Chapter 2 Building Equity into Research Design: Community-Based Participatory Research in Counseling Psychology

Melissa M. Ertl (she/her), Columbia University and the New York State Psychiatric Institute
Meredith R. Maroney (she/her),University of Calgary
Sharon G. Horne (she/they), University of Massachusetts Boston
The Columbia University Irving Medical Center and Washington Heights sit on the land of the Lenape, Wappinger, and Schaghticoke people, the Indigenous residents of Manahatta (“island of hills” in the Algonquian language). The University of Calgary is located on the traditional territories of the people of the Treaty 7 region in Southern Alberta, which includes the Blackfoot Confederacy (comprising the Siksika, Piikani, and Kainai First Nations), the Tsuut’ina First Nation, and the Stoney Nakoda (including the Chiniki, Bearspaw, and Wesley First Nations). The City of Calgary is also home to Métis Nation of Alberta, Region III. The University of Massachusetts Boston occupies the traditional, ancestral and unceded land of the Pawtucket and Massachusett First Nations. Let us commit ourselves to the struggle against the forces that have dispossessed Indigenous peoples of their lands.


The focus of this lesson is to provide an overview of community-based participatory research, its principles, and its application to research in counseling psychology. We discuss critical considerations and recommendations for conducting community-based participatory research and offer resources to help guide the creation and critique of community-based participatory research studies. We hope, through introducing community-based approaches—with their focus on partnerships, community relationships, and building capacity—this chapter provides an opportunity to think about how relationships in research can represent important opportunities to engage in liberatory practices and solidarity to address inequities and underrepresentation.

“Nothing that we do that is worthwhile is done alone. Everything worthwhile is done with other people.” -Mariame Kaba, activist and abolitionist

“If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.” -Attributed to the Australia Aboriginal Rights Collective and Lilla Watson


2.1 Learning Objectives

Learning objectives for this chapter include the following:

  • Describe the principles of community-based participatory research.
  • Discuss the roles of history, oppression, power, privilege, and structural inequities in creating health disparities.
  • Assess community needs, strengths, resources, and assets to inform interventions to address community-identified health problems.
  • Explain strategies to collaborate and partner with community organizations to reach community health goals.
  • Critique your role as a health researcher and psychological professional and how to successfully work with communities to improve health outcomes.
  • Apply collaborative, participatory approaches when working with communities and demonstrate attention to culturally appropriate community engagement and empowerment with diverse communities.

Featuring a 20-minute interview facilitated by Dr. Meredith Maroney with Dr. Roberto Abreu about his line of community-based research at University of Florida, where he is working in community with LGBTQ+ and Latinx folks through collective efforts aimed at improving the lives of oppressed communities through research and development: https://youtu.be/dn9e9z-mEeQ

  • Abreu, R. L., Gonzalez, K. A., Mosley, D. V., Pulice-Farrow, L., Adam, A., & Duberli, F. (2022). “They feel empowered to discriminate against las chicas”: Latina transgender women’s experiences navigating the healthcare system. International Journal of Transgender Health, 23(1-2), 178-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2020.1767752

2.3 What is Community-Based Participatory Research?

Community engagement has been described as integral to improving health research and enhancing health promotion efforts within communities [Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA), 2011]. Community-engaged research strives to improve community health and entails working collaboratively with groups of people to address issues affecting the well-being of those people, often through partnerships or coalitions that help mobilize resources, influence systems, change and forge relationships among partners, and serve as catalysts for change in policies and practices (CTSA, 2011). Because community engagement is rooted in principles of community organization, including fairness, justice, empowerment, participation, and self-determination (e.g., Alinsky, 1962; Freire, 1970; Martín-Baró et al., 1996; Wallerstein & Duran, 2006), community-engaged health research seeks to embody these principles to produce social action.

Community-based participatory research, or CBPR—a specific, well-established framework within community-engaged research that emerged from social justice and action traditions—involves full community participation in research and occurs in a context in which collaborators respect the strengths that each individual brings to the partnership (CTSA, 2011). The hallmark of CBPR is shared decision-making and leadership of the research activities through strong partnerships with community members and stakeholders. CBPR begins with an important research topic, the aim of which is to achieve social change to improve health outcomes and eliminate disparities in health (CTSA, 2011; Israel et al., 2017). Through participation, marked by a high level of engagement and mutual respect from all collaborators and stakeholders, CBPR seeks to integrate education and social action to improve quality of life and health for marginalized and oppressed communities.

