Search

This themed volume is grounded in a set of diverse case studies that bring community and university partners together using two aligned methodologies: community-based research (CBR), which evolved from higher education, and asset-based community development (ABCD), which evolved from community practice. The volume places these methodologies in dialogue with each other, to examine and begin to answer the question that guided the volume’s call for articles: can CBR and ABCD be compatible agents in equitable and sustainable change? From the case studies emerge five themes that we explore in this guest editorial: (1) the benefits of community-university partnerships; (2) the risks of community-university partnerships; (3) notions of community expertise and ‘community partner’; (4) the centrality of relationship-based methodologies in partner-building; and (5) explorations of power, equity and justice. The editorial opens and closes with discussion on the important systemic question of power imbalances between universities and communities, which has to be addressed for these methodologies to be effective, whether used on their own or in combination within community-university partnerships. It concludes with a discussion of the ‘deep, wide and connected’ community engagement that the articles as a whole suggest is necessary to have equitable and sustainable impact.

This thesis critically explores the peer-reviewed research article and its potential to contribute to lasting social and institutional transformation. This investigation is located within the global movement of collaborative and participatory community-university partnerships that has flourished over the past few decades. My focus is on the persistent absence of substantive contributions to the scholarly literature by diverse community-based experts. Addressing this matters deeply if social and institutional change is to be more than mere accommodation. The core research question of this thesis is to ask: how does the peer-reviewed research article enable or constrain full participation in the communication and dissemination of collaborative research? Posing the question in this way signals a particular conceptual and methodological stance. First, it is making an argument for epistemological diversity and cognitive justice, such as proposed by Boaventura de Sousa Santos. Second, it challenges the notion of the research article as immutable, neutral – that it just is. In order to interrogate the latter, and assert the former, I employ a social semiotic understanding of language use as being socially and historically situated. This framework underpins my analysis of co-authored articles and peer reviews from a journal in the field of community-based research, of which I am the Managing Editor. A significant, original contribution of this thesis is to empirically demonstrate the ways in which the rhetorical conventions of the Western scientific research article permeate co-authored manuscripts and the peer review process. Fine-grained text-based analysis also demonstrates the ways in which authors are innovating, resisting and adapting these genre conventions. In the final chapters, drawing on a collaborative museum exhibition methodology co-developed with Australian First Nations communities, I propose an alternative dialogue-based framework for a re-imagined research

BACKGROUND: Health visitors play an important role in supporting new parents in their transition to parenthood. A programme known as the Promotional Guide system is used by many health visitors in England with mothers and fathers to support this transition, but there is little known about health visitors' views of the Promotional Guides, how they are used in practice or barriers to effective implementation with fathers. AIMS: The aim of this study was to explore the following: (1) health visitors' use of Promotional Guides with fathers, (2) health visitors' assessment of father's mental health and wellbeing and (3) facilitators and barriers to using Promotional Guides in practice. METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study and a process evaluation informed by the Medical Research Council guidance were conducted. A purposive sample of 11 health visitors was interviewed, and an additional seven were observed using the Promotional Guides in practice. Data were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Five main themes were identified from interview and observational data as follows: (1) Enquiry into fathers' mental health, (2) Promotional Guides in practice, (3) health visitors' perceptions of the Promotional Guides system, (4) barriers to using Promotional Guides with fathers and (5) facilitators and recommendations for using Promotional Guides with fathers. This study identified a number of barriers and facilitators to the use of Promotional Guides with fathers. Recommendations were made for improving services for first-time fathers, implementing the Promotional Guide system with fathers and highlighting areas for future research. CONCLUSION: This study considered the acceptability, feasibility and fidelity of using the Promotional Guide programme with fathers from the health visitor's perspective. The findings provided an insight into health visitors' experiences of working with fathers, inquiring about men's mental health needs and their use of the Promoti

A recent update of Gateways’ website text prompted reflections by the Editorial Committee on what the journal has and hasn’t achieved and potential next steps. This Editorial is offered as a speculative musing on the metaphor of the ‘global research table’, which has helped frame our understanding of the contribution an academic journal may make to the field of community-based research. As with any metaphor, there is more than one interpretation, and the discussion highlights both the risks and imaginative potential of working towards institutional change, together.