How We Work Together is Just as Important as What We Produce in RPPs

A previous blog highlighted the key role research practice policy partnerships (RPPs) can play in facilitating evidence use to improve practice and inform policy-making. While RPPs have often had the goal of reducing inequalities or improving practice, particularly for populations that have been inequitably affected by societal structures and service delivery systems, less attention has been paid to correcting inequities in how the partnerships work together  (PDF).  This means taking a more critical look at the dynamics within the partnerships including how problems are conceptualized and studied; how individuals in the partnership interact; whose voice is heard and amplified at each stage of the partnership; how resources are distributed between partners; how data are shared, collected and used  (PDF); and outcomes such as who owns the data generated and how findings are interpreted. This is a particular focus for OPRE, as a federal research funder who is often facilitating the development of partnerships between researchers and programs to produce evidence that is relevant and useful to programs and policy. OPRE has emphasized  bi-directional learning and community-engagement in our work that focuses on mutual benefit and interest in research.  We find that these approaches reliably strengthen the rigor and relevance of the work. Neglecting to consider the process of conducting partnership-based evidence generation, or the “how” of partnering, may compromise the utility and use of the evidence.

Notably, each member of the partnership brings with them these individual and institutional histories and power asymmetries that factor into the nature of the partnership. Each partner in the partnership is embedded within organizations and community contexts that may make equitable sharing of resources and participation challenging. For example:

• The western tradition of research historically emphasized intellectual distance between researchers and those they are studying. When this approach is used, communities often report the research feels extractive and one-directional, where researchers come and take all of the information about the people and communities and give nothing back.
• The current incentive structure in academia may be misaligned in some situations with researchers in university settings who are motivated to gain publications while community partners focus more on whether there are practical findings that can make change for the populations they serve.
• In the evidence movement there has been a prioritization of academic knowledge over lived experience and practice-based expertise, often leading partners to feel undervalued and underappreciated. 
• Historically researchers are not trained to work with the individuals and organizations most effected by the findings. Researchers are not trained to understand the cultures of policy or provider organizations. Partners in RPPs often don’t understand the incentives and pressures facing researchers .
• Finally, there are historical harms of research that have created a foundation of mistrust in some communities such as the use of Henrietta Lacks’ DNA and Havasupai genetic research, which shines a light on individual and community-level concerns about participating in research.

To build more equitable partnerships, RPPs should intentionally and strategically address these contributing elements of their partnerships. Below we discuss each of these elements and discuss implications for the work in OPRE going forward.

Equitable partnerships require examining conventional relationships.

• To improve equity in the process of building equitable RPPs, researchers and partners need training and support on effective partnering. Researchers should gain training to understand historical inequities at the individual and institutional level that may affect partnership work and proactively develop strategies to mitigate existing power imbalances. Partners may benefit from training on how to advocate for their needs, understand the institutional expectations placed on researchers, and the individual or institutional inequities that may exist between providers and their service recipients.
• The field may want to interrogate the idea of an RPP being between the researcher and a practitioner or policymaker. Instead, partnerships may need to expand to expect the inclusion of communities or individuals with lived experience as primary partners.
• The Advancing Contextual Analysis and Methods for Participant Engagement Project (CAMPE) project is one example of OPRE’s efforts to continue ongoing trainings, incorporate time and space into our projects to build trust between partners, and facilitate explicit discussions about governance structures of the partnership to support equitable decision-making. CAMPE provides ongoing consultations for OPRE staff focused on topics such as equitable partnerships and created a Community Advisory Board to provide input on practices to support equitable decision-making on OPRE projects.
• In the Roadmap for Collaborative and Effective Evaluation with Tribal Communities, a call to action was offered to ACF to change the narrative on how federal evaluation and research was done with tribal communities.  The authors identified two action levers for changing the narrative of distrust and invasive evaluation through concrete ideas for relationship building and knowledge and skill-building. While this call to action was focused on ACF’s evaluation with tribal communities, the how’s of relationship building and knowledge and skill building are relevant to all research and evaluation that ACF conducts.

