Walk together children with no wasted steps: community-academic partnering for equal power in NIH proposal development.

Karen Jaynes Williams, John Mark Cooks, Marlynn May, Jane Peranteau, Elizabeth Reifsnider, Martha A. Hargraves

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) approaches equitably involve community members and researchers throughout the research process. A developing literature examines problems in CBPR partnerships, but less is written about community groups using CBPR to access university resources to address community-prioritized health concerns. We sought to examine issues in two stages of a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded CBPR partnership: (1) joint proposal preparation, and (2) grant administration. We used a case study approach to analyze data (partner dialogs, meeting notes, interviews, and press coverage) from a longstanding community-academic partnership. The partnership received NIH Partners in Research Program funding. During joint proposal preparation, issues included (1) learning to practice operating principles, such as "talking in ways that all people can understand," (2) streamlining proposal design to facilitate communication with community members, and (3) addressing inequities inherent in community-academic budget sharing. During the administration phase, issues included (1) community partner struggles with administrative requirements, (2) inequities in indirect cost (IDC) allocations, and (3) the impact of a natural disaster. Separately funded CBPR grants can contribute to community partner development, but make substantive demands on small, grassroots community organizations. Funders should consider taking more responsibility in developing community resources and infrastructure to ensure that grassroots community groups have the power to be equal partners. More accurate accounting of costs and benefits of CBPR to vulnerable communities should be in place to ensure communities receive adequate return on the time they invest in partnering with universities.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)263-277
Number of pages15
JournalProgress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action
Volume4
Issue number4
StatePublished - Dec 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
Community-Based Participatory Research
health
community
Organized Financing
Power (Psychology)
Cost Allocation
Social Planning
grant
Disasters
Budgets
Research
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Communication
Research Personnel
university
Learning
Organizations
Interviews

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Walk together children with no wasted steps : community-academic partnering for equal power in NIH proposal development. / Williams, Karen Jaynes; Cooks, John Mark; May, Marlynn; Peranteau, Jane; Reifsnider, Elizabeth; Hargraves, Martha A.

In: Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action, Vol. 4, No. 4, 12.2010, p. 263-277.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e33ded21373241aa8439a87c17afd36f,
title = "Walk together children with no wasted steps: community-academic partnering for equal power in NIH proposal development.",
abstract = "Community-based participatory research (CBPR) approaches equitably involve community members and researchers throughout the research process. A developing literature examines problems in CBPR partnerships, but less is written about community groups using CBPR to access university resources to address community-prioritized health concerns. We sought to examine issues in two stages of a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded CBPR partnership: (1) joint proposal preparation, and (2) grant administration. We used a case study approach to analyze data (partner dialogs, meeting notes, interviews, and press coverage) from a longstanding community-academic partnership. The partnership received NIH Partners in Research Program funding. During joint proposal preparation, issues included (1) learning to practice operating principles, such as {"}talking in ways that all people can understand,{"} (2) streamlining proposal design to facilitate communication with community members, and (3) addressing inequities inherent in community-academic budget sharing. During the administration phase, issues included (1) community partner struggles with administrative requirements, (2) inequities in indirect cost (IDC) allocations, and (3) the impact of a natural disaster. Separately funded CBPR grants can contribute to community partner development, but make substantive demands on small, grassroots community organizations. Funders should consider taking more responsibility in developing community resources and infrastructure to ensure that grassroots community groups have the power to be equal partners. More accurate accounting of costs and benefits of CBPR to vulnerable communities should be in place to ensure communities receive adequate return on the time they invest in partnering with universities.",
author = "Williams, {Karen Jaynes} and Cooks, {John Mark} and Marlynn May and Jane Peranteau and Elizabeth Reifsnider and Hargraves, {Martha A.}",
year = "2010",
month = "12",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "263--277",
journal = "Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action",
issn = "1557-0541",
publisher = "Johns Hopkins University Press",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Walk together children with no wasted steps

T2 - community-academic partnering for equal power in NIH proposal development.

AU - Williams, Karen Jaynes

AU - Cooks, John Mark

AU - May, Marlynn

AU - Peranteau, Jane

AU - Reifsnider, Elizabeth

AU - Hargraves, Martha A.

PY - 2010/12

Y1 - 2010/12

N2 - Community-based participatory research (CBPR) approaches equitably involve community members and researchers throughout the research process. A developing literature examines problems in CBPR partnerships, but less is written about community groups using CBPR to access university resources to address community-prioritized health concerns. We sought to examine issues in two stages of a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded CBPR partnership: (1) joint proposal preparation, and (2) grant administration. We used a case study approach to analyze data (partner dialogs, meeting notes, interviews, and press coverage) from a longstanding community-academic partnership. The partnership received NIH Partners in Research Program funding. During joint proposal preparation, issues included (1) learning to practice operating principles, such as "talking in ways that all people can understand," (2) streamlining proposal design to facilitate communication with community members, and (3) addressing inequities inherent in community-academic budget sharing. During the administration phase, issues included (1) community partner struggles with administrative requirements, (2) inequities in indirect cost (IDC) allocations, and (3) the impact of a natural disaster. Separately funded CBPR grants can contribute to community partner development, but make substantive demands on small, grassroots community organizations. Funders should consider taking more responsibility in developing community resources and infrastructure to ensure that grassroots community groups have the power to be equal partners. More accurate accounting of costs and benefits of CBPR to vulnerable communities should be in place to ensure communities receive adequate return on the time they invest in partnering with universities.

AB - Community-based participatory research (CBPR) approaches equitably involve community members and researchers throughout the research process. A developing literature examines problems in CBPR partnerships, but less is written about community groups using CBPR to access university resources to address community-prioritized health concerns. We sought to examine issues in two stages of a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded CBPR partnership: (1) joint proposal preparation, and (2) grant administration. We used a case study approach to analyze data (partner dialogs, meeting notes, interviews, and press coverage) from a longstanding community-academic partnership. The partnership received NIH Partners in Research Program funding. During joint proposal preparation, issues included (1) learning to practice operating principles, such as "talking in ways that all people can understand," (2) streamlining proposal design to facilitate communication with community members, and (3) addressing inequities inherent in community-academic budget sharing. During the administration phase, issues included (1) community partner struggles with administrative requirements, (2) inequities in indirect cost (IDC) allocations, and (3) the impact of a natural disaster. Separately funded CBPR grants can contribute to community partner development, but make substantive demands on small, grassroots community organizations. Funders should consider taking more responsibility in developing community resources and infrastructure to ensure that grassroots community groups have the power to be equal partners. More accurate accounting of costs and benefits of CBPR to vulnerable communities should be in place to ensure communities receive adequate return on the time they invest in partnering with universities.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79952277631&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79952277631&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 21169704

AN - SCOPUS:79952277631

VL - 4

SP - 263

EP - 277

JO - Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action

JF - Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action

SN - 1557-0541

IS - 4

ER -