Recognition and ethical research practices: The role of community specialists

Gaps in Institutional Requirements and Structures

The importance and ethical responsibility of executing research that has social value or “broader impact” is not new. Since the 1970s, most scholars conducting research with human subjects have been prompted by their institutions to consider how the risks are justified by the “good” outcomes (Browne and Peek 2014). The importance placed on the social value of research is manifested on other fronts as well. For example, to be a competitive applicant for research funding through various agencies, such as those funded through the National Science Foundation, proposals must make a convincing case for the practical impacts of the research. Additionally, universities are being encouraged to expand their service missions in ways that draw lessons from land-grant institutions and their extension offices in order to better address modern environmental challenges (e.g. climate change) (Kopp 2021). Despite encouragement to pursue work that is beneficial to communities being studied, current institutional requirements and structures rarely prioritize recognition in the ways needed for ethical long-term disaster research.

In addition to weighing the benefits and practical utility of research projects, disaster researchers must also consider the potential long-term harms and broader injustices, a consideration ignored in institutional requirements. While IRBs prompt researchers to consider immediate harms that research participants may face, reflection on broader community-wide and long-term implications of the proposed work is notably missing. Discussions regarding the capability of IRBs to provide necessary oversight for ethical post-disaster research have been present for decades and are ongoing (Kendra and Gregory 2019). However, scholars increasingly agree that standard IRB processes and ethics review committees are currently inadequate to guide and promote the ongoing, reflexive, and community-driven ethics processes that are needed in long-term disaster research settings (Ferreira, Buttell, and Cannon 2018; Mena and Hilhorst 2021; Packenham et al. 2017; Peek et al. 2021). While disagreement remains about how IRBs should be structured to address disaster contexts, this literature suggests strategies that can address recognition challenges through increased reflexivity and community collaboration.

Other institutional barriers to conducting ethical long-term disaster research that prioritizes recognition include rigid funding mechanisms for researchers. For example, using a reflexive research diary, Mosurska (2021) details how funder guidelines prevented her from being able to use project funding to hire locally based researchers, limiting her ability to pursue a collaborative research process. Mosurska (2021) also reflects on how short graduate program timelines discourage research practices that lead to ethical methodological decisions because of the prolonged timelines associated with those activities. For example, learning about the community context and building trust to work directly with community stakeholders. Pressure to complete and publish research quickly is also present for early career faculty seeking promotion or tenure (Nyden 2003). These structural barriers ultimately deprioritize long-term research practices that can enhance the recognition of communities.

Gaps in Ethical Toolkits and Frameworks

In one of the first comprehensive considerations of ethics in long-term disaster research, Browne and Peek (2014) define ethical dilemmas as “situations that raise moral or ethical concerns where there is no obvious, clear-cut resolution” (Browne and Peek 2014, 84). The authors provide a flexible “ethical toolkit” consisting of seven co-existing moral considerations (Ross 1930) to help navigate the uncharted ethical dilemmas that researchers may confront across the disaster lifecycle. The toolkit is intended as a guide for decisions concerning right and wrong actions, acknowledging the complexity of human relations (Browne and Peek 2014). Reflexive approaches to ethics for disaster research are advocated by others as well (Edwards 2021; Ferreira, Buttell, and Cannon 2018; Mena and Hilhorst 2021; Mosurska 2021; Packenham et al. 2017; Pardee et al. 2018; Roxburgh et al. 2021). However, to effectively navigate ethical dilemmas using Brown and Peek's (2014) ethical toolkit or other reflexive ethical approaches, researchers need to prioritize recognition. For example, to make methodological decisions that “do no harm” to a research community, researchers must first acknowledge and respect different experiences, needs, values, priorities, identities, and other forms of difference within the community. The same idea applies to providing “the greatest benefit” through research.