Counseling psychology as a field has increasingly focused on community-engaged and community-based approaches to research (Baranowski et al., 2016; Fine, 2007; Jensen & Case, 2022; Jones et al., 2020). Because CBPR is strongly aligned with the values of counseling psychology for social justice, multiculturalism, equity, and liberation (Delgado-Romero et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2010; Singh, 2020), it is a promising framework for carrying out counseling psychology research with communities. Additionally, CBPR has been suggested to be capable of producing tangible benefits for communities and improving overall health outcomes while also improving the quality of the research itself as well as the relevance of the findings (Braun et al., 2012; CTSA, 2011). A recent example details how the arts-based research methodology of digital storytelling can use stories, photos, and videos to capture the lived experiences of underserved and underrepresented populations, the results of which can empower communities to promote social change (Fish & Syed, 2020). CBPR is capable of fostering empowerment for community partners and stakeholders (Turin et al., 2022; Vivona & Wolfgram, 2021), which can lead individuals to “gain greater control over their lives and environment, acquire resources and basic rights, achieve important life goals, and reduce societal marginalization” (CTSA, 2011, p. 15; Freire, 1970; Maton, 2008).

2.4 What are Health Disparities, and How Do We Promote Health Equity?

Health disparities are socially constructed, unjust, and avoidable differences in health and well-being between and within groups of people (Browne et al., 2015; Farmer, 2013). Health disparities exist largely due to the structural inequities that underlie social conditions, including unequal social, economic, and environmental conditions as well as forms of social oppression (Baciu et al., 2017; Braveman, 2006; Kimber et al., 2022). Accordingly, health disparities tend to disproportionately affect individuals from marginalized and oppressed backgrounds that are underserved and underrepresented in health research (Wallerstein, 2002). Health disparities are complex and multifactorial and manifest in myriad ways, including in access to preventive and medical care, inequitable treatment decisions (e.g., studies have documented that Black patients in the Veterans healthcare system were much less likely to receive invasive cardiac procedures compared to similar White patients), and retention in care, as well as disparate care and health outcomes, incidence and prevalence rates, stage at diagnosis, the financial burden of the condition, length of survival after diagnosis, quality of life, and mortality (National Academy of Sciences, 2019; National Cancer Institute, 2020; Riley, 2012). Conversely, health equity is the pursuit of the highest possible standard of health for all people, with a particular focus on populations at greatest risk for poor health (Browne et al., 2015). Social justice is at the heart of health equity and serves to guide our best efforts to address and eliminate health disparities.

Counseling psychologists are particularly well-positioned to conduct CBPR aimed to address health disparities and to promote health equity in communities (Tucker et al., 2007). Because counseling psychologists can intervene at the micro and macro levels and have expertise in health promotion and prevention, counseling psychologists are able to conduct socially responsive CBPR efforts to promote health equity, such as the design and adaptation of culturally responsive interventions, the implementation of programs to empower patient and community health, the assessment of capacity for structural and organizational change in groups and systems, the evaluation of trainings in how to provide culturally and linguistically responsive care, and the analysis of public health policy to advocate for more equity-oriented legislation, among others.

2.5 Principles of Community-Based Participatory Research

CBPR principles require that academic and community partners work together to design studies, collect and interpret the data, and disseminate the findings (Braun et al., 2012). The following nine principles are viewed as critical components inherent to designing and carrying out ethical CBPR projects (Israel et al., 1998, 2017). However, it is important to note that all principles may not be applicable in all settings, cultures, or communities, and the principles used in any given study should be adapted to the local context of each partnership (Israel et al., 2017).

2.5.1 Recognize community as a unit of identity

Although much of the research in psychology views participants as individuals, CBPR recognizes community as the key unit of identity. Individuals belong to larger communities based on their socially constructed identities, which shape the strengths, challenges, and disparities that affect a community (Collins et al., 2018). In CBPR projects, it is critical to clearly define the community of focus (Nicolaidis & Raymaker, 2015). Moreover, the priority community must have a desire to engage with the researchers on problems of mutual interest (Braun et al., 2012).

2.5.2 Build on strengths and resources of the community

CBPR should seek to build on the strengths, including assets, resources, and resourcefulness of a community, as opposed to only focusing on the problems affecting a community (CTSA, 2011). Respecting community values and capitalizing on the cultural assets and resources of a community have been described as necessary to improve the success of the research and to yield more meaningful findings (Braun et al., 2012). Through a CBPR lens, community partners are viewed as valued contributors to the research process (Collins et al., 2018). In order to successfully collaborate with a community and foster engagement, researchers must come to this work by engaging in self-reflection and recognizing their own culture and how it shapes one’s beliefs and understanding of health and illness (Airhihenbuwa, 2007; Duran et al., 2013). Because community-based and community-engaged programs may often involve people from universities and health institutions who are intending to collaborate with communities that are societally positioned as vulnerable to a given health outcome, it is necessary for researchers and stakeholders to acknowledge how society produces privilege, racism, and inequalities in power based on factors like background, experience, culture, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender identity, sexual orientation, ability status, and other social identities (CTSA, 2011). Taking a critical, culturally responsive approach can help partners better understand and address the social determinants of health issues and can mitigate the risk of reproducing oppressive patterns within health partnerships (CTSA, 2011; Chávez et al., 2008). Capacity building—the process by which the skills, resources, and competencies of community, organizational, and institutional partners are assessed and further developed—is one strategy that can be used to build on the strengths of those involved in the project (Collins et al., 2018).

