Community research doesn't mean inferior research. Nor does it mean tokenistic approaches with only superficial involvement of communities. The community trust High Trees argues it means high standards of research and rigorous methodologies that are not diluted down in the name of community engagement. It means research autonomy amongst community groups and accountability from all partners. And perhaps most importantly, it needs trust from funders to allow community organisations to lead the way.
Community-based research is increasingly popular. Whether there is a common understanding about what community-based research is, whether its value is truly recognised and whether this represents a shift in power and understanding, or just a change in language, is still not clear.
High Trees is a community development trust born of and rooted in our local community in Lambeth, London. We’ve been serving our community for the past 26 years, designing and delivering services in response to the needs of thousands of local residents every year, and for the past decade have been undertaking what would now be considered ‘community-based research’. Watching as this new focus unfolds, experiencing who gets to define terms in this supposed rebalancing of power, and who gets to decide who the community are and what their voices sound like has been one of the more interesting aspects of the past few years.
Talking in very broad terms, there seems to be a collective consensus that traditional academic research (which treats people and communities as objects and subjects to be studied) needs to change and that there has not been a meaningful enough connection between being studied and any change that will benefit the subjects. We share these views and welcome the acknowledgment that a shift is needed, both to raise the quality of research in the areas impacted and demonstrate that other forms of knowledge have value.
Our experience however is that this new spotlight on community-based research (and the funding that can come alongside it) has created a new set of problems alongside the opportunities it brings.
At one end of the spectrum, there are still the traditionalists, who believe that knowledge or quality can only reside inside traditional academic institutions and while these actors are willing (whether enthusiastically or otherwise) to join in with adding the word “community” or “lived experience” to their papers or panels, this is generally tokenistic. Whether they are requesting a “lived experience expert” to liven up their otherwise unchanged panel (more often than not, once the research has been completed), or giving a small pot of money to a community focus group, many will still revert back to the “professionals” in the form of universities or consultants when there is actual money to be spent or actual work to be done.
At the other end are those who are fully invested in the concept of representing the community differently, but seem to be convinced that these “community voices” cannot possibly be expected to engage in or produce high quality research and conclude the only way to secure community inclusion and participation is to lower the standard of research and ambition of what can be achieved. This position, that anything goes as long as it can be claimed to have been produced by the community, regardless of quality, evidence base or utility, does not help the case for community research and you can understand why this causes the ‘traditionalists’ to dig in. We have sat through enough meetings on the matter to get a sense of how community research is often perceived and the viewpoint that research has to be over simplified to be accessible - that somehow the written word or data could or would not be understood by the communities or individuals taking part.
There seems to be a hard line drawn between expectations of academic and community research, mandating the former to have clear ethics, rigour and methodology, and for the latter, in a bid to be inclusive or progressive, remove any expectation of such, reinforcing the narrative or idea that community research doesn’t have the capacity to be more. These polarising positions of academic rigour vs inclusive, less rigorous community research do nothing to push the agenda forwards, and if anything perpetuate the same dynamic that many are trying to address.
There are also undoubtedly those stuck within systems they wish to change – academics who are constricted by their funding or institutions to engaging with their research subjects in particular ways, and community organisations who lack the resources and support to apply the needed processes and vigour.
We believe that to be considered ‘community research’, work should be grounded in the needs, issues and concerns of the local communities it is researching. Participation should be meaningful and significant, and led by the communities affected. In that sense, we believe the term ‘community-led research’ is of more value and significance. Social science, or any research into people and communities, cannot automatically be (though sometimes is) considered community research. Without meaningful definitions of what the term means, all social science research could qualify.
There are so many ways to meaningfully involve communities. It may include direct peer research, working with local people to set research priorities or ensuring that communities feel research is ethical, relevant and useful. Research should also be accessible to its subjects. This does not mean abandoning the written word, or data backed by evidence, but it should not use impenetrable academic language if the message can be conveyed just as effectively using language anyone could easily understand. It can also be accompanied by other mediums if necessary such as videos, to make the findings as accessible as possible.
More than anything, community research must be accountable. There should be clear routes for accountability in how research is designed, delivered and used. And the organisations or individuals conducting the research should understand their responsibility to ensure that the research contributes to insights that have the potential to be acted on.
We’re staunch believers in the skills and expertise that community organisations, and the individuals we work with, have for driving change forwards and firm advocates for place-based working both in research and service delivery. Yet without creating the necessary mechanisms to come together in a collective understanding, aim and approach, this is hard to achieve.
