The research scholars partnership grant: Creating a culture of community engagement to advance translational research through resource allocation, modeling, and recognition

Translational research is designed to move evidence generated in laboratory, clinical, and community settings into interventions that improve the health of people and communities [Reference Richmond, Aguilar-Gaxiola and Perez-Stable1,Reference Stallings, Boyer and Joosten2]. It has been established in the literature that community engagement is a key factor for advancing translational research, however, the uptake of community engaged and participatory approaches remains low [Reference Freeman, Seifer, Stupak and Martinez3,Reference Sprague Martinez, Chassler, Lobb, Hakim, Pamphile and Battaglia4]. The limited adoption of community engaged and participatory approaches have been associated with multiple factors including trust and time [Reference Israel, Parker and Rowe5–Reference Sprague Martinez, Carolan, O.’Donnell, Diaz and Freeman7]; which are interconnected given establishing trust requires time [Reference Metzler, Higgins and Beeker6,Reference Palmer-Wackerly, Krok, Dailey, Kight and Krieger8]. Trust, mistrust, and trust worthiness in community engagement are frequently interrogated in the literature [Reference Lansing, Romero and Siantz9–Reference Wilkins12]. References to time have been less robust and primarily focus on the time intensive nature of community engaged and participatory approaches [Reference Yonas, Jones and Eng13]. Critical reflections on time point to the ways in which it is shaped by cultural norms such as white supremacy and the political economy [Reference Banaji, Fiske and Massey14–Reference Vue, Ly, Porter and Aguilar17].

White supremacy is the dominant world view ideology in the United States; it was established during the age of enlightenment to uphold the institution of slavery [Reference DiTomaso18–Reference Thiaw and Mack20]. Under white supremacy, value, expertise, and power are assigned to whiteness [Reference Drustrup, Liu, Rigg and Davis21,Reference Sow22]. This influences both trust and time because ideology shapes social norms, which inform policy and in turn organizational practice. Sense of urgency has been described as a core tenant of white supremacy which values outcomes over process and focuses on individual as opposed to collective processes, which are more time consuming. A constant sense of urgency can break down trust and expose power imbalances between researchers and community partners. In addition, it can disrupt inclusive consensus building processes, because time constraints favor either/or thinking and top-down decision-making. This can limit participation, moreover, needing to do things at a fast pace doesn’t facilitate the relationship development and trust building needed for co-creation and collaboration [Reference Lansing, Romero and Siantz9,Reference Bien-Gund and Elrowmeim23,Reference Krczal and Behrens24]. Indeed, the structure of research funding and funder expectations can exacerbate sense of urgency. Short timelines instituted by funders and or academic institutions, often fail to take into consideration the time needed for collaborative processes. This is reinforced by a culture of individualism. Urgency undermines researchers, institutions and communities when the importance of outcomes overshadows that of processes, such as relationship development and trust building.

Taking the time to build relationships necessitates a recognition that conceptualizations of time vary. As we engage with communities, it is critical for researchers to honor the variation in how time is understood at the individual, interpersonal, community, and societal levels [Reference Hardcastle, Byrnes, Bartlett, Denton and Walsh25,Reference Sprague Martinez, Negrón and Brinkerhoff26]. To illustrate this, Fischer, Reuber, Hababou, Johnson and Lee (1997) write that time…

Time is shaped by cultural norms as well as maintained and reproduced by at various levels which can shape organizational practice. As such, advancing community engagement and participatory research approaches necessitates shifting culture norms as they relate to time and more specifically, the sense of urgency embedded in academic research processes.

We present a Boston University Clinical and Translational Science Institute Community Engagement Program (CE Program) program designed to create a culture that centers time for relationship development and engagement. In the spring of 2022, the CE Program launched the Research Scholars Partnership Grant program, with the intention of funding researchers and community members to facilitate the development of community-research partnerships. In this paper, we provide a brief background on organizational culture and the ways it impacts community engagement and shapes researcher behavior followed by a detailed description of the Research Scholars Partnership Grant and program outcomes. We conclude by discussing our findings and lessons in the context of the literature.

Organizational culture and community engagement

Organizational culture shapes how members of an organization learn behavioral expectations and interact [Reference Bartholomew, Parcel, Kok, Gottlieb and Fernandez28]. Given its multidimensional complexity, definitions of culture vary. However, there is agreement that culture is learned and shared through interactions and guides societal life as members develop a shared set of common beliefs [Reference Kottak and Kottak29]. To that end, organizational culture has been defined as behaviors, values, perspectives, and expectations that are shared by organizational participants [Reference Bartholomew, Parcel, Kok, Gottlieb and Fernandez28,Reference Bellot30]. In the case of academic research institutions, understanding culture is an important component of efforts to advance community engagement because culture shapes and reinforces behaviors.

