Discussion
It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.
—Mark Twain
This evaluation uncovered team members’ differing assumptions about: who owned the data, who owned the products developed through the studies, who would control access to the data after the study, whether the study would go with the community principal investigator if he or she left the community organization, how the partners would continue collaborating on dissemination after the formal funding period for the project was over, what and in what order community and scientific dissemination would occur, what affiliation would be used for community members in dissemination materials, and how the community organization would be identified in dissemination materials.
These differing assumptions significantly affected the ability of some teams to fully collaborate in a positive working relationship throughout their project. This is significant because the CRC projects implemented with the least collaboration and power sharing reported the least outcomes from their projects.
Given the many areas where teams did not have full agreement, it is remarkable that only three of the seven teams had conflicts. While collaborations have been noted as being time-consuming and challenging, the good will and trust between the individuals in the partnerships evaluated appears to have contributed to their success.
Moreover, further exploration of the misunderstandings is warranted. Some misunderstandings could be traced to assumptions that team members made about each other’s culture; that is, the traditional rules and norms of academia vs. nonprofit organizations. For instance, in academia, researchers almost always take their research projects with them when they move to another institution, they own and control their data, and their affiliation is almost always listed as the institution where they are employed. In contrast, nonprofit organizations maintain their projects and reassign staff when a staff member departs, organizational affiliations extend to volunteers, and the community-based participatory research partnership is maintained with the organization, rather than with the individuals representing the organization. Not having discussed these potential issues in the early stages of the study, and not being aware of the differences that exist, could lead team members to make inaccurate assumptions.
The impact of turnover was significant on the projects included in this evaluation. Turnover during a four- to six-year project can be expected in collaborations with communities having a serious health issue, such as breast cancer, and with nonprofit organizations, where staff turnover every three to five years is the norm. This turnover does not need to cause conflicts unless, again, agreements have not been put into place.
Additionally, the academic partner may often take over the more scientific elements of the project, like data collection/storage and analysis. Yet community organizations can have long histories and experience in maintaining confidential material, such as personnel files and client records; they can also collaborate with data analysis, including quantitative analysis, and suggest variables to consider from their members’ lived experience.
Conforming to the assumed roles of academic researchers may have also been affected by the high level of inclusion of community partners in the CRC projects evaluated who have professional degrees (75 percent have master’s degrees or higher). Community partners with professional degrees may not question their assumptions about academic researchers. The high number of community partners with professional degrees in the projects evaluated here appears to be unusual in community-based participatory research, but it might be expected in collaborations around health issues, such as breast cancer, that have significant impact on individuals with higher incomes, greater years of education, and more professional positions. Professionals from the community partnering with other professionals, however, can add to the difficulty of seeing and negotiating around differences between community and academic researcher interests.
If you’re in a coalition and you’re comfortable, you know it’s not a broad enough coalition.
—Bernice Johnson Reagon
The inclusion of members of the broader community and members of the staff and board of the community organization were significantly greater in the teams with more successful outcomes. Including members of the broader community on the research team might help to ensure that nonprofessional community interests are considered and could additionally assist the collaboration in managing turnover. The inclusion of staff and board members of the community organization on the research team could help to ensure that the organization’s interests are considered, for example, in areas like publications.
More individuals involved in the research projects could also increase the complexity of the group dynamics, especially if those individuals increase the level of diversity within the team. Increasing the size of the teams may therefore require more attention to the process of collaboration, not just the outcomes. As shown more fully in our previous evaluation report, benefits appear to accrue to community members and community organizations who participate in community-based participatory research, so the suggestion to expand the number and diversity of individuals involved from the community side of the collaboration could benefit both the research project and the community members.
