Community-based Participant-observation (CBPO): A Participatory Method for Ethnographic Research

Abstract

Community-based participant-observation purposefully combines participant-observation and community-based participatory research. While participant-observation is the core method of ethnography and foundational to cultural anthropology, community-based participatory research initially emerged from health and related applied sciences to align researchers’ and communities’ agendas through focused collaboration. Participant-observation and community-based participatory research have different scholarly origins and norms but are united in centering communities’ understandings on their terms. Combining the strengths of both, we provide a step-by-step explanation of community-based participant-observation, with examples from a study of water insecurity in colonias north of the U.S.–Mexico border. Using community-based participant-observation, researchers can facilitate the co-production of knowledge and community benefit by analyzing high-quality data that inform theory building and basic research.

Introduction

Community-based participant-observation (CBPO), as we will describe it here, purposefully combines participant-observation and community-based participatory research (CBPR). Participant-observation and CBPR have different scholarly origins and norms but are united in centering communities' understandings on their terms. Our work builds on important foundational efforts to extend ethnographic research in ways that embed it more firmly in community relationships, knowledge, and concerns (Bernard and Pedraza 1989; Berry et al. 2013; Gravlee et al. 2015; Lassiter 2005; Montoya 2013; Schensul and LeCompte 2016; Schensul et al. 2013, 2014; Singer 1994).

Participant-observation is the core method of ethnography and foundational to cultural anthropology (Bernard 2017; Jones 2010; Spradley 2016 [1980]; Young 1979). In field-based participant-observation, researchers immerse themselves in a real-world environment and become the key instrument for data elicitation, first by building rapport with research participants and then by recording detailed notes based on their observations of participants’ cultural practices, beliefs, and behaviors (Guest et al. 2013; Spradley 2016 [1980]). These field notes generally become the primary raw data but can take many forms, including maps, photographs, or video/audio recordings (Guest et al. 2013; Sparrman 2005; Spradley 2016 [1980]). Researchers analyze and interpret the data using mixed methods, including thematic and textual analysis (Bernard et al. 2016). Some advantages of participant-observation include providing rich contextual data and eliciting sensitive and hard-to-capture information. Some critiques of participant-observation are data quality problems (Lubet 2018; Oswald et al. 2014); being overly researcher centered; and ethical problems around the fuzzy nature of ongoing informed consent (Foks 2018; Moore and Savage 2002; Watts 2011).

In contrast, CBPR initially emerged from health and related applied sciences to align researchers’ and communities’ agendas through focused collaboration (Wallerstein and Duran 2017). The goals of CBPR are practical and scholarly (Israel et al. 2017). In its fullest sense, CBPR is a research approach that seeks to be emancipatory and redress the power imbalances of top-down research paradigms (Wallerstein et al. 2018)—those that rely on researcher-derived questions and interpretive frameworks and provide little community impact (Auemaneekul 2010). A fully fledged CBPR project thus provides tangible community benefits. Many methods can be used within a CBPR project, but they are expected to be fluid and focus on active discussion and agreement; they evolve with the project's changing nature, goals, and values (Clark and Ventres 2016). Within CBPR, ethics of consent are often less problematic because the entire research design is consultative and consensual. Committed CBPR, however, is extremely time consuming and can be very difficult to measure in terms of outcomes and success (Brush et al. 2020; Hicks et al. 2012).

Both CBPR and participant-observation require a high level of research skill and commitment. However, by combining the strengths of the two, researchers can facilitate the co-production of knowledge and community benefit by analyzing high-quality data that informs theory building and basic research. Several key tenets can thus characterize community-based participant-observation (CBPO). First, CBPO positions research as a process of knowledge co-creation, ideally engaging communities in design, execution, interpretation, and dissemination (De Koning and Martin 1996; Stringer 2007). Second, CBPO positions the community members in agentive research roles as the observers; this move explicitly identifies and addresses power imbalances inherent to conventional uses of participation-observation (those in which the researcher sits in the agentive observer role) (Israel et al. 2017; Wallerstein 2006). Third, CBPO field notes recorded by community members are the crucial raw data. Fourth, informed consent processes (who is being studied and how) are more clearly defined. Fifth, CBPO leverages the communities’ existing strengths, resources, and relationships to address their concerns (Becker et al. 2005; Israel et al. 1998; Steuart 1993).

There are many ways to design a CBPO project, but here is one concrete example of how CBPO can be designed and executed, using the case of our Action for Water Equity research consortium, a large-scale CBPO effort across 72 water-insecure colonia communities on the U.S.–Mexico border region (Wutich et al. 2022). In this case, the academic researchers were not members of the research community or community partner organizations, but they certainly can be in CBPO projects.

Step 0 Identifying and Engaging Community Partners

Community partnerships are essential for CBPO (Shalowitz et al. 2009; Wallerstein et al. 2005). Ideally, partners share a community identity, deeply care about and understand community challenges, and have established community relationships (e.g., a community leader, NGO community liaison, or a religious leader) (Becker et al. 2005; Israel et al. 1998; Mitchell et al. 2022; Muhammad et al. 2015). In our Action for Water Equity research consortium, we partner with the Rural Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP), Communities Unlimited (CU) and the Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) to actively work with U.S. colonia residents; some are both part of NGOs and community members.