One strategy to begin to address these recognition challenges is by employing Wu et al. (2021) four-step cultural competence framework designed to promote ethical disaster research (see also the training module based on this framework available through the Natural Hazards Center CONVERGE program; Peek et al. 2020b). The framework details how to move from cultural awareness to cultural knowledge, to cultural sensitivity, and finally to cultural awareness. Each step requires deeper levels of local knowledge and partnerships, and ongoing reflexivity about the research and community context. The concept of recognition complements this framework by providing clearer direction on the dimensions of culture and experience that researchers can focus on for ethical decision-making.

Gaps in long-term disaster research design guidance

One way scholars have sought to reduce the likelihood of negatively impacting research communities in post-disaster settings is by using research methods that prioritize the protection of people and places being studied (Van Brown 2020). This intentional decision-making has been proposed by scholars seeking to address problematic research practices documented in the post-disaster context. Van Brown (2020) underscores that ethics should be given equal, if not greater consideration than research methods in the research design process, a concept she labels “methics.” However, her interviews with social science disaster researchers reveal disagreements in how to approach “methics” challenges in disaster settings, suggesting the need for increased guidance in this area.

Similarly, Louis-Charles et al. (2020) advocate for a justice approach to post-disaster fieldwork in the Caribbean to promote fair outcomes for disaster survivors. The authors highlight the importance of engaging local partners, scholars, and institutions to enhance the practical value and accessibility of research led by outsiders (Louis-Charles et al. 2020). Specifically, they argue that local researchers who serve as team members can leverage their community and cultural knowledge to improve research participation and enhance the likelihood of having representative data (Louis-Charles et al. 2020). Others also point to the benefits of including researchers who have been affected by the disaster and emphasize the ability of these researchers to contribute to diverse knowledge pathways grounded in the experiences, feelings, and emotions of disaster-impacted communities (Barber and Haney 2016; Hakkim 2022; Marlowe et al. 2015).

Rohlman et al. (2022) also propose a community-based approach to disaster research, characterized by the coordination between researchers and community members to implement research processes that are sensitive to community needs. While they suggest practices that can facilitate recognition, such as the inclusion of community voices and knowledge into research practices, they do not provide concrete guidance for engaging communities. Similarly, Hakkim (2022) presents a community-guide-assisted framework, which entails the voluntary participation of community members across the research project to support ethical practices. They highlight how community guides enable meaningful engagements with research participants through their ability to provide insider perspectives and cultural immersion, help contextualize research and findings, and serve as a check-and-balance in maintaining ethical practices. Hakkim's (2022) community-guide concept is closely related to the concept of Community Specialists presented in this paper; however, the key difference is Community Specialists’ formal status as researchers and their emphasis on recognition.

Despite growing calls for more engagement of local researchers and community partners in post-disaster research (Barber and Haney 2016; Ferreira, Buttell, and Cannon 2018; Gaillard 2019; Gaillard and Peek 2019; Hakkim 2022; Louis-Charles et al. 2020; Peek et al. 2020a; Rohlman et al. 2022; Roxburgh et al. 2021; Wallerstein et al. 2019; Wu et al. 2022), there is often limited guidance regarding what these partnerships can look like and how they can be implemented practically. Moreover, limited work to date evaluates how these partnerships with local researchers influence the outcomes of long-term disaster research or offers advice on addressing potential challenges and tensions that may arise. We argue for recognition of the community as the seminal activity research teams can undertake throughout the research process to ensure long-term disaster research practices are ethical and meet the standards for environmental justice. In this work, we showcase how Community Specialists can promote that recognition across the research process.

