Show Me the Money! A Critique of Inequitable Compensation Practices in Participatory Research

• In Event: How Participatory Are Our Participatory Approaches? A “Pop-Up” Community of Praxis

Abstract

Objectives or Purposes

Participatory research methods emphasize empowering communities to define research questions, implement studies, conduct analysis, and act on their findings (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995). Participatory research has conceptual appeal for promoting equity and effectiveness in research and policy studies. However, implementing participatory research can be challenging because research systems have not yet evolved to support communities as equal partners in research.

This paper presents a case study of a research team’s four-year effort to engage in participatory research methods around early childhood development. The author describes practices that support the institution-community research partnership, but identifies compensation as a source of cascading inequities within the partnership. The author describes the need for institutionally-affiliated researchers to be more transparent about compensation inequities, and for funders to structure more equitable partnerships.

Perspective(s) or Theoretical Framework

Power dependence theory offers a framework for understanding the problematic, imbalanced power dynamic that is common between institutionally-affiliated researchers and community researchers (Emerson, 1962). Power dependence theory describes that power is rooted in the control of resources; the actor who possesses resources can exert control over the behavior of the actor in want/need of those resources. This theory helps to explain why models of participatory research wherein community researchers rely upon institutionally-affiliated researchers for compensation creates an inherently imbalanced, flawed partnership. This theory further explains the critical role that funders can exert in promoting more equitable participatory research practices.

Methods, Techniques, or Modes of Inquiry/Data Sources, Evidence, Objects, or Materials

This case study used in-depth interviews with mothers and grandmothers involved in a participatory research team (n=8), institutionally-affiliated researchers (n=4), and staff from their funding institution (n=2). Transcripts were analyzed using a grounded theory approach.

Results and/or Substantiated Conclusions or Warrants for Arguments/Point of View

The research team (i.e. institutionally-affiliated researchers and community researchers) described several practices that promote their partnership, including support for bilingual communication, multiple channels for communication, accommodation of childcare and work needs, and an openness to pursuing community-derived and institution-derived research questions. The team pointed to several tangible “wins” that motivate their continued engagement in the partnership. However, the marked disparity in the compensation between institutional-affiliated researchers (who receive and control grant funds) and community researchers is a key source of cascading inequities in the partnership. In addition, efforts to compensate community-partners more robustly have to contend with income-tax implications. The paper describes the role of: 1) institutionally-affiliated researchers to be more transparent about and to denounce this inequity; and 2) funders in structuring funding for participatory research to compensate institutionally-affiliated and community researchers equitably.

Scientific or Scholarly Significance of the Study or Work

This paper advances the implementation of participatory research by shedding light on inequitable compensation practices that plague many institution-community research partnerships and identifying how institutionally-affiliated researchers can use their positionality and funders can use their power to develop more equitable research partnerships.

Authors

• Zoelene Hill, New York Academy of Medicine

• Berenice Medina