Principle 11:

Principle 11:

Work to ensure research rigour, trustworthiness and validity of research in partnership with community researchers and community members

Involving community researchers and the broader community in the development and validation of priorities, study tools, data collection processes,  data analysis, interpretation and action planning to ascertain the language used, content, context etc. Important to add quality to the CBPR process. Consistently engaging the community in monitoring the progress of community activities planned and gaining their reflexive accounts of the actions and observations will ensure rigor and validity within the research process.

Competencies and/or conditions

  • Ability to assess and develop contextualised code of research ethics including safeguarding.
  • Capacity to undertake validation exercises with stakeholders and the wider community to ensure the study is relevant, accepted and supported. Validation exercises should use effective and culturally relevant communication mechanisms that consider the audience.
  • Ongoing learning, quality assessment and safeguarding assessments.
  • Capacity to contextualise research materials that value local ways of knowing and knowledge production.
  • Know how to engage in and apply reflexivity, considering positionality to research findings to strengthen rigor and trustworthiness.
  • Ability to triangulate different sources of information in order to determine research priorities, approach and actions.
    • Production of scientifically sound research findings.
    • Identification of generalisable research processes that can enhance CBPR techniques.
    • Community based research that is robust and adds value to communities, policies and practices.
    • For community members, learning research skills, gaining access to resources, and finding ways to legitimate their knowledge is often limited by a history of exclusionary research practices that have traditionally conducted studies on rather than with the community. 
    • After the research partnership has undertaken a process of prioritisation, and before conceptualizing the research, discuss with the broader community to validate the priorities and incorporate additional context to increase validity and trustworthiness to the process
    • Design research analysis and interpretation procedures that involve community researchers and associated stakeholders 
    • Having an outsider, such as a partnership stakeholder or subcommittee engaged in data gathering and interpreting can be useful in helping increase the rigor and real and perceived validity of the research
    • Conduct data interpretation sessions to discuss interpretations, add context to information collected, and facilitate a better understanding of project documentation
    • Triangulation of data sources and participant checking can add quality
    • Undertake co-analysis activities with co-researchers and stakeholders 
    • Increase reliability of the study by developing and using a case study protocol and a chain of evidence
    • Design survey and interview questions that are culturally aligned enhancing the fit of the research with the implementing context(s) 
    • Ensure a balance between adhering to quality and safeguarding (19) standards of research excellence while engaging in the complex and politicized contexts surrounding work with marginalized communities.
    • Engagement of coresearchers and community people during the research tool preparation can help to cover all the essential aspects of the research including safeguarding risks. 
    • Utilise quality criteria to evaluate the CBPR process – see Springett, Atkey (20) and Sandoval, Lucero (21)
    • Demonstrate research process of quality, validity and rigor
    • Evidence of triangulating, comparing and contrasting evidence
    • Evidence of validation of analysis and findings including from diverse perspectives
    • Evidence of safeguarding map/matrix and its ongoing assessment
    • A report on the translation and adaptation of the materials and quality assurance processes through minutes and notes on discussions and engagement within the team and with stakeholders. 
    • Reports of research validation processes 
    • Triangulation of findings -report or minutes/notes on discussion 
    • Case studies/stories/blogs that show reflexivity
    • Peer reviewed publications
    • Audio or notes from community validation processes
    • NVivo or other screen shots showing quality checking processes
    • Evidence of multiple inputs from a variety of actors when interpreting findings 
    • Development and use of a case study protocol and the development of a database and a chain of evidence to improve reliability of the study

*Please note that some statements are adaptations or direct quotes from the papers listed in the reference section