↓ Skip to main content

Researching health inequalities with Community Researchers: practical, methodological and ethical challenges of an ‘inclusive’ research approach

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Researching health inequalities with Community Researchers: practical, methodological and ethical challenges of an ‘inclusive’ research approach
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40900-015-0009-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Salway, Punita Chowbey, Elizabeth Such, Beverly Ferguson

Abstract

Public health research sometimes uses members of communities as researchers. These are called Community Researchers. The advantage of using Community Researchers is that it enables people who live in communities to participate in research by designing the research, gathering data and being involved in analysis. This 'participatory' approach also has the potential to reach communities that might otherwise not be included in research. There are few studies that report the experiences of Community Researchers who take part in such research. This study helps fill this gap by exploring the issues and challenges faced by Community Researchers involved in a study of health and poverty in ethnically mixed areas of east London, UK. Through the accounts of 12 researchers, the study reveals that being a community 'insider' had advantages: many felt they had been able to gain the trust of respondents and access people for the research that would have otherwise been missed. The role of Community Researcher was, however, difficult to manage with some researchers feeling burdened by their role and the increased knowledge they had about the lives of those in their community. In addition to the personal challenges for the Community Researchers, the findings raise various ethical and methodological issues that need consideration in participatory research. Background Inclusive research approaches are increasingly employed by public health researchers. Recent methodological development includes the engagement of Community Researchers (CRs), who use their knowledge and networks to facilitate research with the community with which they identify. Few studies have explored the experiences of CRs in the research process, an important element of any comprehensive assessment of the pros and cons of such research endeavours. We report here on the experiences of CRs engaged in a study of health inequalities and poverty in ethnically diverse and disadvantaged areas of London, UK. Methods We draw on the experiences of 12 CRs. Two sets of data were generated, analysed and integrated: debriefing/active reflection exercises throughout the 18-month research process and individual qualitative interviews with CRs, conducted at the end of the project (n = 9). Data were organised using NVivo10 and coded line-by-line using a framework developed iteratively. Synthesis and interpretation were achieved through a series of reflective team exercises involving input from 4 of the CRs. Final consolidation of key themes was conducted by SS and ES. Results Being an 'insider' to the communities brought distinct advantages to the research process but also generated complexities. CRs highlighted how 'something would be lost' without their involvement but still faced challenges in gathering and analysing data. Some CRs found it difficult to practice reflexivity, and problems of ethnic stereotyping were revealed. Conflict between roles as community members and investigators was at times problematic. The approach promoted some aspects of personal empowerment, but CRs were frustrated by the limited impact of the research at the local level. Conclusions Working with CRs offers distinct practical, ethical and methodological advantages to public health researchers, but these are limited by a range of challenges related to 'closeness', orthodox research structures and practices and the complexities of dynamic identities. For research of this type to meet its full potential and avoid harm, there is a need for careful support to CRs and long-term engagement between funders, research institutions and communities.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 29 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Master 6 19%
Student > Postgraduate 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Unspecified 4 13%
Other 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 8 26%
Social Sciences 7 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Environmental Science 2 6%
Other 6 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,985,241
of 12,986,005 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#118
of 144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,045
of 233,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,986,005 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.1. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 233,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.