Research translation through participatory research: The case of two community-based projects in low-income African settings

Abstract

In the context of a call for public health research to address social challenges and transform communities and society, research translation has increasingly become an imperative in South Africa. Research translation seeks to improve real-world settings and enhance quality of life by applying research-generated knowledge. These goals are shared by proponents of participatory action research (PAR). However, the way in which research is pursued constitutes a major focus for PAR, where the paradigmatic position influences how we relate to knowledge and people, and whether and how we achieve the goals concerned. This article contrasts the meta-theoretical positioning of PAR with that of research translation as it is pursued within public health circles, and then argues how PAR both challenge and optimise the espoused goals of research translation through its accent on co-learning, knowledge co-construction, social action and the dialectic between research and action. We offer two African-centred examples of community-engaged research focusing on violence prevention, and safety and peace promotion to illustrate how the participatory mechanisms of empowerment and agency, knowledge co-construction and knowledge sharing foster research translation. Attention to power dynamics, exemplified through researcher reflexivity is emphasised as a key challenge for researchers wishing to address public health challenges.

Keywords

Public health safety and peace promotion research translation participatory research Africa

Research translation, which refers broadly to the communication and application of research findings, often with an emphasis on effecting behavioural change and improving quality of life (Straus, Tetroe, & Graham, 2013; Stuurman, 2002), has emerged as a national imperative in South Africa. In traditional researcher-led approaches, which are dominant in health circles, decisions about the production and communication of knowledge are invested with researchers, and often the active application of research findings is only dealt with after the completion of research studies (Barnes, Clouder, Pritchard, Hughes, & Purkis, 2003), to the exclusion of ‘end-user’ groups. This limited contribution of community members in research processes potentially constrains research translation endeavours. This is important in the context of repeated calls for people to take control of their health, with empowerment being a central principle driving health promotion initiatives (World Health Organisation: Ottawa Charter, 1986). This article explores how the mechanisms and processes of a participatory research approach can contribute to more effective research translation in public health, with a particular focus on promoting community safety and peace. Violence prevention is a public health priority in South Africa in response to the high levels of violence (see Seedat, Van Niekerk, Jewkes, Suffla, & Ratele, 2009).

Participatory forms of research, we believe, provide an invaluable strategy to achieve effective research translation and promote health. Using an analytic framework founded on the core principles of participatory research, we present two violence prevention research projects, conducted in low-income African settings as cases that illustrate how the research–action relationship is operationalised within a context of promoting safety and peace and furthering social justice. To contextualise these case illustrations, we begin with an overview of approaches to research translation with reference to the typology offered by Regeer and Bunders (2009), and then outline participatory research approaches to knowledge creation and adoption.

Research translation

The range of work focusing on approaches to and models of research translation (e.g. Horowitz, Robinson, & Seifer, 2009; Stuurman, 2002) reflect diverse understandings of the underlying processes, aims and objectives of research translation (Estabrook, Schutt, & Woodford, 2008). In Regeer and Bunders’ (2009) typology of scientific knowledge development, research translation may be typified along a continuum. On the one end of the continuum there is the disengaged orientation that views knowledge creation as the exclusive purview of the researcher, with science–society exchanges being de-emphasised, and translation activities not being prioritised (referred to as Mode-0). On the other end is the trans-disciplinary orientation which reflects an attempt to avoid the binary between research and practice, and which stresses co-production of knowledge. In this Mode-2 approach, research translation is built into the research process and translation strategies are modified as needed (Mode-2). The midpoint between the two (Mode-1), where research translation occurs at the completion of studies, is characterised by co-operation between researchers and the researched, but not to the extent where this alters the way in which the research is carried out. We thought it would be useful to provide three examples of frameworks developed to address the research translation task, linking these initiatives to the typology referred to above. We have included health-centred examples because of the public health nature of the two illustrations used in this article, both of which focus on violence prevention and safety and peace promotion.

Utilised within the public health context, Wandersman et al.’s (2008) interactive systems framework (ISF) disseminates and implements community-level prevention programmes through its Prevention Synthesis and Translation, Prevention Support and Prevention Delivery systems. The Prevention Synthesis and Translation system extracts scientific information and makes it more accessible to users for implementation, whilst the Prevention Support system strengthens the capacity of those implementing initiatives. The Prevention Delivery system refers to the individuals, organisations, or communities that undertake a programme’s implementation. The model is intended for use by researchers, practitioners, or funding and support agencies. Using the typology outlined above, this framework’s particular approach to research translation is via Mode-1, as the responsibility for translating research is primarily invested with academics. Although Wandersman et al. (2008) note that the outcomes of translation are of greater utility when the intended ‘users’ are involved as collaborators, and there is an acknowledgement of the need for capacity building of community members and the need to strengthen communities to benefit implementation, the ‘end-users’ referred to here are not lay community members themselves, but stakeholders, and there is no apparent commitment to co-production of knowledge. Wandersman et al. (2008) also acknowledge that the framework fails to capture several contextual factors that may facilitate or constrain implementation and translation processes.