2.5.3 Facilitate collaborative and equitable partnerships in all research phases

CBPR requires equity and power-sharing between researchers and the community. By design, CBPR should be empowering and capacity-building for all those involved, all the way from the conception of a study to the communication of its results (Collins et al., 2018). Capacity-building among community partners addresses and challenges power imbalances, encouraging individuals to be able to discuss and resolve problems that may emerge in the research process (Muhammad et al, 2015). This facilitation involves acknowledging inequalities between researchers and community partners and the ways that these inequalities shape the participation in the research (Israel et al., 2017). Community partners, to the extent desired, should collaborate and share responsibility for all phases of research, including the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation of results, generation of conclusions, and dissemination phases of research. These partnerships can be with any number of community stakeholders, including but not limited to community members, people with lived experience, community-based organizations, nonprofits, public health agencies, practice-based researchers in clinics and health care organizations, schools and institutions, and policymakers (CTSA, 2011). Community members and stakeholders can participate as advisers, hired staff, administrators, or leaders of the research and should be empowered to approve, disapprove, and recommend changes to the proposed research (Braun et al., 2012). Collaborative partnerships enable the development of programs and research that are consistent with a community’s cultural framework (Airhihenbuwa, 1995). The end result allows for researchers and community partners to co-own the research process and resulting deliverables or products (Collins et al., 2018). Continuous reflection, evaluation, and adjustment helps ensure equity throughout the process (Nicolaidis & Raymaker, 2015).

2.5.4 Provide mutual benefit of all partners and stakeholders

Aside from simply producing new knowledge, CBPR should lead to tangible improvements in the community (Braun et al., 2012). Examples of benefits for community members, academics, and health professionals include networking opportunities, learning, access to knowledge and resources, the gratification of working together to help to solve community problems, improved stakeholder relationships, and increased problem solving capacity (CTSA, 2011). Additionally, through participating in the research, community partners may often experience benefits from taking an active role in bettering their own lives, having fulfilled social obligations, feeling a sense of community, and earning rewards for their time and energy (e.g., payment). A community’s time is valuable and limited, which underscores the need for CBPR to respect community partners’ efforts and contributions to the work. Information is gathered to inform action, and there is a commitment to translate and integrate research findings with community change efforts toward mutual benefit (Israel et al., 2017).

2.5.5 Promote reciprocal transfer of knowledge and skill

CBPR requires more than simply conducting the research; projects should also have mechanisms in place to facilitate the reciprocal transfer of knowledge and skill across all stakeholders (Braun et al., 2012; Duran et al., 2013). This entails listening to one another and co-learning through completing the project tasks, including the generation of ideas, the contributions to research decision-making, and the sharing of responsibility by those involved (Duran et al., 2013). Through working together, CBPR offers opportunities for community partners to learn about research and for academic researchers to learn about the culture and health of the community (Braun et al., 2012). Researchers also learn from community members about local theories, which are understandings and beliefs of the community partners that are derived from the community and social context (Israel et al., 2017). Multidisciplinary and identity diverse teams that collaborate and share their unique perspectives are particularly helpful for promoting co-learning and reciprocal transfer of knowledge and skill among partners (Collins et al., 2018).

2.5.6 Focus on problems of relevance to the community and attend to social determinants

CBPR must address health from a positive, socio-ecological perspective based on the identified needs in a particular community (CTSA, 2011; Israel et al., 2017). A community should be empowered to identify and address its own issues, and projects should strive to achieve social change to eliminate disparities in health affecting communities (Braun et al., 2012). Attending to the social determinants of poverty, discrimination, and structural racism through CBPR is a critical aspect of efforts to address health disparities (Collins et al., 2018). Before beginning the project, researchers should recognize and have an accurate view of their own intersecting social identities and cultivate cultural humility to promote respectful partnerships that honor the contributions of all those involved (Collins et al., 2018; Hook et al., 2013).