Academic research institutions are embedded in a broader sociopolitical landscape, and as noted, the white supremacy is the dominant ideology that shapes the sociopolitical landscape [31,Reference Belkin Martinez, Hamilton and Toraif32]. Thus, white supremacy also shapes organizational practice. Okun and others have described characteristics of white supremacy at the organizational level (see Figure 1) [Reference Okun33].

Figure 1. White supremacy characteristics in organizations [Reference DiTomaso18].

These ideas are embedded and intertwined with organizational culture and in turn the interactions and behaviors among organizational members as well as how members interact with people outside the organization. Notably, in the context of white supremacy outcomes are favored over processes to develop relationships and as such there is a sense of urgency to advance production. This is particularly challenging for community engagement and participatory research approaches, which rely heavily on processes which require time to build trusting relationships across cultural boundaries of organizations and communities. Not surprisingly, herein lies the principal contradiction, as community engaged, and participatory approaches are rooted in theories of collectivism which runs counter to racial capitalism fueled by an ideology of white supremacy, which centers individualism.

Shifting organizational culture is complex because culture is not tangible and the longer we are in a culture the more unaware of it we become [31]. The literature indicates there are primary cultural embedding mechanisms and secondary reinforcement or articulation mechanisms [Reference Bartholomew, Parcel, Kok, Gottlieb and Fernandez28]. Primary mechanisms are what leaders pay attention to. For example, what they choose to measure and reward, how they allocate resources, and what behaviors they model. Secondary reinforcement and articulation mechanisms include organizational design as well as systems, procedures, and values statements [Reference Bartholomew, Parcel, Kok, Gottlieb and Fernandez28]. Thus, promoting community engaged and participatory research approaches necessitates leveraging mechanisms to shift culture [Reference Kania, Williams, Schmitz, Brady, Kramer and Juster34,35]. For example, short-term pilot funding that does not financially support the time it takes to develop academic community relationships and a focus on research outcomes over process enshrined in the materials and procedures as well as in our overall institutional system of rewards will contribute little to developing a culture of community engagement.

With the Research Scholars Partnership Grant program, we sought to explicitly create time for partnership development as well as to reinforce a culture of engagement through resource allocation, modeling, and recognition. We reviewed the number of community engaged and participatory applications being submitted and explored barriers to community engaged pilots as a team. One change that emerged through discussions was the short timeline associated with the pilot grants program does not allow time for partnership development. Thus, we sought to allocate resources specifically to the relationship development process between researcher and community partners and provided guidance to support the equitable distribution of resources. Partnerships were required to participate in a three-part learning collaborative, during which we focused explicitly on modeling best practices in community engaged and participatory research through co-learning. Finally, we recognized and promoted the work of each partnership by announcing their award in CTSI mailings and updates as well as on our website. We also featured each partnership during our culture of community engagement speaker series event.

The research scholars partnership grant

In May 2022, we released the request for proposals for the Research Partnership Scholars Grant program. The primary objective of the program was to support the development of community-academic partnerships. It was expected that dedicating time to partnership development would eventually lead to an increase in the number of community engaged and participatory applications for extramural funding focused on advancing health equity. The grant itself allowed for nine months of funding up to $10,000 and was open to BU researchers and community partners, with either being the primary applicant.

The CTSI Community Engagement program (CTSI CE) advertised the request for applications broadly across the university and through community partner networks, including the CTSI CE program community advisory board, which focuses on advancing health equity research [36]. Grant application guidance was provided on the program website and a preapplication webinar with a question-and-answer period was held. In addition, community engagement program staff provided technical assistance consultations to support partnerships in developing and completing the application and to connect interested researchers with community partners and vice versa.

As detailed in Figure 2: Timeline, once the application was released in early May 2022, applicants had until June 10, 2022, to complete and submit their application. Applications were then reviewed by selected reviewers and applicants were notified of the final decisions on July 22, 2022. Upon notification of application decisions, applicants were then invited to attend the three-part mandatory learning collaboratives that took place in Fall of 2022. Details on each step of the process are provided in the sections that follow.

Figure 2. Timeline.