Phase overview

Five Community Specialists were hired between December 2018 and March 2019 and worked on Project BRIDGE on an ongoing basis through 2021. The position was posted on the University job board and advertised through the local university in Robeson County, state and local disaster networks, and personal referrals from members of the community advisory board (Bray et al. 2023). For this position, the lead faculty on the project was seeking long-term residents of Robeson County, NC, who reflected the community's diversity and possessed a deep knowledge of the local context. Required qualifications for the position included a high school education, strong inter-personal and communication skills, and the ability to embrace diversity and difference. Essential job responsibilities included recruiting participants, conducting interviews, compiling and managing video/audio footage, and participating in team training and organizational meetings. Applicants were interviewed in-person in Robeson County by 1 to 2 of the university researchers. Per university requirements, 2 to 3 references for each candidate were contacted before extending the job offer. Community Specialists’ ages ranged from early 20s to mid-50s. Racial and ethnic identities of the Community Specialists included members of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, Black, White, Latina, and Asian American.

The Community Specialists were hired as temporary part-time employees (paid $18–$20/hour) of the land-grant university where the project was based and funded from three separate grants acquired over four years. The number of hours per week Community Specialists worked varied throughout the project (0–25 h/week) and depended on the project phase and availability of the Community Specialist. At no point was the position able to serve as a regular or full-time source of income. This was communicated to applicants to make expectations about income and available hours clear. Additionally, throughout the lifespan of Project BRIDGE, Community Specialists were informed of funding constraints, moments when funding was expected to end, and efforts that the university research team was making to acquire additional funding to support their roles. To support the employment of Community Specialists, the project managers accommodated other personal (e.g. family and activism), educational (e.g. school and training), and professional (e.g. other jobs) commitments of the Community Specialists. This indicated commitment to the Community Specialists while allowing for synergies and the negotiation of any potential conflicts of interest.

As part of their participation on the Project BRIDGE team, Community Specialists were required to complete the training required by the university's IRB to be included in the protocol as project personnel. This included training through the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative Program on human subjects protection. Community Specialists were paid to complete the training.

Collaborative reflection

One of the baseline ingredients to nurture recognition in the research design was the decision to create the Community Specialist role. In the context of Project BRIDGE, Community Specialists were hired as members of the research team who were able to contribute to all components of project design and implementation while drawing on their position as community members with local knowledge. This position was ongoing and lasted multiple years in contrast to more short-term or one-off engagements (e.g. advisory boards). This created ongoing opportunities for Community Specialists to contribute to recognition at critical decision-making junctures in the project as well as during routine project tasks.

An important foundation to this role was nurturing a work environment that valued Community Specialists’ experience and expertise as equal to that of faculty and graduate student team members. All hourly team members (Community Specialists and graduate research assistants) received the same pay rate and opportunities to determine their contribution to Project BRIDGE. Additionally, the team valued and encouraged perspective pluralism to promote creative tension that can yield diverse project benefits (London et al. 2018). For example, academia tends to only recognize knowledge in written form, while devaluing oral traditions. Although some Community Specialists had experience reading and writing in formal academic styles, others communicated more comfortably through the spoken word. To ensure perspectives were not excluded due to differences in communication style, we provided opportunities for Community Specialists to contribute through multiple modes of communication (e.g. written and oral). Further, we made a point to emphasize how Community Specialists’ experiential knowledge gained outside of academia contributed valuable skills and insights to the project. For instance, drawing on Community Specialists’ experiences in community organizing and customer service to develop interview questions and strategies.

Together, these factors helped reduce implicit organizational hierarchies and create an environment in which Community Specialists felt comfortable to contribute freely and openly. During meetings and other project events, Community Specialists frequently voiced their ideas on how project procedures could be improved, for example, by trying out new recruiting methods. Community Specialists also confided in university researchers on the occasions they felt unable to fully participate because others dominated the conversation. This prompted the team to revisit our facilitation methods and structure events more intentionally to promote greater inclusion.

