Au-dela des incitations a la participation vers la remuneration des consultants : accroître l'equite dans les approches de CBPR

Titre original en anglais : Beyond Incentives for Involvement to Compensation for Consultants: Increasing Equity in CBPR Approaches

Black, K. Z., Hardy, C., Marco, M. D., Ammerman, A. S., Corbie‐Smith, G., Council, B., Ellis, D., Eng, E., Harris, B., Jackson, M. R., Jean-Baptiste, J., Kearney, W., Legerton, M., Parker, D., Wynn, M., & Lightfoot, A. F. (2013). Beyond Incentives for Involvement to Compensation for Consultants: Increasing Equity in CBPR Approaches. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 7(3), 263-270. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2013.0040

Date de publication: 01/09/2013 Ajout dans AutiHub: 18/07/2026 Type: Article Langue de l’article: Anglais

Cette publication est intégrée dans AutiHub via :

Auteurs

Auteur·ices des publications
16
Auteur·ices de la publication identifié·es comme autistes
0 / 16 (0,0 %)

Résumé

Contexte : La recherche participative a base communautaire (CBPR) s'efforce d'etablir une collaboration equitable entre les partenaires communautaires et universitaires tout au long du processus de recherche. Afin de renforcer la capacite du milieu universitaire a fonctionner comme partenaire de recherche efficace avec les communautes, le North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS), qui abrite le Clinical and Translational Sciences Award (CTSA) de l'University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH), a elabore un modele de consultation en engagement communautaire. Ce nouveau modele mobilise l'expertise de partenaires communautaires ayant une experience de la CBPR et les remunere equitablement afin de fournir une assistance technique aux partenariats de recherche communautaire-universitaire. Objectifs : Cet article decrit les approches visant a valoriser l'expertise communautaire, l'importance d'une remuneration equitable des partenaires communautaires, l'impact sur les partenaires communautaires, les possibilites de changement institutionnel et les contraintes rencontrees lors de la mise en oeuvre du modele. Methodes : Les experts communautaires (CEs) sont des consultants entrepreneurs independants. Les CEs ont ete interroges afin d'evaluer leur satisfaction a l'egard de leur engagement et de leur remuneration pour leur travail. Lecons apprises : (1) Les CEs possedent les connaissances, le pouvoir et la credibilite necessaires pour promouvoir le changement des systemes. (2) Des changements etaient necessaires au sein de l'universite afin de faciliter une consultation reussie aupres des partenariats communautaires-universitaires. (3) Le maintien du role des CEs exige un soutien du personnel, une remuneration continue, davantage de possibilites d'engagement et un examen attentif des exigences du poste. (4) Ce role procure des avantages au-dela de la remuneration financiere. (5) Les occasions de se reunir ont approfondi les relations au sein du partenariat et ont permis de constituer des connaissances collectives qui ont renforce le projet. Conclusions : La mobilisation de l'expertise des CEs et leur remuneration pour leur role profitent a la fois a l'universite et a la communaute. Creer une place pour l'expertise communautaire au sein du milieu universitaire constitue une etape importante vers l'inclusion equitable de la communaute dans la recherche.

Background: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) strives for equitable collaboration among community and academic partners throughout the research process. To build the capacity of academia to function as effective research partners with communities, the North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS), home of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH)’s Clinical and Translational Sciences Award (CTSA), developed a community engagement consulting model. This new model harnesses the expertise of community partners with CBPR experience and compensates them equitably to provide technical assistance to community–academic research partnerships. Objectives: This paper describes approaches to valuing community expertise, the importance of equitable compensation for community partners, the impact on the community partners, opportunities for institutional change, and the constraints faced in model implementation. Methods: Community Experts (CEs) are independent contractor consultants. CEs were interviewed to evaluate their satisfaction with their engagement and compensation for their work. Lessons Learned: (1) CEs have knowledge, power, and credibility to push for systems change. (2) Changes were needed within the university to facilitate successful consultation to community–academic partnerships. (3) Sustaining the CE role requires staff support, continued compensation, increased opportunities for engagement, and careful consideration of position demands. (4) The role provides benefits beyond financial compensation. (5) Opportunities to gather deepened relationships within the partnership and built collective knowledge that strengthened the project. Conclusions: Leveraging CE expertise and compensating them for their role benefits both university and community. Creating a place for community expertise within academia is an important step toward equitably including the community in research.

Bibliographie citée par cette référence

Les références citées sont importées depuis des sources externes de métadonnées lorsqu’elles sont disponibles. La liste peut être partielle.

  1. Barbara A. Israel , Edith A. Parker , Zachary Rowe , Alicia Salvatore , Meredith Minkler , Jesús López et al. (2005). Community-Based Participatory Research: Lessons Learned from the Centers for Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research . Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(10), 1463-1471. American Chemical Society (ACS).
    Type: Article DOI: 10.1289/ehp.7675 OpenAlex: https://openalex.org/W1968759223
    OpenAlex OpenCitations
  2. Barbara A. Israel , Amy J. Schulz , Edith A. Parker , Adam B. Becker (1998). REVIEW OF COMMUNITY-BASED RESEARCH: Assessing Partnership Approaches to Improve Public Health . Annual Review of Public Health, 19(1), 173-202. Annual Reviews.
    OpenAlex OpenCitations
  3. Shobha Srinivasan , Gwen W. Collman (2005). Evolving Partnerships in Community . Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(12), 1814-1816. American Chemical Society (ACS).
    Type: Article DOI: 10.1289/ehp.7911 OpenAlex: https://openalex.org/W1979588559
    OpenAlex OpenCitations
  4. Barbara A. Israel , Amy J. Schulz , Edith A. Parker , Adam B. Becker (2001). Community-based Participatory Research: Policy Recommendations for Promoting a Partnership Approach in Health Research . Education for Health: Change in Learning & Practice, 14(2), 182-197. The Network: Towards Unity for Health.
    OpenAlex OpenCitations
  5. Yolanda Suarez-Balcazar , Gary W. Harper , Rhonda Lewis (2005). An Interactive and Contextual Model of Community-University Collaborations for Research and Action . Health Education & Behavior, 32(1), 84-101. SAGE Publications.
    OpenAlex OpenCitations
  6. Loretta Jones , Barbara Meade , Nell Forge , Moraya Moini , Felica Jones , Chrystene Terry et al. (2009). Begin your partnership: the process of engagement. PubMed, 19(4 Suppl 6), S6-8.
    Type: Article OpenAlex: https://openalex.org/W2410710332
    OpenAlex