Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Apr 12;18(1):487.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5412-y.

Understanding community-based participatory research through a social movement framework: a case study of the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project

Marie-Claude Tremblay  1 , Debbie H Martin  2 , Alex M McComber  3   4 , Amelia McGregor  3 , Ann C Macaulay  4
Affiliations

Understanding community-based participatory research through a social movement framework: a case study of the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project

Marie-Claude Tremblay et al. BMC Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: A longstanding challenge of community-based participatory research (CBPR) has been to anchor evaluation and practice in a relevant theoretical framework of community change, which articulates specific and concrete evaluative benchmarks. Social movement theories provide a broad range of theoretical tools to understand and facilitate social change processes, such as those involved in CBPR. Social movement theories have the potential to provide a coherent representation of how mobilization and collective action is gradually developed and leads to systemic change in the context of CBPR. The current study builds on a social movement perspective to assess the processes and intermediate outcomes of a longstanding health promotion CBPR project with an Indigenous community, the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project (KDSPP).

Methods: This research uses a case study design layered on a movement-building evaluation framework, which allows progress to be tracked over time. Data collection strategies included document (scientific and organizational) review (n = 51) and talking circles with four important community stakeholder groups (n = 24).

Results: Findings provide an innovative and chronological perspective of the evolution of KSDPP as seen through a social movement lens, and identify intermediate outcomes associated with different dimensions of movement building achieved by the project over time (mobilization, leadership, vision and frames, alliance and partnerships, as well as advocacy and action strategies). It also points to areas of improvement for KSDPP in building its potential for action.

Conclusion: While this study's results are directly relevant and applicable to the local context of KSDPP, they also highlight useful lessons and conclusions for the planning and evaluation of other long-standing and sustainable CBPR initiatives. The conceptual framework provides meaningful benchmarks to track evidence of progress in the context of CBPR. Findings from the study offer new ways of thinking about the evaluation of CBPR projects and their progress by drawing on frameworks that guide other forms of collective action.

Keywords: Collective action; Community-based participatory research; Diabetes prevention; Health promotion; Indigenous health; Process evaluation; Program evaluation; Social movements.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

As with all KSDPP research projects, this project has been conducted in accordance with the KSDPP Code of Research Ethics (http://www.ksdpp.org/elder/code_ethics.php), which serves as a binding research agreement between the researcher and the community. Full ethical approval was obtained first from the Community Advisory Board of KSDPP and then from the McGill University ethics institutional review board (project A11-B52-14A). Participants in the talking circle provided individual written informed consent.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Green LW, George MA, Frankish DM, Herbert CJ, Bowie WR, O’Neill M. Recherche participative et promotion de la santé: Bilan et recommandations pour le développement de la recherche participative en promotion de la santé au Canada. Ottawa: Société royale du Canada; 1995.
    1. Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:173–202. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baum F, MacDougall C, Smith D. Glossary: participatory action research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(10):854–857. doi: 10.1136/jech.2004.028662. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cargo M, Mercer SL. The value and challenges of participatory research: strengthening its practice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29:325–350. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.091307.083824. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, Salsberg J, Bush PL, Henderson J, Sirett E, Wong G, Cargo M, Herbert CP, et al. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q. 2012;90(2):311–346. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00665.x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed