Moving Beyond Performative Research Methods: Advancing Health Equity Through Transformative Community-Based Participatory Research Praxis

Abstract

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) promises equity but often falls short, reproducing power imbalances and tokenistic engagement. This perspective calls for a transformative CBPR praxis grounded in intersectionality, positionality, and critical consciousness. We critique superficial applications of CBPR and propose actionable commitments: community sovereignty, intersectional accountability, structural reflexivity, critical action priorities, epistemic justice, and institutional reform. By interrogating researcher privilege and systemic inequities, CBPR can move beyond symbolic inclusion toward authentic collaboration that centers community voice and authority. Transformative CBPR is essential for advancing health equity and resisting exploitative research practices.

Introduction

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has played a crucial role in advancing health equity and justice for marginalized populations. ¹ By fostering direct partnerships with communities, CBPR aims to empower those most affected by social determinants of health.^2,3 In a truly participatory approach, community members guide the direction, data gathering, and analysis of research efforts. ⁴ However, despite the theoretical promise of CBPR to cultivate agency and achieve desired outcomes, many initiatives fall short. Increasingly, CBPR has been criticized for devolving into merely community-based efforts rather than truly collaborative partnerships. ⁵ The rise of “health equity tourism,” where researchers temporarily engage in equity work without a genuine commitment to the communities involved, exacerbates this issue. ⁶ As such, this perspective critiques traditional CBPR approaches and discusses frameworks of intersectionality, positionality, and critical consciousness to address power imbalances in community engagement.^7–9

Unpacking Hierarchies and Researcher Privilege in CBPR

At its core, CBPR seeks equitable partnerships between researchers and communities; however, power imbalances often pervade these relationships. ¹⁰ Researchers’ privilege can shape decision-making processes in a manner detrimental to community interests.^11,12 The selection of research methodologies, often dictated by funding agendas, raises questions about who truly controls the research process. ¹³ Beyond methodological contexts, researchers’ privilege operates across multiple dimensions in collaborative spaces.^11–13 Association with academic institutions provides researchers with institutional legitimacy that often is not extended to community partners, thus shaping whose knowledge is valued. ¹² Researchers often control access to publication sources and authorship decisions, influencing the dissemination of community knowledge. Research timelines are often determined by academic demands or grant cycles rather than community readiness. This can often lead to resource disparities where access to funding, technology, or compensation exists at the discretion of the researchers’ timelines. These forms of privilege can position academic status as authority over community expertise and lived experience due to the nature of academic operating systems.

Within the research team, hierarchies further complicate matters; for example, the principal investigator may wield disproportionate influence over staff roles and community interactions, typically favoring individuals who reflect their own backgrounds over those of community members. ¹² These hierarchical structures reflect broader academic dynamics where researchers benefit from institutional protection such as tenure, legal support, or liability. Often, these institutions maintain control over intellectual property, data ownership, and publication rights, which can limit the sharing of community benefits and the prioritization of community needs. The demand for academic timeliness and priorities, often emphasizing publications and career advancement, may create tension with community goals and aspirations in the research collaboration. This perpetuation of privilege and hierarchy leads to an exploitation narrative, where diversity is superficially integrated into research agendas while minority perspectives remain marginalized. ¹¹ To address these inequities, researchers need to critically examine existing structural dynamics within CBPR partnerships, ensuring that those traditionally excluded from decision making are positioned at the center.^12,14

Intersectionality as a Critical Lens for Transformative CBPR

Intersectionality, as an analytical framework and critical praxis, examines how multiple systems of oppression (e.g., racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of marginalization) intersect and impact multiple identities.^8,15,16 Rooted in Black feminist theory, intersectionality reveals how power relations operate across multiple aspects of social categorization.^8,16 As a framework, intersectionality distinguishes between social locations, the positions within hierarchical power structures that shape access to resources, which can reflect broader power dynamics between groups that often shape structural inequity. ¹⁶ To effectively conduct transformative CBPR, researchers must understand the interconnectedness of social identities that influence individuals and communities. ¹² Intersectionality, coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, serves as a crucial framework for investigating how systems of oppression intersect to compound inequities faced by marginalized communities.^8,15 By integrating intersectionality into research practices, scholars can better examine power dynamics and identify how existing frameworks may undermine the voices of those at the intersections of marginalization. ¹⁶ Intersectionality requires a sustained commitment to transparency and accountability throughout the research process, challenging narratives that obscure systemic injustices and power dynamics. ¹⁷ Researchers must educate themselves on complex identity factors that could influence research outcomes, ensuring that all phases of CBPR, from priority setting to results dissemination, are reflective of community needs and experiences. ¹⁸

Intersectionality also applies to scholars who are part of marginalized communities themselves and may share similar experiences with the participants they engage with in their research processes. For these scholars, intersectional analysis reveals how their social position exists at the intersection of being within and outside academic power structures. ¹² These scholars navigate dynamics where their marginalized identities align with community experiences while their academic position confers privilege. This includes experiences of tokenization, the extraction of cultural knowledge by institutions, and unspoken expectations to represent entire communities. However, their positioning also enables them to center marginalized epistemologies and leverage institutional power and resources for the benefit of the community. To ensure that this is done ethically, it is essential to acknowledge and negotiate power asymmetries with community members explicitly.

Positionality as Praxis: Naming Power in CBPR Partnerships

Positionality requires that researchers acknowledge and identify their own position within power dynamics when collaborating with the community. Rather than simply disclosing identities, positionality requires that we explicitly examine how our identities may benefit from institutional privileges and power. Thus, it allows for a clear evaluation of the way power operates throughout the research process, how institutional affiliations shape dynamics in collaborations, and how CBPR partnerships are shaped. In examining CBPR, positionality reflects the need for researchers to unpack their identities and the power dynamics that accompany them. Through a critical race theory lens, positionality enables us to examine power relations at every stage of the research process. As such, researchers can assess how elements such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status may privilege some individuals over others in academia.^19,20 The goal of this is not to create neutrality or suggest that shared identities eliminate power asymmetries, but to explicitly outline how structural conditions shape whose knowledge is valued, which voices are centered, and who truly benefits from the research collaboration. Continuously evaluating positionality not only reinforces ethical research practices but also ensures that researchers remain accountable and equitable in their decision making. ¹⁷ Such reflective practices are essential for ensuring that the research process aligns with community priorities and leverages community knowledge to address inequities effectively.

Beyond Reflection: Operationalizing Critical Consciousness in CBPR

Critical consciousness encompasses the awareness and understanding of systemic inequalities and how they shape experiences, particularly in marginalized communities. ¹⁵ Within the context of CBPR, this concept encourages researchers to take responsibility for their roles in perpetuating oppression and to engage in meaningful discourse with community members about research intentions and methodologies. ⁹ Researchers from outside institutions should develop a critical evaluation of their epistemic orientation through which they can identify and recognize how their positionality within academic systems may contribute to the perpetuation of oppression. ²¹ Within this context, researchers can foster genuine dialogue and relationships with community members, affirming that community knowledge is valid and necessary for addressing existing inequities. Critical consciousness transcends theoretical discussions by demanding that researchers engage in collective action that informs and empowers communities. ⁵ Additionally, it underscores the importance of interrogating institutional research norms that may obscure community needs or reinforce existing inequities, such as the traditional peer-review process or funding mechanisms. ¹⁸ For community members, critical consciousness supports the development of collective power to challenge existing systems contributing to inequities, which provides them the ability to set forth their research priorities and control the knowledge produced locally. Enabling critical consciousness allows researchers to challenge their existing assumptions and enable communities to assert epistemic authority in research collaborations, which is fundamental to a transformative CBPR praxis. ²¹

Considerations for a Transformative CBPR Praxis

Moving toward a transformative CBPR praxis requires an equitable, transparent, and grounded commitment to the following areas:

1. 1.

Community Sovereignty: Community sovereignty in CBPR extends beyond inclusion of the community; it requires that community authority over research is established. This means that community members have decision-making power in determining the research questions, data collection, methodologies, and dissemination strategies. Sovereignty includes the recognition of the community’s right to define what research can occur locally, who can conduct it, and how the data are utilized.^22,23 This involves codesigning agreements that specify what authority the community and researchers have within the local community. Furthermore, community sovereignty means that communities can withdraw their consent at any time, address harms being done, and determine the extent to which researchers have access to community knowledge and spaces.

2.

Intersectional Accountability: Establishing systems and procedures through which community members can hold researchers accountable for any harm done during research processes. ²⁴ This can be done through community advisory boards that outline agreements with specific consequences for misconduct. Regular accountability sessions allow community partners to voice their concerns over the collaboration or highlight areas of improvement. When harm does occur, researchers should engage in remediation that centers community-refined repair priorities, especially when misrepresentation, unethical knowledge extractions, or violations of trust directly impact community members.

3.

Structural Reflexivity: Reflexivity requires us to examine how structural conditions continue to produce inequity within research partnerships with communities. This calls for evaluating how institutional policies, funding mechanisms, and academic norms shape perceptions of marginalized communities and the power dynamics that may become present. ⁴ This also requires us to examine who receives recognition for the research conducted, who is compensated, and who is granted authorship over the dissemination of the research. ²¹ We must ensure that there are equitable compensation structures and that community partners and members have appropriate authorship over project data. We must also recognize the emotional labor that is inherent in research projects and provide sufficient institutional support for community participation in conferences.

4.

Critical Action Priorities: CBPR should prioritize action and transformation of communities beyond knowledge production.^11,12 There is a need to center research priorities, questions, and methodologies that emerge from community needs, which can support community-driven/-led changes. Research outcomes must translate into improvements within the local community through infrastructure changes, policy implementation, and community visibility within decision-making contexts. This involves aligning research timelines with community-determined timelines and utilizing methodologies that can build community capacity and inform strategy for change. Research must make data accessible (e.g., policy briefs, community town halls, community reports, or organizing tools) alongside academic publications and ensure that sufficient funding is allocated to community initiatives.

5.

Epistemic Justice: Epistemic justice entails recognizing and countering the devaluation of knowledge from marginalized communities in favor of knowledge produced by academic institutions.^22,23 This means validating community-lived experiences, experiential knowledge, and cultural ways of knowledge as legitimate for understanding community realities. To ensure this can be achieved, we must compensate community members for their intellectual labor, invest in community research infrastructure, and cite community knowledge with the same rigor we hold for academic sources. Epistemic justice challenges hierarchies that position researchers as authorities and communities as merely subjects or participants.

6.

Institutional Challenging: CBPR requires us to confront and advocate for revisions to institutional policies that obstruct the advancement of transformative efforts.^2,5,20 This includes challenging promotion systems that devalue community participatory and engaged scholarship, intellectual property policies that prevent community ownership, and funding mechanisms that often channel resources through universities rather than providing a direct pathway to the community. Researchers must actively advocate for institutional policy changes and build coalitions for institutional reform that constrain authentic community partnerships. Institutional change is necessary to engage in a transformative CBPR praxis.

Conclusion

CBPR has the potential to be a powerful tool for addressing health equity by centering community voices in the research process. Yet, power dynamics often create barriers that hinder true collaboration, leading to superficial engagement rather than genuine partnerships. ⁵ To rectify these issues, it is imperative to integrate frameworks of intersectionality, positionality, and critical consciousness into the fabric of CBPR. By compelling researchers to reflect on their roles and interrogate systemic inequities, we can work toward a more just and equitable approach to health equity research that honors and uplifts the communities involved. ²⁵ Active confrontation of epistemological injustice is vital; valid community knowledge must be recognized as central to the research landscape. As we move toward a transformative CBPR praxis, we must challenge the status quo and embed community empowerment in every stage of the research process.

Authors’ Contributions

J.C.R.M.: Conceptualization, formal analysis, and writing—original draft preparation. B.H.-A.: Supervision, formal analysis, and writing—reviewing and editing. A.R.R.R.: Formal analysis and writing—reviewing and editing.