Navigating the Tide Together: Early Collaboration between Tribal and Academic Partners in a CBPR Study

Abstract

Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) approaches stress the importance of building strong, cohesive collaborations between academic researchers and partnering communities; yet there is minimal research examining the actual quality of CBPR partnerships. The objective of the present paper is to describe and explore the quality of collaborative relationships across the first two years of the Healing of the Canoe project teams, comprised of researchers from the University of Washington and community partners from the Suquamish Tribe. Three quantitative/qualitative process measures were used to assess perceptions regarding collaborative processes and aspects of meeting effectiveness. Staff meetings were primarily viewed as cohesive, with clear agendas and shared communication. Collaborative processes were perceived as generally positive, with Tribal empowerment rated as especially important. Additionally, effective leadership and flexibility were highly rated while a need for a stronger community voice in decision-making was noted. Steady improvements were found in terms of trust between research teams, and both research teams reported a need for more intra-team project- and social-focused interaction. Overall, this data reveals a solid CBPR collaboration that is making effective strides in fostering a climate of respect, trust, and open communication between research partners.

Keywords: American Indian/Alaska Native; Community Based Participatory Research; Healing of the Canoe; Process Measures; Research Partnership(s); Tribal Participatory Research.

Figure 1. Individual Perceptions Scale: Means for Scale Items with the Largest Differences between Time-points

Scale Constructs included in Figure 1: #1: I feel comfortable in the group #2: I am satisfied with the group’s progress #3: I feel there is good communication and respect between community and university collaborators #4: I have felt comfortable participating in group meetings and discussions #5: I am viewed as a valued member of the group #6: I am satisfied with the frequency of group meetings #7: I feel like my opinions have an effect on group decision-making #8: I feel trusting of both community and research collaborators

Figure 2. Individual Perceptions Scale: Means Across Research Teams

Scale Constructs included in Figure 2: 1: I feel there is good communication and respect between community and university collaborators 2: I am viewed as a valued member of the group 3: I feel like my opinions have an effect on group decision-making 4: I am satisfied with the degree of community participation in the project 5: My viewpoint is heard 6: I am satisfied with the frequency of group meetings 7: I feel trusting of both community and research collaborators 8: I am satisfied about the degree of community impact on project processes

Figure 3. Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory: Comparison of Means between Time Periods

Scale Constructs included in Figure 3: 1= Mutual respect, understanding, and trust 6= Open and frequent communication 2= Members share a stake in both process and outcome 7= Concrete, attainable goals and objectives 3= Flexibility 8 = Shared vision 4= Adaptability 9 = Unique purpose 5= Appropriate pace of development 10 = Sufficient funds, staff, materials, and time

Figure 4. Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory: Means Across Research Teams

Scale Constructs included in Figure 4: 1 = Favorable political and social climate 2 = Members share a stake in both process and outcome 3 = Multiple layers of participation 4 = Appropriate pace of development 5 = Concrete, attainable goals and objectives 6 = Shared vision 7 = Unique purpose 8 = Sufficient funds, staff, materials and time