Addressing power dynamics in community-engaged research partnerships
Addressing power dynamics in community-engaged research partnerships
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s41687-020-00191-z
复制
发表时间：
2020-04-05
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Guinn, Dominique
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Andress, Lauri;Hall, Tristen;Guinn, Dominique
背景成功的社区参与研究取决于社区成员和学术研究人员之间合作伙伴关系的质量，并可能采取几种形式，这取决于决定在合作安排中处理权力动态的程度的目的。方法为了理解社区参与研究安排中的权力动态和相关概念，对现有的定性数据集进行了二次分析。社区参与研究的两种模式、文献综述和熟悉社区参与实践的研究者的应用经验证实了权力动力学概念用于根据定向内容分析的原则对定性数据集进行分析。这一分析引述了关于动力动力学和相关问题的引文。通过引用文献和研究人员的生活经验，选择了一些工具来解决引用所揭示的权力动态问题。最后，为了确保可信度，选定的关于权力动态的引文和推荐的工具经过了同行汇报和三角测量的自然主义处理。结果对现有定性数据的分析表明，卫生从业者和社区之间的社区参与研究可能会根据目的采取多种形式，并规定如何在合作安排内处理权力动态，包括不平等、偏见、歧视、种族主义、等级和特权。三种工具，包括内隐偏见训练，位置，和结构能力，可以用来解决权力动态和相关概念。结论对定性数据集的分析突出了不同社区参与的研究模型中的权力动态，以及可用于解决不公平权力动态的工具，包括内隐偏见训练、位置和结构性能力。
Background Successful community-engaged research depends on the quality of the collaborative partnerships between community -members and academic researchers and may take several forms depending on the purpose which dictates the degree to which power dynamics are handled within the collaborative arrangement. Methods To understand the power dynamics and related concepts within community-engaged research arrangements, a secondary analysis of an existing qualitative data set was undertaken. Two models of community-engaged research, a review of literature, and the applied experiences of researchers familiar with community engagement practices confirmed the power dynamics concepts used to carry out the analysis of the qualitative data set according to the principles of directed content analysis. This analysis yielded quotes on power dynamics and related issues. Tools to address the power dynamics exposed by the quotes were selected using the literature and lived experience of the researchers. Finally, to ensure trustworthiness, the selected quotes on power dynamics and the recommended tools were subjected to naturalistic treatment using peer debriefings and triangulation. Results Analysis of existing qualitative data made clear that community-engaged research between health practitioners and communities may take several forms depending on the purpose and dictate how power dynamics, including inequities, biases, discrimination, racism, rank and privilege, are handled within the collaborative arrangement. Three tools including implicit bias training, positionality, and structural competency may be used to address power dynamics and related concepts. Conclusion Analysis of the qualitative data set highlighted the power dynamics within different community-engaged research models and the tools that may be used to address inequitable power dynamics including implicit bias training, positionality, and structural competency.