits

Mobile visits bring aspects of the clinical trial directly to participants, with nurses visiting the participant at their home or a location of their choosing, such as their workplace, school, or hotel. Mobile research nurses align with investigators and site coordinators to deliver in-window visits wherever and whenever works for the participant.

This is often the most convenient option for rare disease patients, children, or those with mobility constraints, thus driving better participation, engagement, and retention for difficult-to-reach participant groups. In the infographic below, we highlight how PCM Trials (the industry’s largest independent DCT site network) sets up a mobile visit for success.

2. Community sites

Community research sites help to expand the reach of the traditional site network ecosystem, establishing  sites across various communities to provide convenient access for participants. This can be in the form of mobile research sites, such as those operated by EmVenio Research, a PCM Trials company, which offers a wide network of clinical sites focused on underrepresented communities. EmVenio’s sites include established community research sites and research centers, some of which are exclusively dedicated to a single sponsor or CRO’s study. While these units are fully mobile, with the flexibility to travel between different locations if needed, EmVenio enters communities with long-term placement in mind, taking care to select locations that address clinical trial access disparities for diverse groups of participants while helping to satisfy overall enrollment targets.

Community sites can also be established within existing brick-and-mortar healthcare infrastructure such as health centers, hospitals, and retail pharmacies. For example, in 2024, EmVenio announced a partnership with award-winning national health system Prime Healthcare, allowing the company to conduct research at Prime Healthcare hospitals across the United States and offering Prime’s patients improved access to clinical trials.

3. Technology

Technology has become a key vehicle of decentralization. Where in-person consultations are not necessary, telehealth appointments keep the participant in contact with the study team, enabling frequent yet convenient check-ins. In addition, a range of technologies can be used to collect data directly from participants, whether that involves digital questionnaires and eDiaries recorded in an electronic patient reported outcomes (ePRO) system or the transmission of physiological data from wearables devices directly to the study team.

This use of technology has transformed the scope, depth, and quality of the data that can be collected in a clinical trial, reducing the risk of response bias in questionnaires caused by the potential emotional stress of a hospital visit and enabling the collection of more robust, real-world data.

The benefits of community research

As with the choice between a fully centralized or decentralized study model, choosing between community research strategies is not an all-or-nothing process. Mobile visits or community sites may be necessary for treatment dosing, for example, while remote patient monitoring technology may better support long-term follow-up. Arguably, the most patient-centric DCT is the one which provides a range of options to participants, allowing them to partake in a trial in the way they feel most comfortable.

By designing trials in such a way as to minimize the negative effects on participants, pharmaceutical sponsors could benefit from improved participation and retention figures. GlobalData research has highlighted 50% reductions in dropout rates for Phase III trials with mobile visits compared to similar trials without. In addition, data suggests studies with mobile visits are 41% more likely to complete ahead of schedule than traditional yet otherwise similar trials.

By removing the barriers to access, sponsors not only gather more data but, crucially, more diverse data. Our research reveals studies with mobile visits have been more inclusive of certain historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups . For instance, while just under 60% of non-mobile visit studies included people of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, this was 90% for similar studies with mobile visits. Likewise, while just 14% of trials included Native American/Alaskan Native participants, this was 30% in the mobile visit studies.

By extending the reach of the traditional trial network in a hybrid trial, or even going fully remote where appropriate, community research could hold the key to more efficient clinical trials. Check out the following articles to learn more about how DCTs address the problem of healthcare deserts and enable rare disease , pediatric , and geriatric trials, or download the whitepaper below to discover the secrets to successful implementation of mobile visits.

Free Whitepaper

Mastering the logistics of mobile nurse visits in global decentralized clinical trials.

You will receive an email shortly. Please check your inbox to download the Whitepaper.

By downloading this Whitepaper, you acknowledge that GlobalData may share your information with PCM Trials and that your personal data will be used as described in their Privacy Policy

Sign up for our daily news round-up!