While all five Community Specialists were employed for the funded duration of the project, multiple Community Specialists moved on to new opportunities and reduced their engagement in Project BRIDGE as a result, especially as the conclusion of the project neared and less work was available. Despite this, all Community Specialists continued to express their commitment to the project, responding to project emails and contributing as their schedules allowed. For example, one Community Specialist provided project support during one of her law school term breaks. Faculty and graduate student team members encouraged Community Specialists to communicate how they could support their personal growth and well-being. For example, two Community Specialists made the decision to pursue postgraduate programs while working on Project BRIDGE. Another was in the process of seeking and applying for a more permanent position. The university research team supported Community Specialists in various ways such as by providing graduate school advice, serving as professional references, creating flexible work arrangements that enabled their continued participation, and attending academic presentations led by Community Specialists. While the Community Specialists’ pursuits meant they engaged less frequently with Project BRIDGE, supporting Community Specialists in these ways enhanced their capacity to serve the mission of Project BRIDGE which centered on resilience in Robeson County.

Phase overview

Prior to engaging in field research, Community Specialists participated in a Project BRIDGE three-day cross-training from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. each day. Community Specialists were compensated for their time. The full training workbook, including the cross-training agenda, is available through DesignSafe-CI (Bray et al. 2023). The cross-training had several objectives including (1) introducing the team to Project BRIDGE and its broader research objectives; (2) introducing the full team to one another; (3) providing a platform for project team members to share their knowledge, expertise, and interest; and (4) practicing the interviewing and the soil sampling protocols.

The first day of the cross-training was geared toward establishing rapport and communicating project goals, “big picture” ideas associated with Project BRIDGE, and the main research questions included in the original research proposal. Additionally, several relevant key terms and concepts associated with the project were defined and discussed among the research team. These key terms included “hazards,” “disaster,” “social vulnerability,” “resilience,” and “resilient community.” This step in the training was important for the research team, who all had different backgrounds and experiences, to begin their partnership with a common understanding of relevant concepts from the proposed research objectives. These discussions created an opportunity for these goals, big picture ideas, research questions, and concepts to be deliberated and refined based on the community context. Also on the first day, three Community Specialists led sessions about topics they were knowledgeable about. One Community Specialist used her 25 years of experience at the community's rape counseling center to lead a session on practices for talking to trauma survivors. Two others co-led a session focusing on the community and historical context of Robeson County, drawing on their knowledge as community insiders and experiences with oral histories.

The second day centered on learning about the skills necessary for implementing the various research tasks (i.e. qualitative interviewing and soil sampling). Most sessions were led by university researchers, except for the session on Establishing Rapport, which was led by a Community Specialist drawing on his skills in customer service. The final activity for the second day involved a field trip to practice the soil sampling protocol (Bray et al. 2023). Community Specialists who had participated in pilot testing sessions of the soil sampling protocol shared their experiences with the full team at this point in the training.

The final session for the three-day Project BRIDGE training involved conducting pilot interviews with research participants. Following the pilot interviews, the research team reconvened to reflect, provide feedback, and amend the interview protocol where necessary. The final training task completed following the cross-training was for Community Specialists to interview one another. Because Community Specialists were also community members who had lived through both Hurricane Matthew (2016) and Florence (2018), this activity not only gave Community Specialists an opportunity to practice conducting interviews, but also allowed them to share their stories, experiences, and visions for the community. With the consent of the Community Specialists, their interviews were included as project data.

Collaborative reflection

The cross-training was an important foundation to develop a collaborative and inclusive partnership with Community Specialists that made recognition possible. If Community Specialists did not feel comfortable openly discussing what they knew about their community or if they felt they would not be listened to, recognition may not have happened throughout the course of the project. The cross-training initiated a long-term partnership between the faculty, graduate students, and Community Specialists. This early engagement also gave Community Specialists a voice in the objectives and design of Project BRIDGE. During the cross-training, Community Specialists observed that their perspectives were valued and that the faculty and graduate students would be receptive to those perspectives. This was done through engaged listening of Community Specialist cross-training sessions, validating Community Specialist concerns by integrating their feedback into project design and process, and incorporating Community Specialist experiences (documented through their practice interviews) as project data.

