Working with Community Researchers
TOOLKIT
This toolkit offers detailed guidance for academic researchers working with, or interested in working with, community researchers (CR). It provides guidance towards what ‘best practice’ is as regards this partnership.
Community researchers are non-academics with no required prior experience or training in research who are residents of a community. They work closely with the research team, using their local knowledge and experience to act as a bridge between the community and the university. They are sometimes also referred to as 'peer researchers' or 'community research link workers'.
This toolkit was developed through a series of creative workshops involving academics and community researchers from diverse backgrounds, it outlines Seven Core Values & Principles which should underpin such work. Each is accompanied by a Process Checklist to ensure you are working effectively and ethically.
The toolkit is also designed to support established community researchers, as well as people who may be interested in becoming a community researcher. We hope it will help you to understand more about the university-community relationship, and what you can expect from your academic partners.
The quotes on each page are from community researchers. Scan the QR code or visit link to watch our introductory video: youtu.be/w8Gp7Vl_aWA
CORE VALUE 1
PRINCIPLE
1
Collaborative Inclusion
Community Researchers are most effective when embedded within co-designed studies.
PROCESS CHECKLIST
Have you discussed and agreed on an appropriate timeline for the research?
Have you discussed community, including (but not limited to) the content of information sheets and consent forms?
Have you discussed requirements, both for the CR and the wider community?
Have you identified a potential CR (or CRs) who is embedded in the community of study?
When you involve the communities from the get-go, you build trust, foster a sense of partnership and ownership of the research project, as well as stabilise power dynamics.
CORE VALUE 2
Aligned Expectations
PRINCIPLE 2
Be transparent about expectations and goals and how they may differ.
PROCESS CHECKLIST
Have you spoken about the needs of the community and/or the goals of any relevant local community organisations?
Have you invited the community to participate in conversations about research objectives, research design and the definition of what success looks like?
Have you set out clear expectations for your CR in terms of their role on the project?
Have you asked your CR about their expectations of you?
Have you set out long term goals for sustaining the research relationship between the academic team and the community after the research project?
The common expectation of the academics and the community mostly is success of the research projects even though with different specific impacts and benefits that are important to them, and it is important to be clear on that.
CORE VALUE 3 Sustainable
Communication
PRINCIPLE 3
Ensure effective and continual communication.
PROCESS CHECKLIST
Have you considered and discussed the best ways to communicate with your CR?
Have you established time points for twoway feedback?
Does your CR know who to contact (and how to contact them) if they have an issue or emergency?
Does your communication with CRs demonstrate value for their role as well as foster trust for a long-term relationship?
Have you and the CR agreed on a plan and strategy to disseminate outcomes and impacts of the research project with the community?
Partnerships do not function just using emails, thus we must invest time and effort in communications ensuring that it is transparent with people actually listening, not just pretending to listen.
CORE VALUE 4
PRINCIPLE 4
Mutual Cultural Awareness
Acknowledge and understand university and community cultures.
PROCESS CHECKLIST
Do you have an understanding of how the community is organised? Are there key people who need to be aware of the research?
Does the community use specific terms, or have cultural norms that the research team should be aware of?
Are there any behaviours, actions or topics of conversation which are considered taboo or sensitive in the community?
Are you recruiting a CR who has rich cultural knowledge and awareness of the community?
Is there any project-specific vocabulary? Have you explained these to your CR and other collaborators?
Have you considered the need for an interpreter? Could your CR fill that role?
Have you reflected on the ways in which your university systems directly and indirectly affect your project as it develops? Have you explained these to your CR?
There are unique cultural differences that exist among communities and even within the university and it is responsibility of all team members to be aware and sensitive to the cultural nuances, behaviors and practices.
CORE VALUE 5
PRINCIPLE 5
Appropriate Resource
Allocation
Appropriately cost community partnership and CR hourly rate into your research funding.
PROCESS CHECKLIST
Have you agreed on a suitable hourly rate of pay for your CR and funding for the community group they will be employed through, if relevant?
Are there any additional costs to your CRs associated with research activities (renting space, subsistence, travel reimbursement etc)? Have these been adequately factored into your budget?
Are there additional ways that you can use your skills or qualifications to support the community, as part of an ongoing reciprocal relationship?
When you’re applying for funding it’s important for you to put aside the money for the community.
CORE VALUE 6
PRINCIPLE
6
Reciprocal
Training and Development
Discuss and agree training needs for both academics and CRs and implement appropriate training as required.