High Trees, with other Lambeth placed based service delivery organisations, have spent the last two years setting up the Lambeth Community Research Network (LCRN), to overcome this. Built on the foundations of existing community-partnerships and emerging community-research projects across Lambeth, it ensures it’s being built from the community up. By community we mean Lambeth residents, and the place-based community organisations that serve them.
LCRN’s vision is that the field of community research can be better, that good community research is developed and led by communities, and that findings should lead to change. It is creating a new infrastructure and model of shared accountability and ownership of Lambeth-based research, based on four broad principles:
Collaboration: Research is a crowded field, often creating duplication and leading toextractive research practices. LCRNs network model allows us to bring community, civil-society and research institutes together to ensure research is coordinated and informed by local need.
Quality: We expect and want all community research to be of high quality, both for the individuals who take part and the insights it produces. We ensure everyone understands our expectations through a framework that includes a research charter and ethics review process designed with (and monitored by) community members.
Capacity: The community sector is often undervalued and underserved when it comes to professional and organisational development yet contains a skilled and innovative workforce at the forefront of addressing and challenging some of society’s biggest problems. LCRN works alongside our members to build local capacity and capability for community research, ensuring organisations can be meaningfully involved in research and building a broad local research ecosystem.
Accountability: For us this is a fundamental principle that is so often lacking - ensuring all organisations and individuals involved in research have routes to be held to account. LCRN operates a membership model with clear criteria for joining. Our members must have an established track record of community-based service delivery beyond just research, ensuring that the research is not extractive and there is longevity and capacity to act on findings, and our Ethics Review and Research Charter ensures that research projects create routes for change. We do not believe there is one perfect model of accountability and it will always be context dependent, but for LCRN the membership model works well to ensure all partners can hold each other to account.
LCRN is a prime example of communities coming together to address an entrenched problem that is affecting our sector and the individuals we support - putting an end to extractive research, inaction and rebalancing the power dynamics that communities have over how research is done with and by, rather than to them.
Through proper investment in and recognition of true community-led research, there is real scope to shift the dynamic and role communities play in research and development. We recognise however that there is still some way to go before realising this. There needs to be a push from all sides in order to reach a consensus on the role community research can play in the fields of research, policy and system change. If we’re not careful, we will sleepwalk our way into dismantling everything we are trying to achieve through not setting some clear parameters and ambitions for community research and the impact it can have.
Creating a shared understanding of what we mean by community research
A key starting point for this is to reach a collective understanding of what we mean by community research, because what is apparent is that interpretation is varied, which is part of the problem. In this essay we have defined what we mean by community research or community-led research, however it is clear that in speaking to different organisations, funders and research institutes, that the term is very open to interpretation, which creates opportunity for a new wave of extractive practice or poor quality research guised under this new term.
Creating a common understanding, based on key characteristics and principles of how funders or commissioners define community research, and the processes they will put in place to assess these, are key if we are to protect this research approach from being diluted or extracted itself.
Defining quality standards for community research
Secondly, we also need to collectively agree quality standards for community research in order to give it the rigour and value it needs to be taken seriously, and to ensure that organisations who undertake community research have the skills and understanding required to do this. This is not about just replicating academic research practices, but recognising which established processes can be adapted to use in a community context - for example a locally informed ethics review framework.
Applying rigour and process when commissioning community research
Thirdly, the same rigour and scrutiny needs to be applied by commissioners and funders to interrogate the organisations who say they will be conducting community research. Funders are responsible for understanding the organisations they select to deliver the projects, their stake in the community and the mechanisms they have for accountability, and importantly that they have the expertise (however this is defined), to do this. In practical terms, this means proper due diligence on organisations and their experience.
Beyond this, funders and commissioners equally need to understand their role in this landscape. The increasing shift funders are taking to try and be the ‘innovators of change’ is leading to murky waters. What’s required by communities, needs to come from communities, using community-led research to achieve this. This is what should be used to inform decisions and processes, and trust and respect from funders and commissioners is required to allow community organisations to lead the way in this, not vice versa.
Whilst this essay might be read as scepticism or indeed met with scepticism, our position is one of hope - we’re excited by the changing landscape, but remain cautious about ensuring the shift to championing community research creates accountability at all levels, from community organisations, and researchers to commissioners and funders. We can be ambitious about our expectations, yet pragmatic about how we implement and hold ourselves to account, to ensure that community research really will work better for the communities.
We all play a role in making this happen - it’s not about finger pointing, but rather a plea to think about our component parts and our obligations to make them make sense.
A PDF VERSION OF THIS ESSAY IS AVAILABLE HERE
This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this essay are not representative of the views of the British Science Association or UK Research and Innovation.
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。