Department of Environmental Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Division of Community, Environment & Policy, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Environ Health Perspect. 2021 Feb;129(2):26001. doi: 10.1289/EHP6274. Epub 2021 Feb 16.
Environmental health risks are disproportionately colocated with communities in poverty and communities of color. In some cases, participatory research projects have effectively addressed structural causes of health risk in environmental justice (EJ) communities. However, many such projects fail to catalyze change at a structural level.
This review employs Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS) to theorize specific elements of participatory research for environmental health that effectively prompt structural change in EJ communities.
Academic database search was used to identify peer-reviewed literature describing participatory research with EJ communities to address environmental health. Synthetic constructs were developed iteratively related to study characteristics, design elements, and outcomes; and data were extracted for included records. Statistical analyses were performed to assess correlations between study design elements and structural change outcomes. Through critical, comparative, and contextual analyses of the "structural change" case study group and "non- structural change" group, informed by relevant theoretical literature, a synthesizing argument was generated.
From 505 total records identified, eligibility screening produced 232 case study articles, representing 154 case studies, and 55 theoretical articles for synthesis. Twenty-six case studies resulted in a structural change outcome. The synthesizing argument states that participatory research with EJ communities may be more likely to result in structural change when ) community members hold formal leadership roles; ) project design includes decision-makers and policy goals; and ) long term partnerships are sustained through multiple funding mechanisms. The assumption of EJ community benefit through research participation is critically examined.
Recommended future directions include establishing structural change as a goal of participatory research, employing participatory assessment of community benefit, and increased hiring of faculty of color at research institutions. The power, privilege, and political influence that academic institutions are able to leverage in partnership with EJ communities may be as valuable as the research itself. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6274.
环境健康风险在贫困社区和有色社区中不成比例地存在。在某些情况下,参与式研究项目有效地解决了环境正义(EJ)社区中健康风险的结构性原因。然而,许多此类项目未能在结构层面上催化变革。
本综述采用批判解释性综合(CIS)理论化参与式环境健康研究的特定要素,这些要素有效地促使 EJ 社区发生结构性变革。
使用学术数据库搜索来识别描述参与式研究以解决环境健康问题的 EJ 社区的同行评审文献。迭代式地开发与研究特征、设计要素和结果相关的综合构建;并为纳入的记录提取数据。对研究设计要素和结构变革结果进行了统计分析。通过对“结构变革”案例研究组和“非结构变革”组的批判性、比较性和情境性分析,并参考相关理论文献,生成了一个综合论点。
从总共确定的 505 条记录中,资格筛选产生了 232 篇案例研究文章,代表了 154 项案例研究和 55 篇理论文章进行综合分析。26 项案例研究导致了结构变革的结果。综合论点指出,当)社区成员担任正式领导角色;)项目设计包括决策者和政策目标;并且)通过多种资金机制维持长期伙伴关系时,参与式研究与 EJ 社区更有可能导致结构变革。对通过研究参与获得 EJ 社区利益的假设进行了批判性审查。
建议的未来方向包括将结构变革确立为参与式研究的目标,采用参与式评估社区利益,并增加在研究机构中雇用有色人种的教师。学术机构能够与 EJ 社区合作利用的权力、特权和政治影响力,可能与研究本身一样有价值。https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6274.