PROCESS CHECKLIST
Have you considered and asked CRs about your own training needs in relation to specific communities?
Is there a reciprocal training plan for both CRs and academics through the project timeline?
Are you adequately trained to handle issues that may arise when dealing with the community, such as cultural trauma?
How are you contributing to the capacity building of your CRs and the wider community?
Are you employing a reflexive approach to your role and your impact on the community?
In terms of training, you’re training every day anyway, you’re training, you’re learning new skills.
CORE VALUE 7
PRINCIPLE 7
Adaptive Methodology
Be person-centred when working with CRs.
PROCESS CHECKLIST
Have you ensured that the project team adapts their language to ensure that CRs can engage fully with projects conversations?
Have you considered all protected characteristics and removed barriers to them being CRs, including digital exclusion?
Have you ensured that your project planning takes into account cultural and religious considerations?
Have you considered alternative means of sharing research materials with the CRs and community such as audio, multi-media, video presentations, use of props and objects?
So in planning the time of day is important as well because during the day the women may have children to see about, their kids to see about. The same thing after school, so timing is key as well as considering what the unique situation that exists.
CONTRIBUTORS
Academic Researchers
Dr Habiba Aminu
Division of Population Health
University of Sheffield
Dr Kate Fryer
Deep End Research Alliance
University of Sheffield
Dr Henry Staples
School of Geography and Planning
University of Sheffield
Dr. Agbarakwe Chukwuemeka Abraham
Deep End Research Alliance
University of Sheffield
Professor Caroline Mitchell
Co-investigator, Research Team
Keele University
Dr. Josephine Reynolds
Deep End Research Alliance
University of Sheffield
Dr Pamela McKinney
Information School
University of Sheffield
Lise Sproson
PPIE Lead
NIHR HealthTech Research Centre
Dr. Ryan Cory
GP Trainee
University of Sheffield
Dr. Rebecca L Mawson
Deep End Research Alliance
University of Sheffield
Dr. Alex Rajinder Mason
Centre for Equity & Inclusion
University of Sheffield
Andrew Carrick
The Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust
Professor. Daniel Blackburn
Sheffield Institute for Translational
Neuroscience (SITraN)
University of Sheffield
Dr. Katie Powell
Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research
University of Sheffield
Dr. Laura Sbaffi
Information School
University of Sheffield
Dr Nicola Hemmings
Centre for Equity and Inclusion
University of Sheffield
Dr. Qizhi Huang
Deep End Research Alliance
University of Sheffield
Dr. Rhonda Allen
Roots & Futures/Archeology
University Of Sheffield
Benjamin E Duke
Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research
University of Sheffield
Professor Elizabeth Craig-atkins
Archeology
University of Sheffield
Dr. Mary Crowder
Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research
University of Sheffield
Dr. Joanne Britton
Sociological Studies
University of Sheffield
Dr. Becky Field
Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research
University Of Sheffield
Ankita Sehrawat
Psychology
University of Sheffield
Community Researchers
Ruby Chandler
ChilyPep UK
Jackleen Abdurub
ACT Sheffield
Lungani Sibanda
SACMHA
Ismail Yussuf
ISRAAC
Clare Holdsworth
Voice & Influence Team
Fardusa Isse
RESHAPE Health Research
ISRAAC
Sahra Abdi
ISRAAC
Sheila Daley
SACMHA
Clarice Goodison
SACMHA
Michael Opoku Kwarteng
SACMHA
Shirley Samuels
SACMHA
Valerie Grossett
SACMHA
Hina Elmi
ISRAAC
Keely Hardy
ChilyPep UK
Leeza Abdurub
ACT Sheffield
Raith Hart
SACMHA
Leodgar Mboya
UWA Social Enterprise
Tracy Brown
Park Community Action
Jacqueline Bailey
Manor & Castle
Development Trust
Hodo Mahamoud
ISRAAC
Hiba Mahamoud
ISRAAC
Carl Case
Cultural Appropriate Resources
Cadey Deeqa
Organisations
Deep End Research Alliance
Health Equity and Inclusion
Group, University of Sheffield
Information School, University of Sheffield
SACMHA Health & Social Care
ISRAAC
Chilypep
Project funded by Research
England participatory research funding at The University of Sheffield.
Thanks to the Participatory Research Network.
Designed by Nifty Fox Creative, 2024.