Working with Community Researchers

Working with Community Researchers TOOLKIT

INTRODUCTION

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 ethical considerations with the community, including (but not limited to) the content of information sheets and consent forms?

Have you discussed funding 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

PRINCIPLE 2

Aligned Expectations

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

PRINCIPLE 3

Sustainable Communication

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

Professor. Daniel Blackburn Sheffield Institute for Translational Dr Habiba Aminu Neuroscience (SITraN) Division of Population Health University of Sheffield University of Sheffield Dr. Katie Powell Dr Kate Fryer Sheffield Centre for Health and Deep End Research Alliance Related Research University of Sheffield University of Sheffield Dr Henry Staples Dr. Laura Sbaffi School of Geography and Planning Information School University of Sheffield University of Sheffield Dr. Agbarakwe Chukwuemeka Abraham Dr Nicola Hemmings Deep End Research Alliance Centre for Equity and Inclusion University of Sheffield University of Sheffield Professor Caroline Mitchell Dr. Qizhi Huang Co-investigator, Research Team Deep End Research Alliance Keele University University of Sheffield Dr. Josephine Reynolds Dr. Rhonda Allen Deep End Research Alliance Roots & Futures/Archeology University of Sheffield University Of Sheffield Dr Pamela McKinney Benjamin E Duke Information School Sheffield Centre for Health and University of Sheffield Related Research Lise Sproson University of Sheffield PPIE Lead Professor Elizabeth Craig-atkins NIHR HealthTech Research Centre Archeology Dr. Ryan Cory University of Sheffield GP Trainee Dr. Mary Crowder University of Sheffield Sheffield Centre for Health and Dr. Rebecca L Mawson Related Research Deep End Research Alliance University of Sheffield University of Sheffield Dr. Joanne Britton Dr. Alex Rajinder Mason Sociological Studies Centre for Equity & Inclusion University of Sheffield University of Sheffield Dr. Becky Field Andrew Carrick Sheffield Centre for Health and The Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust 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.