Our long term vision is that the first cohort of CE will transform into TIER’s Community Advisory Board. This board, which will serve as an important part of TIER infrastructure, will ensure that the voices, experiences, and concerns of community members are included in all levels of the research process, and that we are building evaluation capacity in the communities with which we work. We see academic-community partnerships as a co-learning process.[i] By partnering with community members, it is our hope that TIER’s research will contribute to program and policy solutions that authentically represent communities’ goals and aspirations.
Community Board members will:
Beginning in 2020, the CEs will also serve as a forum for researchers from Tufts Child Study and Human Development Department to present their ideas so that members may offer substantive feedback and recommendations to research teams across a multiple of disciplines.
Researchers can schedule a meet with Community Advisory Members to discuss:
· Development of proposals and study design
· Participant recruitment
· Participation of members in data collection and analysis
· “Troubleshoot” challenges in conducting community-based research
· Discuss Policy and Practice Implications
· Identifying partners
· Dissemination strategies
For more information on the TIER’s Community Advisory Board please contact: Melissa Colón at m.colon@tufts.edu.
The CBPR approach, which “equitably involves all partners in the research process…with the aim of combining knowledge and action for social change to improve community health and eliminate health disparities” (p.4),[1] has gained considerable traction in the past decade as an alternative paradigm to more traditional translational research modes[2] (see Table 1 for some key differences between the two). Grounded in participatory action research models,[3] CBPR emphasizes the importance of: 1) placing knowledge production in the hands of those most directly affected by the work;[4] 2) forming academic-community partnerships that are genuinely based in a commitment to co-learning; 3) building evaluation capacity in communities (training community members in research); and 4) proposing program and policy solutions that authentically represent communities’ goals and aspirations.[5]