Graham and colleagues’ (2006) multi-phase knowledge-to-action (KTA) translation framework constitutes the second example. It includes the two processes of knowledge creation and action, which is pursued through a three-phase process of inquiry (primary research), synthesis (drawing together the extant research on a given topic) and creating knowledge tools (continued refinement of knowledge to develop tools such as practice guidelines). Knowledge is increasingly refined and made ready for use by ‘end-users’ in the knowledge creation component. The action cycle involves identifying the problem; tailoring knowledge to the specified context; determining the factors that hinder knowledge use; choosing, adapting and carrying out knowledge use interventions; monitoring interventions; and evaluating outcomes and efforts to sustain knowledge use (Straus, Tetroe, & Graham, 2009). Feedback is provided throughout all phases so that action phases can be adjusted based on knowledge phases, and knowledge can be adapted to user groups (Graham et al., 2006). According to Regeer and Bunders’ (2009) typology, this approach to research translation also appears to be in Mode-1 as translation activities are primarily led by academics, although the feedback loops within the model illustrate the co-operation between communities and academic researchers.

The third example, applying knowledge to generate action framework (Campbell, 2010), was developed to translate knowledge of child health problems within a rural community setting. In this framework, knowledge creation is collaborative, drawing on participatory action research (PAR) principles, while community action is guided by the Ottawa Model of Research Use (OMRU) and the KTA framework (referred to in the second example above). The approach to research translation apparent in this framework could be categorised as Mode-2 given the participatory elements it incorporates. Campbell (2010) has, however, noted the OMRU’s limited compatibility with PAR. Although PAR principles have been utilised to generate knowledge, they have not been included in all phases of the research cycle as elements of other frameworks were used to translate the knowledge into action.

The aforementioned examples illustrate the respective authors’ commitments to research translation, but it appears that, in all cases cited, there is a limited commitment to community participation at all levels of the research process, including the co-creation of knowledge. The use of the term ‘users’ or ‘end-users’ in the discussions on research translation in these cases suggests that a real partnership between researchers and local communities has not been envisaged. Given our argument for a participatory research approach as a key strategy to operationalise research translation, an overview of this approach will now be provided.

Participatory research

Participatory forms of inquiry, where the beneficiaries of the research findings participate collaboratively in the development and carrying out of the research, provide one way to bridge the gap between research and action (e.g. Khan, Bawani, & Aziz, 2013). PAR is distinct in its commitment to fostering egalitarian practices, acknowledging variances in power between researchers and ‘participants’, and drawing on local knowledge (Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Lazarus, Duran, Caldwell, & Bulbulia, 2012). Community-derived priorities guide the research (see Horowitz et al., 2009), and, through capacity building and the stimulation of critical consciousness, participants are mobilised to take action to bring about social transformation (Seedat, 2010). Given that the research agenda centres on locally defined priority areas, and that collaboration with community members is ongoing, findings are more likely to lead to community benefits which ultimately extend beyond the lifetime of specific projects (see Horowitz et al., 2009).

Participatory approaches that reflect a critical paradigm emphasise praxis which focuses on challenging the status quo and empowering the disenfranchised by engaging in research with an action orientation (Seedat, 2010). Praxis constitutes a dynamic and mutually forming process of critical reflection on theory, research and action, to promote social transformation and social justice (Baum, MacDougall, & Smith, 2006). Following this conceptualisation, it is argued that participatory research is action (Baum et al., 2006).

Campbell (2010) emphasises that endeavours to translate knowledge into action are most fruitful when community members have been centrally involved in the knowledge creation, implementation and evaluation processes. Such participation gives rise to timely and applicable knowledge which, given its utility, can promote change (Campbell, 2010). However, community dynamics, differing priorities between researchers and communities, and issues related to power and knowledge claims serve as potential challenges to translation endeavours (Lazarus et al., 2012; Suffla, Seedat, & Bawa, 2015). Despite this, PAR is more adept at promoting research translation than are researcher-led approaches (Best et al., 2003).

Drawing on understandings of research paradigms by Guba (1990) and Guba and Lincoln (2005), it is interesting to note the differences in paradigms reflected in the ‘research translation’ and ‘PAR’ approaches referred to above. Guba and Lincoln identify the positivist, postpositivist, critical, constructivist and participatory paradigms. Proponents of positivism adhere to a realist ontology, and at an epistemological level, inquirers assume a detached stance so as not to bias or confound the research findings, which are regarded as ‘true’ and value free. These beliefs manifest in research that is primarily quantitative in nature, experimental in design and concerns itself with hypothesis testing. Findings are deemed valid insofar as they meet the benchmarks of validity, objectivity and reliability. From their stance as detached scientists, adherents of positivism provide information to policy and other decision makers (Guba, 1990; Guba & Lincoln, 2005). Despite the emergence of the postpositivist stance in response to critique levelled at positivism, the belief system underpinning this paradigm is said to differ only minimally from that of its predecessor (Guba, 1990). Ontologically, and unlike their positivist counterparts, proponents of this view acknowledge that reality can only be partially apprehended by inquirers. Epistemologically, postpositivists contend that objectivity can only be approximated, and that this is hinges on the extent to which inquirers reveal their biases and preferences so as to allow those engaging with research findings the opportunity to interpret these in light of these predispositions. Considering the limits imposed by lab-like research conditions, more natural settings set the scene for research, and qualitative and grounded theory methods are incorporated. Positivists and postpositivists share the same perspective on issues of control and action, which are relevant to the research translation agenda. In both paradigms inquirers control all aspects of the research, and action is seen as the responsibility of other role players as it poses a threat to the validity and objectivity of the research (Guba, 1990; Guba & Lincoln, 2005).

