Talk:Community-based participatory research

Untitled[edit]

A project on the rare disease Primary ovarian insufficiency is interested in taking a community-based participatory research approach to this condition. Any interested parties please contact the Primary Ovarian Insufficiency Talk Page.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JanaeMc. Peer reviewers: Agrey39.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Edits[edit]

Practical applications of this research approach would be helpful --namely, what type of research projects this methodology is used in instead of just examples. It may be helpful to also include an advantage and disadvantage section as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrey39 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the introduction, the sentence: "CBPR emphasizes the public engagement end of the spectrum in many cases" is unclear. what is the opposite end of the spectrum? --AnthAJN (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC) The following sentence is also unclear: "However, it should be noted this spectrum does not lead to standardized outcomes as providing basic information or processes of empowering communities can vary." Perhaps it should be broken into two sentences: However, it should be noted this spectrum does not lead to standardized outcomes. CDPR can involve as little comunity involvement as providing community members with basic information about the study, or as much as granting community members a conrolling say in all levels of the research from inception to dissemination.--AnthAJN (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding these claims: "Those elements of CBPR that many practitioners view as valuable to this approach and worth advocating for can lead to tensions with other scholars that typically participate in what could be described as “traditional ways” of conducting research. This speaks to the training most PhD programs provide." It would be valuable to clarify why some traditional researchers might resent advocacy of broader adoption of CBPR. I assume the main reason is that CBPR ideally involves the researchers surrendering a degree of autonomy over research design decisions and the framing of findings to the community they study or the community board they assemble to oversee their work.--AnthAJN (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "history" section is a bit of a misnomer. Only the first sentence regards CBPR's history, the rest is more of a definition. Perhaps the section should be renamed or a more elaborate explanation of how this approach was developed should be included.--AnthAJN (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For a wikipedia article it may be necessary to explain the meaning and the value of "problematizing" as in the sentence: "Scholars continue to problematize approaches that can engage instructors and students in imagining ways to engage communities." it is unclear who the scholars are in this case, are they CBPR scholars? or anti-CBPR scholars? are they problematizing CBPR approaches or non CBPR approaches? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthAJN (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This statement requires more context and clarification for Wikipedia's gender audience: "Sociologists have entered the discussion from the point of view of the ethnographer or participant observer where some have argued against “exoticizing the ghetto” or “cowboy ethnography”." it is unclear in this sentence who is critiquing who, or how cowboy ethnography differs from non-cowboy ethnography.--AnthAJN (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article might benefit from discussion of the challenges to enacting CBPR, such as the additional time it takes to establish community relationships. One might also discuss the ways in which ethnography, a method heavily criticized in the article, has traditionally followed the spirit of CBPR long before there was such a thing, as ethnographers (outside the certain anthropological founders backed by colonial armies) have in post-colonial settings generally required the consent of communities to do research, as an ethnographer cannot force others to speak to them or open their homes to them. there is also a general ethical rule inherent to ethnographic research that ethnographers should not act against the interests of their informants. CBPR takes this a step further, but it largely builds on principles of ethnographic principles that long preceded it.--AnthAJN (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article might benefit from a section on collaborations between scientists and indigenous communities, who together co-produce and discover knowledge about the natural world. JECason (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Community-based participatory research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: ENGW3307 Adv Writing for the Sciences[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 17 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Catluvr222 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Catluvr222 (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]