By the final day of the cross-training, the group was noticeably more comfortable with one another. Conversations were more informal during breaks, discussions were more candid and personal during training, team members were laughing together, and some were making plans to get together in work and non-work capacities. This level of comfort helped facilitate the final sessions of the cross-training, which were centered on practicing the skills learned over the previous two days.

Beyond nurturing an environment conducive to recognition, the cross-training also enabled recognition. Most directly, this was done through presentations and discussions led by Community Specialists. Additionally, through formal sessions and informal interactions during the three-day training, the faculty and graduate students learned from Community Specialists about the community context and history, local relations, and post-disaster experiences and concerns. It was through the cross-training that recognition began to manifest in the project and project design.

Phase overview

Community Specialists were the primary team members responsible for recruiting Project BRIDGE participants for both interviews and soil sampling. They relied on their personal and professional networks to identify community members who would be interested in participating. Once identified, the Project BRIDGE team, through weekly team meetings, discussed who was best suited to reach out to the identified community member, often based on who had the closest personal connection or pre-established rapport with that individual. Diverse methods were used to reach out to community members, typically dependent on how the Community Specialist believed they would be most successful. For example, if the Community Specialist lived near or worked with a potential participant, they might have used an in-person recruiting strategy. Alternatively, they may have reached out via social media or email if they had less direct contact with that individual. If the potential participant was known to be less active or accessible through web-based platforms, the Community Specialist might have reached out with a phone call.

Recruitment efforts were documented using a shared online spreadsheet that was accessible to the full Project BRIDGE team. Here, Community Specialists would list their ideas for people who may be interested in participating in Project BRIDGE and the Community Specialist responsible for recruitment. Recruitment status and other pertinent information related to the participation of the community member were also documented on the spreadsheet. This was important for ensuring that community members were not overburdened with research requests and that their questions were being addressed. At various points throughout the recruitment process, the spreadsheets were referenced during team meetings to assess the representativeness of the sample. Specifically, the faculty and graduate students relied on the Community Specialists to highlight what groups may be underrepresented in the sample and how the team could better reach those populations.

Collaborative reflection

Because they were embedded within the community, the Community Specialists were best positioned to help the team recognize the community, and in turn, assess how well the emerging sample represented diverse experiences and perspectives in Robeson County. Through weekly phone calls, the diversity of the emerging samples for project components was often a point of discussion. Community Specialists drew on summarized demographic data and their knowledge as researchers who were co-generating data with research participants to evaluate ongoing efforts and brainstorm paths forward toward a more inclusive sample.

When assessing the participant sample for the soil sampling component of Project BRIDGE for example, Community Specialists drew on their local knowledge of flooding impacts to identify specific neighborhoods that experienced flooding that were not being recognized in the project sample at that time. Once these communities were identified, the Community Specialists identified individuals who could be recruited from those neighborhoods and ways that recruitment could be respectfully implemented.

Community Specialists also helped to determine appropriate recruitment strategies. While there were recruitment scripts for each component of Project BRIDGE, the strategy was flexible, and determined based on the Community Specialists' recognition of the community members’ circumstances and needs. This allowed Community Specialists to cater to the request in a way that minimized the burden on community members and potential research participants. Additionally, because of Community Specialists’ pre-established connections to certain populations, we were able to recruit individuals who may have been less accessible to the university researchers on their own. For example, one Community Specialist facilitated participation from members of the Latinx/Hispanic community in the county, who had explicit requests by community members to work with that Community Specialist. Similarly, Community Specialists helped us mitigate recruitment issues by suggesting that they make recruitment phone calls with their own personal phone numbers. It was pointed out that community members would assume the telephone calls from the team were telemarketing calls and reject the call if they were not coming from a recognizable phone number or area code. We know that without the direct engagement of these Community Specialists, the participation of different subsets of the community would have been limited, and thus our recognition limited.