2.5.7 Involve a cyclical and iterative proce

To develop and implement research projects that equally consider community and academic interest that obtain desired results, CBPR requires considerable time and effort (Braun et al., 2012). A research question that is collaboratively defined in the initial stages of the research may need to be redefined over the course of the research and as the project progresses (Collins et al., 2018). This iterative process often entails community meetings to discuss, propose, review, improve, or interpret findings related to proposed and ongoing projects. Ongoing research may reveal additional knowledge about the needs of the community, which provides opportunities to jointly redefine and recalibrate the research methods and interventions (Collins et al., 2018). This cyclical, iterative process includes partnership development and maintenance, community assessment, agreement on the problem, development of research design and methodology, data collection and analysis, interpretation of data, determination of action and social policy implications, dissemination of findings, action taking, identification of learnings, and the establishment of mechanisms for sustainability (Israel et al., 2017).

2.5.8 Disseminate and share back findings collaboratively

A critical aspect of conducting CBPR is dissemination. It is important to disseminate findings and knowledge back to the community and involve all partners in the dissemination process (CTSA, 2011). Findings should be presented respectfully through various mediums, such as reports, newsletters, presentations, and community meetings. Presentations and authorship opportunities should be available to community members (Braun et al., 2012). Ongoing discussions of findings and how they are used and understood should also inform social action (Israel et al., 2017).

2.5.9 Support a long-term process and sustainability

Although CBPR can be resource-intensive and funding levels may fluctuate, CBPR partnerships should continue to function as long-term initiatives (Braun et al., 2012; Duran et al., 2013). Communities should also be supported in efforts to obtain their own funding. As projects evolve into long-term partnerships, the focus may move from a single health issue to address a range of social, economic, political, and environmental factors that affect health (CTSA, 2011). Benefits from the research should ideally be long-lasting and can include community interventions that become routine and embedded in the community or policy changes at a larger level (Collins et al., 2018). Although partnerships may come to an end, the relationships that exist between communities, organizations, and researchers should be honored, and those involved should continue to collaborate with and support one another as desired (Israel et al., 2017).

2.6 Considerations for Conducting Community-Based Participatory Research

2.6.1 Positionality

CBPR is a collaborative method that aims to center the voices of community members from underrepresented backgrounds in the research process. Social justice values and decolonization should both inform and be embedded throughout the research process. This approach is particularly important when the principal investigator and research team do not share the identities that they are exploring. This method can serve as a way to share power with communities whose experiences have often been misrepresented or pathologized in research and to center the community members’ needs and perspectives throughout the process. For researchers choosing to engage in CBPR, we strongly encourage engaging in researcher reflexivity practices (e.g., team discussions, memoing [i.e., a collection of hunches, interpretations, queries, and notes made by the researcher from the beginning to the end of the project], bracketing [i.e., the process of becoming aware of one’s implicit assumptions in order to avoid their undue influence on the research]) before joining with community partners (Morrow, 2005). This is quite common in qualitative research (Levitt, 2020), but should be explicitly integrated into quantitative and mixed methods CBPR designs.

The specific processes for exploring assumptions and managing perspectives may differ with your chosen methodology and epistemology, but should not be overlooked in CBPR. CBPR research teams are comprised by people with different levels of power and privilege, and accordingly, should aim to center the voices of those who are most often silenced, marginalized, or oppressed (Fine et al., 2021; Muhammad et al, 2015; Torre, 2009). Although some researchers may share identities with communities, Duran and colleagues (2013) described in these cases the importance for researchers to “live with the contradictions of finding how our lived experiences of oppression intersect with those of our [community] partners, yet not advantage and claim the same level of marginalization” (p. 53). Practices to explore positionality and foster reflexivity may include reflecting on and sharing motives for engaging in this research, the identities held (both privileged and oppressed), how identities are situated in society and local context, and how researchers will ensure that they are not replicating harmful practices or dynamics through participation in the research with community partners. It can be helpful to have these conversations up front as a way to share power across the research team. Fine and colleagues (2021) detail their powerful process of joining with participants through critical conversations on how the population of study or issue has previously been framed, while also engaging in vulnerable conversations about systemic oppression and their perspectives and beliefs stemming from their positions. In addition to reflecting on power and assumptions brought to the research process, teams should also create space for the gifts and strengths that all co-researchers bring to the process (Fine et al., 2021). When approaching CBPR, those with the most power—whether it be in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, education level, job title, or supervisory status—are encouraged to find a balance between centering others’ voices and experiences, while also challenging themselves to share in a vulnerable way. In our experience, this can set the tone for more meaningful work.

