Sarah Riegel

Honors Citizenship
Dr. Childers-McKee
September 9, 2016
Why Do Community Engaged Research?
Community engaged research is a collaborative process through which members of a
particular community and outside experts partner to determine the direction, purpose, and
dissemination of research. The defining characteristic of this type of research is that the primary
goal of generating knowledge is not to add to the discussion or body of knowledge surrounding a
topic, but to utilize this knowledge in affecting social change. Furthermore, the research process,
because of its intent to more equitably distribute ownership of the research between citizens and
professional research partners, becomes itself a vehicle for social change. The application of
community engaged research to a social justice model of service, therefore, is a natural
progression. This application encourages an evolving understanding of serious social issues that
cuts deep to the root of these problems, and leaves humanity better prepared to combat them.
Strand in Origins and Principles of Community-Based Research describes three
approaches to community engaged research: popular education, action research, and
participatory research models (Strand, p. 4-8). While the first two models encourage
collaboration between specialists, particularly those affiliated with a university, and citizens for
the service of the citizens, it is really the last of these models that best embodies my
understanding of and goal for community engaged research in this course. Participatory research,
as described by Strand, grasps the equal engagement and worth of those who are traditionally
separated as researcher and researched (Strand, p. 6-8). Many of Strands ideas about citizen
empowerment are encompassed in the top tier of Arnsteins ladder for the degrees of citizen
power. When describing the top rung of this ladder, citizen control, which should be the ultimate
(although perhaps not practical) goal of community-based research, Arnstein poses a really
important question. He is speaking in reference to a particular example when he asks, Who
exercises control in the representative process? (Arnstein, p. 223). The first portion of this
question is so simple Who exercises control? But it is incredibly profound when compared
with the traditional model of research that accepts without question that the researcher must
control for every variable possible. In the participatory research model, citizens and experts are

all made researchers. Matched in importance is the emphasis this model rightly places on
proactive research questions driven by real problems as identified by the community.
Clearly, two of the main benefits of community engaged research are that it produces
more complete knowledge with the input of both local and specialized sources, and that the
outcome is actual application of learning that creates social change. Furthermore, information
from community-based research is disseminated in more creative ways to be accessible to the
general public. This is in direct contradiction to the traditional model where specialized technical
language and fees or university affiliation ensures information is only circulated between
academics. This is especially prevalent as information in todays world is power and a
commodity to be owned and sold. Again, who exercises control? This augmented dissemination
also increases the power of the findings to have impact in a community. Community engaged
research, as opposed to the traditional method, provides in theory a more positive answer to the
question of how community service impacts the identity of a community. I feel this is of
significant weight after reading about the embarrassment and decrease in perceived self-worth
experienced by community members receiving charity-model service in Bruce Herzbergs
Community Service and Critical Teaching article (Herzberg, p. 141).
My main concern about the methods of community engaged research, particularly as
someone with a mathematics background, is that with the increase of human participation there
is an increase in the possibility for human error and biases. While surveying is often necessary in
social sciences or public health, it can create biases that decrease the generalizability of the
findings or the statistical legitimacy. With community engaged research, which is also a much
longer process, this means the information and solutions gleaned are really only appropriate to
apply to the communities in the study. This seems rather inefficient. However, it is possible that
there is strength in building relationships in a specific community since some surveyor biases
may be abated with increased honesty of citizens. This mixed-methods approach could give
researchers more accurate information on what sources of confounding and effect modification
are present. It should be noted, nonetheless, that beginning quantitative analysis, with the
exception of matching, already looking for certain confounders or effect modifiers introduces
even greater biases. Another disadvantage to community-based research that speaks more to the
faults of businesses and government planning is that funding is probably more difficult to obtain
when compared to research that follows traditional standards of academic accreditation.

Bibliography
Arnstein, Sherry R. "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, pp. 216-224.
https://uncc.instructure.com/courses/6854/files/692091?module_item_id=559205. Accessed Sept.
3, 2016.

Herzberg, Bruce. Community Service and Critical Teaching. College Composition and
Communication, v. 45, n. 3, 1994. https://uncc.instructure.com/courses/6854/files/692126
?module_item_id=559201. Accessed Aug. 27, 2016.
Strand, Kerry J et al. Origins and Principles of Community-Based Research. CommunityBased Research and Higher Education. Jossey-Bass, 2003, p. 1-16. https://uncc.instructu
re.com/courses/6854/files/734016?module_item_id=573907. Accessed Sept. 3, 2016.