Department of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK
School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Nov;6(11). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006978.
Power relations permeate research partnerships and compromise the ability of participatory research approaches to bring about transformational and sustainable change. This study aimed to explore how participatory health researchers engaged in co-production research perceive and experience 'power', and how it is discussed and addressed within the context of research partnerships.
Five online workshops were carried out with participatory health researchers working in different global contexts. Transcripts of the workshops were analysed thematically against the 'Social Ecology of Power' framework and mapped at the micro (individual), meso (interpersonal) or macro (structural) level.
A total of 59 participants, with participatory experience in 24 different countries, attended the workshops. At the micro level, key findings included the rarity of explicit discussions on the meaning and impact of power, the use of reflexivity for examining assumptions and power differentials, and the perceived importance of strengthening co-researcher capacity to shift power. At the meso level, participants emphasised the need to manage co-researcher expectations, create spaces for trusted dialogue, and consider the potential risks faced by empowered community partners. Participants were divided over whether gatekeeper engagement aided the research process or acted to exclude marginalised groups from participating. At the macro level, colonial and 'traditional' research legacies were acknowledged to have generated and maintained power inequities within research partnerships.
The 'Social Ecology of Power' framework is a useful tool for engaging with power inequities that cut across the social ecology, highlighting how they can operate at the micro, meso and macro level. This study reiterates that power is pervasive, and that while many researchers are intentional about engaging with power, actions and available tools must be used more systematically to identify and address power imbalances in participatory research partnerships, in order to contribute to improved equity and social justice outcomes.
权力关系渗透到研究伙伴关系中,削弱了参与式研究方法实现变革和可持续变革的能力。本研究旨在探讨参与式健康研究人员如何看待和体验“权力”,以及在研究伙伴关系背景下如何讨论和解决权力问题。
与在不同全球背景下从事共同生产研究的参与式健康研究人员进行了五次在线研讨会。根据“权力的社会生态学”框架对研讨会的记录进行了主题分析,并在微观(个人)、中观(人际)或宏观(结构)层面进行了映射。
共有 59 名参与者参加了研讨会,他们在 24 个不同国家有参与式经验。在微观层面上,主要发现包括很少有关于权力的含义和影响的明确讨论,使用反思性来检查假设和权力差异,以及认为加强共同研究人员权力转移能力的重要性。在中观层面上,参与者强调需要管理共同研究人员的期望,为值得信赖的对话创造空间,并考虑到赋权社区合作伙伴面临的潜在风险。参与者对守门人参与是否有助于研究过程或排斥边缘化群体参与存在分歧。在宏观层面上,人们承认殖民和“传统”研究遗产在研究伙伴关系中产生和维持了权力不平等。
“权力的社会生态学”框架是一个有用的工具,可以用来处理跨越社会生态系统的权力不平等问题,突出它们如何在微观、中观和宏观层面上运作。本研究再次强调,权力是普遍存在的,尽管许多研究人员有意参与权力问题,但必须更系统地使用行动和可用工具来识别和解决参与式研究伙伴关系中的权力失衡问题,以促进改善公平和社会正义成果。