RinGs provides consultancy services to multi-lateral organisations, donors, research projects and civil society organisations who would like to improve their performance when it comes to gender and health systems. If you would like to discuss future collaborations please do get in touch.
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 is important to the quality of the CBPR process. Consistently engaging the community in monitoring the progress of community activities and gaining their reflexive accounts of the actions ensures rigour within the research process.
● Awareness of trustworthiness criteria that draw on critical epistemologies
● 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
● Ongoing learning, quality assessment and safeguarding assessment
● Capacity to contextualise research materials that value local ways of knowing and knowledge production
● Knowledge on how to engage in and apply reflexivity, considering positionality with regard to research findings, to strengthen rigour and trustworthiness
● Ability to triangulate different sources of information to determine research priorities, approach and actions
● Rigorous research findings which draw on trustworthiness criteria
● Generalisable research processes that can enhance CBPR techniques
● Community based research that is robust and adds value to communities, policies and practices
● Community members learn research skills, gain access to resources, and find ways to legitimate their knowledge, which have previously been limited by a history of exclusionary research practices
● After the research partnership has undertaken a process of prioritisation, and before conceptualising the research, validate the priorities and incorporate additional context to increase trustworthiness in the process
● Design research analysis and interpretation procedures that involve community researchers and associated stakeholders
● Have an outsider to help increase the rigour 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
● Triangulate data sources and add participant checking
● Undertake co-analysis activities with co-researchers and stakeholders
● Increase the 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
● Identify relational and situated ethical and safeguarding concepts and approaches that best fit the specific context and the process-oriented nature of CBPR (25)
● Constructive negotiation with gatekeeping bodies such as funders and research ethics committees to increase understanding of appropriate approaches
● Engage co-researchers and community members during the research tool preparation to cover all the essential aspects of the research including safeguarding risks
Utilise quality criteria to evaluate the CBPR process – see Springett, Atkey (26) and Sandoval, Lucero (27● Research process of quality, validity and rigour
● Triangulating, comparing and contrasting evidence
● Validation of analysis and findings including from diverse perspectives
● Safeguarding map/matrix and its ongoing assessment
● Evidence of multiple inputs from a variety of actors when interpreting findings
● Documentation 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
● Documentation of research validation processes
● Documentation of discussion during triangulation of findings
● Case studies/stories/blogs that show reflexivity processes
● Peer reviewed publications
● Audio or notes from community validation processes
● NVivo or other screenshots showing quality checking processes
● 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