Are you a community-based partner on a research project?  (Past or present)

If so, I would love to hear from you! 

What:
  • Anonymous survey about researcher trustworthiness, for my dissertation research.
  • About 15-20 minutes, online (click the button to the right) or on paper/by phone.
  • Participation is completely voluntary, you can stop at any time.
 
Why: 
  • To learn more about what makes an academic researcher trustworthy from community partners’ perspectives, as well as which institutional barriers exist and might affect trustworthiness.
 



​Thank you:  
  • You may enter your name and phone number or email address to be eligible for a random drawing for one of 3  $50 Amazon gift codes at the end of the survey.
  • Your name and email and are not connected to your survey answers and will be kept confidential. 
  • You may take the survey without entering your contact information if you do not want to be included in the drawing.
 
Contact:
  • Please contact me if you have any questions about the study, or to take the survey on paper or by phone: westkate@uw.edu.
  • This study is approved by the University of Washington Institutional Review Board. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, you can call the University of Washington Human Subjects Division (206) 543-0098. 

My Conceptual Model Linking Trustworthiness to Health Benefit

I draw from Nancy Nyquist Potter's virtue and feminist ethics framework on trustworthiness, that argues for individuals within institutions to be responsive to the needs of those in positions of relative disadvantage, including shifting the structures within our institutions that prevent our doing so. My rationale is that to the extent that research can improve health in communities that have been either harmed by or left out of research, increasing the trustworthiness of our academic institutions will lead to an increase in community participation in research partnerships that matter to them. Greater community participation as both partners and participants, will lead to greater relevance and accuracy of data, then enhancing applicability of the research in both community and healthcare/policy settings. Actions deriving from these better study data can lead to improved health outcomes. 

Community-Campus Partnerships for Health Conference, May 2016

I presented some preliminary findings from the qualitative aim of my dissertation study in New Orleans on May 13, 2016. I hosted an interactive roundtable discussion focused on researcher trustworthiness. My handout is available below: 
Picture
Photo credit: Melissa Holmquist-DeNomie

Abstract:  A legacy of academic institutions causing harm to underrepresented communities has led to distrust of these institutions. Ethical community-academic partnerships can be a remedy and means to work toward health equity. Still, institutional structures often conflict with community needs, hindering participation. I draw from Potter’s feminist virtue ethics framework for trustworthiness in non research settings (2002) to engage members of partnerships in considering what it means to be a trustworthy researcher and institution. I argue that the role of white researchers is at least two-fold: to support the development of minority individuals be coming health leaders, and to dismantle systems of oppression within our institutions and their effects on our partnerships. I offer research-based examples of Potter’s ten key features of trustworthiness for consideration of specific steps we can take toward the goal of inclusive, trustworthy institutions.
​I gave an oral presentation, as part of the "Diversity and Dynamics in CBPR Partnerships and Coalitions" session. 
Photo credit: Suzanne Grieb

​“Our hands are tied:” Institutional barriers and creative remedies to foster researcher trustworthiness in community-based research partnerships.

Abstract: A history of research missteps has led to distrust of research institutions among many communities who experience health disparities. Building trust is widely acknowledged as central to developing the community-based research partnerships that may reduce health disparities. Building trust requires academic researchers to commit to being trustworthy with regard to their partners and participants. However, academic institutional structures and norms constrain researchers’ choices, and institutional reputations often accompany individuals when initiating community-based partnerships. Furthermore, researcher trustworthiness has not been characterized previously in the literature, and it is not always clear how to demonstrate trustworthiness in this setting. I present results from qualitative interviews with community- and academic-based members of health research partnerships. When faced with institutional structures conflicting with community interests and preferences, researchers have three basic options: they may choose to refuse to comply, to try to convince their community partners that the institutional requirements are worth following, or to negotiate with the institution to devise a creative solution to the conflict. I identify institutional barriers to trustworthiness and offer examples of each of these choices and how they facilitate researchers’ trustworthiness. Taking trustworthiness seriously as a researcher requires understanding and prioritizing community perspectives, and can strengthen community-based research partnerships working to improve community health and reduce health disparities.