The participatory paradigm, which draws on both critical and constructivist paradigms, represents a radical shift from the aforementioned views of inquiry. Reality, from this standpoint, is subjective, objective and co-created. Experiential and practical forms of knowledge are recognised, with a focus on co-creating knowledge. Methodologically, this action-oriented inquiry leads to collaboration between the researcher and researched (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). Rigorous research is taken to be that which incorporates the varying forms of knowledge to positively transform the research context. The voice of the researcher is heard through ‘aware self-reflexive action’, and researchers share in the inquiry process with the researched, who are actively engaged throughout. Control and action involve both researchers and researched. The degree of control afforded to participants varies, but importantly, is not invested only with the researchers (Guba & Lincoln, 2005).

When looking at the three research translation frameworks described earlier, it is clear that research translation in public health is primarily positivist or postpositivist in nature. As stated earlier, the ISF approach to translation fails to fully consider several of the contextual factors related to the research setting and is primarily limited to use by various professionals. Likewise, in the KTA model, where translation activities are seen as falling within the ambit of researchers’ responsibilities, ‘co-operation’ from communities rather than active involvement is evident. The participatory elements of the applying knowledge to generate action framework, such as collaborative knowledge creation processes, potentially positions it within the participatory paradigm, but this model has been criticised for limited compatibility with PAR.

In contrast, PAR, as outlined above and illustrated below, is congruent with the characteristics of a participatory paradigm, which we believe provides a more effective and socially just way of enacting health promotion, and in our case, safety and peace promotion. Traditional researcher-led approaches in public health emphasise the importance of research findings being available to ‘recipients’ and ‘end-users’. In contrast, participatory forms of research problematise the dominance and control of researchers evident in traditional research processes (e.g. with researchers initiating the research, setting the agenda, determining data collection strategies, compiling the research findings and deciding on how these findings will be disseminated – Guba & Lincoln, 2005). Participatory approaches emphasise forging partnerships with the research participants, pursuing mutual learning processes, ensuring that the research agenda serves academic and social ends, and assume that the research process itself is a vehicle through which change can be achieved. Participatory research, we argue, inherently enables effective research translation because of the collaborative relationship between researchers and the research communities concerned (with academics and research participants positioned as co-researchers and co-creators of knowledge), and because of the integrative approach to research and action. The paradigm with which we work clearly impacts on our practices and outcomes. It is imperative, therefore, that we consistently examine our assumptions and behaviour to ensure that our research and health promotion goals are achieved to the benefit of our community and society.

The case illustrations discussed below illuminate the value of a participatory orientation in research translation practices. The case illustrations include the Spiritual Capacity and Religious Assets to Transform Community Health by Mobilising Males for Peace and Safety (SCRATCHMAPS) Project, and the Multi-country Photovoice Project on Youth Representations of Safety. Both projects are located within the University of South Africa – South African Medical Research Council Violence, Injury and Peace Research Unit’s flagship initiative on the demonstration of safety within the African context (Eksteen, Bulbulia, van Niekerk, Ismail, & Lekoba, 2012). The case studies represent different enactments of participatory research and collectively offer a contribution to the literature on participatory research-oriented research translation.

Method

SCRATCHMAPS project

SCRATCHMAPS, a five-year project based on a low-income community in the Western Cape, South Africa, aims to create safety and peace by mobilising religious assets and spiritual capacity to promote positive forms of masculinities (Lazarus, Taliep, Bulbulia, Phillips, & Seedat, 2012). Religious assets are the tangible (e.g. practices, images, organisations, individuals) and intangible phenomena (e.g. values) that are activated through local and trans-local agency, while spiritual capacity captures the essence of our experience as human beings of all that we associate with spirit and spirituality, in particular, the capacity for creative freedom that most clearly marks us as human (Cochrane et al., 2015). This project was initiated by the Violence, Injury and Peace Research Unit in the context of a long-standing relationship with the local community concerned. Orientation to the project was facilitated by a gatekeeper who worked at an NGO with a male-centred intervention focus. Meetings were held with community leaders and stakeholders. A community walkabout also took place in the initial stages of the project.

Community structures established to pursue and manage SCRATCHMAPS included a local community research team (comprising 10 community members of varying levels of education and ages) and an advisory committee comprising community members, local service providers and the academic team of researchers. Community and academic partners jointly develop research methodology and safety and peace promotion strategies that drew on community-embedded knowledge to mobilise local action. The principles of participatory research referred to previously guided the entire project. Figure 1 provides a succinct overview of the project’s phases.

Figure 1.

SCRATCHMAPS project implementation process.

Figure 2.

Multi-country Photovoice Project implementation process.

