University of California, Irvine, Department of Anthropology, Irvine, CA 92697-5100, USA.
Qual Health Res. 2011 Jul;21(7):1000-11. doi: 10.1177/1049732311403500. Epub 2011 Mar 31.
Proponents of community-based research advocate for the active involvement and engagement of community members, citing improved construct validity, intervention efficacy, and accountability. However, to create the conditions in which expertise is mutually constructed and in which no one is the object of research, a reconsideration of the fundamental ethos of community involvement and engagement is required. In this article, we seek to accomplish two goals: (a) to briefly assess the definitions of community health, focus groups, and dissemination that are often used in community-based research; and (b) to introduce an application of dialogical action that goes beyond traditional focus group methodology to promote the creation of an evolving and dynamic dialogue among campus and community stakeholders. An urban case study is presented.
社区为基础的研究的支持者主张社区成员的积极参与和投入，理由是可以提高构建效度、干预效果和问责制。然而，要创造出相互构建专业知识的条件，使任何人都不是研究对象，就需要重新考虑社区参与和投入的基本精神。在本文中，我们试图实现两个目标：（a）简要评估社区为基础的研究中常用的社区健康、焦点小组和传播的定义；（b）介绍一种超越传统焦点小组方法的对话行动应用，以促进校园和社区利益相关者之间不断发展和动态的对话。呈现了一个城市案例研究。