Phase overview

Community Specialists were engaged in all data collection components of Project BRIDGE to varying degrees. For the soil sampling component, one Community Specialist would typically be paired with a graduate student team member to visit the residential properties of participants. The soil sampling component involved short-form interviews about risk perception and a participatory soil sampling protocol (Bray et al. 2023). Depending on how the Community Specialist knew the participant, they would take the lead on data collection or play a supporting role to the graduate student team member. The decision centered on what would be more comfortable for the participant. The data collection process was highly social and interactive.

For the interviewing component, two Community Specialists were responsible for conducting each interview session. Depending on the preferences of the Community Specialists, typically determined by the comfort with technology and pre-established rapport with the interviewee, one Community Specialist would operate the audio and video recording equipment and the other would act as lead interviewer. While each Community Specialist had an assigned role in each session, there was flexibility in the process.

The Community Specialists’ role during the three documentary focus groups (FGs) was unique in that they had the opportunity to simultaneously participate as community members and research team members. All Community Specialists were invited to attend the FGs if their schedule allowed. Four Community Specialists attended FG1, none attended FG2, and three attended FG3. While the faculty and graduate student team members moderated the discussion revolving around the completed community documentary, Community Specialists contributed to the discussion from the perspective of research team members and responded to FGs prompts as community members.

Collaborative reflection

For most of the data collection interactions with community members, at least one Community Specialist was present, meaning the interaction began with some degree of common ground and, in many cases, pre-established rapport based on personal relationships. Community Specialists were also able to build rapport through shared experiences and connections in a way that likely helped respondents feel more comfortable and facilitated more nuanced and candid discussions. For example, Community Specialists would often engage with research participants in informal discussions about their lives and community-related issues. As a result, interviews (during the soil and interview components) frequently generated rich experiential descriptions through the back-and-forth discussions between the Community Specialist and the research participant. Through this, we learned more about community experiences, and thus our team recognized the community more fully.

This was not always the case, however, and there were several data collection interactions where the project team had no previous connection with the research participant. While not necessarily problematic, issues arose that influenced participation rates and data quality. In these cases, the Community Specialists helped our team understand and contextualize the outcomes. For example, some pairings of project personnel were poorly received within the community, resulting in lower-than-expected recruiting during the soil sampling. Community Specialists explained how community violence discourse likely contributed to this outcome. Specifically, some community members may have perceived the two male team members, one presenting as White and one as Black, as intimidating, making them reluctant to engage with the project. Community Specialists’ insight helped the project team recognize the local context, which helped the team contextualize data collection shortcomings and adjust the project protocol.

Community Specialists’ local knowledge also helped guide research-related discussions in nuanced directions that addressed local experiences. For example, during the soil sampling component of Project BRIDGE, research participants would discuss their environmental health concerns. Because Community Specialists were living and working in this same environment, they were often able to engage with participants in more meaningful ways that prompted more detail from those discussions. For the interview component of Project BRIDGE, which always involved two Community Specialists (i.e. one who led the interviewing and one who was responsible for the technology), the Community Specialist responsible for the technology component was encouraged to ask follow-up questions. This was provided an “on-the-spot” alternative perspective that enhanced the depth and quality of the interview data. For the FG component, Community Specialists responded to FG prompts and participant discussions, often reflecting on their knowledge of project data gained through the soil sampling and interviewing components of the project. Here, Community Specialists functioned to integrate local perspectives and experiences into conversations associated with community planning while also contributing as individuals who live in the community.

Finally, through the Community Specialists, the project team came to recognize community experiences related to past research activities in which researchers came and left without any personal or community communication or benefit. This signaled to the research team that the community, especially those who are most disadvantaged, may be skeptical of researchers or unwilling to engage in research.

Phase overview

Community Specialists contributed to the data analysis for the soil sampling protocol and documentary interview components of Project BRIDGE. The Community Specialists were not explicitly trained in data analysis techniques (e.g. coding using NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis software; soil analysis), however, processes were designed so that Community Specialists could participate meaningfully in the analysis stages of the research.