Multi-country Photovoice Project on Youth Representations of Safety

A Multi-country Photovoice Project, implemented in marginalised communities of Mozambique, Uganda, Zambia, Egypt, Ethiopia and South Africa, aimed at exploring young peoples’ representations of safety in their respective communities around the theme Things, places and people that make me feel safe/unsafe in my community (Suffla, Kaminer, & Bawa, 2012). The project was initiated when the principal investigators drew on established professional networks in various sectors to forge collaborations with adults and youth in each respective country. By giving voice to marginalised youth, this project positioned youth as agents of social change and to make meaning of community safety and to intervene accordingly. Activities promoting this engagement included a youth-led conference, a youth leadership and social activism workshop and photo exhibitions. This engagement promoted community partnerships, along with social justice campaigns (see Suffla et al., 2012; Suffla et al., 2015). Figure 2 depicts a generic outline of the processes followed with each country group before, during and after their photo missions, simultaneously elucidating the theoretical basis of the project. The first and second layers of the graphic are not to be understood as reflecting a direct, linear correspondence.

Drawing from the pivotal characterisations of participatory research, the case illustrations are discussed in relation to the following assumptions: (1) participatory research stimulates empowering and agentic processes, (2) the co-construction of knowledge promotes relevance and action and (3) knowledge sharing is inherent to action and translation. We precede our discussion with a brief description of each of these areas and present our reflections on the two cases as they relate to each of the three dimensions.

The process of research fosters empowerment and agency

Participatory research has been described as potentially empowering (see Koch & Kralik, 2009). The notion of empowerment, a contested concept which is subject to many understandings, could be defined as a ‘multi-dimensional social process that helps people gain control over their own lives’ (Page & Czuba 1999, n.p.). Empowerment involves cultivating both personal and political control with respect to factors that impact upon an individual’s life and is subject to socially constructed power imbalances between those ‘giving’ and ‘receiving’ power (Aziz, Shams, & Khan, 2011; Lazarus, 2007). The concept of agency, as described by Joseph (2012, p. 43), is ‘an individuals’ or groups’ socio-culturally mediated capacity to act and take initiatives independently or collectively to improve their own livelihoods’.

In SCRATCHMAPS, personal empowerment was fostered through a strong focus on capacity building of all research partners, including academics and the 10 local community researchers. This capacity building was guided by the principle of co-learning, which constitutes a bilateral or multilateral rather than hierarchical approach. Capacity building in SCRATCHMAPS was pursued through formalised activities such as workshops, external training and seminars, and informal strategies such as on-the-job mentoring (Lazarus, Bulbulia, Taliep, & Naidoo, 2015). The local community researchers were exposed to capacity building in a range of research-related skills, including proposal writing, research design development, data collection methods, data capturing and data analysis, research ethics, and writing and publication for both community and scientific audiences. The development of interpersonal skills was fostered through training in areas such as group dynamics, communication skills and conflict resolution. Capacity-building activities and strategies also focused on personal development, which was promoted through self-reflection and the development of personal goals, as well as values education, specifically integrated into the mentoring programme. Other community adults and youth (as mentors and mentees) were also centrally involved in the latter capacity building programme. Across the SCRATCHMAPS and Photovoice projects, academic researchers participated in on-the-job learning, as well as engaging in organisation-led training workshops geared towards becoming more sensitive to community-engaged research and PAR methodologies.

Personal agency was promoted through the above-mentioned capacity-building strategies, as well as active participation in project management and leadership functions. At the level of the community advisory committee, agency was fostered through the positioning of this community structure as the main authority of all project-related work. For many members of this committee, this project also provided them with an experience of enacting their leadership in the community. The advisory committee was centrally involved in the management of finances and served as a forum for accountable community-based budgeting. This structure also informed intervention plans and served as a central decision-making body regarding who should be employed. Collective agency was promoted through fostering collaboration and coalition building within and beyond these two structures (Lazarus, 2007; Lazarus et al., 2014). Community asset mapping, where resources and strengths were identified and later mobilised, constitutes an example of how this collaboration and coalition building was pursued. This latter approach made use of a spidergram process where the individual, group and institutional assets of the community were mapped for the purposes of identifying existing and potential collaboration and coalitions to address community issues. The partners identified in the spidergram were called upon in the project, although not optimally. Individually and collectively, members of the local community engaged in various community campaigns and actions to promote safety and peace, and stated in the evaluations conducted that these actions emerged directly from their involvement in SCRATCHMAPS (Isobell, Lazarus, Taliep, & Simmons, 2015; Van Gesselleen et al., 2015).

In the Multi-country Photovoice Project, youth participation and civic action established a platform through which empowerment was pursued (Suffla et al., 2012). By stimulating youth to be agents of social change, community-wide interventions were adopted to address such issues as structural vulnerability and physical disorder. One example of this is where, in one country, participants captured photographs of a community garbage dumping site, an indicator of the need for waste management. While participants responded with an anti-litter campaign, their presentations and dialogue encouraged government officials to respond with social action. Subsequently, local authorities created employment opportunities for 150 widows who were tasked with managing the disposal of garbage. The issue of hygiene and proper disposal of waste represented safety and public health promotion in the community concerned, catalysed by participants’ emerging agency and advocacy. Structures were established for youth to engage around issues of community safety, as well as their roles in efforts to bring about social justice. Such actions mobilised youth towards the development of critical consciousness, imparted photography skills and fostered action in respective participating communities (see Suffla et al., 2012, 2015).

Both projects geared their activities towards capacity building of participants, focusing on skills that were central to them developing personal agency, and in many cases, job creation. Participants were been given a voice through the interactive and participatory methodologies employed in the projects. Formal platforms to foster collaboration and coalition building with other role players were also provided in the projects, with community-led campaigns emerging as a key area of action in both cases. The main difference across these two projects relates to the emphasis on the acquisition of research skills which was a deliberate focus for SCRATCHMAPS.