Application guidelines

Community and academic researchers were required to submit the three-page application as co-Principal Investigators. Additional required materials included a biosketch or resume for each partner, as well as a budget and budget justification. As one of the intentions behind this grant was to build faculty capacity for and interest in community engaged and participatory research approaches, academic researchers were required to be BU full or part-time faculty, and community partner researchers had to work in a community, grassroots or faith-based organization and could also be an independent contractor with lived experience within the population of interest. Research experience was not required for the community investigator, but funded community partners were required to participate in the three-part learning collaborative.

Applicants were required to allocate at least 50% of the grant budget to the community partner investigators. We held a webinar, office hours, and individual consultations for applicants to support proposal development and budgeting. Activities eligible to be funded as part of the grant were focused on relationship building. This included developing new relationships or strengthening an existing partnership. Additional allowable expenses included time to explore shared research interests; capacity building for team members; advisory boards; and participatory planning activities; as well as preliminary data collection, analysis, and dissemination.

Application review and selection

We received seven applications in response to the RFA. Review of the submitted applications for this program was sectioned into three phases: (1) community and academic review; (2) internal CTSI CE review; and (3) CTSI leadership review of funding decisions. The first phase of review was conducted by volunteer community and academic reviewers. One academic and one community reviewer were assigned to independently evaluate each grant application. Community reviewers received a $25 gift card for taking part in the review. Reviewers were asked to assess the responsiveness to the RFA based on five criteria: (1) aims of partnership, (2) background and significance of the partnership, (3) strategy and partnership development plan, (4) dissemination plan and timeline, (5) overall project focus on health equity. Questions were associated with each criterion to clarify the definition of the criterion and prompt reviewers’ justification of the score associated with the criterion. The scores for each criterion reflected the National Institutes of Health 9-point scale (1–3 high strength, 4–6 medium strength, 7–9 low strength). Scoring and feedback by academic and community reviewers were then synthesized and ranked for review by the internal CTSI CE team.

The CE CTSI team met to consider the reviewers’ scores and discuss the responsiveness of the applications to the RFA. The average application score for the community-academic reviewer dyad ranged from 2.0 to 6.0. Overall, there was consistency between community and academic reviewers’ scores. Of the seven applications, the difference in scores was one point or less for four applications, two points for two applications, and five points for one application. Applications that were not responsive to the award notice including the potential activities of the RFA, allowable costs, or did not demonstrate collaborative involvement from the community partner were removed from consideration. The applications with reviewer dyad scores that differed by two points, or more were discussed by the CE CTSI team to reconcile the discrepancy. The CE CTSI team’s final recommendation, with justification for funding three racially and ethnically diverse partnerships, were submitted to the CTSI leaders, and received their approval (see Table 1). Table 1 describes the three funded partnerships.

Table 1. Funded partnerships

Learning collaborative

Partnerships were required to participate in a three-part learning collaborative, which was intended to support community partnership development, model best practices in community engagement, and to build a network of community engaged and participatory researchers at the institution. The learning collaborative was facilitated by the CE Program Co-Director, a BU faculty member with expertise in community engaged and participatory research approaches and a social work doctoral student. Overall, the learning collaborative was designed to provide time for processes including partnership development, identifying shared research interests, and collectively designing research.

Learning Collaborative content was informed by the literature as well as by data collected from partnerships. Data, specifically, was used to determine variation among participants in their familiarity and confidence with Community Engaged Research (CEnR). The learning collaborative focused on building a shared understanding among partnerships of the foundations of community-based participatory research [Reference Israel, Parker and Rowe5,Reference Israel, Lichtenstein and Lantz37], the spectrum of community engaged and participatory research approaches [38–Reference Schlechter, Del Fiol and Lam40], the stages of group development [38], shared decision-making practices, and research planning processes [Reference Becker, Israel and Allen41–Reference Wallerstein, Oetzel, Duran, Tafoya, Belone and Rae44].

Sessions were hosted on Zoom and each lasted 90 minutes. The sessions were interactive, and to facilitate partnership development they involved information sharing, team activities to explore concepts of power, communication, expectations, which influenced their overall team planning. Each session followed a similar format. The facilitators who both identified as Black women welcomed the three partnerships. reviewed session goals, conducted a group check in as well as a warm-up activity, and reviewed the group commitments. The remainder of each session involved full group learning and discussion, small group and pair activities, and application of the content through partnership team planning. During sessions participants were encouraged to discuss and grapple with the content, as well as to share examples from their own practice, recognizing the expertise that each member brought to the group. At the end of each session “plus/delta” was used to solicit what participants enjoyed about the session and to solicit changes for the following session. Between sessions, the facilitator shared reading and resources based on the questions and discussion that came up in during the session.