Give your business an edge with our leading industry insights.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Dear Colleague Letter: Seeking Community Input for Topic Ideas for Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation (EFRI) Program

September 3, 2024

Dear Colleagues:

The purpose of this Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) is to invite the research community to submit suggestions for Topic Ideas to be considered for the FY 2026/27 Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation (EFRI) Program Solicitation. Suggestions for EFRI Topic Ideas are currently solicited and vetted every two years. Selected Topic(s) become the focus of research supported by the EFRI Program. Research proposals that address the specified Topic area(s) are invited via the EFRI solicitation.

This DCL is not a request for submission of a single research proposal idea ; rather, it is designed to solicit submission of emerging topic areas of potentially transformative research and innovation. Candidate topic ideas, including a 500-word description, may be submitted at the URL given below.

The deadline for topic idea submission is: October 15, 2024 .

The mission of the NSF Directorate for Engineering is to transform our world for a better tomorrow by driving discovery, inspiring innovation, enriching education, and accelerating access. Specifically, NSF Engineering aims to propel U.S. leadership in transformational engineering approaches to problems with societal impact.

The EFRI Program is the signature activity of the Office of Emerging Frontiers and Multidisciplinary Activities (EFMA) in the Directorate for Engineering. The EFRI Program aims to focus the engineering community on important emerging areas in a timely manner. EFRI evaluates, recommends, and funds interdisciplinary initiatives at the emerging frontiers of engineering research and innovation. These transformative opportunities may lead to new research directions and/or new industries or capabilities that result in a leadership position for the country; and are expected to result in significant progress on a recognized national or societal need, or grand challenge.

EFRI invests in high-risk multidisciplinary opportunities with high-potential payoff and substantive potential for societal impact. Its role is to support research areas that would not fit within the scope of an existing program. These frontier ideas push the limits of engineering knowledge and are often at the intersection of multiple fields.

The EFRI Program continuously gathers information for use in deciding future research topic areas to support. This rolling process ensures input and feedback from the engineering community on promising upcoming research opportunities. Input comes from diverse sources including workshops, advisory committees, proposals and awards, technical meetings, and professional societies, as well as from individual engineering researchers. From this comprehensive input, the EFRI team identifies, evaluates, and prioritizes those frontier topics that best match EFRI criteria.

TOPIC IDEA SUBMISSION

Through this DCL, the NSF EFRI team is providing a direct opportunity for the research community to offer input on potential EFRI topic ideas for FY 2026/7 by submitting emerging frontier Topic Idea suggestions for consideration. This opportunity is open to all disciplines, but topic ideas should have engineering research at their core.

Topic Idea submitters will be asked to provide:

• E-mail address
• Organization
• Title of Proposed Topic
• Up to three Key Words, and
• A Description (maximum 500 words) that encompasses how the suggested topic meets the EFRI topic criteria: transformative, addressing a national or societal need or grand challenge, and with a leadership role for Engineering.

Submit your ideas at https://www.nsf.gov/eng/EFRItopicideas .

NOTE: Ideas you submit should provide forward-looking views and identify opportunities in emerging frontiers of research and innovation. Topic ideas should not simply represent your own ongoing or planned research activities. Suggested topics should identify challenges or opportunities rather than solutions. Topics or areas of opportunity should be those that would be unlikely to be supported through existing NSF programs. In order to facilitate broader discussion of the submitted ideas, topic suggestions will not be kept confidential. NSF staff will review submitted candidate topic ideas in consultation with external experts. NSF plans to invite up to ten submitters to engage with NSF for further discussions of their proposed topic. Those submitters selected will be notified in December 2024 and will be invited to present their frontier idea suggestions to NSF in early 2025.

Inquiries may be directed to: Dr. Louise R. Howe or Dr. Sohi Rastegar at [email protected] .

We thank you in advance for taking the time to submit your emerging frontier ideas to the NSF Directorate for Engineering.

Susan Margulies, PhD Assistant Director Directorate for Engineering

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Important information about NSF’s implementation of the revised 2 CFR

NSF Financial Assistance awards (grants and cooperative agreements) made on or after October 1, 2024, will be subject to the applicable set of award conditions, dated October 1, 2024, available on the NSF website . These terms and conditions are consistent with the revised guidance specified in the OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2024.