Co-construction of knowledge promotes relevance and action

PAR breaks with mainstream traditions in research in its commitment to the co-creation of knowledge between academic researchers and the research ‘subjects’ (Clavier, Sénéchal, Vibert, & Potvin, 2011). While the former positions the ‘researched’ as passive recipients of knowledge produced by academics, the active exchange of academic and locally embedded knowledge is central to the research enterprise and to related actions within PAR (Lazarus et al., 2014). Campbell (2010) contends that co-creation of knowledge results in relevant and appropriate knowledge, which can more successfully promote change.

In SCRATCHMAPS, there was a strong commitment to drawing upon all partners’ knowledge and to value, and incorporate these in the development of theory and practice. Activities were directed at the co-construction of knowledge around the three main conceptual areas framing this project: safety and peace, spiritual capacity and religious assets, and masculinities and violence prevention. One example was the use of creative exercises to develop innovative research methodologies, drawing on community members’ locally embedded knowledge and community expertise to develop community-level safety and peace indicators. Through a brainstorming process with the community research team, it was decided that the views of the broader community on what is indicative of peace and safety could be obtained through essay writing (for primary school students), having community members contribute to cards that signified ‘bricks’ on a structure named the house of peace and safety, and from points raised in asset mapping workshops held with the community and various stakeholders. Findings from these data collection processes were analysed jointly by academic and community researchers to reveal emerging indicators of safety and peace. Much of what has emerged as dimensions of safety relate to intangible factors such as trust, cohesion, love and respect, although there was also an emphasis on tangible factors such as the need to address domestic violence and substance abuse (see Lazarus, Cochrane, Taliep, Simmons, & Seedat, in press). Furthermore, focus group discussions and asset mapping workshops were conducted to draw on the insights of local service providers, religious leaders and community members to inform conceptual work. The findings of this grounded theory research were then presented in a colloquium, including academic and community members (Simmons, Isobell, & Lazarus, 2014). The colloquium provided a forum for the academic and community research team members to engage around the project’s key concepts, namely religious assets, spiritual capacity, positive masculinities and peace and safety. A novel aspect of this colloquium was that the community researchers collected, analysed and presented the data, and led on the discussions. The colloquium allowed for community researchers’ voices to be heard directly. The knowledge emerging from this process was then used as a basis for action in the form of a community mentoring programme. This included the identification of core values, linked to the emerging concept of spiritual capacity, which were mobilised to promote positive forms of masculinity to create safety and peace. The research teams have also been involved in presentations at national conferences. For example, at the recent national South African Higher Education Community Engagement Forum conference, SCRATCHMAPS was the only project to include community members as presenters.

The safety promotion interventions that emerged within the Multi-country Photovoice Project explicitly included the perspectives and knowledge of the youth who participated. Knowledge production and participants’ critical consciousness was evident in the participants’ analysis and dialogue about the meanings that youth attribute to safety, the central themes that emerged from their photographs and their connotations in relation to the social conditions that they represented for the youth and the exploration of their own roles in safety action and activism. Youth constructions of safety centred on human security, social, physical, environmental, relational and affective dimensions. While many of these conceptions of safety dominate the safety promotion literature, new understandings of safety emerged. This included relational and affective dimensions, namely, the sense of connectedness to family, peers, school and community. Historically, the construct of connectedness has been absent from safety promotion interventions targeting African youth. This demonstrates that contextually and culturally relevant interventions can be developed by supplementing empirically derived knowledge and interventions with local knowledge and practices (Wallerstein & Duran, 2006).

One common factor relating to knowledge construction across the two projects is the emphasis placed on using a variety of interactive and participatory strategies aimed at eliciting, valuing and engaging with community-embedded knowledge. A second commonality relates to the use of this community-generated knowledge base to inform safety and peace promotion actions in the local communities concerned. Third, this community knowledge has also expanded current knowledge of safety and peace in academic knowledge systems.

Knowledge sharing is inherent to action and translation

Knowledge sharing denotes the bidirectional exchange of knowledge amongst various role players (Tsui, 2006). PAR privileges co-learning, that is the reciprocal exchange of knowledge and ideas, between the researchers and the ‘researched’.

In the SCRATCHMAPS project, knowledge sharing played an important role in the promotion of research translation. One example was the colloquium, referred to above, which created the forum for academics and community researchers to engage around the project’s conceptual framework and, in particular, for the research team to present the findings of their analysis of the research work conducted over the preceding two years. The colloquium was arranged with the explicit intent of differentiating from academic conferences in which academic researchers, to the exclusion of community members and non-academics, discuss the findings and implications of their research. The research team led on all discussions pertaining to community members’ understandings of the key concepts guiding the work of SCRATCHMAPS. Another example of knowledge sharing which fostered research translation in SCRATCHMAPS is the development and dissemination of research reports which capture the process and products of various aspects of research of the project. Besides circulating the reports in the community (including a booklet in every household), the findings of the research have been presented by the 10 local community researchers at various community events for the purpose of informing action to promote safety and peace. These local researchers have also co-presented the findings of their research in national academic conferences, contributing to and engaging with current debates in the field. The violence surveillance system that has been implemented in the community by select members of the community research team during 2012, 2013 and again in 2015, is an example of research that has been useful for promoting peace and safety. On the one hand, this surveillance system has been seen to deter crime in the community and provide community-specific profiles on the victims, perpetrators and precipitants to violence, and on the other hand, it has led to the community research team initiating meetings with stakeholders such as the local police to discuss the uses of the tool for enforcement strategies, and potentially, implementation in other communities.