2.6.2 Ethics

After deciding to engage in community-engaged research, it is important to think critically about the ethics of your study in several key domains. First, what is it you are hoping to achieve and in what ways can participants contribute? As you begin to consider this, there are different levels of involvement that may be appropriate. For instance, you may be approached by a community who already have a clear idea of what they would like to investigate and have articulated an interest in involvement throughout the process. It is important to engage in ethical decision-making, such as a risk-benefit ratio assessment, related to the dissemination or publication of findings as it relates to authorship (Collins et al., 2018). When conducting research with communities that may have potential risk, it can be important to communicate and uphold ethical standards related to privacy and confidentiality. For instance, there may be risks with naming collaborators, and circumstances could change over the course of collaboration. Our third author has worked with communities who initially wanted to be identified at the time of the study, but later, political circumstances changed, and she was relieved that they had used pseudonyms and participant numbers. This is particularly important to be mindful of when collaborating with populations that may be targeted by harmful legislation (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer [LGBTQ+] people) or stigmatization as a result of their involvement in such research. Another possible outcome could be seeking out community members to join an already established study to provide feedback on the measures, design, and study outcomes. Researchers who are focused on health equity may also benefit from partnering with community organizations, health service organizations (e.g., clinics, treatment programs), and government entities (e.g., Departments of Health) engaged in similar work in order to use existing infrastructures and maximize impact. If you are approaching a community or individual members of a particular group, it is important to have a clear sense of what the “ask” is—including the specific tasks and expectations, the time commitment, whether or not this is a paid opportunity, and other possible ways the community may be compensated. Additionally, it is important to have conversations about data-sharing up front, such as who has rights to the data, how collaborators will involve each other (or not) when publishing or sharing with key stakeholders.

We advocate for paying people for their time whenever possible, particularly when engaging with groups who have been historically marginalized and systemically excluded from the research process. This may mean you have to adjust your expectations of involvement if you have a small budget to work with, or clearly state what aspects of involvement are expected and which are optional. Nicolaidis and colleagues (2019) created fantastic guidelines for involvement of autistic adults in research, which we see as important processes for researchers to adopt with any stigmatized group. Examples include to “individually assess accommodation needs, discuss as a group, and re-assess regularly,” “actively listen to community partners’ views and demonstrate value for the expertise that comes from lived experience,” and “co-create lay-language briefs that can be shared in non-academic venues” (see a complete list in Box 1; Nicholaidis et al., 2019). Researchers should spend time reflecting on these logistics. An important part of CBPR is relationship-building with community partners, which can take time and is often at odds with neoliberal and capitalist realities (including institutional expectations for research productivity). Wallerstein and colleagues (2019) found that relational practices played an important role in challenging power differences, particularly fostering an attention to bidirectional communication and reflection, which helped to build trust across partnerships. Furthermore, it is critical to ensure that relationships are fostered, built, and sustained whenever possible to avoid the perception and reality of researchers only joining with communities in order to leave when researchers feel that they have what they need (e.g., data). Well-meaning researchers should be sure not to over-promise to communities in the early stages of relationship-building. Particularly for White researchers working with communities from other racial and ethnic backgrounds, it is critical to engage in true ally behavior by committing to transform systems of White dominance and challenge interlocking forms of structural oppression in order to promote equity, as opposed to engaging in superficial commitments or paternalistic behaviors that reflect White saviorism and reinscribe the status quo of White dominance (Freire, 1970; Spanierman & Smith, 2017).

2.6.3 Dissemination

When engaged in CBPR, it is important to share knowledge back with communities in ways that best meet their needs. Researchers should be aware that this may not be in the form of academic presentations or peer-reviewed publications. We encourage conversations about dissemination and what kinds of deliverables or products will be produced from the research and knowledge to take place at the start of a working relationship, with the recognition that these conversations may evolve along with the evolving, iterative process of the research (Israel et al., 2017). The preferences and needs of community partners will likely vary by project, community, target audience, and their hopes for the findings. For instance, some community partners may appreciate updates on the research process and findings on a regular basis, while others may prefer to wait until the analysis has been completed.

It is important to consider the target audience and adjust the dissemination plan accordingly. As CBPR teams are co-constructing their study design, it may be beneficial to have a discussion about the desired impact of the findings and the timeline. For instance, CBPR research teams may be simultaneously working on disseminating articles via traditional academic outlets, while also creating products that are more accessible, including zines, infographics, or presentations. A great example of creative dissemination emerged from a collaboration between Dr. Stephanie Budge, JKX Comics, and Hallie Funk, in which they created a comic to share results from a study focused on psychotherapy with transgender and nonbinary clients (see here: https://www.jkxcomics.com/psychotherapy; Budge et al., 2021). In addition, there may be a more time-sensitive need for the findings (e.g., an introduction or enactment of anti-transgender, nonbinary, gender diverse legislation and policies), in which case, products like white pages or policy briefs may need to be prioritized. To ensure that findings are written in a manner that is clear and impactful for the target audience and are grounded in social justice values, researchers should seek to center community perspectives to understand what they see as the most helpful deliverable (e.g., infographic vs. workshop co-presented with community partners). See the Dissemination chapter in this OER for more detailed information on this process (De La Rue et al., 2022).