Researchers then work with partners to discuss the means and extent of broader community involvement (Israel et al. 2017; Oetzel et al. 2017). Selecting representatives to speak on behalf of communities throughout the research design, deployment, analysis, and dissemination phases supports the continuous alignment of research and community interests and perspectives. In our case, two community representatives attend research meetings to participate in and advise the different stages of the research.

Step 1 Aligning Research Objectives and Motivations

CBPO requires discussion with community partners to agree on the purpose and direction of the project (Ferguson et al. 2015; Jull et al. 2017; Ross et al. 2010). Meetings to discuss previous research findings and experiences of community partners are essential to shaping well-aligned research objectives. To recognize partners’ time and their role as co-researchers, conversations about compensation should happen in these early stages to establish a mode of compensation that is viewed as fair and acceptable (Shalowitz et al. 2009). Our partners were comfortable with monetary compensation, but this may not be the case for all partners. Evaluating the best way to reward the partnership is crucial (Black et al. 2013).

Step 2 Co-development of Participant-observation and Field Notes Protocol

In CBPO, community participant-observers take on the role of the participant-observer. In participant-observation, the researcher observes and records data (Bernard 2017), usually based on advanced training in ethnographic methods. Building from the agreed-on research objectives, a protocol for conducting observations and recording field notes is necessary to provide community observers with guidance. The protocol should be in the language(s) of the community and can include various modes for recording observations (e.g., photos, text, etc.). Collecting community partners’ questions and feedback on the protocol centers on equitable processes and procedures (Jull et al. 2017; Parker et al. 2020) and ensures that language is understandable and that the types of observations are acceptable to the community.

Step 3 Recruitment and Training

The next step is to recruit and train the community participant-observers. Some CBPO projects may have only one community participant-observer. Recruiting community participant-observers who have deep knowledge of and experience in the community (i.e., ethnographic knowledge) and situated knowledge of the research topic is ideal (e.g., recruiting community health workers for a health study, sanitation workers for a sewage study, etc.) (Kash et al. 2007; Ramos et al. 2001; Rhodes et al. 2007). Our project involved 72 communities, which required recruiting 72 community participant-observers who also interviewed three community members each (n = 72 community participant-observers; n = 216 interview participants).

Training sessions outline project goals and provide direction for the participant-observation tasks. For example, we explained a step-by-step guide that detailed how to use the field note protocol to record data. Training sessions may require community-observers to undergo university IRB training and certification (Ross et al. 2010). While university IRBs provide generic ethics training, we recommend additional discussions of ethical challenges that are locally relevant.

Step 4 Data Collection and Management

In our study, community participant-observers recorded their observations on paper and returned them to us via scanned uploads to a secure online platform or by mail. A tracked record of observations by the community with participant IDs had to be updated on data collection. Being available to answer questions in a timely matter showed commitment to a partner’s time and efforts. For marginalized communities, allowing for time flexibility and accommodating local needs (e.g., supporting technology challenges with inputting observations to an online platform) also reinforce support and understanding from community partners.

Step 5 Data Analysis

Data analysis ideally includes community participant-observers, community representatives, and/or community partners. Depending on their interests and availability, they may be a part of the analysis process itself (e.g., Quimby and Beresford 2023), or they may be invited to reflect on the initial findings after the primary stages of analysis. Regardless, involvement in the data analysis allows community members to have control of findings that can, directly and indirectly, impact their livelihoods (Cashman et al. 2008) and correct or contextualize observations. Analysis meetings also provide community members opportunities to propose alternative analyses of interest. Encouraging participation and giving people space to speak honestly supports better research findings (Thomas 2017). Researchers should thus be open to re-doing analysis or modifying findings in accordance with community partners, if necessary (Collins et al. 2018).

Step 6 Reporting Back: Academic and Nonacademic Products

Reporting research findings mobilizes the dissemination of knowledge as an intervention approach and guards against extractive research practices (Chen et al. 2010; Diver and Higgins 2014; Koster et al. 2012). Findings must be reported via modes of dissemination that are understandable to the community and created in conversation with community partners. Examples of these include GIS story maps, community presentations, short science communication videos, flyers for local dissemination, local newspaper column, podcast discussions, and agency reports. In the Action for Water Equity research consortium, community partners are core members of our coauthorship team (including three community partners who are lead coauthors of this article).

Conclusion

The steps we outline here are not the only way to design a CBPO project. However, they demonstrate one way to collaborate with community members as co-producers of knowledge while collecting high-quality participant-observation data that advance basic research and address pressing real-world problems. These steps admittedly require a significant amount of time investment and high levels of coordination. Major challenges include the time required, financial costs, coordination difficulties, academic funder expectations, and political differences within communities. However, the payoff of successfully implemented CBPO includes harnessing the strengths of participant-observation as a data collection method and community-based research as an engaged and emancipatory research framework.