The Photovoice Project participants from all involved countries decided to share their initial knowledge making through photo exhibitions which targeted local community members, local community leaders and policy makers with whom the youth could collaborate in their local safety promotion efforts. The country-specific exhibitions were subsequently brought together through the hosting of a multi-country photo exhibition, titled My Voice in Pictures: African Children’s Vision of Safety, which was hosted in South Africa. This exhibition offered a unique visual portrayal of the youth’s social worlds, shared the voices and narratives behind the photographs, and provided a platform for the authentication of youth knowledge and agency. The exhibition also highlighted the valuable contribution that youth can potentially make in shaping research, practices and policies that affect their lives and those of their communities. Knowledge sharing was also enacted through a photo book, based on the participants’ photographs, launched at this exhibition, and a youth-led conference on African children’s vision of safety that followed the exhibition. In all of these knowledge-sharing contexts and processes, the participants were positioned as social actors who were at once producers of knowledge, agents of change and contributing citizens.

Both projects collaboratively developed outputs (research reports, community fact sheets, PowerPoint presentations, photo exhibitions, photo books) in a manner that facilitated easy access to the information developed through the research. Accessibility to the local communities was therefore considerably enhanced by community members’ or research participants’ involvement in the creation of the outputs. It is also interesting to note that the research-generated knowledge emerging from the projects was presented to the relevant communities by the children (in Photovoice) and the local community researchers (in SCRATCHMAPS). Given that this is a task usually performed by academic researchers, this is an important outcome which, we believe, helped to enhance research translation in those contexts.

Discussion and conclusion

Our reflections have demonstrated that the meta-theoretical positioning and core assumptions of PAR facilitate the adoption, dissemination and use of research. Specific features of PAR that are pertinent to the research translation endeavour are as follows: developing and sustaining participation through egalitarian partnerships with communities, providing opportunities for participants voices to be heard directly, co-producing knowledge that is responsive to the social setting, promoting the realisation of agency and empowerment, and knowledge sharing.

Many of the challenges relating to research translation link to issues of power. This includes power dynamics created by economic inequalities, as well as dynamics relating to age, educational level, race and gender. In both cases, economic inequalities were reflected in the macro- and micro-contexts of the countries concerned, with the researchers (who are middle-income professionals) working in low-income communities. The socio-economic backgrounds of the researchers and communities therefore remained a constant marker of difference in the researcher–research community relationships.

In the case of the Multi-country Photovoice Project, age presented as a particular challenge given the focus on working with children. This required particular understandings and creative responses to specific developmental needs and a need to address the tendency of adults to dominate. The visual, aesthetic appeal of photographs notwithstanding, younger, developmentally immature participants were found to be more concrete in their engagement with the photographs and narratives. While this may have limited the interpretative potential of the data and attendant implications for participant-informed social action, there exists other developmentally appropriate participatory methods for working with young children, including imaginative drawing workshops and forum theatre (see Bradbury, 2015). The consideration about age extends to the adaptation of consent processes where spoken consent can be audio taped (Shaw, Brady, & Davey, 2011) or colours may be used to indicate a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response.

In both cases, signifiers of privilege as related to education also shaped the power dynamics in the researcher–community relationships. The tendency for communities to hold professionals, including researchers, in ‘awe’ and to assume that only they hold the expertise required, always presents a challenge when one seeks to develop more equal partnerships in a research context.

Race and gender also contributed to the observed power differentials. The researchers were predominantly female, which inevitably brought into focus the gendered nature of the researcher–community dyad, particularly in the SCRATCHMAPS project where gender relations were a specific focus for both research and action. Although the researchers in both projects represented different ‘racial’ backgrounds, the researchers and the communities are products of historical colonial processes, including the damaging legacy of apartheid, resulting in the need for constant reflections and responses to address power dynamics. This included creating directed spaces for sharing experiences of oppression and ongoing disadvantage, and according recognition to these.

We believe that addressing the above-mentioned challenges is central to achieving optimal research translation. Addressing power dynamics in the research relationship is dependent on nurturing a constant awareness of and an appropriate response to the skewed nature of power in research contexts. This raises the importance of enacting reflexivity, which ‘is a conscious experiencing of the self as both inquirer and respondent, as teacher and learner, as the one coming to know the self within the research process itself’ (Guba & Lincoln, 2005, p. 210). As community-engaged researchers working in South Africa and other parts of Africa, we recognise the importance of reflexivity, and have thus integrated this principle into our own practices, and have attempted to facilitate the same kind of reflective practice with the communities with whom we have worked. Practically, this has included journaling processes, such as regular diary reflective writing, strategies such as self-disclosure of our location in relation to power relations, and facilitating processes for our partnering community researchers to be reflexive in relation to their location. In the SCRATCMAPS study, weekly project meetings that are held in the community commence with a check-in from all members, and in so doing have been the forum for hearing concerns and suggestions directly from community partners.

