Equitable Community-University Partnerships

Abstract: Collaborative research partnerships between higher education researchers and local communities offer a valuable form of scholarship, a transformative approach to teaching and learning, and potential insights for communities if inquiry is aligned with community-defined interests. However, ethical and effective community-engaged research (CER) is complicated by numerous factors. For faculty, considerations include university incentive structures, rigid research processes, and time to engage in productive partnerships. On the community side, research efforts may not be community-driven, partnerships inequitable, and the results of the research of limited utility. Our study advanced knowledge on mechanisms for increasing feasible and reciprocal university-community research partnerships by addressing the following questions: What are current practices and processes of research partnerships in a university and its broader local community? How are partnerships initiated and structured, and what prompts these processes? What challenges are experienced in partnership processes, and what are key indicators and facilitators of fruitful partnerships? We addressed these questions through a combination of qualitative (interview-based) and quantitative (survey-based) data from both university researchers and community partner organizations. Faculty noted varying motivations, and administrative and institutional structures as challenges to implementing CER. Community partners noted power dynamics, finding the right research partner, and communication as obstacles to ethical partnerships. Both groups noted lack of resources and time as significant barriers.

Narrative: Overview
Academic and community partnerships are critical to effective community-engaged research (CER) but effective and trusting partnerships can be difficult to cultivate and sustain. We conducted research to understand more about CER practices, structures, and lessons from current partnerships between the Durham community organizations and Duke researchers to determine effective practices that could be encouraged and replicated. Our two-year study was supported through the Bass Connections program at Duke University. Bass Connections is a program engaging faculty, staff, undergraduate students, and graduate/professional students in teamwork. The teams are charged with integrating disciplinary approaches and professional practice, applying knowledge, research and problem-solving skills in collaboration with community partners. The Equitable University-Community Research Partnership (EUCRP) team represented faculty, staff, graduate and undergraduate students with current practice or interests in ethical and equitable partnerships. Our research focused on understanding more about community-engaged research practices, structures, and lessons from current CER partnerships.

Research process, data collection, and analysis
Each year, the EUCRP team reviewed research ethics, developed literature reviews, participated in data analysis, and co-authored a poster for a campus-wide research symposium. In the first year, the team developed strand interview guides, IRB protocols, surveys, and participant recruitment strategies. We collected initial data from both faculty and partners engaged in collaborative research and did a rapid analysis of partner interviews and faculty surveys and aligned interim results. The second year involved an in-depth analysis of the data informing emerging trends in first year analyses resulting in recommendations for both the institution and university community research partnerships. One hundred and eight faculty and staff participated in the first year survey with eight participants identifying as “other.” The team conducted nine in-depth interviews with Duke Researchers and 12 community partners recruited through convenience sampling. The team utilized Stata to analyze Duke Survey data on questions related to motivators to initiating CER projects, barriers to initiating CER, and challenges implementing such projects. Analyses included descriptive statistics, t-tests, and multivariate regressions to understand subgroup differences across question components. Write-in survey responses were also analyzed. The team analyzed interviews using NVivo 12, a qualitative data analysis software. To improve coding agreement, the team conducted two rounds of intercoder reliability. Codes were developed both deductively based on research questions and inductively based on themes emerging from the data; the team continued to add codes over the course of analysis. Due to differences in the interview protocols and key themes, findings from Duke Researchers and community partners are reported separately.

On-campus researcher results suggested that alignment with personal goals was the strongest motivator for researchers (80.6%) and societal impact was the second strongest motivator (69.4%). Researchers cited barriers including funding (56.03%) and time (49.57%). Along with pressure to deliver scholarship deliverables (31.9%), lack of funder/sponsor disallowed costs for CER activities (28.2%). Twenty-three percent noted the perception that CER decreased rigor of the research design and data collection. Twenty –five percent of respondents indicated that CER was less than 10% of their total effort and in open-ended choices indicated that CER is a personal choice and not required or expected as part of their professional activities (n=15). In open-ended responses, IRB/procedural issues and time were the most cited barriers to CER.
Community members also cited barriers. Emergent themes included difficulty navigating Duke without prior relationships making “fit” difficult, differing level of resources on campus and in community for research projects, and asymmetrical power dynamics given that researchers may have grant funds or research interests that dominate the partnership and leave partner interests as secondary. Community members also noted time conflicts, including lack of bandwidth to support researcher needs and the drain of student schedules which resulted in inconsistent engagement and less time available than partners hoped and expected. Partners noted that having an agency champion on campus or as a part of the organization can help the organization navigate institutional bureaucracy, and advance and mediate the partnership. Human resources, including the impact of staff turnover leading to the loss of a champion and organizational memory also arose as a barrier.
The team is in the process of creating an internal memo noting six themes from both strands and overall recommendations from the study. The first emerging recommendation is to acknowledge the “cultural” nature of CER on campus including the variety of faculty and staff roles, disciplines, and the need for varying types of institutional support required for participation in CER activities. A second recommendation will include creating and encouraging spaces for communities of practice to emerge to grow and enhance models for partnership. A third recommendation includes mechanisms for increased awareness of existing campus training resources, including training for CER researchers – particularly students - and a commitment to augmenting said resources when necessary. Fourth is a recommendation for a clear administrative structure to support CER with a shared understanding of CER research methods and goals, training IRB and data security staff on CER and adaptation of policies to accommodate partnerships. A fifth recommendation will be to track existing and emerging partnerships both as exemplars for others on and off campus. A sixth and final recommendation is to create a fiscal infrastructure for CER partnerships given the different and varying funding supported needed for CER. Examples include: remunerating researchers for time spent developing partnerships, funding community partners or encouraging partners to host grants instead of the institution, and offering flexible internal funding and developing an online research resource bank.