The primary goal of the first session was to develop a shared understanding among participants with respect to the foundations of community engaged and participatory approaches to research, the principles of CBPR, the spectrum of community engaged and participatory approaches, and the emergence of CEnR and participatory approaches in the context of health research in the United States. This session culminated with research teams reflecting on their goals and expectations as well as the strengths and assets they bring to the team as individuals and organizations.

Session two was focused on partnership development. Content covered during the session included positionality, the phases of group development and group decision-making models. During the warm-up, participants reflected in mixed team pairs on “…a time they had to make a decision as part of a group.” They were asked to describe in one word… “What it felt like? What was easy? What was hard?” They then shared themes that emerged during their pair share with the larger group. This was followed by a facilitated discussion on trust and the factors that facilitate trust building based on participant experience. A paired activity was then used to allow participants to shared different elements of their identity with one another. This allowed participants to explore deeper connections with one another and was followed by a large group discussion of position and specifically, how position influences how one thinks and behaves. Through this discussion participants reflected on their own experiences and positionality and hypothesized about how it might influence their partnership and work together. At this point the concept of struggle was introduced with a quote for the group to reflect on.

The group discussed struggle as necessary for growth and learning in the context of partnership as well as group development. The session culminated with teams working in breakout rooms to discuss the relationships within the partnership. This involved thinking about “how they would be together.” More specifically, “how they would work through differences of opinions, have difficult conversations and solve problems.”

The final session was focused on research plan development. The facilitators introduced a slide with a series of considerations related to the process of engagement or participation, community action outcomes, data ownership, and dissemination (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Partnership research planning.

Groups worked for 45 minutes on this individual research team planning in breakout rooms. At the end of the session, they came back to the larger group and discussed themes related to decision-making, power-sharing, community action and change, data sharing, and dissemination. Consensus best describes how teams were approaching decision-making, although it was not the term they used. They described their process as one of laying out the options, getting input from everyone on the team, laying out the pros and cons, and then moving forward in a direction that all members of the team could get behind. The session culminated with an overall reflection on the learning collaborative process using a plus/delta activity.

Evaluation

The CE Program administered pre-post-evaluation surveys to all three funded partnerships (five researchers and 8 community members), via an email survey link, to inform the development of the learning collaborative and evaluation of the Research Scholars Partnership Grant program. Surveys were distributed after the funding notice was received (pre) and after the final learning collaborative session (post). Data were recorded and managed in Redcap [Reference Harris, Taylor, Thielke, Payne, Gonzalez and Conde45] and then exported to Microsoft excel for analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated and open-ended items were analyzed thematically by question.

The three closed-ended survey questions, administered at baseline, were used to inform learning collaborative content.

• How familiar are you with the CBPR principles?

• How confident are you in engaging in CEnR?

• How familiar are you with the theoretical foundations of CEnR?

The response options ranged from 1 (low) to 5 (high). The mean responses to these survey items at baseline were 2.2, 2.7, and 2, respectively.

The three closed-ended survey questions administered post participation, were used to evaluate satisfaction of the learning collaboratives and to explore the impact of the learning collaborative in creating time for partnership development and collective planning.

• How satisfied were you with this learning collaborative?

• How effective were the facilitators in this learning collaborative?

• How relevant was the LC content for your research collaboration?

The response options ranged from 1 (low) to 5 (high). Participants noted a mean average of 4.8 in satisfaction, a 5 for effectiveness in how the learning collaboratives were facilitated, and a 4.8 stating how relevant the learning collaborative was to their research collaborative.

A fourth closed-ended question was administered post participation to evaluate for an increase in confidence in engaging in CEnR post participation of the learning collaboratives.

• After attending the LC, how confident are you in engaging in CEnR?

The response options ranged from 1 (low) to 5 (high). Over the course of the learning collaborative participants’ confidence in engaging in CEnR increased from a mean of 2.7 (scale 1–5) to 4.3.

At the end of the learning collaborative, participants completed a post survey regarding their experience participating in the learning collaborative. On a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high), mean scores were high for satisfaction, effectiveness in how the learning collaborative was facilitated, and relevance to participant research collaborations: 4.8, 5, and 4.8, respectively. Overall, researchers and community partners spoke highly about the learning collaborative and appreciated having the time to reflect and plan as teams. In some cases, partners indicated wanting more sessions together to plan with their team as well as continued co-learning with other teams.

Responses indicated researchers and community partners felt more confident.

Meanwhile, researchers shared reflections on the benefits of the paying attention to process and the importance of both connecting with partners and approaching relationship development with intention.