2.6.4 Barriers or Challenges in Conducting CBPR

Despite the many benefits to doing this work, the reality is often more complicated—with many barriers and challenges. As mentioned above, building sustainable and meaningful relationships takes time and intentionality in order to do so in an ethical, social justice-informed manner. Additionally, sharing power and decision-making of the research with community partners accordingly lessens the researchers’ control over initiatives and processes, which can seem labor-intensive and “slow moving” to researchers who are not used to working with community partners in meaningful ways. The time can often be at odds with competing demands and timelines, particularly for those with less power in the academy. For instance, a graduate student may feel quite passionate about conducting a CBPR project for their dissertation, while at the same time, may feel pressure to stick to a predetermined timeline in order to complete the dissertation on time for graduation. For graduate students, this pressure could also be financial in nature (e.g., the need to graduate on time to avoid accruing more debt and delaying the onset of being paid for their labor). Also, graduate students often relocate for clinical internships and jobs, making it challenging to foster and maintain these relationships. There may be pressure from a graduate program that is eager to ensure students graduate on time due to limited funding for students. Although graduate students may set out to conduct a CBPR project with passion and excitement, they may enter communities with high expectations that are difficult for both the researcher and partners to meet, resulting in tensions and unforeseen challenges (Lac & Fine, 2018). We encourage students and their advisors to engage in thoughtful discussions about these realities and to discuss ways to support those committed to CBPR research in creative ways. This could mean having a longer timeline to graduation if this is possible for everyone involved, designating a segment of the project that has a defined timeline, or collaborating with a community with whom the advisor has already built a relationship, rather than starting over with a new community.

There are also many external pressures for early career researchers who are committed to conducting CBPR research. For those who are on the tenure track, taking the time to build relationships and partnerships may be at odds with institutional expectations for publication for promotion and tenure, and community engaged work may or may not be valued by a given department or institution. Additionally, academics are often required to move from their communities in order to accept an academic job offering, which can make it challenging to “hit the ground running” in a new area. It is important to be thoughtful about the ways in which we choose to include community members so that it is done in a meaningful way and does not tokenize or exploit their resources. As we shift towards strongly valuing research that centers community in meaningful ways, we should also be mindful of these competing forces when reviewing articles or serving on dissertation or tenure and promotion committees. We run a risk of shaming those who have attempted to do the work, but do not have the privilege of tenure, large grant funding, or institutional support, among the other resources often needed to engage in participatory research practices like CBPR. Reviewers should take care to reduce the “ivory tower” expectations of work that may feel difficult, unattainable, or unreachable for early career researchers or graduate students with less financial stability. Research should be conducted in a meaningful, non-exploitative, and thoughtful manner, which could involve different levels of community involvement (e.g., solely including a community advisory board to consult and provide input on the project versus enacting all nine principles of CBPR in a research project). Researchers should be able to articulate the relationships and the processes that led to the study design, while also making recommendations for ways to build on this work. We see this as a gap in the literature on ways to provide meaningful recommendations for researchers who are interested in conducting community-based work at different levels.

2.6.5 Connecting Research to Policy for a Greater Impact

CBPR emerged in response to the exclusion and mistreatment of participants in the research process, including lack of transparency, lack of data sharing, and short-lived relationships, particularly for individuals from marginalized backgrounds (Wallerstein et al., 2019). CBPR, and particularly models such as community based participatory action research (Fine, 2008) and critical participatory action research (Fine et al., 2021), are well-suited to creating an impact beyond the study. There is great precedence for using CBPR to work towards social change through a social justice-informed framework (Fine, 2007; Fine et al. 2021) alongside communities who have experienced injustice.

Findings from CBPR projects can be tailored to different audiences to further work toward policy changes. There are a number of ways in which CBPR results can be leveraged to make an impact on policy, including defining a problem, increasing public awareness of the impact of specific policies or practices, encouraging the adoption of specific policies, proposing alternative policies, and responding to impending policies (Cacari-Stone et al., 2014). For instance, CBPR teams may choose to conduct a training with community members on how to leverage findings when talking to their local representatives and may also prepare a policy brief to be shared with those in power. Results can be positioned to advocate for the issues at hand, to ensure that there is a compelling story to tell policymakers (Horowitz et al., 2009). By translating findings into specific advocacy talking points, CBPR researchers can ensure that research contributes to sustained changes that will benefit the community for years to come (e.g., American Psychological Association [APA], 2022; APA Division 44 Public Policy Committee, 2018).

2.7 Critical Questions for Conducting and Reviewing Community-Based Participatory Research

These questions, which were modeled after Levitt’s (2020) Qualitative Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS-Qual) Guidelines, provide recommendations for authors and reviewers to consider when engaging in and reviewing CBPR. The JARS-Qual Guidelines, first developed in 2018, outline what should be included in qualitative research manuscripts to help facilitate the review process.