The soil sampling protocol component of Project BRIDGE yielded soil and interview data. For the soil data, the graduate student team members involved in the lab analysis described the soil analysis process to Community Specialists in an accessible, non-technical way so that the Community Specialists could communicate the process with community members and participants. Graduate student team members likewise took the lead on conducting a preliminary qualitative analysis of the interview data. Although Community Specialists were not involved in the lab or initial interview analyses, all five accepted the invitation to participate as co-authors on a scholarly manuscript detailing the findings. University researchers drafted the original manuscript and the first author presented the findings in a Zoom meeting to facilitate discussion with the Community Specialists. Additionally, a structured feedback form was provided to Community Specialists along with the manuscript draft to help them reflect on their local expertise as well as their perspective as research team members (Bray et al. 2023). Alternatively, Community Specialists were given the option to discuss their feedback one-on-one through a phone call rather than in writing, although none chose this option. After receiving feedback, the university researchers addressed Community Specialists’ comments in the manuscript and in a separate document explaining how their feedback was integrated.

The analysis of the documentary interview component involved analyzing interview transcripts and transforming the data into a community documentary that represented the findings. To begin this process, a graduate student researcher organized the data that emerged from 79 interviews with 88 community members into broad themes. Community Specialists were then integrated into the analysis through a collaborative process to design and develop the community documentary. The process began with a planning workshop in Robeson County in which the full research team deliberated on the documentary focus and purpose. In small groups, team members sketched out their vision for the documentary and presented it to the rest of the team (see Figure 2). Visions included not just documentary topics, but how the product could contribute to community recovery and how they wanted viewers to feel while watching. Following presentations, the full team deliberated on the alternative visions and reached a consensus on how to proceed. Throughout the process, Community Specialists ensured the team remained focused on the needs and priorities of the community, which they had a clear sense of from conducting the interviews and being community members.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Idea sketch developed during the planning workshop to identify themes for the community documentary.

Once the topic and purpose were defined, the full research team convened weekly in remote working sessions to construct the documentary. This intensive process included determining the documentary structure and flow, identifying and selecting interview clips and b-roll, and reviewing documentary drafts. Throughout the process, Community Specialists helped to ensure that the product reflected diverse community perspectives. Detailed notes of Community Specialist feedback were maintained to ensure that all comments were addressed as the documentary was being developed.

Collaborative reflection

Even if data representing diverse perspectives is collected, it does not necessarily guarantee that those perspectives will be integrated into the analysis and project outputs. A critical role of Community Specialists throughout Project BRIDGE was assessing the range of perspectives that were integrated into the analysis. Community Specialists identified gaps in represented perspectives in research outputs associated with both the soil sampling and interview components. Notably, through a manuscript review process associated with the soil sampling component, Community Specialists challenged the interpretations present in a manuscript draft based on their personal experience and their experiences in the field. This feedback was integrated into the next iteration of the manuscript.

With respect to the interview component of Project BRIDGE, Community Specialists helped narrow the focus of the documentary based on their local knowledge and experience interviewing. Here, the process of recognition helped the research team focus their efforts on what would be practically useful to the community, which in this case was an emphasis on the community's relationship with water, climate change, and land-use change. Once the documentary was assembled through a series of team work sessions, Community Specialists identified perspectives that were over- and underrepresented in the documentary, which prompted the research team to be more inclusive about who was featured in the documentary as well as which perspectives were being discussed.