We recommend that public health researchers intentionally reflect on the paradigm(s) that informs their practice to ensure that research processes serve the interests of partner communities. Furthermore, we suggest that researchers strive for optimal participation of communities (referring here to the continuum of participation) using methodologies that are collaboratively decided upon. Most importantly, the power relations inherent in the research relationship need to be a key focus for examination, and reflexivity is integral to developing self-awareness. Partnership approaches can be co-opted by agencies that serve their own agenda and this potential instrumentalisation of PAR must be acknowledged, particularly in South Africa (see Lazarus, Seedat, & Naidoo, in press).

Whilst our theoretical lens, critical theory, highlights the need to realise agency through the research, the challenge is really the enactment thereof within the PAR endeavour. From our experiences we note that agency, which is critical for sustaining projects, must become an intentional strategy and outcome of the research, and not merely a by-product. Our recommendation is that such research be located within a theory of change, inclusive of the underlying assumptions and prerequisites for attaining a desired goal.

PAR provides maximum benefit to local communities, providing real opportunities for personal and collective empowerment, and the development of knowledge and action that can be used to address social issues. We suggest that investing in participatory research is also beneficial to academics and funders by virtue of it providing processes for developing sound, relevant knowledge, while enhancing the likelihood of research being successfully translated into action.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the youth and adults directly involved in the SCRATCHMAPS and Photovoice projects, and our reviewers for their insightful and constructive feedback. The author(s) would also like to thank Hilary Bradbury for leading the review process of this article. Should there be any comments/reactions you wish to share, please bring them to the interactive portion (Reader Responses column) of the website: .

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The studies in this article were funded by the South African Medical Research Council and the University of South Africa, as well as the National Research Foundation’s Community Engagement programme.

Author biographies

Deborah Isobell, is a Researcher at the South African Medical Research Council-University of South Africa’s Violence, Injury and Peace Research Unit. Her research interests include substance abuse, violence and safety and peace promotion.

Sandy Lazarus, is a Senior Specialist Scientist in the South African Medical Research Council – University of South Africa’s Violence, Injury and Peace Research Unit, and professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Western Cape. Her focus as an academic and researcher over a period of approximately three decades has been on the development of community psychology and research, concentrated in the health and education sectors.

Shahnaaz Suffla, is a Senior Researcher at the South African Medical Research Council – University of South Africa’s Violence, Injury and Peace Research Unit. Her research interests include issues related to gender, peace, conflict, and violence and injury prevention. Her work draws largely from community and peace psychology, as well as from the public health perspective.

Mohamed Seedat, is a community-centred intervention development and violence prevention Researcher. With a background in liberatory and critical community psychology, public health and trans-disciplinary thought, he writes in areas of community engagement, social connectivity, injury prevention and intellectual traditions in science.

References

Aziz

Shams

Khan

K. S.

(2011) Participatory action research as the approach for women’s empowerment. Action Research 9(3): 303–323.

Barnes

Clouder

Pritchard

Hughes

Purkis

(2003) Deconstructing dissemination: Dissemination as qualitative research. Qualitative Research 3(2): 147–164.

Baum

MacDougall

Smith

(2006) Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 60(10): 854–857.

Best

Stokols

Green

L. W.

Leichow

Holmes

Buchholz

(2003) An integrative framework for community partnering to translate theory into effective health promotion strategy. American Journal of Health Promotion 18(2): 168–178.

Bradbury, H. (Ed.). (2015). The handbook of action research. 3rd ed. London, UK/Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Campbell

(2010) Applying knowledge to generate action: A community-based knowledge translation framework. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 30(1): 65–71.

Clavier

Sénéchal

Vibert

Potvin

(2011) A theory-based model of translation practices in public health participatory research. Sociology of Health and Illness 20(10): 1–15.

Cochrane, J., Seedat, M., Lazarus, S., Suffla, S., Taliep, N., & Shochet, I. (2015). Conceptualising religious assets, spiritual capacity, masculinity and violence in the pursuit of peace and safety. Tygerberg, South Africa: South African Medical Research Council – University of South Africa Violence, Injury and Peace Research Unit.

Eksteen

Bulbulia

van Niekerk

Ismail

Lekoba

(2012) Ukuphepha: A multi-level community engagement model for the promotion of safety, peace and health. Journal of Psychology in Africa 22(4): 501–510.

10.

Estabrook

R. E.

Schutt

R. K.

Woodford

M. L.

(2008) Translating research into practice: The participatory expert panel approach. The Open Health Services and Policy Journal 1: 19–26.

11.

Graham

I. D.

Logan

Harrison

M. B.

Straus

S. E.

Tetroe

Caswell

Robinson

(2006) Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 26(1): 13–24.

12.

Guba, E. G. (Ed.). (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

13.

Guba

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2005) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluence. In: Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(eds) The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 191–215.

14.

Horowitz

C. R.

Robinson

Seifer

(2009) Community-based participatory research from the margin to the mainstream: Are researchers prepared? Circulation 119: 2633–2642.

15.

Isobell, D., Lazarus, S., Taliep, N., & Simmons, C. (2015). Outcomes evaluation of SCRATCHMAPS. Tygerberg, South Africa: South African Medical Research Council – University of South Africa Violence, Injury and Peace Research Unit.