Researchers:

  • What privileged and oppressed identities do you hold? How are they situated within your research team and society?
  • At which point in your study design will you reach out to community members?
  • How will you engage in power sharing with community partners?
  • What is the impact of systemic oppression on the issue or priority population?
  • How will you embed social justice values throughout the research process?
  • How will you balance institutional demands with community needs regarding timeline, ethics approval, grants, compensation?
  • In what ways will you compensate community partners for their time?
  • What is the desired timeline for project completion? At which points can you be most flexible?
  • What are possible action steps your team can take related to advocacy or policy changes?
  • How will you disseminate research findings through multiple avenues?
  • What is the impact you are hoping for? Does the impact differ for community partners, and if so, in what way?
  • How will you resolve challenges and/or conflicts that may arise during your project? Is there a conflict resolution process you will use? Who will participate, and how will power-sharing be engaged in during this process?
  • What are the respective needs (e.g., publications, presentations, community visibility of the project and partners, findings that support social justice aims at health prevention, engagement in learning, etc.) of the project for you as researchers and for community partners?

Peer Reviewers of Journal Articles:

  • Consider researcher positionality when making comments about study design. Do authors share their identities? And do these dimensions of experience relate to the focus of study? What is the career stage of individuals on the authorship team?
  • Consider the amount of funding researchers received when evaluating the duration of community members’ contributions. Inquire how researchers discussed this with participants and how the amount of funding may have impacted the research process. Were community partners compensated for their time, energy, and efforts? This may include incentives beyond funding, such as researchers providing findings to stakeholders, giving talks, or disseminating research with other avenues than traditional publishing.
  • Reflect on the helpfulness of comments: Instead of critiquing beyond the scope of the project, ask researchers to specify why particular actions were taken and consider encouraging researchers to be transparent about the external forces that may have impacted their study design and how they sought to manage and address these challenges.
  • Read carefully for information about the nature of community involvement. Was this managed in an ethical and social justice-oriented manner? Did involvement seem to match the needs of the study (and the stated desires of community partners)?
  • Be wary of discouraging smaller-scale CBPR projects. What are the realities, pressures, and constraints facing the researchers, and how did they balance these realities, pressures, and constraints with CBPR values of collaboration, equity, and transformation?
  • Are any community partners listed as co-authors? Were they offered the opportunity to share authorship? Did partners opt out due to reasons related to safety or impact?
  • Due to the timelines of many CBPR projects, be open to writing multiple manuscripts on a project that each focus on a particular aspect of the project (e.g., the process of establishing a research project, preliminary findings, focus groups that supplement a project aim, longitudinal impact of the project, reflections from team members).

2.8 Suggestions for Carrying out Community-Based Participatory Research: Applications for Practice, Further Learning, and Conversation

As part of this chapter, we have compiled three resources to provide assistance to those forming partnerships and exploring options for community-based participatory research. We recommend beginning by listening to an interview with Dr. Roberto L. Abreu (he, him, él), who conducts community-engaged research with Latinx and LGBTQ+ communities to promote bienestar colectivo (collective well-being). Dr. Abreu is an Assistant Professor and Director of the ¡Chevere! Lab in the Department of Psychology, Counseling Psychology, at the University of Florida. In this interview, Dr. Abreu shares invaluable insights as an early career researcher, such as the importance of building trust with communities, advocating within systems to conduct research in a social justice informed manner, sharing and disseminating knowledge gained with the community to promote co-learning, and asking research questions that will benefit communities.

Next, we have provided some lessons learned informed by our third author’s (SG) experiences conducting CBPR research with a wide range of LGBTQ+ communities both in the U.S. and transnationally. Finally, we have included a checklist for researchers to adapt and share with potential community partners as they begin their relationships (see Appendix A).

2.8.1 Lessons Learned

CBPR requires deep commitment to the research process, to collaborative engagement with community partners, and to the social justice aims of liberation psychology (Martín-Baró et al., 1996). As part of this work, we have reflected on several lessons learned. The nature of CBPR and action research more specifically requires great flexibility in adapting to changes during long-term projects. For example, some community partners may be invested initially but then have other priorities and concerns that take precedence. They may no longer be available (and may even be inaccessible depending on the circumstances). It can be helpful to work through an alternate plan if there are personnel changes or interruptions during the project. This can include spelling out who would be willing to support the project if community partners were to leave, re-evaluate plans for publishing and presenting responsibilities, and having several different ways to reach collaborators (i.e., phone, email, home address, a friend who is a close contact). It can be important to schedule check-ins about projects aims, goals, and needs, as well as project team member commitments, several times during a project.

