1.11: Community based participatory research

While most of the psychological research we have and will be discussing is broadly scientific researcher led and defined, community based participatory research is not. It is where community partners co-design for research protocols, decision making, and the final product of the research. There is much greater buy-in by the community, greater cultural responsiveness in all stages of the research, and therefore greater longevity of the impact of the research. It combines knowledge and action to create sustainable change in communities. Even though it is aligned with the scientific and ethical aims of psychology, it is more often used in the fields of sociology, nursing and public health, and comprised only 0.1% of peer reviewed psychology articles by one count (Collins et al, 2018). However there are some subfields like community and social psychology where this method is utilized a bit more often.

In the late 1970's Colombian sociologist Orlando Fals Borda and colleagues organized the first CBPR conference that came out of the traditions of Paolo Freire's liberation pedagogy and Kurt Lewin's action research. This was in response to the imperialist notions of who defined the problem, who did the research and who makes and controls knowledge (primarily White European and US settler definitions of investigator led research).

According to Collins et al (2018), "Thus, individuals are viewed as embedded within their communities, which are characterized by connection and identification with other individuals, common symbol systems, shared values and norms, mutual influence, common interests, and joint commitment to meeting shared needs (Wallerstein et al., 2017). Communities may be defined by geographical boundaries or may be dispersed across geographical place but have a common identity or shared fate (Wallerstein et al., 2017). Communities must be defined, engaged and involved in the research process to maximize the psychological and physical health of their constituents." Researchers explicitly recognize that they do not have a monopoly on knowledge and they embrace cultural humility. This approach recognizes diverse influences on mental processes and also recognizes and honors the contribution of multiple players in the community in an authentic manner throughout the entire process of research.

In some ways it is similar to ethnographic, qualitative research, in that it is a cyclical, iterative process, and requires the researcher to recognize their own positionality and privilege, while building and maintaining relationships with the community. The community is involved in every aspect and stage of the research process including dissemination of findings.

The difficulties of conducting this type of research include transparency about the multiple roles everyone might be playing in this process, and confidentiality and anonymity of participants. Conflicts of interest can be another area of concern.

One example of this type of study with particular relevance to child developmental psychology was done by Pesch et al (2022) on a co-design of Playful Learning Landscapes in two culturally informed settings. In California, the researchers partnered with the Santa Ana Early Learning Initiative (SAELI), a non-profit that connected with parents and caregivers in the community for early childhood outcomes. In Philadelphia, they partnered with six early childhood education centers (six distinctly religiously and geographically different settings) to co-design and co-create learning spaces that were community guided. They leveraged these partnerships to include community voices and funds of knowledge in order to create culturally relevant and scientifically informed public learning spaces. Community members were engaged in the planning process, in the implementation and in the evaluation processes in an iterative and cyclical manner. In Philadelphia, for example, in the planning process, community values were elicited using a MadLibs type activity where participants generated values important to them by brainstorming learning or principle-related adjectives important to them, and coalesced around the core values they wanted their installations to evoke - diversity, curiosity, inclusion and an environment of yes. The centers listed what STEM principles were important to them. In California, the planning process involved several rounds of meetings where parents identified geographical areas that they wanted to see renovated and how. Since these meetings were happening during the pandemic, ideas were shared online, and the problems and possible solutions were generated by community members based on their core values of intergenerational learning, heritage and community engagement. In California, life sized mockups of some of the ideas were built and community participants were invited to interact and provide feedback and suggestions. In Philadelphia, architects (who were also chosen from and with community input), shared blueprints with the community. Caregivers responded to verbal and written prompts to make activities more culturally relevant and improve family experiences. These processes were iterative till all ideas were included and family values were maintained. Of course local ordinances were followed. Once all the actual structures were built, evaluation included the research team in collaboration with the community. The surveys (which were iteratively translated in the California setting) were created in collaboration as well to make sure they were community and culturally relevant. The purpose had been to increase adult-child interaction quality and language use, building positive attitudes and beliefs about playful learning, increased ownership of local spaces and increased civic engagement. From the time of the design stages, the relationships formed between people in the community led to greater civic engagement and social cohesion, which in turn led to greater economic health and wellbeing, particularly in the traditionally underserved communities.

The outcomes were that learning increased in these settings, but also in culturally sensitive ways. These projects also yielded structures that reflected scientific practices but also the priorities of the community.

References:

Collins, S. E., Clifasefi, S. L., Stanton, J., The LEAP Advisory Board, Straits, K. J. E., Gil-Kashiwabara, E., Rodriguez Espinosa, P., Nicasio, A. V., Andrasik, M. P., Hawes, S. M., Miller, K. A., Nelson, L. A., Orfaly, V. E., Duran, B. M., & Wallerstein, N. (2018). Community-based participatory research (CBPR): Towards equitable involvement of community in psychology research. American Psychologist, 73(7), 884–898. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000167

Pesch, A., Ochoa, K.D., Fletcher, K.K., Bermudez, V.N., Todaro, R.D., Salazar, J., Gibbs, H.M., Ahn, J., Bustamante, A.S. & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2022). Reinventing the public square and early educational settings through culturally informed, community co-design: Playful Learning Landscapes. Front. Psychol. 13, 933320. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.933320 Licensed CC-BY