Abstract
Academic research, at its core, aims to generate new knowledge in order to effect positive change. As researchers, our tools are delicately honed over time to elicit often overlooked or underrepresented processes, points of view, and power dynamics. Much attention from both academia and government agencies is focused on places facing the greatest challenges, and research findings may become a link in the chain inching people, communities, and places toward more equitable circumstances. As someone formerly immersed in a career committed to social change activism, I often find my academic self feeling a bit disassociated with the purposefulness that I described above. Many studies bring such a small increment of new thought and reach intended audiences so slowly that the effects often seem elusive. Results as theory often seem removed from positively affecting the people they strive to understand. Communities seek change on a different timeline and often need direction through different methods.
If we as academics approach this social change goal, the line between research and community development may likely become blurred. Doing Community-Based Research: Perspectives from the Field begins with the understanding that for researched-fatigued communities—in the authors’ domain of rural Canada but as much so in many urban areas—a long-term collaborative relationship between researchers and communities under study is the optimal approach to engender benefits for both. Halseth and his coauthors effectively carry this main idea through the entire book, resulting in an impressive volume for approaching effective community-based research (CBR) through lessons learned in the field.
The book makes its case in four sections. In part one, “Introduction to CBR,” Halseth et al. offer a general overview and pay close attention to the particular nature of CBR research and outcomes in rural and indigenous communities. According to the authors, CBR falls closer to the applied end of the theoretical-applicable research continuum, although they call the dichotomy itself into question with the acknowledgment that theoretical knowledge arising from CBR is plentiful and profound. The participatory, iterative, reciprocal nature of CBR is well articulated and grounded in the robust existing literature of this research method. In CBR knowledge production is a shared responsibility between the research team and the community. CBR is contextualized within related forms of action research and participatory action research as a dynamic process formulated as much in the field as it may be ideally conceptualized before fieldwork begins. The authors make a compelling case that CBR works well in small town and rural settings as places in which local actors are deeply involved with processes of rapid change and restructuring, such that participatory research may produce new systems with immediate profound impact.
The emphasis in part two, “Getting to Know One Another,” is that effective CBR rests on genuine collaboration. The authors argue that it is important to approach the community, understand its social dynamics and limitations, and assess its needs. What becomes clear throughout part two is that for a project to take the form of CBR, its design must be developed in conjunction with the community being researched. The research team and the community share the responsibility to design and implement effective CBR; however, this degree of collaboration will often be in direct conflict with institutional funding and university protocols, or graduate student priorities and limitations. All of these potential roadblocks are detailed with a pragmatism that offers useful insights into how to assess whether CBR is the best choice in a myriad of situations.
Part three, “Working in the Field,” focuses on what CBR researchers may encounter during fieldwork. The authors stress the delicate balance of professionalism and objectivity with the need to genuinely relate and listen to multiple actors in small towns where social interconnections are complicated and often rife with drama. They underscore their insights with field vignettes through which a number of lessons learned may help steer CBR projects toward success. This input may be especially useful for novice CBR researchers: scheduling for interviewee convenience, managing power struggles and conflicting points of view, accepting appropriate hospitality, and being aware of one’s potential influence on community affairs. The authors provocatively argue that CBR is meant to challenge and change traditional information-gathering techniques and that CBR researchers must be open to this mutual learning, which may serve to broaden accepted research methods. One dramatic example is a short vignette about tapping the town’s youth to produce videos that effectively bring an array of community stories to life.
The major ideas in part four, “After the Fieldwork—Making Research Count,” resonate well since in the earlier sections the authors had clearly stressed that CBR may be harnessed to make a difference. A central tenet is that CBR findings must be reported back to the community in a way that is accessible and meaningful to them, even if those actions might be at odds with requirements of the university or funders. This mismatch between CBR and traditional parameters is presented from many angles. Semester project and funding timelines, which often span a few months or a single year, are at odds with the long-term commitment necessary to nurture CBR relationships. However, a critical component of post-fieldwork CBR, what the authors describe as “knowledge mobilization,” may be the element that separates CBR from more traditional research methods and links it to forms of community development, community change, and empowerment. During this part of the process, community actors take ownership over implementation of new processes arising from knowledge generation. Another key element is that relationships between researchers and the community must be maintained during the downtime between research projects. Interestingly, these are the kinds of issues that are not always prioritized by funding institutions, but the authors posit that budgeting for and setting aside time post-fieldwork to facilitate knowledge mobilization and maintain community connections is critical.
Amid the insightful and informative general running text, boxed vignettes interspersed throughout the book and written by field researchers bring to life the world of CBR. Accounts are set in small-town, rural, or indigenous environments, and offer glimpses of how CBR works. The passages stress the flexibility necessary in a CBR construct and the positive change this adaptability engenders. They describe trusting relationships that grow over decades and community actors becoming leaders. The vignette authors discuss how serious problems are tackled head on through robust research team-community collaboration. These vignettes are quite effective in the context of Halseth et al.’s stated purpose of crafting a volume dedicated to lessons learned. The vignettes also reinforce the appropriateness of CBR amidst the often challenging situations in rural and indigenous communities.
For all the useful insights found in this book, I felt myself unable to fully connect the dots. At times I was frustrated at having to guess at how all the pieces of a CBR research project would coalesce. Details of the products generated and funding sources from each of the highlighted research projects would have provided information as important as describing the lessons learned from each instance. The authors devote much attention to the idea that funding mechanisms often fall short of covering all that is needed in extensive and oft-changing CBR projects. Nevertheless, the vignettes detail flexible and inspiring efforts at addressing new issues arising from close collaboration. Did all of these seemingly additional undertakings somehow receive funding? Or did these additional projects fall under different auspices? Inasmuch as CBR in these rural and indigenous communities is portrayed as the life work and purpose for many of the researchers, I am assuming that some of these additional efforts were embarked upon without funding (although I may be wrong). Furthermore, what were the researchers working toward—published journal articles or books, government reports, community development projects? It would have been helpful to see appendix entries associated with a few of the vignettes detailing the type and length of funding, the academic products associated with the research, the additional elements (such as surveys, seminars, etc.) added through the iterative CBR process, how or if those added elements were funded, how students were integrated into the process, what new studies and funding arose from the initial project, etc. If this book’s focus on a general yet practical understanding of the workings of CBR had been augmented with outcome specifics that match (or do not match) with project parameters, the lessons learned would have been even more valuable.
The authors stick to their key messages of CBR as a process of intricate collaboration that necessitates respect, patience, flexibility, and long-term dedication. With its keen focus on lessons learned and direct field perspectives, this book adds a practical angle amid a theoretical backdrop to help make CBR methods accessible. For researchers considering a CBR framework especially in rural areas, the book’s insightful and thorough take on the process may be essential reading. Moreover, I found that this book speaks not only to future CBR adherents but also to anyone in academia seeking ways to effect change through research and the new knowledge it may uncover.