Equitable partnerships require examining how to support more equitable practices within the partnership — not only between the researcher and practice organization but also between front-line workers, families , and youth in the community.

• To do this, partnerships will need to:
  • Intentionally establish a shared understanding of what it means to have equity for participants.
  • Ensure time to build trusted relationships with more than just research or program leadership .
  • Examine how the team structure supports inclusion of multiple perspectives.
  • Ensure timeline and processes allow for co-design throughout the project. 
• One example, OPRE’s Race Equity for Fatherhood, Relationship, and Marriage Programs to Empower Black Families (REFRAME) project, prioritizes authentic dialogue and relationships with programs and communities. REFRAME works with an Expert Workgroup made up of a diverse group of researchers, practitioners, and individuals with lived experiences, to assure accountability, provide feedback, and inform project activities. Additionally, REFRAME held conversations with grant programs and community groups early in the project and dedicated time to discuss findings with them to ensure it was appropriately interpreted and presented.

Equitable partnerships require examining individual and institutional histories.

• Research has done harm and that needs to be understood and acknowledged before trusting partnerships can take shape and sustain.
• Participants are embedded in institutions that may bring their own context, history, and bias. For example, universities may have policies that push against equitably partnering or may have complex inequitable historical relationship with the community in which they reside (see here for one example). Practice organizations often have service provision as the primary mission, making the time for research a secondary activity which can push against equitable partnerships. Some practice partners bring their own historical inequities in their work with communities (see here for one example). 
• As one example, the Research Ethics Training for Health in Indigenous Communities (rETHICS) is a human subjects training curriculum that was designed specifically to address ongoing structural inequity and histories of unethical and harmful research.  For example, the rETHICS training goes beyond the protection of individuals in research to prioritize the protection of communities where research occurs. OPRE has used rETHICS in our Multi-Site Implementation Evaluation of MIECHV Home Visiting with AIAN Families (MUSE) project.

Equitable partnerships require examining how resources are shared within and between partnering institutions.

• Often research funding is issued to the researcher and the organization holding the funding holds the power , exacerbating power dynamics in the partnership. Funding often comes with inflexible timelines and budgetary processes and pressures that lead to devaluing community partners’ time and efforts . Partners often have many competing demands and limited resources and participating in research is a secondary focus.
• For OPRE’s REFRAME project, the study team conducted a Power Web Exercise using this tool to illuminate existing power dynamics that shape programs and research, so that they could intentionally rebalance power and promote inclusivity through the project’s work. This brief describes how the study team carried out this exercise in collaboration with members of their Expert Work Group.

Next Steps:

If equitable partnerships are needed to create more relevant evidence that is more likely to be used, we need to have an honest dialogue about factors such as implicit bias, systems or structures of power, and institutional barriers that stand in the way of equitable partnering. Exciting steps are being made towards that goal, including research interrogating the process of partnering and the outcomes of partnering .

We, as funders, can support the conditions for more equitable RPPs.

• There are resources to begin to critically examine our own practice (see recommendations here  (PDF) and here ).  For example, OPRE has highlighted and supported practices of actively engaging key audiences in the development of research agendas and the execution of projects.
• OPRE’s CAMPE project aims to assist OPRE in understanding, incorporating, and advancing equitable research practices, including strengthening more equitable participatory approaches to our work.
• Another example in the government is the recent funding opportunity at the National Institutes of Health with the Community Partnerships to Advance Science for Society (COMPASS ) initiative. This initiative provided the grant to the community partner to place the power in their hands in partnership with a researcher.
• Finally, the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), which has long supported engaged science, is now aiming to study  (PDF) what effective practices are for engaging a range of interested parties to ensure more equitable, effective partnerships.

Equitable RPPs will allow us to reduce the burden of evidence use on one individual, group, or organization while building knowledge and improving systems. As the field more deeply considers how we partner, we fully expect new ways of supporting equitable partnering to emerge. At OPRE we look forward to continuing to learn, evolve, and improve, in ways that help move the field towards active engagement and more equitable research practice policy partnerships.