16.

Joseph

M. C.

(2012) Social agency of low-income “young” women in Gaborone City, Botswana. Studies of Changing Societies: Special Issue on Youth under Global Perspective 1(5): 37–62.

17.

Khan

K. S.

Bawani

S. A. A.

Aziz

(2013) Bridging the gap of knowledge and action: A case for participatory action research (PAR). Action Research 11(2): 157–175.

18.

Koch

Kralik

(2009) Participatory action research in health care, Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.

19.

Lazarus

(2007) Assumptions and values of community psychology. In: Duncan

Bowman

Naidoo

A. V.

Pillay

Roos

(eds) Community psychology: Analysis, context and action, Cape Town, South Africa: UCT Press, pp. 67–83.

20.

Lazarus

Bulbulia

Taliep

Naidoo

A. V.

(2015) Community-based participatory research as a critical enactment of community psychology. Journal of Community Psychology 43(1): 87–98.

21.

Lazarus, S., Cochrane, J., Taliep, N., Simmons, C., & Seedat, M. (in press). Identifying and mobilising factors that promote community peace. In: Proceedings on 14th International Symposium on the Contributions of Psychology to Peace. Johannesburg & Pretoria, South Africa, 29 May–4 June 2015.

22.

Lazarus, S., Duran, B., Caldwell, L., & Bulbulia, S. (2012). Public health research and action: Reflections on challenges and possibilities of community-based participatory research. In J. Maddock (Ed.), Public Health – Social and Behavioral Health (pp. 309–324). INTECH Open Access Publisher.

23.

Lazarus

Naidoo

A. V.

May

Williams

L. L.

Demas

Filander

F. J.

(2014) Lessons learnt from a community-based participatory research project in a South African rural context. South African Journal of Psychology 44(2): 149–161.

24.

Lazarus, S., Seedat, M., & Naidoo, A. V. (in press). Community building: Challenges of constructing community. In M. A. Bond, C. B. Keys, I. Serrano-García, & B. Shinn (Eds.), APA handbook of community psychology (Commissioned, Chapter 22 in Section IV: Methods of Community Change). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

25.

Lazarus

Taliep

Bulbulia

Phillips

Seedat

(2012) Community-based participatory research a low-income setting: An illustrative case study. Journal of Psychology in Africa 22(4): 509–518.

26.

Page, N., & Czuba, C. E. (1999). Empowerment: What is it? Journal of Extension, 37(5): 24–32.

27.

Regeer, B. J., & Bunders, J. F. G. (2009). A transdisciplinary approach to complex societal issues. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Athena Institute, VU University of Amsterdam. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/comm1.php.

28.

Seedat

(2010) When relevance decenters criticality: The case of the South African National Crime, Violence and Injury Lead Programme. Revista Colombiana Psicología 19(2): 193–205.

29.

Seedat

Van Niekerk

Jewkes

Suffla

Ratele

(2009) Violence and injuries in South Africa: Prioritising an agenda for prevention. The Lancet 374(9694): 1011–1022.

30.

Shaw

Brady

L. M.

Davey

(2011) Guidelines for research with children and young people, London, UK: National Children’s Bureau Research Centre.

31.

Simmons, C., Isobell, I., & Lazarus, S. (2014). Colloquium 2013 report. Tygerberg, South Africa: South African Medical Research Council – University of South Africa Violence, Injury and Peace Research Unit.

32.

Straus

Tetroe

Graham

I. D.

(2009) Defining knowledge translation. Canadian Medical Association 1818(3–4): 165–168.

33.

Straus

Tetroe

Graham

I. D.

(2013) Knowledge translation in health care: Moving from evidence to practice, Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.

34.

Stuurman

(2002) Research translation in South Africa. Science and Technology Libraries 23(2/3): 145–150.

35.

Suffla

Kaminer

Bawa

(2012) Photovoice as community engaged research: The interplay between knowledge creation and agency in a South African study on safety promotion. Journal of Psychology in Africa 22(4): 517–528.

36.

Suffla

Seedat

Bawa

(2015) Reflexivity as enactment of critical community psychologies: Dilemmas of voice and positionality in a multi-country Photovoice Study. Journal of Community Psychology 43(1): 9–21.

37.

Tsui

(2006) A handbook on knowledge sharing: Strategies and recommendations for researchers, policymakers and service providers, Edmonton, Canada: Community–University Partnership for the Study of Children, Youth, and Families.

38.

Van Gesselleen, M., Simmons, C., Taliep, N., Lazarus, S., Phillips, S., & Carelse, H. (2015). Process evaluation of the implementation of a community-level violence prevention intervention using participatory methodologies. Tygerberg, South Africa: South African Medical Research Council – University of South Africa Violence, Injury and Peace Research Unit.

39.

Wallerstein

Duran

(2006) Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promotion Practice 7(3): 312–323.

40.

Wandersman, A., Duffy, J., Flaspohler, P., Noonan, R., Lubell, K., Stillman, L.,… Saul, J. (2008). Bridging the gap between research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 171–181.

41.

World Health Organization (1986) Ottawa charter for health promotion. First international conference on Health Promotion, Ottawa, Canada: WHO.