Recognition is further manifested in the data analysis and reporting process as a result of Community Specialists’ ability to communicate how research analyses and corresponding outputs would be interpreted by diverse community stakeholders. This perspective was instrumental in ensuring that our analyses, while remaining true to the data, did not perpetuate further harm to the community because of how ideas were communicated. In the soil sampling component, for example, the project team identified that simply communicating levels of Escherichia coli and heavy metals in the soil through community reports without broader context could stigmatize the community. Working through this struggle, the project team decided to add “comparison data” to illustrate to community members that the presence of E. coli or heavy metals in soil was not specific to their community but appears in diverse locations for various reasons. In an example from the interview component of Project BRIDGE, the research team identified a clip in the documentary draft that caused conflict and tension among community stakeholders because of the individual who was communicating the idea (as opposed to the idea itself). In this case, recognition prompted the team to identify an alternative clip that communicated a similar idea but prevented possible tension for future community audiences.

Community Specialists also kept the research team informed of the cultural context during community reporting and engagement. For example, for a community event to share findings in which we planned to provide coffee, pastries, and bagels, Community Specialists prompted the team to change the wording on the event flyer from “food provided” to “snacks provided,” so that people did not expect a meal. In this case, the insight helped prevent the team from being dishonest and possibly hindering the community's relationship with our research team or other researchers engaging in research in the community.

Finally, because of Community Specialists’ understanding of the community and community resources, they were able to leverage this knowledge to provide “on-the-spot” project outputs for the research participants. For example, during an interview interaction, a research participant, a single mother who lived in public housing and who lost part of her family support system after Hurricane Florence, shared information about her son's health care needs and her struggle to meet those needs because of a lack of transportation access. At the time, one of the Community Specialists provided information about Medicaid-supported transportation available in the community and how to access it.

Potential barriers and recommendations to overcome challenges

The overarching barrier to enhancing recognition through Community Specialists relates to potential gaps in representation in this role. While the five Community Specialists on our team represented unique perspectives and had access to diverse networks, they and their networks do not capture the full diversity of the community. We acknowledge shortcomings that may emerge when recruiting from primarily personal networks and relying on personal experience to assess diversity and representation. Specifically, this has the potential to introduce bias into the research process and systematically exclude perspectives, limiting recognition. In Project BRIDGE, we attempted to overcome these shortcomings by recruiting from community-wide events and by being reflexive about representation in our sample and our analysis. For those seeking to implement the Community Specialist role, we recommend an assessment of perspectives that may be missing and intentionally seeking those out. External community stakeholders not directly involved in the project may be able to assist with the evaluation of recruiting and analysis processes.

It is also important to keep in mind the tensions that may emerge between Community Specialists and community members who share conflicting viewpoints on local issues. While distancing oneself from the research (i.e. value neutrality) is advocated for by some (see Harding 1977), we argue that this is both unrealistic and undesirable for Community Specialists. Instead, we advocate for openness and honesty to navigate conflicts that may impact project data and community relationships. The Community Specialist should feel comfortable to share, and other team members should be attentive to, potential conflicts and tension they observe in other research team members. Being aware and open about these tensions can help prevent them from escalating, encourage diverse community voices to be represented in the project data, and extend the benefits of the research.

Potential barriers and recommendations to overcome challenges

There are several barriers that could hinder researchers’ ability to nurture well-being and successful long-term relationships with Community Specialists. First, the lack of full-time work and unpredictable funding cycles directly restricted our ability to provide financial security and professional stability to Community Specialists. Alongside influencing the research partnership, this also limits who can contribute as Community Specialists, which has implications for recognition as discussed in Takeaway #1. As researchers consider implementing a Community Specialist role, they should ensure that the positions are properly funded to support team members’ needs.

Turnover is one additional barrier to successful long-term partnerships with Community Specialists. Losing Community Specialists will likely be frustrating to the research team, after all, they are losing a valuable team member potentially in the middle of the research project. However, it is imperative to support the growth and needs of Community Specialists as they move on to other opportunities or focus on other priorities. In the case of Project BRIDGE, one Community Specialist moved out of state to start law school. For us, we were supportive, excited, and continued to offer the individual remote opportunities to engage to the extent that they felt comfortable. This approach helped the team maintain an important perspective while supporting the personal growth of the Community Specialist.