Important information for proposers

All proposals must be submitted in accordance with the requirements specified in this funding opportunity and in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets these requirements. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Seeking Community Input for Topic Ideas for Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation (EFRI) Program

Dear Colleagues:

The purpose of this Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) is to invite the research community to submit suggestions for Topic Ideas to be considered for the FY 2026/27 Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation (EFRI) Program Solicitation. Suggestions for EFRI Topic Ideas are currently solicited and vetted every two years. Selected Topic(s) become the focus of research supported by the EFRI Program. Research proposals that address the specified Topic area(s) are invited via the EFRI solicitation.

This DCL is not a request for submission of a single research proposal idea ; rather, it is designed to solicit submission of emerging topic areas of potentially transformative research and innovation. Candidate topic ideas, including a 500-word description, may be submitted at the URL given below.

The deadline for topic idea submission is: October 15, 2024 .

The mission of the NSF Directorate for Engineering is to transform our world for a better tomorrow by driving discovery, inspiring innovation, enriching education, and accelerating access. Specifically, NSF Engineering aims to propel U.S. leadership in transformational engineering approaches to problems with societal impact.

The EFRI Program is the signature activity of the Office of Emerging Frontiers and Multidisciplinary Activities (EFMA) in the Directorate for Engineering. The EFRI Program aims to focus the engineering community on important emerging areas in a timely manner. EFRI evaluates, recommends, and funds interdisciplinary initiatives at the emerging frontiers of engineering research and innovation. These transformative opportunities may lead to new research directions and/or new industries or capabilities that result in a leadership position for the country; and are expected to result in significant progress on a recognized national or societal need, or grand challenge.

EFRI invests in high-risk multidisciplinary opportunities with high-potential payoff and substantive potential for societal impact. Its role is to support research areas that would not fit within the scope of an existing program. These frontier ideas push the limits of engineering knowledge and are often at the intersection of multiple fields.

The EFRI Program continuously gathers information for use in deciding future research topic areas to support. This rolling process ensures input and feedback from the engineering community on promising upcoming research opportunities. Input comes from diverse sources including workshops, advisory committees, proposals and awards, technical meetings, and professional societies, as well as from individual engineering researchers. From this comprehensive input, the EFRI team identifies, evaluates, and prioritizes those frontier topics that best match EFRI criteria.

TOPIC IDEA SUBMISSION

Through this DCL, the NSF EFRI team is providing a direct opportunity for the research community to offer input on potential EFRI topic ideas for FY 2026/7 by submitting emerging frontier Topic Idea suggestions for consideration. This opportunity is open to all disciplines, but topic ideas should have engineering research at their core.

Topic Idea submitters will be asked to provide:

• E-mail address
• Organization
• Title of Proposed Topic
• Up to three Key Words, and
• A Description (maximum 500 words) that encompasses how the suggested topic meets the EFRI topic criteria: transformative, addressing a national or societal need or grand challenge, and with a leadership role for Engineering.

Submit your ideas at https://www.nsf.gov/eng/EFRItopicideas .

NOTE: Ideas you submit should provide forward-looking views and identify opportunities in emerging frontiers of research and innovation. Topic ideas should not simply represent your own ongoing or planned research activities. Suggested topics should identify challenges or opportunities rather than solutions. Topics or areas of opportunity should be those that would be unlikely to be supported through existing NSF programs. In order to facilitate broader discussion of the submitted ideas, topic suggestions will not be kept confidential. NSF staff will review submitted candidate topic ideas in consultation with external experts. NSF plans to invite up to ten submitters to engage with NSF for further discussions of their proposed topic. Those submitters selected will be notified in December 2024 and will be invited to present their frontier idea suggestions to NSF in early 2025.

Inquiries may be directed to: Dr. Louise R. Howe or Dr. Sohi Rastegar at [email protected] .

We thank you in advance for taking the time to submit your emerging frontier ideas to the NSF Directorate for Engineering.

Susan Margulies, PhD Assistant Director Directorate for Engineering

Organization(s)

• Office of Emerging Frontiers and Multidisciplinary Activities (ENG/EFMA)
• Directorate for Engineering (ENG)