Governing through community allegiance: a qualitative examination of peer research in community-based participatory research.
Governing through community allegiance: a qualitative examination of peer research in community-based participatory research.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/09581596.2012.761675
复制
发表时间：
2013-12
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Roche B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Guta A;Flicker S;Roche B
许多公共卫生干预措施的结果令人失望，部分原因是社区对这些举措的规划、实施和评估缺乏有意义的参与。基于社区的参与性研究（CBPR）已成为一种替代研究范式，直接让社区成员参与研究过程的各个方面。他们的参与通常被认为是一种增强能力的赋权经历。在本文中，我们利用一项定性研究的访谈数据来质疑这些假设，该研究调查了从加拿大多伦多的 9 项 CBPR 研究中招募的 18 名同行研究人员 (PR) 的经历。这些人给各自的项目带来了无家可归、艾滋病毒感染者、移民或难民、跨性别者以及患有精神疾病的经历。 PR 的反思与在不同焦点小组中收集的其他研究团队成员的反思进行比较。对这些访谈的结果进行了讨论，重点关注福柯的“政府治理”概念，并与以色列及其同事制定的流行的基于社区的研究原则进行比较。虽然 PR 谈到参与 CBPR 倡议以分享他们的经验并改善社区的条件，但这些解放目标往往被纳入限制参与的社团主义研究环境中。总体而言，这项研究为这种流行的研究方法提供了急需的理论参与，并提出了关于社区参与公共卫生合作研究的局限性的关键问题。
The disappointing results of many public health interventions have been attributed in part to the lack of meaningful community engagement in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of these initiatives. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has emerged as an alternative research paradigm that directly involves community members in all aspects of the research process. Their involvement is often said to be an empowering experience that builds capacity. In this paper, we interrogate these assumptions, drawing on interview data from a qualitative study investigating the experiences of 18 peer researchers (PRs) recruited from nine CBPR studies in Toronto, Canada. These individuals brought to their respective projects experience of homelessness, living with HIV, being an immigrant or refugee, identifying as transgender, and of having a mental illness. The reflections of PRs are compared to those of other research team members collected in separate focus groups. Findings from these interviews are discussed with an attention to Foucault's concept of ‘governmentality’, and compared against popular community-based research principles developed by Israel and colleagues. While PRs spoke about participating in CBPR initiatives to share their experience and improve conditions for their communities, these emancipatory goals were often subsumed within corporatist research environments that limited participation. Overall, this study offers a much-needed theoretical engagement with this popular research approach and raises critical questions about the limits of community engagement in collaborative public health research.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
Flicker, Sarah;Guta, Adrian;Layne, Crystal
通讯作者：
Layne, Crystal
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
Coupland, H;Maher, L;Smith, K
通讯作者：
Smith, K
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Carlisle, S.;Cropper, S.
通讯作者：
Cropper, S.
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Baines, Donna
通讯作者：
Baines, Donna
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Chiu LaiFong, Chiu LaiFong;Chiu, L. F.
通讯作者：
Chiu, L. F.