Sociopolitical events can impact CBPR work significantly, especially when collaborating with marginalized communities whose members may be managing event-related stigma, threats, and violence. For example, an onslaught of anti-transgender legislation in dozens of states over the past couple of years have changed privacy and safety concerns for transgender, nonbinary, and gender diverse people living in these contexts. It has also shaped where and how resources can be distributed due to the need for financial and human resources to be dedicated to battling these legislative initiatives. Similarly, LGBTQ+ research projects have been impacted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine (Gifkins et al., 2022), with Ukrainian LGBTQ+ people seeking safety and asylum in other countries and Russian LGBTQ+ people fleeing their country for neighboring countries of Armenia and Georgia. CBPR projects may need to be reevaluated for impact on and capacity of community partners when events like the murder of George Floyd occur, which highlight systemic racism on a national level. Sociopolitical events can cause tensions among research partners, and it is important to acknowledge and discuss potential impact even if such events do not appear to be directly related to the CBPR project.

Even when a CBPR project is focused on a sensitive or serious issue (e.g., violence, traumatic events), it is important to prioritize community engagement and pleasure. It is very challenging to sustain projects that focus on negative impact or health-related harms for a lengthy period. In addition, U.S. researchers often receive research training that is goal-driven and results focused, but research that is often most creative and innovative evolves from spaces that prioritize joy and shared learning opportunities. This aspect of CBPR can involve group meals, timeouts for dancing or playing games or sports, and prioritizing opportunities for decompressing and discussing positive aspects of the project or collaboration. Other ways to build in pleasure include having family members or friends join in group events, especially if the project is requiring much emotional energy or time. As a group, CBPR researchers and partners can read books or articles that embed pleasure with transformative justice or show other ways that projects have disseminated research (e.g., Brown, 2019). CBPR researchers can share the excitement of engaging in this approach to research and all the ways they have learned and benefitted from the work.

2.9 Summary and Conclusions

Counseling psychology, with its strong emphasis on the values of social justice, health equity, and liberation (e.g., Delgado-Romero et al., 2012), has an opportunity to provide exposure, training, and experience in community-based participatory research paradigms with the potential to partner meaningfully with communities, build relationships and community capacity, enhance the effectiveness of our health promotion efforts, and maximize the impact of our work. Through this chapter, we discuss definitions and principles of CBPR, how CBPR may offer more effective pathways to promoting health equity, considerations for conducting CBPR, barriers or challenges commonly encountered, critical questions for conducting and reviewing CBPR, lessons learned, and three resources to assist those getting started.

2.10 Questions for Mastery and Reflection

  1. What are the 9 principles of CBPR?
  2. What is important for researchers to consider when engaging in CBPR?
  3. Name some ways that reviewers can be more supportive of CBPR.
  4. Name 3 different approaches to CBPR.
  5. Describe challenges that an early career professional or tenure track faculty member may encounter when engaging in CBPR.
  6. What are ways that institutions can support CBPR?

2.11 Appendix A: Checklist for Community-Based Participatory Research

Building Relationships and Trust – Semi-Structured Ways to Engage

  1. Visit community partners – listen and show up when invited
  1. Tour of the organization
  2. Informal meeting to learn about their work
  3. Attend a community event
  4. Review key resources (with partner permission)
  1. Researcher hosted event
  1. Informal meeting
  2. Exploratory conversation
  3. Luncheon
  4. Listening session
  5. Town hall
  6. Campus event
  7. Training or service that supports community partner’s articulated need
  1. Matching community partners with researchers
  1. Leverage existing infrastructures through partnerships with community-based organizations, health services prevention and treatment organizations, or governmental entities
  2. Work with more established researchers who can connect early stage investigators with potential partners
  3. Explore if university mechanisms exist that may allow partners to reach out to connect to a researcher

Fostering Engagement and Participation through Creative Methods

  1. Community-driven health impact assessment (Cameron et al., 2011)
  2. Photovoice (Jurkowski & Ward, 2007)
  3. Focus group (Kieffer et al., 2013)
  4. Mapping community capacity (McKnight & Kretzmann, 1997)
  5. Concept mapping (Vaughn et al., 2017; Windsor, 2013)
  6. Digital storytelling (Fish & Syed, 2020)
  7. Needs assessment (Collier et al., 2012)

Creating Opportunities for Reflection

  1. Consider researcher positionality
  2. Reflect on power and privilege as it impacts research topic and relationships among research partners
  3. Bracketing and memoing as a part of qualitative methodology

Disseminating Findings

  1. Zines
  2. Infographics or videos
  3. Presentations, workshops, or teach-ins White pages, advocacy talking points, and policy recommendations (APA, 2022; APA Division 44 Public Policy Committee, 2018)

2.12 References